Chih-Cheng HsiaoDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 10, 20212021003182 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/949,077 04/10/2018 Chih-Cheng Hsiao INDP0091USA3 2814 27765 7590 06/10/2021 NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION 5F., NO.389, FUHE RD., YONGHE DIST. NEW TAIPEI CITY, TAIWAN EXAMINER LEBOEUF, JEROME LARRY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2824 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/10/2021 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): Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHIH-CHENG HSIAO ____________ Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and JANE E. INGLESE Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 6 of Application 15/949,077, 1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No. 15/949,077 filed Apr. 10, 2018 (“the ’077 App.”); the Final Office Action dated Jan. 8, 2021 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 8, 2021 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 26, 2021 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed Apr. 15, 2021 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hsiao Chih Cheng. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 2 which constitute all the claims pending in this application.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter of the invention relates to memory devices with purported low power consumption. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A memory device, comprising: a plurality of word lines elongated along a first direction; and at least one memory unit, each memory unit comprising: a plurality of memory cell groups arranged along a second direction different from the first direction, each of the memory cell groups comprising a plurality of memory cells arranged along the second direction; at least one bit line elongated along the second direction, and configured to transmit data of a selected memory cell; a column word line elongated along the second direction; 3 The Final Office Action and the Appeal Brief indicate that claims 2–5 and 7–10 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2. Therefore, our Decision does not address claims 2–5 and 7–10. Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 3 a plurality of row word lines elongated along the first direction; a plurality of column switches arranged along the second direction, each of the column switches having a control terminal coupled to the column word line, a first terminal, and a second terminal, each of the column switches configured to control conduction between the first terminal and the second terminal according to signals received from the control terminal; and a plurality of row switches arranged along the second direction, each of the row switches having a control terminal coupled to a row word line, a first terminal, and a second terminal, each of the row switches configured to control conduction between the first terminal and the second terminal according to signals received from the control terminal; wherein each of the column switches and each of the row switches are electrically coupled in series between the at least one bit line and the plurality of memory cells of one of the memory cell groups; wherein the at least one bit line is coupled to the plurality of memory cell groups arranged along the second direction. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Name Reference Date Gogl et al. (“Gogl”) US 6,982,902 B2 Jan. 3, 2006 Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 4 Kyung US 2016/0260477 A1 Sept. 8, 2016 REJECTION The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gogl in view of Kyung. Final Act. 3–13. DISCUSSION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), (cited with approval in 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 [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 5–11. We select claim 1 as representative. Claim 6 stands or falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner finds that the combination of Gogl and Kyung discloses the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–10. A copy of the Examiner’s annotated version of Gogl Figure 4B is reproduced below: Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 5 Final Act. 5. Original Figure 4B of Gogl shows a schematic circuit of an MRAM circuit 450 generally comprising global bit line 222K, networks 452 corresponding to segment structures 420 (see Figure 4A), and separate global bit line 422K. In network 452, one transistor 206 is used, during the read operation, to connect global bit line 222k to stacked local bit lines or, during the write operation, to disconnect global bit line from stacked local bit lines. Gogl col. 7, ll. 47–59. The Examiner’s annotations to Gogl Figure 4B identify, inter alia, the claimed first direction and second direction. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “a second direction different from the first direction,” and does not require the directions to be vertical, horizontal, or have any particular angular degree of difference. Ans. 4. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a semiconductor device as disclosed by Gogl Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 6 may have a particular arrangement of switches and lines to access memory cells as disclosed by Kyung. Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds that the combination of well-known variants of access arrangements for memory cell groups to produce predictable results is obvious. In addition, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain a short read cycle time, as taught by Kyung. Id. (citing Kyung ¶ 68). Appellant contends that the claimed first and second direction are a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, respectively, and are substantially perpendicular to each other, stating “those skilled in the art know that word lines are substantially horizontal and bit lines are substantially vertical in the memory device circuit design or even common circuit design.” Appeal Br. 6, 7; see also Reply Br. 3, 7. Disputing the Examiner’s finding regarding Kyung, Appellant contends that “those skilled in the art of the memory circuit would analogize BL0/BL1/BL2/BL3 of Kyung’s teaching with bit lines in the instant application instead of analogizing LBL of Kyung’s teaching with bit lines of the instant application and thus causing too long RC time constant.” Id. at 9. Appellant argues that the first direction and second direction limitations “do not infringe any patent and legally protect the appellant’s right.” Id. at 8. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error by the Examiner. “Determining patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.” MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We give claims their broadest reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 7 Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Id. The words “vertical,” “horizontal,” and/or “perpendicular” are not found in the ’077 Application, including in the original claims. See generally, ’077 App. Neither claim 1 nor the ’077 Application provides support for Appellant’s proposed interpretation of the claim terms. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Claim 1 recites a first direction and a second direction, but neither a horizontal nor vertical direction. See Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). Appellant’s statements regarding the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art consist of mere attorney argument, and are not supported by any evidence. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”); Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Counsel’s argument cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Nothing in the record before us supports Appeal 2021-003182 Application 15/949,077 8 Appellant’s representations as to how one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have interpreted the claims. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Gogl in view of Kyung. For the same reasoning, we also sustain the rejection of claim 6 as obvious over these references. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6 103(a) Gogl, Kyung 1, 6 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). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation