Ex Parte Alrod et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2015

12276344 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2015)

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.
12/276,344 11/23/2008 Idan ALROD SANDP058 3916
77215 7590 01/28/2015
MPG, LLP AND SANDISK
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
EXAMINER
MERCADO, RAMON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IDAN ALROD and ERAN SHARON
____________

Appeal 2012-011472
Application 12/276,344
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–30, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. App. Br. 11. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is SanDisk Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-011472
Application 12/276,344

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to storing control metadata in
flash-memory systems. Spec. 1, ll. 8–9. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads
as follows (some paragraphing added):
1. A method for storing data, the method comprising the
steps of:
(a) receiving data to be stored in a memory that includes
a plurality of blocks,
wherein each block from the plurality of blocks
has at least one block metadata value associated with said
each block,
said block metadata value being dependent
upon a writing time of said each block;
(b) grouping said plurality of blocks into block groups,
wherein at least one block group contains at least
two blocks;
(c) associating a group metadata value with each block
group; and
(d) associating each group metadata value with each
block in a respective block group,
wherein each block from the plurality of blocks
does not store a dedicated copy of said block metadata
value, and
each block utilizes the group metadata value
instead of the block metadata value.

Appeal 2012-011472
Application 12/276,344

3
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Sinclair US 2005/0144357 A1 June 30, 2005
Gorobets et al. US 2006/0039196 A1 February 23, 2006
(hereinafter “Gorobets”)

Rejections
Claims 1–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sinclair and Gorobets. App. Br. 11; Ans. 4–11.

Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (“App. Br.” filed May 9, 2012) and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.” filed August 6, 2012) for the positions of Appellants and the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed November 28, 2011) and the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.” mailed July 3, 2012) for the positions of the Examiner.

ANALYSIS
CLAIM 1
Dispositive Issue
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ contentions is as
follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Sinclair and
Gorobets teaches or suggests “associating a group metadata value with each
block group” and “associating each group metadata value with each block in
a respective block group,” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2012-011472
Application 12/276,344

4
The Examiner finds Sinclair discloses grouping memory cells into
erase blocks and that each erase block includes a sector of data. Ans. 16
(citing Sinclair ¶ 55 and Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds Sinclair
discloses that the sector of data includes parameters indicating voltage levels
to be used for programming and/or erasing the erase block. Id. at 5 (citing
Sinclair ¶ 55). The Examiner also finds Sinclair teaches logically linking
erase blocks to form metablocks. Id. at 15. The Examiner further finds
Sinclair teaches storing overhead data, included in a sector of data, in an
erase block dedicated to storing overhead data. Final Act. 3 and Ans. 16
(both citing Sinclair ¶ 58). As such, the Examiner finds
it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to further extend the overhead
organization shown at the erase block level to the metablock.
That is, assigning all the overhead data (metadata) of all the
erase blocks in a metablock to a dedicated block of the
metablock.
Final Act. 3.
Additionally, the Examiner finds Gorobets teaches a scrub operation
for reducing the corruption of data which occurs over time as a result of
shifting threshold levels caused by charge disturbing programming, reading,
or erasing operations performed in neighboring memory cells. Ans. 17
(citing Gorobets ¶¶ 13, 15). The Examiner concludes, therefore, it would
have been obvious “to extend Sinclair [sic] method to include Gorobets’
threshold levels (Vt), a quantity that shift[s] as a result of charge disturbing
programming in the neighboring or other related memory cells, pages or
blocks.” Id. (citing Gorobets ¶ 13).
Appeal 2012-011472
Application 12/276,344

5
Appellants contend the combination of Sinclair and Gorobets does not
teach or suggest a group metadata value. App. Br. 13–15; Reply Br. 3–7.
Appellants argue that even if Sinclair’s overhead organization for erase
blocks was extended to Sinclair’s metablock, it would not disclose or
suggest a group metadata value that was associated with each block in the
block group. Reply Brief 5. Appellants argue that even if Sinclair’s
overhead organization for erase blocks was extended, each block would be
associated with its own metadata value—i.e., a block metadata value—and
not a group metadata value that is associated with each block in the block
group. Id. Appellants further contend that Gorobets’ threshold levels do not
disclose or suggest a group metadata value associated with each block
group. Ans. 17. Appellants argue that Gorobets’ threshold levels merely
disclose properties of memory devices and that Gorobets is silent regarding a
group metadata value. Id.
We find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. We disagree with the
Examiner because, on this record, we find no teaching or suggestion that a
group metadata value, associated with each group, is associated with each
block in the group. Sinclair discloses each erase block is associated with
overhead data that includes parameters for the erase block. Sinclair ¶¶ 56–
58. Sinclair further discloses logically linking a group of erase blocks to
form a metablock. Id. ¶ 63. Sinclair, however, does not teach or suggest
associating the metablock with a group parameter or overhead data value
that is associated with each erase block included in the metablock. Instead,
Sinclair teaches that each erase block is associated with its own group
parameter or overhead data value. See Sinclair ¶ 58. Further, Gorobets
discloses that the charge level of a storage element controls the threshold
Appeal 2012-011472
Application 12/276,344

6
voltage of its memory cell and that the charge levels shift as a result of
charge disturbing programming, reading, or erasing operations performed in
neighboring or related memory cells, pages, or blocks. Gorobets ¶ 13. The
Examiner’s findings do not persuasively show that Gorobets, even in
combination with Sinclair, teaches or suggests associating a group threshold
voltage with each block group. Therefore, the Examiner’s findings do not
persuasively show the combination of Sinclair and Gorobets teaches or
suggests associating a group metadata value with each group, as recited in
independent claims 17, 12, 19, and 23–30.

We do not reach Appellants’ further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive of the rejection of
independent claims 1, 7, 12, 19, and 23–30 and, therefore, dependent claims
2–6, 8–11, 13–18, and 20–22 which depend variously from claims 1, 7, 12,
and 19.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude the Examiner has erred in the
rejection of claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

Appeal 2012-011472
Application 12/276,344

7
msc