Ex Parte Shim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2016

12732316 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121732,316 03/26/2010
20987 7590 03/31/2016
VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC
ONE FREEDOM SQUARE
11951 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 1300
RESTON, VA 20190
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hojun Shim
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.
SEC.2701 2879
EXAMINER
DILLON, SAMUEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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):
cjohnson@volentine.com
aloomis@volentine.com
iplaw@volentine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HOJUN SHIM and JE-HYUCK SONG
Appeal2014-002947
Application 12/732,316
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-7 and 10-18. 1 Claims 8 and 9 are cancelled. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to a non-volatile memory device
including "a controller configured to generate wear-leveling information
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
May 6, 2013), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed January 7, 2014), the Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 5, 2012), the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.," mailed on November 7, 2013), and the original Specification
("Spec.," filed March 26, 2010).
Appeal2014-002947
Application 12/732,316
from internal operation information of the memory cell array after a write
operation." Spec. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A non-volatile memory device, comprising:
a memory cell array; and
a controller configured to process wear-leveling
information from internal operation information of the memory
cell array after a write operation, independent of a request from
an external device, the wear-leveling information depending on
time or applied pulses required for performing the write
operation,
wherein the wear-leveling information is selectively
provided to the external device.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 7, and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fukuda (US 7,315,915 B2; Jan. 1, 2008), Kuroda
(US 5,444,664; Aug. 22, 1995), and Kato (US 5,428,569; June 27, 1995).
Final Act. 5-10.
Claims 5, 6, and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fukuda, Kuroda, Kato, and Ohba (US 6,330, 192
Bl; De. 11, 2001). Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions
of Examiner error (App. Br. 6-13; Reply Br. 4--9). We adopt as our own the
2
Appeal2014-002947
Application 12/732,316
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-12) and as set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer (Ans. 10-15). However, we highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1--4, 7, and 10--12
Regarding claim 1, Appellants contend Kato, in the proposed
combination, fails to teach "wear-leveling operations or wear-leveling
information, nor is KATO et al. properly combinable with FUKUDA et al."
App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants contend Fukuda discloses a hot count
("HC") that is "incremented after a successful sub-block erase operation."
Id. Appellants further contend "KA TO et al. does not suggest utilizing the
number of program loops as wear leveling information of sub-blocks of a
memory cell array." Id. at 10. Still further, Appellants contend Fukuda
teaches the write operation follows confirmation that the erase count (HC) is
within the allowed maximum range but Kato requires the write operation be
performed before determining whether the number of program loops exceeds
a maximum indicative of a defective chip and, thus, Appellants conclude
combining Kato with Fukuda changes the principle of operation of Fukuda.
Id. at 11.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Regarding combinability
of Fukuda and Kato, the Examiner finds, "While it is true that only Fukuda
uses a count less than a failure condition to perform wear-leveling (col.
4:50-61), the Examiner found that it would have been obvious to modify
Fukuda's existing wear-leveling functionality to additionally consider Kato's
program cycle count when determining the wear of a memory area." Ans.
3
Appeal2014-002947
Application 12/732,316
13. We agree. A standard write operation of a non-volatile memory (as in
the applied references) performs an erase operation for a block followed by a
program operation to record new data on the erased block. See Spec. ,-r 4.
Thus, whether counting erase operations (that precede a program operation),
as in Fukuda, or program operations (that follow an erase operation), as in
Kato, both references are counting the number of operations that cause wear
of the memory device. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that "Fukuda and
Kato can be reasonably combined." Ans. 13.
Regarding changing the principle of operation of Fukuda by
combining with Kato, the Examiner finds both references determine a failure
state of the memory device after a given operation and, thus, "requires no
'substantial reconstruction and redesign' of Fukuda and in no way changes
'the basic principle under which' Fukuda 'was designed to operate."' Ans.
14 (citing Jn re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959)). Furthermore, the
Examiner finds Kato discloses an embodiment applying the same timing of
the incrementing/testing as that of Fukuda. Ans. 14 (citing Kato 3:8-32;
Fukuda 4:40-61). We agree with the Examiner that the proposed
combination does not change the principle of operation of the references.
For the first time in the Reply Brief, 2 Appellants argue Kato does not
teach the specific wear-leveling information recited in claim 1, contending:
The so-called "health" of the chip is determined by comparing
the number of program cycles to a predetermined repetition
number n. Counting a number of program cycles does not teach
making a "health" determination depending on time or applied
2 In the absence of a showing of good cause, arguments and evidence that
could have been presented in the Appeal Brief, but were not, may not be
presented in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
4
Appeal2014-002947
Application 12/732,316
pulses, as recited by claim 1. That is, although more program
cycles may take more time, the determination by KA TO et al.
ultimately depends on the number of program cycles, and not the
time it takes to perform the program cycles. Further, there's no
discussion as to how "program cycles" may correlate to pulses,
e.g., Incremental Step Pulse Program (ISPP) pulses. See, e.g.,
claim 13; Specification, para. [0039]-[0040]. Also, merely
determining the "health" of a chip does not teach wear-leveling
operations or wear-leveling information. See Appeal Brief, p. 9.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
Though we lack the benefit of the Examiner's analysis of this new
argument in the Reply Brief, we remain unpersuaded of Examiner error.
The highlighted portion of the above-quoted argument makes clear that more
time may be required for more program cycles in Kato and, thus, the
"health" determination in Kato's counting program cycles (i.e., wear-
leveling information") is at least based on "time," as recited in claim 1.
In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1 and; thus; we sustain the rejection of
claim 1. Independent claim 10 recites similar features to claim 1, is rejected
for essentially the same reasons, and Appellants argue the Examiner erred
for the same reasons as claim 1. App. Br. 15. Thus, we sustain the rejection
of independent claim 10 for the same reasons as claim 1. In like manner,
Appellants do not separately argue, with particularity, the rejection of
dependent claims 2--4, 7, 11, and 12. Id. Thus, for the same reasons as
independent claims 1 and 10 from which they depend, we sustain the
rejection of these claims.
5
Appeal2014-002947
Application 12/732,316
Claim 5, 6, and 13-18
Appellants do not separately argue, with particularity, the rejection of
dependent claims 5, 6, and 13-18. App. Br. 15, 17. Thus, for the same
reasons as independent claims 1 and 10 from which they depend, we sustain
the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7
and 10-18 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
6