Ex Parte Hu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 10, 201713567403 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation