Ex parte Woodward

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2000

08223890 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JAMES S. WOODWARD
_____________
Appeal No. 1997-1541
Application 08/223,890
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, HAIRSTON, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
2 through 23 and 25 through 29.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for reprogramming a portion of a sector in a flash ROM device
in a PC system.
Appeal No. 1997-1541
Application No. 08/223,890
2
Claim 8 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
8. A method for reprogramming a portion of a sector in
a flash ROM device, which is included in a PC system that
includes RAM, wherein the sector includes at least two
different programs, one of which is to be reprogrammed and one
of which is not to be disturbed, the method comprising the
steps of:
(a) detecting a write function request to the sector of
flash ROM;
(b) monitoring the address of the write request to
prevent a write to the portion of the sector that is not
to be disturbed;
(c) placing the flash ROM in a Command Mode; and
(d) writing the data to the portion of flash ROM which
is to be reprogrammed.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Chan et al. (Chan) 5,388,267 Feb. 7,
1995
(filed May 29, 1991)
Claims 2 through 23 and 25 through 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chan.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 4, 5 and 8),
Appeal No. 1997-1541
Application No. 08/223,890
3
“Chan did not explicitly give details about the sector of the
flash ROM includes [including] at least two different
programs, one of which is to erased and one of which is not to
be disturbed.” We agree. Chan uses an INTEL flash ROM
(column 7, lines 35 through 45) that is not concerned with
storing a plurality of different types of data (e.g., boot
code, EISA configuration code, Ediags instruction code, and
main BIOS data) in a single sector (e.g., sector 7 in an AMD
flash ROM used by appellant in Figure 3). Thus, we agree with
appellant’s argument (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that:
Chan teaches the one-way transfer of data from the
UV-PROM to the Flash EPROM, and has no teaching or
discussion about transferring a portion of a sector
of Flash EPROM to RAM and then back to the Flash
EPROM after the Flash EPROM has been erased, as in
the present invention. In fact, Chan teaches away
from this proposition because the Flash EPROM is
only written to when there is a data inconsistency
with the UV-PROM, thus rendering the data in the
Flash EPROM obsolete. (Emphasis added).
We also agree with appellant’s arguments (Brief, page 5) that
“Chan is completely devoid of any teaching or suggestion of,
among other features, installing a new Interrupt 15 routine
and executing the new Interrupt 15 routine whenever an
Interrupt
Appeal No. 1997-1541
Application No. 08/223,890
4
15 is requested,” and that “Chan is completely devoid of any
teaching or suggestion of steps of determining if the flash
ROM is an AMD flash ROM and modifying the Interrupt 15 routine
in response to an affirmative determination.”
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claim 2 through
23 and 25 through 29 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2 through
23 and 25 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1997-1541
Application No. 08/223,890
5
DAVID L. MCCOMBS
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
3100 NATIONSBANK PLAZA
901 MAIN STREET
DALLAS, TX 75202-3789