Ex Parte 7360050 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 7, 2013

95001205 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

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.
95/001,205 07/01/2009 7360050 2805.002REXB 4486
26111 7590 03/07/2013
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
CHOI, WOO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2013 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
____________________

NVIDIA CORPORATION
Respondent, Requester

v.

RAMBUS, INC.
Patent Owner, Appellant

____________________

Appeal 2012-003817
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,205
Patent 7,360,050
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In papers filed October 11, 2012, Appellant requests a rehearing under
37 C.F.R. § 41.79 from the Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(hereinafter Board), dated November 16, 2012. In the Opinion, we affirmed
Appeal 2012-003817
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,205
US Patent 7,360,050

2
the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 1, 3, and 7-10 as anticipated by Ware;
claims 1-3, 5-20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-31 as unpatentable over Ware and
Gustavson; claims 2, 5, 6, 11-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28-31 as
unpatentable over Ware and Ohshima; claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 15-18 as
unpatentable over Ware and JEDEC; claims 2, 5, 6, 12-14, 19, 20, 23, 25,
26, and 28-31 as unpatentable over Ware, JEDEC, and Gustavson; and
claims 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, 26, 28, 29, and 31 as unpatentable over Ware,
JEDEC, and Gustavson.
Appellant argues that “[t]he independent claims . . . are clear with
respect to „write command‟ originating outside of the claimed integrated
circuit memory device, and being provided to or received by the integrated
circuit memory device” and that Ware fails to disclose Start R/W as having
an “external origin” (Req. Reh‟g. 5). However, Appellant does not
specifically indicate which independent claim requires that the “write
command” originates outside of an integrated circuit memory device or any
specific location from which the write command must originate. Claim 1,
for example, recites a write command that specifies that the memory device
receive write data and store the write data but does not appear to recite that
the write command must originate from any specific location, much less
from an “external” location. We are therefore not persuaded by Appellant‟s
argument.
Even assuming that at least one disputed claim required that the write
command originate externally, we note that Ware provides this disclosure
Appeal 2012-003817
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,205
US Patent 7,360,050

3
(see, e.g., Fig. 17 showing Start R/W originating from outside – i.e., external
to – the DRAM control logic 500).
Appellant argues that “Ware does not disclose that its Start R/W
signal is „provided to‟ or „received‟ by the . . . memory device” (Req. Reh‟g
5). We disagree with Appellant for at least the reasons previously set forth
in the Opinion. For example, Ware discloses Start R/W being “provided to”
the DRAM control logic (see, e.g., Fig. 17 illustrating Start R/W being
“provided to” DRAM control logic 500). Appellant does not indicate how a
write sequence can be initiated by memory as disclosed by Ware without
receiving the signal that initiates the write sequence. We disagree with
Appellant that the memory of Ware writes data (i.e., the write sequence
being “initiated”) without receiving an instruction to do so (i.e., Start R/W) –
or being provided with the instruction – that is disclosed as initiating the
write sequence in the first place.
Appellant argues that “[t]he Board overlooked the fact that Ware itself
distinguishes its „write command‟ from its „Start R/W‟ timing signal” (Req.
Reh‟g 9) and that “Ware does not use the terms „write command‟ and „Start
R/W‟ interchangeably” (Req. Reh‟g 10). Thus, it appears that Appellant
argues that the “write command” as claimed differs from “Start R/W” of
Ware because, according to Appellant‟s implication, Ware does not
explicitly disclose that the “Start R/W” is a “write command.” We disagree
with Appellant for at least the reasons previously stated in the Opinion.
Appeal 2012-003817
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,205
US Patent 7,360,050

4
Claim 1, for example, recites that the write command specifies that a
memory device receive write data and store the write data at a location. One
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that specifying a memory
device to receive write data and storing the write data at a particular location
is merely a write operation in which data is written (and stored) at a
particular location. As previously discussed in the Opinion, Ware discloses
that “Start R/W” initiates a write sequence (see, e.g., Fig. 17). One of skill
in the art would have understood a “write sequence” to include a write
operation in which data is written (and stored) to a specific desired location
in memory. Since the “write command” as claimed performs this same
function (i.e., writing data to a specified location of a specified memory
device), we continue to discern no difference between the write command as
claimed and Ware‟s disclosure.
Appellant argues that Ware fails to disclose the “„dual functionality of
the . . . „write command‟” (Req. Reh‟g 11) as claimed because, according to
Appellant, Ware “does not convey the information as to what operation is to
be performed” by Start R/W (Req. Reh‟g 11). We disagree with Appellant
for at least the reasons previously provided in the Opinion. Contrary to
Appellant‟s assertion that Ware fails to disclose what operation Start R/W
initiates, Ware actually discloses that Start R/W initiates a “write sequence”
(see, e.g., Fig. 17), which Appellant does not differentiate from the write
operation that is initiated by the “write command” as recited in the disputed
claims.
Appeal 2012-003817
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,205
US Patent 7,360,050

5
We have considered Appellant‟s arguments but find no points that we
have misapprehended or overlooked. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing
is DENIED.

DENIED

alw

Patent Owner:

STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Third Party Requester:

David M. O‟Dell
Haynes and Boone, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219