Ex Parte Tomlin

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2018

14112221 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/112,221 11/11/2013
12675 7590 09/13/2018
Cesari & Reed, LLP - Seagate Technology LLC
1114 Lost Creek Boulevard
Suite 430
Austin, TX 78746
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andrew John Tomlin
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.
1 OOO-STL070850 3190
EXAMINER
GOSSAGE, GLENN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2135
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 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):
usptomail@cesari-reed.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW JOHN TOMLIN
Appeal 2018-007 428
Application 14/112,221
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 is appealing the final rejection of claims 32-35 and 37--41
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Introduction
"Dynamically varying Over-Provisioning (OP) enables improvements
in lifetime, reliability, and/or performance of a Solid-State Disk (SSD)
and/ or a flash memory .... " Abstract.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, Seagate Technology LLC is the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief 2.
Appeal 2018-007 428
Application 14/112,221
Illustrative Claim
32. A device comprising:
nonvolatile solid state data storage memory;
a controller coupled to the nonvolatile solid state data
storage memory, the controller configured to:
dynamically implement a first state of the
nonvolatile solid state data storage memory by:
allocating a first portion of the nonvolatile
solid state data storage memory for system data
including data for management of the nonvolatile
solid state data storage memory by the controller;
allocating a second portion of the
nonvolatile solid state data storage memory for
host data;
allocating a third portion of the nonvolatile
solid state data storage memory for
overprovisioning reserved for the first portion;
allocating a fourth portion of the nonvolatile
solid state data storage memory for
overprovisioning reserved for the second portion;
dynamically implement a second state of the
nonvolatile solid state data storage memory in response
to a first event, implementing the second state includes:
keeping a same amount of data storage
space allocated for the first portion;
decreasing a first amount of data storage
space allocated for the second portion;
increasing a second amount of data storage
space allocated for a total data storage space of the
third portion plus the fourth portion;
dynamically allocate the total data storage space of
the third portion plus the fourth portion based on one or
more data-rate-allocation functions of one or more data
rates; and
delay implementation of the second state until a
garbage collection operation is complete.
2
Appeal 2018-007 428
Application 14/112,221
Rejection on Appeal2
Claims 32-35 and 37--41 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Haines (U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2011/0264843 Al; published October 27, 2011). Final Action
5-11.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 20, 2017), the Reply Brief
(filed July 10, 2018), the Answer (mailed May 10, 2018), and the Final
Action (mailed December 15, 2016) for the respective details.
Appellant contends:
[T]he Office failed to establish a prima facie case that the cited
document teaches or suggests at least "dynamically allocat[ing]
the total data storage space of the third portion plus the fourth
portion based on one or more data-rate-allocation functions of
one or more data rates," as recited by claim 32.
Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner finds Haines is deficient because:
Haines et al does not specifically teach a "second state" in which
the same allocation is kept for the first portion, the allocation for
host data is decreased, and the allocation for overprovisioning in
the third and fourth portions increased, a "third state" keeping
the same allocations for the first and second portions storing host
or system data, and changing the overprovisioning allocations for
the third and fourth portions, and a "fourth state" merely
changing an allocation for the first portion, providing an offset
between allocations, or other specifically claimed combinations
of allocations for the different portions, and does not explicitly
2 The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection of claim 41 was
withdrawn by the Examiner. See Answer 2.
3
Appeal 2018-007 428
Application 14/112,221
discuss dynamically changing the allocations based on "one or
more data rate allocation functions of one or more data rates."
Final Action 8.
The Examiner further finds, "Haines et al specifically teaches that the
allocations to the different portions or areas and particularly the
overprovisioning allocations, may be dynamically changed during operation
depending on various conditions or 'events' (again see paragraph [0062],
lines 9-22; paragraph [0087], lines 11-13 and paragraph [0090], lines 5-12,
e.g.)" and concludes:
It would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the claimed invention was made to change the
allocations of storage space for host and system data, and the
allocations for overprovisioning portions for the host and system
data portions, including both increasing and decreasing
allocations or leaving allocations the same, based on "allocation
functions of one or more data rates," through routine
experimentation . . . . The adjustment of allocations, whether
increased, decreased or the same allocation, for the different
portions to create or implement additional "states" of the solid
state memory through routine experimentation, in order to
optimize performance criteria such as operating speed, wear
levels, etc. based on a particular set of conditions or "events,"
would have been further readily obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and, as such,
does not [] patentably define the claimed invention over the prior
art.
Final Action 8-9.
We note that Appellant does not disclose that the claimed data rate
allocation of one or more data rates has a distinctive meaning outside of the
plain meaning of the words. See Appeal Brief 5 ( citing Specification
,r,r 126-128, Figures 2, 3A, and 3B, element 2 lOC). However, Appellant
contends, "routine experimentation cannot support the assertion that it would
4
Appeal 2018-007 428
Application 14/112,221
be obvious to utilize a different variable, such as 'one or more data-rate-
allocation functions o(one or more data rates' which the Office concedes is
not taught or suggested by the cited documents." Appeal Brief 10.
We find Appellant's arguments persuasive. It is evident that Haines
discloses a solid state drive that employs over-provisioning in a generally
similar manner as the claimed invention. See Final Action 5-8. However,
this does not compel a conclusion that Haines teaches or suggests the
specific limitation argued by Appellant. The Examiner cites In re Aller for
the proposition that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in
the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges
by routine experimentation." Answer 14 (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456 (CCPA 1955)). We conclude the claims of the instant application are
distinguished from the claims addressed in Aller. Simply stated, here, unlike
in Aller, there are no optimum or workable ranges to discover. The claimed
invention is a solid state device and not a process for producing a chemical
composition as the invention addressed in Aller. Subsequently, routine
experimentation is not applicable to address Haines' s failure to teach,
disclose, or suggest allocating data storage space based on data rate
allocation functions of data rates. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 32-35 and 37--41.
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 32-35 and 37--41
is reversed.
REVERSED
5