Ex Parte SAWANT et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 31, 201310710998 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANAND SHRIDHAR SAWANT, VINAY SRINIVAS, and NEW MELCHIZEDEC SUNDERARAJ ____________________ Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before LARRY J. HUME, HUNG H. BUI, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 29-52.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 Real Party in Interest is Texas Instruments Inc. 2 Claims 1-28 have been canceled and are not on appeal. However, claims 30-36, as pending on appeal, depend upon base claim 1 (now canceled). In the event of further prosecution, Appellants are advised to amend claims 30- 36 to depend upon base claim 29 instead of the now canceled claim 1, or to cancel claims 30-36. Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to methods and systems that enable file systems for applications such as audio/video players to be implemented with limited resources (e.g., memory, processing power, etc.) and with fast access to files. See Appellants’ Spec. ¶¶[0005], [0009] and Abstract. In typical file systems, a file allocation table (FAT) stored on the same nonvolatile memory as the file system is used to indicate cluster identifiers of clusters assigned to files. Id., ¶¶[0006]-[0008]. In order to speed up operations on files, the entire FAT along with directory structures can be stored in a random-access-memory (RAM). Id., ¶[0010]. However, many embedded systems do not have sufficient RAM to support such a storage requirement. As such, rather than storing the entire FAT in a RAM, one or more embodiments of Appellants’ invention seek to traverse the FAT stored on the file system nonvolatile memory and store only the cluster identifiers of the sequence of clusters allocated to the file in RAM. Id., ¶¶[0091]-[0095]. Claims on Appeal Claims 29, 37 and 45 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 29 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 29. A method for accessing a file in a file system in a protected area comprised in secondary storage of a digital 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed March 12, 2010 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 16, 2010 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed June 23, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed August 16, 2004 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 3 processing system comprising a secure random access memory (RAM), the method comprising: opening the file using a file open operation comprised in a file metadata processing module loaded in a shared execution portion of the secure RAM, wherein the file open operation traverses a file access table (FAT) of the file system to determine a sequence of clusters allocated to the file and stores a cluster identifier for each cluster in the sequence in a buffer comprised in a shared data portion of the secure RAM, wherein the cluster identifiers are stored in the buffer [in the RAM] such that each cluster identifier is locatable by an index computed using a cluster size and a start offset of data in the file; and accessing the file using a file access operation comprised in a file data processing module loaded in the shared execution portion, wherein the data processing module overlays at least a portion of the metadata processing module, and wherein the file access operation accesses a portion of data in the file using at least one cluster identifier stored in the buffer. Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Harmer US 6,567,887 B2 May 20, 2003 Suzuki US 6,604,170 B1 Aug. 5, 2003 Examiner’s Rejection Claims 29-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harmer and Suzuki. Ans. 4-7. Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 4 Issue on Appeal Under § 103(a), the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 29-52 as being unpatentable over Harmer and Suzuki. In particular, the issue turns on whether the combination of Harmer and Suzuki discloses or suggests the following limitations of independent claims 29, 37, and 45: “opening the file using a file open operation comprised in a file metadata processing module loaded in a shared execution portion of the secure RAM … and stores a cluster identifier for each cluster in the sequence [of clusters allocated to the file] in a buffer comprised in a shared data portion of the secure RAM” (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5-6); “the cluster identifiers are stored in the buffer [in the RAM] such that each cluster identifier is locatable by an index computed using a cluster size and a start offset of data in the file” (App. Br. 14); “accessing the file using a file access operation comprised in a file data processing module loaded in the shared execution portion, wherein the data processing module overlays at least a portion of the metadata processing module” (App. Br. 14-15); and “opening the file using a file open operation … wherein the file open operation traverses a file access table (FAT) of the file system to determine a sequence of clusters allocated to the file” (App. Br. 15). Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 5 ANALYSIS We have thoroughly reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and each of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is unpatentable over the cited prior art. As such, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the detailed findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We further highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Independent Claims 29, 37, and 45 Appellants contend that Harmer does not disclose, opening the file using a file open operation comprised in a file metadata processing module loaded in a shared execution portion of the secure RAM … and stores a cluster identifier for each cluster in the sequence [of clusters allocated to the file] in a buffer comprised in a shared data portion of the secure RAM (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5-6) and “the cluster identifiers [are] stored in the buffer [in the RAM] such that each cluster identifier is locatable by an index computed using a cluster size and a start offset of data in the file,” (App. Br. 14). In particular, Appellants argue Harmer discloses a caching mechanism that can handle reads and writes of a file access table (FAT) and a directory structure, but cannot buffer reads and writes of the FAT table and the directory structure (App. Br. 11). In addition, Appellants argue that (1) Harmer only discloses file system data such as a directory structure and FAT is “cached” in RAM and the entire directory structure and FAT are stored in Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 6 RAM (App. Br. 13); and (2) all of the file system data [of Harmer] is stored in system RAM and the caching mechanism [of Harmer] is merely used as an interface for accessing the file system data (Reply Br. 5). However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and incorrect characterization of Harmer. At the outset, we note that Appellants’ claims 29, 37, and 45 are not limited to storing only cluster identifiers of the sequence of clusters [allocated to the file] in a buffer of secure RAM and, as such, do not preclude other types of file system data, including directory information and cluster information (i.e., FAT table and directory structure) from being stored in the secure RAM. As correctly found by the Examiner, a caching mechanism 210, as shown in FIG. 2, is used to find and supply relevant file system data requested by an operating system (OS), such as directory information 206, cluster information 204 (i.e., FAT table and directory structure). Ans. 8 (citing Harmer, col. 5, ll. 12-22; also see col. 5, ll. 23-46, and col. 6, ll. 18- 35). FIG. 2 of Harmer, as reproduced below, is helpful in understanding Harmer’s invention. 4 4 Fig. 2 of Harmer mislabels item 50 as “system ROM.” However, Harmer’s specification consistently and accurately describes item 50 as –system RAM—. As such, item 50 shall be referred to as –system RAM 50— herein below. Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 7 FIG. 2 shows a digital processing system provided with a caching mechanism 210 to find and supply file system data from secure RAM 50 instead of a mass memory storage peripheral computer device. As shown in FIG. 2, the caching mechanism 210 [internal to a loadable device driver 66] is separate from secure RAM 50 and is arranged to store and access file system data, such as directory information 206, cluster information 204 (i.e., FAT table and directory structure), from the buffer of secure RAM 50. FIG. 3 of Harmer, as reproduced below, shows the relationship between directory information 206, cluster information 204 and sector information 202. Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 8 FIG. 3 shows the relationship between directory information, cluster information, and sector information. FIG. 7 of Harmer, as reproduced below, shows an example FAT table. FIG. 7 shows an example FAT table layout including: (1) entry number, and (2) cluster identifiers (IDs) stored in secure RAM 50. In view of such disclosures from Harmer, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Harmer discloses accessing file system data and Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 9 storing cluster identifiers in the sequence in the buffer of secure RAM. Ans. 7-9. Moreover, in considering Harmer, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of Harmer but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826-27 (CCPA 1968). In this regard, an inference can be drawn from FIG. 3 and FIG. 7 of Harmer that each cluster identifier is also locatable by an index computed using a cluster size and a start offset of data in the file, as recited in Appellants’ independent claims 29, 37, and 45. Ans. 9-10 (citing Harmer, col. 5, ll. 61-65; col. 6, ll. 25-30; also see col. 2, ll. 12-35). As such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Harmer discloses or suggests that “the cluster identifiers are stored in the buffer [in the RAM] such that each cluster identifier is locatable by an index computed using a cluster size and a start offset of data in the file.” Next, Appellants contend that Harmer does not disclose “accessing the file using a file access operation comprised in a file data processing module loaded in the shared execution portion, wherein the data processing module overlays at least a portion of the metadata processing module” (App. Br. 14-15). In particular, Appellants argue that there is no “inherent” functionality to the caching mechanism disclosed by Harmer that allows portions of the FAT table in RAM to be “overlaid” (App. Br. 15). We disagree. As correctly noted by the Examiner, memory locations or portions of the caching mechanism 210 can be overlaid as commonly understood by those skilled in the art (Ans. 11). We find the Examiner’s finding is consistent with Appellants’ own disclosure in ¶¶[0082] and [0096] that such a memory overlaying technique is well-known in the art. Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 10 Appellants further contend that the combination of Harmer and Suzuki does not disclose “opening the file using a file open operation … wherein the file open operation traverses a file access table (FAT) of the file system to determine a sequence of clusters allocated to the file” (App. Br. 15). In particular, Appellants argue that the traversal of the FAT as disclosed by Suzuki is performed as part of reading a file, and not as part of opening a file (Id.). However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, and contrary to Appellants’ contention, reading a file necessarily requires opening a file. Second, both Harmer and Suzuki disclose traversing the FAT for a sequence of clusters allocated to the file. Ans. 11-12 (citing Harmer, col. 2, ll. 18-21 and Suzuki, col. 9, ll. 15-38). Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not provided a proper reason to combine Harmer and Suzuki. App. Br. 16. To the contrary, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine Harmer and Suzuki because using the steps of “the file open operation traverses a file access table (FAT) of the file system to determine a sequence of clusters allocated to the file” would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing faster access to files by storing important structures in faster memory (Ans. 5). The Examiner further explains that such tools would provide the user the advantage of more efficient use of time and resources (Ans. 6). Thus, the Examiner's obviousness rejection is supported by "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning" to combine known elements in the manner required by the claim. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Appeal 2010-011739 Application 10/710,998 11 In summary, Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s findings. Absent such evidence or persuasive arguments, we do not find error in the Examiner’s position and, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 29, 37, and 45. Dependent claims 30-36, 38-44, and 46-52 Appellants present no separate arguments for patentability of dependent claims 30-36, 38-44, and 46-52. As such, these claims fall with independent claims 29, 37, and 45. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii). CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 29-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 29-52 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)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation