Appeal 2007-0984
Application 10/044,432
execute the transition codes necessary within the kernel to introduce
modified programming to control it and the operating system as a whole.
Bright, from an artisan’s perspective, clearly would have provided the
needed teachings to overcome the known deficiencies of the admitted prior
art. The extensive teachings of the so-called bootstrap mode in Bright
clearly would have suggested to the artisan the ability to encrypt and
selectively decrypt new/modified internal operating instructions within a
processor. An externally introducible modification of program code from
external device 103 in Figure 1, where the showing in Figure 2 clearly
indicates to the artisan the ability to encrypt such code, is decrypted with
element 107 by using the key 113 within the processor 101 in this figure.
This decryption capability is shown within Figure 3. Moreover, the ability
to use both public and private keys, respectively, is taught at columns 3 and
4 of this reference. Additionally, the ability to effect internal code and
hardware functions restrictively through only authorized users is taught at
the bottom of column 4, and summarized in the discussion at column 5, lines
14 through 24 as advantageous approaches to modifying existing coding
structures in prior art processors such as those embodying operating systems
including kernel functions consistent with those of the admitted prior art at
Specification pages 1 and 2. Therefore, the identified claims set forth in the
Examiner’s initially stated rejection, including independent claims 1, 9, and
17 would have been obvious to the artisan in light of the collective teachings
of Appellant’s admitted prior art at Specification pages 1 and 2 in view of
Bright. The examiner’s second through fourth stated rejections utilizing
respectively additional references to Hughes and Cuccia are hereby modified
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013