Ex Parte Tasaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 3, 2009

10609610 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HARUHISA TASAKI
____________

Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided1: June 3, 2009
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-10, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a computer system and method for
booting a computer system using a plurality of BIOS programs. A timer
(Fig. 1, watchdog timer 62) is started in response to a power-on of the
computer system (Spec. 8:20-22). A boot block (Fig. 1, 512) of a first BIOS
program (Fig. 1, 51) selected from among a plurality of BIOS programs is
executed (Spec. 10:1-11), where the boot block includes first instructions for
executing a core block (Fig. 1, 511) of the BIOS program (Spec. 7:18-21),
and the core block includes second instructions for restarting the timer
(Spec. 7:8-11). A second BIOS program (Fig. 1, 52) is selected in place of
the first BIOS program in response to the timer timing out (Spec. 11:3-9, 17-
19). The computer system is reset in response to the timer timing out (Fig.
2; Spec. 9:19-22). A boot block (Fig. 1, 522) of the second BIOS program is
executed in response to the computer system being reset (Spec. 11:16-21).

Representative Claim
10. A method for booting a computer system comprising:

starting a timer in response to a power-on of said computer
system;
Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

3

executing a boot block of a first BIOS program selected from
among a plurality of BIOS programs, said boot block including first
instructions for executing a core block of said BIOS program, said
core block including second instructions for restarting said timer;

selecting a second BIOS program in place of said first BIOS
program from among said plurality of BIOS programs in response to
said timer timing out;

resetting said computer system in response to said timer timing
out;

executing a boot block of said second BIOS program in
response to said computer system being reset.

Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability.
Harding US 6,651,188 B2 Nov. 18, 2003

Bramnick US 5,564,054 Oct. 8, 1996

Hawkins US 2003/0182483 A1 Sep. 25, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Harding.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harding and Bramnick.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harding and Hawkins.

Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

4
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 10 (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Harding
discloses resetting a computer system in response to a timer timing out, and
executing a boot block of a second BIOS program in response to the
computer system being reset, as required by claim 10?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Harding
1. Figure 2C of Harding shows the sequence that occurs if the
watchdog timer times out as indicated at block 240. A timeout of the
watchdog timer may indicate that execution of the BIOS is not going as
planned and that something is wrong with that execution. Fig. 2C, 240; col.
4, ll. 16-22.
2. A timeout may reselect the backup BIOS at block 241 and
return control to the BIOS entry point from block 241 in Fig. 2C to block
221 in Fig. 2A. This may restart the validation and timeout sequences
previously described. Fig. 2C, 241, Fig. 2A, 221; col. 4, ll. 22-26.
3. The BIOS entry point is shown at block 221. This point may be
entered as the result of, for example, a system reset, a CPU initialization
signal, or a jump to the boot vector. Block 222 determines whether the
backup BIOS or the primary BIOS is being executed. This may be
determined by examining a bit that is set to control which BIOS is to be
Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

5
executed. This may also be determined by examining one or more high-
order address bits. Fig. 2A; col. 3, ll. 14-23.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and the language should be
read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d
575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Anticipation
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Section 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 4-8, and 10
Appellant contends that Harding does not disclose “in response to the
timer timing out … a second BIOS program is selected in place of the first
BIOS program, and the computer system is reset; and … a boot block of the
second BIOS program is executed in response to the computer system being
reset.” (App. Br. 4; Reply Br. 1). The Examiner found that Harding selects
Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

6
a second BIOS program and resets a computer system in response to a timer
timing out, and executes a boot block of the second BIOS program in
response to the computer system being reset, as required by claim 10 (Ans.
6-7).
We agree with the Examiner. Harding discloses a timer that times out
(FF 1). Harding then selects a second BIOS program in place of a first
BIOS program from among a plurality of BIOS programs in response to the
timer timing out (FF 2), resets the computer system in response to the timer
timing out (FF 2-3), and executes a boot block of the second BIOS program
in response to the computer system being reset (FF 3).
Appellant contends in particular that Harding does not reset the
computer system when the timer times out (App. Br. 4). The Examiner
found that when the timer times out, the system of Harding resets the
computer system by returning control to the BIOS entry point and restarting
validation and timeout sequences (Ans. 11). Appellant contends that
restarting validation and timeout sequences is not the same as resetting the
computer system (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2). However, this contention fails
to address the Examiner’s finding that Appellant has not provided any
evidence to show that the claimed “resetting” of the computer system is
different from returning control to the BIOS entry point and restarting
validation and timeout sequences. Appellant also fails to address the
Examiner’s finding that the Specification does not define “resetting” the
computer system in a manner that excludes returning control to the BIOS
entry point and restarting validation and timeout sequences (Ans. 11-12).
The “resetting” as claimed is broad enough to include returning control to
the BIOS entry point and restarting validation and timeout sequences as
Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

7
disclosed by Harding, and Appellant has provided no evidence or limiting
definition to the contrary.
Appellant further contends that Harding does not disclose executing
the backup BIOS in response to the computer system being reset (App. Br.
5; Reply Br. 2-3). This contention relies on the premise that returning
control to the BIOS entry point and restarting validation and timeout
sequences is not the same as “resetting said computer system” as claimed.
We find this premise unpersuasive as discussed above. Harding, in response
to resetting the computer system by returning control to the BIOS entry
point and restarting validation and timeout sequences, executes the backup
BIOS (FF 2-3).
Appellant argues in the Reply Brief (at 2-3) that Harding distinguishes
the term “reset” from mere BIOS entry. Harding does refer to a “system
reset” as distinct from BIOS entry. However, Appellant’s claim 10 does not
require that the “computer system being reset” is the same event as the
earlier-recited “resetting” of the computer system in response to the timer
timing out. As we have indicated (FF 3), Hawkins discloses that backup
BIOS can be executed in response to the system being reset, which is
consistent with the requirements of claim 10.
We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 10 and
therefore sustain the § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 4-8, and 10.

Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, and 9
Appellant does not provide separate arguments in response to the
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 9 under § 103(a), but relies on the arguments in
support of claim 10 that we have found unpersuasive.
Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

8
We therefore are not persuaded of error in the § 103(a) rejection of
any of claims 2, 3, and 9, and sustain the rejections.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner erred in finding that
Harding discloses resetting a computer system in response to a timer timing
out, and executing a boot block of a second BIOS program in response to the
computer system being reset, as required by claim 10.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Harding is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Harding and Bramnick is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Harding and Hawkins is 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).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2008-004511
Application 10/609,610

9
erc

FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
SUITE 500
3000 K STREET NW
WASHINGTON DC 20007