Ex Parte Rostampour

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 25, 2011

10903986 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ARAD ROSTAMPOUR

___________

Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-19, 21 and 22. Claims 10, 20 and 23-26 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appellant’s invention relates to block data access provided for an
operating system by allocating a portion of solid-state memory of a data
processing arrangement for use as a block storage device. (Abstract.) A
block device interface is created that provides access to the portion of solid-
state memory via firmware of the data processing arrangement and emulates
an electromechanical data-storage device. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A processor-based method of providing block data access
for an operating system, comprising:
allocating a portion of solid-state memory of a data processing
arrangement for use as a block storage device;
creating a block device interface that provides access to the
portion of solid-state memory via firmware of the data processing
arrangement, the block device interface emulating a certain
removable electro-mechanical data-storage device accessible to the
operating system;
storing in the portion of the solid-state memory, software
delivered on the certain removable electro-mechanical data-storage
device;
wherein the allocating, creating, and storing are performed prior
to loading of the operating system;
presenting the block device interface to a loader of the
operating system;
wherein the presenting includes providing a device path of the
block device interface and handle of the block device to the loader of
the operating system;
loading a kernel of the operating system including the software
from the allocated portion of the solid-state memory into system RAM
by the loader using a block device driver of the operating system with
the handle of the block device and the path of the block device
interface; and
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

3
accessing the block device interface during boot time and
during run-time by the operating system using the block device driver
with the handle of the block device and the path of the block device
interface.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16-19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Ban (U.S. Patent No. 5,404,485),
Bramley, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 6,889,340 B1), Shapiro (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2003/0195737 A1) and Rhoads (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2004/0230573 A1).
Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro, Rhoads and Bancsi (U.S. Patent
Application Publication No. 2006/0242359 A1).
Claims 4 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro, Rhoads and Castor (U.S. Patent
No. 5,590,288).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro, Rhoads and Holzhammer (U.S. Patent No.
5,630,093).
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro, Rhoads and Wikipedia (Optical
disc – Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, available at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_disk).
With respect to independent claim 1, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 4-5) that the claim
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

4
limitation “loading a kernel of the operating system . . . by the loader using a
block device driver of the operating system” is supported by the originally-
filed Specification.
The Examiner found that paragraph [0030] of Appellant’s
Specification does not provide written description support for the claim
limitation “loading a kernel of the operating system . . . by the loader using a
block device driver of the operating system.” (Ans. 21.) We agree with the
Examiner.
The Specification describes that “the OS loader begins to execute and
load (208) the OS using the firmware data transfer interfaces” (Spec.
¶ [0030]), rather than “loading a kernel of the operating system . . . by the
loader using a block device driver of the operating system,” as recited in
claim 1.
Appellant argues that:
[w]hat we have here are two descriptions of the same process: from
the perspective of the OS loader, it is loading the operating system
using a block device driver; from the perspective of the block device
interface, it is loading the operating system in response to I/O requests
from the OS loader (sent via the block device driver).
(Reply Br. 4.) Appellant further argues that “[p]aragraph [0030] teaches an
OS loader beginning to execute and load using the firmware data transfer
interfaces.” (Reply Br. 4.) However, Appellant has not cited to any specific
language in the Specification to support the arguments presented and to
reasonably convey to the artisan that, as of the filing date of the application,
the inventor had possession of the later claimed subject matter, including the
limitation “loading a kernel of the operating system . . . by the loader using a
block device driver of the operating system.” See Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

5
Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated that the newly added claim
language “loading a kernel of the operating system . . . by the loader using a
block device driver of the operating system,” as recited in claim 1, is
supported by the originally-filed Specification.
With respect to independent claim 1, we are also not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 7-8; see also Reply Br. 4-5) that the claim
limitation “loading a kernel of the operating system including the software
from the allocated portion of the solid-state memory into system RAM” is
supported by the originally-filed Specification.
The Examiner found that paragraph [0030] of Appellant’s
Specification does not provide written description support for the claim
limitation “loading a kernel of the operating system including the software
from the allocated portion of the solid-state memory into system RAM.”
(Ans. 21.) The Examiner further found that the disclosure in paragraph
[0027] of Appellant’s Specification is inconsistent with this claim limitation.
(Ans. 21.) We agree with the Examiner.
The Specification describes that “the install procedure [for the
operating system or OS 102] may include reading from a block device to
obtain new or updated drivers” and thus, “the virtualization software 122
could create a virtual block device, place the current drivers on that device,
and the OS 102 could access those drivers during the first install, and/or
during subsequent reboots.” (Spec. ¶ [0027].) In other words, the
Specification describes “obtain[ing] new or updated drivers” for the “virtual
block device,” rather than “loading a kernel of the operating system . . . from
the allocated portion of the solid-state memory into system RAM,” as recited
in claim 1.
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

6
Appellant argues that “[a]s is made clear by paragraphs 0013-0021,
one objective of the invention is to boot and thus load an operating system
from solid-state media” and “[o]ne skilled in the art thus knows where the
OS is being loaded from; paragraph 0030 identifies when that loading
begins.” (Reply Br. 4.) Appellant also argues that “[o]ne skilled in the art
would know that the kernel was transferred to the partition from a solid-state
memory just as it would have been transferred from the boot disk that the
solid-state disk is made to emulate” as well as “understand that booting from
a solid-state memory involves transferring an operating system kernel from
the solid-state memory to system memory.” (Reply Br. 5.) Again,
Appellant has not cited to any specific language in the Specification to
support the arguments presented and to reasonably convey to the artisan that,
as of the filing date of the application, the inventor had possession of the
later claimed subject matter, including the limitation “loading a kernel of the
operating system including the software from the allocated portion of the
solid-state memory into system RAM.” See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1560.
Therefore, Appellant has not demonstrated that the newly added claim
language “loading a kernel of the operating system including the software
from the allocated portion of the solid-state memory into system RAM,” as
recited in claim 1, is supported by the originally-filed Specification.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. Claims 2-9 and 11 depend from independent claim 1
and Appellant has not presented any further arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

7
Independent claims 12 and 22 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We sustain the rejection of
claims 12 and 22, as well as claims 13-19 and 21, which depend from
claim 12, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument (App. Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 13) that the combination of Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro, Rhoads
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, including the
disputed limitation “creating a block device interface that provides access to
the portion of solid-state memory via firmware of the data processing
arrangement, the block device interface emulating a certain removable
electro-mechanical data-storage device accessible to the operating system.”
The Examiner found that the disclosure in Ban of a memory
controller 14 providing a fully writable virtual address space such that a
flash memory 12 emulates a random access memory corresponds to the
disputed limitation. (Ans. 6.) In particular, the Examiner found that “in
order for the flash memory controller to present or emulate random access
storage to the operating system, the flash memory controller having mapping
tables in order to access flash as [a] block device (or block device interface)
must be present before the operating system is loaded.” (Ans. 33.) We do
not agree.
Ban describes “a system that organizes and manages data written to a
flash memory.” (Col. 1, ll. 8-9.) In one embodiment, Ban discloses that:
a flash memory controller 14 provides a fully rewritable virtual
address space so that the flash memory 12 emulates a random access
memory . . . and the processor operating system software provides all
other required operating support . . . in the same manner as it provides
for a standard random access memory, and in a manner that is
independent of the flash memory 12 and its controller 14.
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

8
(Col. 3, l. 65 to col. 4, l. 5 (emphasis added).) Ban further discloses that a
flash memory includes multiple zones (e.g., zone A, zone B, etc.) and that
“[e]ach zone is comprised of a number of contiguous physical memory
locations that can be block erased using conventional, well known, flash
memory technology.” (Col. 4, ll. 11-17; Fig. 2.) However, because Ban
teaches that the flash memory 14 (i.e., corresponding to the claimed “block
storage device”) emulates a random access memory, the Examiner has not
provided an adequate rationale or explanation as to how Ban teaches
“creating a block device interface that provides access to the portion of
solid-state memory via firmware of the data processing arrangement, the
block device interface emulating a certain removable electro-mechanical
data-storage device accessible to the operating system.” Although the
Examiner found that “the flash memory controller having mapping tables in
order to access flash as [a] block device (or block device interface) must be
present before the operating system is loaded” (Ans. 33), the Examiner has
not adequately established that “the block device interface emulating a
certain removable electro-mechanical data-storage device accessible to the
operating system” as claimed is necessarily present in the controller 14 of
Ban. Moreover, the Examiner’s application of Bramley, Jr., Shapiro and
Rhoads does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ban.
Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner that the combination of
Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro and Rhoads would have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, including the limitation “creating a block device
interface that provides access to the portion of solid-state memory via
firmware of the data processing arrangement, the block device interface
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

9
emulating a certain removable electro-mechanical data-storage device
accessible to the operating system.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3, 5, 9 and 11 depend from independent
claim 1 and we do not sustain the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 12 and 22 recites limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 12 and 22, as well as claims 14, 16-19 and 21, which
depend from claim 12, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
Claims 2 and 13 depend from independent claims 1 and 12. Bancsi
was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 2
and 13. (Ans. 15-16.) However, the Examiner’s application of Bancsi does
not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro and
Rhoads.
Claims 4 and 15 depend from independent claims 1 and 12. Castor
was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 4
and 15. (Ans. 16.) However, the Examiner’s application of Castor does not
cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro and Rhoads.
Claim 6 depends from independent claim 1. Holzhammer was cited
by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 6. (Ans. 17-
18.) However, the Examiner’s application of Holzhammer does not cure the
above-noted deficiencies of Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro and Rhoads.
Claims 7 and 8 depend from independent claim 1. Wikipedia was
cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 7 and 8.
Appeal 2009-011163
Application 10/903,986

10
(Ans. 18-19.) However, the Examiner’s application of Wikipedia does not
cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ban, Bramley, Jr., Shapiro and Rhoads.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-19, 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-19, 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) is reversed.
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

ELD