Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

10679000 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

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.
10/679,000 10/02/2003 Robert C. Chang SANDP039 8920
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 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRYAN F. MOORE,
and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-25 and 27-31. Claim 26 is cancelled. Br. 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000

2
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method encoding data associated
with a page by dividing the page into segments and separately
encoding the segments using extended error correction code (ECC)
calculations. See Spec. Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:

1. A method for storing data associated with a page within a
non-volatile flash memory of a memory system, the page being
the smallest unit of programming in the non-volatile flash
memory, and having a data area and an overhead area, the
method comprising:
dividing at least a part of the page into at least a first
segment and a second segment;
encoding data associated with the first segment according
to a first error correction code (ECC) algorithm;
encoding data associated with the second segment
according to a second ECC algorithm, wherein the data
associated with the second segment is encoded substantially
separately from the data associated with the first segment; and
programming the page with the encoded data associated
with the first and second segments.

Appeal 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000

3
REFERENCES
Kramer US 6,182,239 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Katayama US 6,651,212 B1 Nov. 18, 2003
Zhang US 6,662,333 B1 Dec. 9, 2003
Bassett US 6,747,827 B1 Jun. 8, 2004

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 15, 21, 23, 27-28 and 31 stand provisionally
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 3, 6, 9 and 10 of co-pending
Application No. 10/678,893. Ans. 3-8.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20, 22-25 and 27-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett and
Katayama. Ans. 9-14.
Claims 4-5 and 15-161 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Katayama, and Zhang. Ans.
14-16.
Claims 10, 21 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bassett, Katayama, and Kramer. Ans.
16-17.

ISSUES
1. Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence
that the claims rejected in each of the provisional obviousness-type

1 The Answer contains a typographic error and lists claim 26 as being
rejected (Ans. 14) but the record shows that claim 26 is cancelled. See Final
Rejection at 2; App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000

4
double patenting rejections is rendered obvious by the claims cited
in each of the copending applications?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Bassett and Katayama are
combinable and that those references collectively teach or suggest
“encoding data associated with the first segment according to a
first error correction code (ECC) algorithm; [and,] encoding data
associated with the second segment according to a second ECC
algorithm [?]” (Independent claim 1).

ANALYSIS
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting – Copending Application No.
10/678,893 – Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 15, 21, 23, 27-28 and 31
We discern error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-
11, 15, 21, 23, 27-28 and 31. The Examiner has provisionally rejected those
claims for obviousness-type double patenting on the basis that they are not
patentably distinct from some of the claims of Application No. 10/678,893.
Ans. 3-8. Claim 1 recites encoding data associated with a first and second
segment, where a segment is at least part of a page and a page is “the
smallest unit of programming in the non-volatile flash memory.” The
Examiner finds that “the first block and the second block [in co-pending
claim 4] are the corresponding first segment and the second segment,
respectively” id. at 18, and that “every non-volatile flash memory inherently
has a smallest unit of programming, which may be referred to by various
terms, such as page, sector, segment, block, or whatever, since there is no
standardized term in the art for ‘the smallest unit of programming.’” Id. at 9.
Appeal 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000

5
Appellants contend that “the segment and page of a non-volatile
memory recited in the claims in this application are different from the blocks
of co-pending application S.N. 10/678,893, and that therefore the Examiner
is incorrect in determining that the terms are interchangeable.” App. Br. 6.
We find that the Examiner has not adequately explained how claims
on appeal define an obvious variant of the cited claims of the co-pending
application. The claims on appeal require an encoding of data associated
with a first segment of a page of a non-volatile memory according to a first
error correction code (ECC) algorithm. Claim 1. The Examiner has not
pointed to any claims of the co-pending application that require this
property. Further, the Examiner has not provided an adequate basis,
supported by evidence or sound scientific or logical reasoning, to support a
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill would have considered it obvious
to modify the encoding of the co-pending application as recited in the claims
on appeal. Specifically, the Examiner provides no evidence to support the
assertion that “every non-volatile flash memory inherently has a smallest
unit of programming, which may be referred to by various terms, such as
page, sector, segment, block . . . .” See Ans. 18. Thus, the double patenting
rejection is reversed.

35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Bassett and Katayama
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20, 22-25 and 27-30
Independent Claim 1 requires that “encoding data associated with the
first segment according to a first error correction code (ECC) algorithm;
[and,] encoding data associated with the second segment according to a
Appeal 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000

6
second ECC algorithm.” Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20, 22-25 and 27-30
are not argued separately and stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue that “the rejection is based on the Examiner's
assertion that the Katayama et al. reference teaches the applying of different
ECC algorithms to different blocks of a flash memory disk . . . [however,]
the Katayama et al. reference does not teach what the Examiner says it
teaches.” App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded by this argument. The
Examiner uses the Bassett reference to show applying of different ECC
algorithms to different locations on a disk (Bassett, Abstract) and uses
Katayama to show applying two different ECC algorithms to data stored on
a flash memory (Katayama, Abstract). Ans. 21-22. Based on these textual
portions in Bassett and Katayama, we agree with the Examiner that an
ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the claimed invention would have
understood that the references collectively teach applying different ECC
algorithms to different blocks of a flash memory disk. See Ans. 21-22.
Thus, we find that the combination of Bassett and Katayama collectively
teaches “encoding data associated with the first segment according to a first
error correction code (ECC) algorithm; [and,] encoding data associated with
the second segment according to a second ECC algorithm [,]” as recited in
independent claim 1.
Appellants also argue that “the Examiner’s contention that it would
have been obvious to apply the teachings of the Bassett et al. reference to a
flash memory is not based on an articulation of valid reasoning, with at least
some rational and valid underpinning, as is required to support a § 103
rejection.” App. Br. 12-13; See also, KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 419 (2007).
Appeal 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000

7
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
stated suggestions for modifying Bassett and Katayama suffice as articulated
reasons with some rational underpinning to justify the legal conclusion of
obviousness. That is, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the art of
data storage error recovery, at the time of the claimed invention, would have
combined Bassett and Katayama because the proffered combination would
“result in more efficient utilization of the disk’s storage capacity” (Ans. 23
(citing Bassett, Col. 4, ll. 44-47)). Appellants do not dispute that “the ECC
algorithms disclosed by the Bassett et al. and Katayama et al. references are
general ECC algorithms that are well known in the art, and can be applied to
digital data regardless of whether such data is stored in a disk or in a flash
memory.” Rep. Br. 11. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Bassett
and Katayama “are closely related to each other in applying multiple ECC
algorithms to stored data, and would benefit from each other’s techniques to
achieve a better way of applying multiple ECC algorithms to data.” Ans. 22.
For the reason stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 17-20, 22-25 and 27-30 under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bassett and
Katayama.

35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Bassett, Katayama, and Zhang
Claims 4-5 and 15-16
Claims 4-5 and 15-16, not separately argued, depend from claims 1,
11, and 23 respectively and stand or fall with those claims. Thus, for the
reasons stated above, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4-5 and
Appeal 2010-005905
Application 10/679,000

8
15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Bassett, Katayama, and Zhang.

35 U.S.C. 103(a) – Bassett, Katayama, and Kramer
Claims 10, 21 and 31
Claims 10, 21, and 31, not separately argued, depend from claims 1,
11, and 23 respectively and stand or fall with those claims. Thus, for the
reasons stated above, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10, 21 and
31 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Bassett, Katayama, and Kramer.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-25 and 27-31 is affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).
AFFIRMED

msc