Ex Parte Mangione-Smith

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2013

11413127 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/413,127 04/26/2006 William Henry Mangione-Smith SE1-0085-US 7825 80118 7590 03/27/2013 Constellation Law Group, PLLC P.O. Box 220 Tracyton, WA 98393 EXAMINER ROJAS, MIDYS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2188 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2013 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 ____________ Ex parte WILLIAM HENRY MANGIONE-SMITH ____________ Appeal 2010-009355 Application 11/413,127 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-009355 Application 11/413,127 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to management of memory refresh power consumption. See Title. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: determining in a hardware-implemented controller an extended refresh period of a memory having a nominal refresh period, the extended refresh period based at least in part on a monitored result that indicates a discovered memory loss; and scheduling in the hardware-implemented controller a refresh of the memory during the extended refresh period. The Rejections 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 14, 15, 17-49, and 51-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ito (US 2006/0023545 A1; issued Feb. 2, 2006). Ans. 4-40. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito and Keeth (US 2008/0177943 A1; published Jul. 24, 2008; filed Feb. 12, 2008). Ans. 41-43. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 16 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ito and Hannah (US 2007/0126436 A1; published Jun. 7, 2007; filed Nov. 30, 2005). Ans. 43-45. ANTICIPATION REJECTION Under the standards required by § 102, we are unable to affirm the Examiner’s rejection. Ito describes a refresh-generating circuit 001 that generates a refresh period for a DRAM cell. Ito, Abstract, Fig. 1. The data retention of DRAM cells is dependent on temperature. Ito, ¶ 0004. Refresh Appeal 2010-009355 Application 11/413,127 3 periods for DRAM cells are adjusted based on temperature, which is monitored using a temperature sensor. Ito, ¶¶ 0006, 0041. Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ito’s refresh-generating circuit 001 equates to the recited hardware-implemented controller; Ito’s DRAM memory cell equates to the recited memory having a nominal refresh period; and Ito’s refresh reference signal equates to the recited extended refresh period. See Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds that Ito’s temperature- based adjustment of refresh periods for DRAM cells discloses the recited “extended refresh period based at least in part on a monitored result.” See Ans. 4 (citing Ito, ¶ 0041). The Examiner further finds Ito discloses that the monitored result indicates a discovered memory loss because Ito describes (i) refresh periods adjusted based on temperature and (ii) data retention is dependent on temperature. Ans. 4 (citing Ito, ¶¶ 0006, 0004, 0059). The central issue of this appeal is whether Ito’s adjustment of a refresh period based on temperature discloses “the extended refresh period based at least in part on a monitored result that indicates a discovered memory loss,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). As Appellant correctly points out (App. Br. 40; Reply Br. 5-6), although Ito’s refresh- generating circuit extends the refresh period at high temperatures, Ito’s extended refresh period is not based, even in part, on a discovered memory loss. To be sure, Ito indicates (i) data retention time becomes about half as temperature increased by 10º C. (Ito, ¶ 0004) and (ii) “since the data retention time is long at room temperature (at low temperatures), the self refresh period is made longer than at high temperatures” (Ito, ¶ 0006). As such, Ito discloses extending a refresh period at high temperature to, at least in part, avoid memory loss. But Ito does not disclose that a high temperature Appeal 2010-009355 Application 11/413,127 4 necessarily results in memory loss, much less that a high temperature (i.e., a monitored result) indicates a discovered memory loss. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, which recites “the extended refresh period based at least in part on a monitored result that indicates a discovered memory loss.” To the extent that this limitation would have been obvious over Ito, or obvious over Ito and a reference disclosing a discovered memory loss, however, are questions that are not before us; we will not speculate in that regard here in the first instance on appeal. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 34 and 37, which recite similar limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2-11, 14, 15, 17-33, 35, 36, 38-49, and 51-57. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Because the Examiner has not shown that, under the obviousness standards of § 103, Keeth or Hannah would remedy the deficiencies of Ito noted above regarding the independent claims, we do not sustain (1) the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 12 and 13 over Ito and Keeth and (2) the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 16 and 50 over Ito and Hannah for similar reasons. CONCLUSION Under § 102, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11, 14, 15, 17- 49, and 51-57. Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12, 13, 16, and 50. Appeal 2010-009355 Application 11/413,127 5 ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-57 is reversed. REVERSED rwk