Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 2012

10678893 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/678,893 10/02/2003 Robert C. Chang 10519/810 (SDK0439.001US) 2329 67813 7590 09/26/2012 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER TSAI, SHENG JEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2186 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte ROBERT C. CHANG, BAHMAN QAWAMI, and FARSHID SABET-SHARGHI _____________ Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRYAN F. MOORE, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 16-21, 23, 26-28, and 30-34. Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24, 25, 29, and 35-45 are cancelled. Br. 1-2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to enabling algorithms used to encode data that is to be written into blocks of a non-volatile memory to be dynamically switched. See Spec. 1. Abstract. Claims 4 and 6 are representative of the invention and are reproduced below: 4. A method for storing data within a non-volatile memory comprised of a plurality of blocks in an array formed on a semiconductor substrate, each of the plurality of blocks having an indicator indicative of whether the block is a reclaimed block, the method comprising: identifying a first block of the plurality of blocks into which the data is to be stored; responsive to the indicator associated with the first block meeting a criterion, encoding the data using a first error detection algorithm; then writing the encoded data into the first block; identifying a second block of the plurality of blocks into which data is to be stored; 1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 4, 2007 (“Br.”). Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 3 responsive to the indicator associated with the second block not meeting the criterion, encoding the data using a second error detection algorithm, the second error detection algorithm having a higher error detection capability than the first error detection algorithm; and then writing the encoded data into the second block. 6. A method for storing data within a non-volatile memory, comprised a plurality of blocks in an array formed on a semiconductor substrate, of a memory system, the method comprising: identifying one of the plurality of blocks into which the data is to be stored; obtaining an indicator associated with the identified block, the indicator having a value indicative of a number of times the first block has been erased; determining whether the indicator is less than a threshold value, responsive to the indicator being less than the threshold value, encoding the data using the first algorithm and then writing the data encoded using a first error detection algorithm into the identified block; responsive to the indicator not being less than the threshold value, encoding the data using a second algorithm and then writing the data encoded using a second error detection algorithm into the identified block, the second error detection algorithm having a higher error detection capability than the first error detection algorithm; repeating the identifying, obtaining, determining, encoding, and writing steps for another block in the array; [and] wherein, as a result of the repeating step, a first block in the array stores data encoded according to the first algorithm, and a second block in the array stores data encoded according to the second algorithm. Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 4 REFERENCES Bruce US 5,956,743 Sept. 21, 1999 Kramer US 6,182,239 B1 Jan. 30, 2001 Yada US 2002/0032891 A1 Mar. 14, 2002 Bassett US 6,747,827 B1 Jun. 8, 2004 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 16-17, 19, 21, 26, 28 and 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett and Yada. Ans. 3-13.2 Claims 3, 13, 23 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Yada, and Applicants’ admitted prior art (“AAPA”). Ans. 13-14. Claims 9, 10, 19-20, 27 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Yada, and Kramer. Ans. 14. Claims 7, 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Yada, and Bruce. Ans. 15-16. ISSUES 1. Should the preamble of claim 4 be given patentable weight and did the Examiner err in finding that Yada teaches or suggests the 2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated August 28, 2009 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 5 preamble limitation to “an indicator indicative of whether the block is a reclaimed block [?]” (Independent claim 4).3 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Yada teaches or suggests “an indicator associated with the identified block, the indicator having a value indicative of a number of times the first block has been erased [?]” (Independent claim 6).4 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Bassett and Yada Claims 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 16-17, 19, 21, 26, 28 and 31-33 Claim 4 We discern error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Independent claim 4 requires “an indicator indicative of whether the block is a reclaimed block [.]” Independent claim 21 contains a similar limitation. Appellants argue that the claimed phrase above, which appears in the preamble of claim 4, should be given patentable weight. Rep. Br. 2-3. We agree. “Whether to treat a preamble as a limitation is a determination ‘resolved only on review of the entire[ ] … patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.”’ Catalina Marketing Int'l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo 3 Appellants make additional arguments regarding claim 4. App. Br. 13. We do not reach these additional issues since this issue is dispositive as to claim 4. 4 Appellants make additional arguments regarding claim 6. App. Br. 15. We do not reach these additional issues since this issue is dispositive as to claim 6. Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 6 Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim. Id. (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Conversely, a preamble is not limiting “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The court in Catalina noted that although no litmus test exists for determining whether to treat a preamble as a limitation, several “guideposts” have emerged from the case law in this area. Id. In particular, guideposts tending to show that the preamble is a claim limitation include: Jepson claiming, dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis, when the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body, and when the preamble recites additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification. Id. On the other hand, the preamble might not constitute a claim limitation when the claim body describes such a structurally complete invention that deleting the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention. Id. at 809. Also, “preambles describing the use of an invention generally do not limit the claims because the patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure.” Id. The Examiner asserts that the term “’a reclaimed block’ only appears as part of preamble stating the purpose and intended use of claim 4, and the context of the body of the claim does not even refer to ‘a reclaimed block’ at Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 7 all . As such, the element ‘a reclaimed block’ does not carry weight.” A close review of claim 4, however, evidences that the second and fourth limitations in the claim’s body depend on the preamble for antecedent basis for the language, “the indicator.” The “indicator” is defined in the preamble as being “indicative of whether the block is a reclaimed block.” Therefore, the body of claim 17 sufficiently depends on the claim’s preamble to find that the preamble is an additional limitation of the claim. Appellants argue “that none of the asserted reference[s] disclose or suggest the existence of an indicator, associated with a block of a non- volatile memory, that is indicative of whether that block has been reclaimed, much less select an error detection algorithm responsive to this indicator, as claimed.” App. Br. 9-10. We are persuaded by this argument. As noted above, claim 4 requires that “an indicator indicative of whether the block is a reclaimed block.” The Examiner defines “reclaimed” as a “reused block.” Ans. 18-19. We find that the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad and inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. The Specification discloses that “reclaimed blocks may be in use. That is, blocks which were previously considered to be unusable blocks may be reclaimed for use after a rigorous testing process, particularly in the event that a pool of spare, usable blocks is insufficient.” Spec. p. 18, ll. 10-13. Thus, the Specification discloses that reclaimed blocks are blocks that were previously unusable. In addition, we find the plain English meaning of “reuse” is not equivalent to the meaning of “reclaim” at least because reuse does not encompass the concept of “claiming” something. The Examiner also equates reuse to “rewrite.” Ans. 19. Again, we find that the plain meaning Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 8 of reclaim is not equivalent to the meaning of rewrite. We construe the term “reclaimed block” to mean a block that was previously considered unusable. Given the above construction, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not recognize that Yada has an indicator of reclaimed blocks. Yada discloses that data that is likely to be frequently rewritten is stored in a specified storage area. Yada ¶ 29; see Ans. 18-19. However, whether data is frequently rewritten does not indicate whether a block of storage was previously considered unusable. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Claim 6 We discern error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Independent Claim 6 requires that “an indicator associated with the identified block, the indicator having a value indicative of a number of times the first block has been erased [.]” Independent claims 16, 26, and 33 contain a similar limitation. Appellants argue that “none of the asserted references teaches or suggests the encoding of data . . . responsive to an indicator having a value indicative of a number of times the block has been erased” App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellants argue, The “frequently-written” modifier [in Yada and relied on by the Examiner] . . . refers to how often one might expect that the data will be rewritten [rather than]…the physical block to which this data is to be written, much less to the previous history of such a block. Id. at 14. We are persuaded by this argument. Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 9 The Examiner finds that “Yada teaches the selection of a particular ECC method depends on the frequency of reuse of a memory block.” Ans. 23-24 (citing Yada ¶¶ 29, 42). We disagree. For example, the frequently- rewritten parameter in Yada refers to data that is likely to be rewritten (see Yada ¶ 16) rather than to a particular block of storage that has actually been rewritten a certain number of times as recited in claim 6. Id. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. 35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Bassett, Yada, and AAPA Claims 3, 13, 23 and 30 Claims 3 and 13 and 23 and 30 depend from claims 4, 6, and 21 respectively. They are rejected based on the same section of Yada discussed above. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 13, 23, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Yada, and AAPA. 35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Bassett, Yada, and Kramer Claims 9, 10, 19, 20, 27 and 34 Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20, and 27 and 34 depend from claims 6 and 21 respectively. They are rejected based on the same section of Yada discussed above. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 20, 27 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Yada, and Kramer. Appeal 2010-005225 Application 10/678,893 10 35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Bassett, Yada, and Bruce Claims 7, 8 and 18 Claims 7, 8 and 18 depend from claim 6. They are rejected based on the same section of Yada discussed above. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Yada, and Bruce. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3, 4, 6-11, 13, 16-21, 23, 26- 28, and 30-34 is reversed. REVERSED tj