Ex Parte Barrenscheen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2014

10116490 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/116,490 04/04/2002 Jens Barrenscheen J&R-0852 1333
27346 7590 12/17/2014
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
FOR INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
EXAMINER
ROJAS, MIDYS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2133
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2014 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 JENS BARRENSCHEEN and KARL HERZ
____________

Appeal 2012-006952
Application 10/116,490
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR.,
and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–50, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appeal 2012-006952
Application 10/116,490

2
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to an interface between a memory device
and a device requesting data from the memory device. See Specification
1:7–8. Exemplary independent claims 1 and 26 read as follows:
1. An interface between a flash memory device and a device
requesting data from the memory device, the interface ensuring
that data are read from the memory device and forwarded to the
device requesting the data, the interface comprising:
a first connection to the device requesting data for
receiving data requests;
a second connection to the memory device containing the
data in memory locations each defined by an address;
the interface configured to:
at substantially the same time that all data
requested by a data request issued by the device
requesting data is provided to the device requesting data,
perform a determination to see whether a further data
request has been received over the first connection from
the device requesting data,
initiate a process to provide further requested data
in response to the further data request if the
determination indicates that the further data request has
been received, and
modify a previously requested address, which was
previously used to read data from the memory device,
and initiate reading the data stored at the modified
address in the memory device only if the determination
indicates that the further data request had not been
received, the modified address originating in, and
generated by, the interface.

26. An interface configuration between a non-volatile
memory device having data stored therein in memory locations
each defined by an address and a device requesting data from
the memory device, comprising:
an interface connected between the non-volatile memory
device and the device requesting data from the memory device
Appeal 2012-006952
Application 10/116,490

3
and configured to ensure that the requested data are read from
the memory device and forwarded to the device requesting the
data, said interface including a control unit;
said control unit having a predefined length of time pre-
programmed therein, wherein said control unit causes said
interface to accept the data being output by the memory device
in response to said read operation at an expiration of said
predefined length of time after an initiation of a read operation
to obtain the data from the memory device.

PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Dye US 6,145,069 Nov. 7, 2000
Sharma US 6,412,046 B1 June 25, 2002
Abdallah US 2002/0087800 A1 July 4, 2002
Razdan US 6,446,143 B1 Sept. 3, 2002
Tso US 6,959,318 B1 Oct. 25, 2005

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sharma, Dye, Razdan, and Abdallah. See Ans. 5–14.
The Examiner rejects claims 26, 27, and 29–50 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sharma, Dye, and Tso. See Ans. 14–21.
The Examiner rejects claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sharma, Dye, Tso, Razdan, and Abdallah. See Ans. 21–
23.

Appeal 2012-006952
Application 10/116,490

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–25
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1
because the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the feature “modify a
previously requested address . . . only if the determination indicates that the
further data request had not been received.” See App. Br. 7–12. We agree
with Appellants.
Claim 1 recites modifying a previously requested address only if a
further data request has not been received. That is, the occurrence of the
modifying step depends on the outcome of the determining step. See App.
Br. 8. As Appellants point out, claim 1 therefore requires the modifying step
to take place sometime after the determining step. See App. Br. 8.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Sharma and Razdan. See Ans. 6–8. The Examiner cites Sharma’s
discussion of prefetching as teaching the claimed modifying step. See Ans.
6; Sharma col. 3, ll. 23–25; col. 5, ll. 35–55. The Examiner further cites
Razdan’s discussion of determining whether a new request is a fetch request
or prefetch request as teaching the claimed determining step. See Ans. 7;
Razdan col. 5, ll. 47–58. If the new request is a fetch request, then
uninitiated requests in a queue are cancelled; but if the new request is a
prefetch request, then the prefetch request is queued in the queue. See Ans.
7; Razdan col. 5, ll. 55–58.
Appellants contend the combined teachings of Sharma and Razdan do
not suggest the argued feature. See App. Br. 9. We find Appellants’
argument persuasive. As Appellants point out, the cited portions of Sharma
teach prefetching (or modifying a previously requested address) before any
Appeal 2012-006952
Application 10/116,490

5
determination as to whether a further data request has been received. See
App. Br. 8–9 (“it is clear the agent [in Sharma] is requesting not only the
data at the initial prefetch address, but that the agent is also requesting all of
the data within the prefetch depth”); Sharma col. 3, ll. 25–32, col. 5, ll. 35–
55; see also Sharma col. 4, ll. 30–32 (“The second piece of information is if
the current request terminates a previous prefetch stream.”). Consequently,
Sharma’s disclosure of prefetching the data irrespective of whether or not a
request was made vitiates the claim language, which limits such prefetching
to the specific instance where a fetch request has not been made. Similarly,
as Appellants also point out, cited portions of Razdan teach prefetching
before determining whether a new request is a fetch request (that is, a further
data request has been received) or a prefetch request (that is, a further data
request has not been received). See App. Br. 9 (“Razdan et al. teach
canceling unperformed prefetches and fetches after a branching operation is
detected”); Razdan col. 5, ll. 47–58, col. 6, ll. 37–62. The Examiner does
not identify any language in Sharma or Razdan that teaches or suggests
prefetching additional data only if a request for further data has not been
received. Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions as to claim 1.
As the issue of whether the combination of Sharma and Razdan
teaches or suggests modifying a previously requested address only if a
further data request has not been received is dispositive, we need not reach
Appellants’ other arguments with respect to independent claim 1 or its
depending claims. Accordingly, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 1–25 for the reasons discussed above.

Appeal 2012-006952
Application 10/116,490

6
Claims 26–50
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim
26 because the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the feature “wherein
said control unit causes said interface to accept the data being output by the
memory device in response to said read operation at an expiration of said
predefined length of time after an initiation of a read operation to obtain the
data from the memory device.” See App. Br. 7–12. We agree with
Appellants.
Claim 26 recites accepting data at the expiration of a predefined
length of time after initiating a read operation to obtain the data. Thus,
claim 26 requires the predefined length of time to start sometime after
initiating a read operation.
The Examiner cites Tso’s discussion of prefetching updated data
objects as teaching the argued feature. See Ans. 15–16. In Tso, a cache
management system determines at the expiration of a given period of time
whether there is any update for a data object that has already been
prefetched. See Tso col. 7, ll. 4–11; Ans. 15. If there is no update, then no
further prefetching occurs; but if there is an update, then the system
prefetches the updated data object. See Tso col. 7, ll.13–22; Ans. 15.
Referring to the case in Tso where there is an update, Appellants
contend the previously fetched data is discarded, not accepted as recited in
claim 26. See App. Br. 13–14. We find Appellants’ argument persuasive.
Tso defines prefetching as a process where a data object is retrieved and
stored in local cache before a user requests that data object. See Tso col. 6,
ll. 5–8. According to this definition, the period of time in Tso starts
sometime before, not after, a user requests the prefetched data object (or
Appeal 2012-006952
Application 10/116,490

7
initiates a read operation). Accordingly, whether or not there is an update in
Tso, the prefetched data in either case could not be accepted at the expiration
of the period of time after initiating a read operation, as Appellants point
out. See App. Br. 13. We are therefore persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
findings as to claim 26.
As the issue of whether Tso teaches or suggests accepting data at an
expiration of a predefined length of time after initiating a read operation to
obtain the data, we need not reach Appellants’ other arguments with respect
to independent claim 26 or its depending claims. Accordingly, we decline to
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 26–50 for the reasons
discussed above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–50 is REVERSED.

REVERSED

rvb