Ex Parte Sheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 30, 2018

13915858 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/915,858 45510 7590 Haley Guiliano LLP 75 Broad Street Suite 1000 FILING DATE 06/12/2013 11/01/2018 NEW YORK, NY 10004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hongying Sheng 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. MP4844/004048-0316-101 8901 EXAMINER YU,HENRYW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2181 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2018 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): haleyguiliano_P AIR@firsttofile.com HGPatentDocket@hglaw.com DocketRequests@hglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HONGYING SHENG, P ANU CHAI CHANA VONG, and GREGORY BURD Appeal 2018-003 823 Application 13/915,858 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all the pending claims in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Marvell International Ltd. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal2018-003823 Application 13/915,858 THE INVENTION Appellants' claimed invention is directed to "an optimized process for transmitting decoded codewords read from the storage device to a host controller" (Spec. ,r 2). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of reading data from a storage device, the method comprising: reading, based on a read command, a first codeword and a second codeword from the storage device, wherein the second codeword is read after the first codeword according to the read command; decoding the first codeword and the second codeword in parallel, wherein the decoding of the second codeword completes before the decoding of the first codeword completes; and transmitting, to control circuitry, before the decoding of the first codeword completes, the decoded second codeword and a first signal indicating whether decoding of the second codeword is complete, wherein the first signal has a first length based on whether decoding of the second codeword is complete and successful and based on the size of the storage device sector in which the second codeword is located, and wherein the first signal has a second length based on whether decoding of the second codeword is complete and not successful. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is the following: Gupta Roberts us 5,715,262 US 6,192,465 Bl 2 Feb.3, 1998 Feb.20,2001 Appeal2018-003823 Application 13/915,858 Nguyen Goodyear Aerospace US 2004/0093485 Al GB 1526828 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: May 13, 2004 Oct. 4, 1978 Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Nguyen, in view of Roberts, Gupta, and Goodyear Aerospace (Final Act. 3). ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nguyen, Roberts, Gupta, and Goodyear Aerospace teaches or suggests the limitation of "transmitting, to control circuitry, before the decoding of the first codeword completes, the decoded second codeword and a first signal indicating whether decoding of the second codeword is complete," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 12. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that "Nguyen lacks any discussion of out-of-order decoding" and Nguyen's "[out-of-order] execution of multiple instructions is entirely irrelevant to the decoding of codewords" (App. Br. 9). Appellants contend "Nguyen's 'done control signal' merely indicates that execution of a decoded instruction is complete" (App. Br. 10, citing Nguyen ,r 265) and that "Nguyen's instructions (i.e., the alleged 'codewords') have already been decoded" in a first-in-first-out order (App. Br. 10, citing Nguyen ,r 258, 3 Appeal2018-003823 Application 13/915,858 EDecode 490). Appellants contend that even if Roberts is added to Nguyen, "all that the combination can show at best is decoding instructions in order (FIFO) and storing the decoded set of instructions into a reorder queue" (App. Br. 10-11, citing Roberts 6:1-5). We agree. The Examiner finds "Nguyen et al. discloses 'and transmitting, to control circuitry, before the decoding of the first codeword completes, the decoded second codeword and a first signal indicating whether decoding of the second codeword is compete (signal completion; Paragraph 0267)"' (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 6), and that "in this case both Nguyen et al. and Roberts pertain to the decoding of commands/instructions (the claims of the instant application are directed to decoding as opposed to the execution of instructions)" (Ans. 22, emphasis added). The Examiner appears to distinguish between "decoding" and the "execution of instructions," but does not explain why the cited portion of Nguyen regarding signaling a completion of an instruction execution would be considered by one of skilled in the art in conjunction with the teachings of the other references, particularly when Nguyen teaches decoding in a manner (FIFO) contradicting the claim language. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claim 12, and dependent claims 2-11 and 13-22. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Nguyen, Roberts, Gupta, and Goodyear Aerospace teaches or suggests the limitation of "transmitting, to control circuitry, before the decoding of the first codeword 4 Appeal2018-003823 Application 13/915,858 completes, the decoded second codeword and a first signal indicating whether decoding of the second codeword is complete," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 12. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 5