Ex Parte Lott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12974379 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/974,379 12/21/2010 GLENN A. LOTT
35219 7590 08/31/2016
WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION
TANYA JOSEPHS/SANDRA JACKSON -IP LAW DEPARTMENT
3355 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612
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.
T4524 3611
EXAMINER
DO, CHRISTOPHER N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2133
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
IPDocket@wdc.com
Tanya.Josephs@wdc.com
Sandra.Jackson@wdc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLENN A. LOTT, JEAN KODAMA, and DANNY 0. YBARRA
Appeal2015-004547
Application 12/974,379
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-14, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal2015-004547
Application 12/974,379
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to data storage devices. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A data storage device comprising:
a non-volatile memory (NVM) comprising a plurality of
sectors each having a sector size; and
control circuitry operable to:
receive an access command from a host, wherein
the access command identifies a plurality of host blocks
having a host block size less than the sector size;
map a plurality of the host blocks to a target sector;
when the target sector spans an encryption zone
boundary defined by the host blocks, generate a NVM
command identifying a first key corresponding to a first
encryption zone and a second key corresponding to a
second encryption zone; and
execute the NVM command as a unitary operation
to access a first part of the target sector using the first key
and access a second part of the target sector using the
second key.
References and Rejection
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nessler (US 2003/0070083 Al; published Apr. 10, 2003)
and Kusakabe (US 2004/0258245 Al; published Dec. 23, 2004).
ANALYSIS
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
2
Appeal2015-004547
Application 12/974,379
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and
(ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 1
First, Appellants contend Kusakabe does not teach "execute the NVM
command as a unitary operation to access a first part of the target sector
using the first key and access a second part of the target sector using the
second key," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 2-3. In
particular, Appellants assert "[t]he examiner['s] interpretation ofKusakabe
is technically incorrect. Kusakabe does not access multiple areas with one
NVM command. Kusakabe clearly states in a number of places that a single
area is being accessed at a time." App. Br. 4; see also App. Br. 5---6; Reply
Br. 2-3.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing Nessler and
Kusakabe collectively teach the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 2--4. In
particular, the Examiner finds in Kusakabe:
Fig 19. [ d]oes in fact show access to two separate service areas,
#030Ch, and #1022h. Paragraph [0248] also clarifies the
depiction in the figure, stating that "Accordingly, in the case of
Figs 18 and 19, the access to the service area managed by the
service defining area #03 OCh and the service area managed by
the service defining area #1022Ch is permitted."
Fig 19 ... also depicts the service code being [] sent to the IC
card 2, which could be interpreted as a single command. The
service code contains #030ch and # 1022h service keys, which
are the two separate encrypted areas being accessed using the
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal2015-004547
Application 12/974,379
one service code that is sent by the service supplying machine
111.
Ans. 3 (emphases added) (original emphasis omitted).
Appellants fail to respond persuasively to such findings and therefore,
fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this
court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). In
particular, Appellants do not critique the Examiner's finding that
Kusakabe' s paragraph 248 teaches "access a first part of ... and access a
second part of .... "(Ans. 3). In fact, Appellants concede "[t]he applicant
agrees Kusakabe teaches that a manager C may gain access to two service
areas using respective access keys." App. Br. 5. Likewise, Appellants do
not persuasively respond to the Examiner's findings that Kusakabe' s Figure
19 teaches "execute the ... command as a unitary operation."
Further, Appellants advance unsupported attorney arguments (App.
Br. 4---6; Reply Br. 2-3), which are unpersuasive of error.
Second, Appellants contend:
[T]he examiner asserts Kusakabe teaches to generate a
NVM command identifying a first key corresponding to a first
encryption zone and a second key corresponding to a second
encryption zone (FIG. 15 and FIG. 19; paragraphs [0216]-
[0217]; .... The applicant respectfully disagrees.
The examiner interpretation of Kusakabe is technically
incorrect.
App. Br. 2.
To the extent Appellants are arguing the Examiner erred in finding
Kusakabe teaches "generate a NVM command identifying a first key
4
Appeal2015-004547
Application 12/974,379
corresponding to a first encryption zone and a second key corresponding to a
second encryption zone," Appellants have not provided substantive
arguments to 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"); see also In
re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that "the Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art").
Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and independent claim 8 for
similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding
dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, which Appellants do not argue separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5