Appeal No. 2002-2176 Page 7
Application No. 08/948,931
Here, admitting that "TDB fails to teach [the claimed] detecting a virus,"
(Examiner's Answer, § 10), the examiner cites to "col. 9, lines 30-55" of Yamamoto to
teach the limitations. (Id.) That passage includes the following disclosure.
When the virus diagnosing mechanism 18 has received an activation input
during the execution of the object program having the virus diagnosing
mechanism 18 embedded therein, the disk address detection portion 84
detects the disk address that has been written at this time, for example,
the volume No., the file No. and the track address to send the disk
address to the disk address comparison portion 86. The disk address
comparison portion 86 reads, from the original disk address storage
portion 88, the volume No. 90, the file No. 92 and the track address 94 as
the original information to subject them to a comparison with detected
information supplied from the disk address detection portion 84. If the
detected information and the original information coincide with each other,
the disk address comparison portion 86 discriminates that no virus
infection takes place and generates a continuous output for continuing the
object program. If the detected information and the original information do
not coincide with each other, the disk address comparison portion 86
discriminates that a portion of the disk address has been broken due to
virus infection and generates an interruption output.
Col. 9, ll. 26-47. Although the reference compares "detected information" and "original
information," we are unpersuaded that the information results from using a native BIOS
or an operating system to read a target of a virus and using a virus detector's private
BIOS to read the same target. Absent a teaching or suggestion of using a native BIOS
or an operating system to read a target of a virus, using a virus detector's private BIOS
to read the same target, and comparing data resulting from the two reads, we are
unpersuaded of a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
obviousness rejection of claim 1; of claims 3-17 and 17, which depend therefrom; of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007