Micron Technology, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 11, 2021

2020000144 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2021)

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.
14/874,841 10/05/2015 Niels Reimers 010829-9133.US00 2974
46844 7590 05/11/2021
PERKINS COIE LLP - Micron
PATENT-SEA
PO BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
EXAMINER
BANSAL, GURTEJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2021 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIELS REIMERS
Appeal 2020-000144
Application 14/874,841
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–8 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), claims 9–20
have been withdrawn from consideration.1 See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Micron Technology,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Oct. 5, 2015; and
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed May 20, 2019. We also refer to the
Appeal 2020-000144
Application 14/874,841
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally
“relate[s] to memory devices and systems, and, in particular, to solid state
storage devices (SSDs) having a variable logical memory capacity based on
memory lifecycle.” Spec. ¶ 1. More specifically, Appellant’s claimed
memory device includes multiple memory regions that collectively define a
physical memory capacity and a controller that advertises the logical
memory capacity to a host device. The controller may also determine that
one or more of the memory regions is at or near its end of life and, when it
makes such a determination, the controller sends a notification to a host
device that the logical memory capacity of the memory device will be
reduced. Subsequent to the sending of the message, the controller retires the
memory region(s). See Spec. ¶¶ 9, 10, 28–31; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed
to a memory device), reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A memory device, comprising:
a plurality of memory regions collectively defining a
physical memory capacity; and
a controller operably coupled to the memory regions,
wherein the controller is configured to—
advertise a first logical memory capacity to a host
device, wherein the first logical memory capacity is less than the
physical memory capacity,
determine that at least one of the memory regions is at
or near end of life,
in response to the determination:

Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Jan. 7, 2019; and
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 26, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000144
Application 14/874,841
3
send a notification to the host device that a logical
memory capacity of the memory device will be reduced,
after sending the notification, retire the at least one
of the memory regions, and
reduce the logical memory capacity of the memory
device to a second logical memory capacity that is less than the
first logical memory capacity, whereby the memory device with
the reduced logical capacity is recognized as a different device
by the host device.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Oh US 2015/0131379 A1 May 14, 2015
Nazari et al. (“Nazari”) US 2016/0092121 A1 Mar. 31, 2016
(filed Sept. 26, 2014)
Hashimoto US 2016/0117104 A1 Apr. 28, 2016
(filed Oct. 28, 2014)

REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hashimoto. See
Final Act. 2–3.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Nazari. See Final Act. 3–5.

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the present
application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March
16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2), and 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-000144
Application 14/874,841
4
3. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hashimoto and Oh. See Final Act. 5.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 8
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as dependent
claims 2 and 8) as anticipated by Hashimoto. See Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3–6.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hashimoto discloses every feature of
claim 1, including the disputed limitation of the controller determining that a
memory region is at its end of life and, “in response to the determination”
“send[ing] a notification to the host device that a logical memory capacity of
the memory device will be reduced” (Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (claim 1)).
See Final Act. 2–3. More specifically, the Examiner finds that Hashimoto
discloses acknowledgements that meet the disputed limitation. See Final
Act. 3 (citing Hashimoto ¶¶ 16, 17, 22, 23, 25); Ans. 3–6 (citing Hashimoto
¶¶ 16, 17, 20–23). Appellant contends that Hashimoto does not disclose the
disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 3–6. Specifically, Appellant
contends, inter alia, that:
Hashimoto discloses that the SSD controller 120 responds to the
Reconstruct API command by returning “an acknowledgement
of receipt to host 10” before the controller 120 scans for bad
blocks (i.e., as shown in box 750, right column of Figure 7 of
Hashimoto). As such, the Hashimoto acknowledgement of
receipt cannot be in response to the claimed determination made
by the controller that one or more memory regions are at or near
end of life. Hashimoto is otherwise silent regarding any
communications from the controller 120 to the host 10 until
returning target logical capacity at 780 (i.e., after reformatting
the drive at 770), which cannot be the claimed notification that
the logical memory capacity will be reduced.
Appeal Br. 6 (footnote and citation omitted).
Appeal 2020-000144
Application 14/874,841
5
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of
Hashimoto do not disclose the controller determining that a memory region
is at its end of life and in response to that determination “send[ing] a
notification to the host device that a logical memory capacity of the memory
device will be reduced” (Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.) (claim 1). That is, the
controller of the memory device sends a notification that the memory
capacity will be reduced after the controller makes a determination to reduce
the memory capacity (retire a portion of the memory) and, after sending the
notification, the controller retires a portion of the memory. Hashimoto’s
drive controller does send an acknowledgement (of receipt of the
Reconstruct API) to the host computer. See Hashimoto ¶¶ 17, 22. However,
as pointed out by Appellant, Hashimoto’s acknowledgement does not
indicate that the memory capacity will be reduced, and the
acknowledgement is sent prior to the drive controller scanning for bad
blocks (portions) of memory (i.e., making a determination to reduce memory
capacity). See Appeal Br. 3–6; Hashimoto ¶¶ 17, 22.
The Examiner has not shown Hashimoto discloses the disputed
features of claim 1. To anticipate a prior art reference must “disclose all
elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, and it must
disclose those elements arranged as in the claim.” Microsoft Corp. v.
Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation
marks omitted). See Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236
(Fed. Cir. 1989); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Manual Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”)
§ 2131.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Hashimoto anticipates Appellant’s claim 1.
Appeal 2020-000144
Application 14/874,841
6
Dependent claims 2 and 8 depend from and stand with claim 1.
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1 and we reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 8.
Obviousness Rejections of Claims 3–7
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 3–6 as obvious over
Hashimoto and Nazari. See Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner also rejects
dependent claim 7 as obvious over Hashimoto and Oh. See Final Act. 5. In
each rejection, the Examiner relies on Hashimoto to teach the notification
limitation of independent claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1
(supra), Hashimoto does not teach such a notification. The Examiner does
not find, nor do we do not find, that the additional cited references (Nazari
and Oh) cure the deficiencies of Hashimoto (supra). Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3–7 for the same
reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2,
and 8 as being anticipated by Hashimoto (under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) or 35
U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)). Appellant has also shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8.
Appeal 2020-000144
Application 14/874,841
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 8 102 (a)(1) or
102(a)(2)
Hashimoto 1, 2, 8
3–6 103 Hashimoto, Nazari 3–6
7 103 Hashimoto, Oh 7
Overall
Outcome
1–8

REVERSED