14791612 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

Ex Parte ALARI et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 2019

14791612 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/791,612 07/06/2015 David Gamez ALARI 34007 7590 06/28/2019 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. I LEAR CORPORATION 1000 TOWN CENTER TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. LEAR54056PUS 2461 EXAMINER MACASIANO, JOANNE GONZALES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID GAMEZ ALARI, JORDI MORENO A YMAMI, ANTONI FERRE FABREGAS, JIGNESH CHAUHAN, and RAHUL RANADE Appeal2018-006643 Application 14/791,612 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-18. App. Br., coverpage.2 Claim 5 was canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lear Corporation. App. Br. 1. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act."), mailed June 8, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br."), filed October 10, 2017, as amended by the Claims Appendix filed on November 13, 2017; the Appeal2018-006643 Application 14/791,612 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention generally relates to updating bootloaders in a shared-memory architecture. See Spec. ,i,i 2, 5. In particular, the bootloader is one of the first pieces of software executed upon rebooting. Id. ,i 16. Shared-memory architectures store code or other data in a shared memory block. Id. This avoids duplicating code for the same function in two memory blocks. Id. ,i,i 3-4. According to the Specification, the invention addresses the need for efficiently updating bootloaders in shared-memory architectures. Id. ,i 4. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method of updating a bootloader in a slave controller, the slave controller including a central processing unit in communication with non-volatile memory having a shared memory architecture, the shared memory architecture including a non-volatile application memory block having application code and a non-volatile launcher memory block having bootloader code for initiating the slave controller: storing updated code to an application memory block of the non-volatile memory, the updated code including a first code section including application code for application functions, a second code section including updated bootupdater code, and a third code section having image code for an updated bootloader; receiving an indication to update the bootloader code stored in the non-volatile launcher memory block; and executing the bootloader code stored in the application memory block to update the bootloader stored in launcher memory block from the image code for an updated bootloader wherein the slave controller cannot be programmed directly using a programming tool but can only be programmed by a master controller in communication with the slave controller. Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), mailed April 10, 2018; and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed June 11, 2018. 2 Appeal2018-006643 Application 14/791,612 THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Edrich Kanapathipillai et al. Nagata Gibbons Lincer et al. US 2004/0260917 A 1 US 2005/0246701 Al US 2008/0263181 A 1 US 2009/0122565 Al US 2011/0307669 Al THE REJECTIONS Dec. 23, 2004 Nov. 3, 2005 Oct. 23, 2008 May 14, 2009 Dec. 15, 2011 The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 9-13, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Kanapathipillai, Edrich, and Nagata. Final Act. 3-16. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Kanapathipillai, Edrich, Nagata, and Lincer. Final Act. 16-20. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Kanapathipillai, Edrich, Nagata, and Gibbons. Final Act. 20-21. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KANAP ATHIPILLAI, EDRICH, AND NAGATA I. The Examiner's Findings In the combination of Kanapathipillai, Edrich, and Nagata, the Examiner finds that Kanapathipillai teaches the bootloader code and the 3 Appeal2018-006643 Application 14/791,612 image code for an updated bootloader, as recited in representative3 claim 1. Final Act. 5. II. Appellants' Contentions Appellants argue that Kanapathipillai lacks an updated bootloader. App. Br. 4. According to Appellants, Kanapathipillai does not distinguish between bootloader code and an updated bootloader and does not describe a loader as being an "updated loader." Id. at 5. In Appellants' view, Kanapathipillai describes a "boot load process," which is different from updating the bootloader. Reply Br. 2 ( citing Kanapathipillai ,i 41 ). Appellants argue that, unlike Kanapathipillai, the recited bootloader is for initiating the slave controller. Id. III. Analysis Appellants direct our attention to two limitations in claim 1: (1) "a non-volatile launcher memory block having bootloader code for initiating the slave controller" and (2) "a third code section having image code for an updated bootloader." See App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 1-3. Claim 11 recites similar limitations. In the analysis below, we refer to these limitations as the launcher-memory bootloader and the updated-bootloader image. A. Launcher-Memory Bootloader The Examiner finds Kanapathipillai' s loader 16 in boot memory corresponds to the recited bootloader code in launcher memory. Ans. 3. Indeed, Kanapathipillai's loader 16 is a code segment that is stored in boot memory. Kanapathipillai ,i 29. 3 Appellants argue claims 1-4, 9-13, 17, and 18 as a group. See App. Br. 3- 6. We select independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1-4, 9-13, 17, and 18. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2018-006643 Application 14/791,612 We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Kanapathipillai' s bootloader does not initiate the slave controller. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. Here, the Examiner finds that Kanapathipillai's device 71 is the slave controller. Final Act. 3. Device 71 includes processor 70. Kanapathipillai Fig. 4. Processor 70 executes a boot load from boot memory at startup. Id. ,-i,-i 41, 67. Booting initiates the device when powering on or after a reset. See, e.g., id. ,-i 42. On this record, Appellants have not persuasively explained how the recited launcher-memory bootloader code differs from Kanapathipillai's code, which also is "for initiating the slave controller."4 See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue that Nagata does not teach that the slave controller cannot be programmed directly using a programming tool. Reply Br. 3 ( citing Nagata ,-J 15). But Appellants did not present this argument in the Appeal Brief. See generally App. Br. Nor have Appellants shown good cause to raise this argument for the first time in the Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 1-3. So this new argument about Nagata (id. at 3) is waived because it is untimely. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.4l(b)(2). B. Updated-Bootloader Image Contrary to Appellants' argument that Kanapathipillai lacks an "updated loader" (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 2), Kanapathipillai states that the "received boot load image is subsequently used to update a boot load currently stored in the boot memory 26." Kanapathipillai ,-J 41 ( emphasis added), cited in Ans. 3. Kanapathipillai's Figure 1, below, shows that boot software code image 24 includes loader 16. Id. Fig. 1. 4 We note that claim 11, unlike claim 1, does not expressly recite "for initiating the slave controller." 5 Appeal2018-006643 Application 14/791,612 1 soor MEMoff v 1 I 26 I I I - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ fAIL-SAFE RESET JO BOOT UPDATER 12 STANDARD RESET 14 __ , LOAOER 16 BOOT APPLICATION 18 -- I I 1-. I I -1. I I I I I I I I J .... ~~ n~, n,~ n,, .,,, ~,, ,l FIG. 1 I tiAlN MEMO.BY I I 28 1 I I ------------------------- I MAIN SOFTWARE APPLICATION 20 I l ! ! ! I I Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·+- ------------------------- I ! BOOT I I UPDATER I I IMAGE I "Â·I. __________ ?1 ________ I BOOT I SOFTWARE I CODE IMAGE I Â£1 l-- Â·--Â· ---- Â·--- ---- Â·-- .J Kanapathipillai's Figure 1, above, is a block diagram of boot memory 26, main memory 28, and data. Id. 124. Kanapathipillai' s method uses loader 16 in image 24 as the updated loader. Id. ,-i,-i 43, 53. For instance, if a boot update is needed, the current loader causes boot updater 12 to be executed. Id. When executing, boot updater 12 updates the boot software code from boot software code image 24-which includes loader 16-in main memory 28. See id. ,-i 43; see also id. ,-i,-i 60-61 ( explaining that loader 16 in Figure 1 is the second software code segment, which is updated). In this way, Kanapathipillai teaches that loader 16 in image 24 is an "image code for an updated bootloader," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5; Ans. 3. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2-4, 9-13, 17, and 18, which are argued as a group with claim 1. See supra n.3. 6 Appeal2018-006643 Application 14/791,612 THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 6-8 and 14-16 depend from one of claims 1 and 11. In arguing for the patentability of claims 6-8 and 14-16, Appellants refer to the arguments presented for the independent claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejections of claims 6-8 and 14-16. See App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. So, for the reasons discussed above regarding claims 1 and 11, we also sustain the rejections of claims 6-8 and 14-16. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-4 and 6-18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ l.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 7