Appeal 2007-0984
Application 10/044,432
This appeal involves claims 1 through 24, all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
As best representative of the disclosed and claimed invention,
representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer program product comprising processor executable
instructions for programming a non-volatile storage element in a data
processing system, the instructions being stored on a computer readable
medium, comprising:
computer code means for encrypting a digital signature using a first
encryption key;
computer code means for passing the encrypted signature to a kernel
routine;
computer code means, responsive to successfully decrypting the
encrypted signature using a second encryption key, for transitioning the data
processing system from a protected-mode to a real-mode; and
real-mode computer code means for flash programming the non-
volatile storage element.
The following references are relied on by the Examiner:
Hughes US 5,968,174 Oct. 19, 1999
Bright US 6,141,756 Oct. 31, 2000
Cuccia US 6,151,676 Nov. 21, 2000
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bright. All remaining claims on
appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, as
to claims 3, 11, and 19, the Examiner relies upon Bright in view of Hughes
in a second stated rejection. In a third stated rejection, the Examiner relies
upon Bright in view of Cuccia as to claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 22, and 23. Lastly,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013