Ex Parte Sawant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

10710998 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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