Silicon Motion, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 1, 20212019004357 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 1, 2021) 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. 14/951,052 11/24/2015 Chin-Chi Lin S-003.P079/9031- A44849-US 7053 72820 7590 01/01/2021 Wang Law Firm, Inc. 4989 Peachtree Parkway, Suite 200 Norcross, GA 30092 EXAMINER ALSHACK, OSMAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2112 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/01/2021 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@wangpatent.com wangpatentlaw@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHIN-CHI LIN and KUN-LIN HO ____________________ Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–12. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies Silicon Motion, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to simultaneously accessing pages in different memory planes of a data-storage device. Spec. ¶ 2. More particularly, a disclosed and claimed embodiment defines a minimum reading unit as comprising a page from a first memory plane of a flash device and a page from a second memory plane of a flash device. Spec. ¶¶ 18–19. A flash memory device may comprise a plurality of dies, and each of the dies comprises a first memory plane and a second memory plane. Spec. ¶ 6. Figure 2 is illustrative and is reproduced below: Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 3 Figure 2 illustrates a block diagram of a die (D0) of flash memory device (180). Spec. ¶¶ 9, 16. As shown, a die (D0) comprises a buffer (BU), a first memory plane (PL0), and a second memory plane (PL1). Spec. ¶ 16. Further, each memory plane comprises a plurality of physical pages (e.g., P0_0–P0_N). Spec. ¶ 16. According to the Specification, during the production process of a flash memory, at least one column of memory cells may be damaged, for example due to dust or issues with the mask. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 17. As such, those memory cells cannot be read and the column is referred to as a bad column. Spec. ¶ 17. “[T]he number of bad columns in the different memory planes in a single die may be different.” Spec. ¶ 17. In addition to less usable memory space, bad columns may also affect error correction capabilities. Spec. ¶ 17. In a disclosed example, Appellant describes a first memory plane having 1000 Bytes of unusable memory due to bad columns and a second memory plane on the same die having 900 Bytes of unusable memory space. Spec. ¶ 18. According to the Specification, in a typical arrangement, the minimum reading unit is a physical page. Spec. ¶ 18. In this configuration—due to pairing of error correction code (ECC) capability between the first and second memory planes—100 Bytes of otherwise usable memory space of each of the physical pages of the second memory plane are wasted. Spec. ¶ 18. Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 4 Figure 3 is illustrative and is reproduced below: Figure 3 illustrates the physical pages (P0_0, P1_0) of a first and second memory plane, respectively. Spec. ¶¶ 10, 18. As shown, each page of a memory plane may comprise chunks (e.g., C0–CN), each chunk comprising a data sector of 1024 Bytes and a parity code of 104 Bytes, Meta data (32 Bytes), and the bad columns. Spec. ¶ 18. In a claimed embodiment, the minimum reading unit is defined as one of the pages from the first memory plane and one of the pages from the second memory plane. Spec. ¶ 19. Figure 4 shows this configuration and is reproduced below: Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 5 Figure 4 illustrates a minimum reading unit P0′ comprising physical page P0_0 (incorrectly identified as P0_1 in Figure 4) from first memory plane PL_0, and physical page P1_0 from second memory plane PL1. Spec. ¶ 19, Fig. 5. According to the Specification, the 100 Bytes of unused (i.e., wasted) memory space in the embodiment illustrated in Figure 3 may now be used to store longer parity codes (i.e., 114 Bytes as compared to 104 Bytes). Spec. ¶ 19. The increased number of parity code bytes allows for an improvement in ECC capability. Spec. ¶ 19. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A data storage device, comprising: a flash memory, comprising a plurality of dies, and each of the dies comprises a first memory plane and a second memory plane, wherein each of the first memory plane and the second memory plane comprises a plurality of physical pages; and a controller, determining that one of the physical pages of the first memory plane and one of the physical pages of the second memory plane constitute a minimum reading unit, wherein the controller retrieves data of a first physical page of the first memory plane and data of a second physical page of the second memory plane in response to a read command which is arranged to read a target page. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3–4. 2. Claims 1–5 and 7–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Northcott (US 8,788,910 B1; July 22, 2014) and Elhamias (US 2012/0317365 A1; Dec. 13, 2012). Final Act. 4–12. Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 6 3. Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Northcott, Elhamias, and Roohparvar et al. (US 2011/0289254 A1; Nov. 24, 2011) (“Roohparvar”). Final Act. 12–14. ANALYSIS2 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the pending claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 7. More particularly, Appellant asserts that the limitation of “determining that one of the physical pages of the first memory plane and one of the physical pages of the second memory plane constitute a minimum reading unit” provides an improvement within the field of NAND flash storage by allowing for increased utilization of memory space despite the presence of bad columns within the NAND dies. Appeal Br. 7. The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the Office has published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed April 17, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed August 14, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed July 13, 2017 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appellant did not file a Reply Brief. To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 7 Guidance”).3 If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must “look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257–58 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Per the Office Guidance, this first inquiry (“Step 2A”) has two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim set forth or describe a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea such as a mental process), and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A). Under the Office Guidance, if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see infra, the claim is patent eligible under § 101. MPEP § 2106.04(d). If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, if the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., recites a judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application), the next step (“Step 2B”) is to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; see also MPEP § 2106.05. 3 The Office Guidance, as well as guidance set forth in the Berkheimer Memorandum, have been incorporated into the latest revision of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2103–2106.07(c) (9th ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 8 The Examiner concludes the claims are “directed to an idea of itself of data recognition and storage.” Final Act. 3 (analogizing the pending claims to the claims at issue in Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Ans. 3. Additionally, the Examiner concludes the pending claims are related to collection, analysis, and display of certain information, which the court determined to be abstract in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Final Act. 3. In addition, the Examiner finds a flash memory, comprising a plurality of dies, wherein each of the dies comprises a first and second memory plane and each of the first and second memory planes comprises a plurality of physical pages is simply “well- known and conventional/generic computer equipment for performing well- known and conventional/generic computer functions.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3–4. Accordingly, the Examiner determines the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Final Act. 4. We disagree that the instant claims recite a scenario analogous to that in Content Extraction or Electric Power. Rather, in Content Extraction, the court explained the pending claims generally related to “1) extracting data from hard copy documents using an automated digitizing unit such as a scanner, 2) recognizing specific information from the extracted data, and 3) storing that information in a memory.” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345. The court determined the claims were drawn to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected set, and storing the recognized data and further noted that “humans have always performed these functions.” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347. Moreover, the court Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 9 noted the use of existing scanning and processing technology to perform the claimed method failed to provide an inventive concept or confer patent eligibility. Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. In Electric Power, the court determined the focus of the pending claims was “on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Elec. Pwr., 830 F.3d at 1353. Further, the court explained that “[i]nformation as such is an intangible” and that the collection of information falls within the realm of abstract ideas. Elec. Pwr., 830 F.3d at 1353. In addition, “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more [are treated] as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Pwr., 830 F.3d at 1354. Moreover, as the court discussed in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), claims that improve an existing technology might not succumb to the abstract idea exception of patent eligibility. In Enfish, the court framed the first step of the Alice inquiry as whether the focus of the claims is on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead on an abstract idea that merely uses a computer as a tool for carrying out the abstract idea. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36 (explaining “some improvements in computer-related technology when appropriately claimed are undoubtedly not abstract, such as a chip architecture, an LED display, and the like”). Here, Appellant’s claims do not recite the extraction of data from hard copy documents as in Content Extraction, or the collection and analysis of data as described in the claims of Electric Power. Rather, the focus of the claims is on retrieving data in response to a read request of a target page of a Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 10 flash memory device. However, as discussed above, the Specification makes clear that by defining a minimum reading unit as comprising a physical page of a first memory plane and a physical page of a second memory plane of a common die of the flash memory device, otherwise unusable memory space may be used and provide for improved ECC capability. See Spec. ¶ 19; Introduction, supra. Accordingly, we conclude the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Moreover, analysis under the Office Guidance does not alter our conclusion. Even if we were to conclude that retrieving data in response to a read request of a target page of a flash memory device is a mental process (i.e., an observation or evaluation),4 and therefore recites an abstract idea, we would still conclude that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A) (describing the two prong analysis to determine whether claims are directed to a judicial exception). Claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the following claim limitations that recite retrieving data in response to a read request of a target page of a flash memory device, emphasized in italics: 1. A data storage device, comprising: a flash memory, comprising a plurality of dies, and each of the dies comprises a first memory plane and a second memory plane, wherein each of the first memory plane and the second memory plane comprises a plurality of physical pages; and a controller, determining that one of the physical pages of the first memory plane and one of the physical pages of the 4 Such a conclusion would be consistent with the Examiner’s determination the pending claims recite an abstract idea similar to the claims at issue in Content Extraction and Electric Power. See Final Act. 3. Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 11 second memory plane constitute a minimum reading unit, wherein the controller retrieves data of a first physical page of the first memory plane and data of a second physical page of the second memory plane in response to a read command which is arranged to read a target page. Because the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e., a mental process such as an observation or evaluation),5 we next determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d). To determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). As discussed above, we find the additional limitations—particularly, “determining that one of the physical pages of the first memory plane and one of the physical pages of the second memory plane constitute a minimum reading unit”—integrate the recited abstract idea by improving the utilization of NAND flash memory and ECC capability. See MPEP § 2106.05(a); Spec. ¶ 19. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1–12. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant asserts that Northcott, as relied on by the Examiner, fails to teach “determining that one of the physical pages of the first memory plane 5 See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 12 and one of the physical pages of the second memory plane constitute a minimum reading unit,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). Instead, Appellant argues Northcott teaches reading data stored in a plurality of flash memory devices rather than a minimum reading unit constructed by the flash memory devices. Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner finds Northcott teaches determining the claimed minimum reading unit. Final Act. 5 (citing Northcott, col. 56, ll. 44–55); see also Ans. 5–6 (additionally citing Northcott, col. 9, ll. 57–67, col. 30, ll. 4– 19, Figs. 6, 13). The Examiner notes Northcott describes an embodiment for reading data from a flash memory in which the method identifies a page stripe, “wherein the page stripe comprises a grouping of one or more equally-sized flash pages.” Ans. 6 (citing Northcott, col. 9, ll. 57–67). Additionally, the Examiner notes Figure 6 of Northcott illustrates a page grid including “an associated set of pages, each from a different flash memory die.” Ans. 6. “When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2). Here, it is unclear from the Examiner’s rejection and explanation how Northcott’s page stripe, flash page, flash lane, or page grid maps to Appellant’s claimed minimum reading unit, which is comprised of a physical page from a first memory plane of a flash memory die and a physical page of a second memory plane of the flash memory die. See also In re Zurko, 258 F. 3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“With respect to core Appeal 2019-004357 Application 14/951,052 13 factual findings in a determination of patentability [the Patent Office] must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). For the reasons discussed supra, and constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7, which recites commensurate limitations. In addition, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2–6 and 8–12, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–12 101 Patent eligibility 1–12 1–5, 7–11 103 Northcott, Elhamias 1–5, 7–11 6, 12 103 Northcott, Elhamias, Roohparvar 6, 12 Overall Outcome 1–12 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation