Ex Parte Torsi

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 26, 2019

14337989 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/337,989 07/22/2014
15747 7590 06/28/2019
Dorsey & Whitney LLP-IP Dept.-MTI
Columbia Center
701 5th Avenue, suite 6100
Seattle, WA 98104-7043
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alessandro Torsi
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.
P222996.US.02 1042
EXAMINER
KING, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2824
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 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.docket.se@dorsey.com
bingemang@dorsey.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALESSANDRO TORSI
Appeal2018-003251
Application 14/337,989
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YR. FRANKLIN, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
December 6, 2016, decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-14, and 17-
20. ("Final Act."). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Micron Technology, Inc., which is also
identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
2 We note here for clarity that while we are affirming the obviousness type
double patenting rejection and, therefore, the final rejection of the claims,
we are reversing the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal2018-003251
Application 14/337,989
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure relates to a method of determining the stability
(i.e. functionality) of a resistance variable memory cell by programming the
cell to a first state, sending a pulse attempting to reverse the programming of
the cell, and then determining whether the cell remained in the first state.
Details of the claimed invention are set forth in representative claim 1,
which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief
(emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
providing a plurality of state pulses to a resistance
variable memory cell to determine whether the resistance
variable memory cell satisfies a programming criterion by
entering a first state;
responsive to a resistance of a resistance variable
memory cell indicating the resistance variable memory cell
satisfies the programming criterion, providing a pulse to the
resistance variable memory cell, wherein a polarity of the
plurality of state pulses is opposite of a polarity of the pulse;
determining a resistance of the resistance variable
memory cell after providing the pulse to the resistance variable
memory cell to determine whether the resistance variable
memory cell satisfies a stability criterion by remaining in the
first state; and
responsive to the resistance of the resistance variable
memory ceil indicating the resistance variable memory cell
satisfies the stability criterion by remaining in the first state,
designating the resistance variable memory cell as stable.
2
Appeal2018-003251
Application 14/337,989
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-2, 4---6, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of
U.S. Patent No. 8,787,065.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-14, and 173-20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Yusa4 in view of Adachi5 and
Kanno. 6
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. Appellant is not appealing the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection (Reply Br. 6-7). Accordingly, we summarily affirm this
rejection.
Rejection 2. Appellants argue the obviousness rejections of all of the
claims together (Appeal Br. 15). Accordingly, our analysis will focus on the
rejection of claim 1 over Yusa in view of Adachi and Kanno.
The Examiner finds that Yusa discloses a method comprising:
( 1) responsive to a state of a memory cell indicating the memory cell
satisfies a programming criterion, providing a pulse to the memory cell;
(2) determining a state of the memory cell after providing the pulse to the
memory cell to determine whether the memory cell satisfies a stability
3 The Final Action indicates that claim 16 is also subject to this rejection
(Final Act. 4). However, claim 16 appears to have been canceled (see, e.g.
Claims Appendix), so we presume that the inclusion of claim 16 in Rejection
2 was an inadvertent error.
4 Yusa, US 2006/0291308 Al, published December 28, 2006.
5 Adachi et al., US 2006/0050549 Al, published March 9, 2006.
6 Kanno et al., US 2011/0103128 Al, published May 5, 2011.
3
Appeal2018-003251
Application 14/337,989
criterion; (3) and responsive to the state of the memory cell indicating the
memory cell satisfies the stability criterion, designating the resistance
variable memory cell as stable (Final Act. 4--5, citing Yusa, Abstract, Fig. 4,
,r 33). The Examiner finds that Yusa does not disclose that its method can
be applied to a resistance variable memory cell, but does state that it can be
applied to other memory types (Final Act. 5, citing Yusa, ,r 42). The
Examiner further finds that variable resistance memories were well known
in the art, and that it would have been obvious to apply Yusa's method to a
variable resistance memory "in order to provide an integrated disturbance
test for such a memory" (Final Act. 5, citing Adachi).
The Examiner also finds that Adachi teaches that programming pulses
are opposite in polarity to erase pulses, and that Yusa provides a
programming pulse to the memory that is in an erased state, so that one of
ordinary skill combined the teachings of the cited art, the plurality of state
pulses ( erase pulses) would be opposite in polarity to the program pulse
(Final Act. 6). Finally, the Examiner finds that while Yusa does not
explicitly teach providing a plurality of state pulses to the memory cell to
determine whether the memory cell satisfies the programming criterion (in
the erased state), it was known in the art to provide erase pulses and
therewith verification pulses to determine if the cell is in the erased state
(meets the programming criterion) (Final Act. 5, citing Kanno, ,r 49.)
Therefore, according to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply providing a plurality of state pulses to the
memory cell to determine whether the memory cell is in the erased state
before applying the disturb test of Yusa.
4
Appeal2018-003251
Application 14/337,989
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Yusa's voltage pulses are leveraged
to check for a data change in the cells, rather than whether the cells remain
in the same deletion state ( as set forth in the third paragraph of claim 1)
(Appeal Br. 9-10, citing Yusa ,r,r 32, 33.) Appellant also argues that:
Yusa does not teach or suggest "providing a pulse ... wherein a
polarity of the plurality of state pulses is opposite of a polarity
of the pulse" to determine whether a resistance variable
memory cell remains "in the first state," as recited in claim 1.
Instead, Yusa merely discloses setting the memory cells into a
deletion state ("first state"), and then provides a series of pulse
voltages, alternately repeating at an "L" level (0 V) and an "H"
level (Vpp ), to determine whether the series of pulse voltages
caused a data change in the memory cells.
(Appeal Br. 9). Appellant also argues that Adachi does not teach checking
whether the resistive memory cells can remain in a given state (the stability
test of the claimed method), but rather whether those memory cells are
capable of operating as memory cells by being programmed to switch
between states.
As explained by the Examiner, Yusa's check to see whether a cell has
changed state is functionally the same as checking to see whether it has remained
unchanged (i.e. is stable) (see, Yusa, ,r 33). As stated by the Examiner:
There is no specific or additional method step to Appellant's
checking that the cell is "remaining in the first state" that
differentiates over Yusa's checking that the cell has changed
state. Appellant's disclosure fails to elaborate on this limitation
as [Specification] paragraph 029 merely directs that the cell is
read and if the state remains the same some "indication is made
that the memory cell is stable." Yusa checks multiple cells and
labels those that change state as unstable ("disturbed") [,I 33].
Those cells that remain in the first state are indicated as stable
since they are not marked as "disturbed."
5
Appeal2018-003251
Application 14/337,989
(Ans. 6-7). Moreover, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 7), that Adachi does
not teach checking for stability is not fatal to the rejection, as Yusa teaches
this limitation.
However, as explained by Appellant (Reply Br. 4--5), the claims recite
more than simply "checking that the cell is 'remaining in the first state.'"
Instead the claims recite that determination of whether the resistance
variable memory cell satisfies a stability criterion by remaining in the first
state is based on determining a resistance of the resistance variable memory
cell after providing the pulse to the resistance variable memory cell. Yusa,
by contrast, conducts its check by determining whether the data in the
memory cell has been changed. Thus, the claimed method determines
whether a cell is defective (i.e. unstable) by determining the cell resistance,
not by analyzing the data in the cell, as taught by Yusa.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability."). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the evidence of record does not
adequately establish that the cited art would have made obvious the step of
"determining a resistance of the resistance variable memory cell after
providing the pulse to the resistance variable memory cell to determine
6
Appeal2018-003251
Application 14/337,989
whether the resistance variable memory cell satisfies a stability criterion by
remaining in the first state."
Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of the claims.
CONCLUSION
We summarily AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-2, 4---6, 8-14, and
17-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,787,065.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--6, 8-14, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yusa in view of Adachi and
Kanno.
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).
AFFIRMED
7