Appeal No. 1998-0948
Application No. 08/198,343
We have read and considered appellant’s arguments in the main brief. The
examiner has made a new grounds of rejection in the answer. We will address appellant‘s
arguments made in the reply brief since these arguments address the specific rejections
made by the examiner in the answer.
We note that appellant’s description of Arnold (see Arnold at column 4) describes
the operation of Arnold as booting from a protected portion of the hard disk and if an error
is detected then booting up the system utilities from a diskette or from a protected partition
on the hard drive. (See reply brief at pages 2-3.) This corresponds to the examiner's
characterization of Arnold. We agree with appellant and the examiner. Appellant argues
that Arnold does not disclose the basic features which underlie the present invention. (See
reply brief at page 3.) We disagree with appellant with respect to the invention as set forth
in the language of claim 1. Claim 1 recites that the operating system is stored and used to
start the computer. The language of claim 1 further recites that there is a means for
detecting a software problem, means for attempting to fix the detected software problem
and means for booting the computer. We note that the above language is broad and not
specific as to the specific location of storage, detection of problem, attempt or level of
operation of the computer after booting. As stated above, we agree with the examiner that
Arnold has two protected areas in memory from which the computer may be started with
varied levels of operation.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007