Ex Parte Kam et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 12, 201814752512 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/752,512 06/26/2015 104333 7590 09/14/2018 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. 13231 Champion Forest Drive Suite 410 Houston, TX 77069 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Timothy Y. Kam 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P81428 9753 EXAMINER SAMPATH, GAYATHRI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2118 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2018 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMOTHY Y. KAM, SANDEEP AHUJA, RAJAT AGARWAL, A VINASH SODANI, JINHO SUH, and MEENAKSHISUNDARAM CHINTHAMANI Appeal2018-003324 Application 14/752,512 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, and Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-15, and 17-23. Claims 4, 5, 16, 24, and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Ans. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-003324 Application 14/752,512 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "thermal protection for memory devices. More specifically, the present disclosure describes techniques for throttling the performance of a memory device based on detected junction temperature." Spec ,r 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A computing device, comprising: an electronic component; a temperature sensor thermally coupled to the electronic component; and a thermal management controller to receive a temperature measurement from the temperature sensor and generate a throttling factor for the electronic component; wherein if the temperature measurement is greater than a specified threshold, the throttling factor is to reduce performance of the electronic component to be at least a performance guarantee for the electronic component. REJECTI0NS 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-15, 17-19 and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Askar et al. (US 2009/0052266 Al; Feb. 26, 2009) ("Askar") and Sugawara et al. (US 2016/0062421 Al; Mar. 3, 2016) ("Sugawara"). Final Act. 2-9. 2 We note that the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 4, 5, 16, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Askar, Sugawara, and Santos and objects to these claims as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Ans. 4. 2 Appeal2018-003324 Application 14/752,512 The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Askar, Sugawara, and Cox et al. (US 2014/0365793 Al; Dec. 11, 2014) ("Cox"). Final Act. 10-11. ANALYSIS THEREJECTIONUNDER35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON ASKARAND SUGAWARA Claims 1-3, 6---8, 10---15, 17-19, and 21-23 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-15, 17-19, and 21-23 as unpatentable over Askar and Sugawara. Appellants contend that "none of the cited references discloses a throttling technique that takes into account a performance guarantee." App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that Askar describes using different throttling percentages depending on a temperature reading but states that "none of these throttling percentages is describes [sic] as having any relationship with a performance guarantee." App. Br. 8. Similarly, Appellants acknowledge that Sugawara "uses 'two different levels of operating performance depending on the detected temperature of the data storage device," but asserts that neither value "is described as being tied to a performance guarantee." App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue that, according to the Specification, "the recited 'performance guarantee' is a utilization constraint given to the user as an expression of minimum performance parameters to be met by the computing device." App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 1-2 ("The recited performance guarantee has a specific definition within the context of the present specification. Namely, the performance guarantee is an expression 3 Appeal2018-003324 Application 14/752,512 of a minimum performance level that is provided to the user. Specification, para. [0020]."). Thus, according to Appellants, because "Sugawara does not describe such a performance guarantee," Sugawara fails to disclose the recited "if the temperature measurement is greater than a specified threshold, the throttling factor is to reduce performance of the electronic component to be at least a performance guarantee for the electronic component." App. Br. 9; see also App. Br. 10 (asserting "Sugawara does not use the term 'guarantee' at all, much less 'performance guarantee."'). We find these arguments unpersuasive. As the Examiner points out, the claims do not recite that the performance guarantee "is a utilization constraint given to the user as an expression of minimum performance parameters to be met by the computing device." Ans. 4. For example, the Specification describes that a performance guarantee may,for example, be provided to a user. Spec. ,r 20 ( emphasis added). The Specification also explains that it is the temperature threshold that causes the reduction in throttling value and this temperature threshold merely corresponds to a performance guarantee. Spec. ,r 52. Similarly, both Askar and Sugawara teach using a different throttling value based on detected temperature values. Ans. 3--4; see, e.g., Askar ,r 28; Sugawara ,r 18. Sugawara describes reducing the throttle value based on detected temperature. Ans. 4; Sugawara ,r,r 7, 18; see also Sugawara ,r,r 19- 25, Fig. 2. Askar expressly disclose configuring the throttle value to "maximizes system performance while ensuring that the memory devices keep operating within their thermal limits." Askar, Abstract, ,r,r 9, 27; Ans. 3. Askar also teaches throttling based on other parameters, including, for example, balancing system performance and safety. Ans. 3; Askar ,r 27 4 Appeal2018-003324 Application 14/752,512 ("Also, throttling may be based on parameters other than temperature, with one or more trip points designated as specific parameter values of interest, according to which throttling may be performed to obtain the desired balance between system performance and system safety.") As such, we agree with the Examiner that Askar and Sugawara combined at least suggest the recited performance guarantee limitation. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-15, 17-19, and 21-23 as unpatentable over Askar and Sugawara. THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON ASKAR, SUGAWARA, AND Cox Claims 9 and 20 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 20 as unpatentable over Askar, Sugawara, and Cox. Appellants assert that Cox does not cure the deficiencies of Askar and Sugawara combined. As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejection the claims based on Askar and Sugawara. Therefore, we are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 20. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 20 as unpatentable over Askar, Sugawara, and Cox. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 6-15, and 17-23 as unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art. 5 Appeal2018-003324 Application 14/752,512 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation