Ex Parte Qiang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 201614250286 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 14/250,286 04/10/2014 Jian Qiang STL 18298.00 4893 64776 7590 HolzerlPLaw, P.C. 216 16th Street Suite 1350 Denver, CO 80202 12/23/2016 EXAMINER HINDI, NAB ILZ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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): docket @ holzeriplaw .com hiplaw@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JIAN QIANG, WEN XIANG XIE, LIBIN CAI, and ANDREW KOWLES Appeal 2016-004370 Application 14/250,286 Technology Center 2600 Before THU A. DANG, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2016-004370 Application 14/250,286 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 10—13 and 17—22. Claims 14—16 have been canceled. Claims 5—7, and 9 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to a “latency” as a “storage device performance measurement” (Spec. 14). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: comparing high-latency data sectors of a storage band, the high-latency data sectors having latency above a predetermined threshold, with target sectors for storing new data to determine one or more of the high-latency data sectors that may be skipped during retrieval of at-rest data from the storage band. C. REJECTION Claims 1—4, 8, 10-13 and 17—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hongawa et al. (US 8,411,386 B2; iss. Apr. 2, 2013). II. ISSUE The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in finding Hongawa discloses “comparing high-latency data sectors of a 2 Appeal 2016-004370 Application 14/250,286 storage band . . . with target sectors ... to determine one or more of the high-latency data sectors that may be skipped during retrieval of at-rest data from the storage band” (claim 1, emphases added). III. FINDINGS OF FACTS The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Hongawa Hongawa discloses a “data write control apparatus” (Abstract), wherein a retry control module 106 compares a threshold with a counter value (col. 5,11. 1—2) to detect a temporary defective sector, and then the defective-sector control module 104 temporarily excludes the temporary defective sector from the write process targets (col. 5,11. 13—19). Thus, the read/write control module 105 continues the write process with the temporary defective sector skipped” (col. 5,11. 24—25). IV. ANALYSIS Appellants contend “Hongawa is directed to a data write control apparatus and data write control methods” (App. Br. 8). According to Appellants, Hongawa is “silent regarding any read operations” and does not disclose “anything about ‘at-rest data’” (id). That is, “Hongawa is performing strictly write operations and ‘skipping’ only suspected defective sectors during the write operations” (id.). Given the “ordinary meaning of determining ‘high-latency sectors that may be skipped during retrieval of at- rest data,”’ Appellants contend Hongawa fails to teach the contested limitation (App. Br. 9). 3 Appeal 2016-004370 Application 14/250,286 Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 is anticipated by Hongawa under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). In particular, we agree with Appellants that the preponderance of evidence on this record fails to support the Examiner’s finding that Hongawa discloses determining “high-latency data sectors that may be skipped during retrieval of at-rest data from the storage band”, as required by claim 1. Although we agree with the Examiner that there is no definition for “at-rest data” in the original disclosure (Ans. 2), we find the Examiner’s interpretation of the term as “defective sectors reproduced during write operation to determine whether they are to be skipped” is overly broad and unreasonable. In particular, claim 1 requires that the “retrieval” of the data is ‘ from the storage band,” and giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation, we cannot agree with the Examiner that such write operation comprises retrieval of any at-rest data from a storage band. Hongawa discloses a data write control apparatus wherein a defective- sector control module temporarily excludes the temporary defective sector from the write process targets, and the write process continues with the temporary defective sector skipped (FF). We find no support in the cited sections of Hongawa of determination of data to be skipped during “retrieval . . . from the storage band” as required by claim 1. We are of the view that the Examiner has not fully developed the record to show express or inherent anticipation regarding the disputed limitations of claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).1 Therefore, we are 1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider whether claim 1 should instead be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and to 4 Appeal 2016-004370 Application 14/250,286 constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, and independent claims 13 and 18 argued therewith (App. Br. 11), over Hongawa, as well as claims 2-4, 8, 10-12, 17, and 19—22 respectively depending therefrom. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 8, 10—13 and 17—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). REVERSED explain how the above-discussed deficiencies of Hongawa would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation