Goss, Ryan James. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2021

2019003976 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 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.
12/763,003 04/19/2010 Ryan James Goss STL16191 4656
73462 7590 01/13/2021
Hall Estill - Seagate Technology LLC
100 North Broadway, Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
ALSIP, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2136
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/13/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
amelia.pharofrank@seagate.com
okcipdocketing@hallestill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYAN JAMES GOSS, KEVIN GOMEZ,
MARK ALLEN GAERTNER, and BRUCE DOUGLAS BUCH

Appeal 2019-003976
Application 12/763,003
Technology Center 2100

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In papers filed December 14, 2020, Appellant requests reconsideration
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Decision (“Decision”) of the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“Board”), dated October 14, 2020. In the Decision, we
affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 7–16, 18, 19, and 21 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Santeler and Neufeld. Dec. 8.
However, we designated the affirmance as a new ground of rejection. Id. at
7.
Appeal 2019-003976
Application 12/763,003

2
ANALYSIS
In the present Request for Rehearing (“Req. Reh’g”), Appellant
alleges the following:
[T]he Decision effectively rewrites the Office’s rationale to
form an entirely different interpretation of Santeler. But in setting
forth its new rationale, the Board resorts to its own paraphrases of the
claim language and of Appellants arguments, not the claim language
and not the arguments verbatim... The Board’s paraphrasing raises
ambiguities when it alters the meanings of the claim language itself
and of Applicant's briefed arguments.

Req. Reh’g 1–2.
According to Appellant, the “Decision raises ambiguities,
chiefly by altering the substance of the dispute on appeal.” Id. at 3.
In particular, Appellant alleges that the dispute on appeal pertains to
whether Neufield cures the admitted deficiencies of Santeler to teach
the underlined portions of claim 1 reproduced below:
update first user data stored in one of the full stripes in
the memory and to update second user data stored in another
one of the full stripes in the memory, computes new parity data
for a partial stripe stored in the buffer that includes the updated
first and second user data without using any old user data and
without using any old parity data stored in the memory.

Whereas, the Decision includes both the underlined and non-underlined
portions of the claim, set forth above, as part of the dispute thereby creating
a new dispute. Id. at 3–4. Appellant therefore submits that the record before
us does not support the Board’s newly created dispute because it differs
from the Examiner’s findings and the arguments presented in the appeal. Id.
at 4.
Appeal 2019-003976
Application 12/763,003

3
Further, Appellant alleges that the ambiguity in the Board’s analysis
leads to error. Id. at 5. In particular, Appellant argues that the Board newly
and incorrectly finds that Santeler’s disclosure of “computing parity data for
a full stripe without using old data” teaches “a buffer logic computing new
parity data in partial stripes…without retrieving old data from memory.” Id.
at 4 (citing Santeler ¶ 51). That is, Santeler teaches computing parity data
(without using old data) for a full stripe and not for partial stripes. Id.
Furthermore, Appellant argues that the Board finds Neufield also teaches
computing parity data for a partial stripe without using old data, but the
Boards fails to address the arguments in the Brief regarding that the stripe
from which the old data is updated an unused dummy space,1 as opposed to
a full stripe, it is therefore inconsequential to the disputed limitations. Id.
These arguments are not persuasive. We do not agree with Appellant
that we mischaracterized the disputed claim language because considered the
dispute within the context of the claim as a whole. We discern no daylight
between our characterization of the disputed limitations as set forth in the
Decision, and the recitation of updating a first user data stored in a full stripe
of memory and a second user data stored in another full stripe of memory,
[and computing new parity data for partial stripe stored in a buffer including
the first and second user data] without using old user data and old parity data
stored in memory, as set forth in the Briefs and the rehearing request. Dec.
5. In both cases, the disputed claim limitations require at least (1) updating
two or more user data, each stored in a separate full stripe in memory [, and
(2) computing new parity data for a partial stripe stored in a buffer including

1 This argument is moot in light of our modification to the Examiner’s
rationale in the Decision.
Appeal 2019-003976
Application 12/763,003

4
the first and second user data] without using old user data and old parity data
stored in memory. Id.
Further, we do not agree with Appellant that we erred in finding that
the combination of Santeler and Neufeld teaches the disputed limitations.
As noted in the Decision, Santeler teaches writing new data in full stripes
without retrieving old data from memory, and Neufeld teaches performing a
partial write operation without reading old data during which unused space
will not be filled. Id. at 6–7 (citing Santeler ¶ 51, Neufeld 3:45–52); Ans. 3
(citing Neufeld 10:3–15). Therefore, we concluded that the combination of
Santeler and Neufeld teaches the disputed claim limitations. Id. As noted in
the Decision, Appellant attacked the cited references individually as opposed
as the proffered combination. Because we modified the Examiner’s
rationale, we designated our affirmance as a new ground of rejection in the
interest of promoting due process thereby giving Appellant a fair
opportunity to respond to the combination as modified in the Decision.
However, besides continuously lamenting this noted change in the
Examiner’s rationale, Appellant has not availed itself of the opportunity to
address the merit of the proposed combination.
Appellant is reminded that a request for rehearing is not an
opportunity for Appellants to re-litigate points previously addressed in the
Decision. Rather, it is an opportunity for Appellant to identify points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in the underlying
Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 41.52.

Appeal 2019-003976
Application 12/763,003

5

CONCLUSION
THEREFORE, we have granted Appellant’s Request to the extent that
we have reconsidered the original Decision, but have DENIED it with
respect to making any changes to the Decision.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–16,
18, 19, 21 103
Santeler, Neufeld

1–4, 7–16,
18, 19, 21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

DENIED