Appeal No. 2006-2373
Application No. 10/113,083
upon a system failure/crash. We therefore do not agree with appellants’ urgings at
page 12 of the principal brief on appeal that there are no motivations to combine
the respective teachings
of Price and Wilson, and that there is therefore no reasonable expectation of
success of this combinability. Wilson merely exemplifies in the manner utilized by
the examiner the state of the art anyway.
When appellants’ arguments and reply brief are considered, we are not
persuaded of the patentability of the subject matter of the present claims on appeal
in light of the combined teachings of Price and Wilson. According to the above
analysis, it was not only known in the appellants’ admitted prior art that signature
information could be dumped as a part of the prior art crash memory image, the
comparison file 180 in figure 1 of Price under certain alternative embodiments may
be considered as a part of the broadly defined “a portion of system memory” that is
dumped. As such, we do not agree with appellants’ view that it would be a
mischaracterization to equate the comparison files 180 in Price with the claimed
portion of the memory that is seeded with the signature and subsequently dumped
upon detecting a system crash. The reader should bear in mind as well that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007