Ex Parte Ebsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13011228 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/011,228 0112112011
27365 7590 04/02/2018
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC
C/O WESTMAN, CHAMPLIN & KOEHLER, P.A.
SUITE 1400
900 SECOND A VENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3244
David S. Ebsen
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.
SOl.12-1473/STL 16563 4251
EXAMINER
LI, SIDNEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
docketing@wck.com
tsorbel@wck.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteDAVID S. EBSEN and RYAN J. GOSS
Appeal2016-006410
Application 13/011,228
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 3 5 U.S. C. § 134( a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-5, 8-13, 16, and 21, which are all the claims pending in this
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a memory including multiple garbage
collection units and "a controller that determines whether to select a garbage
collection unit of the multiple garbage collection units for garbage collection
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Seagate Technology
LLC. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, and 17-20 have been cancelled. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal2016-006410
Application 13/011,228
based on a variable threshold number of the multiple garbage collection
units to garbage collect." Spec. if 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention
and reads as follows:
1. A memory comprising:
a plurality of physical garbage collection units divided
into different usage groups with each of the different usage
groups comprising one or more different ones of the plurality of
garbage collection units; and
a controller configured to perform just in time garbage
collection of the plurality of physical garbage collection units
by:
monitoring erased garbage collection unit usage in
the different usage groups;
scheduling garbage collection requests for
submission to a particular one of the different usage
groups based on the erased garbage collection unit usage
within the particular usage group;
assigning a higher garbage collection priority to
the particular usage group if a demand for garbage
collection units within the particular usage group
increases relative to a demand for garbage collection
units within other ones of the usage groups; and
if erased garbage collection units are unavailable
in the particular usage group after the particular usage
group is assigned the higher garbage collection priority,
increasing a variable threshold number of erased garbage
collection units for the particular usage group, and
wherein the controller is further configured to alter the
variable threshold number of erased garbage collection units for
the particular usage group in response an erased garbage
collection unit count in the particular usage group passing the
variable threshold number of erased garbage collection units for
the particular usage group.
2
Appeal2016-006410
Application 13/011,228
The Examiner's Answer relies on the following prior art references:
Dus sud
Olbrich
Vengerov
US 2008/0281885 Al
US 2009/0172258 Al
US 2011/0107050 Al
Nov. 13, 2008
July 2, 2009
May 5, 2011
Claims 1--4, 10-13, 16, and2lstandrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over 0 lbrich and Vengerov. See Ans. 4--13. 3
Claims 5, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olbrich, Vengerov, and Dussud. See Ans. 13-16. 4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in fmding Olbrich discloses "assigning a
higher garbage collection priority to the particular usage group if a demand
for garbage collection units within the particular usage group increases
relative to a demand for garbage collection units within other ones of the
usage groups," as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner initially maps the disputed claim limitation to the
critical garbage collector mode of Olbrich and the Flash HEMi which shifts
into critical mode. See Ans. 6 (citing Olbrich iii! 953, 954). The Examiner
also fmds Vengerov teaches increasing a variable threshold number of
erased garbage collection units for the particular usage group if those units
are unavailable in that group after it is assigned a higher priority. Id. (citing
3 This ground of rejection in the Final Action included claims 17, 19, and20,
which were subsequently canceled by Appellants.
4 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 17 under 35U.S.C.§l12(a)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph. Ans. 17.
3
Appeal2016-006410
Application 13/011,228
Vengerov if 27). In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner
explains that Olbrich does not limit garbage collection to one HEMi (Ans.
18) and that "[t]he controller 'assigns a higher garbage collection priority to
the particular usage group' by shifting Flash HEMi of the particular group
into critical garbage collection mode." Ans. 19. The Examiner further
explains Vengerov was relied on for teaching "changing the threshold
[numberofunits] based on observations and measurements." Id.
As argued by Appellants, the cited portions of 0 lbrich and the
embodiment shown in Figure 3 teach "all the Flash HEMis are in SSD
controller 106," which means each Flash memory group has its own HEMi.
Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Olbrich Abstract, if 947). Appellants also refer to
Figure 29 of Olbrich for showing that garbage collection operation is
performed independently in each Flash memory group. Reply Br. 4.
Similar to Olbrich, the cited portions ofVengerov disclose
"adaptively adjusting the free memory threshold at which a garbage
collection routine is invoked" and "adjusting Startup Threshold are
calculated---one based simply on the previous Startup Threshold, and one
based on the observations and measurements regarding memory drops and
standard deviation." See Vengerov iii! 24, 2 7. We therefore are persuaded
by Appellants' contention that Vengerov does not provide the disputed
limitation related to increasing a variable threshold number of erased
garbage collection units when erased units are unavailable. Absent further
explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited teachings and
the combination ofOlbrich and Vengerov teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 1.
4
Appeal2016-006410
Application 13/011,228
Because the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Independent claim 10 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. The Examiner
does not rely on Dussud to teach or suggest the missing limitation. See Ans.
13-16. Therefore, for similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 10. We also do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of corresponding dependent claims 2-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, and 21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-5, 8-13, 16,
and 21.
REVERSED
5