11261270 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2012)

Ex Parte Thayer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 6, 2012

11261270 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte LARRY J. THAYER and LEITH L. JOHNSON _____________ Appeal 2010-000712 Application 11/261,270 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19-25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. 1 Claims 3 and 18 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2010-000712 Application 11/261,270 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system for redirecting read/write requests to spare memory when a portion of a memory module fails. See Abstract. Claim 12 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 12. A method, comprising: receiving memory read/write requests at a memory controller; upon failure of a portion of a memory module connected to the memory controller, i) mapping a spare memory location within the memory controller to the failed portion of the memory module, and ii) redirecting ones of the read/write requests directed to the failed portion of the memory module to the spare memory location. REFERENCES Moshayedi US 2002/0091965 A1 July 11, 2002 Ghosh US 2004/0088490 A1 May 6, 2004 Bink WO 2005/024843 A1 Mar. 17, 2005 Coulson US 6,941,423 B2 Sep. 6, 2005 (filed Dec. 22, 2003) Babudri US 2006/0062046 A1 Mar. 23, 2006 (filed June 9, 2005) Lambert US 2007/0094551 A1 Apr. 26, 2007 (filed Oct. 6, 2006) Appeal 2010-000712 Application 11/261,270 3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bink. Ans. 4. Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 15-17, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ghosh and Bink. Ans. 5-13. Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ghosh, Bink, and Babudri. Ans. 13. Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ghosh, Bink, and Coulson. Ans. 14. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ghosh, Bink, and Moshayedi. Ans. 14-16. Claims 8, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ghosh, Bink, and Lambert. Ans. 16- 17. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Bink discloses mapping a spare memory location within the memory controller to the failed portion of the memory module?2 ANALYSIS Independent claim 12 recites “mapping a spare memory location within the memory controller to the failed portion of the memory module.” Independent claims 1 and 16 contain a similar limitation. Claims 2 and 4-11 2 Appellants make additional arguments regarding claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19- 25. App. Br. 8-16; Reply Br. 4-8. We will not address these additional arguments as this issue is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2010-000712 Application 11/261,270 4 depend upon claim 1; claims 13-15 depend upon claim 12; and claims 17 and 19-25 depend upon claim 16. The Examiner finds that Bink discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 17-18. Appellants disagree and argue that Bink maps faulty modules to replacement modules that “are located in the same cache memory.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Since Bink’s cache memory is not located within the memory controller, Appellants are arguing that the spare memory locations are also not within the memory controller. App. Br. 8 and 10; Reply Br. 3. We agree with Appellants. We do not find, nor does the Examiner provide sufficient evidence to show, that Bink’s spare memory is located within the memory controller. The additional references were not cited to teach or suggest this limitation and we will not engage in any inquiry as to whether these additional references cure the noted deficiencies. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19-25. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Bink discloses mapping a spare memory location within the memory controller to the failed portion of the memory module. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4-17, and 19-25 is reversed. REVERSED msc