Ex Parte Ahmad et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 19, 2006

10122251 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2006)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NAZIR HAROON AHMAD et al.
__________
Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 20.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and system for
implementing a fault tolerant sleep mode of operation. If the
integrity of system state information stored in volatile memory
is not maintained after resumption of a normal mode of operation,
Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
2
then the system information stored in non-volatile memory is
reloaded into the volatile memory.
Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative of the claimed invention,
and they read as follows:
1. A method for implementing a fault tolerant sleep mode of
operation comprising the steps of:
storing system state information and a value used to verify
integrity of said system state information in a volatile memory;
storing a copy of said system state information and said
value used to verify integrity of said system state information
in a non-volatile storage unit;
entering said sleep mode of operation;
receiving an indication to enter a normal mode of operation;
and
determining if integrity of said system state information
stored in said volatile memory is maintained, wherein if said
integrity of at least a portion of said system state information
in said volatile memory is not maintained then the method further
comprises the step of:
reloading at least said portion of said system state
information stored in said non-volatile storage unit into said
volatile memory.
6. A computer program product embodied in a machine
readable medium for implementing a fault tolerant sleep mode of
operation comprising the programming steps of:
storing system state information and a value used to verify
integrity of said system state information in a volatile memory;
Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
3
storing a copy of said system state information and said
value used to verify integrity of said system state information
in a non-volatile storage unit;
entering said sleep mode of operation;
receiving an indication to enter a normal mode of operation;
and
determining if integrity of said system state information
stored in said volatile memory is maintained, wherein if said
integrity of at least a portion of said system state information
in said volatile memory is not maintained then the method further
comprises the step of:
reloading at least a portion of said system state
information stored in said non-volatile storage unit into said
volatile memory.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Atkinson 6,694,451 Feb. 17, 2004
(filed Dec. 7, 2000)
Claims 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Atkinson.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
4
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 6
through 10, and the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1
through 20.
Turning first to the non-statutory subject matter rejection
of claims 6 through 10, the examiner states (answer, page 3)
that:
Claims 6-10 are not limited to tangible
embodiments. In view of Applicant’s disclosure[.]
Specification page 8, line(s) 24-26, the medium is not
limited to tangible embodiments, instead being defined
as including both tangible embodiments (e.g., random
access memory and disk) and intangible embodiments
(e.g., instructions transmitted over a network). As
such, the claim is not limited to statutory subject
matter and is therefore non-statutory.
The examiner’s contentions to the contrary notwithstanding,
the non-statutory subject matter rejection applies to the claimed
invention, and not to the disclosed invention. Stated
differently, the disclosure of a so-called intangible embodiment
(i.e., instructions transmitted over a network) (specification,
page 8, lines 24 through 26) that the examiner considers to be
directed to non-statutory subject matter does not detract from
the tangible embodiment (i.e., random access memory and disk)
Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
5
recognized by the examiner, and impliedly directed to statutory
subject matter. We find that claim 6 is clearly directed to a
tangible embodiment. We additionally find that the record lacks
a convincing line of reasoning that non-resident stored informa-
tion transmitted to a workstation to initiate the claimed method
steps renders the claims non-statutory simply because it is not
in residence on the random access memory and disk. In summary,
we must reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection because we agree
with the appellants’ arguments throughout the briefs that claims
6 through 10 are directed to statutory subject matter because
they are directed to tangible embodiments.
Turning to the anticipation rejection, appellants argue
inter alia (reply brief, page 5) that “Atkinson discloses storing
the signature value to either volatile memory or to non-volatile
memory[,] but not both.” We agree with appellants’ argument.
Atkinson specifically states that system memory data and the
signature are stored in either the volatile memory or the non-
volatile memory (column 4, lines 39 through 42; column 9, lines
16 through 19). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1 through 20 is reversed because Atkinson lacks a teaching of
storing the system memory data and the signature in both the
volatile memory and the non-volatile memory.
Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 6 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed, and the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:psb
Appeal No. 2006-0637
Application 10/122,251
7
Kelly K. Kordzik
Wintead, Sechrest & Minick, PC
P.O. Box 50784
Dallas, TX 75201