Appeal No. 1997-3499
Application 08/366,281
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 10) and the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's position and to the Brief
(Paper No. 12) (pages referred to as "Br__") and the Reply
Brief (Paper No. 14) for Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 21 are grouped to stand or
fall together (Br7). Claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
Initially, as a matter of claim interpretation, we
observe that claim 1 does not recite where the virus signature
checking and interrupt operations of steps (b) through (d) are
performed. Claim 1 does not require a low-level,
hardware-implemented virus checker and does not preclude steps
(b) through (d) from being performed by the CPU; this is
consistent with the disclosure which states that the steps can
be performed by a conventional data processor (specification,
page 13, lines 24-28; claim 21). Accordingly, Appellants'
arguments that "Arnold does not suggest or motivate the use of
a low-level, hardware-implemented memory management function
to check for viruses" (Br10) and that "[c]learly, in Claim 1
the CPU is not involved in a virus (signature) checking
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007