Appeal No. 2006-2373
Application No. 10/113,083
Claims 1 through 3 and 7 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Price in view of Wilson.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the examiner, reference
is made to the brief and reply brief for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for
the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer, as expanded upon
here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants have not argued the particulars of any independent claim 1, 10 and 11
on appeal and have not argued the particulars of any respective dependent claims.
We therefore take independent claim 1 as representative for our consideration.
At the outset, we note that from our consideration of appellants’ recognition
of the prior art beginning at specification page 1, paragraph [0003] through
specification page 3 paragraph [0005], dumping the contents of Random Access
Memory was known in the art as well as the need to compare data in a physical
memory with data that was dumped to disk, that is, to have an image of the data in
the RAM before the data is dumped as well as the image data that is actually
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007