Ex Parte BakerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 15, 201511818996 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/818,996 06/15/2007 R. Jacob Baker MICS:0161 / MAN / 2006-07 2038 52142 7590 04/15/2015 FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.) P.O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER JEAN PIERRE, PEGUY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2845 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2015 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 ________________ Ex parte R. JACOB BAKER 1 ________________ Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 Technology Center 2800 ________________ Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS and JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges. NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL R. Jacob Baker (“Baker”) timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection 2 of claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, 21–24, and 26–28. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The real party in interest is listed as Micron Technology, Inc. (Appeal Brief, filed 13 August 2012 (“Br.”), 2). 2 Office action mailed 15 February 2012 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”). 3 The Examiner has indicated that remaining co-pending claims 7, 18–20, and 25 are allowable. (FR 1, ¶ 6.) Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 2 OPINION A. Introduction 4 The subject matter on appeal relates to methods, systems, and devices for measuring signals. Most generally, claim 22 covers a method in which an analog signal is measured by amplifying both the analog signal and a reference signal, latching an output based on which is larger to form a data- stream, and digitally filtering the data-stream. Claim 14 covers a system comprising a memory element and a delta-sigma modulator that comprises a comparator that includes a differential amplifier. Somewhat more particularly, claim 1 covers a device for reading data from a data location. The claimed device comprises a delta-sigma modulator that comprises a comparator comprising a preamplifier (directly coupled to a data location) and a latch (coupled to the output of the preamplifier), and a digital filter comprising a counter (coupled to the output of the comparator). The ʼ996 Specification explains that memory devices typically comprise an array of memory elements that store data and associated sense amplifiers that read the data from the memory elements. (Spec. 2 [002].) In order to achieve higher densities of memory, the memory elements may output plural voltage levels, not just two levels (i.e., zero and one). The necessity of distinguishing plural output levels increases the susceptibility of the sense amplifiers to noise from all sources. (Id. at 3 [004].) Similar concerns are said to be associated with sense amplifiers in imaging devices 4 Application 11/818,996, Comparators for delta-sigma modulators, filed 15 June 2007. We refer to the “ʼ996 Specification,” which we cite as “Spec.” Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 3 (id. at [005]). Thus, Baker refers to memory elements and imaging devices collectively as “data locations.” (Id. at 9 [0037].) Baker seeks patent protection for various embodiments comprising “quantizing circuits” that can resolve small differences between voltage or current levels in multi-bit memories or light sensors in ways that allow higher densities of elements. (Id. at 6–7 [0029].) This is accomplished in part by sampling the signal repeatedly and filtering (e.g., average or sum) the samples [apparently the reason for the “delta-sigma” portion of the name] to reduce the impact of noise. (Id.) The ʼ996 Specification provides numerous descriptions of comparator circuits that are said to provide decreasing levels of power consumption. (Spec., e.g., Figs. 16 and 18–23.) The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection: 5 Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, 21–24, and 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Afghahi, 6 Lee, 7 and Fowler. 8 5 Examiner’s Answer mailed 27 November 2012 (“Ans.”). 6 Morteza Afghahi, Compact comparator, U.S. Patent No. 5,955,899 (1999). 7 See T. Lee, Photodetector circuit and methods, U.S. Patent No. 6,348,682 B1 (2002). 8 Boyd Fowler and Abbas El Gamal, CMOS image sensor with pixel level A/D conversion, U.S. Patent No. 5,461,425 (1995). Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 4 B. Discussion Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record. We understand the Examiner to have determined that the claims encompass common, or at least sufficiently related, subject matter, that the different recitations of the three independent claims can be discussed in relation to the teachings of Afghahi and Lee. 9 The Examiner emphasizes the breadth of the claims and the breadth of the disclosure, and the apparent absence, in the Examiner’s view, of “clear support” for certain terms and limitations (see, e.g., FR 4, ll. 12–19). 10 Perhaps relying on the perceived breadth of these terms, the Examiner often does not direct our attention to specific teachings of particular elements in the references. Baker focusses on recitations in the claims, and urges that the Examiner has failed to make sufficiently specific findings to support a prima facie case of obviousness. (E.g., Br. 6, ll. 7–12; 9, ll. 1–2; para. bridging 10-11; Reply 11 para. bridging 5–6, discussing claim 14; 8–10, discussing claims 22, 26, and 27.) Perhaps relying on general understandings of terms of art, Baker often does not direct our attention to definitions of terms in the ʼ996 Specification, in authoritative references, or in the prior art of record. Nor does Baker often explain, beyond making the 9 The Examiner, in the statements of the rejections, cites Fowler only in reference to claim 24 (FR 3; Ans. 5), which Baker does not argue separately. We therefore need not consider Fowler further. 10 The Examiner has not rejected any claims for lack of written description. We therefore understand these remarks to be, at most, expressions that the claims are broad. 11 Reply Brief filed 28 January 2013 (“Reply”). Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 5 assertion, why various elements in the references do not meet the limitations recited in the claims. On appeal, the initial burden is on the appellant to show harmful error in the action from which an appeal is taken. As to those issues for which that burden has been carried, the onus shifts to the Examiner to explain why the evidence and arguments of the appellant are outweighed by evidence of record. 12 We address claims argued separately to the extent necessary to our decision. Otherwise, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. Claims 1 and 22 We begin with independent claim 1, which reads: A device, comprising: a data location; a delta-sigma modulator directly coupled to the data location, wherein the delta-sigma modulator comprises a comparator, wherein the comparator comprises: a preamplifier coupled to the data location; and a latch coupled to an output of the preamplifier; and a digital filter coupled to an output of the comparator, wherein the digital filter comprises a counter. (Claims App., Br. 14; some indentation and emphasis added.) Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8–13 depend from claim 1. 12 Baker complains of some new arguments (e.g., Reply 8, ll. 7-18), but responds on the merits (id. at l. 19 to 9, l. 8). Details of the conduct of the examination, as opposed to the relative merits of the rejections and the responses, is not within our jurisdiction, as relief may be obtained via petition to the Director and designated Officials under 37 C.F.R. §1.181. Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 6 The Examiner finds that Afghahi discloses, in Figures 1 and 2 (not reproduced here), a sigma-delta 13 modulator that comprises a comparator including a differential amplifier and a regenerative latch. (FR 2, ll. 8–11.) The Examiner finds further that the comparator is coupled to a CMOS image array, which, according to the Examiner, is both a data location (required by claim 1) and a memory element (required by claim 14) because “they [both] represent the same element” (Ans. 9, ll. 6–7.) The Examiner finds further that, although “Afghahi also discloses a digital counter that is coupled to the output of the comparator” (FR 2, ll. 18–19; Ans. 5, ll. 3–4; both citing Afghahi Fig. 4), “Afghahi does not teach the digital filter includes a counter” (FR 2, l. 20; Ans. 5, l. 5), as well as certain other limitations. The Examiner finds that Lee describes an image sensor comprising a photodiode (a data location) coupled to a comparator circuit that is directly coupled to a digital filter that includes an up/down counter. (FR 2, l. 23 to 3, l. 2; Ans. 5, ll. 8–11.) The Examiner finds further that Lee describes a differential amplifier 300 14 in Fig. 5 (not reproduced here) comprising a current mirror circuit formed by transistors, and that the image sensor operates at reduced power levels. (FR 3, ll. 1–6; Ans. 5, ll. 11–17.) The Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious . . . to have applied the teachings of Lee in the sigma delta modulator of Afghahi to improve the 13 Afghahi refers to a “Sigma-Delta A/D converter” (Afghahi col. 1, l. 20). Because Baker does not dispute that Afghahi describes (or suggests) a delta- sigma modulator as recited in the claims, we may assume, without deciding, that the two terms are synonymous for purposes of this appeal. 14 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, elements in figures are presented in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 7 performance and efficiency of the converter.” (FR 3, ll. 6–8; Ans. 5, ll. 16-18.) Baker argues that “the cited portions of Afghahi fail to teach ‘a digital filter coupled to an output of a comparator, wherein the digital filter comprises a counter.” (Br. 5, ll 16–17.) As Baker urges (id. at ll. 17–20), Afghahi Figure 5, shown below, does not appear to show that the digital counter is coupled to the output of the comparator. The output of comparator 510 is fed to clocked control logic 512, which in turn sends count pulses and a reset pulse to digital counter 500, as well as other signals to comparator 510. {Afghahi Figure 5 is shown below} {Afghahi Fig. 5 shows an A/D converter with a comparator 510} Baker argues (id.) that the Examiner has not provided support for the finding that a signal from comparator 510 reaches counter 500. In particular, Baker urges (Br. 6), the Examiner’s finding (FR 3, ll. 17–20) that control logic 512 “will not alter, change or modify the signal to the point where a different signal has reached the counter” is contradicted by Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 8 Afghahi’s teachings. Rather, Baker argues, the control logic appears to utilize a signal received from the comparator “to generate a separate output count pulse and/or a reset pulse.” (Id. at 6, ll. 7-10 , citing Afghahi, col. 6, ll. 13-21.) The Examiner responds that Afghahi, column 6, lines 13–21, supports the rejection, finding that “the stop count is supplied to the control logic when the ladder voltage (see Fig. 5) rises above the analog input.” (Ans. 6, ll. 12–16.) The disputed paragraph of Afghahi reads: FIG. 5 is an A/D converter application utilizing a comparator according to the invention. A digital counter 500 advances from a zero count while a ladder network 504 driven by the counter outputs a stair case ladder voltage as shown. The comparator 510, receiving both ladder voltage and analog input voltage, provides a signal OUT+ to stop the count when the ladder voltage rises above the input voltage. Control logic 512 determines the count frequency based on the clock 516 and provides RST and SL signals to the comparator. (Afghahi, col. 6, ll. 13–21; emphasis added.) This passage supports Baker’s arguments more than it supports the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner does not explain how “determin[ing] the count frequency based on the clock” amounts to a simple pass-through, without altering or modifying the output OUT+ of comparator 510, which is said to “stop the count.” In particular, the Examiner has not explained how the “count pulses” sent by control logic 512 to digital counter 500 are merely the “stop count” pulse[s] sent by comparator 510. 15 15 We decline, in the first instance, to undertake a detailed analysis of how a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the system Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 9 Baker urges further that Afghahi teaches away from separate amplifier stages taught by Lee. (Br. 6, ll. 18–30, citing Afghahi col. 2, ll. 1–7.) In particular, Afghahi teaches that a separate amplifier stage requires increased power consumption and more physical area on the IC die, and that the disclosed comparator circuit avoids these problems. In this regard, the Examiner does not explain why transimpedance amplifier 300, auto-zero amplifier 400, and comparator 500, illustrated in block form in Lee, Figure 4 (and in component circuit diagrams in Lee, Figures 5–7, respectively), would have been regarded as equivalents to the comparator circuits described by Afghahi in Figures 1 and 2, and illustrated in block form in comparator 510 in Figure 5, such that substitution of Lee’s digital filter 235 for Afghahi’s digital counter 500 would have been understood to be the substitution of an equivalent element in an equivalent circuit. We therefore reverse the rejection of Claim 1 as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Afghahi and Lee. The Examiner’s findings regarding separately argued claims 8 and 11 do not cure the deficiencies regarding claim 1. We therefore also reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, and 8–13. Independent claim 22 reads: A method, comprising: amplifying a difference between an analog signal and a reference signal, wherein described in Fig. 5 to work. That analysis requires fact-finding that Baker is entitled to review and challenge as Baker sees fit. That “give and take” is an essential aspect of examination, but an appeal is ill-suited as a place to begin such an inquiry. Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 10 amplifying the difference comprises: amplifying the analog signal to produce an amplified analog signal; and amplifying the reference signal to produce an amplified reference signal; latching an output based on which of the two amplified signals is larger to form a data-stream; and digitally filtering the data-stream. (Claims App., Br. 17; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) Claims 23, 24, and 26–28 depend from claim 22. In the principal Brief on appeal, Baker focuses on the failure, in its view, of the Examiner to identify separate amplification of the analogue signal and the reference signal. (Br. 10–11.) In the Reply, Baker adds the further argument that there is no teaching that the data-stream is digitally filtered. (Reply 8, ll. 19–27.) We might decline to consider the digital filtering argument as untimely raised, with no good cause shown why that argument could not have been raised in the principal Brief. 37 C.F.R. §41.41(2) (2012). However, the Final Rejection does not contain any separate discussion of claim 22 (FR 2–4), notwithstanding the separate arguments raised previously by Baker regarding this claim (see the response filed on 29 December 2011, pages 12–13). Moreover, the Examiner expanded the discussion of claim 22 considerably in the Answer (Ans. 10–11), albeit without discussing the digital filtering limitation. Against this background, in view of Baker’s extensive arguments against the rejection of claim 1 regarding the absence of digital filtering, we do not consider Baker’s failure to raise expressly that Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 11 argument against claim 22 in the Brief so egregious as to merit dismissal of that argument. 16 Therefore, as we have not been persuaded by the Examiner’s arguments that digital filtering would have been obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art cited in the rejection of claim 1, we are not persuaded by the same arguments as applied against claim 22. The Examiner’s findings regarding claim 26 (driving nodes of latches to definite voltages) and claim 27 (transmitting the data-stream to a current switch) do not correct the deficiencies with respect to independent claim 22. We reverse the rejections of claims 22–24 and 26–28. Independent claim 14 Claim 14 reads: A system, comprising: a device comprising: a memory element; and a delta-sigma modulator directly coupled to the memory element, the delta-sigma modulator comprising 16 The rather extensive elaborations of the findings of fact and arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s Answer, and the Reply suggest that more detailed consideration of the claim limitations and the references during the examination period proper by both the Examiner and Baker would have been more fruitful. As a matter of efficient process, except in extraordinary circumstances not present here, we address the appeal in the condition presented, rather than seeking clarification of seemingly obscure arguments. See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 41.1(b) (rules to be “construed to secure the just speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding before the Board”) and § 41.50(a)(1), last sentence (authorizing remand). Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 12 a comparator that includes a differential amplifier, wherein inputs of the differential amplifier are coupled to the memory element and a reference signal. (Claims App., Br. 15; some indentation, paragraphing, and emphasis added.) Claims 15–17 and 21 depend from claim 14. Baker urges that Afghahi, in Figure 4, shows a pixel array 400, but does not disclose “any teaching in Afghahi of a device comprising a memory element,” and that neither Lee nor Fowler provide any teachings that obviate this deficiency. (Br. 9, ll. 1–11; Reply 5, ll. 25–26.) The Examiner’s finding that “[t]he data location and the memory element can be interchangeably used in the claims, for they represent the same element” (Ans. 9, ll. 6–7) is inaccurate. However, the sentence that follows immediately, “[t]hough the comparator of Afghahi is used in a multi-bit delta sigma modulator it is to be noted that the comparator of Afghahi can also be used in memory circuits (see col. 1 lines 16-30); in this case, the comparator of Afghahi will be directly coupled to the memory circuits” (Ans. 9, ll. 7–10), is directly on point. Given Baker’s recognition in the ʼ996 Specification of the close similarity of imaging arrays and memory arrays in the context of reading their contents with A/D converters and with delta-sigma comparator-based A/D converters (Spec. 9 [0037]), we are not persuaded that adequate notice of the proper basis of the obviousness rejection was obscured by the Examiner’s technical error. Claim 16 depends from claim 14 and reads: The system of claim 14, wherein the comparator comprises a latch coupled to the output of the differential amplifier. (Claims App., Br. 15.) Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 13 Baker argues further that the regenerative latch described by Afghahi is not coupled to the output of a differential amplifier because the latch itself “appears to operate as an amplifier.” (Br. 10, ll. 11–14, citing Afghahi, col. 1, ll. 38–60.) This argument is not persuasive of harmful error in the Examiner’s finding (FR 2, ll. 18–20; Ans. 9, ll. 14–15) that the latches shown in Afghahi, Figure 4, shown below, are coupled to the output of a differential amplifier, as required by claim 16. {Fig. 4 shows a comparator used in a CMOS imaging application} Part of the problem may lie in the absence, in the present record, of a clear definition of the term “differential amplifier.” Baker appears to argue as though this phrase is a term of art that excludes the comparator shown in Fig. 4 (which accepts a signal from the pixel array and from a reference voltage). However, Baker has not come forward with evidence showing that Appeal 2013-004251 Application 11/818,996 14 the term has such a meaning to those having ordinary skill in the art. 17 Moreover, the portion of Afghahi cited by Baker is part of the background. Baker does not explain why the Examiner’s reliance on the embodiment in Figure 4 as evidence of the obviousness of this limitation is harmfully erroneous. (Reply 7, discussing only the Background section cited supra.) We affirm the rejection of claims 14–17 and 21. C. Order We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1–3, 6, and 8–13, 22–24, and 26–28. We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 14–17 and 21. 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-IN-PART bar 17 To be clear, the issue is not the adequacy of the original disclosure, which is directed to persons having ordinary skill in the art. Rather, the issue is whether the record contains sufficient evidence that a non-expert reviewer can make adequate findings to draw conclusions as to the meaning of these terms to the artisan. Cf. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1997) in which the Applicant tried to show unexpected results. The court held that “[e]ven were it obvious to a practitioner of the art, applicants have the burden to provide the PTO with evidence showing that such is the case.” Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation