Ex Parte Ryu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613459008 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 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. 13/459,008 04/27/2012 In Sik Ryu 1000-STL22792 1897 12675 7590 12/27/2016 Cesari & Reed, LLP - Seagate Technology LLC 1114 Lost Creek Boulevard Suite 430 Austin, TX 78746 EXAMINER LI, SIDNEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2136 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): usptomail@cesari-reed.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IN SIK RYU and SE WOOK NA Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11—15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31—38. Claims 1—10, 16, 19—24, 27, and 30 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention redirects data writes. In one embodiment, a controller receives a command including write and address data identifying target zone of a data storage medium. The system determines whether the target zone contains sufficient available data sectors to store the write data and, if not, the write data is recorded to a common area of a different zone. See generally Abstract. Claim 11 is illustrative: Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 11. An apparatus comprising: a data storage medium including multiple physical bands, each of the physical bands including multiple data segments for storing data, the physical bands organized into zones of multiple physicals bands; a controller system configured to; manage an allocation queue to store information on used physical bands that contain valid data; manage a free queue to store information on available physical bands for each zone, an available physical band is a physical band with no valid data; manage a garbage queue to store information on physical bands that are to be merged during a merge operation for securing a writable area; mange a common physical band queue to store information on common physical bands to be assigned when an intended zone has an insufficient storage capacity, the common physical bands in the common physical band queue not having an assigned zone; receive a command including write data and address data identifying a target zone; determine whether the target zone contains sufficient available data sectors to store the write data; and record the write data to a selected physical band from the common physical band queue when the target zone does not contain sufficient available data sectors and when there is no available physical band in a specific zone, the selected physical band from the common physical band queue is assigned to the specific zone. 2 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 2-4.1 The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 332 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as indefinite. Ans. 4—6. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 12, 17, 18, 25, 31, 32, and 35—38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dudgeon (US 2011/0072230 Al; Mar. 24, 2011), Beardsley (US 6,173,360 Bl; Jan. 9, 2001), and Ryu (US 2010/0325384 Al; Dec. 23, 2010). Ans. 6-12. The Examiner rejected claims 13, 26, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dudgeon, Beardsley, Ryu, and Che (US 2006/0227449 Al; Oct. 12, 2006). Ans. 12-15. The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dudgeon, Beardsley, Ryu, Che, and France (US 2008/0279005 Al; Nov. 13,2008). Ans. 15-17. The Examiner rejected claims 28,3 29, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dudgeon, Beardsley, Ryu, and France. Ans. 17-18. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to: (1) the Appeal Brief filed December 14, 2014 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 6, 2015 (“Ans.”); and, (3) the Reply Brief filed May 5, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 2 Although the Examiner includes claims 1 and 29 in this rejection (Ans. 4), claim 1 was cancelled, and the Examiner withdrew the indefmiteness rejection of claim 29. See Ans. 18—19, 23—24. Accordingly, we omit those claims here, and present the correct claim listing for clarity. 3 Although the Examiner includes claim 18 in the statement of this rejection, the Examiner nonetheless refers to claim 28 in the corresponding discussion. 3 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION The Examiner finds that Appellants’ original disclosure does not support shingling data tracks of multiple zones or physical bands in a manner such that a written or first track partially overlaps a preceding track as recited in claims 13 and 33, respectively. Ans. 3^4. According to the Examiner, there is no support in the original disclosure for writing data from different zones or bands together in a shingled manner, but rather shingling tracks only within a virtual band. Ans. 3, 20—21. Appellants argue that the claims recite multiple bands or zones, where each band or zone has multiple data tracks, and data tracks of the multiple bands or zones are shingled. App. Br. 5—7; Reply Br. 3. As such, Appellants contend, skilled artisans would not conclude from the original disclosure that the claims are directed to tracks of one band or zone overlapping tracks of another band or zone. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred by finding that Appellants’ original disclosure does not convey with reasonable clarity that Appellant possessed shingling data tracks of multiple zones or physical bands in a manner such that a written or first track partially overlaps a preceding track as recited in claims 13 and 33? See Ans. 17. Accordingly, we presume, as do Appellants (App. Br. 19), that the Examiner intended to so reject claim 28, and we, therefore, present the correct claim listing here for clarity. 4 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 ANALYSIS On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 13 and 33. Claim 13 depends from claim 12, which depends from independent claim 11. Claim 11 recites, in pertinent part, a data storage medium including multiple physical bands, each physical band including multiple data segments for storing data, the physical bands organized into zones of multiple physical bands. Claim 12 adds that the segments are data tracks on the data storage medium, each data track including multiple data sectors. Notably, claim 13 adds that data tracks of multiple4 zones are shingled in a manner such that a written track partially overlaps a preceding track. Our emphasis underscores that claim 13 does not merely recite shingling data tracks, but rather shingling data tracks of multiple zones. It is this particular aspect of the shingled data tracks that the Examiner finds is unsupported by Appellants’ original disclosure, and, in particular, pages 14 and 15 of the Specification, which is said to disclose shingling tracks only within a virtual band—not across multiple zones. See Ans. 3, 21. The quoted passage from the Specification’s pages 14 and 15—a passage that Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 6)—notes that data may be written into each virtual band based on a shingled write operation to increase write density. Spec. 14:23—24. To this end, data may be written in an arrow 4 Although claim 13 recites “multiples zones” [sic], we presume that the term “multiples” is a typographical error and is intended to recite “multiple” for proper grammatical form consistent with the commensurate recitation in claim 33. 5 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 direction into the tracks contained in a virtual band while being overlapped with a partial area of a previous track as shown in Figures 5A and 5B. Spec. 14:24—15:6. This passage, however, says nothing about shingling data tracks of multiple zones, but rather shingling tracks in a virtual band. Notably, Appellants’ Specification indicates that a virtual band in a zone is also referred to as a physical band. Spec. 11:14—15. So, although claims 11 and 12 (from which claim 13 depends) recite plural zones of multiple physical bands, where each band includes multiple data tracks, the Specification, at best, discloses shingling data tracks in one such band and, therefore, shingling tracks of one associated zone. We reach a similar conclusion regarding claim 33, which recites shingling data tracks of multiple physical bands such that a first track partially overlaps a preceding track. Here again, the Specification does not convey with reasonable clarity the recited multi-band shingling, but rather shingling in a single band. Accord Ans. 4 (noting that Appellants’ Specification does not support shingling data tracks from different bands). To the extent shingling tracks of multiple zones or bands would have been obvious from the relied-upon passages from original disclosure, such a factor is not dispositive. It is well settled that although the written description requirement under § 112 does not demand any particular form of disclosure or require a verbatim recitation, a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the requirement. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citations omitted). Therefore, to the extent that Appellants contend that the recited shingling of data tracks of multiple zones or bands would have been obvious 6 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 from the cited passages from the original disclosure, such a position is unavailing in light of Ariad. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13 and 33 under § 112(a), or pre-AIA § 112, first paragraph. THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 13 and 33. Ans. 4—6. Although the Examiner finds that it is unclear which data tracks are referred to in these claims, namely all, some, or a selected amount of these tracks (Ans. 5, 21—22), the claim need not so specify. Rather, claims 13 and 33 merely broadly recite that the data tracks of multiple zones or bands are shingled—zones and bands that are clearly specified in independent claims 11 and 31 from which claims 13 and 33 ultimately depend. That claims 13 and 33 are broad in scope does not mean that they are indefinite. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not indefmiteness.”). So, although Appellants’ original disclosure does not convey with reasonable clarity that Appellants possessed the subject matter of claims 13 and 33 under § 112(a) as noted above, we conclude that these claims are nonetheless sufficiently clear to satisfy the definiteness requirement under § 112(b). Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13 and 33 as indefinite under § 112(b). 7 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 THE REJECTION OVER DUDGEON, BEARDSLEY, AND RYU Regarding claim 11, the Examiner finds that Dudgeon discloses a data storage medium with physical bands or volumes, each of which includes multiple data segments for storing data, and the bands organized into zones of multiple physical bands. Ans. 6—7. The Examiner also finds that Dudgeon determines whether a target zone contains sufficient available data sectors to store received write data, and records the write data to a selected physical band from a common physical band queue when (1) the target zone does not contain sufficient available data sectors, and (2) there is no available physical band in a specific zone, the selected physical band from the common physical band queue is assigned to the specific zone. Ans. 7—8. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Dudgeon does not teach explicitly that volumes are bands, and lacks the three recited queue management functions, the Examiner cites Beardsley and Ryu for teaching these respective elements in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 8—10. Appellants argue that Dudgeon does not record received write data to a selected physical band from the common physical band queue when the target zone does not contain sufficient available data sectors, let alone assign the selected physical band from that queue when there is no available physical band in a zone as claimed. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants further contend that Ryu does not manage the recited free and garbage queues. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—8. According to Appellants, Ryu’s free queue stores information on free and occupied physical sectors of a storage medium—not available physical bands for each zone. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—6. Appellants add that Ryu’s garbage queue is not 8 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 directed to a physical band of multiple data segments, and does not store information on sectors that are to be merged during a merge operation as claimed. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6—8. Lastly, Appellants contend that the Examiner provides no rationale why or how skilled artisans would combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention apart from conclusory statements and impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 12—14. Appellants argue various other recited limitations summarized below. ISSUES I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Dudgeon, Beardsley, and Ryu collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) the recited determination, recording, and free and garbage queue management functions recited in claim 11? (2) the segments are data tracks on the data storage medium, each track including multiple data sectors as recited in claim 12? (3) a controller system configured to assign the selected physical band from the common physical band queue to the target zone as recited in claim 35? II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? 9 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 ANALYSIS Claims 11, 17, 18, 25, and 31 On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 11. In the rejection, the Examiner relies on Dudgeon for teaching many elements of claim 11, including the recited data storage medium, and controller system functions including, among other things, (1) determining whether the target zone contains sufficient available data sectors to store received write data, and (2) recording the write data to a selected physical band form the common physical band queue, as claimed. Ans. 6—8, 25—26. The Examiner, however, acknowledges that Dudgeon’s functionality is described in terms of storage volumes—not bands—but nevertheless cites Beardsley for teaching that such volumes are bands in concluding that the recited band-based functionality would have been obvious. Id. We see no error in this conclusion, particularly in light of Beardsley’s column 7, lines 2 to 6 defining a “volume” as a portion of a unit of storage including, among other things, a group of tracks—a definition commensurate with the present application’s physical bands which, under the terms of claims 11 and 12, includes multiple data segments, namely data tracks. See also Beardsley, col. 1,11. 28—32 (noting that contiguous cylinders of a storage device with 500 tracks may be grouped together into “bands”). Given the collective teachings of Dudgeon and Beardsley, then, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Dudgeon determines whether there is insufficient free storage space and, if so, adds storage space, namely volumes, and at least suggests writing to that space by redriving the I/O or restarting the affected application. Ans. 6—7, 25 (citing Dudgeon || 33, 43). 10 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 Although Dudgeon does not state explicitly that this tree-space determination is with respect to received write data as Appellants contend (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4—5), Dudgeon nonetheless at least suggests as much given that skilled artisans would understand that the determined free space would be so used, namely to store data written to that space. That these added volumes could be expressed in terms of physical bands in light of Beardsley as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 8, 25—26) has at least a rational basis that has not been persuasively rebutted on this record. To the extent Appellants contend that the Dudgeon/Beardsley system lacks specific zones of multiple physical bands (see App. Br. 10—11; Reply Br. 4—5), such an argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not preclude the volume-based zones in the Dudgeon/Beardsley system. See Dudgeon Fig. 2. Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on the functionality associated with Dudgeon’s overflow storage group 204 that, when combined with Beardsley, at least suggests assigning a selected physical band from a common physical band queue to a specific zone. See Ans. 8, 25—26. As shown in Dudgeon’s Figure 2, overflow storage group 205 comprises unused volumes that may be added to active storage groups 202 as needed—functionality that at least suggests the recited assignment from a common physical band queue. Dudgeon 131; Fig. 2. Although Dudgeon does not determine explicitly whether there is an available physical band in connection with this functionality as Appellants contend (Reply Br. 5), but rather an available physical volume, the Examiner’s findings in this regard are not based solely on Dudgeon, but rather the combination of Dudgeon and Beardsley. Appellants’ arguments regarding Dudgeon’s 11 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 individual shortcomings in this regard, then, do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We likewise find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Ryu and Beardsley for teaching managing a free queue to store information on available physical bands for each zone, as claimed. Ans. 9, 27—28. Notably, the claim does not specify how the free queue is managed apart from reciting, quite broadly, that it is managed to store certain information. In any event, despite Appellants’ contention that Ryu’s free queue stores information on free and occupied physical sectors of a storage medium—not available physical bands for each zone (App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 5—6)— the Examiner’s findings in this regard are not based solely on Ryu, but also Beardsley. See Ans. 28 (noting that combining Beardsley with Ryu results in queues holding information with respect to bands). Therefore, Appellants’ arguments regarding Dudgeon’s individual shortcomings regarding the recited free queue management function do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Ryu’s garbage queue 303 in paragraph 67 and Beardsley for teaching managing a garbage queue to store information on physical bands that are to be merged during a merge operation for securing a writable area. Ans. 9, 29—30. Our emphasis underscores that claim 11 does not recite a specific physical-band merge function, but rather that these bands are to be merged at some unspecified future time. Nor does the claim specify how the garbage queue is managed 12 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 apart from reciting, quite broadly, that it is managed to store certain information, as is the case with the recited free queue. Appellants’ arguments, then, that Ryu’s garbage queue is not directed to a physical band of data segments, and does not store information on sectors that are to be merged during a merge operation (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6—7) are not germane to the Examiner’s findings in this regard which are not based on Ryu alone, but rather Ryu and Beardsley collectively. And to the extent Appellants contend that the information stored in the Ryu/Beardsley garbage queue does not pertain to a merge operation, such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which recites no such function, but rather an intended use of the stored information at some unspecified future time. Nor have Appellants shown with persuasive evidence that the Ryu/Beardsley garbage queue would be incapable of such information storage and management. Moreover, despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 12—14), we see no error in the Examiner’s articulated reason to combine the cited references, namely to improve data management efficiency. Ans. 9— 10. It is well settled that “[a]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). On this record, we see no reason why providing functionality to manage information in free and garbage queues in the Dudgeon/Beardsley 13 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 system would not at least contribute to improving data management efficiency as the Examiner proposes—a predictable result. Such an enhancement merely uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). To the extent Appellants contend that Dudgeon’s techniques would be inapplicable to physical bands such as those disclosed by Beardsley, or that such an application would have been beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, no such evidence has been provided on this record to substantiate such a theory. On this record, then, the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.5 Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11, and claims 17, 18, 25, and 31 not argued separately with particularity.6 5 Because we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based on the teachings of the references themselves and what they would have suggested to ordinarily skilled artisans, we need not reach the question of whether the Examiner allegedly took Official Notice in the Answer to constitute a new ground of rejection as Appellants assert on pages 7 and 8 of the Reply Brief. 6 Although Appellants nominally argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 25 and 31 separately (see App. Br. 15—16), Appellants reiterate arguments similar to those for claim 11 which we find to be unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed. We, therefore, group these claims with claim 11. 14 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 Claims 12, 32, and 36—38 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 reciting that the segments are data tracks on the data storage medium, each track including multiple data sectors. Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 14—15), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Ryu’s paragraphs 56 and 64 for teaching the recited track sectors in combination with the Dudgeon and Beardsley. See Ans. 10, 30-31. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner’s position. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12, and claims 32 and 36—38 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 35 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 35 reciting that the controller system is configured to assign the selected physical band from the common physical band queue to the target zone. Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 16—17) and for the reasons noted previously, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Dudgeon and Beardsley for collectively teaching the recited assignment. See Ans. 11,35 (citing Dudgeon 132 and Beardsley for teaching bands as storage space). Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner’s position. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 35. 15 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 28, 29, AND 34 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 29, and 34 over Dudgeon, Beardsley, Ryu, and France. Ans. 17—18. First, Appellants’ arguments regarding the cited prior art’s alleged shortcomings regarding the limitations of independent claims 25 and 31 from which claims 28,29, and 34 depend (App. Br. 19—20; Reply Br. 8) are unavailing for the reasons previously discussed. Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner’s additional reliance on France at least to the extent that France’s identified memory region with invalid data in paragraph 104 at least suggests an associated physical band of a target zone, particularly in light of the other cited prior art, including Beardsley, which teaches band-based storage areas as noted previously. To the extent that Appellants contend that France’s technique would be inapplicable to physical bands, or that such an application would have been beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, no such evidence has been provided on this record to substantiate such a theory. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 28, 29, and 34. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 13— 15, 26, and 33. Ans. 12—17. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made previously and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 17—18. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. 16 Appeal 2015-006212 Application 13/459,008 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13 and 33 under § 112(a), but erred in rejecting those claims under § 112(b). The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11—15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31—38 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11—15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 31—38 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation