PTAB

IPR2015-01094

American Megatrends Inc v. Kinglite Holdings Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multitasking during BIOS Boot-up
  • Brief Description: The ’202 patent describes a method for performing multitasking within a computer’s Basic Input Output System (BIOS) during the boot-up sequence. The invention involves periodically interrupting a normal BIOS operation (a "second task") to perform a different, "first task," such as displaying graphics or advertisements.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over AMIBIOS - Claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-31, 39, and 40 are anticipated by AMIBIOS under 35 U.S.C. §102.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: AMIBIOS (American Megatrends AMIBIOS 98 Technical Reference).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the AMIBIOS technical reference, a printed publication, discloses every element of the independent claims. AMIBIOS describes a BIOS that enables interrupt signals at predetermined times via its system timer interrupt (INT 08h), which is called approximately 18.2 times per second. In response to this recurring interrupt, AMIBIOS performs a "first task," such as incrementing the system time count or issuing an INT 1Ch "Timer Tick" interrupt for user-supplied routines. Between these successive interrupts, the system performs a "second task," which consists of normal computer activities during boot-up, including the Power-On Self-Test (POST) and hardware initialization. This maps directly to the three core steps of independent claim 1. Dependent claims are met by AMIBIOS's disclosure of using standard hardware like the Intel 8254 Programmable Interval Timer as an "interrupt controller" (claim 9) and for "scheduling an interval timer" (claim 10).

Ground 2: Obviousness over AMIBIOS and Stanley - Claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12-13, 16-18, 22-23, 26-28, 32-33, and 36-38 are obvious over AMIBIOS in view of Stanley.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: AMIBIOS (American Megatrends AMIBIOS 98 Technical Reference) and Stanley (Patent 4,099,255).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: AMIBIOS provides the foundational multitasking BIOS system as established in Ground 1. Stanley was introduced to teach the key limitation of the challenged dependent claims: "disabling the first task after the second task is completely performed" (e.g., claim 2). Stanley explicitly discloses that it is desirable for debugging or initialization purposes to inhibit, or disable, timer interrupts. Petitioner asserted that disabling the interrupt generator (as taught by Stanley) necessarily disables the task performed in response to the interrupt. Other dependent claims were met by AMIBIOS's inherent features, such as repetitively performing the first task (timekeeping) at each interrupt (claim 3) and the second task including device testing (POST) as part of the BIOS (claims 6 and 8).
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Stanley's teaching of disabling interrupts with the AMIBIOS system for predictable and well-known reasons. Stanley itself provides the motivation: to facilitate debugging or initialization without being constantly interrupted. A POSITA would have found it obvious to allow a primary task (like POST) to complete before disabling a secondary, interrupt-driven task to manage system priorities or prepare for diagnostics.
    • Expectation of Success: Disabling an interrupt to halt an associated task was a fundamental, routine, and predictable technique in computer systems design at the time. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing this functionality in the AMIBIOS environment.

Ground 3: Obviousness over AMIBIOS, Stanley, and Jurgens - Claims 4, 14, 24, and 34 are obvious over AMIBIOS and Stanley in view of Jurgens.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: AMIBIOS, Stanley (Patent 4,099,255), and Jurgens (HelpPC 2.10, Quick Reference Utility).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of AMIBIOS and Stanley to add the specific limitation of claims 4, 14, 24, and 34, which require the "first task" to include a "graphic animation." While AMIBIOS discloses using its INT 1Ch interrupt to trigger user-supplied routines, the Jurgens reference explicitly teaches that this specific interrupt vector can be used for "TSR popup utilities, animated graphics updates and event polling."
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was direct and explicit. AMIBIOS provided the interrupt mechanism (INT 1Ch) for custom tasks, and Jurgens identified "animated graphics" as a prime example of such a task. A POSITA seeking to provide visual information or branding during the BIOS boot process would have been directly motivated by Jurgens to implement a graphic animation as the user-supplied routine triggered by the INT 1Ch interrupt in the AMIBIOS system.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining the references was a simple matter of using a known interrupt (INT 1Ch in AMIBIOS) for one of its explicitly intended purposes (animation, per Jurgens). This was a straightforward implementation of known elements for their known functions, leading to a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including anticipation of claims 1, 9-11, etc. over Pearce (Patent 5,694,582), and obviousness grounds combining AMIBIOS with Thayer (Patent 5,297,275) to teach flicker-free animation or with RTTI (a programming tutorial) to address various dependent claim limitations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "task": Petitioner proposed construing "task" under the broadest reasonable interpretation as "an activity that achieves a desired purpose." This broad construction was central to its argument, allowing fundamental computer operations like incrementing a time counter or performing a POST routine to qualify as the claimed "first task" and "second task," respectively.
  • "interrupt controller": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a circuit or other device that generates or handles interrupts." This construction was used to map standard hardware components disclosed in the prior art, such as the Intel 8254 Programmable Interval Timer in AMIBIOS, to the claim limitation, even though the specific term "interrupt controller" did not appear in the prior art's description of that component.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-40 of the ’202 patent as unpatentable.