Ex Parte Park

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2014

12016702 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2014)

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.
12/016,702 01/18/2008 Chan-Ik Park 5649-2205 4813
20792 7590 08/22/2014
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
RUIZ, ARACELIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2189
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2014 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 CHAN-IK PARK
____________

Appeal 2012-002931
Application 12/016,702
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-002931
Application 12/016,702

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–12, 17, and 19–25. Claims 13–16 and 18 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A method of operating a data processing system,
comprising:
obtaining a read/write operation unit size used in
performing data operations in a data storage device;
setting a file system unit of memory allocation size to a
multiple of the read/write operation unit size; and
setting a unit of memory allocation starting address to a
read/write operation unit starting address used by the data
storage device.

Examiner’s Rejections1
The Examiner rejected claims 1–8, 11, 12, 17, and 19–25 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakanishi (US 2006/0129749
A1, June 15, 2006). Ans. 5–13.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Charles (US 2005/0154851 A1, July
14, 2005). Ans. 13–14.

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 9 and 10. Rather, this
rejection turns on our decision as to the underlying § 102 rejection, and is
not further addressed herein.
Appeal 2012-002931
Application 12/016,702

3
ANALYSIS
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 5–15). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues (Br. 4–5) that Nakanishi does not disclose the
claimed element in independent claim 12 of “setting a file system unit of
memory allocation size to a multiple of the read/write operation unit size”
(emphasis ours) (hereinafter “disputed feature”). In particular, Appellant
contends “Nakanishi does not state that the allocation unit size should be set
to an integral multiple of the read/write operation unit size.” Id. at 6.
Nakanishi discloses:
the register 143 stores allocation unit size, the allocation unit
size is 128 KB. The allocation unit size needs to have a value
at least physical block size. The access device 150A accesses
the nonvolatile memory device 140A based on the allocation
unit size decided by the above process. When the allocation
unit size is not stored in the register 143 and there is not the AU
size storing table 153, the memory device information obtaining
part 152 may obtain the physical block size from the register
143 and decide the integral multiple of the size, as the
allocation unit size.
Nakanishi ¶ 85 (emphasis ours).
The Examiner finds (Ans. 14) that the physical block size in
Nakanishi corresponds to the claimed read/write operation unit size. We
agree with the Examiner’s finding because independent claim 1 does not
preclude such a reading. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.

2 According to Appellant, independent claims 17 and 19 contain similar
subject matter. Br. 5. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent
claims 2–8, 11, 12, and 20–25. Except for our ultimate decision, these
claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2012-002931
Application 12/016,702

4
1997). We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings
including the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s arguments about the
disputed feature.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1–12, 17, and 19–25.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–8, 11, 12, 17, and 19–
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakanishi.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakanishi and Charles.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12, 17, and 19–
25.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc