Ex Parte CAMP et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2018

14520034 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/520,034 10/21/2014
124717 7590 12/28/2018
Russell Ng PLLC (IBM TUC/BOU/SJO)
8729 Shoal Creek Blvd., Suite 100
Austin, TX 78757
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
CHARLES J. CAMP
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.
SJ0920140057US1 1022
EXAMINER
KHAN, MASUD K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2018 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):
s tephanie@russellnglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHARLES J. CAMP, TIMOTHY J. FISHER,
AARON D. FRY, NIKOLAS IOANNOU,
ROMAN A. PLETKA, LINCOLN T. SIMMONS,
and SASA TOMIC
Appeal2018-003973
Application 14/520,034
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-25, which are all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003973
Application 14/520,034
Illustrative Claim
Illustrative claim 1 under appeal read as follows ( emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed materials added):
1. A method in a data storage system including a
non-volatile memory array controlled by a controller, the
method comprising:
[A.] the controller iteratively performing a merged
background management process;
[B.] during an iteration of the merged background
management process, the controller performing a
read sweep by reading data from each of a
plurality of page groups within the memory array
and recording page group error statistics regarding
errors detected by the reading for each page group,
wherein each page group is formed of a respective
set of one or more physical pages of storage in the
memory array; and;
[C.] during the iteration of the merged background
management process, the controller employing the
page group error statistics recorded during the read
sweep in another background management
function.
Gonzalez et al.
Lee
References2
US 2004/0083335 Al
US 2005/0264910 Al
Apr. 29, 2004
Dec. 1, 2005
2 All citations herein to these references are by reference to the first named
inventor only.
2
Appeal2018-003973
Application 14/520,034
Re} ections3
A.
The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) "as being of
improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the
claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of
the claim upon which it depends." Final Act. 2-3.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14--16, 19, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Gonzalez
and Lee. Final Act. 4--13.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21,
and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gonzalez
and Lee in various combinations with additional references. Final Act.
13-25.
Appellants present arguments for claim 1. App. Br. 5-8. As to these
rejections, our decision as to the § 103 rejection of claim 1 is determinative
as to the § 103 rejections of all the claims. Therefore, except for our
ultimate decision, we do not discuss further herein the § 103 rejections of
claims 2-25.
3 All citations herein to the "Final Action" are to a Final Action mailed on
April 24, 2017.
3
Appeal2018-003973
Application 14/520,034
Issues on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 as being of improper
dependent form?
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS 4
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments that the Examiner has erred.
A. Appellants'§ l 12(d) Argument5
Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 as being of improper dependent form.
Appellants contend:
In paragraph 4 of the Final Office Action, Claim 15 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(d) based on the erroneous belief
that Claim 15 "is repeating [the] same limitation of claim 8
without further limiting the subject matter." This rejection is in
error because underlying Claim 8 does not affirmatively recite
the non-volatile memory array as a limitation of the data storage
system recited therein. Claim 15 further limits Claim 8 by
affirmatively reciting the non-volatile memory array as a
limitation.
App. Br. 4 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants' argument is persuasive. The Examiner fails to provide
sufficient articulated reasoning to support a conclusion that claim 15 is of
4 All Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) citations herein are to
MPEP Rev. 08.2017, January 2018.
5 The contention we discuss herein is determinative as to the§ 112(d)
rejection on appeal. Therefore, we do not discuss Appellants' other§ 112(d)
contentions herein.
4
Appeal2018-003973
Application 14/520,034
improper dependent form. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112(d) of claim 15.
B. Appellants'§ 103 Argument6
Appellants raise the following argument in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page 5 of the Final Office Action correctly notes that
Gonzalez fails to disclose the foregoing step [BJ of exemplary
Claim 1 and accordingly cites ,r [0016] of Lee. . . . This
[paragraph], while using the term "sweep," does not relate to
"performing a read sweep by reading data from each of a
plurality of page groups within the memory array" as explicitly
recited in Claim 1. Instead, the cited passage uses the term
"sweep" to describe the optimization of each of plurality of
parameters in a parameter list of a read/write channel, which can
be integrated into a disk controller (see, e.g., Lee, ,r,r [0012]-
[0015]) .
. . . [W]hile Gonzalez/Lee does optimizes the error rate of
the read/write channel as taught by Lee, no data is read from the
storage array to perform this optimization and no page group
error statistics are recorded. Instead, as specifically disclosed at
,r [0042] of Lee, predetermined repetitive data patterns are
utilized to optimize the error rate of the read/write channel rather
than data read from the storage array.
App. Br. 5---6 ( emphasis omitted).
We conclude, after reviewing the Examiner's rejection (Final Action
and Answer) and consistent with Appellants' above arguments as to claim 1,
there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's findings
that the combination of Gonzalez and Lee discloses or renders obvious the
argued "read sweep" limitation. Therefore, we conclude there is insufficient
6 The contention we discuss is determinative as to the § 103 rejections on
appeal, so we do not discuss Appellants' other § 103 contentions herein.
5
Appeal2018-003973
Application 14/520,034
articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 is
rendered obvious by Gonzalez and Lee.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form.
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-25 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6