HYOJIN JEONG et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2021

2020001744 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2021)

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.
13/283,866 10/28/2011 HYOJIN JEONG 8836S-741 1014
22150 7590 08/26/2021
F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC
130 WOODBURY ROAD
WOODBURY, NY 11797
EXAMINER
LOONAN, ERIC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2137
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2021 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):
garramone@chauiplaw.com
mail@chauiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYOJIN JEONG, YOUNGJOON CHOI, SUNGHOON LEE, and
JAE-HYEON JU
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE GREGG I. ANDERSON, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 54–61 and 64–71. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a “MEMORY SYSTEM, DATA
STORAGE DEVICE, USER DEVICE AND DATA MANAGEMENT
METHOD THEREOF.” Spec., Title. The Specification explains that a
host performs an erase operation on a data storage device in response to a
TRIM command on a data storage device. Id. ¶ 46, Fig. 10 (reproduced
below). The data storage device may be a flash memory storage device
where the TRIM command from the host informs the storage device which
blocks of data are no longer considered in use by the host file system. Id.
¶ 55. Specifically, “a TRIM command allows an operating system to inform
a solid state device (SSD) which blocks of data are no longer considered in
use and can be wiped internally.” Id. ¶ 94.
The data storage device may include a mapping table
configured to change a logical address, which is provided from
the host, to a physical address of the data storage device, and in
the mapping table, the storage area which matches with the data
management unit of the data storage device among the storage
area designated as the area to be deleted may be marked as
invalid.

Spec. ¶ 20 (emphasis added). “In the mapping table, a storage area which is
mismatched with the data management unit of the data storage device among
the storage area designated as the area to be deleted may be marked as
valid.” Id. ¶ 21. The data storage device may further include a TRIM
manage table configured to manage information that is mismatched in the
data management unit of the data storage device designated as an area to be
deleted. Id. ¶ 22. “The mapping table may update Writing State
Information (WSI) on the basis of the TRIM manage table when the storage
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

3
area managed in the TRIM manage table matches with the data management
unit of the data storage device.” Id. ¶ 23.
Figure 10 is reproduced below.

Figure 10 is a diagrammatic illustration of a TRIM
command using a mapping table and a
TRIM manage table.

Spec. ¶ 67. As shown in Figure 10, the mapping table manages a
corresponding page with sector addresses 1 through 4 of File1of the page
unit by “matching” them with a page unit of the flash memory 1210. Id.
¶¶ 157–158. The sector address 5 corresponds to sub-page (0) of sub-pages
1 to 3 in the page 2 is “mismatched” and marked in WSI as invalid data, i.e.,
“x” in the TRIM manage table. Id. ¶¶ 158–159, 162.
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

4
The “TRIM manage table separately manages the second page
(page2) . . . when a sector address received from the host 1100 is
mismatched with the page unit of the flash memory 1210.” Spec. ¶
161. Thus, the TRIM manage table manages a page including a
portion of invalid data among pages. Id.; Fig. 10. When the TRIM
command identifies all the data stored in the second page (page2) as
invalid, the WSI regarding the second page (page2) of the mapping
table is updated. Id. ¶ 167, Fig. 11.
“An erasing operation for the second and third pages (page2
and page3) marked as invalid, for example, is performed during the
idle time of the control unit 1230 (see Fig. 4)” and the first
management unit consisting of valid information, i.e., page3, is
erased. Spec. ¶ 152, claim 54. An erasing operation for the second
page (page2) is performed at a subsequent idle time and the
information of the second page (page2) is deleted from the TRIM
manage table “all remaining data in the second management unit other
than the only a portion of the second management unit has been
marked as invalid in the TRIM managing table.” Spec. ¶ 154, claim
54.
Claims 54 and 74 are independent claims. Claim 54, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
54. A data management method for a memory system
including a host and a data storage device, the host having a
different data management unit than the data storage device, the
method comprising:
generating a sector address range of a first file that is no
longer required in the memory system, data of the first file being
stored in a first management unit and only a portion of a second
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

5
management unit of the data storage device, wherein the first
management unit and the second management unit do not
overlap each other;
assigning the sector address range of the first file to both a
first sector address range and a second sector address range based
on information of a mapping table received from the data storage
device, the first sector address range and the second sector
address range corresponding to the first management unit and the
only a portion of the second management unit, respectively;
marking writing state information of the first management
unit as invalid in the mapping table when the first sector address
matches the first management unit;
keeping writing state information of the second management
unit as valid in the mapping table, and marking writing state
information corresponding to the only a portion of the second
management unit as invalid in a TRIM managing table, when the
second sector address range mismatches the second
management unit;
erasing the first management unit during a first idle time in
response to the writing state information of the first management
unit being marked as invalid, wherein the only a portion of the
second management unit marked as invalid is not erased during
the first idle time; and
erasing the second management unit during a second idle time
subsequent to the first idle time, wherein the second management
unit is not erased until writing state information corresponding to
all remaining data in the second management unit other than the
only a portion of the second management unit has been marked
as invalid in the TRIM managing table.
Appeal Br. 28–29 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

6
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Song US 2010/0217927 A1 Aug. 26, 2010
Yoshihashi
(supporting Official
Notice)
WO 2011/074712 A1 June 23, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 54–61 and 64–71 are rejected under as being indefinite under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Final
Act. 2.
Claims 54–61 and 64–71 are rejected as obvious under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Song and OFFICIAL NOTICE (as further supported
by Yoshihashi).
OPINION
Issue 1: Is the recitation of “the first [or second] sector address
range” matches or mismatches “the first [or second] management unit”
(“matches and mismatches” limitation) indefinite because sector address
ranges cannot be compared to management units, as recited in claim 54?

We are persuaded that the “matches and mismatches” limitation
would have been definite to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of
the Specification, prior art, and claims. See Appeal Br. 7 (citing Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure, (“MPEP”) § 2173.02). Conversely, we do not
interpret the language of claim 54 relied on by the Examiner as comparing
two things, “sector address” and “management unit,” that cannot be
compared because they are so dissimilar. Final Act. 3. Neither do we agree
with the Examiner’s plain meaning analysis of the word “match” to find that
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

7
“match” means “to equal.” Id. Appellant argues that “match” has a specific
meaning in the Specification that is consistent with the claims. Appeal Br.
8–9.
In the Answer, the Examiner maintains the position that “sector
address” is so dissimilar from “management unit” that the two cannot
“match.” Ans. 4. We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s argument that a
proposed amendment after final action removing “matches” and
“mismatches” from the claim is support for the Examiner’s position. Id.
The amendment after final was not entered and is extraneous to the
prosecution of the claims at issue. As Appellant argues, the amendment was
a proposal that was not accepted. Reply Br. 3.
The terms “match” and “mismatch” do compare “sector addresses” to
“management units.” However, the comparison is not that the two “are
equal.” Rather, the comparison is between sector addresses of a file (pages
1, 2, and 3 of the mapping table) and available sub-pages. Appeal Br. 8
(citing Spec. ¶¶ 158–159, Fig. 10).
The Examiner’s rejection of the “matching and mismatching”
limitation on the ground that it is indefinite is not sustained. Independent
claim 64 is not specifically rejected beyond arguing it is “analogous.” Final
Act. 2. We rely on our reasoning for claim 54 and likewise do not sustain
the rejection of claim 64 or dependent claims 55–61 and 65–71.
Issue 2: Does the combination of Song and Official Notice (supported
by Yoshihashi) teach “marking writing state information of the first
management unit as invalid in the mapping table when the first sector
address matches the first management unit” and “keeping writing state
information of the second management unit as valid in the mapping table,
and marking writing state information corresponding to the only a portion
of the second management unit as invalid in a TRIM managing table, when
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

8
the second sector address range mismatches the second management unit,”
(“two table” limitation) as recited in claim 54? (Emphasis added.)

The Examiner acknowledges that Song alone does not disclose the
“two table” limitation. Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, Song does
teach “writing state information of the second management unit as valid in
the mapping table” but does not teach a “TRIM managing table when
marking write state information corresponding to the only a portion of the
second data management unit.” Id. at 4 (citing Song ¶ 177 (data to be
deleted is marked “invalid”)) (emphasis added). The Examiner’s Official
Notice based on Yoshihashi teaches two tables in Figures 4 and 5 and a
TRIM managing table. Id. at 5–6 (citing Yoshihashi, Figs. 4–5), 9.
The Examiner makes several findings about what a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood from Song. Final Act. 6–7. First and
most significant to the issue, the Examiner finds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill,
upon the determination of whether or not all pages of the block contain
invalid data, could associate a status of the block as ‘ready to delete’ or ‘not
ready to delete’ (or ‘invalid’ and ‘valid’, respectively).” Id. at 6. Thus,
according to the Examiner, one of ordinary skill “could further create
separate tables for managing write state information at the block level and
sub-block level by placing the tables in separate files.” Id.
The Examiner contends that Official Notice “discloses the data
storage device is configured to keep writing state information of the second
management unit as valid in the mapping table, and wherein the managing
table is a TRIM managing table when marking write state information
corresponding to the only a portion of the second data management unit.”
Final Act. 9. We agree with Appellant that this fact is not “capable of
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

9
instant and unquestionable demonstration of being well-known.” Appeal
Br. 20 (citing MPEP § 2144.03(A)). The Examiner does not respond to
Appellant’s argument with any reason why Official Notice is appropriate
here. See Ans. 5.
Appellant summarizes the “two table” limitation as an exemplary
embodiment where “data of a single file is stored in a first management unit
and only a portion of a second management unit, and two separately
managed tables are used when managing the two management units.” Reply
Br. 5. Furthermore, the limitation is argued as requiring that, when a
“match” occurs in the first management unit, the corresponding sectors, are
marked as “invalid” and thus ready for deletion during the “first idle time.”
Id. A “mismatch” in the sector address in second management table is
recorded as “valid” and not ready for deletion but is recorded in the TRIM
managing table. See Fig. 10 above (Mapping Table and TRIM Manage
Table).
The Examiner argues Song teaches blocks and sub blocks in a table.
Ans. 5 (citing Song ¶ 85, Figs. 5, 36). The Examiner does not find support
in Song for “the use of both WSI tables simultaneously,” as claim 54
requires. Id. Appellant argues that Song only discloses sector address of a
file as “valid or invalid in the same, single mapping table.” Reply Br. 4
(citing Song, Figs. 5–6, 9–10).
We find persuasive Appellant’s argument that the “two table”
limitation is not taught. We are also persuaded that the necessary showing
of Official Notice of a TRIM table with a mapping table has been made.
Moreover, Yoshihashi does not teach a TRIM command with a mapping
table. All of the citations to Yoshihashi show that it marks sectors of a file
Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

10
as valid or invalid without storing sectors for later erasure or deletion in
response to a TRIM command. See Reply Br. 4–5. Indeed, Song selects
valid physical sectors internally, stores data in collected physical sectors in
another physical sector, and erases the invalidated physical sectors” in a
merge operation. Song ¶ 181. A TRIM command is not disclosed as part of
a merge.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 54 as obvious over Song and
Official Notice (supported by Yoshihashi) is not sustained. We rely on our
reasoning for claim 54 and likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 64
or dependent claims 55–61 and 65–71.
We, therefore, need not reach other arguments presented by
Appellant.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 54–61 and 64–71 for failure to
distinctly point out and claim the subject matter of the invention is reversed.
The rejection of claims 54–61 and 64–71 as obvious over Song and Official
Notice (supported by Yoshihashi) is reversed.

Appeal 2020-001744
Application 13/283,866

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
54–61, 64–
71
112(b) Indefiniteness 54–61, 64–
71
54–61, 64–
71
103(a) Song, Official
Notice (supported by
Yoshihashi)
54–61, 64–
71
Overall
Outcome
54–61, 64–
71

REVERSED