Ex Parte Schippers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 7, 2012

11753368 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2012)

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. 11/753,368 05/24/2007 Stefan Schippers NUM.0154US 5433 76446 7590 11/07/2012 Trop, Pruner & Hu, P.C. 1616 S. Voss Road, Suite 750 Houston, TX 77057-2631 EXAMINER RADKE, JAY W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2827 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/07/2012 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 STEFAN SCHIPPERS, DANIELE VIMERCATI, and EFREM BOLANDRINA _____________ Appeal 2010-005977 Application 11/753,368 Technology Center 2800 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005977 Application 11/753,368 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 17-25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for sensing the state of a cell using a reference level of a sense amplifier from a different bank of cells. Spec. 2-4. Claim 17 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 17. A method, comprising: selecting for reading a first bank of multilevel memory cells, said first bank including first sense amplifiers for said first bank; and sensing a state of a cell in said first bank using a reference level developed by a second sense amplifier in a second bank of multilevel memory cells, said first and second sense amplifiers being different sense amplifiers. REFERENCE Tran US 2003/0161183 A1 Aug. 28, 2003 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran. Ans. 3-14. 1 Claims 1-16 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2010-005977 Application 11/753,368 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Tran teaches or suggests “sensing a state of a cell in said first bank using a reference level developed by a second sense amplifier in a second bank of multilevel memory cells, said first and second sense amplifiers being different sense amplifiers,” as recited in independent claim 17? ANALYSIS We select claim 17 as representative of the group of claims comprising claims 17-25 as Appellants have not argued any of the claims with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 17 recites “sensing a state of a cell in said first bank using a reference level developed by a second sense amplifier in a second bank of multilevel memory cells, said first and second sense amplifiers being different sense amplifiers.” Appellants argue that Tran does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because, in order to do so, Figure 49 of Tran would have to share the sense amplifiers and the claim requires the amplifiers to be different. App. Br. 10. While the Examiner agrees that the global amplifiers of Figure 49 would have to be shared in order for Tran to teach or suggest the limitation, the Examiner finds that it is the combination of the concept from Figure 31 with Figure 49 that teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 16-17. Appellants argue that it is unclear how the local and global sense amplifiers from other embodiments are incorporated into Figure 49. App. Br. 10. However, the Examiner is not suggesting that the global and local amplifiers of Figure 31 are incorporated into Figure 49. Instead, the Appeal 2010-005977 Application 11/753,368 4 Examiner finds that it is known that a local amplifier may be connected to both a memory bank and a global amplifier. Ans. 17. Thus, the Examiner is relying upon that teaching, and connecting local amplifiers between the global amplifiers and the memory banks of Figure 49 as taught by Figure 31. Ans. 17. This combination is nothing more than a simple arrangement of old elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such arrangement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). In doing so, the Examiner finds that the reference level from one bank (measured by the local amplifier) can be used to sense the state of a memory cell of the other bank by the global amplifiers sharing the information. Ans. 17. Thus, Tran teaches using different sense amplifiers to sense a state of a cell in a first bank using a reference level by a second sense amplifier in a second bank since the local amplifiers are different even though the global amplifiers are shared. In further support of the Examiner’s position, we also point out that the recitations of claim 17 do not preclude “sharing” of sense amplifiers, only that the first and second sense amplifiers be “different sense amplifiers.” For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17-25. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Tran teaches or suggests “sensing a state of a cell in said first bank using a reference level developed by a second sense amplifier in a second bank of multilevel memory cells, Appeal 2010-005977 Application 11/753,368 5 said first and second sense amplifiers being different sense amplifiers,” as recited in independent claim 17. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 17-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc