Ex parte EITRHEIM et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 1998

07859347 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 27, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JOHN K. EITRHEIM, RICHARD B. REIS, STEVE MCMAHAN,
LAWRENCE H. HUDEPOHL, DOUGLAS E. DUSCHATKO,
TAI D. NGO and JEFFREY BYRNE
__________
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,3471
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before, HAIRSTON, BARRETT and FLEMING Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 17 through 24, 26 and 27.
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
2
The invention relates to a low voltage, high frequency
electronic processing device.
The independent claim 17 is reproduced as follows:
17. A processor capable of operating at a high clock rate
with reduced operating voltage comprising:
(a) core circuitry that executes instructions;
(b) bus control circuitry operable to transfer
instructions and data between the processor and an
external memory;
(c) memory management circuitry operable to
transfer instructions and data between the core
circuitry and the external memory;
(d) clock generation circuitry, coupled to the
core circuitry, the memory management circuitry,
and the bus control circuitry, for generating at
least one clock signal; and
(e) a plurality of sense amplifiers included in at
least one of the core circuitry, the memory
management circuitry, the bus control circuitry,
and the clock generation circuitry, the plurality
of sense amplifiers operable to compress logic
thresholds to increase logic switching speed.

The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Ito et al. (Ito) 5,079,745 Jan. 07, 1992
Claims 17 through 24, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ito.
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 25, 1994. We will refer to2
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief
on October 7, 1994. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply
brief. The Examiner responded to the reply brief with a letter, mailed
October 18, 1994, stating that the reply brief has been entered and
considered but no further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
3
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 17 through 24,
26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining obviousness,
the claimed invention should be considered as a whole; there is
no legally recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance
Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
4
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellants argue on pages 3 and 4 of the brief that Ito
fails to teach or suggest a processor comprising core circuitry
that executes instructions, bus control circuitry, memory
management circuit operable to transfer instructions and data
between the core circuitry and memory, clock generation circuitry
and a plurality of sense amplifiers in at least one of the core
circuity, the memory management circuitry, the bus control
circuitry and clock generation circuitry such that the plurality
of sense amplifiers are operable to compress logic thresholds to
increase logic switching speed as recited in Appellants’ claims.
Appellants further emphasize on page 2 of the reply brief that
Ito fails to teach or suggest a processor using sense amplifiers
to allow the processor to operate at a high clock rate with
reduced voltages as recited in Appellants’ claims.
Ito teaches a memory using sense amplifiers. However, Ito
fails to teach a processor capable of operating at a high clock
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
5
rate with reduced operating voltages comprising core circuitry
that executes instructions, bus control circuitry, memory
management circuit operable to transfer instructions and data
between the core circuitry and memory, clock generation circuitry
and a plurality of sense amplifiers in at least one of the core
circuity, the memory management circuitry, the bus control
circuitry and clock generation circuitry such that the plurality
of sense amplifiers are operable to compress logic thresholds to
increase logic switching speed as recited in Appellants’ claims.
Ito teaches in column 1, lines 5-10, that the field of the
invention relates to a sense amplifier in a semiconductor memory.
Ito teaches in columns 4 and 5 a memory having a sense amplifier
connected to first and second bit lines for amplifying the
potential difference. Furthermore, we note that Ito only claims
in columns 6 through 8 a sense amplifier for amplifying a signal
stored in a memory cell for reading and a memory comprising a
sense amplifier connected to first and second bit lines of the
memory for amplifying the potential difference. Therefore, we
fail to find that Ito teaches a processor or a processor device
as recited in Appellants' claims.
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
6
Furthermore, we fail to find any suggestion of modifying Ito
memory to provide a processor comprising core circuitry that
executes instructions, bus control circuitry, memory management
circuit operable to transfer instructions and data between the
core circuitry and memory, clock generation circuitry and a
plurality of sense amplifiers in at least one of the core
circuity, the memory management circuitry, the bus control
circuitry and clock generation circuitry such that the plurality
of sense amplifiers are operable to compress logic thresholds to
increase logic switching speed as recited in Appellants’ claims.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior
art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested
the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992),
citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). "Obviousness may not be established using hindsight
or in view of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor."
Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087, 37 USPQ2d at 1239, citing W.
L. Gore, 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
7
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 17 through 24,
26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-1816
Application 07/859,347
8
Cyrix Corporation
P.O. Box 853919
MS 250
Richardson, TX 75085-3919