Ex Parte Roohparvar

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2014

11601107 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte FRANKIE F. ROOHPARVAR ____________________ Appeal 2012-002766 Application 11/601,107 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002766 Application 11/601,107 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–15 and 17–25. Claim 16 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellant, the invention relates to flash memory devices (Spec. 1, [0002]). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for implementing a memory block quality indication of a memory block in a system having an error correction code scheme, the method comprising: reading the memory block quality indication from a first memory block having a defect, wherein the quality indication is a predetermined code that indicates both: one of different types of memory defects and a quantity of memory cells of the first memory block that have that particular type of memory defect; and determining, in response to the error correction code scheme and the memory block quality indication, if the first memory block is in a usable condition. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Glover US 4,564,945 Jan. 14, 1986 Kishi US 2001/0036321 A1 Nov. 1, 2001 Herman US 6,883,126 B1 Apr. 19, 2005 Chen US 6,944,063 B2 Sept. 13, 2005 Claims 1–4, 6–15, and 17–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen and Herman. Appeal 2012-002766 Application 11/601,107 3 Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Herman and Glover. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, Herman and Kishi. II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Chen and Herman teaches or would have suggested “reading the memory block quality indication” wherein “the quality indication is a predetermined code” and “determining, in response to the error correction code scheme and the memory block quality indication, if the first memory block is in a usable condition” (claim 1, emphases added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Chen Chen discloses providing an error correction code (ECC) to correct errors in the cycle count data (col. 5, ll. 17–33), wherein the ECC is calculated from the block overhead data and stored with that data in the same block and the ECC is then used to verify the data when it is read (col. 11, ll. 20–25). IV. ANALYSIS Appellant contends Chen “does not teach a reading step” and thus does not “state any requirement that the ECC be read” (App. Br. 8). Instead, according to Appellant, “the ECC is determined as the data is being stored in the block” (id.). Thus, Appellant contends Chen “cannot disclose Appeal 2012-002766 Application 11/601,107 4 Appellant’s step of ‘reading the memory block quality indication from a first memory block having a defect, . . .’” (id.). Appellant then contends “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion from the combination [of Chen and Herman] that both a quality indication and an error correction code are required to be checked” (App. Br. 9). According to Appellant, “it would not have been obvious to combine the error memory information of Herman et al. with the ECC of Chen et al.” since “there is no indication in Herman et al. that an ECC is necessary or even possible to be used in the error memory that stores information regarding past errors” (App. Br. 10). However, the Examiner finds “Chen clearly teaches ‘a reading step’” (Ans. 15). The Examiner explains “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ECC is calculated and stored” wherein “[e]rror[s] are detected through reading the ECC and generating a syndrome code which will identify any bits in the protected data which may now be in error” (id.). The Examiner then finds since “Chen discloses ‘An error correction code (ECC) [that] is an example of such redundancy that may be provided in order to correct some errors’[,]” “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that redundancy information may include ECC and additional information, such as a history of errors detected” such as that disclosed in Herman (Ans. 17). We agree with the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Chen discloses providing an error correction code (ECC) that is calculated from the block overhead data and stored with that data in the same block, and using the ECC to verify the data when it is read (FF). That Appeal 2012-002766 Application 11/601,107 5 is, the stored ECC is read with the data to verify the data (id.). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s contention Chen “does not teach a reading step” (App. Br. 8), we find the preponderance of the evidence (FF) supports the Examiner’s finding “Chen clearly teaches ‘a reading step’” (Ans. 15). Further, although Appellant contends “it would not have been obvious to combine the error memory information of Herman et al. with the ECC of Chen et al.” (App. Br. 10), we agree with the Examiner’s finding “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that redundancy information may include ECC and additional information, such as a history of errors detected” such as that disclosed in Herman (Ans. 17). The Supreme Court has stated “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). We are not persuaded, and Appellant has presented no persuasive evidence that including additional information such as the history of errors detected as disclosed in Herman with the ECC as taught by Chen was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). The skilled artisan would be able to provide redundancy information that includes ECC and additional information, such as a history of errors detected, since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420- 21. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Chen and Herman. Appellant provides substantially the same arguments for independent claims 9 and 15 (App. Br. 10), and thus claims 9 Appeal 2012-002766 Application 11/601,107 6 and 15 fall with claim 1 over Chen and Herman. Appellant does not provide any substantial arguments for claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–14, and 17–24. Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–14, and 17–24 over Chen and Herman; of claim 5 over Chen and Herman in further view of Glover; and of claim 25 over Chen and Herman in further view of Kishi. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 and 17–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(iv). AFFIRMED cdc