Ex Parte Jung

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 3, 2018

13951853 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/951,853 07/26/2013
73462 7590 07/06/2018
Hall Estill Attorneys at Law
(Seagate Technology LLC)
100 North Broadway, Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sangyun Jung
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.
STL17390 2561
EXAMINER
PATEL, JIGAR P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 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):
danderson@hallestill.com
okcipdocketing@hallestill.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANGYUN JUNG
Appeal2018-005057
Application 13/951,853 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Seagate Technology
LLC. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005057
Application 13/951,853
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's described and claimed invention relates generally to a
data storage device configured with a qualifier circuit that recognizes a write
error during a write operation and resumes the write operation from the
location of the write error. See Spec. 2:11-14. 2
Claim 10 is representative and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitation emphasized):
10. A method comprising:
configuring a qualifier circuit to recognize a write error
after writing a first user data sub-sector of a single user data
sector to a first user data region of a series of first, second, and
third user data regions physically stored consecutively on a
common data track on a data storage medium, the first user data
sub-sector being less than all of the user data sector leaving a
remainder of the single user data sector unwritten to the data
storage medium; and
resuming the write operation from the location of the write
error by skipping the first data region and the data of the first
user data sub-sector to collectively store the remainder of the
single user data sector in a consecutive series of user data sub-
sectors in the first, second, and third user data regions.
App. Br. 11-12 (Claims App'x).
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed May 11, 2017
("Final Act."), Appellant's Appeal Brief filed October 11, 2017 ("App. Br.")
and Reply Brief filed April 12, 2018 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer
mailed February 15, 2018, and the original Specification filed July 26, 2013
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-005057
Application 13/951,853
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, and 6-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maruchi et al. (US 2008/0144209 Al; published June 19,
2008) ("Maruchi"), in view of Takai (US 2013/0194689 Al; published Aug.
1, 2013) ("Takai"), in view of Chu et al. (US 2005/0078395 Al; published
Apr. 14, 2005) ("Chu"), and further in view of Bruner et al.
(US 2005/0154823 Al; published July 14, 2005) ("Bruner").
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Maruchi, in view of Takai, in view of Chu, in view of Bruner, and
further in view ofDolgunov et al. (US 2013/0024682 Al; published Jan. 24,
2013) ("Dolgunov").
Claims 4, 5, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Maruchi, in view of Takai, in view of Chu, in view of
Bruner, and further in view ofFukase (US 2009/0290252 Al; published
Nov. 26, 2009) ("Fukase").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 5-9) and the Reply Brief (see
Reply Br. 1-3), and are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2-16), and in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-5), and we concur with
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief.
3
Appeal2018-005057
Application 13/951,853
Appellant argues the combination of cited references fails to teach or
suggest "skipping the first data region and the data of the first user data sub-
sector to collectively store the remainder of the single user data sector in a
consecutive series of user data sub-sectors in the first, second, and third user
data regions," as recited in claim 10, and similarly recited in claims 1 and
18. See App. Br. 6-8; see also Reply Br. 1-2. As argued by Appellant,
Takai discloses writing data to a secondary memory and skipping assigned
data track locations after a detected error, and, thus, teaches away from the
claimed resuming from a location of a write error and storing a remaining
portion of data into a consecutive series of data sub-sectors. See App. Br. 7.
As further argued by Appellant, Chu discloses writing data to predetermined
spare sectors and skipping a physical sector when an error is encountered,
and thus, also fails to teach or suggest the aforementioned claim element.
See id.; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues Bruner also fails to
teach or suggest the aforementioned claim element. See App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellant's
arguments attack the references individually rather than the combination of
references. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). More specifically, the Examiner
relied upon: Maruchi for teaching resuming a write operation from a location
of a write error; Takai for teaching skipping a data region and data of a data
sub-sector; Chu for teaching collectively storing a remaining portion of a
single data sector in a consecutive series of data sub-sectors within a set of
first, second, and third user data regions; and Bruner for teaching a qualifier
4
Appeal2018-005057
Application 13/951,853
circuit. See Final Act. 7-8 (citing Maruchi i-f 84; Takai i-f 131; Chu i-f 46;
Bruner i-f 217). Therefore, Appellant's argument is not persuasive because it
does not address the Examiner's rationale supporting the rejection.
Further, to the extent Appellant is arguing that the cited references
teach away from claims 1, 10, and 18, we are not persuaded by this
argument either. "[A] disclosure ... does not constitute a teaching away ...
[if] such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed .... " In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant has not identified any passage in any of the cited references that
persuasively "criticize[ s ], discredit[ s ], or otherwise discourage[ s] the
solution claimed." Id. Therefore, consistent with the Examiner's findings,
we conclude the combination of cited references teaches or suggest all the
elements of claims 1, 10, and 18.
Appellant additionally argues there is no motivation to modify and/or
combine the cited references, as Maruchi, Takai, and Chu teach away from
the claims, and Bruner is silent with respect to the claimed qualifier circuit.
See App. Br. 8. Appellant's argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
As addressed above, the combination of cited references teaches or suggests
all the elements of claims 1, 10, and 18, and none of the cited references
teach away from the claims. Further, the Examiner has articulated sufficient
motivation to combine the cited references, as we agree with the Examiner
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the
command execution method and hard disk drive, taught by Maruchi, to
include the various features taught by Takai, Chu, and Bruner, to obtain the
respective benefits disclosed by the respective references. See Ans. 5; see
also Final Act. 7-8.
5
Appeal2018-005057
Application 13/951,853
Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness because the Examiner has failed to provide any logical
teaching of the claimed qualifier circuit that skips pre-error written portions
of a single data sector and writes pre-error unwritten portions of the single
data sector in user data sub-sectors consecutive with the pre-error written
portions. See App. Br. 8-9. Appellant further argues such a lack of
teaching, along with a lack of motivation to arrive at the claimed subject
matter, is not sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness. See
App. Br. 9. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed
above. Thus, we conclude the Examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 10, and
18 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 2-9, 11-17, 19, and 20, which depend from one of claims
1, 10, and 18, and which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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