Appeal No. 1998-1104 Application No. 08/380,985 part of their functionality, but with maximum security with respect to other parts. Typically, this problem is solved by sacrificing efficiency for security and executing the entire extended API in the SMM. The claimed invention provides a solution to this problem[.][sic, by] Applicant has solved this problem by storing code for implementing some (i.e., less than all) of a plurality of the functions of an API in secure (i.e., SMM) memory space and storing code for implementing the rest of the functions of the same API in non-secure memory space, a feature which is neither taught nor suggested by the cited combination of references. In addition, because none of the cited references teach or suggest storing code for implementing certain functions in secure memory space and code for implementing the remaining functions in unsecure memory space, it logically follows that the references also fail to teach determining whether code for implementing a called one of the API functions is stored in said secure memory space, as all functions are stored in the same memory space. As conceded by the Examiner, Dayan fails to teach operating in [a] system management mode and an applications program interface, for which Thorson and Admitted Prior Art are respectively cited. However, even assuming arguendo that the references are properly combinable, the combination teaches, at best, executing the entire API in SMM, which is exactly the problem solved by Applicant’s invention (see [Specification,] page 3, lines 4-11). 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007