Appeal No. 1998-1104
Application No. 08/380,985
returning from said SMM; and
responsive to a determination that said code for
implementing said called one of said plurality of functions is
not stored in said secure memory space, executing said code
for implementing said called one of said plurality of
functions.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Dayan et al. (Dayan) 5,063,496 Nov. 5,
1991
Thorson, M. (Thorson), “System management mode explained;
despite common functions, implementation details differ,”
Microprocessor Report, Vol. 6, No. 8, page 14(4), June 17,
1992.
In addition, the examiner also relied upon admitted prior
art set forth on pages 2 and 3 of the specification.
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dayan in view of Thorson, and in further
view of the admitted prior art.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
After careful consideration of the record before us, we
will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-11.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007