Ex Parte NEMATI ANARAKI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2018

15132143 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/132,143 04/18/2016
128298 7590 12/21/2018
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (WD/HGST)
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Majid NEMATI ANARAKI
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.
12203-5244 9134
EXAMINER
BRITT, CYNTHIA H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2111
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2018 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):
OCIPDocketing@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAJID NEMATI ANARAKI, XINDE HU,
and
RICHARD DAVID BARNDT
Appeal2018-005672
Application 15/132,143
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies HGST Technologies Santa Ana, Inc. as the
real party in interest (App. Br. 4).
Appeal2018-005672
Application 15/132,143
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a decoder and decoding method
for performing error correction with a "reduced complexity non-binary
LDPC [(low density parity check)] decoding algorithm" that reduces the
required memory to store messages between check and variable nodes and
"outperforms extended min-sum (EMS) algorithms and the equivalent
binary LDPC codes" (Spec. ,r,r 2, 7; Title ( capitalization altered)).
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system, comprising:
a data buffer;
a decoder comprising decoding logic operational upon
the data buffer to represent a plurality of variable nodes and a
plurality of check nodes, the variable nodes being associated
with a plurality of respective confidence vectors, the decoder
configured to:
provide, to respective check nodes according to a
code graph, respective vector components of a first
confidence vector of the plurality of confidence vectors;
update the respective vector components based on
respective return values provided by the respective check
nodes according to the code graph, each of the respective
return values being based on at least one vector
component other than a vector component updated by the
respective return value;
determine a primary index of the first confidence
vector based on respective values of the updated vector
components;
perform the provide, update, and determine steps
for the plurality of confidence vectors; and
determine at least a portion of a valid codeword
based on determined indices of the plurality of
confidence vectors.
2
Appeal2018-005672
Application 15/132,143
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
determines "the claims are directed to the abstract idea of decoding" and
"organizing information through mathematical correlations" similar to the
claims in RecogniCorp, Digitech, Electric Power Group, and CyberSource
(Ans. 3, 6; Final Act. 5 (citing RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d
1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging,
Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011))). The Examiner finds "the
[ claimed] components including variable nodes, check nodes, code graph
and vector components are not physical structures in a device" but rather
"abstract math" and "mathematical calculations" (Ans. 4).
Appellants argue claims 1 and 14 "are not directed to 'standard'
encoding or decoding, or simply adding a mathematical equation" as the
Examiner asserts; rather, the claims are directed to specific improvements to
the way decoders operate, using "logical structures and processes that
provide faster decoding computation and smaller memory requirements"
(App. Br. 9-10, 13; Reply Br. 3). Appellants argue the claims recite
technical operations that "enable a decoder to decode a codeword with
reduced process complexity and reduced memory requirements that
previously could not be achieved using conventional decoding" (App. Br.
3
Appeal2018-005672
Application 15/132,143
13-14). As such, Appellants argue the present claims are analogous to
Enfish (App. Br. 10, 13 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); Reply Br. 2-3).
When considering whether the claims are directed to a patent
ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea, "[t]he 'directed to' inquiry ...
cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept,
because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical
products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon."
See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36 (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70-71 (2012)). Rather, "the
'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims" considered in their
entirety, in light of the Specification, to ascertain whether the claims'
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter (id. ( citing
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2015))).
Having reviewed the evidence, we do not agree with the Examiner's
determination that the claims are directed to an "abstract idea of decoding"
or "organizing information through mathematical correlations" (see Ans. 3,
6). Rather, we conclude the character of the claims as a whole is directed to
an improved decoder and improved logical structures for error correction
and decoding of signal bit streams, "thus not directed to an abstract idea"
(App. Br. 9-10, 13; Reply Br. 3). See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (patent eligible method claims directed to an improvement in
computer animation, not an abstract idea that merely invokes generic
processes and machinery).
4
Appeal2018-005672
Application 15/132,143
Our conclusion is supported by Appellants' claims and Specification.
Contrary to the Examiner's assertion that the claimed components "are not
physical structures in a device" but rather "abstract math" and
"mathematical calculations" (see Ans. 4), we note the claimed "variable
nodes" designate data buffer locations "for storing each confidence vector
associated with a symbol of ... [a] codeword" (see Spec. ,r,r 34, 36, 39).
The claimed "confidence vectors" include "vector components," which may
be a series of bits (see Spec. ,r,r 29-30). The value of each vector component
provides an "indication as to whether the[] bits of the codeword are correct"
and a "possibility for an individual state of a memory cell" (see Spec. ,r,r 27-
29). The claimed "primary index" of a confidence vector "determines the
state of ... [a] memory cell" (see Spec. ,r,r 37, 39). The claimed providing,
updating, and determining steps generate and update vector component
values for confidence vectors stored in the data buffer during codeword
decoding (see Spec. ,r 30). Appellants' claimed decoding technique updates
confidence vectors by iterating the decoding process until the primary index
( a current state of a memory cell) stops changing, which indicates the
codeword's bits (associated with a variable node that stores the primary
index's confidence vector) have been decoded (see Spec. ,r,r 36-37, 45).
That is, Appellants' invention provides faster decoding computation with
smaller memory requirements by determining "at least a portion of a valid
codeword based on determined indices of the plurality of confidence
vectors," rather than passing and saving full LLR (log-likelihood ratio)
vectors between the nodes for each edge of a code graph as "discussed in
existing literature" (App. Br. 11-12 (citing Spec. ,r,r 7, 25, 35, 86-87, 95)).
Receiver complexity (memory and computation) is reduced because the
5
Appeal2018-005672
Application 15/132,143
decoding operation of Appellants' invention requires only one vector
component and one index to be saved and passed (in the decoder's memory)
along iterations of the decoding process (see Spec. ,r,r 7, 35, 86, 95).
Because we find the claims are directed to eligible subject matter, we
need not reach step two of the test set forth in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1339.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is reversed.
REVERSED
6