Appeal No. 1998-1104
Application No. 08/380,985
We agree with appellant’s arguments concerning the
teachings, and the lack of teachings, in both Dayan and
Thorson. The Thorson reference is nothing more than the
admitted prior art from the Specification (pages 2-3).
Thorson discloses that SMM is implemented in conjunction with
the Intel™ 386 SL CPU (Specification, pages 2-3). In Thorson,
it appears that all of the API functions are performed in the
SMM environment as opposed to being done between a SMM and a
non-SMM environment as claimed by appellant supra. A
capsulized version of the teachings of Dayan is taken from the
ABSTRACT as follows:
The BIOS routines [22,30] are accessed
through protected entry points [28]. When
an application program [24] attempts to
access one of the routines by using a hard
coded instruction for jumping to such entry
point, a BIOS signaling routine [26] is
executed which provides a signal to an
operating system [20] allowing the
operating system to control the access
without being bypassed.
In short, the teachings of Dayan are not relevant to the
claims on appeal which are directed to SMM and non-SMM for
performing functions of an API.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007