Ex Parte Kubo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2017

13372563 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/372,563 02/14/2012 Robert Kubo 20813 3177
26890 7590 05/22/2017
TA1UFS M STOVFR
EXAMINER
TERADATA US, INC. VALLECILLO, KYLE
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2017 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):
michelle.boldman @ teradata. com
j ames. stover @ teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT KUBO
Appeal 2016-007498
Application 13/372,5631
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT NAPPI, SCOTT HOWARD, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 13, 15—19, and 21—29, which constitute all
claims pending in the application. Claims 7—12, 14, and 20 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Teradata US, Incorporated.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007498
Application 13/372,563
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to a system and method for early
detection and reporting of an impending flash memory failure. Abstract.
Claims 1,13, and 19 are independent. Claims 1 and 19 are illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and read as follows:
1. A method for verifying solid state memory, comprising
the steps of:
performing a patrol read operation on said solid state
memory;
identifying, by a processing device, the number of data
errors and locations of those errors within a solid state memory
device;
comparing, by said processing device, the number of
errors at each one of said locations to a threshold value; and
when the number of errors at one of said locations
exceeds said threshold value, biasing said patrol read operation
to said one of said locations for a predetermined period.
19. A method for verifying solid state memory within a
NAND flash memory device, comprising the steps of:
performing a patrol read operation on said solid state
memory,
monitoring, by a processing device, data error rates at a
plurality of
memory locations within said NAND flash memory
device;
comparing, by said processing device, the data error rates
at each one of said locations to a threshold value; and
2
Appeal 2016-007498
Application 13/372,563
when the data error rate at one of said locations exceeds
said threshold value, increasing the frequency of said patrol
read operation at said one of said locations for a
predetermined period.
Br. 10, 12 (Claims App.) (emphases added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—6, 13, 15—18, and 25—28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 2—3.
Claims 1—6, 13, 15—18, and 25—28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Final Act. 3.
Claims 19, 21—24, and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Olbrich et al. (US 2011/0228601 Al;
Sept. 22, 2011) (“Olbrich”) and Higeta et al. (US 2010/0106901 Al; Apr.
29, 2010) (“Higeta”). Final Act. U-9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded of error.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from
which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the
following for highlighting and emphasis.
Rejections of Independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their Dependent Claims)
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner finds the limitation “biasing said patrol read operation,”
as recited in independent claims 1 and 13, indefinite. Final Act. 3.
3
Appeal 2016-007498
Application 13/372,563
Appellant argues the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection is erroneous
because, according to Appellant, the Specification “sufficiently describes
what is being biased and how the biasing is performed.” App. Br. 6—7.
Specifically, Appellant contends page 6 of the Specification, at lines 10-23,
define the “biasing” limitation such that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand what is being claimed. App. Br. 6. We disagree.
The term “biasing” appears only once in the Specification, as follows:
The improved system and method for detecting potential flash
memory failures described herein leverages the existing Patrol
Read feature function NAND Flash plane failure algorithms, but
enhances detection capability by establishing a data unit bit error
threshold over unit time, and when the bit error threshold meets
or exceeds the threshold triggers a bias of the Patrol Read
feature at the NAND Flash plane that contains the data units that
met or exceeded the threshold.
Spec. 6. As the Examiner finds, this passage more defines “bias” than the
ambiguous claim language itself. Ans. 7—8. Neither the claim language nor
Specification indicates whether “biasing” a Patrol Read operation refers to a
“voltage bias,” “favoring” a particular result or outcome over an alternative,
or some other meaning. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds a Patrol Read
operation generally is known in the art, and yet the Examiner’s “prior art
search did not reveal any patent or non-patent related documents” that
describe the meaning of “biasing of a Patrol Read operation.” Ans. 7—8
(emphasis added). Appellant does not rebut these findings.
Appellant argues, App. Br. 6—7, the Examiner did not consider the
entire passage on page 6 of the Specification in context, but Appellant does
not explain how any other portion of the Specification (including page 6,
lines 10—23) further defines the “biasing” limitation. Appellant merely
4
Appeal 2016-007498
Application 13/372,563
quotes language from the Specification, and states “[i]t is believed that the
description provided at page 6, lines 3 through 23 . . . would reasonably]
convey to one skill in the art” the meaning of the recited limitation. Id. This
argument does not persuade us of error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error
regarding the indefiniteness rejection.
Appellant makes the same arguments against the written description
rejection, App. Br. 5—6, and we are unpersuaded of error for the same
reasons. Specifically, the Examiner finds the Specification does not describe
the “biasing said patrol read operation” limitation such that “one skilled in
the art would recognize that [Appellant] had possession of the claimed
invention.” Ans. 2. In response, Appellant merely cites to the same portion
of the Specification discussed above (page 6, lines 3—23) and concludes that
this passage adequately describes the invention. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s conclusory argument is unpersuasive of error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 13,
as well as their dependent claims 2—6, 15—18, and 25—28, under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. We also sustain the rejection
of the same claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
5
Appeal 2016-007498
Application 13/372,563
Rejection of Independent Claim 19 (and its Dependent Claims)
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches (i)
“performing a patrol read operation on said solid state memory,” and (ii)
“when the data error rate at one of said locations exceeds said threshold
value, increasing the frequency of said patrol read operation at said one of
said locations for a predetermined period,” as recited in independent claim
19. App. Br. 7—8. Appellant argues the Examiner concedes these
limitations are not taught in Olbrich, and that the Examiner has misconstrued
the teachings of Higeta. App. Br. 8. We disagree.
Regarding the first disputed limitation, “performing a patrol read
operation on said solid state memory,” the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Higeta teaches a “normal patrol operation that patrols the memory.” Ans.
9—10 (citing Higeta 116) (emphasis added). Such memory may be “solid-
state memory,” as recited in the claim. Ans. 10 (citing Higeta 158)
(emphasis added). We, therefore, discern no error in the Examiner’s
findings.
The second disputed limitation, as the Examiner finds, is taught in
Higeta paragraphs 4—8 and 74, which describes “monitoring error in a
memory,” “compar[ing]” error rate to a “reference value” (threshold), and
performing “additional patrol operation[s]” (increasing frequency) to address
such error. Ans. 10—13 (citing Higeta H 4—8, 74). We discern no error in
the Examiner’s finding.2
2 Even if the Examiner’s findings regarding the second disputed limitation
had not been supported in the record, we would not be persuaded of error
because this limitation (“when [a threshold is exceeded]”) is conditional and,
6
Appeal 2016-007498
Application 13/372,563
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 19, as well
as its dependent claims 21—24, and 29, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Olbrich and Higeta.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 13, 15—19, and
21-29.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
therefore, not entitled to patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser,
Appeal 2013-007847, slip op. 6—10 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
7