Ex Parte Huang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 16, 2013

11307661 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte TAU-LI HUANG
________________

Appeal 2011-003810
Application 11/307,661
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003810
Application 11/307,661

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–18. Claims 12 and 19 are canceled. App.
Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellant invented a processing system capable of downloading and
executing firmware at the same time. The processing system includes a
download unit for downloading firmware from a first storage unit to a
second storage unit, an execution unit for executing firmware from the first
storage unit or the second storage unit; and a processor for controlling the
download unit and execution unit to operate concurrently. Spec., Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (Emphases Added)
1. A processing system for executing programs, the processing
system comprising:
a first storage unit, storing a plurality of predetermined
programs;
a second storage unit;
a download unit, coupled to the first storage unit and the
second storage unit, for downloading at least a predetermined
program of the plurality of predetermined programs from the
first storage unit to the second storage unit;
an execution unit, coupled to the download unit, the first
storage unit and the second storage unit, for selectively
executing the predetermined program in the second storage unit
or predetermined programs in the first storage unit; and
Appeal 2011-003810
Application 11/307,661

3
a processor, coupled to the download unit and the
execution unit, for controlling the download unit and the
execution unit to operate concurrently.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–11 and 13–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Chen (U.S. 2005/0144611 A1; June 30,
2005; filed Nov. 7, 2004). Ans. 3–7.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Chen discloses “a processor . . . for
controlling the download unit and the execution unit to operate
concurrently,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Chen discloses updating program code in firmware, Chen, ¶ [0035],
where the firmware can be stored in a plurality of non-volatile memories, id.
at ¶ [0024]. Chen further discloses executing the program code. Id. at
¶ [0040]. Appellant argues, however, that before executing the program
code, Chen checks whether the download was successful. App. Br. 9 (citing,
e.g., Chen, ¶ [0040]). Thus, Appellant argues, Chen does not disclose “a
processor . . . for controlling the download unit and the execution unit to
operate concurrently,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8–9.
The Examiner responds by finding that Chen discloses operations
performed simultaneously and thus concurrently. Ans. 9 (citing Chen,
¶ [0042]). However, the operations that “can be regarded as being
performed simultaneously” are the steps of replacing a first program
segment stored in a normal firmware section with a new program segment
(step 206) and setting values stored in specific addresses according to a first
Appeal 2011-003810
Application 11/307,661

4
rule (step 208). Chen, ¶ [0042] and fig. 2. This simultaneous performance
occurs when the set values are stored in buffer memory first and loaded into
non-volatile memory together with the program segment. Id. at ¶ [0042]. In
other words, when the download itself replaces the first program segment
and sets values stored in specific addresses according to a first rule, the
download accomplishes both of these pre-execution steps (i.e., steps 206 and
208). However, because neither of these steps are execution steps, there is
no separate execution of the program concurrent with the downloading of
the program and setting of values. The Examiner does not otherwise show,
nor do we readily find, a disclosure in Chen of controlling a download unit
and execution unit to operate concurrently. Therefore, we agree with
Appellant, App. Br. 8–9, that the Examiner erred in finding Chen discloses
“a processor . . . for controlling the download unit and the execution unit to
operate concurrently,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–11 and 13–18, which contain similar
recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–18.

REVERSED

tj