Ex Parte Hsu et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 24, 2019

14445047 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/445,047 07/28/2014
26379 7590 05/29/2019
DLA PIPER LLP (US )
2000 UNIVERSITY A VENUE
EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chuan-Ding Arthur Hsu
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.
372886-994101 6391
EXAMINER
FAYE,HANNAHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2019 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):
PatentDocketing US-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHUAN-DING ARTHUR HSU, SIAMAK ARYA,
YUNG-CHIN CHEN, LEI ZHANG, and DONGSHENG XING
Appeal2018-007537
Application 14/445,047 1
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20, which
constitute all of the claims pending in this Application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Greenliant LLC ("Appellant") is the Applicant under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.46 and
is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007537
Application 14/445,047
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "to NAND Solid
State Drives." Spec. ,r 2. 2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A solid state drive, comprising:
a system controller; and
two or more extender devices coupled to the system
controller, each extender device coupled to a plurality of
NAND storage devices, and each NAND storage device
comprising one or more arrays ofNAND flash memory cells,
wherein each extender device is capable of receiving a shared
signal from the system controller and providing the shared
signal to each of the plurality ofNAND storage devices
coupled to the extender device and of receiving a non-shared
signal from the system controller and providing the non-shared
signal to one of the plurality of storage devices coupled to the
extender device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Harari
Urabe
Kim
US 2011/0041039 Al
US 8,364,881 B2
US 8,797,799 B2
Feb.17,2011
Jan.29,2013
Aug. 5, 2014
2 We refer to the Specification filed Oct. 8, 2014 ("Spec."); Final Office
Action mailed Aug. 10, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed Jan. 8, 2018
("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed May 17, 2018 ("Ans."); and the
Reply Brief filed July 17, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-007537
Application 14/445,047
REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Urabe, Harari, and Kim. Final
Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Appellant argues Harari does not teach "two or more extender devices
coupled to the system controller, each extender device coupled to a plurality
ofNAND storage devices," as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant
contends Harari's controller 300 teaches "connecting only one alleged
extender device (controller 300) to the system controller." App. Br. 13.
Appellant argues Harari's item 335 "contains a single 'host-type NAND
interface,' which means that each of the items 3 3 5 connects to only one
NAND device," and therefore, "Harari still fails to disclose each extender
device being coupled to a plurality ofNAND storage devices." Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner
erred. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Harari's NAND interface
335 and flash memory device (NAND) 330 teaches the claimed two or more
extender devices, each coupled to a plurality ofNAND storage devices.
Final Act. 3 (citing Harari, Fig. 3). The Examiner specifically finds Harari's
item 335 teaches the claimed extender devices, and "there are a plurality of
3
Appeal2018-007537
Application 14/445,047
items 335 which satisfies the limitation for 'two or more extender devices."'
Ans. 3.
Harari teaches "the controller 300 includes one or more flash memory
device-side NAND interface(s) 335 for interfacing with one or more NAND
flash device(s) 330." Harari ,r 46. Because "one or more" is used twice in
that sentence, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
sentence refers to, inter alia, having multiple NAND interfaces each
connected to multiple NAND flash device. Contrary to Appellant's
argument, Harari's description ofNAND interfaces 335 interfacing with
NAND flash devices 330 does not preclude each of the NAND interfaces
335 being coupled to multiple NAND devices 330. Therefore, Appellant has
not persuasively argued why Harari's devices 335 and devices 330 do not
teach the claimed "two or more extender devices coupled to the system
controller, each extender device coupled to a plurality ofNAND storage
devices."
Appellant further argues the references do not teach
wherein each extender device is capable of receiving a shared
signal from the system controller and providing the shared
signal to each of the plurality ofNAND storage devices
coupled to the extender device and of receiving a non-shared
signal from the system controller and providing the non-shared
signal to one of the plurality of storage devices coupled to the
extender device
as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant contends "Kim is missing the
extender devices altogether and merely shows a system controller connected
to a plurality ofNAND devices," and thereby "does not disclose an extender
device capable of receiving shared signals and non-shared signals from a
system controller." App. Br. 13; see Reply Br. 3.
4
Appeal2018-007537
Application 14/445,047
Appellant's argument against Kim separately from Harari does not
persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981 ).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Harari is used
to teach the extender devices, and Kim teaches "a controller inputs the
command or address for the plurality ofNAND devices [that] is either
shared or non-shared," with Kim being "used to teach the shared and non-
shared signals," and Harari used to teach "signals from the controller to the
NAND connected to the extender device." Ans. 4; see Final Act. 3--4 (citing
Harari, Fig. 3; Kim, Fig. 12).
Appellant further contends "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
not make the inventive leap of taking the signaling protocol of Kim,
applying it to the controller of Harari, and then adding in one or more
additional controllers that follow the same signaling protocol," and the
Examiner's proposed combination relies on "impermissible hindsight
reasoning." App. Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant argues there is "nothing in
Kim to suggest applying its signaling concepts to a system that utilizes
extender devices, and there is nothing in Urabe or Harari to suggest using
shared signals and non-shared signals with their disclosed systems," and the
Examiner's combination "is not taught or suggested in the references
themselves and would not have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill
in the art." Reply Br. 4.
5
Appeal2018-007537
Application 14/445,047
In KSR, the Supreme Court rejected the rigid application of the
teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) test in favor of a more expansive
and flexible approach to the determination of obviousness. KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,415 (2007). The Court stated, "the 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. at 418.
The conclusion of obviousness can be based on the interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Applying KSR, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the
Examiner erred. To the contrary, as the Examiner determined, it would have
been obvious to "modify the system of Urabe to include a NAND controller
of Harari et al. to the Multi Chip Package of Kim, because this will allow for
increased packing density and the use of multi drop bus for efficient
utilization of the multiple memories." Final Act. 4 ( emphasis omitted)
(citing Kim, col. 5, 11. 54--56). Appellant does not rebut the Examiner's
finding that it would have been obvious to modify Urabe to include Harari
and Kim to allow for increased packing density and for efficient utilization
of multiple memories.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, along with the rejections of independent claims 8 and 16, for which
Appellant relies on the same arguments as discussed above for claim 1,
along with dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20,
which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 14.
6
Appeal2018-007537
Application 14/445,047
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7