Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
recognized by the examiner, and impliedly directed to statutory
subject matter. We find that claim 6 is clearly directed to a
tangible embodiment. We additionally find that the record lacks
a convincing line of reasoning that non-resident stored informa-
tion transmitted to a workstation to initiate the claimed method
steps renders the claims non-statutory simply because it is not
in residence on the random access memory and disk. In summary,
we must reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection because we agree
with the appellants’ arguments throughout the briefs that claims
6 through 10 are directed to statutory subject matter because
they are directed to tangible embodiments.
Turning to the anticipation rejection, appellants argue
inter alia (reply brief, page 5) that “Atkinson discloses storing
the signature value to either volatile memory or to non-volatile
memory[,] but not both.” We agree with appellants’ argument.
Atkinson specifically states that system memory data and the
signature are stored in either the volatile memory or the non-
volatile memory (column 4, lines 39 through 42; column 9, lines
16 through 19). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1 through 20 is reversed because Atkinson lacks a teaching of
storing the system memory data and the signature in both the
volatile memory and the non-volatile memory.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007