Ex Parte Peddireddy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 12, 2016

11773920 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
111773,920
23990 7590
DOCKET CLERK
FILING DATE
0710512007
05/16/2016
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sudheer Kumar Peddireddy
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.
2007.03.018.WTO 2220
EXAMINER
RUTTEN, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2016 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUDHEER KUMAR PEDDIREDDY and VANI BUDHATI
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .. .. , 1 .. • .. ,..... ,- T T r'1 I'\ l\ -1 ,..... Al / '\. I"" , "1
Appeuants' seeK our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-21. Claim 5 has been
canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., LTD. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to firmware over the air
(FOTA) providing a compressed image for use in (e.g., updating) a mobile
device. Spec. i-f 20. Claims 1 and 21, which are illustrative, read as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium including
software instructions configured, when executed by a processor,
to:
select a plurality of object files that include at least some
code defining a code region and some data defining a data region
for use by a mobile device;
generate first and second components from the object
files;
determine whether a size of the first component is larger
than a size of a logical block of a memory in the mobile device,
the logical block comprising a minimal size of the memory that
can be written to the memory;
in response to aetermmmg that the size of the nrst
component is larger than the size of the logical block, round up
the number of logical blocks to allocate for the first component
to an integer multiple of the size of the logical block;
establish a unique address for each of the components, the
unique address for the second component established at a logical
block boundary following the logical blocks allocated for the
first component; and
generate a memory layout in the mobile device including
each unique address.
21. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1,
wherein the software instructions are further configured to
partition the first and second components into a plurality of
modules according to a user defined definition.
2
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
Re} ections23
Claims 1--4 and 6-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofEker (EP 1 569 102 Al; published
Aug. 31, 2005), Goettelmann (US 5,313,614; issued May 17, 1994), Shah
(US 2006/0133396 Al; published June 22, 2006), Mori (US 6,209,127 Bl;
issued Mar. 27, 2001), and Daberko (US 5,787,445; issued July 28, 1998).
Final Act. 8-25.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Eker, Goettelmann, Shah, Mori,
Daberko, and Lenhart (US 6,871, 104 B 1; issued Mar. 22, 2005). Final
Act. 25-26.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1--4 and 6--20
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Eker,
Goettelmann, Shah, Mori, and Daberko teaches or suggests "determine
whether a size of the first component is larger than a size of a logical block
of a memory in the mobile device, the logical block comprising a minimal
size of the memory that can be written to the memory," as recited in claim
l?
2 The rejection of claims 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
has been withdrawn. Ans. 2.
3 Claims 1--4 and 6-21 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent
Application No. 11/773,918. Final Act. 3-7. U.S. Patent Application No.
11/773,918 is now abandoned. See Notice of Abandonment, mailed
February 26, 2014. As such, this rejection is moot and is not considered
herein.
3
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
Appellants contend the combination of applied references fail to teach
or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 2--4. In
particular, Appellants contend Eker does not teach detecting whether the
updated first object module is larger than a page of an address space but,
instead, teaches comparing the updated first object module to a previous first
object module. App. Br. 15 (citing Eker i-f 20). Appellants further contend
Eker relies on the assumption that the updated first object module is larger
than a first current object module and that a size of each remaining module
remains unchanged and, therefore, "has no use for determining whether a
size of the first component is larger than a size of a logical block of a
memory in the mobile device" thus, teaching away from the disputed
limitation. Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds Eker teaches determining whether the updated first object module is
larger than an original first object module. Final Act. 9 (citing Eker i-fi-120,
54; Figs. 4, 5); Ans. 2-3. The Examiner further finds the portion of memory
used to store the original first object module corresponds to a logical block
of memory and, therefore, Eker teaches or suggests determining whether the
updated first object module is larger than a logical block of memory. Id.
The Examiner also finds Daberko teaches flash memory that is configured to
be divided into blocks providing the smallest amount of data which can be
written. Final Act. 9 (citing Daberko, Abstract, 4: 19-23, 9:4--12; Fig. 4).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that the combined
teachings of Eker and Daberko teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Final Act. 9-10. Appellants' contentions fail to persuasively address the
combined teachings of Eker and Daberko and, therefore, are unpersuasive of
4
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
error. Jn re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Eker,
Goettelmann, Shah, Mori, and Daberko teaches or suggests "in response to
determining that the size of the first component is larger than the size of the
logical block, round up the number of logical blocks to allocate for the first
component to an integer multiple of the size of the logical block," as recited
in claim 1?
Appellants contend the combination of applied references fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 4---6.
According to Appellants, "FIG. 4 of Eker shows that module A' of version
V2 of program 403 is stored in pages Pl and P2 and only a portion of page
P3." App. Br. 16. Appellants contend Eker, therefore, does not teach or
suggest the disputed limitation because "Eker does not teach a rounded
number of pages are allocated to the module A'." Id. Appellants further
contend
even if, arguendo, Eker does disclose determining whether a
size of the first component is larger than a size of a logical
block of a memory in the mobile device, Eker fails to disclose
doing anything in response to the aforementioned 'determining'
feature, let alone rounding in response to the determining
feature.
Reply Br. 5.
With regard to the teachings of Shah, Appellants contend:
[T]he number (N) of blocks of virtually contiguous memory of
Shah is calculated in response to a determination that the
management queue of Shah can be created. Shah does not teach
that the number (N) of blocks of its virtually contiguous memory
is calculated in response to determining that a size of an
5
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
equivalent of the module A' of Eker is larger than an equivalent
of a page of pages Pl-P8 of Eker.
App. Br. 17. Appellants further contend "merely disclosing 'rounding' fails
to disclose rounding triggered by any action or event, let alone rounding in
response to determining that the size of the first component is larger than the
size of a logical block." Reply Br. 5.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. As discussed
supra, Eker teaches determining that the size of the updated first object
module is larger than the size of a logical block. The Examiner finds Eker
teaches allocating, in response to this determination, a larger logical block of
memory to the updated first object module. Final Act. 10 (citing Eker, Fig.
4); Ans. 3. In other words, Eker discloses performing an action in response
to determining that the size of the updated first object module is larger than
the size of a logical block. The Examiner finds Shah teaches rounding up an
allocated number of logical blocks to an integer number of logical blocks.
Id. (citing Shah i-f 44). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the
combined teachings of Eker and Shah teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 1 O; Ans. 3--4. Appellants' contentions fail to
persuasively address the combined teachings of the references and,
therefore, are unpersuasive of error. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d at
1097.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Eker,
Goettelmann, Shah, Mori, and Daberko teaches or suggests "establish a
unique address for each of the components, the unique address for the
second component established at a logical block boundary following the
6
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
logical blocks allocated for the first component," as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the combination ofEker, Goettelmann, Shah,
Mori, and Daberko does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App.
Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 6-8. In particular, Appellants contend the combination
of references fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Mori
does not teach its areas of memory are a minimal size that can be written to
the memory, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 7. Appellants
further contend Mori fails to teach the claimed "logical block boundary"
because Mori does not teach that the boundary between modules # 1 and #2
is a boundary of a block that is a minimal size that can be written to the
memory. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 7-8.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds Eker teaches establishing a unique address for each component and
that the address established for component B is established at a logical block
following the logical blocks allocated for component A. Final Act. 10-11
(citing Eker i-f 46; Figs. 4, 5). The Examiner further finds Mori teaches
storing modules in a memory and that each module is associated with a
unique address. Final Act. 11 (citing Mori, Fig. 5A). The Examiner also
finds Mori teaches that each address is established at a memory boundary
and, therefore, the combined teachings of the references teach or suggest the
disputed limitation. Final Act. 11; Ans. 4. Appellants' contentions fail to
persuasively address the combined teachings of the references and,
therefore, are unpersuasive of error. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d at
1097. Appellants' contention regarding Mori' s areas at which the modules
are stored not being a minimal size that can be written to the memory is not
persuasive because, as discussed supra, the Examiner relies on Daberko, not
7
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
Mori, for teaching this limitation. See Final Act. 9.
For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2--4 and 6-20, Appellants rely on
the arguments previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above. See
App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 8-9. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting these claims for the reasons discussed supra.
Claim 21
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination ofEker,
Goettlemann, Shah, Mori, Daberko, and Lenhart teaches or suggests
"wherein the software instructions are further configured to partition the first
and second components into a plurality of modules according to a user
defined definition," as recited in claim 21?
Appellants contend the combination of Eker, Goettlemann, Shah,
Mori, Daberko, and Lenhart does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitation. App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 9-11. In particular, Appellants
contend Eker fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because:
Eker does not teach its modules are partitioned from "first and
second components" that are generated from "object files."
Rather, the modules of Eker are portions of a version of a
program. Thus, the modules of Eker do not teach the "plurality
of modules" recited in Claim 21.
App. Br. 20 (citing Eker i-f 54) (internal citation omitted); see also Reply
Br. 9-10. Appellants further contend Goettelmann fails to teach or suggest
the disputed limitation because Goettelmann does not teach that the
segments identified as being code or data are partitioned from first and
8
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
second components that are generated from object files and, therefore, does
not teach or suggest the claimed "plurality of modules." App. Br. 21 (citing
Goettelmann 16:16-48); see also Reply Br. 10. Appellants also contend
Lenhart fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because:
[T]he selected modules of Lenhart are selected from the library
of Lenhart. The selected modules of Lenhart are not partitioned
from the library of Lenhart. The teachings of Lenhart of
selecting modules from the library of Lenhart to control a drive
control of a motor does not teach the modules of Eker or the
segments of code or data of Goettelmann are partitioned from
"first and second components" that are generated from "object
files."
App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 10-11.
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds the combined teachings of Eker and Goettelmann teach or suggest
''partion[ing] the first and second components into a plurality of modules."
Final Act. 25; Ans. 4--5. The Examiner also finds "Lenhart teaches the
common practice of providing a user definition for assembling components."
Final Act. 26 (citing Lenhart 3:21-39). Based on these findings, the
Examiner concludes the combined teachings of the references teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Final Act. 26; Ans. 5. Appellants'
contentions fail to persuasively address the combined teachings of the
references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error. In re Merck & Co. Inc.,
800 F.2d at 1097.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21.
9
Appeal2014-005451
Application 11/773,920
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4 and 6-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10