Micron Technology, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020000018 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

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.
15/383,260 12/19/2016 Theodore T. Pekny 2007-0874.03/
MICS:0251-3
8989
52142 7590 05/03/2021
FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
PATEL, KAUSHIKKUMAR M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
Yapp@fyiplaw.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
manware@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THEODORE T. PEKNY
Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–22 and 24, all of which are pending.
Appeal Br. 2. Claim 23 has been canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Micron
Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed subject matter relates to “protecting boot block space in
memory devices” connected to a serial peripheral interface (SPI). Spec. ¶ 2.
Claims 1–22 and 24 are pending; claims 1, 20, and 24 are independent.
Appeal Br. 16–19. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases
added):
1. A memory device comprising:
a memory array;
a serial interface controller configured to interface with a
master device to receive a request to enable or disable access to
a portion of the memory array from the master device and a
password from the master device; and
a register separate from and directly coupled to the serial
interface controller, wherein the register is configured to enable
or disable access to the portion of the memory array when data
received indicating whether to enable or disable access to the
portion is written into the register via the serial interface
controller subsequent to the serial interface controller receiving
the request to enable or disable access to the portion of the
memory array if the password is validated, wherein the portion
of the memory array is configured to store an indication of the
data written into the register.
Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260

3
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Fandrich US 5,509,134 Apr. 16, 1996
Gafken US 6,026,016 Feb. 15, 2000
Larsen US 6,154,819 Nov. 28, 2000
McClain US 6,731,536 B1 May 4, 2004
Tanaka US 7,376,010 B2 May 20, 2008
Pekny US 9,524,250 B2 Dec. 20, 2016
DeCaro US 2005/0071592 A1 Mar. 31, 2005
Sartori US 2007/0115743 A1 May 24, 2007

Claims 1–22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent No.
9,524,250 B2, and further in view of Gafken, DeCaro, McCain, and Larsen.
Final Act. 18.
Claims 1–13, 16–22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gafken, DeCaro, Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“APA”), Larsen, Tanaka, and McClain. Final Act. 5.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gafken, DeCaro, APA, Larsen, Tanaka, and McClain, and further in
view of Fandrich. Final Act. 16.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Gafken, DeCaro, APA, Larsen, Tanaka, and McClain, and further in
view of Sartori. Final Act. 16.

Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Obviousness
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our
own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent
consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellant’s arguments primarily focus on the recited serial interface
controller:
Appellant has reviewed Gafken and is unable to find any
teaching that the interface 139 (read by the Examiner as the serial
interface controller recited in the independent claims) receives a
request to enable or disable access to a portion of the memory
array from the master device or receives a password from any
master device, as recited in the independent claims (i.e., Gafken
does not appear to teach the use of an authentication or
verification scheme in conjunction with the above noted
operations performed in conjunction with interface 139).
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends Gafken, therefore, is “insufficient to teach
a serial interface controller configured to interface with a master device to
receive a request to enable or disable access to a portion of the memory
array from the master device . . . [and] to receive a password from the master
device, as recited in independent claim[] 1.” Appeal Br. 8; see Reply Br. 2.
Appellant further argues “McClain does not appear to teach transmission of
any password to a serial interface controller.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260

5
Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s specific
findings, and are thus unpersuasive of error. The Examiner finds “DeCaro
teaches flash memory device with serial interface controller.” Final Act. 7
(emphasis added); Ans. 9. Appellant does not challenge this reasonable
finding. See DeCaro ¶ 25 (“through interface control 108, a serial
interface”). Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in citing to
DeCaro’s serial interface controller, Gafken’s memory system, and
McClain’s password teachings. See Final Act. 8, 10; Gafken Fig. 1;
McClain 3:5–7 (“[T]he persistent protection bits may only be changed after
a valid password is provided.”).
With respect to DeCaro’s teachings, Appellant challenges the
Examiner’s combination reasoning: “an inclusion of [DeCaro’s] interface
control 108 in the system of Gafken would appear to require serial interface
commands/data transmissions to facilitate communications with the flash
memory 115.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends the Examiner’s
combination requires “impermissible hindsight reasoning,” because “there
appears to be no teaching in Gafkin (or in DeCaro) of how or why the reset
detector 135 would be altered to utilize serial interface commands/data
transmissions.” Appeal Br. 11; see Reply Br. 4, 5.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it requires a different
standard for showing obviousness than what is required. That is,
Appellant’s argument relates to direct teachings or motivations in the
references themselves, whereas “[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be
confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and
motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and
the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260

6
U.S. 398, 419 (2007). We do not see, on the record before us, sufficient
technical reasoning or evidence to persuade us that one of ordinary skill
would not use the cited references as found by the Examiner.
Here, the Examiner finds it well within the skill of the ordinary artisan
to modify Gafken’s system with DeCaro’s serial interface controller. See
Final Act. 8 (“it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to utilize serial interface flash memory device
in the system of the Gafken because SPI interface provides relatively simple
design and high board density at a low cost”); Ans. 9. We find the
Examiner’s determination reasonable, because one of ordinary skill is “a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” and this is a case in which
the ordinarily skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420, 421.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 is in error. Appellant does not present
additional substantive arguments for the remaining claims. See Appeal Br.
12, 13. We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–22
and 24.

Double Patenting
Appellant argues the Examiner’s double patenting rejection is in error,
because “the Examiner failed to make a proper obviousness type analysis,”
such that “Appellant has not had an opportunity to evaluate any analysis
presented by the Examiner relating to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260

7
We agree with Appellant. In response to Appellant’s argument, the
Examiner states “the independent claims of [the] current application [have]
one additional limitation of providing [a] password with the user command
and therefore McClain and Gafken references are relied upon to teach [the]
missing limitation of providing [a] password.” Ans. 16. Such analysis is not
sufficient to support a rejection. See MPEP § 804 (“[T]he factual inquiries
. . . that are applied for establishing a background for determining
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 should typically be considered when
making a nonstatutory double patenting analysis based on ‘obviousness.’”).
Merely identifying the password limitation does not fully elucidate the
“differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims.” Id.
Moreover, the Examiner has not provided “[t]he reasons why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the
claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined
in a claim in the patent.” Id.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not established a prima facie
case of double patenting. We do not sustain this rejection.

Appeal 2020-000018
Application 15/383,260

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 16–
22, 24
103(a) Gafken, DeCaro, APA,
Larsen, Tanaka, Tanaka,
McClain
1–13, 16–
22, 24

14 103(a) Gafken, DeCaro, APA,
Larsen, Tanaka, Tanaka,
McClain, Fandrich
14
15 103(a) Gafken, DeCaro, APA,
Larsen, Tanaka, Tanaka,
McClain, Sartori
15
1–22 Nonstatutory Double
Patenting U.S. Patent No.
9,524,250, Gafken,
DeCaro, McCain, Larsen
1–22
Overall
Outcome
1–22, 24

Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED