Obviousness

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 7117302 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we must determine if the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: February 28, 2005), given the prior art references. This analysis considers the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the level of ordinary skill in the art. Crucially, we must identify a motivation to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success.

The stated problem in US7117302 is the difficulty in managing boot tapes due to varying requirements of different computer systems, operating systems (OS), and recovery applications. These variations include differing demands on boot tape formats, such as specific labeling requirements versus no labels, and the lack of direct tape booting capabilities in many systems, necessitating workarounds like simulating CD-ROM devices. The patent seeks "systems and methods that enable direct tape booting while adapting to computer system and operating system differences" and "are compatible with existing tape-based system recovery techniques".

A PHOSITA in the field of computer system booting and data storage would possess knowledge of various boot methodologies (BIOS, EFI), data storage formats, tape drive operations, and system recovery techniques.

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 1

Claim 1 of US7117302 recites:
"1. A tape device, comprising:
tape memory, wherein the tape memory is formatted to support a plurality of different boot techniques;
wherein the tape memory comprises a header that identifies different boot techniques that are supported by the tape device and locations of files associated with each of the different boot techniques;
wherein the header comprises,
a first information frame that identifies the tape device as a boot tape;
a second information frame that identifies the plurality of different boot techniques supported by the tape device;
a third information frame that identifies a location of a bootloader compatible with each of the plurality of different boot techniques, the bootloader being located on the tape device; and
a fourth information fine that is extendable to support additional boot techniques."

We can identify the following combination of prior art references that would render Claim 1 obvious:

• US6490677B1 to IBM (2002): This patent discloses a "method and system for automatically configuring the boot process of a computer having multiple bootstrap programs within a network computer system." This reference explicitly teaches the concept of supporting a plurality of different boot techniques (via multiple bootstrap programs) and selecting among them.
• US5373485A to Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing Company (3M) (1994): This patent describes a "method for locating data in a data cartridge system" where a "directory (18) of stored data blocks is also stored on the tape for rapid access to all parts of the tape." This teaches the use of a header or directory on tape memory to identify locations of data.
• US6085318A to Compaq Computer Corporation (2000): This patent describes a "computer system capable of booting from CD-ROM and tape," including a technique where "a compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM) image is stored on the tape and uses a tape drive to simulate a CD-ROM device during a system boot." This demonstrates a specific example of a "different boot technique" (a non-direct booting method) that could be supported by tape media.
• P. Parenteau, "Extensible Firmware Interface," Intel Developer Forum (2001) and V. Zimmer et al., "Cross Platform Management and Provisioning with the Intel Platform Innovation Framework for EFI," Intel Developer Forum (2004): These non-patent publications describe the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI), which inherently suggests the concept of an extensible and flexible boot environment.
• US20030110370A1 to Fish (2003): This patent discusses "supporting legacy operating system booting in a legacy-free system," demonstrating the need and known techniques for adapting booting processes to different OS environments.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA would be strongly motivated to combine these references to address the widely recognized problem of managing diverse boot media for systems with varying boot requirements and operating systems, as explicitly articulated in the background of US7117302. The goal would be to create a single, versatile boot tape capable of servicing multiple machines or scenarios.

1. "A tape device, comprising: tape memory": Taught directly by US5373485A and US6085318A, which describe data storage and booting from tape.
2. "wherein the tape memory is formatted to support a plurality of different boot techniques": US6490677B1 teaches a system capable of booting using multiple bootstrap programs, inherently supporting a plurality of boot techniques. The PHOSITA, aiming to simplify tape management for diverse systems (as per the problem statement in US7117302), would desire a single tape that could accommodate these multiple techniques.
3. "wherein the tape memory comprises a header that identifies different boot techniques that are supported by the tape device and locations of files associated with each of the different boot techniques": Having established the desire for a single tape supporting multiple boot techniques, the PHOSITA would naturally turn to US5373485A's teaching of a "directory" or "header" on tape for locating data. It would be obvious to adapt this header to store metadata about the different boot techniques (from US6490677B1) and the locations of their associated files (bootloaders) on the tape.
   • "a first information frame that identifies the tape device as a boot tape": This is a conventional identifier for bootable media, and placing it in a header is a logical design choice.
   • "a second information frame that identifies the plurality of different boot techniques supported by the tape device": Directly flows from US6490677B1's concept of multiple bootstrap programs and the desire for a single, versatile boot tape, with the header providing the necessary identification.
   • "a third information frame that identifies a location of a bootloader compatible with each of the plurality of different boot techniques, the bootloader being located on the tape device": This combines the multiple bootstrap programs concept from US6490677B1 with the data location mechanism of US5373485A. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA to record the location of each bootloader on the tape within the header so that the correct one could be selected and loaded.
4. "and a fourth information fine that is extendable to support additional boot techniques": The background of US7117302 itself highlights the challenge of "changing needs of data centers, operating systems and boot applications." Designing data formats with extensible fields or reserved space for future use is a common engineering practice to accommodate anticipated changes. This is further motivated by the prevalence of EFI (as described by Parenteau and Zimmer et al.), which is inherently "Extensible," and the efforts to support evolving or "legacy" operating systems as seen in US20030110370A1.

Therefore, Claim 1 would have been obvious to a PHOSITA motivated to create a universal tape-based booting solution, by combining existing techniques for managing multiple boot programs with known methods for organizing data on tape, and incorporating standard design practices for extensibility.

Obviousness Analysis of Dependent Claims

• Claim 2: "The tape device of claim 1 wherein the tape memory supports direct booting techniques and non-direct booting techniques."

  • Obviousness: US7117302's background explicitly mentions that "many computer systems lack the ability to directly boot from tape media devices," and details a "tape-based system recovery technique [that] stores a compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM) image on the tape and uses a tape drive to simulate a CD-ROM device during a system boot," which is a non-direct technique. US6085318A specifically teaches this CD-ROM simulation for booting from tape. A PHOSITA aiming for broad compatibility would obviously include support for both direct (where possible) and non-direct (for legacy or constrained systems) booting on a single tape.

• Claim 3: "The tape device of claim 1 wherein the tape memory is formatted to provide extensible support to changing boot techniques."

  • Obviousness: As discussed for Claim 1, the problem of "changing needs of data centers, operating systems and boot applications" necessitates an extensible format. Providing extensible support is a known engineering approach for data formats that need to adapt over time, and is reinforced by the very nature of EFI (Parenteau, Zimmer et al.).

• Claim 4: "The tape device of claim 1 wherein the tape memory supports a plurality of boot techniques compatible with computers that implement an Extensible Firmware Interface."

  • Obviousness: The existence and details of EFI were well-known at the time of invention through publications by Parenteau and Zimmer et al. Given that EFI was a modern boot firmware, a PHOSITA designing a flexible boot tape solution would naturally include compatibility with EFI-based systems, applying known EFI principles to the multi-boot tape concept.

• Claim 5 & 6: "The tape device of claim 1 further comprising firmware that enables the tape device to simulate being a non-tape device." and "The tape device of claim 5 wherein the non-tape device is one of a CD device and a DVD device."

  • Obviousness: These claims are directly anticipated by US6085318A, which teaches a "tape drive to simulate a CD-ROM device during a system boot" using a CD-ROM image stored on tape. The background of US7117302 itself points to this as "one existing tape-based system recovery technique."

• Claim 7 & 8: "The tape device of claim 1 wherein the tape device is implemented by a tape drive coupled to a computer, the computer being configured to boot using at least one of the plurality of boot techniques." and "The tape device of claim 7 wherein the computer implements an Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) and wherein the tape device supports a plurality of EFI-compatible boot techniques."

  • Obviousness: Claim 7 describes a standard computer-tape drive interaction for booting, which is inherent in the concept of a boot tape (e.g., US6085318A). Claim 8 adds EFI compatibility, which, as established for Claim 4, would be an obvious choice for a PHOSITA to incorporate into a modern, flexible boot solution given the widely published information about EFI (Parenteau, Zimmer et al.).

• Claim 9 & 10: "The tape device of claim 1 wherein the tape device is implemented by a tape drive coupled to a plurality of computers having different operating systems, the plurality of computers are configured to boot using different bootloaders supported by the tape device." and "The tape device of claim 1 wherein the tape device is implemented by a tape drive coupled to a plurality of computers having different operating systems, the plurality of computers are configured to boot based on different boot applications supported by the tape device."

  • Obviousness: The central problem addressed by US7117302 is the need to support "different operating systems and recovery applications". US6490677B1 teaches multiple bootstrap programs that can be selected. US20030110370A1 shows the need for supporting different (e.g., legacy) operating systems. A PHOSITA would be clearly motivated to combine a tape with a header identifying multiple bootloaders/applications (as in Claim 1) with a system comprising multiple computers having different OS, to provide a universal boot/recovery solution from a single tape library, as illustrated in FIG. 5 of US7117302 and further described in the problem statement.

• Claim 11: "The tape device of claim 1 wherein the tape device is configured to provide an extensible format that supports at least one of operating system changes and boot application changes."

  • Obviousness: This claim is largely duplicative of Claim 3 and the extensibility feature of Claim 1. The motivation for extensibility to accommodate "operating system changes and boot application changes" is explicitly identified as a problem in the background of US7117302 and is a common design consideration for flexible software and data formats.

In conclusion, the claimed invention in US7117302, particularly Claim 1 and its dependencies, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art due to the combination of existing technologies and well-understood engineering principles, driven by the clearly articulated problem of managing diverse tape boot requirements.