Ex Parte Browning et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 29, 201612945842 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/945,842 11/13/2010 Christopher D. Browning 24319 7590 02/02/2016 LSI CORPORATION 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 1496.00706IL09-0853US1 8683 EXAMINER 1110 American Parkway NE RADKE, JAY w Allentown, PA 18109 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2827 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2016 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): kee.rivers@avagotech.com patent.lsi@avagotech.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER D. BROWNING and DAVID B. GROVER Appeal2014-000773 Application 12/945,842 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHEAL J. STRAUSS, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-18, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 3, 4, and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2014-000773 Application 12/945,842 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to "to a circuit and/or method for implementing a power saving technique in a content addressable memory during compare operations" (Spec. 1:5-8). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus comprising: a content addressable memory (CAM) configured to operate in (i) a search mode and (ii) a read/write mode; a first circuit configured to generate a supply voltage that changes between (i) a first voltage when an input signal is in a first state and said content addressable memory operates in said read/write mode and (ii) a second voltage when said input signal is in a second state and said content addressable memory operates in said search mode; and a driver circuit configured to generate a wordline signal in response to (i) said supply voltage, (ii) a clock signal and (iii) a select signal, wherein (a) said content addressable memory is configured to perform a read/write operation in a response to said wordline signal when in said read/write mode, (b) said content addressable memory switches between operating in either said search mode or said read/write mode, and ( c) said second voltage is less than said first voltage. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 5-18under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings ofNataraj (US 6,845,025 Bl; Jan. 18, 2005), Ozawa (US 6,535,421 Bl; Mar. 18, 2003), and Satoh (US 5,740,097; Apr. 14, 1998). 2 Appeal2014-000773 Application 12/945,842 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Nataraj teaches or suggests reducing a wordline voltage in one of two claimed modes (App. Br. 10). Appellants further assert "the Examiner acknowledges that the current claims do not have a concurrent compare and read operation ... ,"as does Nataraj (id.). Rather, Appellants state, Nataraj allows a read and write [compare] to occur during the same cycle and passes a lower voltage on the wordline to a cell to help with the compare operation rather than lowering the supply voltage during compare cycles but not during read/write cycles, as does the invention (App. Br. 9). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 4-- 11). Particularly, we agree Nataraj discloses Appellants' claimed limitations as shown by the diagram on page 8 of the Examiner's Answer, and the corresponding explanation (Ans. 7-10). As the Examiner points out, Nataraj, in columns 3 and 6 for example, discloses a high voltage VH on the wordline during a read operation when there is no concurrent compare operation (col. 3, 11. 39--42; col. 6, 11. 34--36, 56-58; Ans. 5-7-see the Examiner's diagram during the period between times t2 and t3) and a lower voltage VL on the word line during the compare mode (CMP=High) (Ans. 8-see the Examiner's diagram during the period between times t0 and t2, including between t0 and t 1 during which there is no concurrent read and or write operation). We therefore agree with the Examiner's findings that Nataraj does indeed disclose the limitations of a supply voltage that changes between (i) a first voltage when an input signal is in a first state and said content addressable memory operates in said read/write mode and (ii) a second 3 Appeal2014-000773 Application 12/945,842 voltage when said input signal is in a second state and said content addressable memory operates in said search mode (Ans. 8-10). Appellants do not address these findings in the Reply; rather, Appellants merely reiterate Nataraj does not switch between a first and second voltage and Nataraj addresses a different problem using a different solution (Reply Br. 3). However, this is attorney argument without evidence, and thus, is not persuasive of Examiner error (In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) "Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence." See also: 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim."; In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.")) For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 16. With respect to the dependent claims, Appellants merely state the claim depends from an independent claim, recite the claim language, and assert none ofNataraj, Ozawa, or Satoh teach or suggest the disputed limitation, again, as stated above, without providing persuasive argument or evidence of Examiner error (App. Br 13-23). Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 5-14, 17, and 18. 4 Appeal2014-000773 Application 12/945,842 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-18 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation