Brock R. Gardner et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2019

13171235 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/171,235 06/28/2011 Brock R. Gardner 5924-30000 5189
35690 7590 09/26/2019
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
EXAMINER
VO, THANH DUC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte BROCK R. GARDNER and MICHAEL P. CZAMARA1
_____________

Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through 11, 13 through
15, 18 through 20, 25, and 26. Dependent claims 16, and 21 through 23
have been indicated as containing allowable subject matter and claims 27
through 29 have been allowed. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Amazon Technologies,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a data storage module which includes an
array of solid state storage devices. The module including a fault detecting
system and an ejector system where when a fault is detected in a solid state
storage device it is automatically ejected. See Abstract, paragraphs 87
through 89 and Figure 7 of Appellant’s Invention.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A data storage module, comprising:
a chassis enclosing and supporting a plurality of carrier
circuit board assemblies and a power supply, wherein
the chassis is configured to mount in a rack;
a plurality of groups of removable solid state data storage
devices wherein each group comprises a separate
plurality of sets of removable solid state data storage
devices, and wherein respective groups of removable
solid state data storage devices are coupled to
respective separate carrier circuit board assemblies of
the plurality of carrier circuit board assemblies,
wherein the plurality of circuit board assemblies with
respective groups of coupled removable solid state
data storage devices are vertically arranged in a
plurality of tiers, one above another, in the chassis;
wherein the power supply is coupled to, and configurable to
supply power to, each of the plurality of groups of
removable solid state data storage devices coupled to
the plurality of carrier circuit board assemblies
included in the chassis;
a data storage controller coupled to each of the plurality of
groups of removable solid state data storage devices
coupled to the plurality of carrier circuit board
assemblies included in the chassis, wherein the data
storage controller is configured to stripe data across at
least two separate sets of the removable solid state
data storage devices in at least two tiers of the
plurality of tiers; and
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

3

a fault detection system configured to detect a fault in at
least one particular removable solid state storage
device of the removable solid state data storage
devices;
wherein at least one of the carrier circuit board assemblies
comprises at least one ejection mechanism configured
to automatically eject the at least one particular
removable solid state data storage device in response
to the fault detection system detecting a fault in the at
least one particular removable solid state storage
device, wherein to automatically eject the at least one
particular removable solid state storage device the at
least one ejection mechanism is configured to push at
least a portion of the at least one particular removable
solid state storage device away from an upper surface
of the at least one carrier circuit board assembly.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 4, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Fitzgerald (US 2011/0035540 A1), Tsai (US
2006/0063400 A1), Rothman (US 2005/0015430 A1), Flynn (US
2008/0140724 A1), Gange (US 7,458,842 B1), and Poguntke (US
2009/0308930 A1). Answer 3–9.2
The Examiner has rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fitzgerald, Tsai, Rothman, Flynn, Gange, Poguntke, and
Hughes (US 2010/0027220 A1). Answer 9–10.

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed January 29,
2018 (“App. Br.”); Final Action, mailed August 28, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 13, 2018 (“Answer”).
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

4

The Examiner has rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fitzgerald, Tsai, Rothman, Flynn, Gange, Poguntke, and
Singer (US 2009/0257185). Answer 10–11.
The Examiner has rejected claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fitzgerald, Tsai, Rothman, Flynn, Gange, Poguntke, and
Velez-McCaskey (US 6,089,128). Answer 11–12.
The Examiner has rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Fitzgerald, Tsai, Rothman, Flynn, Gange, Poguntke, and
Leech (US 2006/0168462 A1). Answer 12.
The Examiner has rejected claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Aswadhati (US 9,250,687 B1) Flynn, Singer,
Gange, and Poguntke, and Hughes. Answer 12–18.
The Examiner has rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Aswadhati, Flynn, Singer, Gange, Poguntke, and Hughes.
Answer 19.
The Examiner has rejected claims 10, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Aswadhati, Flynn, Singer, Gange, and Poguntke,
and Rothman. Answer 19–20.
The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Aswadhati, Flynn, Singer, Gange, Poguntke and Choy
(US 2005/0015430). Answer 21.
The Examiner has rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Aswadhati, Flynn, Singer, Gange, and Poguntke, and Ku
(US 2004/0058577 A1). Answer 22.

Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 5, 20, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as modified to include Velez-McCaskey. However, Appellants’
arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims
6, 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 15, 18, and 19.

ISSUES
Independent claim 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1
is in error as the combination of the references do not teach a fault detection
system and ejection mechanism configured to automatically eject a
removable solid state data storage device as claimed and Examiner’s
rationale to combine the teachings of Fitzgerald and Poguntke is flawed.
App Br. 8–16. Specifically, Appellant asserts that Poguntke, which the
Examiner relies upon for teaching automatically ejecting the solid state drive
does not teach automatically ejecting the drive, and that the Examiner has
misconstrued the term automatically. App. Br. 8–13. Further, Appellant
argues that the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is using
hindsight reasoning and that the ejection mechanism of Poguntke would not
work with Fitzgerald’s flash blade and would counter the intended purpose
of Fitzgerald, to reduce areal density of flash chips. App. Br. 16.
The Examiner finds that Poguntke teaches the claimed automatically
ejecting a memory. Answer 5. Further the Examiner states:
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

6

It is noted that the term “automatically” recited in the claim
reads on the automatic of the reference because the claims do
not specifically define that the automation process is entirely
independent of external physical impact from the time the solid
state storage device is detected faulty. The claim only recites
that the ejection mechanism ejects the removable solid state
storage device automatically.

Id. (emphasis omitted.) Additionally, in response to Appellant’s arguments
that the claims recite automatically ejecting the memory in response to
detecting a fault, the Examiner states that “the phrase ‘in response to’ in the
limitation can be a delayed response that may require additional interaction
prior to the automation step.” Answer 7 (citing paragraphs 82, 89 and 98 of
Appellant’s Specification to show that the determination of a fault is a
separate function from ejection). Finally, in response to Appellant’s
arguments concerning the rationale to combine Gange and Poguntke, the
Examiner states:
In this case, Gange et al. provide a method of removing a
memory module requiring all manual operation. Poguntke adds
an automated operation in ejecting a memory device. It is
common knowledge that performing an operation automatically
is useful and mostly time saving compared to fully manual.
Therefore, the motivation to combine the two teaching is to
utilize the usefulness of push-push type socket so that the flash
memory can be quickly and easily removed. The Examiner's
reason to combine is supported by the understanding that
providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity
which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to
distinguished over the prior art.
Answer 9.
We have reviewed Appellant’s Specification and the teachings of
Poguntke cited by the Examiner and disagree the Examiner’s interpretation
of the term directed to an ejection mechanism to automatically eject a
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

7

storage device in response to detecting a fault in the storage device as recited
in independent claims 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 20.
Independent claim 1 recites “ejection mechanism configured to
automatically eject the at least one particular removable solid state data
storage device in response to the fault detection system detecting a fault in
the at least one particular removable solid state storage device.” Appellant’s
Specification does not specifically define the term “automatically eject,” but
does contrast automatic ejection with manual ejection, where automatic
ejection is based upon the sensed fault and manual ejection is initiated by the
user. See paras. 82, 89 and 98). Thus, when interpreted in light of the
specification, the limitation directed to “automatically eject a storage device
in response to the fault detection system detecting fault” is properly
interpreted as not having an intermediate manual step.
The teaching of Poguntke cited by the Examiner states that a second
push, by a person, will result in an automatic ejection, this automatic
ejection, this not in response to a detection circuit but rather in response to a
user input. As such, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Poguntke
teaches this limitation. We do however, note that Velez-McCaskey, relied
upon by the Examiner to reject claim 25, does teach this feature. Velez-
McCaskey states “[t]he chassis… includes an automatic disk eject feature
which facilitates identification and replacement of failed disks. … When the
storage system detects a failed disk in the array … the system controller
actuates the solenoid associated with the location of that disk and releases
the disk for ejection.” Col. 10. ll. 21–32. We find that this teaching of
ejecting disks coupled with the other references in the Examiner’s rejection
of representative claim 1, teaches and suggests the disputed feature of
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

8

automatically ejecting a storage device in response to the fault detection
system detecting fault. Accordingly, we amend the Examiner’s rejections to
include Velez-McCaskey as evidence of this disputed feature and designate
this rejection as a new rejection. We consider that the skilled artisan would
combine the automatic ejection as it facilitates identification and
replacement of the failed storage device, i.e. the combination is using a
known technique for its known purpose.
With regard to Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rationale to combine the references, we are not persuaded of error.
Appellant’s argument that the push in SIM card ejecting mechanism is un-
related to would and not function with Fitzgerald’s’ flash blade is merely
attorney argument and Appellant has not cited to evidence to support the
assertion that it is unrelated or would not work. It is well settled that mere
attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, Appellant’s arguments that
modifying Fitzgerald to include the ejection mechanism would reduce the
density of flash chips, which is contrary to Fitzgerald’s teaching of
increasing density, is also unpersuasive of error as it is unsupported by
evidence that it would increase the density. Further, even if it did result in a
decrease in chip density, this is offset by the facilitation of identifying faulty
chips. According, we are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments.
In summary, we modify the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
independent claims 1, 20, and dependent claims 2 through 5, 25, and 26 to
include Velez-McCaskey and adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the
un-argued limitations of these claims.
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

9

Independent claim 6
Appellant’s arguments directed to independent claim 6 present the
same issues discussed above with respect to Poguntke not teaching a fault
detection system and ejection mechanism configured to automatically eject a
removable solid state data storage device. App. Br. 18- 21. Further,
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided an adequate rationale to
combine Aswadhati and Poguntke. App Br. 20–21.
Similar to our discussion above we do not find that Poguntke teaches
or suggests fault detection system and ejection mechanism configured to
automatically eject a removable solid state data storage device.3 We are also
persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has provided
insufficient rationale to combine the references. The Examiner states:
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the
removable flash memories of Fitzgerald et al. and the fault
detection system of Gange et al. and to further include the
ejection mechanism of Poguntke in order to arrive at the current
invention. The motivation of doing so to utilize the usefulness
of push-push type socket so that the flash memory can be
automatically ejected by the spring mechanism for easy
memory removal.
Final Act. 17–18.
We consider this rationale to be insufficient as it addresses Fitzgerald, which
is not relied upon to reject claim 6 and does not address Aswadhati which is

3 While as noted above we find that Velez-McCaskey does teach the
disputed limitation. We decline exercising our discretion and enter a new
rejection amending the Examiner’s rejection as done above, as we are
persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error for additional reasons.
Appeal 2018-008201
Application 13/171,235

10

relied upon to reject independent claim 6. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 6 and the claims which depend
thereupon, claims 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 15, 18, and 19.
DECISION
We modify and affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims independent claims 1, 20, and dependent claims 2 through 5, 25, and
26 to include Velez-McCaskey. As such we designate the rejections of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as a new ground of rejection.
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent
claims 6 and dependent claims, 7, 9 through 11, 13 through 15, 18, and 19.
This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This section provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b)