Ex Parte 6538921 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2015

95002074 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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.
95/002,074 08/14/2012 6538921 B2 11919.0003 4023
164 7590 12/30/2015
KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
THE KINNEY & LANGE BUILDING
312 SOUTH THIRD STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2015 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
____________________

EVERSPIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Requester,

v.

NVE Corporation,
Patent Owner and Appellant.
____________________

Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,0741
Patent No. US 6,538,921 B22
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before JAMES T. MOORE, MARC S. HOFF, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315(a) (2002)
from the rejection of claims 1–12, 14–20, 22–24, 29, 30, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44,

1 Filed by Everspin Technologies, Inc. August 14, 2012.
2 Issued March 25, 2003 to James M. Daughton and Arthur V. Pohm and
assigned to NVE Corporation (the “’921 patent”). The ’921 patent issued
from Application 09/929,435, filed August 14, 2001, which claimed priority
to Provisional Application 60/225,966, filed August 17, 2000.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

2
50, 52, 53, 55–58, 60, 61, 66–69, 92, 93, 95–97, 99, and 101–107 as set forth
in the Right of Appeal Notice (“RAN”) mailed June 14, 2013. Requester
filed a Respondent Brief on October 16, 2013. The Examiner mailed an
Examiner’s Answer on April 15, 2014, which incorporated much from the
original Request by reference. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 315.
We AFFIRM.
The ’921 Patent was involved in litigation in the District of
Minnesota. We are informed that the civil action was dismissed June 11,
2014.3
The ’921 Patent concerns ferromagnetic thin-film based digital
memory. ’921 Patent 5:50–51. The claims more specifically recite a
layered bit structure with read/write circuitry. See, e.g., Claim 1, below.
The as-issued patent contained 100 claims. Claims 1–12, 14–20, 22–24, 29,
30, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 50, 52, 53, 55–58, 60, 61, 66–69, 92, 93, 95–97, 99,
and newly added claims 101–107 are subject to reexamination. Claims 13,
21, 25–28, 31–36, 38, 41, 42, 45–49, 51, 54, 59, 62–65, 70–91, 94, 98, and
100 are not subject to reexamination. Ans. 2.
Claim 1 has been amended and is reproduced below, with underlining
indicating the material added during this reexamination proceeding.
1. A ferromagnetic thin-film based digital data memory
cell, said memory cell comprising:
a substrate; and
a bit structure supported on said substrate comprising:

3 NVE Corporation v. Everspin Technologies, Inc., No. 0:12-cv-00006-JRT-
JGG (D. Minn.). Report on Status of Related Litigation, filed June 16, 2014.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

3
a nonmagnetic intermediate layer, said
nonmagnetic intermediate layer having two major
surfaces on opposite sides thereof;
a memory film of an anisotropic
ferromagnetic material on each of said
nonmagnetic intermediate layer major surfaces;
an electrically insulative intermediate layer
on said memory film and across said memory film
from one of said nonmagnetic intermediate layer
major surfaces, said electrically insulative
intermediate layer having a major surface on a side
thereof opposite said memory film; and
a magnetization reference layer on said
major surface of said electrically insulative layer
having an antiferromagnetic material therein to
provide said magnetization reference layer with a
relatively fixed magnetization direction; and
circuitry electrically coupled to the bit structure that
selectively allows a magnetic state setting current to flow
through the bit structure to write binary data into the bit
structure and selectively allows a sense current to flow through
the bit structure to retrieve the binary data from the bit
structure.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:

Chen et al. (“Chen ’323”) US 5,966,323 October 12, 1999
Chen et al. (“Chen’499”) US 5,659,499 August 19, 1997
Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) US 5,734,605 March 31, 1998
Chen et al. (“Chen ’248”) US 5,953,248 September 14, 1999
Sather et al. (“Sather”) US 6,178,111 B1 January 23, 2001
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

4
Perner et al. (“Perner”) US 6,185,143 B1 February 6, 2001
Monsma et al. (“Monsma”) US 6,269,018 B1 July 31, 2001
PCT Publication WO 98/20496 of Daughton et al. published May 14, 1998
(“Daughton”)
PCT Publication WO 99/14758 of Tedrow published March 25, 1999
(“Tedrow”)
European Patent Application EP 0 910 092 A2 of Nishimura et al. published
April 21, 1999 (“Nishimura”)
European Patent Publication EP 0 913 830 A2 of Parkin published May 6,
1999 (“Parkin”)
James Daughton, Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (MRAM) 1–13
(2000) (“the Daughton paper”)
THE REJECTIONS
I. Claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chen ’323 and ’496 PCT
Publication. RAN 4, Rejection 4.
II. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323, ’496 PCT Publication, and the Daughton
Paper. RAN 5, Rejection 5.
III. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323, ’496 PCT Publication, and Chen ’499. RAN
6, Rejection 6.
IV. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323 and the Daughton Paper. RAN 6, Rejection 7.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

5
V. Claims 16, 17, 56, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and
Perner. RAN 6, Rejection 9.
VI. Claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen ’323 and Zhu.
RAN 6, Rejection 12.
VII. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323, Zhu, and the Daughton Paper. RAN 6–7,
Rejection 13.
VIII. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, Zhu, and Chen ’499. RAN 7, Rejection 14.
IX. Claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view of Sather. RAN 7,
Rejection 15.
X. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, Sather, and Chen ’499. RAN 7, Rejection 16.
XI. Claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Sather. RAN 7,
Rejection 17.
XII. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323 in view of Zhu, Sather, and Chen ’499. RAN 8, Rejection 18.
XIII. Claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication and Parkin. RAN
8, Rejection 19.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

6
XIV. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication, Parkin, and the Daughton Paper. RAN 8, Rejection 20.
XV. Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication in view of Parkin and Chen ’499. RAN 9, Rejection 21.
XVI. Claims 16, 17, 56, and 57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Perner. RAN 9,
Rejection 22.
XVII. Claims 16, 17, 56, and 57stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Tedrow. RAN 9,
Rejection 25.
XVIII. Claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Nishimura.
RAN 9, Rejection N1.
XIX. Claims 1, 4–6, 9, 37, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parkin in view of Nishimura. RAN 12, Rejection
N2.
XX. Claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’248 in view of Nishimura.
RAN 12, Rejection N3.
XXI. Claims 2–5, 7, 8, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 40, 43, 58, 61, 67, 92, 93,
and 95–97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view
of the ’496 PCT Publication and Nishimura. RAN 12, Rejection N4.
XXII. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323 in view of the PCT ’496 Publication, the Daughton Paper,
and Nishimura. RAN 12–13, Rejection N5.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

7
XXIII. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Chen ’499, and Nishimura.
RAN 13, Rejection N6.
XXIV. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura. RAN 13, Rejection
N7.
XXV. Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, Chen ’499, and Nishimura. RAN 13, Rejection N8.
XXVI. Claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and
Nishimura. RAN 14, Rejection N9.
XXVII. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and
Nishimura. RAN 14, Rejection N10.
XXVIII. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, Chen ’499, and Nishimura. RAN
14, Rejection N11.
XXIX. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18–20, 23, 40, 58, 61, 67, 92, 93, 96, and
97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and
Nishimura. RAN 14, Rejection N12.
XXX. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura. RAN 15,
Rejection N13.
XXXI. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, Chen ’499, and Nishimura. RAN 15, Rejection N14.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

8
XXXII. Claims 3, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 43, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view of Sather
and Nishimura. RAN 15, Rejection N15.
XXXIII. Claims 29, 96, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view of Sather, Chen ’499, and Nishimura.
RAN 15, Rejection N16.
XXXIV. Claims 18–20, 23, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Nishimura.
RAN 16, Rejection N17.
XXXV. Claims 96 and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, Chen ’499, and Nishimura. RAN 16,
Rejection N18.
XXXVI. Claims 1–9, 18–20, 22, 23, 37, 39–40, 43, 50, 58, 60, 61,
67–69, 92, and 93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication, Parkin, and Nishimura. RAN 16, Rejection N19.
XXXVII. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication in view of Parkin, the Daughton
Paper, and Nishimura. RAN 16, Rejection N20.
XXXVIII. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Chen ’499, and Nishimura.
RAN 17, Rejection N21.
XXXIX. Claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, and
Nishimura. RAN 17, Rejection N22.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

9
XL. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura. RAN
17, Rejection N23.
XLI. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, Chen ’499, and Nishimura. RAN 17,
Rejection N24.
XLI. Claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, and
Nishimura. RAN 18, Rejection N25.
XLIII. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura.
RAN 18, Rejection N26.
XLIV. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, Chen ’499, and Nishimura. RAN
18, Rejection N27.
XLV. Claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Monsma. RAN 18,
Rejection M1.
XLVI. Claims 1, 4–6, 9, 37, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parkin and Monsma. RAN 21, Rejection M2.
XLVII. Claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’248 and Monsma. RAN
21, Rejection M3.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

10
XLVIII. Claims 2–5, 7, 8, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 40, 43, 58, 61, 67, 92,
93, and 95–97 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, the
’496 PCT Publication, and Monsma. RAN 21, Rejection M4.
XLIX. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, the Daughton Paper, and
Monsma. RAN 21, Rejection M5.
L. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 22,
Rejection M6.
LI. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma. RAN 22, Rejection M7.
LII. Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 22, Rejection M8.
LIII. Claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and Monsma.
RAN 22, Rejection M9.
LIV. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma.
RAN 23, Rejection M10.
LV. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 23,
Rejection M11.
LVI. Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18–20, 23, 40, 58, 61, 67, 92, 93, 96, and 97
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Monsma.
RAN 23, Rejection M12.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

11
LVII. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma. RAN 23,
Rejection M13.
LVIII. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 24, Rejection M14.
LIX. Claims 3, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 43, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Sather, and Monsma.
RAN 24, Rejection M15.
LX. Claims 29, 96, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Sather, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 24, Rejection M16.
LXI. Claims 18–20, 23, 58, 67, 92, 93 and 95–97 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Monsma. RAN 24,
Rejection M17.
LXII. Claims 96 and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 25, Rejection M18.
LXIII. Claims 1–9, 18–20, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 58, 60, 61, 67–
69, 92, and 93 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT
Publication, Parkin, and Monsma. RAN 25, Rejection M19.
LXIV. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma.
RAN 25, Rejection M20.
LXV. Claims 29, 44, and 99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 25,
Rejection M21.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

12
LXVI. Claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, and
Monsma. RAN 26, Rejection M22.
LXVII. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma.
RAN 26, Rejection M23.
LXVIII. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 26,
Rejection M24.
LXIX. Claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication in view of Parkin,
Tedrow, and Monsma. RAN 26, Rejection M25.
LXX. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma.
RAN 27, Rejection M26.
LXXI. Claim 99 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, Chen ’499, and Monsma. RAN 27,
Rejection M27.
LXXII. Claim 102 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. RAN 27, Rejection D1.
LXXIII. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323 and Sather. RAN 28, Rejection P1.
LXXIV. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Sather. RAN 28, Rejection P2.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

13
LXXV. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and Nishimura. RAN 28,
Rejection Q1.
LXXVI. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Nishimura. RAN 29, Rejection Q2.
LXXVII. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Sather, and Nishimura. RAN 29, Rejection Q3.
LXXVIII. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Nishimura. RAN 29, Rejection
Q4.
LXXIX. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Nishimura. RAN 29, Rejection
Q5.
LXXX. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and Monsma. RAN 30,
Rejection R1.
LXXXI. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Monsma. RAN 30, Rejection R2.
LXXXII. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Sather, and Monsma. RAN 30, Rejection R3.
LXXXIII. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Monsma. RAN 30, Rejection R4.
LXXXIV. Claims 105 and 106 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Monsma. RAN 31,
Rejection R5.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

14
LXXXV. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Nishimura. RAN 31, Rejection S1.
LXXXVI. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Parkin and Nishimura. RAN 31, Rejection S2.
LXXXVII. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’248 and Nishimura. RAN 31, Rejection S3.
LXXXVIII. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Nishimura. RAN 32,
Rejection S4.
XC. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323 and Monsma. RAN 32, Rejection T1.
XCI. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Parkin and Monsma. RAN 32, Rejection T2.
XCII. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’248 and Monsma. RAN 33, Rejection T3.
XCIII. Claims 101–104 and 107 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Monsma. RAN 33,
Rejection T4.
ANALYSIS
I. Arguments Directed to Rejection 4
The Appellant directs argument to Rejections 4–7, 9, 12–22, and 25,
all on the same basis. Br. 18–24.
A. The Rejection of Claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52–53, 55–57,
and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen ’323 in
view of the ’496 PCT Publication.

Claim 10 reads as follows:
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

15

10. (Original) A ferromagnetic thin-film based digital
memory, said memory comprising:
a plurality of bit structures interconnected with
manipulation circuitry having a plurality of transistors so that
each said bit structure has a selection transistor in said plurality
of transistors electrically coupled thereto that selectively
substantially prevents current in at least one direction along a
current path through that bit structure and said manipulation
circuitry further includes storage switching transistors in said
plurality of transistors to permit selecting a direction of current
flow through a said bit structure if current is permitted to be
established therein by said selection transistor coupled thereto,
each said bit structure comprising:
a nonmagnetic intermediate layer, said
nonmagnetic intermediate layer having two major
surfaces on opposite sides thereof; and
a memory film of an anisotropic ferromagnetic
material on each of said nonmagnetic intermediate layer
major surfaces.

This rejection was adopted from the claim chart of the Request, CC-
B1. Ans. 3.
For ease of reference, we paraphrase the Examiner’s adopted findings
from pages 12–18 of Exhibit CC-B1.
The Examiner has found that Chen ’323 describes a ferromagnetic
thin-film based digital memory, citing Chen ’323 1:11–15; Figure 1; 3:7–9,
5:60–63; Figure 11; 8:22–25; and 8:37–40. Ex. CC–B1, 12.
The Examiner has also found that Chen ’323 describes a plurality of
bit structures interconnected with manipulation circuitry that is used to read
and write information stored in the bit structures. Ex. CC-B1, 12–13, citing
Figure 11; 8:23–34.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

16
Chen’s sense lines and word lines, utilized to sense the state of each
bit structure (tunneling cells 86), are illustrated in Chen ’323 Figure 11,
reproduced below.

Figure 11 is a simplified view in top plan of a high
density array of multi-layer tunneling magnetic memory cells.
Chen ’323, 3:1–3.
The Examiner has also found alternatively that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to include a plurality of transistors in
the manipulation circuitry in a ferromagnetic memory with the bit structures
disclosed in Chen ’323, where each bit structure has a selection transistor
coupled thereto that selectively substantially prevents current in at least one
direction along a current path through that bit structure and where the
manipulation circuitry further includes that a storage current is permitted to
be established therein by the selection transistor coupled thereto. Ex. CC-
B1, 13–14, citing ’496 PCT Publication, Figure 9A.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

17
Figure 9A of the PCT publication is reproduced below:

Figure 9A is a circuit schematic diagram of a portion of
an alternative digital memory system.
The Examiner has found that the ’496 PCT Publication discloses a
plurality of bit structures interconnected with manipulation circuitry having
a plurality of transistors so that each bit structure has a transistor electrically
coupled thereto that selectively substantially prevents current in at least one
direction along a current path through that bit structure. Ex. CC-B1, 14–15.
According to the Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
combined the manipulation circuitry including transistors, as disclosed in the
’496 PCT Publication, with the bit structures in Chen ’323 in order to
provide the electrical isolation and control of current flow that the ’496 PCT
Publication teaches is advantageous for reading data stored in the bit
structures. The Examiner relies upon the testimony of Dr. Caroline A. Ross
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that transistors
were well known circuit elements that were commonly used to select and
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

18
manipulate bit structures in memory devices, well known in magnetic
memories, and additional transistors utilized as needed. See, e.g., Ross Del.
at 17–19 and 33–35. Ex. CC-B1, 16.
The Examiner found combining these references is the use of a known
technique to improve similar devices in the same way and yields predictable
results. Id.
The Examiner next found that the bit structure disclosed in Chen ’323
includes a nonmagnetic intermediate layer having two major surfaces on
opposite sides thereof, referencing layers 54 and 64 in Figure 8 of Chen ’323
as discussed in Chen ’323 5:63–66; 6:2–6, 15–17 and 21–23. Ex. CC-B1,
16–17.
Finally, the Examiner found that Chen ’323 describes a memory film
of an anisotropic ferromagnetic material on each of the nonmagnetic
intermediate layer major surfaces. Referencing Figure 8 of Chen ’323, the
Examiner points to magnetic memory films 52 and 53 on the major surfaces
of non-magnetic intermediate layer 54 and memory films 62 and 63 on the
major surfaces of non-magnetic intermediate layer 64. Ex. CC-B1, 18–19.
The Appellant urges that independent claim 10 includes storage
switching transistors that permit selecting the direction of current flow
through the bit structure. According to the Appellant, the storage switching
transistors are those that control the direction of current, which current
writes a “1” or a “0” magnetic state in the bit structure. The term “storage”
in the phrase “storage switching transistors” is urged to emphasize that the
purpose of the storage switching transistor is for storing data by writing that
data into the bit structure. Br. 19.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

19
According to the Appellant:
The Examiner, like the Requestor, has chosen to ignore
explicit language contained in claim 10. The highlighted
language in claim 10 does not simply refer to “switching
transistors ... to permit selecting a direction of current flow
through a said bit structure ….” Rather, claim 10 explicitly
requires “storage switching transistors”. The word “storage”
has been entirely ignored, which changes the meaning of claim
10.

Br. 20.
The Requester and the Examiner both urge that this is a new argument
and it should be disregarded. Resp. Br. 1., Ans. 25. We exercise our
discretion to address this argument, as the record at this stage appears
developed enough for us to adequately consider it.
We turn to the alternative finding provided by Requester, and made by
the Examiner, in the original Request:
To the extent the Office determines that Chen ’323 does
not disclose the transistor features recited in claim 10, these
features would have been obvious in view of the ’496 PCT
Publication. Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in art to include a plurality of transistors in the
manipulation circuitry in a ferromagnetic memory with the bit
structures disclosed in Chen ’323, where each bit structure has a
selection transistor coupled thereto that selectively substantially
prevents current in at least one direction along a current path
through that bit structure and where the manipulation circuitry
further includes storage switching transistors to permit selecting
a direction of current flow through a bit structure if current is
permitted to be established therein by the selection transistor
coupled thereto. For example, the ’496 PCT Publication
discloses such features.

Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

20
The ’496 PCT Publication discloses a plurality of bit
structures interconnected with manipulation circuitry having a
plurality of transistors so that each bit structure has a transistor
electrically coupled thereto that selectively substantially
prevents current in at least one direction along a current path
through that bit structure. An annotated version of Fig. 9A of
the ’496 PCT Publication, reproduced below, shows these
features:

As shown in Fig. 9A, the ’496 PCT Publication discloses
manipulation circuitry that allows the state of the bit structures
to be sensed, where the circuitry includes a transistor coupled to
each bit structure that, when turned off, prevents current from
flowing through the bit structure. Fig. 9A also shows additional
storage switching transistors, including transistors 75, to permit
selecting a direction of current flow through a bit structure if
current is permitted to be established therein by the selection
transistor coupled thereto.

Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

21
In addition, the ’496 PCT Publication discloses that
“[t]he opposite side of each cell 17 is electrically connected
through an interconnection, 77, to a further conductor, 78,
which in turn is electrically connected to allow the switching
therefore to an electrical energization source, not shown, which
either draws operating current from any selected one of cells 17
connected thereto, or supplies a magnetic field generating
current for adding in the switching of the magnetization
direction of a ferromagnetic layer or layers in cell 17.” (’496
PCT Publication at p. 55, 1. 26- p. 56, 1. 3.) One of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the switching of the
current through the bit structures in either direction would be
controlled by additional transistors not shown in Fig. 9A. (Ross
Decl. at ¶ 19.).

Ex. CC-B1, 13–15.
The Appellant’s counsel urges, somewhat vaguely, that the Examiner
does not justify Rejection #4 on the basis that Chen ’323 and the ’496
Publication teach or suggest writing data to a magneto resistive bit structure
by selecting a direction of current flow through that bit structure. Br. 20.
It appears to us that the Examiner did address this issue in the
Request, as quoted immediately above. It also appears that Dr. Ross
testified to this very point in her Declaration at paragraph 19 on page 9 of
the Declaration.
We reproduce that paragraph in full below:
19. For example, Figure 9A of the ’496 PCT Publication,
reproduced below in annotated form, shows such transistors in
the manipulation circuitry of the memory. The ’496 PCT
Publication also discloses that the direction of current flow
through the bit structures is via the conductors 78 that “is
electrically connected to allow the switching therefore to an
electrical energization source, not shown, which either draws
operating current from any selected one of cells 1 7 connected
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

22
thereto, or supplies a magnetic field generating current for
adding in the switching of the magnetization direction of a
ferromagnetic layer or layers in cell 17.” (’496 PCT
Publication at p. 55, 1. 26 – p. 56, 1. 3.) Similarly, “an
electrical energization source is switched onto conductor 74 to
provide operating current through the transistor and the
corresponding selected cell which is carried away on conductor
78.” (Id. at p. 56, 11. 21-23.) One of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that the switching of the current through
the bit structures in either direction would be controlled by
additional transistors not shown in Fig. 9A.

Ross Decl. ¶ 19.
The Examiner has put forth persuasive evidence that one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand that the switching of the current from an
unshown source through the bit structures in either direction would be
controlled by additional transistors also not shown in Fig. 9A.
We are unable to locate within the record evidence provided by the
Appellant to rebut the Examiner’s finding or to support a different
conclusion. Ans. 27, ll. 9–22.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

23
We are provided only with the argument of counsel that this issue was
not addressed. We disagree with the Appellant, as noted above.
Consequently, we are unpersuaded of error in this regard. We
therefore affirm this rejection, and rejections 5–7, 9, 12–22, and 25.
II. Rejections involving Nishimura N1–N27
A. The Rejection of Claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61, 68,
and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Nishimura. RAN 9,
Rejection N1.

Claim 1 was reproduced above. The newly added limitation which
forms the basis for the issues discussed in the instant briefing on appeal is as
follows:
circuitry electrically coupled to the bit structure that
selectively allows a magnetic state setting current to flow
through the bit structure to write binary data into the bit
structure and selectively allows a sense current to flow through
the bit structure to retrieve the binary data from the bit
structure.

The Examiner found that Chen ’323 taught the limitations of the
unamended claim. Determination, September 19, 2012, Page 9, citing
Request, Ex. CC-A1, adopted by the Examiner. The Appellant did not
challenge that determination, but amended the claim to recite the above new
limitation. Response, November 19, 2012.
In the response, the Patent Owner (now Appellant) stated:
None of the cited references describe a magnetoresistive
memory cell in which data is written to the bit structure by
flowing a current through the bit structure.
With this amendment, independent claims 1, 18, 37, and
92 have been amended to require circuitry that writes data to
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

24
the bit structure with a current that flows through the bit
structure.

Response, November 19, 2012, page 26.
The Requester then proposed a new rejection including Nishimura in
comments filed December 12, 2012, which the Examiner adopted in the
RAN.
More specifically, the Examiner found that writing data to or
retrieving data from by applying current through the bit structure were well
known in the art at the time of the application of the ’921 patent, illustrated
by Nishimura. RAN 10.
The Examiner found that Nishimura describes magnetic memories
having a bit structure having a free magnetic layer and a fixed magnetic
layer. The Examiner also found that current flowing through the memory
cell generates a magnetic field that can flip the magnetization of the free
layer to write a data state into the bit structure. Nishimura 6, lines 18–20.
The Examiner further found that Nishimura describes flowing current
through a memory cell in one direction writes a binary ‘1’ value, whereas
flowing the current in the opposite direction writes a binary ‘0’ value. Id. at
6, line 56 – 7, line 2.
The Examiner found the bit structures of Nishimura to be very similar
to those disclosed in Chen ’323, Chen ’248, and Parkin, including two
magnetic layers separated by an insulating material that creates a magnetic
tunnel junction. RAN 11. The information recorded in the memory cell can
be read by applying a read current through the bit structure, where the
resistance encountered by the read current varies based on the relative
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

25
magnetization directions of the magnetic layers. Chen ’323 7, lines 9–17;
Chen ’248 10, lines 14–18; Parkin 12, lines 14–20.
The Examiner additionally found that Nishimura describes current
flowing through the bit structure for data storage eliminates undesirable anti-
magnetic fields, which allows for smaller bit cells in a memory and,
therefore, improved integration. Nishimura 3, lines 46–47.
The Examiner then concluded that it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Nishimura with the bit
structures disclosed in Chen ’323, Parkin, or Chen ’248 in order to decrease
undesirable magnetic fields in the memory and allow for increased storage
densities. The Examiner specifically found that this combination amounts to
nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices
in the same way and yields nothing more than predictable results. RAN 11–
12.
The Appellant now on appeal urges that the isotropic structure of
Nishimura could not be modified to be used in an anisotropic type of
structure, although the arguments assert that position somewhat indirectly.
See Br. 27. This position appears to be based on a factual allegation in the
Appellant’s Brief at page 26:
Nishimura requires this type of shape for the magnetic
layers of the bit structure because the magnetic state is stored in
the form of a closed circular or vortex shaped magnetization
loop within the layer. That magnetization loop may be circular,
square, or other isotropic shape that causes magnetization to go
around a loop within the magnetic layer in a generally circular
clockwise or counterclockwise direction.

Br. 26.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

26
We are not provided with citation to an evidentiary basis for this
statement.
The Appellant then reaches the conclusion that:
It is unclear how the teaching of Nishimura could be modified
in such a way to make use of Nishimura’s concepts in an
anisotropic rather than an isotropic type of structure. The
references with which Nishimura is combined do not provide
that missing teaching. Simply because the various prior art
references relate to magnetic thin film memory devices, and to
magnetic tunnel junctions, does not mean that a design taught
by Nishimura that has very specific design constraints requiring
an isotropic structure, could be applied to a device of a very
different anisotropic structure.

Id. at 27.
We are not provided with any persuasive or credible evidence to
support the statement of counsel that the anisotropic material of the instant
claims would not, in some manner, be suitable to be combined for use with
the Nishimura current structure. Moreover, the Nishimura ferromagnetic
materials appear to be the same materials as used in the instant patent. Cf.
Nishimura ¶¶ 16–17 and ’921 Patent 11:56 and 13:35–36. Finally, the
claims are not specific as to whether the functioning of the overall structure
is isotropic or anisotropic.
Consequently, we are not persuaded of error.
III. Rejections involving Monsma M1–M27
A. The Rejection of Claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61, 68,
and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Chen ’323 in view of
Monsma.

Claim 1 is as reproduced above.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

27
The Examiner found Chen ’323 to describe ferromagnetic thin-film
based digital data memory cells. Request, Ex. CC-A1, 1, citing Chen ’323
3:7–9; 5:60–63; 8:22–25, and 37–40. The Examiner further found that Chen
’323 describes a substrate (Chen ’323 Figure 8, reference numeral 75) and a
bit structure supported on the substrate (Chen ’323 6:24–28 and 8:22–27).
Request, Ex. CC-A1, 3–4. The Examiner found that the bit structure
includes a nonmagnetic intermediate layer having opposing major surfaces.
Chen ’323, Figure 8, reference numeral 64 and 6:2—6 and 21–23. Request,
Ex. CC-A1, 4–5.
The intermediate layer is sandwiched within anisotropic
ferromagnetic memory films on each of the major surfaces. Chen ’323
Figure 8, reference numerals 62 and 63. Request, Ex. CC-A1, 6. An
electrically insulative layer is across the memory film from one of the
nonmagnetic intermediate layers. Chen ’323, Figure 8, reference numeral 7.
Request, Ex. CC-A1, 7. Chen ’323 was further found to describe a
magnetization reference layer with a fixed magnetization direction having
antiferromagnetic material. Chen ’323 5:63–66. Request, Ex. CC-A1, 8–9.
The Examiner next turns to Monsma as describing current passing
through a magnetic tunnel junction (“MTJ”) device to write, or assist in
writing, the MTJ cell. RAN, 19 citing Monsma 4:26–28 and 5:63–66.
The Examiner makes the following additional findings:
The MTJ bit cells described by Monsma are the same type of cells
that are discussed in each of Chen ’323, Parkin, and Chen ’248 in that they
include a free magnetic layer separated from a fixed magnetic layer by an
insulating layer, which forms a tunnel junction. In order to decrease the
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

28
disturbance of unselected cells and improve write selectivity, Monsma
describes individually selecting the desired bit structure with a selection
device, and then using current flow through the bit structure to write data
into the bit structure depending on the direction of current flow. Monsma
5:67–6: 2; 6:59–65. RAN 20.
Moreover, current flowing in one direction though the bit structure
would store a “1” whereas current flowing in the opposite direction would
store a “0,” and that it is preferable to use a transistor as the selection device
in order to facilitate bi-directional current flow used in writing to the bit
structures. Monsma 4:21–33. RAN 20.
We observe that the Requester’s witness Ross has testified that
Monsma described using the self-field of a current passing through the MTJ
device to write, or assist in writing the MTJ cell. Ross Suppl. Decl. ¶ 11.
After noting certain benefits of the MTJ structure, the Examiner then
concluded it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teachings of Monsma with the bit structures disclosed in Chen
’323, Parkin, and Chen ’248 in order to improve write selectivity, provide
higher switching speeds, and reduce power consumption by using the known
technique to improve a similar device in a predictable way. RAN 20–21.
The Appellant, on the other hand, urges that Monsma is similar to
Nishimura, in that Monsma describes a clockwise or counterclockwise
circular or vortex magnetization in the magnetic layers to store data. Br. 28.
The Appellant asserts that the writing of data in the isotropic structure
shown in FIG. 13 of Monsma is unique to that particular physical structure.
Id. at 29. According to the Appellant, Monsma explicitly teaches away from
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

29
write current flow through an anisotropic bit structure with the example
shown in FIGS. 4A–4C which flows horizontally through the bit structure
instead of vertically. Appellant points us to the statement that:
For conventional anisotropic MTJ’s in which the
magnetization within the ferromagnetic electrodes is
predominantly aligned in one direction (48 in FIG. 4C), the
self-field does not aid in switching the MTJ device.

Br. 30, citing Monsma 6:37–40.
We are not persuaded by this argument. First, the argument does not
direct attention to what specific aspect of the claims Monsma does not
describe. Even were exemplary Figures 4A–4C somehow found to teach
away from the claimed subject matter, the Patent Owner has not addressed
the testimony of Ross, which observes that Monsma in fact describes using
the self-field of a current passing through the MTJ device to write. It
appears to us that Figures 5a and 5B, as observed by the Requester, and
agreed to by the Examiner (Ans. 31–32) show passing a write current
through a non-circularly shaped anisotropic MTJ device. Monsma 6:41–43.
Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
The Appellant has made no substantive argument concerning the
remaining rejections. Accordingly, the decision of the Examiner to reject
those claims shall not be disturbed.
CONCLUSION
We have carefully considered the evidence of record. The weight of
the objective evidence leads us to the conclusion that the Examiner did not
err in concluding the claims at issue would have been obvious to one of only
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

30
We, therefore, sustain the rejections of record.
ORDER
I. The rejection of claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66
under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Chen ’323 and ’496 PCT
Publication is affirmed.
II. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323, ’496 PCT Publication, and the Daughton
Paper is affirmed.
III. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323, ’496 PCT Publication, and Chen ’499 is
affirmed.
IV. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323 and the Daughton Paper is affirmed.
V. The rejection of claims 16, 17, 56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and Perner
is affirmed.
VI. The rejection of claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen ’323 and Zhu is
affirmed.
VII. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen ’323, Zhu, and the Daughton Paper is affirmed.
VIII. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, Zhu, and Chen ’499 is affirmed.
IX. The rejection of claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view of Sather is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

31
X. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, Sather, and Chen ’499 is affirmed.
XI. The rejection of claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Sather is affirmed.
XII. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323 in view of Zhu, Sather, and Chen ’499 is affirmed.
XIII. The rejection of claims 10–12, 14–17, 24, 52, 53, 55–57, and 66
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication and Parkin is
affirmed.
XIV. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and the Daughton Paper is affirmed.
XV. The rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication in view of Parkin and Chen ’499 is affirmed.
XVI. The rejection of claims 16, 17, 56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Perner is affirmed.
XVII. The rejection of claims 16, 17, 56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Tedrow is affirmed.
XVIII. The rejection of claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61,
68, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Nishimura is
affirmed.
XIX. The rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 37, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parkin in view of Nishimura is affirmed.
XX. The rejection of claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61,
68, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’248 in view of Nishimura is
affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

32
XXI. The rejection of claims 2–5, 7, 8, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 40, 43, 58,
61, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view
of the ’496 PCT Publication and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXII. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323 in view of the PCT ’496 Publication, the Daughton Paper,
and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXIII. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Chen ’499, and
Nishimura is affirmed.
XXIV. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXV. The rejection of claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXVI. The rejection of claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and
Nishimura is affirmed.
XXVII. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura
is affirmed.
XXVIII. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chen ’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is
affirmed.
XXIX. The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18–20, 23, 40, 58, 61, 67,
92, 93, and 96–97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and
Nishimura is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

33
XXX. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXXI. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXXII. The rejection of claims 3, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 43, 58, 67, 92,
93, and 95–97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view of Sather
and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXXIII. The rejection of claims 29, 96, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323 in view of Sather, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is
affirmed.
XXXIV. The rejection of claims 18–20, 23, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Nishimura is
affirmed.
XXXV. The rejection of claims 96 and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXXVI. The rejection of claims 1–9, 18–20, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43,
50, 58, 60, 61, 67–69, 92, and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication, Parkin, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXXVII. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication in view of Parkin, the Daughton
Paper, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XXXVIII. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is
affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

34
XXXIX. The rejection of claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, and
Nishimura is affirmed.
XL. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura is
affirmed.
XLI. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496
PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XLI. The rejection of claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, and
Nishimura is affirmed.
XLIII. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, the Daughton Paper, and Nishimura
is affirmed.
XLIV. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, Chen ’499, and Nishimura is
affirmed.
XLV. The rejection of claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61,
68, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Monsma is
affirmed.
XLVI. The rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 9, 37, 50, 60, 61, 68, and 69
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Parkin and Monsma is affirmed.
XLVII. The rejection of claims 1–9, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50, 60, 61,
68, and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’248 and Monsma is
affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

35
XLVIII. The rejection of claims 2–5, 7, 8, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 40, 43,
58, 61, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, the
’496 PCT Publication, and Monsma is affirmed.
XLIX. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, the Daughton Paper,
and Monsma is affirmed.
L. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen '323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Chen ’499, and Monsma is
affirmed.
LI. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma is affirmed.
LII. The rejection of claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, Chen ’499, and Monsma is affirmed.
LIII. The rejection of claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and Monsma
is affirmed.
LIV. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma is
affirmed.
LV. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen
’323, the PCT ’496 Publication, Perner, Chen ’499, and Monsma is
affirmed.
LVI. The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18–20, 23, 40, 58, 61, 67,
92, 93, 96, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and
Monsma is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

36
LVII. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma is affirmed.
LVIII. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Chen ’499, and Monsma is affirmed.
LIX. The rejection of claims 3, 18–20, 22, 23, 39, 43, 58, 67, 92, 93,
and 95–97 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Sather, and Monsma is
affirmed.
LX. The rejection of claims 29, 96, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Sather, Chen ’499, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXI. The rejection of claims 18–20, 23, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Monsma is
affirmed.
LXII. The rejection of claims 96 and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, Chen ’499, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXIII. The rejection of claims 1–9, 18–20, 22, 23, 37, 39, 40, 43, 50,
58, 60, 61, 67–69, 92, and 93 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT
Publication, Parkin, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXIV. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, the Daughton Paper, and
Monsma is affirmed.
LXV. The rejection of claims 29, 44, and 99 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Chen ’499, and Monsma is
affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

37
LXVI. The rejection of claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, and
Monsma is affirmed.
LXVII. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma is
affirmed.
LXVIII. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Perner, Chen ’499, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXIX. The rejection of claims 18–20, 58, 67, 92, 93, and 95–97
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication in view of Parkin,
Tedrow, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXX. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, the Daughton Paper, and Monsma is
affirmed.
LXXI. The rejection of claim 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, Tedrow, Chen ’499, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXXII. The rejection of claim 102 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph is affirmed.
LXXIII. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Sather is affirmed.
LXXIV. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Sather is affirmed.
LXXV. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and Nishimura is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

38
LXXVI. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Nishimura is affirmed.
LXXVII. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Sather, and Nishimura is affirmed.
LXXVIII. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Nishimura is affirmed.
LXXIX. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Nishimura is affirmed.
LXXX. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Chen ’323, the ’496 PCT Publication, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXXXI. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXXXII. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Sather, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXXXIII. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323, Zhu, Sather, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXXXIV. The rejection of claims 105 and 106 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Monsma is affirmed.
LXXXV. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Nishimura is affirmed.
LXXXVI. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Parkin and Nishimura is affirmed.
LXXXVII. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’248 and Nishimura is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

39
LXXXVIII. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Nishimura is affirmed.
XC. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’323 and Monsma is affirmed.
XCI. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Parkin and Monsma is affirmed.
XCII. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Chen ’248 and Monsma is affirmed.
XCIII. The rejection of claims 101–104 and 107 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the ’496 PCT Publication, Parkin, and Monsma 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).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2014-008892
Reexamination Control 95/002,074
Patent No. 6,538,921 B2

40

Patent Owner:

KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
THE KINNEY & LANGE BUILDING
312 SOUTH THIRD STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002

Third Party Requester:

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARAB OW,
GARRET & DUNNER LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413