Ex Parte 6,715,020 et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 11, 2013

95001472 - (D) (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