Appeal No. 2006-1707
Application No. 09/964,029
authentic” (brief, page 10). Appellants further argue that the part related to ensuring the
system software authenticity is absent in Bartoletti (id.). The Examiner responds
by stating that Appellants’ own specification (paragraph 0026)
provides the relevant description for this step as “... SafePatch
checks the permissions and ownership of the files references in
the patch and ensures that the system software is authentic”
(answer, page 6). The Examiner concludes that similar to
Appellants’ disclosed process, Bartoletti checks permissions and
ownership of the files to ensure authenticity (answer, page 7).
We agree with the Examiner’s position that checking
permissions and ownership of the files and ensuring authenticity
of the system software are described by Bartoletti. Although, as
pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants’ specification is not
clear as to how the authenticity of the system software is
ensured, the applied prior art does teach both checking the
permissions and ownership of the files referenced in the patch
and ensuring the authenticity of the system software. In
particular, we agree with the Examiner (answer, pages 8-9) that
Bartoletti discloses assessment and authentication of system
software in relation with installing patches and detecting their
subsequent tampering (page 3, paragraphs 3 and 5). Bartoletti
further describes a patch specification which contains
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007