Ex Parte Piwonka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 16, 2010

10423451 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARK A. PIWONKA
____________

Appeal 2009-002482
Application 10/423,451
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: February 17, 2010
____________

Before LEE. E. BARRETT, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and JAMES R.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-16, 18-26, 28, and 29. The
Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-002482
Application 10/423,451

2
INVENTION
The Appellant describes the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
"[A] processor 100, [a] memory controller 110 and a video interface 112
each have respective settings that can be changed during [a] boot process. If
a setting is changed, then a reset has to be performed." (Spec. ¶ [0011].)
[T]o reduce the amount of time required to perform the boot
process, the number of resets that are performed in response to
changes in settings of such components is reduced. For
example, in one implementation, the clock speed of the
processor 100, the speed of the memory controller 110, and the
integrated video memory setting can all be changed during the
boot process without performing multiple resets.
(Id.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for use in a system, comprising:
performing a boot process;
during the boot process, changing settings of plural
different types of hardware components; and
in response to changing the settings of the plural different
types of hardware components, performing a reset of the
system.

PRIOR ART
Kartoz US 2003/0110368 A1 Jun. 12, 2003
Miller US 2004/0064686 A1 Apr. 1, 2004

Appeal 2009-002482
Application 10/423,451

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 14-16, 18-21, 23-26, 28, and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kartoz.

Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kartoz and Miller.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that "when any hardware configuration change is
detected during initialization (i.e. to any electronic components, devices or
modules - paragraph 0043, lines 1-15), a single reset is executed." (Ans.
14.) The Appellant argues that "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to perform multiple resets of the computer of Kartoz in
response to detecting configuration changes of the different types of
hardware components identified in ¶ [0043] of Kartoz." (Reply Br. 2.)
Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Appellant has shown error in
the Examiner's finding that Kartoz would have suggested performing a
single reset in response to the changing of the settings of plural, different
types of hardware components.

LAW
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "'A
prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to
Appeal 2009-002482
Application 10/423,451

4
a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976)).

FINDINGS OF FACT ("FFs")
1. Kartoz discloses "a method and system for initializing at least one
hardware device of a computer system." (¶ [0001].)

2. The reference's "FIG. 4 shows a schematic flow diagram . . . of
initialization a hardware component of the computer system . . . ." (¶ 0007.)
The Examiner admits that "in Figures 4 or 5, a single reset is executed after
detecting a change in the memory configuration during the initialization
process . . . ." (Answer 13.)

3. The paragraph of Kartoz cited by the Examiner follows in pertinent
part.
In the embodiments described above, a method of initializing at
least one hardware component in the form of the memory
modules 52 has been described. However, . . . any hardware
component of the computer system 30 that requires initializing
subsequent to the pre-memory platform initialization step 74
may be initialized using the method. Broadly, the invention can
be applied to any electronic components, devices or modules in
a computer system that are accessed and initialized based on
configuration data associated with the particular hardware
component. For example, the AGP [i.e., accelerated graphic
processor] 48, the USB [i.e., Universal Serial Bus] ports 58, the
hard drive interface 60, the optical drive interface 62, and the
printer interface 64 . . . may also only be comprehensively
initialized when there has been a change in their configuration.
(¶ [0043].)
Appeal 2009-002482
Application 10/423,451

5
ANALYSIS
Kartoz initializes at least one hardware device of a computer system.
(FF 1.) The Examiner admits that Figure 4 of the reference teaches
performing a single reset after detecting a change in the system's memory
configuration during initialization. (FF 2.) Consequently, we agree with the
Appellant "that Fig. 4 of Kartoz shows the method is applied to only one
type of hardware component, namely memory devices 52. This is true also
of the methods described in Figs. 5-7 of Kartoz." (Reply Br. 2.)

The reference explains that the method of initializing a hardware
component can be applied to other electronic components, devices, or
modules. (FF 3.) We agree with the Appellant, "[h]owever, [that] there is
no teaching or hint in Kartoz of performing a single reset of the system in
response to changing the settings" (Reply Br. 2) of plural, different types of
hardware components. We further agree with him that "a person of ordinary
skill in the art looking to the teachings of ¶ [0043] of Kartoz would have
been led to implement multiple flows of the embodiment described in Fig. 4
or 5 for [each of] the different hardware components indicated in ¶ [0043]."
(Id.) For example, besides the reset performed in response to the
aforementioned change in the configuration of the system's memory devices,
an additional resets would be performed for a change in the configuration of
the system's AGP. The Examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the
addition of Miller cures the aforementioned deficiency of Kartoz.

Appeal 2009-002482
Application 10/423,451

6
CONCLUSION
Based on the aforementioned facts and analysis, we conclude that the
Appellant has shown error in the Examiner's finding that Kartoz would have
suggested performing a single reset in response to the changing of the
settings of plural, different types of hardware components.

DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-16, 18-26, 28, and 29.

REVERSED

rwk

HEWLETT- PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400