Ex Parte Keays et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

12483712 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/483,712 06/12/2009
59752 7590 09/27/2016
BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH , PLLC
1201 MARQUETTE A VENUE SOUTH, SUITE 400
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
Brady L. Keays
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.
1002.0550001[09-012800US] 9800
EXAMINER
SAVLA,ARPANP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
Micron.Docketing@bipl.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADY L. KEA YS and
WANMOWONG
Appeal2015-001014
Application 12/483,712
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SivIITH, JOli1...J F. HORVATH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-001014
Application 12/483,712
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1---60, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for wear leveling a memory, the method
compnsmg:
selecting, from all memory locations, a number of
memory locations that have independence between the selected
memory locations within a sample subset achieved by use of a
pseudo-random number generator, the number of memory
locations comprising at least a portion of the sample subset, the
sample subset including fewer than all of the memory locations
of the memory;
identifying from among the sample subset of memory
locations, a memory location having a particular wear level
characteristic; and
writing data to the memory location identified from
among the sample subset.
Gonzalez
Ju
Sare en
Prior Art
US 2004/0083335 Al
US 2008/01624 79 A 1
US 2009/0249052 Al
Apr. 29, 2004
July 3, 2008
Oct. 1, 2009
Python Library Reference, 5. 7 random -- Generate pseudo-random
numbers, July 29, 2003, available at http://docs.python.org/release/2.3/
lib/module-random.html
2
Appeal2015-001014
Application 12/483,712
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-8, 11-52, and 55---60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gonzalez and Python.
Claims 9 and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gonzalez, Python, and Ju.
Claims 10 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gonzalez, Python, and Sareen.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We highlight
the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend that Gonzalez does not teach "selecting a number
of memory locations that have independence between the selected memory
locations within a sample subset achieved by use of a pseudo-random
number generator" as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5---6.
Appellants also contend the suggestion of selecting a random subset of
independent memory locations is found only in Appellants' Specification.
App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 7-12. Appellants' contentions are based on the
premise that the randomly selected set of sectors taught in Paragraph 78 of
Gonzalez contains memory locations within a range, and are therefore not
independent of each other. App. Br. 11. However, Appellants are
addressing a teaching of Gonzalez that randomly selects only one set of
sectors, while not addressing other teachings of Gonzalez that randomly
select multiple sets of sectors.
3
Appeal2015-001014
Application 12/483,712
For example, Paragraph 70 of Gonzalez teaches wear leveling by
swapping sets of sectors, where any two sets of sectors may be chosen
randomly and swapped. (Paragraphs 62 and 85 similarly teach randomly
selecting and swapping locations and zones). The randomly chosen sets of
sectors, or "memory locations," taught by Paragraph 70 of Gonzalez "have
independence" within the meaning of claim 1.
To the extent Appellants' contentions are based on the premise that
the number of memory locations in the claimed "sample subset" is greater
than two, Appellants' contentions are not commensurate with the scope of
the claim. The only numerical limit on the claimed "sample subset" is an
upper limit of "fewer than all of the memory locations of the memory."
Paragraph 70 of Gonzalez teaches randomly selecting two memory
locations, which are fewer than all of the memory locations of the memory.
We further highlight that although Paragraph 70 only teaches
randomly selecting a subset of two locations, Python teaches that randomly
selecting a subset of any number k was within the level of skill in the art.
Paragraph 66 of Gonzalez teaches an advantage of selecting a subset of
fewer than all of the memory locations is to limit seek times. Randomly
selecting a subset k of memory locations taught by Gonzalez and Python
yields the expected result of limiting seek times as taught by Paragraph 66 of
Gonzalez. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims
2-8, 11-52, and 55---60, not separately argued, fall with claim 1.
Appellants present arguments for the patentability of claims 9, 10, 53,
and 54 (App. Br. 17-19) similar to those presented for claim 1 which we
4
Appeal2015-001014
Application 12/483,712
find unpersuasive. We sustain the rejections of claims 9, 10, 53, and 54
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1---60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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. §
41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5