US 7117302

Here is a concise summary of US patent 7117302:

• Title: Boot techniques involving tape media
• Assignee: Hewlett Packard Development Co LP (Original Assignee), currently Google LLC
• Inventors: Bruce A. Lundeby, Lin Zhang, Raymond Henry
• Filing Date: 2005-02-28
• Issue Date: 2006-10-03
• Abstract: In at least some embodiments, a system comprises a computer configured to boot using at least one of a plurality of boot techniques involving tape media. The system further comprises a tape drive coupled to the computer and a tape that is readable by the tape drive, wherein the tape is formatted to support a plurality of different boot techniques and wherein at least one of the supported boot techniques is compatible with the computer.

Plain-language overview of the independent claim:

• Claim 1: This patent describes a tape device that contains tape memory. This tape memory is specially formatted to allow for multiple different ways (boot techniques) to start up a computer. Crucially, the tape memory includes a "header" which acts like a table of contents. This header identifies that the tape is a boot tape, lists all the different boot techniques it supports, and points to the specific locations on the tape where the necessary bootloader files for each technique can be found. Additionally, a part of this header is designed to be expandable, so it can support new boot techniques in the future.

No information was found regarding US patent 7117302 in the CAFC 2026 dockets.

As a patent attorney, I have searched for known litigation involving US patent 7117302 using the specified resources (Unified Patents, CAFC, and PACER).

Based on the searches conducted, there is no known litigation specifically citing or involving US patent 7117302 in the provided search results. The search results discuss general patent litigation trends, the functionality of PACER and Unified Patents portals, and unrelated court cases (e.g., those involving IEEPA tariffs).

Therefore, I cannot provide any details on plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdiction, case numbers, filing dates, or outcomes for litigation related to US patent 7117302, as no such cases were found.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO ODP API reports no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7,117,302 as of the most recent ingest. My web searches for "US7117302 PTAB IPR", "US7117302 PTAB PGR", "US7117302 PTAB CBM", and related terms did not identify any specific AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review) for this patent. Therefore, there is no PTAB activity on file for US7117302.

Strategic summary

As there are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US Patent 7,117,302, all claims of the patent remain untested by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This means the patent has not been subjected to the scrutiny of an IPR, PGR, or CBM review, where claims can be challenged based on prior art (for IPR and PGR) or other invalidity grounds, including §§ 101 and 112 (for PGR and CBM). Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for this patent, and a defendant facing assertion of this patent would not be barred from raising any prior-art grounds that could have been raised in an AIA trial. The absence of PTAB activity could indicate that the patent has not been heavily asserted in litigation that would typically trigger such challenges.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US7117302, a potential defendant facing assertion of this patent should consider the full range of invalidity defenses, including those based on prior art (e.g., anticipation under § 102 or obviousness under § 103) and potentially other grounds like § 101 (patent eligibility) or § 112 (written description, enablement, definiteness). The absence of IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs means that a challenger would have a fresh opportunity to present prior art to the PTAB without facing estoppel. Given that AIA trials offer a potentially faster and more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, exploring a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) could be a viable defensive strategy, assuming the statutory requirements and timelines for filing such a petition are met.

Inventors

• Bruce A. Lundeby (Hewlett-Packard Development Co LP)
• Lin Zhang (Hewlett-Packard Development Co LP)
• Raymond Henry (Hewlett-Packard Development Co LP)

There are no unusual patterns indicating inventors departing the original assignee around the filing date.

Original assignee

Hewlett Packard Development Co LP. Hewlett-Packard (HP) is a major American multinational information technology company that designs, develops, and provides hardware components, software, and related services to consumers, small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs), and large enterprises, including products that would embody the claims related to computer systems and tape drives. Hewlett Packard Development Co LP is an operating entity and is still active.

Assignment timeline

A search on the USPTO Assignment Center for US patent 7117302 reveals the following assignment records:

• 2005-05-02 to 2005-05-11 (executed) / recorded 2005-05-12 — Reel 016215/0733

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Lundeby, Bruce A.; Zhang, Lin; Henry, Raymond
  • Assignee: HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P., TEXAS
  • Correspondent: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION, P.O. BOX 272400, FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the original assignee.

• 2011-10-25 (executed) / recorded 2012-02-06 — Reel 027661/0258

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.; HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
  • Assignee: GOOGLE INC., CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: GOOGLE INC. LEGAL DEPARTMENT, PATENTS, P.O. BOX 1007, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94042.
  • Context: Acquisition of patent rights by Google Inc.

• 2017-09-29 (executed) / recorded 2017-10-05 — Reel 044127/0735

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: GOOGLE INC.
  • Assignee: GOOGLE LLC, CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: GOOGLE LLC, 1600 AMPHITHEATRE PKWY, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94043.
  • Context: Corporate name change of Google Inc. to Google LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7117302
    2005 : Inventors to Hewlett-Packard
    2006 : Patent issued
    2011 : Hewlett-Packard to Google Inc.
    2017 : Google Inc. name change to Google LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The assignees, Hewlett-Packard Development Co LP and Google Inc./LLC, are known operating companies with extensive product lines.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Google LLC is an operating company and not a known NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. The correspondents are associated with the respective operating companies (Hewlett-Packard Company and Google Inc./LLC Legal Departments) at the time of each assignment.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only three distinct transfers recorded, spread out over several years.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While Google (the current assignee) is involved in litigation, it's not possible to definitively state from these records alone whether this specific patent was transferred within six months before a lawsuit related to it.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Neither Hewlett-Packard nor Google has undergone a bankruptcy fire-sale related to this patent.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no indication in the assignment records or common knowledge that this patent was transferred to an NPE to assert on behalf of Hewlett-Packard or Google.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The current assignee is Google LLC, an operating company, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While the patent is currently owned by Google LLC, a major operating company, the available assignment records alone do not provide sufficient information to definitively conclude an NPE pattern or a defensive aggregation. The transfers are consistent with normal corporate activity (initial assignment from inventors, and subsequent acquisition by another operating company).

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

US Patent 7117302, titled "Boot techniques involving tape media," has several patent citations that serve as prior art. I will analyze each, providing the requested details and potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

US Patent 7117302's Filing and Publication Dates:

• Filing Date: 2005-02-28
• Publication Date: 2006-10-03

For the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 102, we generally compare the prior art's effective date (e.g., filing date, publication date) to the filing date of the patent under review.

Here is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited in US7117302:

1. US5373485A

• Full Citation: US5373485A, Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing Company, "Method for locating data in a data cartridge system"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 1991-09-03, Publication date: 1994-12-13
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method for locating data within a data cartridge system, which is fundamental to accessing specific information on tape media.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This patent broadly relates to data access on tape, which is a prerequisite for any boot from tape. While it doesn't explicitly describe "boot techniques" or a "flexible header" as in Claim 1, it establishes the basic concept of locating data on a tape. Therefore, it may anticipate general aspects of tape data access relevant to a booting process, but not the specific innovative features of 7117302.
  • Specifically, it might be considered general background art rather than anticipating the specific header structure or multi-boot features of Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. It might anticipate the underlying concept of "identifies locations of files" in Claim 1, but only at a very high, abstract level, without disclosing the specific means (the header fields described in 7117302). It would not anticipate the "plurality of different boot techniques" or the specific header frames.

2. WO2000008561A1

• Full Citation: WO2000008561A1, Hewlett-Packard Company, "System backup and recovery"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 1998-08-07, Publication date: 2000-02-17
• Brief Description: This international publication describes a system for backup and recovery, which is a common use case for tape media, often involving booting a system for restoration.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • The "system backup and recovery" aspect directly relates to the application of boot tapes for system recovery mentioned in the background of US7117302. However, the title alone doesn't suggest the "plurality of different boot techniques" or the extensible header as claimed in US7117302. It's broadly related to the problem US7117302 aims to solve, which is system recovery.
  • It could potentially anticipate Claim 1 regarding a tape memory enabling a computer to "recover data after a system crash" (as stated in the description of 7117302 for element 200, which claim 1 refers to). However, it wouldn't anticipate the specific header structure or the "plurality of different boot techniques" unless disclosed within the document itself, which is not evident from the citation details provided. It would not anticipate Claim 2-6, 8-11. It might relate to the general purpose of booting for recovery in Claim 7, but without the specific header features.

3. US6085318A

• Full Citation: US6085318A, Compaq Computer Corporation, "Computer system capable of booting from CD-ROM and tape"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 1993-09-10, Publication date: 2000-07-04
• Brief Description: This patent describes a computer system that can boot from both CD-ROM and tape, directly addressing a common challenge in system booting, and the background of US7117302 mentions prior art that stores a CD-ROM image on tape to simulate a CD-ROM device.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This is a highly relevant piece of prior art. The title "Computer system capable of booting from CD-ROM and tape" directly addresses booting from tape, which is central to US7117302.
  • It very strongly anticipates Claim 2 ("tape memory supports direct booting techniques and non-direct booting techniques") if its booting from tape is considered "direct" and booting from a simulated CD-ROM on tape is "non-direct," or if it teaches both direct tape boot and other methods.
  • It also highly anticipates Claim 5 ("firmware that enables the tape device to simulate being a non-tape device") and Claim 6 ("wherein the non-tape device is one of a CD device and a DVD device") because US7117302 explicitly states in its background that "Another tape-based system recovery technique 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." This aligns directly with the title of US6085318A.
  • It would also anticipate the concept of a computer being "configured to boot using at least one of the plurality of boot techniques" in Claim 7, as booting from both CD-ROM and tape implies multiple boot techniques.
  • However, it's not clear from the title if it teaches the flexible, extensible header of Claim 1, or the support for *multiple different boot techniques *via that header's information frames, or the EFI compatibility (Claim 4, 8), or supporting different OS/applications (Claim 9, 10, 11).

4. US20020095537A1

• Full Citation: US20020095537A1, Hewlett-Packard Company, "Block size masking on tape data storage devices for improved performance"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2001-01-18, Publication date: 2002-07-18
• Brief Description: This publication discusses techniques for block size masking on tape data storage devices, aimed at improving performance. This relates to the physical and logical organization of data on tape.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This patent is related to the underlying technical implementation of tape devices, specifically how data blocks are managed.
  • It might generally relate to the concept of a "bootloader block size" field (318) in the header (Claim 1, sub-element of the header description in 7117302). However, it does not appear to disclose the use of such block size information within a header for enabling multiple boot techniques or the specific header structure of Claim 1. It is more about performance optimization of block size rather than enabling flexible booting. It does not appear to anticipate any of claims 1-11 directly in terms of the inventive aspects of US7117302.

5. US6490677B1

• Full Citation: US6490677B1, International Business Machines Corporation, "Method and system for automatically configuring the boot process of a computer having multiple bootstrap programs within a network computer system"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 1999-09-16, Publication date: 2002-12-03
• Brief Description: This patent describes automatically configuring the boot process for a computer with multiple bootstrap programs within a network. This addresses flexibility in booting but focuses on network environments and multiple bootstrap programs, which are types of bootloaders.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This is highly relevant due to its focus on "automatically configuring the boot process" and "multiple bootstrap programs."
  • It directly relates to "a plurality of different boot techniques" (Claim 1) and the idea of "bootloaders" (Claim 1, third information frame). The concept of having "multiple bootstrap programs" strongly suggests support for "different boot techniques."
  • It could potentially anticipate the "bootloader file number" field (316) and "bootloader total size" field (320) of the header, as these would be necessary to identify and load different bootstrap programs (Claim 1, specific header fields).
  • The "network computer system" context suggests a different primary storage medium (network boot), but the concept of managing multiple bootloaders for flexible booting is very similar to what US7117302 aims for with tape.
  • It also strongly anticipates Claim 9 ("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") by teaching the management of multiple bootstrap programs (bootloaders) for different systems, even if its context is network rather than directly tape. The core idea of "different bootloaders supported" is present.
  • Similarly, it could anticipate Claim 10 ("plurality of computers... configured to boot based on different boot applications supported by the tape device") since different bootloaders often correspond to different boot applications or operating systems.

6. US20030110370A1

• Full Citation: US20030110370A1, Fish Andrew J., "Supporting legacy operating system booting in a legacy-free system"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2001-12-11, Publication date: 2003-06-12
• Brief Description: This publication addresses the challenge of supporting legacy operating system booting in modern, "legacy-free" systems, highlighting the need for compatibility with various OS requirements.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This patent is relevant to the problem statement in US7117302, which mentions "The requirements of different operating systems and recovery applications place differing demands on the format of boot tapes." and "some operating systems expect tape media to be labeled while other operating systems do not handle labeling well."
  • The concept of "supporting legacy operating system booting" directly relates to the "plurality of different boot techniques" (Claim 1) and the flexibility required for "different operating systems" (Claim 9).
  • It implicitly supports the idea of "extensible format that supports at least one of operating system changes" (Claim 11) and "extensible support to changing boot techniques" (Claim 3) by acknowledging the need to accommodate older systems with newer ones.
  • The patent US7117302 also mentions its tape device supporting both "old (e.g., legacy) methods and new methods." This prior art clearly teaches the problem and a solution for accommodating legacy systems. However, it doesn't specify the tape-based header solution of US7117302.

7. US20050114387A1

• Full Citation: US20050114387A1, Evans Rhys W., "Data backup and recovery"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2003-10-31, Publication date: 2005-05-26
• Brief Description: This publication describes a system for data backup and recovery, similar to WO2000008561A1, but with a later filing date.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This is another broad "backup and recovery" patent. Similar to WO2000008561A1, it addresses the general application area of US7117302 but without specific details about a flexible, multi-boot tape header.
  • It would relate to the ability of the tape device to "recover data after a system 'crash'" as described in US7117302 for the tape device (200), which is an application of a bootable tape.
  • It may potentially anticipate aspects of Claim 1 related to the general purpose of boot/recovery, but not the specific header structure for managing "plurality of different boot techniques." It is unlikely to anticipate Claims 2-6, 8-11. It might relate to the general purpose of booting for recovery in Claim 7, but without the specific header features.

8. US6718410B2

• Full Citation: US6718410B2, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.C., "System for transferring data in a CD image format size of a host computer and storing the data to a tape medium in a format compatible with streaming"
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority date: 2001-01-18, Publication date: 2004-04-06
• Brief Description: This patent describes transferring data in a CD image format to a tape medium, and storing it in a streaming-compatible format. This explicitly deals with CD images on tape.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
  • This is highly relevant. It directly teaches storing data in a "CD image format" onto "tape medium." US7117302 explicitly mentions "storing 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" in its background as a prior art technique.
  • This patent therefore strongly anticipates Claim 2 ("tape memory supports direct booting techniques and non-direct booting techniques") if storing a CD-ROM image on tape for booting is considered a "non-direct" technique as described in US7117302.
  • It also directly anticipates Claim 5 ("firmware that enables the tape device to simulate being a non-tape device") and Claim 6 ("wherein the non-tape device is one of a CD device and a DVD device") because it teaches storing CD image format data on tape, which is a prerequisite for a tape device to simulate a CD device. US7117302 explicitly states "the CD-ROM image 214 is provided to enable tape boot methods that are compatible with CD-ROM images to be used with the tape device 200."
  • Similar to US6085318A, it relates to the concept of supporting multiple boot mechanisms. However, it doesn't clearly teach the flexible, extensible header of Claim 1, nor the EFI-specifics of Claims 4 and 8, or the broad multi-OS/application support of Claims 9-11 through such a header.

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art:

Based on the analysis, US6085318A ("Computer system capable of booting from CD-ROM and tape") and US6718410B2 ("System for transferring data in a CD image format size of a host computer and storing the data to a tape medium in a format compatible with streaming") are highly relevant as they directly disclose booting from tape and/or using CD-ROM images on tape for booting, which are explicitly mentioned as existing techniques that US7117302 aims to improve upon or be compatible with. These two patents directly address features found in Claims 2, 5, 6, and 7.

US6490677B1 ("Method and system for automatically configuring the boot process of a computer having multiple bootstrap programs within a network computer system") is also highly relevant due to its teaching of managing "multiple bootstrap programs" for flexible booting, which relates closely to Claim 1 (plurality of boot techniques, bootloader location) and Claims 9 and 10 (different bootloaders/applications for different computers). While its context is network booting, the underlying principle of managing diverse boot options is strong.

US20030110370A1 ("Supporting legacy operating system booting in a legacy-free system") is relevant to the problem of accommodating different operating system requirements, which is a motivation for the flexible header of US7117302 and implicitly relates to Claims 3 and 11, though it does not teach the tape-specific solution.

The other patents (US5373485A, WO2000008561A1, US20020095537A1, US20050114387A1) are more general in their scope concerning tape data access or backup/recovery, serving as foundational or contextual prior art rather than directly anticipating the core inventive concepts of US7117302 related to its flexible, multi-boot tape header.

The distinguishing features of US7117302 over this prior art appear to be the specific header structure (Claim 1), particularly its explicit information frames for identifying supported boot techniques and bootloader locations, and its extensibility to support future techniques and OS/application changes (Claim 1, 3, 11), as well as explicit EFI compatibility (Claim 4, 8) in the context of a bootable tape with a flexible header.

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.