Ex Parte Ramaraju et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2019

14471871 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/471,871 08/28/2014
53364 7590 02/13/2019
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
NXP
6501 William Cannon Drive West
AUSTIN, TX 78735
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ravindraraj Ramaraju
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.
DN31086MC 4854
EXAMINER
KROFCHECK, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2138
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2019 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RA VINDRARAJ RAMARAm and GEORGE P. HOEKSTRA
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify NXP USA, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
adjusting internal electrical values during the operation of non-volatile
memory devices. Spec. ,r 1. An example of an internal electrical value may
be an internal reference voltage or detection point. Spec. ,r 10. In a
disclosed embodiment, an internal electrical value may be adjusted based on
an adjustment control parameter conveyed when accessing the device. Spec.
,r 10. According to the Specification, the adjustment control parameter may
be conveyed using command set extensions to the Open NAND Flash
Interface (ONFI) command set. Spec. ,r 10.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a memory access instruction that is compliant
with an Open NAND Flash Interface (ONFI) memory access
protocol for performing a data read, program or erase operation
in a non-volatile memory array;
generating an adjusted internal electrical parameter for
performing the data read, program or erase operation in the non-
volatile memory array based on an adjustment control parameter
conveyed by the memory access instruction with an ONFI
command set extension selected from one of a plurality of
parameterized read instructions, a plurality of parameterized
block erase instructions, or a plurality of parameterized page
program instructions; and
performing the data read, program or erase operation once
in response to the memory access instruction using the adjusted
internal electrical parameter, wherein the adjustment control
parameter conveyed with the ONFI command set extension
2
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
specifies whether a default threshold voltage is incremented or
decremented during the data read, program or erase operation.
The Examiner's Rejections
1. Claims 1--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pio (US 2012/0127807 Al; May 24, 2012); Kankani et al.
(US 9,244,763 Bl; Jan. 26, 2016) ("Kankani"); Frickey et al. (US
2014/0173174 Al; June 19, 2014) ("Frickey"); and Open NAND Flash
Interface Specification, rev. 4.0 (2014) ("ONFI4"). Final Act. 3-7.
2. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pio, Kankani, Frickey, ONFI4, and Pai et al. (US
2012/0224425 Al; Sept. 6, 2012) ("Pai"). Final Act. 7-9.
3. Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pio, Kankani, Frickey, ONFI4, and Gillingham et
al. (US 2013/0343125 Al; Dec. 26, 2013) ("Gillingham"). Final Act. 9-12.
4. Claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pio, Kankani, Frickey, ONFI4, and Wakchaure et al. (US
2015/0092488 Al; Apr. 2, 2015) ("Wakchaure"). Final Act. 12-13.
5. Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pio, Frickey, ONFI4, and Kang (US 2009/0003058 Al;
Jan. 1, 2009). Final Act. 13-16.
6. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pio, Frickey, ONFI4, Kang, and Pawletko et al. (US
6,246,611 Bl; June 12, 2001) ("Pawletko"). Final Act. 16-17.
7. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pio, Frickey, ONFI4, Kang, and Kankani. Final Act. 17-
18.
3
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
8. Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pio, Frickey, ONFI4, Kang, Kankani, and Gillingham.
Final Act. 19-22.
ANALYSIS 2
Appellants dispute the Examiner's findings that the cited prior art
teaches the limitations recited in the claimed invention. App. Br. 5-8; Reply
Br. 1-2. In particular, Appellants assert the Examiner admitted Pio fails "to
explicitly teach of the adjustment control parameter conveyed by the
memory access instruction with an ONFI command set extension selected
from one of a plurality of parameterized read instructions, a plurality of
parameterized block erase instructions, or a plurality of parameterized page
program instructions," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6 ( quoting Final
Act. 4). Further, Appellants argue neither Frickey nor ONFI4 remedy the
alleged deficiency. App. Br. 6. More specifically, Appellants concede
Frickey discloses an ONFI-compliant protocol to convey first and second
types of read commands using first and second parameters, but fails to teach
using an ONFI command set extension or using a command set extension to
convey the claimed "adjustment control parameter." App. Br. 6; Reply
Br. 1-2. Additionally, Appellants argue ONFI4 also fails to teach using an
ONFI command set extension to convey the claimed "adjustment control
parameter." App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. Moreover, Appellants argue
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 6, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed April 23, 2018
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed February 22, 2018 ("Ans.");
and the Final Office Action, mailed June 29, 2017 ("Final Act."), from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
Kankani discloses a system for updating a read threshold voltage, but that
the reading threshold voltage offset is not determined by an adjustment
control parameter conveyed with the ONFI command set extension. App.
Br. 7-8.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error at least because Appellants'
arguments are not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner.
Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981).
Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the combination of references,
taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person
having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Contrary to Appellants' assertions, the Examiner finds Pio teaches
"generating an adjusted internal electrical parameter for performing the data
read, program or erase operation ... based on an adjustment control
parameter conveyed by the memory access instruction." Final Act. 4 ( citing
Pio ,r,r 14--15, 17) ( emphasis added). As cited by the Examiner, Pio teaches
"a technique for operating a memory device may involve a memory
instruction directed to the memory device that includes an operating
parameter to affect a physical operating condition of the memory device."
Pio ,r 14. As the Examiner explains, Pio's "operating parameter"
corresponds to the claimed adjustment control parameter. Ans. 3. We agree
with the Examiner's findings. Contrary to Appellants' argument, the
Examiner does not contradict the findings in Final Office Action. See Reply
Br. 1-2; compare Final Act. 4, with Ans. 3 (both citing Pio ,r,r 14--15, 17).
5
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
Further, the Examiner relies on Frickey and ONFI4 to teach
conveying the adjusted control parameter of Pio via an ONFI command set
extension. Final Act. 4 (citing Frickey ,r 52; ONFI4 §§ 1.4.2.2.4, 5.1).
Frickey, as relied on by the Examiner, teaches a first type of read command
including a first parameter and a second type of read command including a
second parameter (i.e., a plurality of parameterized read instructions) that
comply with the ONFI protocol. Frickey ,r 52. Moreover, ONFI4 is relied
on by the Examiner to teach ONFI command set extensions. See Final
Act. 4 (citing ONFI4 §§ 1.4.2.2.4, 5.1). The Examiner relies on Kankani to
teach using a threshold voltage offset to update a threshold voltage value.
Final Act. 5 (citing Kankani, col. 3, 11. 29--40).
Thus, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Pio, Frickey,
ONFI4, and Kankani to teach "generating an adjusted internal electrical
parameter ... based on an adjustment control parameter conveyed by the
memory access instruction with an ONFI command set instruction" as
claimed. We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
Regarding dependent claim 2 ( and dependent claim 14, which recites
commensurate limitations), Appellants argue Frickey fails to teach that the
disclosed two command cycle sequences use an "ONFI command set
extension" to convey "a plurality of parameterized read instructions, a
plurality of parameterized block erase instructions, or a plurality of
parameterized page program instructions." App. Br. 8 ( emphasis omitted);
see also Reply Br. 2.
For similar reasons to those regarding Appellants' arguments directed
to claim 1, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner relies on
the combined teachings of, inter alia, Frickey and ONFI4 in rejecting claim
6
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
2. See Final Act. 6. Frickey teaches a memory access instruction
comprising a two command cycle sequence, for example, a "first type of
read command includ[ing] a read command and a first parameter, and the
second type of read command includ[ing] the read command and a second
parameter" that is compliant with the ONFI protocol. Frickey ,r 52. The
Examiner further relies on ONFI4 to teach use of an ONFI command set
extension to convey the adjustment control parameter ( as taught by Pio)
using different (i.e., reserved) opcode values. Final Act. 6. Contrary to
Appellants' assertions (see App. Br. 8), the Examiner's reliance on Frickey
is not cumulative of ONFI4. As discussed, the Examiner relies on Frickey
and ONFI4 for distinct teachings.
Appellants also dispute the Examiner's stated motivation to combine
the cited references for all pending claims. App. Br. 9-14; Reply Br. 2. In
particular, Appellants assert the Examiner's stated motivation to combine
Pio' s teachings of, inter alia, receiving a memory access instruction,
generating an adjusted internal electrical parameter based on an adjustment
control parameter, and performing the memory access operation with
Frickey's teaching of using an ONFI-compliant protocol for accessing
memory "to ensure greater compatibility with other devices/systems" does
not suggest a more complex approach for using ONFI command set
extensions. App. Br. 9; see also Final Act. 3---6. Further, Appellants assert
the Examiner's reliance on ONFI4 is cumulative of Frickey and the
Examiner's reason "to expand the functionality of the memory" conflicts
with the Examiner's stated reason to combine Pio and Frickey. App. Br. 10-
11. Specifically, Appellants argue one of ordinary skill in the art "would
understand that expanded memory functionality would likely come at the
7
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
cost of reduced compatibility with other devices/systems as the complexity
requirements for expanding memory functionality increase. App. Br. 11.
As an initial matter, it is well settled that mere attorney arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
( attorney argument is not evidence).
Further, we also disagree substantively with Appellants' arguments.
ONFI4 expressly states the intent of reserved bits is for use by "future
extensions" and that reserved opcodes may be defined and used in "a future
revision" thereby providing increased compatibility with future
functionality. We also note that our precedent does not require that the
motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which
the prior art did not teach away. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc.
v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 713 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Additionally, Appellants assert Kankani's teaching of a multi-factor
threshold offset calculation teaches away from and conflicts with the
claimed approach. App. Br. 11-13. We disagree. As an initial matter,
Appellants do not identify how Kankani allegedly teaches away from the
claimed invention. In particular, as the Examiner explains, Kankani does
not ( nor do Appellants identify) criticize, discredit, or discourage the
solution claimed. Ans. 12; see also SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
809 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding a reference does not teach
away where it does not "criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
solution claimed").
8
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
To the extent Appellants assert the Examiner's stated motivation for
combining Kang (i.e., "to ensure the proper voltage is output by the voltage
supply") is not a motivation at all (see App. Br. 13), we disagree. The
Examiner relied on Kang to teach, inter alia, a controller to provide a control
signal to the power supply unit for adjusting the supply voltage generated by
the power supply unit based on a control code, as required by claim 12.
Final Act. 15 ( citing Kang ,r 64, Fig. 5). Contrary to Appellants' arguments,
the motivation to bring in Kang differs from the Examiner's reliance and
reasoning in using the teachings of Pio. Kang provides an adjustment to the
supply voltage to ensure the proper voltage is output by the voltage supply.
See Kang ,r 64.
Appellants also assert the Examiner does not state whether there is a
reasonable expectation of success with the proposed combinations. App.
Br. 14.
As an initial matter, the reasonable expectation of success requirement
for obviousness does not necessitate an absolute certainty for success. In re
O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903---04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Further, in response, the
Examiner notes, as do we, that all the claimed elements were known in the
prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as
claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and
the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 16 ( citing KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)); see also Ans. 16-19.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of independent
claim 1. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
9
Appeal2018-005219
Application 14/471,871
independent claim 12, which recites commensurate limitations and was not
argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2017). Additionally, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 3-11, 13, and 15-20, which
depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Also, for the reasons discussed supra, we
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2 and 14.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
10