Ex Parte Huang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

13075053 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/075,053 03/29/2011
109673 7590 03/30/2016
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
3100 Interstate North Circle
Suite 150
Atlanta, GA 30339
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chien-Ting Huang
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.
251931-1390 1936
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THIEN DANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
gina.silverio@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte CHIEN-TING HUANG
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of Claims 1-16 as obvious. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief filed December 3, 2013
("App. Br."); Appellant's Reply Brief filed February 20, 2014 ("Reply Br.");
the Examiner's Answer mailed January 16, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office
Action mailed June 7, 2013 ("Final Act."); and the original Specification
filed March 29, 2011 ("Spec.").
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Silicon Motion, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a data read method and storage device to correct
data read with an amended source error correction code. See Abstract. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and
some formatting added:
1. A data read method for a flash memory, wherein the flash
memory comprises a plurality of pages, and predetermined
information is written into each of the pages of the flash memory,
compnsmg:
reading a target address of the flash memory according to a
source read voltage to obtain source data and a source error correction
code;
correcting error bits of the source data according to the source
error correction code in a first error correction process;
when the error bits of the source data cannot be corrected in
the first error correction process. reading the predetermined
information corresponding to the source data from the flash memory
according to the source read voltage to obtain correction information;
amending the source data according to the difference between
the predetermined information and the correction information to
obtain an amended data;
amending the source error correction code according to the
difference between the predetermined information and the correction
information to obtain an amended error correction code;
correcting error bits of the amended data according to the
amended error correction code in a second error correction process;
and
2
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
when the error bits of the amended data are successfully
corrected to obtain second output data in the second error correction
process, sending the second output data to a host.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Cornwell et al.
("Cornwell")
Sakimura et al.
("Sakimura")
US 2009/0323418 Al
US 2011/0016371 Al
Dec. 31, 2009
Jan. 20, 2011
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Cornwell and Sakimura. Final Act. 6-22.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief.
CLAIMS 1--4 AND 6-16
The Examiner finds the combination of Cornwell and Sakimura
teaches each limitation of independent Claims 1and9. Ans. 2-14.
First, Appellant argues Cornwell does not teach "predetermined
information," as recited in Claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. Specifically, Appellant
contends the Examiner relies on the reference voltage of Cornwell to teach
both "predetermined information" and the "correction information," as
recited in Claim 1. Id. at 8. As a result, Appellant asserts the comparison
required to obtain the "difference between the predetermined information
3
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
and the correction information," as recited in Claim 1, involves comparing
the same element with itself. Id. at 8-9. Appellant further argues the
Examiner's findings disregard "pages of the flash memory," as recited in
Claim 1. Reply Br. 1-2.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds the
voltage in the reference cell located at the end of the block in Cornwell
teaches "predetermined information is written into each of the pages of the
flash memory," as recited in Claim 1. Final Act. 6 (citing Cornwell i-fi-138-
39); see Cornwell i139 ("Each flash memory page 121 may include the
reference cell 130c."). The Examiner further finds the reference voltage that
is subsequently read from reference cells in which the reference voltage had
been stored in Cornwell teaches "reading the predetermined information
corresponding to the source data from the flash memory according to the
source read voltage to obtain correction information," as recited in Claim 1.
Ans. 2 (citing Cornwell i1 79); Final Act. 7 (citing Cornwell Fig. 4, steps
410-430). Cornwell suggests that the reference voltage ongmally written to
the reference cell in a page may be lower than the reference voltage when
subsequently read from that reference cell in that page when that page is
read. See Cornwell i179 ("For example, if a reference voltage appears to be
sagging by ten percent, then the processor 112 may adjust the correction
function to compensate the sag voltage in the data."). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Cornwell teaches the "predetermined information," as
recited in Claim 1.
Second, Appellant argues Cornwell does not teach the claimed steps
of amending the source data and the source error correction code. App. Br.
9-11. In particular, Appellant contends the Examiner relies upon the
process for generating and using alternative data values in Cornwell to teach
4
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
"amending the source data according to the difference between the
predetermined information and the correction information," as recited in
Claim 1. Id. at 9 (citing Cornwell Fig. 6B, steps 605-630). Appellant
further asserts that, although this process in Cornwell teaches how to amend
the page data, this process does not teach "using the meta-data regarded as
the claimed predetermined value by the Office Action." App. Br. 11 (citing
Cornwell Fig. 6B, steps 605---630). Appellant further argues this process
does not teach "amending the source error correction code," as recited in
Claim 1. Id.
Appellant mischaracterizes the Examiner's finding of the
"predetermined information," as recited in Claim 1 by alleging that the
Examiner relies solely upon Cornwell's teaching of meta-data. App. Br. 9
(citing Cornwell i-f 3 8). As discussed above, the Examiner finds the
reference voltage stored initially stored in the reference cells teaches the
"predetermined information." Ans. 2 (citing Cornwell i-f 79); Final Act. 7
(citing Cornwell Fig. 4, steps 410-430). The Examiner next finds Cornwell
teaches updating a correction function based on the differences between the
reference voltage initially stored in the reference cell and the reference
voltage subsequently read from the reference cell. Ans. 10 (citing Cornwell
i-fi-179-82). The Examiner further finds the correction function in Cornwell
that is used determine correction data to correct the data page teaches
"amending the source data according to the difference between the
predetermined information and the correction information to obtain an
amended data," as recited in Claim 1. Ans. 10 (citing Cornwell i-fi-179-82);
Final Act. 7 (citing Cornwell i-fi-189-95, Fig. 6B, steps 605-630); see
Cornwell i-f 90 ("[T]he processor 112 may compute a correction function to
determine the correction data for the data page."). The Examiner moreover
5
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
finds the correction function in Cornwell that is used to determine alternative
digital values teaches "amending the source error correction code according
to the difference between the predetermined information and the correction
information to obtain an amended error correction code," as recited in Claim
1. Ans. 10 (citing Cornwell iii! 79-82); Final Act. 7 (citing Cornwell iii! 89-
95, Fig. 6B, steps 605---630); see Cornwell if 90 ("[T]he processor 112 uses
the correction data to determine alternative digital values for each uncertain
data value [in a data page identified in step 605] in step 615."). In view of
the foregoing, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's findings
regarding the claimed steps of amending the source data and the source error
correction code.
Third, Appellant contends the combination of Sakimura and Cornwell
is improper. App. Br. 11-18. Appellant argues the Examiner's reliance of
measuring error rates in Sakimura is inapplicable to Cornwell. Id. at 15, 18
(citing Sakimura if 49). Specifically, Appellant asserts there is no teaching
of error rates in Cornwell. App. Br. 17-18 (citing Cornwell Abstract, Figs.
1, 3). The Examiner finds Sakimura stores complementary data in reference
cells rather than a reference voltage as taught in Cornwell. Ans. 12. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, storing the complementary data of Sakimura
into the reference cells of Cornwell improves the probability of correcting
the data cell to the correct memory state according to the reference cell. Id.
(citing Sakimura if 49). Thus, the Examiner has provided articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning for the proposed combination.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we sustain the rejection of Claims
1--4 and 6-16.
6
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
CLAIM 5
Appellants argue the combination of Sakimura and Cornwell does not
teach Claim 5. App. Br. 20. In particular, Appellant asserts Cornwell does
not teach "when a plurality of bits 0 of the correction information
correspond to a plurality of collocated bits 1 in the predetermined
information, determining the error bit value to be the bit value O," as recited
in Claim 5. Id. at 21-22 (citing Cornwell Fig. 6A, steps 605---620, i-f 91).
The Examiner first finds Sakimura teaches complementary data is initially
written to two reference cells. Ans. 15 (citing Sakimura i-f 41 ); see Sakimura
i-f 41 ("Complementary data is written to the two reference cells 12 contained
in one reference cell pair 15."). The Examiner interprets complementary
data to include a pair of bits where one bit is assigned value "1," and the
other assigned value "O." Ans. 15; see Sakimura i-f 42 ("To correctly read
data from the data cell 11, it is important that one of the two reference cells
12 of the reference cell pair 15 holds the data 'O' and the other holds the data
'1. '"). We agree with the Examiner that this teaching in Sakimura at least
suggests "determining an error bit value to be the bit value O," as recited in
Claim 5. Ans. 16. (citing Sakimura i-f 42). We are not persuaded that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting Claim 5.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
AFFIRMED.
7
Appeal2014-004090
Application 13/075,053
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
8