Is US8433843 invalid?


In reference to the patent: US8433843

I'm convinced this patent is invalid. This patent, in summary, is:

  1. The idea of combining wear leveling with a secure erase in the write step.
  2. Various claims involving concrete steps of achieving the abstract idea in claim 1.

Thus, the entire patent is a collection of concrete methods to perform the abstract process of combining wear leveling and secure erasure.

I believe it is obvious because:

  1. Combining wear leveling and secure erasure in the abstract is an obvious solution to the problem of wear leveling leaking sensitive data, and
  2. All the claims comprise obvious concrete methods of performing the obvious abstract method.
  3. The methods are obvious in light of prior known secure erasure on devices without wear leveling, because in light of the prior known methods of performing secure erasure, adapting these methods to work with wear leveling is obvious and trivial. While the exact details may vary significantly between devices, the patent covers a multitude of different methods that are all obviously derived from the same basic abstract idea.

Thus, it can be said that patent US8433843 contains obvious concrete implementations of a non-patentable abstract idea. Not only is the idea abstract, but it's also an obvious abstract idea (which was only not done before because the problem was non-obvious, and most of the industry is oblivious to security issues.)

Additionally, if anyone know's prior art or anything prior that's close enough that this is invalid as obvious in light of the prior art, I'd like to know.


Posted 2017-11-02T23:54:05.090

Reputation: 11

I fear you don’t understand what “abstract” means with regards to patents. – Eric S – 2017-11-03T01:36:22.633

I do not know about the technology in this case, but you say the "problem was non-obvious". If that is truly the case, the recognition of the problem can be a source of non-obviousness. @EricShain, of course no one knows what abstract idea means. From Alice v CLS - "in any event, we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the "abstract ideas" category in this case." -Justice Thomas – George White – 2017-11-08T01:07:14.163

@GeorgeWhite the meaning of abstract indeed seems to be abstract. – Eric S – 2017-11-08T02:25:21.790

I agree that the technique of wear leveling was non-obvious, but that's not what the problem solves. Instead they take two prior inventions and combine them. So I think the invention was an obvious combination of two other not necessarily obvious techniques? i.e. that is to say that while A was not obvious, and B was not obvious, when A and B were already invented, A+B=C was an obvious invention. – Exaeta – 2019-04-27T18:05:35.400

In my opinion, an abstract invention (which is invalid) specifies what to do, and not how to do it. Or, specifies math (which is abstract) as the math has no specific way of being computed. So the question, in my opinion, is given an abstract idea like "combine wear leveling and secure erase" are any of the given concrete ways of accomplishing that non-obvious? (IMO, all of these are obvious solutions to the abstract idea of "combine wear leveling and secure erasure") – Exaeta – 2019-04-27T18:12:57.800

No answers