SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 19, 2021

2020000816 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 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.
15/136,775 04/22/2016 Krishna T. MALLADI SSIM00011 US 5797
136129 7590 04/19/2021
Innovation Counsel LLP
2880 Zanker Road
Suite 201
San Jose, CA 95134
EXAMINER
GRULLON, FRANCISCO A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2132
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2021 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):
docket@innovationcounsel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KRISHNA T. MALLADI and HONGZHONG ZHENG
____________

Appeal 2020-000816
Application 15/136,775
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-000816
Application 15/136,775
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–24, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “providing a DRAM
appliance for data persistence” (Spec. ¶ 2), that includes “replicat[ing] data
on different nodes in a storage device pool” (Spec. ¶ 3).
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are independent; independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A memory device comprising:

a plurality of volatile memories for storing data;

a non-volatile memory buffer configured to store data
associated with workloads received from a host computer; and

a memory controller configured to store the data to both
the plurality of volatile memories and the non-volatile memory
buffer,

wherein the memory device is configured to initiate
replication of the data to a remote node,

wherein the non-volatile memory buffer is configured to
store the data in a table including an acknowledgement bit that
is set by the remote node after the data is replicated to the
remote node, and

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the
real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2020-000816
Application 15/136,775
3
wherein the memory device is further configured to send
a message to the host computer based on the acknowledgement
bit corresponding to the data to indicate that the data is
available at the remote node.
Appeal Br. 42 (Claims Appendix).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Name Reference Date
Yanai US 6,502,205 B1 Dec. 31, 2002
Talagala US 2014/0195480 A1 July 10, 2014
Frank US 2015/0039712 A1 Feb. 5, 2015

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Talagala, Frank, and Yanai (Final Act. 5).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Talagala, Frank, and Yanai teaches or suggests the limitation
of “wherein the memory device is configured to initiate replication of the
data to a remote node,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 11 and 15.

ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appeal 2020-000816
Application 15/136,775
4
Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments
Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived.).
Appellant argues that Talagala does not disclose, teach, or suggest the
claim limitation at issue because “it is a host, not the memory device, that
initiates replication of the data to a remote node according to Talagala’s own
disclosure” (Appeal Br. 25 (emphasis omitted), citing Talagala, Figs. 4, 10B,
¶¶ 274, 288). Appellant contends that “[s]ince the host is separate and
distinct from the storage device, the host-side embodiment, at least for the
purpose of this Appeal, should not be applied in rejecting Claim 1” (Reply
Br. 8, citing Appeal Br. 28–32). Appellant further contends that
[t]hroughout its entire disclosure, Talagala provides no hint or
teaching that the persistent data structure module 1009 can
include the replication module 1920 in the storage-side
embodiment as shown in FIG. 1, let alone that the replication
module 1920, even if included the storage device 102, can
“initiate” replication of the data to a remote node, as Claim 1
requires
(Reply Br. 12, citing Talagala Figs. 10A–B).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As a preliminary
issue, despite Appellant’s argument that “the host is separate and distinct
from the storage device” (Reply Br. 8), we see no language in claim 1 that
explicitly requires the host and storage device be “separate and distinct,” and
no language in claim 1 that explicitly requires the claimed “storage device”
cannot be placed on the “host-side” (Id. (emphasis omitted)). Limitations
not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon for patentability. See In re
Appeal 2020-000816
Application 15/136,775
5
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Regarding the placement of the
memory device and host, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Talagala’s teaching of a system for persistent memory
management (storage device i.e. memory device) includes a
persistent data structure module 1009 which includes a
replication module 1920 which copies or replicates data from
one ACM (auto commit memory) device to another [] teaches
what the claim requires
(Ans. 4, citing Talagala ¶¶ 0274, 0288, Figs. 1, 4, 10B). One skilled in the
art, viewing Talagala’s figures, would appreciate that Talagala illustrates
persistent data structure module 1009 as capable of being both separate from
host 114 (see Figure 1) and included within host 1014 (see Figure 4), and
that replication module 1920, when located in persistent data structure
module 1009 (see Figure 10B), “copies or replicates data, such as a
persistent data structure, from one ACM [auto-commit memory] 1011
device to another ACM 1011 device” (Talagala ¶ 288).
Further, Appellant’s argument that Talagala’s “entire disclosure . . .
provides no hint or teaching” that replication module 190 “can ‘initiate’
replication of the data to a remote node” (Reply Br. 12 (emphasis added)), is
contradicted by Talagala’s disclosure that, in certain embodiments,
each ACM 1011 comprises a host adapter or network interface
controller (NIC) for communicating data over a network
interface 1040, so that the replication module 1920 may
replicate or copy data between the ACM 1011 devices directly,
independently of a CPU 1012 and volatile memory of a host
computing device 1014, so that the replicated or copied data
does not pass through the CPU 1012 or volatile memory of the
host computing device 1014
(Talagala ¶ 290 (emphasis added)), in which such a configuration “may have
lower system overhead for the CPU” (Talagala ¶ 290). Talagala thus
Appeal 2020-000816
Application 15/136,775
6
teaches initiation by a replication module with the benefit of lowering
system overhead for a CPU.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claims 11 and 15 commensurate in scope, as well
as dependent claims 2–10, 12–14, and 16–24 not separately argued. See
Appeal Br. 36–39.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Talagala,
Frank, and Yanai teaches or suggests the limitation of “wherein the memory
device is configured to initiate replication of the data to a remote node,” as
recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims
11 and 15.

DECISION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 103 Talagala, Frank,
Yanai
1–24

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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