Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021002938 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

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. 16/132,003 09/14/2018 Alex Schaefer 1458-0575 5834 102347 7590 03/09/2022 Polansky & Associates, P.L.L.C. 12600 Hill Country Blvd Suite R-275 Austin, TX 78738 EXAMINER LEBOEUF, JEROME LARRY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2824 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): admin@patentwerks.net ppolansky@patentwerks.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEX SCHAEFER, RAVI JOTWANI, and DAVID HUGH MCINTYRE1 ____________ Appeal 2021-002938 Application 16/132,003 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 16-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to write drivers for memory having an input for receiving a power supply voltage and operating according to the power supply voltage. E.g., Spec. ¶¶ 12, 13; Claim 1. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as BASF SE. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-002938 Application 16/132,003 2 Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 21 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief: 1. A write driver for a memory having an input for receiving a power supply voltage and operating according to the power supply voltage, comprising: a first write data driver for providing a true write data signal to an output thereof at a high voltage when a true data signal is in a first logic state, at a ground voltage when the true data signal is in a second logic state and a negative bit line enable signal is inactive, and at a voltage below the ground voltage when the true data signal is in the second logic state and the negative bit line enable signal is active; a second write data driver for providing a complement write data signal to an output thereof at the high voltage when a complement data signal is in the first logic state, at the ground voltage when the complement data signal is in the second logic state and the negative bit line enable signal is inactive, and at the voltage below the ground voltage when the complement data signal is in the second logic state and the negative bit line enable signal is active; and a control circuit for providing the negative bit line enable signal in an active state when the power supply voltage is below a first threshold, and in an inactive state when the power supply voltage is above a second threshold higher than the first threshold. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: 1. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 16-23 over Kenkare (US 2010/0188909 A1, published July 29, 2010) and Hsu (US 6,343,044 B1, issued Jan. 29, 2002). 2. Claim 4 over Kenkare, Hsu, and Sinha (US 9,875,790 B1, issued Jan. 23, 2018). Appeal 2021-002938 Application 16/132,003 3 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims subject to the first ground of rejection will stand or fall with claim 1. We consider the Appellant’s arguments to the extent applicable to the rejection of claim 4. After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth below, in the Final Action dated June 15, 2020, and in the Examiner’s Answer. The Examiner finds that Kenkare teaches each element of claim 1 except that “Kenkare does not appear to explicitly disclose” the voltage threshold elements of the control circuit recited by claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that Hsu discloses operation of write drivers according to voltage thresholds, and the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious “that a write driver, as disclosed by Kenkare, may incorporate threshold voltages in memory device line biasing operations, as disclosed by Hsu.” Id. at 4-5. The Examiner finds that Kenkare and Hsu describe “well known variants of write assist circuitry,” and the Examiner describes the proposed combination as “the combination of known inventions which produces predictable results.” Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Kenkare and Hsu “to reduce power consumption.” Id. The Appellant first argues that Kenkare fails to disclose a control circuit within the scope of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. Appeal 2021-002938 Application 16/132,003 4 Although we observe that, in the Final Rejection, the Examiner did not rely solely on Kenkare as disclosing that limitation, in the Answer the Examiner persuasively explains how Kenkare alone discloses a control circuit within the scope of claim 1. See Ans. 6-7. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. See id. In the Reply Brief, the Appellant continues to argue that Kenkare does not disclose or otherwise render obvious a control circuit within the scope of claim 1. Reply Br. 2-4. The arguments in the Reply Brief are unpersuasive because they include no citations to evidence and do not persuasively address or otherwise show error in the Examiner’s specific findings and conclusions, such as the Examiner’s annotated Figures in the Answer. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). The Appellant also argues that claim 1 requires outputting a true write data signal at a ground voltage under certain circumstances, and that Hsu discloses only “negative voltage[s], i.e. a voltage below ground.” Appeal Br. 14. The Appellant argues that the “the Office erred in applying the B[roadest ]R[reasonable ]I[nterpretation] standard to interpret a negative voltage below ground to be ‘at a ground voltage.’” Id. That argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner does not rely on Hsu as teaching output of a true write data signal at a ground voltage. See Final Act. 3-4 (citing Kenkare); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). As the Examiner explained in the Final Action, Final Act. 3- Appeal 2021-002938 Application 16/132,003 5 4, and further explains in the Answer, Ans. 9-10, Kenkare teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. The Appellant also argues that “the Office overlooked a limitation added by amendment” to the preamble of claim 1,” namely, “[a] write driver for memory having an input for receiving a power supply voltage and operating according to the power supply voltage” (emphasis added). The Appellant argues that “the plain meaning of this language is that the power supply voltage is a voltage at which the memory is capable of operating,” and that a “meaning so broad as to encompass the application of no voltage or of a ground voltage to the power supply voltage terminal would be inconsistent with the specification because the word line driver would be incapable of operating at this voltage.” Appeal Br. 14-15. The Appellant argues that Hsu’s disclosures of switching voltages relates only to a power- on sequence, and that, “[o]nce the power supply voltage has reached a voltage at which the memory is capable of operating, Hsu does not allow the VBB generator to be switched on or off.” Id. at 17. That argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Kenkare, not Hsu, as disclosing those aspects of claim 1. See Final Act. 3-4. The Appellant also argues that Hsu drives a negative voltage as an input to a word line driver, rather than to a data line or bit line. Appeal Br. 18. That argument is unpersuasive because, as explained above, in the Answer the Examiner finds that modification of Kenkare by Hsu is not actually necessary to the obviousness rejection. Additionally, in the Answer the Examiner explains that Hsu actually does disclose “a bit line word driver using the same circuitry as the word line driver.” Ans. 11 (citing Hsu at Appeal 2021-002938 Application 16/132,003 6 4:37-52). The Examiner also explains that the Examiner relies on Hsu for its more general disclosures concerning implementation of thresholds in voltage supplies, which is applicable regardless of whether Hsu’s disclosures are made in the context of a word line or a bit line. Id. at 11, 12 (“[T]he Hsu reference is relied upon to teach how threshold functional[ity] is implemented in a voltage supply, and such a teaching can be combined with a wide variety of semiconductor memory technology implemented voltage supplies.”). The Appellant has not argued that it would have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art to apply the broader teachings (i.e., implementation of thresholds in voltage supplies) of Hsu to word line drivers, data line drivers, or bit line drivers. The Appellant also argues that there is “no reason to combine.” Appeal Br. 18. That argument is unpersuasive because it fails to acknowledge or contest the Examiner’s finding that the proposed combination would result in lower power consumption. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 9. On this record, the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). Appeal 2021-002938 Application 16/132,003 7 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5-7, 16-23 103 Kenkare, Hsu 1, 3, 5-7, 16-23 4 103 Kenkare, Hsu, Sinha 4 Overall Outcome 1, 3-7, 16-23 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED