Megarity, William M. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14450437 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

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.
14/450,437 08/04/2014 William M. Megarity XRPS920140043US1 2625
127893 7590 08/21/2019
Streets Lawfirm, PC - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
20319 Corbin Creek Drive
Cypress, TX 77433
EXAMINER
VILLANUEVA, LEANDRO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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):
jstreets@streetsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM M. MEGARITY, EMIL P. PARKER,
LUKE D. REMIS, and CHRISTOPHER L. WOOD

____________

Appeal 2019-000323
Application 14/450,4371
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–18, all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellants indicate Lenovo Enterprise Solutions (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000323
Application 14/450,437
2

BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to methods of distributing the writing
of data among a plurality of flash memory devices. Spec. ¶ 1.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, which is representative of the subject matter of the appeal, is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as follows:
1. A computer program product comprising a computer
readable storage medium having program instructions
embodied therewith, the program instructions executable
by a processor to cause the processor to perform a
method comprising:
identifying a product warranty for each of a
plurality of flash memory devices within a system,
wherein the product warranty includes a maximum
number of writes and a maximum age that is covered by
the product warranty;
tracking the number of writes made to each flash
memory device and the age of each flash memory device;
determining, for each flash memory device, a
number of pro rata writes remaining in the product
warranty, wherein the number of pro rata writes
remaining in the product warranty is determined as a
number of writes remaining until the flash memory
device reaches the maximum number of writes identified
in the product warranty divided by an amount of time
remaining until the flash memory reaches the maximum
age identified in the product warranty; and
prioritizing the writing of data to the flash memory
device having the greatest number of pro rata writes
remaining in the product warranty relative to others of
the flash memory devices.

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL AND APPLIED PRIOR ART
Claims 1–3, 7, 10–12, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Feldman et al. (US 2010/0325340 A1; pub. Dec. 23, 2010,
Appeal 2019-000323
Application 14/450,437
3

“Feldman”) and Leibowitz et al. (US 2010/0174851 A1; pub. July 8, 2010,
“Leibowitz”).
Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Feldman, Leibowitz, and Kuzmin et al. (US
2014/0215129 A1; pub. July 31, 2014, “Kuzmin”).
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Feldman, Leibowitz, and Maheshwari (US 2011/0145473 A1; pub.
June 16, 2011).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and arguments in the Reply
Brief. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Feldman teaches all of the limitations of
claim 1 except “prioritizing the writing of data to the flash memory device
having the greatest number of pro rata writes remaining in the product
warranty relative to others of the flash memory devices.” See Final
Act. 3, 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that Feldman teaches
“determining for each flash memory device, a number of pro rata writes
remaining in the product warranty, wherein the number of pro rata writes
remaining in the product warranty is determined as a number of writes
remaining until the flash memory device reaches the maximum number of
writes identified in the product warranty divided by an amount of time
remaining until the flash memory reaches the maximum age identified in the
product warranty,” as recited in claim 1. See id. at 3. The Examiner’s
findings are based on Feldman’s disclosure of determining a percentage of
Appeal 2019-000323
Application 14/450,437
4

maximum wear level, and determining a wear rate based on a wear level and
time. See id. (citing Feldman ¶¶ 25–26).
Appellants argue Feldman does not teach or suggest the
aforementioned limitations of claim 1 because Feldman’s wear rate is not the
same as “a number of pro rata writes remaining in the product warranty.”
See App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that a “wear rate” is
the amount of wear per unit time since the device was put in use, and can be
determined for any device. See id.; see also Reply Br. 5 (citing Feldman
¶ 23, ll. 19–38 (similar argument)). Appellants explain that the maximum
number of writes covered by the product warranty for the device minus the
cumulative amount of writes for the device equals the number of writes
remaining in the product warranty. See App. Br. 9. Appellants further
explain that the maximum age covered by the product warranty for the
device minus the cumulative age of the device equals the amount of time
remaining in the product warranty. See id. Appellants assert that the
“number of pro rata writes remaining in the product warranty” is the number
of writes remaining in the product warranty divided by the amount of time
remaining in the product warranty. See id.
In response, the Examiner contends, “the wear rate, which is the
number of writes (Feldman ¶ [0015]) which is controlled over a period of
time to ensure the device reaches a specified lifetime (Feldman ¶ [0019]) [is]
analogous to the claimed pro rata write[s] remaining.” Ans. 4. According to
the Examiner, “the wear rate of Feldman matches the number of writes
remaining, and the specified lifetime of Feldman matches the amount of
time remaining of the claimed number of pro rata writes remaining.” Id.
Appeal 2019-000323
Application 14/450,437
5

In reply, Appellants argue that the “number of writes remaining”
describes a number of writes that may still occur after the current point in
time. See Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend “that a ‘specified lifetime’ does
not disclose ‘pro rata writes remaining[]’” because “Feldman expressly
defines the term ‘specified lifetime,’ saying that “[t]he specified lifetime
may be a time period measured from the date of manufacture of the device,
from the date of first use of the device, or may be only based on the
cumulative power on time of the device, for example.” Id. at 5–6 (quoting
Feldman ¶ 19, ll. 5–9; citing Figs. 3–5).
We agree with Appellants’ arguments because the Examiner does not
direct us to evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Feldman discloses,
teaches or suggests the aforementioned disputed limitation of claim 1. The
Examiner does not explain sufficiently how Feldman’s disclosure of wear
rate and specified lifetime teaches or suggests the number of writes
remaining and the time remaining, respectively, and, importantly, a number
pro rata writes remaining. Finally, even if the Examiner is correct that
Feldman’s disclosure of wear rate and specified lifetime teaches or suggests
the number of writes remaining and the time remaining, respectively, the
Examiner does not direct us to where Feldman discloses, teaches, or
suggests dividing the wear rate by the specified lifetime, to arrive at “a
number of pro rata writes remaining,” as required by claim 1.
We acknowledge that Feldman discloses several graphs showing
percentages of maximum wear level on the x-axis and a specified lifetime on
the y-axis, showing a maximum cumulative wear line/maximum cumulative
wear rate (see Figs. 3, 4) and a non-linear wear versus time profile (Fig. 5).
Appeal 2019-000323
Application 14/450,437
6

Figure 3 of Feldman is reproduced below.

Figure 3 is a graph illustrating a wear versus time profile. Feldman
¶¶ 4, 25. Figure 3, as well as Figures 4 and 5, of Feldman suggest that a
finite maximum wear level is known, along with the specified lifetime.
Although a person of ordinary skill in the art may have the knowledge and
skill for determining the remaining wear level by subtracting the amount of
current wear level from the suggested known finite maximum wear level,
and for determining the amount of time remaining by subtracting the current
time (e.g., cumulative power on time of the device) from the specified
lifetime, the Examiner makes no findings regarding the inferences or
suggestions that one with ordinary skill in the art would have gained from
Feldman’s disclosure. In any event, we further note that “determining a
number of pro rata writes remaining,” as recited in claim 1, is further defined
“as a number of writes remaining . . . divided by an amount of time
remaining.” Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art may have had the
knowledge and skill for determining the remaining wear level and amount of
time remaining, it remains undetermined whether a person or ordinary skill
Appeal 2019-000323
Application 14/450,437
7

in the art at the time of the invention would have had reason to determine a
number of pro rata writes remaining by dividing the number of writes
remaining by an amount of time remaining.
For at least these reasons, based on the record before us, we are
constrained to reverse the rejection of independent claim 1, independent
claim 10, which recites limitations similar to claim 1, and dependent claims
2, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 16 as unpatentable over Feldman and Leibowitz. As
applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Kuzmin and Maheshwari do not
remedy the deficiencies of Feldman. See Final Act. 6–9. Accordingly, we
also are constrained to reverse the rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, 8, 9,
13, 15, 17, and 18 as unpatentable over Feldman, Leibowitz, and Kuzmin,
and the rejection of dependent claims 5 and 10 as unpatentable over
Feldman, Leibowitz, and Maheshwari.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1–18.

REVERSED