Ex Parte Conley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

10749831 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN M. CONLEY and CARLOS J. GONZALES
____________

Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,8311
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2-4 and 26-41. Claims 1 and 5-25 are cancelled. App.
Br. 3.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

1 Although the Appellants name SanDisk Corporation as the real party in
interest, we note that SanDisk Corporation has assigned this application to
SanDisk Technologies, Inc.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed
June 22, 2009, and the Supplemental Appeal Brief (Supp. App. Br.) filed
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

2

INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to methods of writing data into a non-
volatile memory, in which a proportion (e.g., a percentage) or a number
(e.g., a fraction) of updated pages serves as a decision criterion between
updating techniques in memory systems that are constructed and/or operated
in different ways. See generally Spec. ¶ [0065]. Claim 2, 26, and 28 are
illustrative and are reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:
2. A method of writing data into a non-volatile memory
system of a type having blocks of memory cells that are
simultaneously erasable and which individually store a given number
of host units of data, comprising:
designating a first of the blocks for storage of a number of units
of data with sequential logical addresses that is less than a pre-set
proportion of the given number, the pre-set proportion being less than
the given number,
thereafter responding to a plurality of successive host
commands to write a number of units of data less than the pre-set
proportion of the given number that have sequential logical addresses
by writing their data into the first designated block with sequential
physical addresses, and
responding to host commands to write a number of units of data
having sequential logical addresses that is equal to or in excess of the
pre-set proportion of said given number by writing their data into a
block other than the first designated block.

26. The method of claim 2, wherein the pre-set proportion is
set within a range of 25- 75 percent of said given number.

28. A method of writing data into a non-volatile memory
system of a type having blocks of memory cells that are

October 19, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed January 14,
2010; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed March 12, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

3
simultaneously erasable and which individually store a given number
of host units of data, comprising:
designating at least a first one of the blocks to store a number
of units of data having sequential logical addresses that is less than a
pre-set fraction of said given number,
thereafter responding to a plurality of successive host
commands to individually write units of data into the memory system
by determining whether a number of the units of data with sequential
logical addresses is less than the pre-set fraction, and, if so, by writing
the data into the first dedicated block, and
responding to host commands to write units of data having a
number of sequential logical addresses that is equal to or in excess of
the pre-set fraction of said given number by writing the data into a
block other than the first dedicated block.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Kulkarni
Conley3
US 2002/0034105 A1
US 2002/0099904 A1
Mar. 21, 2002
Jul. 25, 2002
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 2-4, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, and 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Conley. Ans. 3-12.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 26, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37, 39, and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Conley and Kulkarni. Id. at
12-13.

ANTICIPATION REJECTION BY CONLEY
Regarding illustrative claims 2 and 28, the Examiner finds that Conley
teaches each and every limitation of Appellants’ invention, as recited in
independent claims 2 and 28. Ans. 3-6 (Conley, ¶ [0062]; Figs. 8, 9, 14). In

3 We note that the sole named inventor in Conley is the first named
Appellant in the present appeal.
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

4
particular, the Examiner finds that Conley teaches a memory system having
the claimed feature “blocks of a minimum of memory cells that are
simultaneously erasable and which individually store a given number of host
units of data” (emphasis added). See Ans. 3, 5. Moreover, the Examiner
finds that Conley teaches designating a first memory block for storing “a
number of units of data[, e.g., pages of data,] with sequential logical
addresses that is less than a pre-set proportion of the given number, the pre-
set proportion being less than the given number” (emphases added), as
recited in claim 2, or “that is less than a pre-set fraction of said given
number” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 28. See Ans. 4-6.
Appellants argue that Conley does not teach designating a first block
for storing a number of units of data with sequential logical addresses based
on a “pre-set proportion of the given number” (emphasis added), as recited
in claim 2, or a “pre-set fraction of said given number” (emphasis added), as
recited in claim 28. App. Br. 5-8. Further, Appellants argue that, although
Conley teaches that the units of data are received with a single command,
data is received in Appellants’ methods with a plurality of programming
commands. Id. at 8.
ISSUE
Under § 102(b), has the Examiner erred by finding that Conley
discloses:
(1) “designating a first of the blocks for storage of a number of units
of data with sequential logical addresses that is less than a pre-set
proportion of the given number, the pre-set proportion being less than
the given number” (emphasis added), as recited in claim 2?
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

5
(2) “designating at least a first one of the blocks to store a number of
units of data having sequential logical addresses that is less than a
pre-set fraction of said given number” (emphasis added), as recited in
claim 28?
ANALYSIS
1. Claim 2.
We begin by construing the disputed limitation of claim 2 which calls
for, in pertinent part, “designating a first of the blocks for storage of a
number of units of data with sequential logical addresses that is less than a
pre-set proportion of the given number, the pre-set proportion being less
than the given number” (emphasis added). In construing such limitations,
we apply the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage, as those words would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account any definitions supplied by Appellants’
Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants do not expressly define the term “pre-set proportion” in
their Specification. Nevertheless, a pertinent definition of the term
“proportion” is a “comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to
size, quantity, number, etc.; ratio.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE
DICTIONARY 1059 (2d Random House ed. 1999) (emphasis added). This
definition is consistent with the usage of the term “proportion” in the
Specification. See Spec. ¶¶ [0064]-[0066], [0069], [0070], [0078]; see also
Supp. App. Br. 3. A pertinent definition of the term “to set” is “to fix
definitively; establish or decide upon” (RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S
COLLEGE DICTIONARY at 1200), and a pertinent definition of the term
“preset” is “to set beforehand” (id. at 1043). Consequently, we construe a
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

6
“pre-set proportion of the given number” to mean a previously fixed or
established ratio between a number of units of data with sequential logical
addresses to be stored and the “given” number of host units of data in a
memory block. An example of the number of units of data with sequential
logical addresses to be stored is the Updated Data Pages 7-10 shown in
Figure 9 of the Specification. Further, as recited in claim 2, the pre-set
proportion is less than a ratio of 1:1, i.e., 100%; or, in other words, the
number of units of data to be stored, with sequential logical addresses, is less
than the given number. See, e.g., Spec. Fig. 9 (4 units, i.e., Updated Data
Pages 7-10, to be stored is less than 16 given, host units, i.e., Pages 0-15).
The Examiner finds that Conley teaches that, if the “number of units
of data” is equal to the storage capacity of the block, the “pre-set proportion”
equals 100% of the given number. Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner finds that
Conley teaches that, if the number of units of data is equal to or greater than
the given number, the number of units of data could not be written to a
partially-written block. Id.
The Examiner acknowledges that, because claim 2 recites that “the
pre-set proportion [is] less than the given number,” the pre-set proportion
may not be 100%. Ans. 13-14. Referring to Figure 14, however, the
Examiner finds that Conley teaches that, if the number of units of data is less
than given number, the number of stored units of data partially fills the
block. Id. at 14 (citing Conley, Fig. 14 (items 52, 53, 61, and 65).
Consequently, the Examiner concludes that Conley expressly or inherently
teaches designating a first storage block for storing a number of units less
than a pre-set proportion of the given number. Id. at 3-5, 13-14. We
disagree.
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

7
Referring to Conley’s Figure 14, Appellants argue that Conley
describes storing a number of units of data to a particular block, if there is
enough capacity in the block (Conley, Fig. 14 (items 53, 61)), but that
Conley does not suggest the claimed criterion that the received number of
units of data with sequential logical address is less than a pre-set proportion
or fraction of the designated or allocated block. App. Br. 7-8. Conley
simply describes the identification of an empty block (Conley, Fig. 14 (items
55, 65)) in which to store a number of units of data or a partially filled block
with sufficient empty space to accommodate data received from a host (id.
(items 61, 63)). Reply Br. 1-3. Nevertheless, as Appellants state, “[n]o ‘pre-
set’ proportion of the block size enters into this [identification].” Id. at 2.
Thus, even to the extent that Conley describes storing more data in a
partially filled block, we are persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner fails
to demonstrate that Conley uses a “pre-set proportion” of a given number to
identify such blocks.
In addition, Appellants argue that, unlike in Conley, the method, as
recited in claim 2, provides that the number of units of data with sequential
logical addresses that are compared with the “pre-set proportion” are
received by the memory system with a plurality of successive host
commands. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Although Conley may check various
blocks in response to each incoming command to determine whether and
where sufficient storage capacity exists (Conley, Fig. 14 (item 61)), the
Examiner fails to demonstrate that each of these commands compares the
number of units of data to be stored with a pre-set proportion of the given
number of the memory block. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3; see Ans. 4, 14.
Thus, we are not persuaded that Conley teaches the use of a pre-set
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

8
proportion to designate a block, which acts as a buffer (see Reply Br. 3), for
storing a number of units of data, as recited in claim 2.
2. Claim 28.
Instead of a “pre-set proportion” of a given number, as recited in
claim 2, claim 28 recites designating at least a first block for storing “a
number of units of data having sequential logical addresses that is less than
a pre-set fraction of said given number” (emphases added). We again begin
our analysis of this rejection by construing this disputed limitation of claim
28. As with the term “pre-set proportion,” Appellants do not expressly
define the term “pre-set fraction” in the Specification. Nevertheless, a
pertinent definition of the term “fraction” is “a number usu. expressed in the
form a/b . . . a ratio of algebraic quantities similarly expressed.” RANDOM
HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE DICTIONARY at 518 (emphasis added). Further,
as recited in claim 28, the method “determin[es] whether a number of the
units of data with sequential logical addresses [compared to the number of
host units of data in a memory block] is less than the pre-set fraction, and, if
so, . . . writ[es] the data into the first dedicated block” (emphasis added).
Thus, we similarly construe a “pre-set fraction of the given number” to recite
a previously assigned or established ratio between the number of units of
data with sequential logical addresses, e.g., see Spec. Fig. 9 (Update Data
Pages 7-10) to be stored and the “given” number of host units, e.g., id.
(Pages 0-15), of data in a memory block.
The Examiner finds that, if the “number of units of data” is equal to
the storage capacity of the block, the “pre-set fraction” equals 100% of the
given number or a fraction of 1/1. Ans. 6; see also Final Rej. 14 (contending
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

9
that certain improper fractions,4 such as 2/1, 3/2, and 4/1, satisfy this “pre-
set fraction” limitation). Further, the Examiner finds that, if the number of
units of data is equal to or greater than the given number, the number of
units of data could not be written to a partially written block. Id.
For substantially similar reasons to those discussed above with respect
to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, we conclude that claim 28 describes
that the ratio of the number of units of stored data to the number of host
units of data of a given memory block is less than “the pre-set fraction” and
that that ratio is less than one. Ans. 13-14. Thus, even to the extent that
Conley describes storing data in a partially filled block (see Conley, Fig. 14
(items 61, 63)); the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Conley uses a “pre-
set fraction” of a given number to designate such blocks.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of: (1) independent claim 2; (2) independent claims 28; (3)
independent claims 31, 36, and 40, which recite limitations commensurate
with the “pre-set fraction” of claim 28; and (3) dependent claims 3, 4, 29,
32, 34, and 38, because the rejection to their base claims is reversed.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of these claims.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER CONLEY AND KULKARNI
Regarding illustrative claim 26, the Examiner finds that Conley
teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 2 from which claim 26
depends, but the Examiner finds that Conley fails to teach pre-set

4 An “improper fraction” is defined as “a fraction having the numerator
greater than the denominator.” RANDOM HOUSE WEBSTER’S COLLEGE
DICTIONARY at 662.
Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

10
proportions that are set within the range of 25-75%, as recited in claim 26.
Ans. 12. The Examiner finds, however, that Kulkarni teaches writing image
data to a first memory block until the memory is one-half, i.e., 50%, full and,
subsequently, writing the data to a second memory block. Id. at 12-13. The
Examiner concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the
time of the invention would have had reason to modify Conley’s teaching to
include Kulkarni’s teaching regarding the percentages used when updating
image data to a first memory block. Id. at 13.
Appellants argue that, to the extent that Kulkarni teaches imposing an
image data storage limit of 50% of the first memory block’s storage
capacity, this teaching does not supply the limitations that the Examiner
acknowledges are missing from Conley. App. Br. 8-9. In particular,
Appellants argue that Kulkarni teaches a limit on the data that a first
memory block can hold before transfer, and not whether data to be
transferred is less than a pre-set proportion of the given number. Id. at 9.
Regardless, whether Kulkarni teaches the additional limitation of
claim 26, the Examiner does not find that Kulkarni teaches or suggests the
missing limitation of independent claim 2, as discussed above. Thus, we are
not persuaded that Conley and Kulkarni teach or suggest all of the
limitations of claim 26 or of the other dependent claims that include
corresponding limitations and are rejected as unpatentable over this
combination. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection to these
claims.

Appeal 2010-009041
Application 10/749,831

11
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-4, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38,
and 40 under § 102(b) and claims 26, 27, 30, 33, 35, 37, 39, and 41 under
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-4 and 26-41 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw