Ex Parte Barajas et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2014

11754444 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GASTON M. BARAJAS, SHREE A. DANDEKAR and
BOGDAN ODULINSKI
____________

Appeal 2012-001866
Application 11/754,444
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-21. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-001866
Application 11/754,444

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to an information handling system
with an intelligent boot service which addresses and resolves unbootable
system scenarios. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method for booting an information handling system,
the method comprising:
determining whether a boot failure has occurred during a
boot process before booting into an operating system, the boot
failure being a result of a system state change;
identifying previous known good boot configuration
information;
booting the information handling system using the
previous known good boot configuration information when a
boot failure as the result of the system state change occurs.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cheston et al. (US 6,862,681 B2; Mar.
1, 2005). Ans. 4-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Berstis et al. (US 6,560,701
B1; May 6, 2003). Ans. 6-7.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON CHESTON
The Examiner finds that Cheston discloses every limitation of claim 1.
Ans. 4-6. The Appellants, on the other hand, contend that Cheston fails to
disclose:
determining whether a boot failure has occurred during a boot
process before booting into an operating system where the boot
Appeal 2012-001866
Application 11/754,444

3
failure is a result of a system state change, much less booting an
information handling system using a previous known good boot
configuration information when a boot failure as a result of a
system state change occurs.

App. Br. 3-4.

ISSUE
Does Cheston disclose determining whether a boot failure has
occurred during a boot process before booting into an operating system, the
boot failure being a result of a system state change and booting the
information handling system using the previous known good boot
configuration information when a boot failure as the result of the system
state change occurs?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 21
Based on this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1 as anticipated.
As the Examiner explains, Cheston determines whether a boot failure
has occurred during a boot process before booting into an operating system,
the boot failure being a result of a system state change, and booting the
information handling system using the previous known good boot
configuration information when a boot failure as the result of the system
state change occurs. Ans. 4-5; 8-9. For example, as shown in Fig. 4,
Cheston discloses determining whether a boot is successful (74). Cheston’s
system then accesses a copy of a master boot record (MBR) (88) and uses
the copy to boot into the operating system (90). Ans. 4-5 (citing Cheston at
Appeal 2012-001866
Application 11/754,444

4
Fig. 4, 5:25-45, 7:24-40); see also Ans. 8-9. Moreover, Cheston describes
that the booting recovery process may occur, for example, because of
corruption of the MBR (e.g. a system state change). Ans. 8-9. The
Appellants have failed to persuasively respond to these findings.
Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1 and claims 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 21, not argued with
particularity.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON BERSTIS
The Examiner also finds that Berstis discloses each limitation of claim
1. Ans. 6-7. The Appellants similarly contend that Berstis fails to disclose
booting using the previous known good boot configuration information
when a boot failure as the result of the system state change occurs. App. Br.
4.

ISSUE
Does Berstis disclose determining whether a boot failure has occurred
during a boot process before booting into an operating system, the boot
failure being a result of a system state change and booting the information
handling system using the previous known good boot configuration
information when a boot failure as the result of the system state change
occurs?

Appeal 2012-001866
Application 11/754,444

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20
Based on this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
claim 1 as anticipated.
We likewise find unavailing the Appellants’ argument that Berstis
fails to disclose determining whether a boot failure has occurred during a
boot process before booting into an operating system, the boot failure being
a result of a system state change and booting the information handling
system using the previous known good boot configuration information when
a boot failure as the result of the system state change occurs. See App. Br. 4.
The Examiner identifies that Berstis determines whether multiple
unsuccessful boots have occurred before booting into an operating system.
Ans. 6-7 and 9 (citing e.g. Berstis at Fig. 5 (item 506)). Berstis also accesses
and then uses an alternative boot record (ABR) to boot into the operating
system. Ans. 6-7 and 9 (citing e.g. Berstis at Fig. 5 (item 512)). Moreover,
as the Examiner explains, Berstis discloses that the boot failure may be due
to MBR corruption. Ans. 6-7 and 9. We thus agree with the Examiner that
Berstis discloses the claimed limitations.
Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 1 and claims 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20, not argued with
particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-21.
Appeal 2012-001866
Application 11/754,444

6

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj