EXHIBIT 1009
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1009EXHIBIT 1009
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1009EXHIBIT 1009
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT
`
`TRADEMARK OFFICE~ [ ~
`
`ART UNIT:
`
`2307
`
`EXAMINER:
`
`Corrielus, J.
`
`APPLICANT:
`
`Daberko
`
`SERIAL NO.:
`
`08/612,772
`
`FILED:
`
`FOR:
`
`03/07/96
`
`NORRIS FLASH FILE SYSTEM
`
`DOCKET NO.:
`
`T2614
`
`ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
`WASHINGTON, D.C, 20231
`
`AMENDMENT
`
`/Dear Sir: ~ ~
`In response to the Office Action mailed July i, 1997, ~ ~ ~’ .-J
`
`y|~ApplicantlM v~ offers the following Amendment and requests
`ove-cap ioned app ication. This response
`d t n of the ab reconsi era io
`t
`1
`
`
`addresses every ground of rejection set forth in the Office
`
`Action.
`
`In the specification:
`
`Pleas9 replace the title of the patent application with the
`
`following descriptive title:
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 001 of 015
`
`
`
`-- AN OPERATING SYSTEM INCL~!DIiG IMPROVED FILE MANAGEMENT FOR
`
`USE IN DEVICES UTILIZING FLASH~ORY AS MAIN MEMORY--
`
`/
`
`--FIG. 3A is a block diagram of the components of a preferred
`
`embodiment of the present invention which utilizes the file system
`
`of the present invention.
`
`FIG. 3B is a block diagram of the components of an
`
`alternative embodiment of the present invention which utilizes a
`
`different buffering scheme than shown in FIG. 3A for utilization
`
`of the file system of the present invention.
`
`FIG. 3C is a block diagram of the components of another
`
`alternative embodiment of the present invention which utilizes a
`
`different buffering scheme than shown in FIGs. 3A or 3B for
`
`.,utilizati°n of the file sys~f the present invention. __--
`
`On page 18, line 18, ple~(cid:128)~ replace the terra "FIG. 3." with --FIG.
`
`On page 18, line 24, pleasee/place
`3A.--
`
`the term "FIG. 3." with --FIG.
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 002 of 015
`
`
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant expresses appreciation to the Examiner for
`
`consideration of the subject patent, and offers the following
`
`comments with respect to the grounds for rejection.
`
`In item i, the title of the invention was described as not
`
`being descriptive.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits a new title for the invention
`
`which is directed to the’invention for which the claims have been
`
`drafted. Applicant also respectfully submits additional changes
`
`to the specification which are only made so that the figures
`
`submitted with the original application are described in the
`
`DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS. Two minor modifications to the
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION are also made so that references to the
`
`figures match the correct figures.
`
`In item 6, claims 1-6, i0 and 20-21 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lasker et al. (U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,586,291) in view of Jeffrey et al. (book entitled
`
`~Data Structure"). Specifically regarding claim i, it is asserted
`
`that Lasker discloses a non-volatile memory as a ~primarymirror
`
`non-volatile module," wherein a non-volatile cache memory stores
`
`data in the event of a system power failure. It is also admitted
`
`that Lasker does not describe how to create logical links between
`
`data segments. However, it is asserted that Jeffrey describes a
`
`method for maintaining data elements in memory which are stored as
`
`a linked list, that a file allocation table (FAT) is a linked
`
`list, and that DOS saves the FAT to the memory on which the data
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 003 of 015
`
`
`
`is being stored. The Examiner then concludes that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine the teachings of Jeffrey with the system
`
`of Lasker because the combination is more efficient.
`
`Before addressing the specific rejection, it is useful to
`
`describe the prior art in more detail. Lasker describes a system
`
`using a mixture of volatile and non-volatile memory as cache
`
`memory (see column 3, lines 61-64). The primary memory is
`
`actually a disk (see column 3, lines 2-7} as opposed to the
`
`characterization of the non-volatile module as "primary" as the
`
`Examiner has done. Lasker never intimates utilizing non-volatile
`
`memory as primary memory. In fact, Lasker teaches away from this
`
`concept when it describes minimizing the number of non-volatile
`
`memory modules (see column 3, lines 16-20) by using more volatile
`
`memory modules in the cache. It is also noted that all that
`
`Jeffrey accomplishes is to teach the concepts of lists and linked
`
`lists, which are well known to those skilled in the art.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claim 1 as
`
`obvious in light of the cited prior art. It is noted that the
`
`prior art is apparently mischaracterized and consequently
`
`inappropriately analogized to the preferred embodiment of the
`
`present invention. Specifically, using non-volatile cache memory
`
`is supposed to represent the flash memory which can be used as the
`
`primary memory in the present invention. Such a characterization
`
`ignores the significant limitations of flash memory which are
`
`described in the present invention and which have prevented its
`
`ubiquitous use as a replacement for RAM or long term storage.
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 004 of 015
`
`
`
`The burden for proving obviousness rests on the Examiner who
`
`must make a prima facie case of obviousness. To make the prima
`
`facie of obviousness, the Office Action must show either (a) some
`
`objective teaching in the prior art that suggests combining the
`
`references, or (b) knowledge generally available to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art which would lead that individual to
`
`combine the relevant teachings of the references to achieve the
`
`invention claimed, or c)
`
`that the combined inventions would result
`
`in the claimed invention.
`
`See In re Eine, 5 U.S.P.Q.2d 1596, 1598
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails
`
`to make a prima facie case of obviousness for the following
`
`reasons. The Office Action has failed to show any support for
`
`combining the references, but assumes that it would have been
`
`desirable because it would result in an invention which would
`
`provide the advantages of the present invention. Most
`
`importantly, however, the combination of references does not
`
`result in the present invention. This assertion is easily proven.
`
`The combination of prior art references results in a non-
`
`volatile cache (non-primary) memory which has a virtual memory map
`
`describing linked lists. For references purposes, a brief summary
`
`of the contrasting present invention is provided. The present
`
`invention enables the el~mination of a FAT (memory map) which is
`
`typically used to store the location of data segments in long term
`
`memory. To increase efficiency, the only way to determine the
`
`location of data is to traverse the linked list of data segments.
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 005 of 015
`
`
`
`The linked list not only tells where the related data segments are
`
`located for one file, but it also links the first data segment of
`
`all files together. The motivation for creating this file
`
`structure was provided by the inherent limitations of flash
`
`memory. Flash memory requires that data be erased before the same
`
`memory space is reused. So instead of reading a FAT into cache
`
`memory, erasing the FAT from primary memory, modifying the FAT in
`
`cache memory, and then resaving it to primary memory each time
`
`that any data is added to or deleted from primary memory (as Ban
`
`does), no FAT is used, and data is manipulated directly in primary
`
`memory. However, while this invention was motivated by flash
`
`memory limitations, the principle is applicable to any type of
`
`long term memory medium, and therefore claim 1 has not been
`
`limited only to flash memory, but is simply referred to often to
`
`show why the present invention operates as it does.
`
`The FAT as described in Jeffrey is the same FAT (or virtual
`
`memory map) described in Ban (U.S. Patent No. 5,404,485) which the
`
`present invention has taken great pains from which to distinguish
`
`itself. Ban also taught using a FAT, but the disadvantages are
`
`tremendous, particularly when flash memory is used as main memory.
`
`The Office Action even admits that DOS typically saves the FAT on
`
`the disk with which the table is associated. But this is exactly
`
`the problem that the present invention was designed to overcome,
`
`not teach. Accordingly, the combination of Lasker and Jeffrey
`
`teaches away from the present invention.
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 006 of 015
`
`
`
`It should be apparent from the description of Ban in the
`
`patent application that it uses flash memory just as the
`
`combination of Lasker and Jeffrey would try to use it. In other
`
`words, the combination of references, as well as Ban, ~
`
`force a FAT on flash memQrv which the Dresen~ invention realized
`
`was total~y inefficient, as demonstrated by Ban. Ban stored its
`
`FAT in volatile cache memory which is lost when power is
`
`interrupted, forcing rebuilding of the FAT. This is not an
`
`efficient operation. It is also impractical to store a FAT in
`
`primary memory which is constructed using flash memory because it
`
`cannot be overwritten without first erasing it entirely. This is
`
`demonstrated by Ban. However, Ban adds a tremendous amount of
`
`overhead by insisting that all data be manipulated outside of main
`
`(flash) memory. As explained in the application, Ban retrieves an
`
`entire file which is to be modified into volatile RAM cache
`
`memory, manipulates the data such as conducting additions or
`
`deletions, then resaves the entire file to main memory in a new
`
`and unused contiguous memory segment. The memory must be unused
`
`because the nature of flash memory requires that it first be
`
`erased before data can be saved in it.
`
`Applicant does not understand why the concept of using a FAT
`
`is being asserted as making the present invention obvious when the
`
`FAT has been eliminated from the present invention. Furthermore,
`
`Lasker only teaches using non-volatile memory as cache memory,
`
`when cache memory does not have to deal with the substantially
`
`more difficult issues of primary memory as explained in the
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 007 of 015
`
`
`
`present invention. The combination of references falls far short
`
`of explaining how to deal with the difficulties of using flash
`
`memory as primary memory. Unlike Ban, the present invention
`
`teaches how data can be manipulated directly in flash memory
`
`without significant RAM resources, and without having to use a
`
`FAT. In contrast, Ban and the combination of references
`
`demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how to manipulate
`
`data directly in flash memory, how not to use significant RAM
`
`resources, and how to avoid using a FAT.
`
`It is also noted that even if the Examiner’s assertion about
`
`the FAT is removed from the combination of references, leaving
`
`only linked lists, that the Office Action fails to recognize that
`
`the combination has any advantages over the prior art (it is
`
`impermissible to use the advantages made known by the present
`
`invention). The failure to recognize the advantages is also
`
`demonstrated by the lack of recognition of the overhead problems
`
`of Ban. Furthermore, Jeffrey teaches data structures. In
`
`contrast, the present invention teaches an operating system using
`
`linked lists for file structures. The Office Action has seemingly
`
`failed to notice this distinction, and has failed to provide any
`
`motivation for treating files structures like data structures.
`
`Finally, the Office Action fails to recognize the differences
`
`between using flash memory as cache as opposed to main memory.
`
`Regarding claims 2-4, the Office Action asserts that Jeffrey
`
`teaches a double linked list with associated multiple pointers
`
`which show a current position, a beginning and an end of the list.
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 008 of 015
`
`
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 2-4.
`
`While the concept of a double linked list is well known, its
`
`application to the problem of file management in an operating
`
`system is unknown in the prior art. Linked ii~3 ~re well known
`
`for their application to data structures, not to file structures.
`
`The Office Action also insists that data in the primary
`
`memory is somehow mapped like a FAT. There is no FAT in use by
`
`the present invention. It is unnecessary to map the location of
`
`data within the primary memory. Instead. a single pointer is used
`
`to mark the location of a first file. The first file contains an
`
`address not only of the next logical data segment, but to the
`
`address of the first logical data segment of the second file.
`
`Accordingly, the linked lists not only preserve continuity of
`
`discontiguous but logically related data segments, they also
`
`preserve continuity to previous and subsequent but unrelated files
`
`having their own discontiguous ~It logically related data
`
`segments.
`
`Therefore, it should be realized that a double linked list is
`
`inadequate to preserve the data structure of the present
`
`invention. Furthermore, the claims are based on at least one
`
`novel concept as implemented in claim i. Therefore, the claims
`
`should be passed to issue.
`
`Regarding claims 5 and 6, the Office Action rejects them only
`
`because they use the well-known concepts of a stack, as well as
`
`pushing and popping data off the stack.
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 009 of 015
`
`
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of the cited
`
`claims. Stacks are well known in operating systems for storing
`
`data for an executing program. The stack is used to store
`
`temporary variables. In contrast, using the stack as claimed to
`
`create a history of movement is nQ~ shown in the prior art when
`
`accessing data segments stored in main memory. The stack is not
`
`used for this purpose in the prior art because a FAT is always
`
`available to provide a map to the location of data segments.
`
`Advantageously eliminating the FAT in the present invention
`
`created a new need for a history of movement within a linked list
`
`which advantageously increases speed of movement through the data
`
`segments. Furthermore, the claims are based on at least one novel
`
`concept as implemented in claim i. Therefore, the claims should
`
`be passed to issue.
`
`Regarding claim i0, the Office Action asserted that Jeffrey
`
`teaches the well known concepts of modifying headers when new data
`
`is appended to or inserted into a linked list.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that these concepts are well
`
`known. However, the Office Action fails to show how these
`
`concepts make the file structure manipulation of the present
`
`invention obvious when the reference of Jeffrey is about data
`
`structures, as the Applicant has explained previously in support
`
`of claims 1-6. Furthermore, the claims are based on at least one
`
`novel concept as implemented in claim i. Therefore, the claims
`
`should be passed to issue.
`
`i0
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 010 of 015
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 20 and 21, the Office Action asserts that it
`
`is inherent that the file system is a portion of an operating
`
`system that translates requests for file operations from an
`
`application into API which are compatible with DOS, and that BIOS
`
`works closely with hardware to support transfer functions.
`
`Applicant respectfully asserts that there are many reasons
`
`why these claims are novel. First, the Office Action seems to
`
`assume that all file systems are compatible with DOS, which is an
`
`unsupportable assertion. Second, it is novel that the file
`
`structure of the present invention is still compatible with DOS,
`
`when DOS requires a FAT which the present invention does not use
`
`in any form. Third, it is novel that the file structure of the
`
`present invention is still compatible with existing BIOS of DOS
`
`computers. Furthermore, the claims are based on at least one
`
`novel concept as implemented in claim I. Therefore, the claims
`
`should be passed to issue.
`
`In item 7, claims 7-9, 11-16 and 22-25 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lasker in view of Jeffrey
`
`as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ban.
`
`Specifically regarding claims 7-9, it was asserted that Ban taught
`
`all of the claimed aspects, and when combined with the previous
`
`references, made the present invention obvious.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that this rejection has
`
`arguably already been overcome by Applicant’s remarks given in
`
`support of claim i. The previous remarks demonstrated the
`
`substantial shortcomings of Ban which were also explained in
`
`ii
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 011 of 015
`
`
`
`detail in the background and detailed description of the
`
`invention. Therefore, no further comments are necessary.
`
`Furthermore, the claims are based on at least one novel concept as
`
`implemented in claim i. Therefore, the claims should be passed to
`
`issue.
`
`Regarding claim 13, the Office Action asserts that Ban also
`
`disclosed the steps of including identification information in a
`
`data segment header.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of this claim
`
`because the header of Ban includes a format identifier indicating
`
`the type of format of the data stored therein (see column 4, lines
`
`39-40). In contrast, the present invention claims a unique
`
`identifier for each header. This is not taught in Ban.
`
`Therefore, the claim should be passed to issue.
`
`Regarding claims 11-12, Ban is asserted to disclose "the
`
`steps of selecting a header from the group and selecting a header-
`
`like data structure~"
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of these
`
`claims, but is also uncertain as to what is the basis for the
`
`rejection of these very specific claims. Ban does not teach, as
`
`claimed in the present invention, a device, volume, directory,
`
`file, data, and tree header. Further, nowhere does Ban ~each
`
`selecting a header-like data structure from the group consisting
`
`of a tree node, a segment index entry, and a secondary segment
`
`index entry. Therefore, the claims should be passed to issue.
`
`12
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 012 of 015
`
`
`
`Regarding claims 14-15, Ban is asserted to disclose ~the
`
`steps of reserving a fixed amount memory."
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of these
`
`claims, but is also uncertain as to what is the basis for the
`
`rejection of these very specific claims. The claims teach
`
`reserving memory for a specific purpose, the purpose of making an
`
`edit history which provides a record of all modifications to at
`
`least one file stored in primary memory. More specifically, the
`
`memory is reserved for the use of creating a playback tree
`
`structure, where the playback structure provides temporary storage
`
`space in the work memory for a copy of sequentially related data
`
`segments comprising the file stored in primary memory. Therefore,
`
`the claims should be passed to issue.
`
`Regarding claim 16, the Office Action asserts that Jeffrey
`
`discloses ~the steps of creating at least one tree node including
`
`a next tree node address pointer."
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of this claim.
`
`As stated previously, Jeffrey teaches data structures, and fails
`
`to show how these principles are advantageously applied to the
`
`concepts of file structures. In addition, a tree node is used in
`
`a playback structure. Therefore, the tree node is a different
`
`type of header with very specific attributes as explained in the
`
`present invention which are different from other data segrnent
`
`headers. It is noted that a tree node as defined in the present
`
`invention does not have the same structure as a header in a
`
`generic linked list as taught by Jeffrey. Furthermore, the claim
`
`13
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 013 of 015
`
`
`
`is based on at least one novel concept as implemented in claim i.
`
`Therefore, the claim should be passed to issue.
`
`Regarding claims 22-25, the Office Action asserts that Ban
`
`discloses ~the steps of creating a logical block, creating a
`
`logical memory block map, [and] creating a logical block control
`
`map including a physical address."
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of the claims.
`
`It is first noted that the steps of separating the work memory
`
`from a user memory in primary memory, where the work memory is
`
`dedicated to storing the playback tree structures, is not found in
`
`Ban.
`
`Furthermore, regarding claims 22-24, Ban is teaching how
`
`address translation occurs between a logical address and a
`
`physical address of data. In contrast, the present invention
`
`includes more useful information. Specifically, this useful
`
`information includes: (i) the creation and recording of the
`
`location of at least one erase block (claim 22), (2) an indication
`
`of whether the erase block is non-functional (claim 23), (3) an
`
`address of a next available memory equal size block in which data
`
`may be stored (claim 24), and (4) a nonfunctional block map (claim
`
`24). Furthermore, the claims are based on at least one novel
`
`concept as implemented in claim I. Therefore, the claims should
`
`be passed to issue.
`
`In light of the explanations detailing the substantial
`
`differences between the present invention as claimed and the prior
`
`art, Applicant declines to amend allowable claims 17-19 to include
`
`14
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 014 of 015
`
`
`
`the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims at
`
`this time.
`
`Applicant has also considered the art which the Office Action
`
`lists as relevant. Applicant has not found any disclosures which
`
`would prevent issuance of the claims as now written.
`
`Therefore, in light of the above, Applicant believes that
`
`claims 1-25 are now in condition for allowance. Applicant
`
`respectfully requests that the application be passed to issue. If
`
`any impediment to the allowance of these claims remains after
`
`entry of this Amendment, and such impediment could be alleviated
`
`during a telephone interview, the Examiner is invited to call
`
`Vaughn W. North or David W. O’Bryant at (801) 566-6633 so that
`
`such matters may be resolved as expeditiously as possible.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any
`
`additional fee or to credit any overpayment in connection with
`
`this Amendment to Deposit Account No. 20-0100.
`
`Kespectfully Submitted,
`
`THORPE, NORTH & WESTERN, L.L.P.
`
`David W. 0 Bryafzt
`Registration No. 39,793
`9035 South 700 East
`Suite 200
`Sandy, Utah 84070
`Telephone: (801) 566-6633
`Facsimile: (801) 566-0570
`
`DWO\tlc
`
`15
`
`Microsemi 1009
`Page 015 of 015
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
