Ex Parte Browning et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2016

12945842 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2016)

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