Ex Parte Kang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

12167324 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/167,324 07/03/2008 Dong-Won Kang 5649-2458 5290
20792 7590 10/29/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
BROWN, SHEREE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2014 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 DONG-WON KANG, JEONG-UK KANG, JIN-SOO KIM, and
CHAN-IK PARK1
________________

Appeal 2012-005941
Application 12/167,324
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–7 and 13–16. Claims 8–12 are objected to as being
dependent on a rejected base claim. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants indicate Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-005941
Application 12/167,324

2
Invention
The claimed invention is directed to data tree storage using page
structure of flash memory and more specifically to storing a leaf node and an
index node comprising a pointer to the leaf node in a same page of the flash
memory. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of storing a tree data structure in a flash memory
device, the method comprising:
storing a leaf node and an index node comprising a
pointer to the leaf node in a same page of the flash memory
device.
Rejections
Claims 1–7 and 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Lomet (US 2005/0171960 A1). Ans. 5.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Lomet discloses “storing a leaf
node and an index node comprising a pointer to the leaf node in a same page
of the flash memory device,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 15?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Lomet discloses a method of storing a tree data
structure in a flash memory device (Abstract, Paras. 39–41), the method
comprising storing a leaf node and an index node (Abstract, Paras. 12–17)
comprising a pointer (Paras. 14, 17) to the leaf node in a same page of the
flash memory device (Paras. 29, 39–41). Ans. 5, 7–9.
Appeal 2012-005941
Application 12/167,324

3
Appellants contend Lomet fails to disclose leaf and index nodes stored
in a same page of a flash memory device, as recited in claim 1. Br. 4.
Appellants argue Lomet contains no specific discussion how any tree data
structure is physically stored in relation to organizational features, such as
pages, in a flash memory device. Id. We have considered all of Appellants’
arguments but find Appellants’ arguments not persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Lomet discloses a data structure
for flash memory using index nodes and leaf nodes (see Abstract, “The
index delete state (DX) indicates whether it is safe to directly access an index
node without re-traversing the B-tree . . . . The data delete state (DD)
indicates whether it is safe to post an index term for a new leaf node.”)
where such nodes may be assigned to a disk page (see Para. 29, “Since we
access the parent of the leaf node resulting from a split in any event to post
the index term, the DD state can be stored in the parent, and where each node
is assigned to a disk page, without incurring any extra I/O to access the
page.”). Ans. 7–9. Based on the evidence cited by the Examiner in Lomet,
we agree with the Examiner that Lomet discloses the argued element of
claim 1. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants did not specifically address the
disclosure of assignment of nodes to disk pages identified by the Examiner
in paragraph 29 of Lomet. See Br. 4, 5. Appellants also failed to file a
Reply Brief.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in finding Lomet
discloses “storing a leaf node and an index node comprising a pointer to the
leaf node in a same page of the flash memory device,” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 15.
Appeal 2012-005941
Application 12/167,324

4
We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) together with dependent claims 2–7, 13, 14, and 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–7 and 13–16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED

lv