Ex Parte Holzmann

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2012

10873665 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/873,665 06/22/2004 Richard Holzmann 1117-0003 4441
34456 7590 03/22/2012
LARSON NEWMAN, LLP
8200 N. MOPAC EXPY.
SUITE 280
AUSTIN, TX 78759
EXAMINER
SERRAO, RANODHI N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RICHARD HOLZMANN
__________

Appeal 2010-002352
Application 10/873,665
Technology Center 2400
___________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.

PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002352
Application 10/873,665

2 

STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-4 and 6-11, all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Scheibli (US 2005/0091349 A1; Apr. 28, 2005 (eff. filed Jul.
31, 2003)).
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Scheibli and Traversat (US 6,959,331 B1; Oct.
25, 2005).
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Scheibli, Traversat, and Bradford (US
2005/0138628 A1; Jun. 23, 2005).
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Scheibli, Traversat, and Adams (US 6,889,996;
Mar. 30, 1999).
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because:
Scheibli does not teach the claim 6 recitations: “in response to the
second boot request, reviewing said first portion to determine if information
requested in the second boot request has been loaded into the first portion”
and “in response to determining the information requested in the second boot
request is not stored at the first portion of the memory copying the
information from the non-volatile storage to the first portion.” (App. Br. p 6)
Appeal 2010-002352
Application 10/873,665

3 

Scheibli and Traversat do not teach the claim 1 recitations: “allocating
a second portion of said memory module to be used as a first cache for
operation of the first server” and “allocating a third portion of said memory
module to be used as a second cache for operation of the second server.
(App. Br. p 11)”
Scheibli and Traversat do not teach the claim 10 recitation: “allocating
a second portion of the memory to be used as a cache for operation of the
first server.” (App. Br. p 13)
Issues on Appeal
Does Scheibli teach responding to a second boot request by checking
a first portion of memory and determining if information needed has been
loaded into the first portion of memory; and upon determining that is has not
been loaded therein, copying the information requested into the first portion
of memory, as required by claim 6?
Do Scheibli and Traversat teach allocating a second portion of
memory to be used as a first cache for operation of a first server and
allocating a third portion of memory to be used as a second cache for
operation of a second server, as required by claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action dated Sept. 15, 2008 from which this appeal is taken; and 2) and in
Appeal 2010-002352
Application 10/873,665

4 

the Examiner’s Answer dated June 8, 2009. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner.
Separately, we note the following. Claim 6 reads as follows
(emphases added):
6. A method for booting a plurality of servers
comprising:
receiving a first boot request from a first server of
the plurality of servers via a network;
in response to the first boot request, allocating a
first portion of a memory for storage of portions of an
operating system image;
copying memory segments associated with the
operating system image requested in the first boot request
from a non-volatile storage to said first portion;
receiving a second boot request from a second
server of the plurality of servers via the network;
in response to the second boot request, reviewing
said first portion to determine if information requested in
the second boot request has been loaded into the first
portion;
in response to determining the information
requested in said second boot request is stored in said
first portion, transmitting said information from the first
portion to said interface module for transmission to said
second server; and
in response to determining the information
requested in the second boot request is not stored at the
first portion of the memory copying the information
from the non-volatile storage to the first portion.

The claim broadly recites copying memory segments associated with
an operating system into an allocated “first portion of a memory.” The
recited “portions of an operating system image” can be read as embracing
any memory storing operating system data including cache manifest files
which list files necessary to create a cache image file 230 of Traversat. It is
Appeal 2010-002352
Application 10/873,665

5 

inherent in forming a cache image file 230 that the cache manifest file list
and the cache image file formed from that list necessarily reside in memory.
Appellant has chosen not to include in claim 6 any limitations directed to
cache memory portions dedicated to the operation of each server that
separately boots from the single instance of the operating system (these
portions are recited in claims 10 and 11 and are described by portions 401
and 402 of Figure 4 in the Specification). Thus, claim 6 broadly recites a
method of attempting to read portions of an operating system image from a
memory portion and, if the desired operating system image is not stored in
the memory potion from which it is sought, fetching it and putting it there.
Given the claim 6 breadth as written, the Examiner correctly construes the
claim terms as embracing the prior art as applied.
In the event of further prosecution, it is recommended that the
Examiner determine whether a claim that does not recite cache memory
portions (such as portions 401 and 402) is commensurate in scope with the
invention described in the Specification. It is further noted that claim 11,
depending from claim 10 (and therefore including all of its limitations)
recites “a second portion”, already recited in claim 10. Appellant may have
meant to recite “a third portion” consistent with the Specification.
Additionally, there appears to be a word missing after “said first” in both
claims 8 and 9. We assume for purposes of our review that the Appellant
meant “said first portion” in each case.

CONCLUSIONS
Each of the Examiner’s rejections is sustainted. Claims 1-4 and 6-11
are not patentable.
Appeal 2010-002352
Application 10/873,665

6 

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-11 are affirmed.
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

babc