Ex Parte Sinclair et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2015

11963413 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015)

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.
11/963,413 12/21/2007 Alan Sinclair 10519-212 9954
67813 7590 02/25/2015
BGL/
P.O. BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
RIGOL, YAIMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2015 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 ALAN SINCLAIR and BARRY WRIGHT
____________

Appeal 2012-011396
Application 11/963,413
1

Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–10. Claims 11–31 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SanDisk Technologies,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.

Appeal 2012-011396
Application 11/963,413

2

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1–10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0184723A1 (published
Aug. 17, 2006) to Sinclair et al. (“Sinclair”) and U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2002/0129192 A1 (published Sept. 12, 2002) to Spiegel et
al. (“Spiegel”). Ans. 5-14.

ANALYSIS
The Claimed Invention
According to Appellants, “[t]his application relates to the operation of
memory systems, such as reprogrammable non-volatile semiconductor flash
memory, and a host device to which the memory is connected or
connectable.” Spec. ¶ 20. The sole independent claim 1 is directed to a
method. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method for allocating blocks at a reprogrammable non-
volatile mass storage system, the method comprising:

identifying a group of data to be written to a block at a
mass storage system; and

allocating one of a new block or a partial block to the
identified group of data based on whether a total
unprogrammed capacity in partial blocks of the mass storage
system exceeds an amount of valid data in obsolete blocks of
the mass storage system.

Appeal 2012-011396
Application 11/963,413

3
The Section 103 Rejection
Claim 1
Appellants argue that claim 1 was not properly rejected because the
cited combination of references fails to teach or suggest, “allocating one of
new block or a partial block to the identified group of data based on whether
a total unprogrammed capacity in partial blocks of the mass storage system
exceeds an amount of valid data in obsolete blocks of the mass storage
system.” App. Br. 3–7. The Examiner relies on ¶¶ 13, 14, and 19 of Spiegel
for teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. App. Br. 5; Ans. 5–6, 15–
16.
The findings of the Examiner are supported by the cited portions of
Spiegel. For example, ¶ 19 of Spiegel states:
By comparing the location of dirty space[
2
] within each block
of the nonvolatile memory to the reservation for data writes, the
reservation system 210 can determine whether it is efficient to
store the data in the physical block corresponding to its
reservation or to write the data to a different block. For
example, if the reserved unallocated space is in a dirty block
and the dirty block is substantially full with valid data, then it
may be inefficient for the reservation system to copy the valid
data out into a buffer, reclaim the block, rewrite the data from
the buffer to the space, and then write the data from the
reservation buffer 204 to that unallocated space.

The first sentence of this passage supports the finding that Spiegel teaches or
suggests allocating data to a new block or a partial block. The second
sentence of this passage supports the finding that Spiegel teaches or suggests

2
In Spiegel, “dirty space is an area of memory containing invalid data.”
Spiegel, ¶ 5.
Appeal 2012-011396
Application 11/963,413

4
basing the allocation on comparing the total unprogrammed capacity in a
block with the amount of valid data in a block. We are not persuaded of
error by the Examiner.
Appellants contend that “partial block” and “obsolete block” are
defined in ¶ 89 of the Specification in a manner such that a single block may
not be both a “partial block” and an “obsolete block” in the context of claim
1. App. Br. 7. In response, the Examiner states:
There is no requirement or limitation dictating that the partial
blocks be different from obsolete blocks as claimed, where
partial blocks are interpreted (according to conventional
meaning in the art) as blocks containing at least some
unprogrammed capacity and obsolete blocks as blocks
containing at least some obsolete data, wherein a single block
may comprise a partial block and an obsolete block.

Ans. 16–17. Paragraph 89 of the Specification, in relevant part, states
(emphasis added):
For purposes of this application, a new block is defined to
include a block of data that only contains unwritten erased
capacity and a partial block is defined to include a block of data
that currently contains a portion [of] valid data and a portion of
unwritten erased capacity. Further, for purposes of this
application, a total unprogrammed capacity in partial blocks of
a memory storage system is defined to include the amount of
data in partial blocks of the mass storage system that is
unwritten erased capacity. Moreover, for purposes of this
application, an amount of valid data in obsolete blocks of a
memory storage system is defined to include the amount of
valid data in blocks that include both data that is currently valid
and data that is currently invalid.

Appeal 2012-011396
Application 11/963,413

5
Through use of the phrase “defined to include” in the context of ¶ 89, the
Specification explicitly fails to provide definitions that are limited in the
manner urged by Appellants. In addition, the language in the Specification
fails to support the distinction urged by Appellants. A single block can meet
the asserted definitions for both “partial block” – contains a portion of valid
data and a portion of unwritten erased capacity – and an “obsolete block” –
includes both data that is currently valid and data that is currently invalid.
We do not discern any error by the Examiner in this regard.

Claim 4
Appellants argue that the cited combination of references fails to teach
“determining a number of shared blocks associated with the identified group
of data” and “the allocation of one of the new block or the partial block to
the identified group of data based on whether the total unprogrammed
capacity in partial blocks of the mass storage system exceeds the amount of
valid data in obsolete blocks of the mass storage system is performed upon a
determination that there are no shared blocks associated with the
identified group of data” as recited in the context of claim 4. App. Br. 7–8.
The Examiner relies on the same portions of Spiegel as relied on with regard
to claim 1 (¶¶ 13, 14, 19) as teaching the allocation of blocks and ¶ 156 of
Sinclair as teaching or suggesting a determination as to whether shared
blocks are associated with an identified group of data. Ans. 18.
Appellants’ argument with regard to the limitations of claim 4 is
misdirected. Appellants argue the cited portions of Spiegel fail to teach the
determination that there are no shared blocks associated with the identified
group of data. App. Br. 8. However, the Examiner relied on the cited
Appeal 2012-011396
Application 11/963,413

6
portion of Sinclair for this teaching. Ans. 18 (“Sinclair teaches . . . a system
where it is determined that there are no shared blocks associated with the
identified group of data”). We are not persuaded of error with regard to the
rejection of claim 4.

Claims 2, 3, and 5–10
No separate arguments are presented in support of the patentability of
dependent claims 2, 3, and 5–10. App. Br. 3–8. Claims 2 and 3 depend
directly from claim 1. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and claims 5–10
depend directly or indirectly from claim 4. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of these claims for the reasons stated with regard to claims 1 and 4.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of pending claims 1–10 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
tj