Ex Parte Hu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

13567403 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
13/567,403 08/06/2012 Xiao-yu Hu CH920090021US2 1068
90228 7590
IP & T GROUP LLP
8230 Leesburg Pike
Suite 650
Vienna, VA 22182
EXAMINER
FAAL, BABOUCARR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2017 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 XIAO-YU HU, EVANGELOS S. ELEFTHERIOU,
and ROBERT HAAS
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,4031
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1—13, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "data storage devices, and
more specifically, to a memory management system and method for
improving write-erase endurance lifetime of a flash-based solid state drive
. . . device via data placement, garbage collection and wear-leveling
processes." Spec. 12.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 4, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphases and labeling added to contested limitations):
1. A memory management system for a memory
device of a computer, the system comprising:
a free block data structure including a plurality of free
memory blocks for writing, the free block data structure is
configured to sort the free memory blocks in a predetermined
order based on block write-erase endurance cycle count and to
receive new user-write requests to update existing data and
relocation write requests to relocate existing data such that user-
write data from new user-write requests are placed on youngest
free memory blocks having lower block write-erase endurance
cycle count while relocation data from relocation requests are
placed on oldest free memory blocks having higher block write-
erase endurance cycle count than that of the youngest free
memory blocks;
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Mar. 26, 2014); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 18, 2014); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 29, 2013); Advisory Action ("Adv.
Act." mailed Jan. 28, 2014); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Aug. 6, 2012). We note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response to
the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Examiner's Answer.
2
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
[LI] a delay block data structure configured to receive
memory blocks holding the user-write data and memory blocks
holding the relocation data from the free block data structure
and delay the memory blocks from being immediately selected
as a candidate for garbage collection; and
[L2] a garbage collection pool structure configured to
receive memory blocks from the delay block data structure, and
select at least one of the memory blocks for erasure, wherein
the selected memory block is moved to the free block data
structure upon being erased.
4. A computer-implemented method of managing
memory blocks within a memory device, the method
comprising
maintaining free memory blocks for writing in a
predetermined order based on block write-erase endurance
cycle count and receiving new user-write requests to update
existing data and relocation write requests to relocate existing
data;
placing user-write data from the new user-write requests
on youngest free memory blocks having lower block write-
erase endurance cycle count;
placing relocation data from the relocation write requests
on oldest free memory blocks having higher block write-erase
endurance cycle counter than that of the youngest free memory
blocks;
maintaining user-write memory blocks holding the user-
write data and relocation memory blocks holding the relocation
data; and
selecting at least one of the user-write memory blocks or
the relocation memory blocks for erasure.
3
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Chow et al. ("Chow") US 2003/0225961 A1
Chang et al. ("Chang") US 6,973,531 B1
Kim et al. ("Kim '357") US 2008/0104357 Al
Kim et al. ("Kim '306") US 2008/0235306 Al
Dec. 4, 2003
Dec. 6, 2005
May 1,2008
Sept. 25, 2008
Rejections on Appeal3
Rl. Claims 1—4 and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kim '357,
Chang and Kim '306. Final Act. 7.
R2. Claims 5—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Kim '357, Chang,
Kim '306 and Chow. Final Act. 13.
3 We note the Examiner withdrew the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 4—13 over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,402,242. Adv. Act.
(PTOF-303).
4
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
CLAIM GROUPING4
Based on Appellants arguments (App. Br. 6—15) and the Examiner's
rejections cited above, we decide the appeal of Rejection R1 of claims 1—3
on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We decide the appeal of Rejection R1 of claims 4 and 9-13 on the
basis of representative claim 4.
We decide the appeal of Rejection R2 of dependent claims 5—8, not
argued separately, infra.5
4 Appellants incorrectly label the heading on page 6 of the Appeal Brief as
addressing "Independent claims 1, 8, and!5." We note the independent
claims on appeal are claims 1, 4 and 9. While Appellants do not provide a
separate heading for independent claim 4, arguments on pages 6 and 7 of the
Brief appear to be directed to claim 4, and arguments starting on page 8 of
the Brief appear to be directed to independent claim 1. Notwithstanding the
requirements of our rules to provide a separate heading for claims argued
separately, we interpret Appellants' arguments to have intended to separately
argue claims 1 and 4. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("Under each heading
identifying the ground of rejection being contested, any claim(s) argued
separately or as a subgroup shall be argued under a separate subheading that
identifies the claim(s) by number.").
5 See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir2008) ("When the
appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection to the Board, section
1.192(c)(7) [(now section 41.37(c)(l)(iv))] imposes no burden on the Board
to consider the merits of that ground of rejection .... [T]he Board may treat
any argument with respect to that ground of rejection as waived."). In
addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker,
702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
5
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We agree with particular arguments advanced by Appellants with
respect to claims 1—3, as discussed, infra. However, we disagree with
Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 4—13, and regarding those
claims, we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments with respect to
claims 1 and 4 for emphasis as follows.
2. Obviousness Rejection R1 of Claims 4 and 9-13
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 6—7) the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Kim '357, Chang and Kim '306 is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the limitations of "new user-write requests" and "relocation write
requests," as recited in claim 4?
6
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Appellant's independent claims recite receiving new user-write
requests to update existing data and relocation write requests to
relocate existing data, and then placing data from the respective
requests in different free data blocks according to an erasure
count of the data blocks.
App. Br. 6.
Appellants further contend:
In the final Office action, the Examiner cites the "hot data" and
"cold data" of Kim '357 as corresponding to the "user-write
data" and "relocation requests" of Appellant's claims. However,
nothing in Kim '357 mentions or differentiates between user-
write data requests and relocation data requests. Nor does
anything in Kim '357 suggest that user-write data requests
correspond to hot data and relocation data requests correspond
to cold data. Instead, Kim '357 describes examples of hot data
as "log files," and examples of cold data as "music files" (see
Kim '357, paragraph 0044) In other words, Kim '357 does not
explicitly disclose any identification of user-write data versus
relocation data, does not describe any type of analysis of data to
determine whether it is user-write data or relocation date, and
does not provide any teaching that may have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to perform such an analysis or to
perform the functions of writing to free data blocks based on
whether data is user-write data or relocation data.
App. Br. 7. (emphasis omitted).
As our reviewing court guides, claim terms are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill
in the art and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from
the Specification. In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
7
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Kim's hot data and cold
data teaches or at least suggest the disputed limitations "new user-write
requests" and "relocation write requests," respectively, as recited in claim 4.
(Ans. 11-12).
We agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation
because we find the disputed limitation "user-write data from the new user-
write requests" reads on Kim '357's hot data, which is described in Kim '357
as representing with data allocated to low erase count groups. We also
agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that the
disputed limitation "relocation data from the relocation write requests" reads
on Kim '357's cold data, which is described in Kim '357 as representing data
in relatively high erase count groups. Ans. 11—12, Final Act. 7—8, 11, Kim
116, 9, 13, and 14.
We further agree with the Examiner's findings because claim 4
expressly recites: (i) "placing user-write data from the new user-write
requests on youngest free memory blocks having lower block write-erase
endurance cycle count," and (ii) "placing relocation data from the relocation
write requests on oldest free memory blocks having higher block-erase
endurance cycle counter than that of the youngest free memory blocks."
(emphasis added). We find these descriptions are similar to descriptions
associated with hot data (frequently updated data) and cold data (rarely
updated data) in Kim '357.
We further note Appellants do not file a Reply Brief to rebut the
Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions of obviousness.
8
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 4 and grouped
claims 9—13 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. Obviousness Rejection R1 of Claims 1—3
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 8—13) the Examiner's rejection R2 of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of
Kim '357, Chang, and Kim '306 is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests limitation LI, i.e.,
a delay block data structure configured to receive memory
blocks holding the user-write data and memory blocks holding
the relocation data from the free block data structure and delay
the memory blocks from being immediately selected as a
candidate for garbage collection,''
as recited in claim 1? (emphasis added).
Analysis
Regarding the contested delay block data structure limitation LI,
Appellants argue "[t]he Examiner admits that Kim '357 does not disclose
such a feature, but the Examiner asserts that Chang discloses a delay block
data structure as recited in claim 1." App. Br. 8.
9
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
Appellants further contend:
The Examiner asserted that Kim's list of FIG. 7A combined
with Chang's least and most frequently written structures
disclose a delay data structure where blocks aren't immediately
selected. However, nothing in these references discloses that
any block in these structures is not "immediately selectable" for
garbage collection. To the contrary, any block in these
structures would be immediately selectable. The Examiner
states in the Advisory Action that paragraph 0048 of Kim '357
discloses that the list in Fig. 7A is a delay structure, because
blocks are selected based on criteria, which would necessarily
introduce a delay. However, any block in the list of Fig. 7 A
could be immediately selected if it matched the predetermined
criteria (number of free blocks). For example, if the a write
function included a number of free blocks equal to the size of
the list, then each entry 1-7 in the list 7A of Kim '357 would be
selected. Therefore, the list 7 A does not expressly or inherently
introduce any delay to selecting of memory blocks.
App. Br. 10.
We agree with Appellants the Examiner erred, because the claim
requires a delay block structure that delays the memory blocks from being
immediately selected as a candidate for garbage collection. Claim 1.
Furthermore, we agree Chang and Kim '357 are deficient in teaching
or suggesting the contested delay limitation as we do not find a teaching of a
delay feature for trash collection in the cited portions of either reference.
We find incorporating a delay feature in a method for improving write-erase
endurance lifetime of a flash-based solid state drive is not taught or
suggested by the portions of the references cited by the Examiner.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined
teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or
10
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, such that we cannot sustain the
Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1. For the
same reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 3 which
depend from claim 1, and which were also rejected under Rejection Rl.6
3. Obviousness Rejection R2 of Dependent Claims 5—8
In view of the lack of any arguments directed to obviousness
Rejection R2 of dependent claims 5—8 under § 103, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims, as they fall with independent claim 4.
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv). When
Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the
claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991 (Fed.
Cir. 1983).
CONCFUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejection Rl
of claims 1—3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination
of record, and we do not sustain the rejection.
(2) The Examiner did not err with respect to Rejection Rl of
claims 4 and 9—13, and obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 5—8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we
sustain the rejections of these claims.
6 In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[Djependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.").
11
Appeal 2016-006677
Application 13/567,403
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—3, and we
affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4—13.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12