Ex Parte 6,715,020 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 11, 2013

95001472 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2013)

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. 95/001,472 10/20/2010 6,715,020 42940.27 4483 86497 7590 01/11/2013 Paul M. Anderson, PLLC P.O. Box 160006 Austin, TX 78716 EXAMINER ESCALANTE, OVIDIO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3992 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ NVIDIA CORPORATION Requester and Appellant v. RAMBUS INC. Patent Owner and Respondent ____________ Appeal 2012-012567 Reexamination Control 95/001,472 Patent 6,715,020 B2 Technology Center 3900 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-012567 Reexamination Control 95/001,472 Patent 6,715,020 B2 2 Third Party Requester and Appellant Nvidia Corporation appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 the Examiner’s decision not to maintain certain rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 13-16, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 47-49 (see below). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(c) and 315(b). STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding arose from a request by Nvidia Corporation for an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent 6,715,020 B2, titled “Synchronous Integrated Circuit Device,” and issued to Michael Farmwald and Mark Horowitz on March 30, 2004 (the ‘020 patent). The ‘020 patent describes a synchronous dynamic random access memory device (Abstract). Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A controller device for controlling a synchronous dynamic random access memory device, the controller device comprises: first output driver circuitry to output block size information to the memory device, wherein the block size information defines an amount of data to be output by the memory device; and input receiver circuitry to receive the amount of data output by the memory device. Appellant appeals the Examiner’s refusal to adopt or maintain the following proposed rejections: 1) Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 13, 16, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of U.S. Patent No. 4,734,909 (“Bennett”) and Intel Corporation, Memory Components Handbook, Chapter 1 and Chapter 3, Application Note AP-132, 1982/1985 Appeal 2012-012567 Reexamination Control 95/001,472 Patent 6,715,020 B2 3 (“iRAM”) (Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) 24-28) or the combination of U.S. Patent No. 5,025,366 (“Baror”) and U.S. Patent No. 4,851,990 (“Johnson”) (RAN 29-30); 2) Claims 6, 7, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baror and iRAM (Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) 30-32); and 3) Claims 14-16, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baror and either Japanese Patent No. 57-210495 (“Inagaki”) (RAN 41) or the combination of Inagaki and iRAM (RAN 41- 44). ANALYSIS Appellant “withdraws its appeal to the Board, including all of its appeal briefs and supporting papers” 1 Hence, Appellant does not appear to dispute the Examiner’s refusal to adopt or maintain the proposed rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 13, 16, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bennett and iRAM or the combination of Baror and Johnson; claims 6, 7, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baror and iRAM; and claims 14-16, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baror and either Inagaki or the combination of Inagaki and iRAM. 1 Notice of withdrawal of Third-Party Requester’s Appeal and Other Papers, filed February 17, 2012, p. 1. Appeal 2012-012567 Reexamination Control 95/001,472 Patent 6,715,020 B2 4 DECISION In view of Appellant’s withdrawal of the appeal, we affirm, pro forma, the Examiner’s decision not to maintain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 13, 16, 38, 41, 42, 44, 47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bennett and iRAM (RAN 24-28) or the combination of Baror and Johnson; claims 6, 7, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baror and iRAM; and claims 14-16, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baror and either Inagaki or the combination of Inagaki and iRAM. Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79. AFFIRMED ak Paul M. Anderson, PLLC P.O. Box 160006 Austin, TX 78716 Third Party Requester: Haynes and Boone, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219