Ex Parte Jin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201813652046 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/652,046 10/15/2012 144016 7590 03/26/2018 Sheridan Ross P.C. 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80202 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ming Jin 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. 5887-378 6885 EXAMINER PATEL, JIGAR P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2114 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2018 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): e-docket@sheridanross.com mreno@sheridanross.com mellsworth@sheridanross.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MING JIN, FAN ZHANG, and HAIT AO XIA Appeal2017-001497 Application 13/652,046 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES R. HUGHES, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 13, 14, and 16-21. Claims 3-12 and 22 are objected to. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2017-001497 Application 13/652,046 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention is directed to media defect detection. Abstract. Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 13. A method for data processing, the method comprising: applying a media defect detection algorithm to a data set derived from a region on a storage medium to yield a defect value indicator; and identifying a media defect at the region on the storage medium based at least in part on indirect information in addition to the defect value indicator; and calculating a proximity value of the region on the storage medium to a defective region on the storage medium known to be defective prior to the identifying the media defect, wherein the proximity value is calculated as a number of tracks between the region from which the data set is derived and the known defective region when the number of wedges between the region from which the data set is derived and the known defective region is less than a defined threshold. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chung Tan Tan (hereinafter Wein jun) US 8,565,053 Bl Oct. 22, 2013 US 2009/0268848 Al Oct. 29, 2009 US 2012/0254679 Al Oct. 4, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 13, 14, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112 first paragraph as failing to comply with the written-description requirement. Claims 13, 14, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tan in view ofWeinjun and further in view of Chung. 2 Appeal2017-001497 Application 13/652,046 ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). Claims 13, 14, and 16-21 rejectedunder35US.C§112first paragraph as failing to comply with the written-description requirement The Examiner rejected independent claims 13 and 17 reciting the limitation of "medium known to be defective prior to the identifying the media defect" as not being supported by the original Specification (Final Act. 2-3). The Examiner finds Appellants' Figure 3, which Appellants cited for written disclosure support, fails to explicitly disclose support for the newly amended claim because Figure 3 discloses calculating proximity to a known hard defect (i.e., Fig. 3, element 395; Final Act. 3). The Examiner invited Appellants to show the section of the Specification addressing the limitation of "prior to the identifying the media defect" (Final Act. 3). state: Appellants respond the Examiner is correct, and in particular, they [ t ]his is correct, the proximity of a region where a newly identified defect is found to a previously known defect is calculated. Reasonable consideration of the specification including Fig. 3 reveals a method where a region of a medium is selected for testing, and different levels of defect are identified (i.e., a high level defect, a middle level defect, and no defect). Where a middle level defect is repeatedly identified 3 Appeal2017-001497 Application 13/652,046 (e.g., a low probability of a defect is repeatedly indicated a number of times), its proximity to a known defect is tested. App. Br. 12. Appellants address how the disputed limitation of claim 13 is interpreted in light of the Specification, but all references are with respect to "a known defect" or "a closest known defect," and they stop short of addressing the limitation of ''prior to the identifying the media defect" as recited in claim 13. See App. Br. 13-14. Furthermore, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Figure 3 teaches calculating proximity to a known hard defect (Fig. 3; 395 occurs after performing media defect detection (Fig. 3; (355) and Fig. 3; (325)). Therefore, the proximity is calculated after performing media defect detection and not prior to identifj;ing the media defect. Ans. 4--5. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not shown where in the Specification there is support for the limitation of "calculating a proximity value of the region on the storage medium to a defective region on the storage medium known to be defective prior to the identifying the media defect" (claim 13, emphasis added). In the Reply Brief Appellants further elaborate: effectively builds a "database" of known defective regions that are used by a next iteration of the method to assist with determining whether a potentially defective region (i.e., the claimed "region") is actually defective (see paragraph [0021] of the specification). For further clarity and with reference to Fig. 3, the claimed "region" may correspond to the region selected for testing in operation 315, the claimed "proximity value" may correspond to the proximity calculated in operation 395, and the claimed "defective region" may correspond to a region previously found to be a hard defect in operations 380 or 397. Reply. Br. 4 (emphasis added). Again the "proximity value" operation 395 is identified in Figure 3 as "Calculate Proximity to a Known Hard Defect" so 4 Appeal2017-001497 Application 13/652,046 it is unclear what part of the disclosure supports "prior to identifying the media defect" when the media defect is in essence the known hard defect. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 14 and 16-21. Claims 13, 14, and 16-21 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) Appellants argue that claim 13 sets forth a method that includes calculating a proximity value of a region on the storage medium to a defective region on the storage medium known to be defective prior to the identifying the media defect, and the Examiner relied on Chung for teaching after the read error is identified, a media defect detection process is applied to determine if the read error was due to a scratch on the medium (App. Br. 14 citing col. 3, 11. 28-37). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Chung teaches an error- correct code (ECC) scan of the corresponding physical location and of physical locations which are within a proximity threshold may be carried out to find other media defects (i.e., calculating a proximity search area to a defective region on the storage medium known to be defective) (Ans. 5 citing col. 3, 11. 22-55). The Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Tan and Weijun with that of Chung to calculate a proximity value of the region because it allows finding media defects near the physical location where the read/write error occurred (Ans. 5). In other words, Chung teaches identifying the proximity value before identifying media defects near the physical location of the read/write error. 5 Appeal2017-001497 Application 13/652,046 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 14 and 16-21. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 13, 14, and 16-21 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation