Ex Parte Kwon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 27, 2011

11193347 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MOON-SANG KWON
____________

Appeal 2009-009766
Application 11/193,347
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-17, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-009766
Application 11/193,347

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to the use of mapping blocks for data
management of files. See Abstract.

Representative Claims
1. A method for efficient data management of a file, the method
comprising:

receiving a request to delete a file;

searching for mapping blocks constituting the file in a block map
which is constructed with a set of the mapping blocks the mapping blocks
constituting the file storing therein information about data blocks
constituting the file; and

adding a linked list to a deletion list, wherein the linked list is formed
with mapping blocks obtained as a result of the searching.

10. An apparatus for efficient data management of a data file in a
digital device, the apparatus comprising:

a block allocating unit which allocates a space for storing the data file,
using mapping blocks of a deletion list,

wherein data of the data file are stored in data blocks and a set of
mapping blocks storing therein information about the data blocks are
included in a block map,

wherein the set of mapping blocks storing therein information about
the data blocks is included in a linked list, through which data of storage file
including the data of the data file are stored sequentially,

wherein a set of mapping blocks constituting a previously deleted file
is included in the deletion list, and

Appeal 2009-009766
Application 11/193,347

3
wherein the apparatus sequentially stores the data file in the allocated
space, the allocated space including data blocks indicated by mapping blocks
constituting at least a portion of the previously deleted file.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 10-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Karasudani (US 6,658,439 B2).

ANALYSIS
Section 101
“The four categories [of § 101] together describe the exclusive reach
of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of
the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed
scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.” In re
Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claim 10 appears to be based on the
view that non-functional descriptive material is recorded in an apparatus
(Ans. 3), or that no computer-readable storage medium or other hardware is
positively recited (id. at 9).
Claim 10, however, recites a “block allocating unit” that allocates a
space for storing a data file and, inter alia, that the apparatus sequentially
stores the data file in an allocated space. The claim appears to require
hardware to effect the recited operations, as opposed to a mere non-
functional description of operations to be carried out. We agree with
Appeal 2009-009766
Application 11/193,347

4
Appellant to the extent that the rejection fails to demonstrate that the
invention of claim 10 is not patent-eligible subject matter.
We therefore cannot sustain the § 101 rejection of claim 10, or that of
dependent claims 11-17.

Section 102(e)
Claim 1
In response to the § 102 rejection of claim 1, Appellant submits that
Karasudani does not “teach or suggest” the final step of claim 1: adding a
linked list to a deletion list, wherein the linked list is formed with mapping
blocks obtained as a result of the searching. App. Br. 12. Appellant argues
that the reference fails to “teach or suggest” the step because, as shown in
Figures 13A through 13C, Karasudani “only” updates information in the
unallocated cluster list 82 by changing a respective number indicating a
number of continuous unallocated clusters corresponding to the FAT [file
allocation table] entries of clusters to be newly unallocated. App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 7-8.
App
App

illus
unal
eal 2009-0
lication 11
Figures
Figures
trating an F
located clu
A
numbers
FIGS. 13
through
cluster n
cluster r
number
registere
newly ob

A
numbers
FIGS. 13
unalloca
09766
/193,347
13(A), 13(
13(A), 13(
AT, an un
ster list af
ssuming th
52 throug
A and 13
59 newly b
umbers 46
etrieving s
(12 in FIG
d in correl
tained nu

ssuming th
70 throug
A and 13
ted, thereb
B), and 13
B), and 13
allocated
ter update
at, the file
h 59 is de
B, these cl
ecome un
through 5
ection 72,
. 13B) of t
ation with
mber (26 i
. . .
at a file al
h 73 is de
B, these cl
y forming
5
(C) of Kar
(C) are sa
cluster list
d. Karasu
allocated
leted in the
usters of c
allocated
F form on
as shown
he continu
head clus
n FIG. 13C
.
located to
leted in the
usters 70 t
a new iso
asudani a
id to be di
before up
dani col. 8
to the clus
recording
luster num
so that the
e continuo
in FIG. 13
ous unallo
ter numbe
).
the cluste
recording
hrough 73
lated serie
re reprodu
agrams res
dated, and
, ll. 16-18
ters of clu
medium
bers 52
clusters o
us series.
C, updates
cated clus
r 46, to the
rs of cluste
medium
become
s of
ced below
pectively
an
.
ster
of
f
The
the
ters

r
of
.

Appeal 2009-009766
Application 11/193,347

6
continuous unallocated clusters. The cluster retrieving section
72, as shown in FIG. 13C, adds an element to the unallocated
cluster list 82, in which element the head cluster number is 70
and the number of continuous unallocated clusters is 4.

Karasudani col. 17, l. 65 - col. 18, ll. 21 (emphasis added).
Thus, while Karasudani can be said to describe updating information
in the unallocated cluster list by changing a respective number indicating a
number of continuous unallocated clusters corresponding to the FAT entries
of clusters to be newly unallocated (12 in Fig. 13(B) to 26 in Fig. 13(C)), the
reference discloses more. In particular, Karasudani also describes adding an
element to the unallocated cluster list (head cluster number 70 in Fig. 3(C),
between head cluster numbers 64 and 76 (Figs. 3(B) and 3(C)).
We are therefore not persuaded that Karasudani describes “only” that
which Appellant attributes to the reference. As such, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding that Karasudani describes adding a linked
list to a deletion list, wherein the linked list is formed with mapping blocks
obtained as a result of the searching.

Claims 6, 7
Appellant places claims 6 and 7 in separate headings in the Appeal
Brief. However, the arguments in response to the rejection of dependent
claims 6 and 7 are based on the allegation that cluster list 82 as described by
Karasudani operates “very differently” from the claimed invention, or that
the “general disclosure” of the reference fails to “teach or suggest” recited
claim language. The alleged “difference” has not been established, however,
Appeal 2009-009766
Application 11/193,347

7
for the reasons noted in our review of the rejection of base claim 1. Further,
the general allegations do not persuade us of error in the rejection.1
Appellant further alleges, however, that the “general description of an
unallocated cluster list” would not “teach or suggest” any removal of
information of mapping blocks “by indicating that it is available for use” as
recited in claim 6. App. Br. 16.
According to Appellant, support for claim 6 may be found at Figure
10, element S212 and paragraphs [81] and [82] of the written description.
App. Br. 8, “Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter.” Although the
disclosure describes removing mapping blocks from the deletion list, we find
no disclosure of any removal of information of mapping blocks “by
indicating that it is available for use.” Further, the literal language of claim
6 makes no sense. In view of the Specification, claim 6 might mean
removing information of mapping blocks constituting the file from the
deletion list, thereby indicating that “it” is available for use. However, the
antecedent for the indefinite reference “it” in the claim cannot be reasonably
ascertained.
In any event, we conclude that Appellant has not identified error in
the rejection of claim 6 and claim 7. We decline to enter a new ground of
rejection against claim 6 as being directed to indefinite subject matter, but in
the event of further prosecution the Examiner should consider such a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

1 Although Figures 13A through 13C of Karasudani illustrate adding an
element to an unallocated cluster list when a file is deleted (col. 17, ll. 46-50;
col. 18, ll. 14-21), elements are of course deleted when a file is stored (col.
17, ll. 34-37).
Appeal 2009-009766
Application 11/193,347

8
Summary/Conclusion
We thus reverse the § 101 rejection, but sustain the § 102(e) rejection
against all the claims on the basis of our review of representative claims.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
The rejection of claims 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Karasudani is affirmed.
We thus affirm the Examiner’s determination that claims 1-17 are not
patentable.
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(f).

AFFIRMED

pgc