Ex Parte Kam et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2018

14752512 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2018)

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