Appeal 2007-1541
Application 10/334,695
being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no
suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8 and
13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because (a) the proposed combination lacks
a teaching or suggestion of multiple privilege flags that are capable of being
set, and (b) the person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to make the proposed combination, because the references capture
very different data for different purposes, and because the data compression
taught by Doi would “defeat the very purposes” of Berry, if Berry were
modified to include it.
Appellants argue that Berry teaches but a single field, “Field 8,” for
privilege information, and that “any value assigned to field 8 is for a single
thing, such as a user space or kernel space setting” (Br. 10). We disagree
with Appellants’ characterization of Field 8 as only teaching the equivalent
of one privilege flag. Berry teaches that Field 8 comprises “Segment Flags
(These are flags that indicate permission levels on the pages into which the
segment gets loaded and the like)”(FF 7)(emphasis added). Berry further
notes that “field 8 will correspond to a code privilege level. The code
privilege level indicates the privileges that the executing code has. For
example, the code privileges level may indicate whether the executing code
is in user space or kernel space” (FF 8)(emphasis added). Appellants’
reliance on this sentence as teaching only a single choice, between user
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013