Appeal No. 2004-1136
Application No. 09/363,948
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4
through 21.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 5) that Kathrow does not teach
or suggest a fingerprint catalog as recited in each of
independent claims 1, 12, and 17. Instead, Kathrow "describes
fingerprint and values storage (230) that contain one or more
fingerprints of a particular configuration file" (Brief, page 5).
Appellant explains (Brief, page 6) that Kathrow deals with one or
more fingerprints of a single configuration file, whereas the
claims recite a configuration catalogue for storing fingerprints
for multiple different files, each of which corresponds to an
executable program. We agree.
Each of the independent claims recites a configuration file
catalogue containing a signature or fingerprint for each of a
plurality of configuration files. Kathrow, however, discloses
(abstract) identifying the existence of differences between two
files on a personal computer, such as two versions of a Windows
registry file. Kathrow explains (column 1, lines 55-57) that a
Windows registry file can be modified such that it could be the
source of improper operation of the operating system. The
improper operation can be resolved by restoring values of the
Windows registry that existed when the operating system
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007