Ex Parte Edgington et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

12347935 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/347,935 12/31/2008 Joseph Edgington
73115 7590 09/02/2016
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/MICRON
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
303.C45US1 1966
EXAMINER
GOLDSCHMIDT, CRAIG S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2016 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH EDGINGTON and HISHAM CHOWDHURY
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 19-21. See Final Act. l;
App. Br. 19-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to a "[ n ]on-volatile memory" in which
"pages of a memory array are scanned to find a first free page" after a power
loss. Abstract. Claims 1, 12, 16, and 21 are independent.
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with additional
formatting):
1. A method comprising:
scanning pages, beginning at a first selected logical page
of a memory array, to find a first free page, the first free page
being determined by making a determination whether a page
contains data;
based on a determination the page contains data,
determining whether a commit marker is present in a header of
the page;
based on a determination that a commit marker is present
in the header of the page, scanning a subsequent page; and
based on a determination that a commit marker is not
present in the header of the page, designating a page subsequent
to the page as the first free page; and
based on a determination that the page does not contain
data; designating a page subsequent to the page as the first free
page;
marking the first free page as available; and
writing to the page marked as available with the next write
cycle.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 12, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for lack of sufficient antecedent basis. Final Act. 3.
Claims 2, 11, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11-13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Asami (US 2005/0055531 Al; Mar. 10, 2005).
Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
Claims 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asami and Ban (US 5,404,485, Apr. 4,
1995). Final Act. 9.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asami, Ban, and Hudgens, "Overview of Phase-Change
Chalcogenide Nonvolatile Memory Technology," MRS Bulletin, Nov. 2004,
http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/sgleixner/mate270/LectureNotes/Hudgens_MRS.p
df (last accessed Aug. 14, 2011). Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred.
Except as indicated below with respect to the indefiniteness rejection of
claims 1, 12, 16, and 20, and the written description rejection of claim 16,
we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which
this appeal is taken, and the reasons and conclusions set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer1 in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
A. Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 12, 16, and
20 as indefinite because "[e]ach of the occurrences of 'the page' clearly has
an antecedent basis." App. Br. 11. Appellants also contend "[a] person of
1 All references herein to the Answer ("Ans.") are made with respect to the
Answer mailed on September 24, 2014.
3
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
ordinary skill in the art would fully understand that the page marked as
available refers to the page referenced in the preceding line of the claim
('marking the first free page as available')." App. Br. 11-12.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds "[t]he
limitation 'the page' ... lacks sufficient antecedent basis," because "[t]here
is antecedent basis for several pages ... so it is not clear which one is 'the
page."' Final Act. 3. We find one skilled in the art would understand the
distinctions between the terms "a page," "a first free page," and "a header of
the page," as recited in claim 1. In particular, we find the claim clearly
recites the association between "a page" and "a page subsequent to the
page" (emphasis added). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 12, 16, and 202 as indefinite.
B. Written Description Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 11, 13, and
16 for failure to comply with the written description requirement, because "a
skilled artisan would understand that only the second and subsequent pages,
up to the last page, can have a prior page." App. Br. 13 (referring to Figs. 2,
3). Appellants also contend "a patent need not teach, and preferably omits,
what is well known in the art" and "the subject matter of the claim need not
be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order
for the disclosure to satisfy the description requirement." Id.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 13, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. The Examiner correctly finds a lack of written description support for
2 We additionally note claim 20 does not recite the term "page." See App.
Br. 11.
4
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
the claim 2 limitation "making a determination whether the first free page is
at least a second page ... based on a determination that the first free page is
at least the second page, marking the page prior to the first free page as
invalid," because "the amended [claim] language adds a particular order to
how the system operates which was not in the original invention as filed."
Ans. 18. We agree with the Examiner, because in Appellants' application,
"the system clearly discloses operating the machine by marking a current
page as invalid, then setting the next page as the free page." Ans. 18; see
also Fig 2, which provides the step for "Mark the Page Dirty" (step 217)
occurs before the step for "Free Page= Next Page" (step 221). As amended,
claims 2, 11, and 13 introduce a new order and determination, in which a
free page is determined and then a different page is marked as invalid (or
dirty).
Regarding claim 16, Appellants contend that "contrary to the
Examiner's assertion, claim 16 makes no reference to the second page."
App. Br. 12, footnote 21. We agree. The Examiner's analysis regarding the
lack of written description is dependent on the amended claim language
including a "second page," and this term is not found in claim 16.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 11, and 13 for
failure to comply with the written description requirement; however, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 for failure to comply with
the written description requirement.
C. Anticipation and Obviousness Rejections
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because "[t]he Examiner equated the complete flag of Asami with the
5
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
commit marker of the claims." App. Br. 15. Particularly, Appellants
contend "Asami places the complete flag onto the directory page and not on
the actual page, and then only after writing of the data pages is completed."
App. Br. 15.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. During prosecution, claims
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
"Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding Asami' s placement of a complete flag on a directory page,
the Examiner finds "the claim does not actually disclose that the marker has
to be on the page" and that the recited "present in a header of the page"
(emphasis added) encompasses Asami's use of a "directory stored at the
beginning of a series of pages." Ans. 19. We find the Examiner's claim
construction to be reasonable in light of Appellants' Specification, which
discloses "[t]he header can be in the free space, in a separate table, or in a
specifically allocated portion of the page or block." Spec. i-f 30.
Regarding the setting of Asami' s complete flag, the Examiner finds,
and we agree, that "once data has been completely written, it is 'committed';
accordingly a flag that indicates data has been completely written is a
'commit marker"' and "[i]f the flag is not set, then it indicates that the
'commit marker' is not present, as the data has not been completed
(committed); if it is set, the[ n] it indicates that the commit marker is
present." Ans. 19. Appellants' argument that Asami' s twelfth embodiment
sets the write complete flag only after the writing of data pages is completed
6
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
is not persuasive of error as it does not address the Examiner's findings
regarding Asami's seventh embodiment. See App. Br. 15; Final Act. 5-7
(citing Asami i-fi-f l 02-105).
Appellants additionally argue that by finding "Asami suggests
modifying embodiments to incorporate elements of other embodiments," the
Examiner "is making considerable speculation about what is actually
disclosed by Asami." App. Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). We are not
persuaded, as the Examiner correctly finds that in Asami, "some
embodiments could contain functionality described in a previous
embodiment." Ans. 20. Appellants have not demonstrated why the
Examiner's rationale is erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have reached the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claims 12, 16, and 21 commensurate in scope, and
claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 not separately argued with
particularity. See App. Br. 16-17.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 12, 16, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 11, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-13, 16,
17, and 19-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2015-001163
Application 12/347,935
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
8