Ex Parte 6483183 et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 1, 2010

90007877 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Sep. 1, 2010)

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.
90/007,877 01/10/2006 6483183 25848/81101 9379
31625 7590 09/02/2010
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
PATENT DEPARTMENT
98 SAN JACINTO BLVD., SUITE 1500
AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039
EXAMINER
KIELIN, ERIK J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC.
____________

Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Technology Center 3900
Patent No. 6,483,183
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

2
Microchip Technology, Incorporated2 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 306 from a final rejection of claims 1-18. Claims
19-22 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b)
and 306.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Reexamination Proceedings
A request for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,483,183
(the ‘183 patent) was filed on January 10, 2006, by Philip W. Woo of Sidley
Austin, LLP, Reexamination Control No. 90/007,877.
The ‘183 patent, entitled “Integrated Circuit (IC) Package with a
Microcontroller Having an N-bit Bus and up to N-pins coupled to the
Microcontroller,” issued November 19, 2002, to Scott Fink, Gregory
Bingham, Richard Hull, and Scott Ellison, based on Application
No. 09/522,026, filed October 8, 1998. The ‘183 patent is said to be a
continuation of Application No. 08/644,916, filed May 24, 1996, now U.S.
Patent No. 5,847,450, issued December 8, 1998.
Related Litigation
The ‘183 patent was asserted in two patent infringement suits in
Microchip Tech., Inc. v. Zilog, No. 2:05-CV-2406 (D. Ariz. filed Aug. 10,
2005) and Microchip Tech., Inc. v. Luminary Micro, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-0986
(D. Ariz. filed Apr. 10, 2006).

2 Microchip Technology, Incorporated is said to be the real party in interest
and assignee of the patent under reexamination.

Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

3
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to an integrated circuit (IC) package
with an IC chip including a microcontroller having an n-bit data bus and up
to n pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller. (Abstract.) One or
more of the pins are associated with one or more functional blocks to define
a specific function for the pin. (Abstract.) The specific function for a pin is
selected by an enable signal from a control register coupled to the
microcontroller. (Abstract.) The control register selects the appropriate
function block upon a command from the microcontroller. (Abstract.)
The Claims
Claims 1 and 5 are exemplary:
1. An integrated circuit (IC) package, comprising:
an IC chip with a microcontroller therein, the microcontroller
having an n-bit data bus; and
up to n-pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller.

5. An electronic device comprising:
an integrated circuit package comprising a left side and a right
side;
an IC chip with a microcontroller having an n-bit data bus
arranged within said integrated circuit package;
a plurality of pins extending from said left side and said right
side of said integrated circuit package, said pins being electrically
coupled to said microcontroller, wherein the total number of said pins
is less than or equal to n.

Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

4
The Rejections3
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Otake (Japanese Publication No. 3-28985) and Badehi (U.S.
Patent 5,455,455), as evidenced by Ling (U.S. Patent Application
Publication 2007/0198816 A1) and Appellant’s admitted prior art (‘183
patent, col. 1, ll. 20-29; col. 3, ll. 30-40) (“APA”).
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ostler (U.S. Patent 5,787,299).
Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ostler and Otake.
Claims 5-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ostler and Philips Semiconductors Linear Products, Product
Specification NE/SA/SE555/SE555C 346-352 (Aug. 31, 1994) (“Philips-NE
Data Sheet”) or, alternatively, over Ostler, Otake and Philips-NE Data Sheet.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Ostler and Hall (U.S. Patent 5,274,778) or, alternatively, over Ostler,
Otake and Hall.
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ostler,
Philips-NE Data Sheet and the APA or, alternatively, over Ostler, Otake,
Philips-NE Data Sheet and the APA.

3 The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Daughters (U.S. Patent 4,742,215) as evidenced by the APA and the
rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
SGS-Thomson Microelectronics, CMOS MCU Based Safeguarded Smart
Card IC with Modular Arithmetic Processor (1995) have been withdrawn by
the Examiner. (Ans. 2.)
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

5
Appellant relied upon the following in rebuttal to the Examiner’s
rejection:
JAN AXELSON, THE MICROCONTROLLER IDEA BOOK 1-2 (Lakeview Research
1994) (“The Microcontroller Idea Book”).

U. TIETZE & CH. SCHENK, ELECTRIC CIRCUITS DESIGN AND APPLICATIONS
559-561 (Springer-Verlag 1991) (“Tietze/Schenk”).

ISSUES
With respect to independent claims 1 and 3, Appellant argues that the
combination of Otake and Badehi does not teach or suggest “a
microcontroller” because the Examiner improperly interpreted this claim
term. (App. Br. 7, 12-14.)
With respect to independent claims 1 and 3, Appellant argues that
Ostler does not teach or suggest “the microcontroller having an n-bit data
bus; and up to n-pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller.” (App.
Br. 16, 20-24.) In particular, Appellant argues that Ostler does not teach that
the number of external pins is a result-effective variable (App. Br. 20-21)
and reducing the number of pins of a microcontroller (App. Br. 21-24).
Independent claim 5 recites similar limitations.

Appellant’s arguments present the following issues:
1. Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Otake
and Badehi teaches or suggests “a microcontroller”?
2. Has the Examiner erred in finding that Ostler teaches or suggests
that “the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins
electrically coupled to the microcontroller”?
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
The Microcontroller Idea Book
1. The Microcontroller Idea Book describes a “microcontroller” as a
“computer-on-a-chip.” (P. 1, ¶ 2.) “[A] microcontroller is a single-
chip computer because it contains memory and I/O [input/output]
interfaces in addition to the CPU [central processing unit].” (P.2, ¶ 2.)
Tietze/Schenk
2. Tietze/Schenk describes that one of the functional units for a
“microcomputer” includes a microprocessor, also known as a central
processing unit (CPU). (P. 559, § 20.1.) The microprocessor or CPU
contains three functional blocks: an execution unit, a sequence
controller (or sequencer) and a bus interface. (P. 560, § 20.2.1.) The
execution unit processes arithmetic and logic instructions (p. 560,
§ 20.2.1) and includes a data register, an address register and an
arithmetic logic unit (ALU) (fig. 20.2). The sequencer includes an
instruction decoder and a program counter. (P. 560, § 20.2.1;
fig. 20.2.) The bus interface includes a data bus driver, a control bus
driver and an address bus driver. (Fig. 20.2.)
Otake4
3. Otake relates to “a microcomputer suitable for small-scale but multi-
variety production and capable of reducing the number of terminals

4 Reference is made to the English-language translation provided by
Appellant, submitted July 16, 2007.
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

7
used for control.” (P. 1, col. 2.) For the microcomputer of its
invention a “built-in ROM is not needed.” (P. 2, col. 2.)
4. Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment of the
invention of Otake. (P. 2, col. 2.) Figure 1 illustrates an address
signal 1, a data signal 2 and a read/write signal 3 transmitted along
their respective terminals. Figure 1 also illustrates a program counter
4, shift registers 5 and 6, instruction register 7, instruction decoder 8,
and a circuit controller 9.
Ostler
5. Ostler relates to “a microcontroller which includes a pin selection
system allowing pins to be used for address/data and special I/O
signals.” (Col. 1, ll. 15-18.) In a prior art example, Ostler describes
that, for microcontrollers designed to work with a large external
memory space, a large number of external pins are required (e.g., 24
pins for 16 megabytes). (Col. 1, ll. 36-39.) Ostler teaches that
although external pins can be economized by sharing data and address
pins via time division multiplexing, this approach cannot be used for
external access by special function devices. (Col. 1, ll. 42-46.)
Therefore, Ostler describes a need for “a microcontroller that allows
external access pins normally being used for addresses to be used for
alternate functions” (col. 1, ll. 51-54), thus “reduc[ing] the number of
pins needed for a microcontroller chip having special function
circuits” (col. 1, ll. 63-65).
6. A microcontroller system 10 includes a single chip
microcontroller 12, external devices 14 and 16, external instruction
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

8
memory 18, external data memory 20, a bus interface unit 22, a data
bus 24, I/O ports 26-28, an internal peripheral bus 42 (col. 2, ll. 24-39;
fig. 1), a special function device 90 (col. 2, ll. 24-39; fig. 1) and a
selection circuit 92 (col. 2, ll. 24-39; fig. 1).
7. The microcontroller 12 communicates with the external instruction
memory 18 and the external data memory 20 through the bus interface
unit 22 and the data bus 24 having a 24 bit capability. (Col. 2, ll. 32-
35.) The microcontroller 12 communicates with the external
devices 14 and 16 through I/O ports 26-28. (Col. 2, ll. 36-38.)
Figure 2 illustrates that the data bus 24 is accessible by pins 111.
External access of the special function devices 90 to the
microcontroller 12 is also provided through the data bus 24 by the
selection circuit 92. (Col. 3, ll. 3-5; fig. 3.) In one example, Figure 3
illustrates a system in which eight bits of a 24 bit external bus can be
selected for an alternative function. (Col. 3, ll. 55-60; fig. 3.)
Ling
8. Ling relates to “an emulation system for a single-chip multi-
microcontroller.” (¶ [0002].) “A microcontroller (microcontroller
unit, MCU), which has all the functions of a complete computer, is
almost equal to a miniature computer and can work independently
without any auxiliary circuit; therefore, a microcontroller is also
referred to as a single-chip microcomputer.” (¶ [0004].)
Badehi
9. Badehi “relates to methods and apparatus for producing integrated
circuit devices.” (Col. 1, ll. 9-10.) In the “Background of the
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

9
Invention” section, Badehi describes that “[a]n essential step in the
manufacture of all integrated circuit devices is known as ‘packaging’
and involves mechanical and environmental protection of a silicon
chip which is at the heart of the integrated circuit as well as electrical
interconnection between predetermined locations on the silicon chip
and external electrical terminals.” (Col. 1, ll. 14-19.)
Philips-NE Data Sheet
10. A “Pin Configurations” figure from the Philips-NE Data Sheet
illustrates a top view of two integrated circuit packages (“D, N, FE
Packages” and “F Package”) with pins extending from a left side of
both packages and pins extending from a right side of both packages.
(P. 346.)
Hall
11. In the “Background of the Invention” section, Hall describes that
“programmable read only memories (EPROMs) and electrically
erasable programmable read only memories (EEPROMs) have been
employed in a wide variety of circuits, including, for example, stand
alone memory chips and memory locations within microprocessors
and microcontrollers.” (Col. 1, ll. 15-21.)

Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

10
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-4
With respect to the first issue, we are convinced by Appellant’s
argument (App. Br. 7, 12-14) that the combination of Otake and Badehi does
not teach or suggest “a microcontroller,” as recited in claims 1 and 3.
The Examiner found that the claimed “microcontroller” corresponds
to the “microcomputer” of Otake. (Ans. A-3.) The Examiner cited Badehi
as evidence that a “microcontroller” is equivalent to a “microcomputer.”
(Ans. 8, A-4.) We do not agree.
Otake teaches a “microcomputer” with a reduced number of terminals
that does not include a read-only memory (ROM). (FF 3.) However, as
evidenced by the Microcontroller Idea Book, a “microcontroller” is defined
as a “computer-on-a-chip” that includes a central processing unit (CPU), a
memory and input/output interfaces. (FF 1.) Thus, the “microcomputer” of
Otake is not a “microcontroller” because it does not include a memory.
(See FF 1.)
Furthermore, Figure 1 of Otake illustrates a block diagram of the
microcomputer, including an address signal 1, a data signal 2, a read/write
signal 3, a program counter 4, shift registers 5 and 6, instruction register 7,
instruction decoder 8, and a circuit controller 9. (FF 4.) However, as
evidenced by Tietze/Schenk, a “CPU” includes an execution unit, a
sequence controller and a bus interface. (FF 2.) Figure 20.2 of
Tietze/Schenk illustrates that the “execution unit” includes a data register, an
address register and an arithmetic logic; the “sequencer” includes an
instruction decoder and a program counter; and the “bus interface” includes
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

11
a data bus driver, a control bus driver and an address bus driver. (FF 2.)
Thus, in comparing Figure 1 of Otake with Figure 20.2 of Tietze/Schenk, the
“microcomputer” of Otake is a “CPU” rather than a “microcontroller.” (See
FF 2, 4.) Badehi, which was relied upon by the Examiner for its teaching of
integrated circuit packaging (Ans. A-4; FF 9), does not cure the above-noted
deficiencies of Otake.
The Examiner argues that Ling provides evidence to support the
position that a “microcontroller” is equivalent to a “microcomputer.”
(Ans. 8.) However, Ling teaches that a “microcontroller . . . has all the
functions of a complete computer.” (FF 8.) As discussed previously, the
“microcomputer” of Otake is a CPU and does not have all the functions of a
complete computer.
Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding the combination of
Otake and Badehi teaches or suggests “a microcontroller,” as recited in
claims 1 and 3.
We conclude that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Otake and
Badehi.
With respect to the second issue, we are convinced by Appellant’s
argument (App. Br. 16, 20-24) that Ostler does not teach or suggest “the
microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically
coupled to the microcontroller” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3.
The Examiner acknowledged that Ostler does not teach or suggest
“the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically
coupled to the microcontroller.” (See Ans. A-5.) However, the Examiner
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

12
concluded that this claim feature would have been obvious because
“claiming the specific reduction in pins to be up to the number of pins in the
data bus is merely a result effective variable that follows from optimizing
the reduction of the number of pins at the explicit suggestion in Ostler to
reduce the number of pins.” (Ans. A-5.) We do not agree.
Ostler teaches a microcontroller with a pin selection system that
allows the pins to be used for address/data signals and special I/O signals
from special function circuits. (FF 5.) Ostler also teaches a
microcontroller 12 that communicates with an external instruction
memory 18 and an external data memory 20 through a data bus 24,
accessible by pins 111. (FF 6-7.) Ostler further teaches external access to
special function devices 90 through the data bus 24 and pins 111. (FF 7.) In
other words, Ostler teaches that instead of increasing the number of external
pins to accommodate the special function circuits, each of the existing
external pins has the additional capability of transmitting address/data
signals and special I/O signals from special function circuits. (See FF 6-7.)
Thus, Ostler does not teach or suggest reducing the total number of external
pins, but instead maintains the existing number of external pins. (See FF 5.)
Furthermore, Ostler does not provide any recognition that the number
of pins 111 is a result-effective variable (i.e., varying the number of pins 111
achieves a recognized result). Therefore, the number of pins 111 in Ostler
has not been shown to be a parameter subject to optimization. See In re
Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

13
Therefore, the Examiner has erred in finding that Ostler teaches or
suggests “the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins
electrically coupled to the microcontroller,” as recited in claims 1 and 3.
In the alternative, the Examiner relied upon Otake, for its teaching of
“the microcontroller having an n-bit data bus; and up to n-pins electrically
coupled to the microcontroller.” (Ans. A-7.) However, Otake does not cure
the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler because, as discussed previously,
Otake does not teach or suggest a “microcontroller,” but instead relates to a
microcomputer in which a “built-in ROM is not needed” (FF 3).
We conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Ostler or
over Ostler and Otake. Claims 2 and 4 depend from independent claims 1
and 3, and we likewise conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Ostler or over Ostler
and Otake for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1
and 3.
Claims 5-15
Independent claim 5 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claims 1 and 3. We conclude that the Examiner erred
in rejecting this claim, as well as claims 6-15, which depend from claim 5,
for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 3. The
Philips-NE Data Sheet, which was relied upon by the Examiner for its
teaching of “an integrated circuit package comprising a left side and a right
side” and “a plurality of pins extending from said left side and said right side
of said integrated circuit package” (Ans. A-8; FF 10), does not cure the
Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

14
above-noted deficiencies of Ostler. Otake also does not cure the
above-noted deficiencies of Ostler for the reasons previously discussed.
Claim 16
Claim 16 indirectly depends from independent claim 5 and the
Examiner has erred in rejecting this claim for the reasons discussed
previously with respect to independent claim 5. Hall, which was relied upon
by the Examiner for its teaching of “wherein said memory device is a
SRAM, DRAM, EPROM, EEPROM, ROM, PROM or a logic device”
(Ans. A-13 to -14; FF 11), does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of
Ostler. Otake also does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Ostler for
the reasons previously discussed.
Claims 17 and 18
Claims 17 and 18 indirectly depend from independent claim 5 and the
Examiner has erred in rejecting these claims for the reasons discussed
previously with respect to independent claim 5. The APA, which was relied
upon by the Examiner for its teaching of “a bi-directional I/O port unit” and
“a serial programming unit” (Ans. A-14 to -15), does not cure the
above-noted deficiencies of Ostler. Otake also does not cure the
above-noted deficiencies of Ostler for the reasons previously discussed.

Appeal 2010-000005
Reexamination Control 90/007,877
Patent No. 6,483,183

15
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of fact and analysis above, we conclude that the
Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-18.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-18 is reversed.
REVERSED

bim

FOR PATENT OWNER:

BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P.
910 LOUISIANA STREET
ONE SHELL PLAZA
HOUSTON, TX 77002

FOR THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
555 CALIFORNIA STREET
SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104