Appeal No. 2006-2373 Application No. 10/113,083 does not “remotely suggest a signature pattern that is seeded in a locked portion of the system memory that is dumped, including the signature, upon experiencing a system crash as claimed by Appellant” as set forth in the sentence bridging pages 10 and 11 of the principal brief on appeal. We do not agree with this assessment of Price from two major perspectives. Initially, the feature actually recited in independent claim 1 on appeal is “seeding the locked portion of the memory with a signature.” Thus, appellants’ actual argument that the signature pattern that is seeded in a locked memory portion of the memory that is dumped is not taught or suggested is misplaced since this feature is not claimed in the same terms. In other words, the actual seeding of the locked portion of the memory with a signature is not stated to occur “in” the locked memory portion. Our second major consideration also involves two parts. The initial part has already been set forth in our assessment of appellants’ own recognition of the prior art that it was known in the art to establish an image of memory by seeding the data in a portion of the memory with a pattern or signature of data that may be abstracted from dumped data for comparison and verification. Furthermore, it 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007