Ex Parte Jin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

13652046 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

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