Ex Parte Hacking et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13069647 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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.
13/069,647 03/23/2011 LANCE E. HACKING 42P36992 1511
45209 7590 05/01/2017
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
KING, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2824
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
inteldocs_docketing @ cpaglobal. com
Database_Group@bstz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LANCE E. HACKING and HEE-JUN PARK
Appeal 2016-005509
Application 13/069,647
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5—7, 10-15, and 18—20. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A method comprising:
determining that a memory device is in an inactive state;
and in response to determining that the memory device is in the
inactive state, determining whether a power consumption of the
Appeal 2016-005509
Application 13/069,647
memory device may be reduced based, at least in part, on the
temperature of the memory device including:
in response to determining the temperature of the memory
device is below a temperature threshold, communicating with a
voltage regulator coupled with the memory device to reduce a supply
voltage output to the memory device, wherein the reduced supply
voltage is set between a first voltage level and a second voltage level,
the second voltage level being higher than the first voltage level,
wherein the memory device fails if the supply voltage is set below the
first voltage level when the temperature of memory device is below
the temperature threshold, and wherein the second voltage level is a
memory device manufacturer specified minimum level of the
supply voltage required to operate the memory device correctly
for all memory states; and
in response to determining the temperature of the memory
device is above the temperature threshold, maintaining the supply
voltage output to the memory device.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Nam et al. US 2002/0018387 Al Feb. 14, 2002
(hereafter “Nam”)
Chen et al. US 2006/0006166 Al Jan. 12, 2006
(hereafter “Chen”)
Spengler US 2006/0198225 Al Sept. 7, 2006
David US 2009/0085604 Al Apr. 2, 2009
Cagno et al. US 2009/0323452 Al Dec. 31,2009
(hereafter “Cagno”)
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 13—15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Spengler in view of Nam and Chen.
2. Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Spengler, Nam and Chen, and further in view
of Cagno and David.
2
Appeal 2016-005509
Application 13/069,647
ANALYSIS
At issue in the instant case is the interpretation of certain teachings of
the primary reference of Spengler. On the one hand, Appellants argue, inter
alia, that Spengler does not teach operation below a manufacturer specified
minimum voltage level. Appeal Br. 7—11; Reply Br. 2—A. On the other
hand, it is the Examiner’s position that Spengler does teach operation below
a manufacturer specified minimum voltage level. Ans. 4.
We are persuaded of error for the reasons provided by Appellants in
the record. We add the following for emphasis.
Appellants refer to 131 of Spengler, reproduced below:
For example, a particular memory array used to provide cache 126
might require a 36mA current and operate within a voltage range of
2.3 V to 2.7V in order to sustain the self-refresh functionality.
Spengler, 131.
Appellants explain that the aforementioned disclosure of Spengler
does not explicitly say that the 2.3 V to 2.7V range is memory manufacturer
specified. Reply Br. 3. Appellants also explain that if it is understood that
the above sentence in Spengler may suggest a manufacturer’s minimum
specified supply voltage level (of 2.3 V), it is of no moment because
Spengler’s discussion of the particular example to which the above sentence
is directed clearly does not describe operation of the memory array below
2.3V. Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. As such, Appellants argue that Spengler
does not teach operation beneath a manufacturer specified minimum voltage
level as required by Appellants’ claims. Id. Appellants emphasize that in
order to meet the claim limitation in this regard, Spengler must teach 1) a
manufacturer specified minimum level and then teach 2) operation below
that minimum level. We agree with Appellants that the above sentence of
3
Appeal 2016-005509
Application 13/069,647
Spengler and its surrounding context fall short of these teachings needed to
support of the Examiner’s stated position. Notably, the Examiner’s response
to these points raised by Appellants is insufficient to adequately support the
Examiner’s position as well. Ans. 4.
We also agree that the feature of operating below a manufactured
specified minimum would not have been obvious in view of Spengler (Final
Act. 4; Ans. 7—9) for the reasons stated by Appellants in the record (Appeal
Br. 8—11; Reply Br. 7—8).
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse
Rejection 2 because the Examiner does not rely upon the other applied
references to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Spengler.
DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
4