Ex Parte TorsiDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 201914337989 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation