Ryan James. Goss et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2019

13762765 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
13/762,765 02/08/2013 Ryan James Goss STL17565 1027
73462 7590 12/18/2019
Hall Estill - Seagate Technology LLC
100 North Broadway, Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
WESTBROOK, MICHAEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2019 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
danderson@hallestill.com
okcipdocketing@hallestill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RYAN JAMES GOSS, MARK ALLEN GAERTNER,
and ARA PATAPOUTIAN
____________________

Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seagate
Technology LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant generally describes the disclosed and claimed invention as
follows:
Method and apparatus for managing data in a memory. In
accordance with some embodiments, a data object is stored in a
first non-volatile tier of a multi-tier memory structure. An [error
correction code] ECC data set adapted to detect at least one bit
error in the data object during a read operation is generated. The
ECC data set is stored in a different, second non-volatile tier of
the multi-tier memory structure.
Abstract. 2
Independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows (with paragraph lettering added and the disputed
limitation italized):
1. A method comprising:
(a) storing a data object in a first non-volatile tier of a
multi-tier memory structure, the first non-volatile tier comprising
memory cells having a first type of construction and a first
parametric attribute comprising at least a selected one of an
accumulated write count, an accumulated erase count, an
accumulated read count or a bit error rate (BER);
(b) selecting a different, second non-volatile tier of the
multi-tier memory structure, the second non-volatile tier
comprising memory cells having a second type of construction
different from the first type of construction and a second
parametric attribute comprising at least a selected one of an

2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 24, 2016
(“Final Act.”), Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 19, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”)
and Reply Brief filed Nov. 13, 2017 (“Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Sept. 13, 2017 (“Ans.”), and the original Specification filed Feb. 8,
2013 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
3
accumulated write count, an accumulated erase count, an
accumulated read count or a bit error rate (BER);
(c) generating an ECC data set adapted to detect at least
one bit error in the data object during a read operation upon the
first non-volatile tier, the ECC data set having a size and a
strength each selected in response to a data attribute of the data
object and in response to the second parametric attribute of the
second non-volatile tier; and
(d) storing the ECC data set in the second non-volatile tier.
Claims App. 12.3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Miller (US 8,122,322 B2; issued Feb. 21, 2012) in
view of Yoon et al. (US 2009/0144598 A1; published June 4, 2009)
(“Yoon”), and Jeong et al. (US 2012/0271985 A1; published Oct. 25, 2012)
(“Jeong”). Final Act. 2–8.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, Jeong, and Boyle et al. (US 8,341,339 B1;
issued Dec. 25, 2012) (“Boyle”). Final Act. 9.
Claims 14–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Jeong, and Yoon. Final Act. 10–17.
Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, Jeong, and Carannante et al. (US
2012/0117303 A1; published May 10, 2012) (“Carannante”). Final Act. 17–
19.

3 Claim 1 as reproduced in the appendix has two errors because it omits the
term “strength,” and includes the word “In,” after the words “and a” in the
fourth line from the bottom. These errors are harmless, however, because
Appellant and the Examiner correctly recite claim 1 as amended pursuant to
Appellant’s response filed on March 26, 2016.
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
4
Claims 2 and 10–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, Jeong, and Carannante. Final Act. 19–26.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miller, Jeong, Yoon, and Carannante. Final Act. 26–27.

ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by the arguments in Appellant’s Briefs is
whether the combination of Miller, Yoon, and Jeong teaches or suggests “the
ECC data set having a size and a strength4 each selected . . . in response to
the second parametric attribute of the second non-volatile tier,” as recited in
method claim 1, and as commensurately recited in apparatus claim 14.5
The Examiner rejects claim 1 for obviousness over the combination of
Miller, Yoon, and Jeong. Final Act. 2–8. Miller discloses a method of
storing error correction data (“ECD”). Miller, code (57). The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Miller teaches storing the data object and the ECC
data in two different memory tiers. Ans. 3 (citing Miller, Fig. 4, 6:4–6
(“storing the data 404 at a first memory 408”)), 6:32–34 (“storing the ECD
428 at the second memory 418”); Final Act. 2–3 (citing Miller, 1:55–63
(method includes “storing data at a first memory having a first non-volatile

4 The Specification explains that the “strength” of the ECC data set
generally relates to how effective it is in detecting, and correcting, “up to a
selected number of data bit errors” and that “[a] stronger ECC data set will
generally detect and correct more errors than a weaker ECC data set.” Spec.
7:23–26.
5 Because this issue is dispositive of all of the obviousness rejections, we
address the rejections together. Appellant argues the claims as a group
focusing on claims 1 and 14. See Appeal Br. 6–11. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative, and the remaining claims stand or fall with claim
1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
5
memory type” and “storing the error detection data at a second memory have
a second non-volatile memory type”)).
Yoon describes a method of storing information in a memory in which
a portion of the memory is selected, and the information is stored in the
selected portion with an ECC having a strength based on a usage history of
the selected portion of the memory. Yoon, code (57). The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Yoon teaches “the first non-volatile tier comprising a first
parametric attribute comprising . . . one of an accumulated write count . . .
[or] an accumulated erase count.” Final Act. 4 (citing Yoon Fig. 5, ¶¶ 61,
69, 70, 79). The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that Yoon teaches “the
second non-volatile tier comprising a second parametric attribute comprising
. . . one of an accumulated write count . . . [or] an accumulated erase count.”
Id.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that Yoon teaches
“selecting the ECC data size and strength for the data object based on
attributes of the [memory] tier in which the ECC data is stored.” Ans. 4–5
(citing Yoon ¶ 11 (“a method of storing information that can include
selecting the strength of the error correction coding based on the usage
history of the selected portion of the memory by determining whether the
usage history exceeds a usage threshold, and, if so adjusting the strength of
the error correction coding”), ¶ 64 (“usage threshold” includes ranges for a
variable count, which may represent “a number of times a memory unit has
been erased”), ¶ 79 (“the ECC strength may be predicated on [] the number
of erase or program cycles”); Final Act. 3–5 (citing Yoon, Figs. 4–6, ¶¶ 11,
64, 78 (“stronger ECCs may be assigned to a memory having a usage history
that exceeds a particular threshold”), 79).
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
6
Moreover, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to apply the ECC strength adjustment aspect of
Yoon (i.e., select the ECC strength for the data object) to the ECC data tier
of Miller (i.e., the second tier in which ECC data is stored, as taught in
Miller) “to improve data integrity in a system having different degradation
rates in different areas.” Ans. 6. Thus, the Examiner determines that
[t]he combination of Miller and Yoon would [have taught] the
obviousness of selecting the ECC strength for the data object
based on attributes of the second tier (i.e. the tier in which the
ECC data is stored as taught in prior art Miller[]), to improve
data integrity/reliability for memory systems having
different/multiple degradation rates by adjusting the ECC
strength as needed.
Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner relies “solely on Yoon” for the
disputed limitation of claim 1 and that “[t]he skilled artisan having read
Yoon readily understands it does not teach or suggest the data object and the
ECC data stored in different tiers with the ECC strength for the data object
based on attributes of the memory where the ECC data are stored, as
claimed.” Appeal Br. 7–10. Appellant also argues that
not once does the Office substantiate any prima facie showing
that Yoon teaches storing the data object and the ECC data in
two different memory tiers and selecting the ECC strength for
the data object based on attributes of the tier in which the ECC
data is stored, as claimed.
Id. at 7.
Appellant further argues that:
Yoon’s abstract clearly discloses the ECC strength is associated
with attributes of the memory tier where the information is
stored. The only circumstance where that memory tier is also
where the ECC data resides is when the information and the ECC
data reside in the same memory tier, which is distinguished by
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
7
the independent claims as a whole which feature the information
and the ECC data residing in separate memory tiers.
Id. at 8.
In addition, Appellant argues that based on the above admission, the
Examiner shifted the burden to Appellant “to show why the skilled artisan
would not be motivated to modify and combine Miller and Yoon to arrive at
the claimed invention.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant then argues that the burden
has not shifted because the claim language “as a whole specifically excludes
the Examiner’s suggested combination of Yoon and Miller.” Id. at 2–3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. First, Appellant’s argument that the Examiner failed to make a prima
facie showing that the art teaches the disputed limitation of claim 1 is not
persuasive because the Examiner met the notice requirement for a prima
facie case, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 132(a). In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, an examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992); see also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984). An
examiner’s rejection establishes a prima facie case when it provides notice
of the reasons for the rejection, and the rejection is deficient when it “is so
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to
counter the grounds for rejection.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). If this initial burden is met, the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to Appellant. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
8
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the arguments.
Id.
Here, the Examiner provided sufficient notice of the reasons for the
rejection of claim 1 by identifying the relevant portions of the cited
references and by explaining how the references disclose the claim
limitations, including the disputed limitation of claim 1. See Final Act. 2–6.
The Examiner also explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to make the proposed combinations. Id. at 5–6; see
also, Ans. 6. Accordingly, the Examiner satisfied the notice requirement for
a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. Furthermore, we are also not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner does not “substantiate
any prima facie showing that Yoon teaches storing the data object and the
ECC data in two different memory tiers and selecting the ECC strength for
the data object based on attributes of the tier in which the ECC data is
stored, as claimed” (see Appeal Br. 7) because, as discussed herein, the
Examiner relies on the combination of Miller and Yoon to teach or suggest
this limitation.
Second, contrary to Appellant’s arguments (see Appeal Br. 7–10), the
Examiner does not rely “solely on Yoon” to teach the disputed limitation of
claim 1. As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on the combination of
Miller and Yoon to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that Appellant is arguing one reference, Yoon, and “not
the combination of the cited references as a whole.” Ans. 2–3. The
Examiner also finds, and we agree, that Appellant has not addressed Miller’s
teachings of “storing the data object and the ECC data in two different tiers.”
Id. at 3. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
9
combination of references . . . . [The reference] must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus,
Appellant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that Yoon does not teach or suggest “the data object and the ECC
data stored in different tiers with the ECC strength for the data object based
on attributes of the memory where the ECC data are stored, as claimed” is
unavailing because the Examiner’s rejection with respect to the disputed
limitation is based on the combined teachings and suggestions of Miller and
Yoon, which Appellant does not address.
Third, we do not agree with Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner
shifted the burden to Appellant “to show why the skilled artisan would not
be motivated to modify and combine Miller and Yoon to arrive at the
claimed invention.” Reply Br. 2. Although the Examiner noted Appellant’s
acknowledgment that “the only circumstance where that memory tier is also
where the ECC data resides is when the information and the ECC data reside
in the same memory tier” (Ans. 4), the Examiner did not propose this
circumstance as the suggested combination of Miller and Yoon, but
explained how the combination of Miller and Yoon teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art (id. at 5–6).
Lastly, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to apply the ECC strength adjustment of
Yoon to the ECC data tier of Miller to improve data integrity for memory
systems having different degradation rates. Ans. 6. Consistent with the
Examiner’s findings, Yoon broadly discloses adjusting the size and strength
of ECC data based on the usage history, i.e., write or erase counts, of
portions of the memory. Yoon ¶¶ 11, 61, 64, 69–72, 79. Although Yoon
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
10
discloses that the data object and ECC data set are stored in the same
memory tier, Miller teaches storing the data object and the ECC data in two
different memory tiers, as discussed supra. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art desiring to
improve data integrity for memory systems having different degradation
rates in different tiers of memory would be motivated to use Yoon’s method
of adjusting the size and strength of the ECC data based on the second
memory tier of Miller in which the ECC data is stored. Ans. 6. We also
agree with the Examiner that this combination of Yoon and Miller teaches or
at least suggests “the ECC data set having a size and strength each selected
. . . in response to the second parametric attribute of the second non-volatile
tier,” as recited in the disputed limitation of claim 1. See Merck & Co., Inc.
v. Biocraft Labs, Inc., 874 F. 2d 804, 807–808 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he
question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not merely what the references expressly
teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made.”).
We find the Examiner’s stated rationale for the proposed combination
of Yoon and Miller constitutes articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning in accordance with KSR. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, as the Supreme Court held in KSR, an
obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” Id. In other words, “if a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” Id. at 417.
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
11
Here, as the Examiner finds, a person of ordinary skill at the time of the
invention would have recognized the value of using a known technique—the
ECC strength adjustment aspect of Yoon—to solve the need to improve data
integrity in memory systems with different degradation rates. Ans. 6; see In
re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, for these reasons, we determine (1) the combination of
Miller and Yoon teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation of claim
1, and (2) the Examiner set forth a sufficient rationale, which constitutes
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning, that would have
motivated a person of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Miller and
Yoon to achieve the claimed invention. Therefore, we also determine that
the combination of the cited references would have rendered claim 1 obvious
under § 103(a). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and
14, and dependent claims 2–13 and 15–20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, and Jeong.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 10–13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, Jeong, and
Carannante.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, Jeong, and Carannante.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, Jeong, and Boyle.
Appeal 2018-001112
Application 13/762,765
12
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Jeong, and Yoon ’598.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miller, Yoon, Jeong, and Carannante.
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(1).
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 6, 9 103(a) Miller, Yoon,
Jeong
1, 3, 5, 6, 9
2, 10–13 103(a) Miller, Yoon,
Jeong, Carannante
2, 10–13
4, 8 103(a) Miller, Yoon,
Jeong, Carannante
4, 8
7 103(a) Miller, Yoon,
Jeong, Boyle
7
14–19 103(a) Miller, Jeong,
Yoon ’985
14–19
20 103(a) Miller, Yoon,
Jeong, Carannante
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED