Appeal No. 2006-2373
Application No. 10/113,083
representative independent claim 1 does not require that the seeding with a
signature actually occur “in” the locked portion of the memory as argued in the
principal brief.
Based upon these considerations again, the urging that Price actually teaches
away from the claimed invention is misplaced (reply brief pages 4 and 5). We also
do not agree with appellants’ concluding remarks that if a dumped memory image
did include executable signatures, there would be no need to create and maintain a
signature separately in a comparison file that is precluded from being dumped upon
a system crash. As noted earlier, this view does not consider the whole teaching
value to the artisan in Price. This also appears to be one characterization of what
appellants’ invention actually does in the seeding with a signature capability as
disclosed. Again, it is further noted that it is known in the art that “separate”
signatures are maintained in appellants’ own invention in accordance with their
own admitted prior art.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner rejecting various
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. §103 is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007