Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

11672924 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/672,924 02/08/2007 David T. Wang
26192 7590 10/31/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-1928001 1687
EXAMINER
LOONAN, ERIC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte DAVID T. WANG, SURESHNATARAJAN RAJAN, KEITH R.
SCHAKEL, MICHAEL JOHN SEBASTIAN SMITH, and FREDERICK
DANIEL WEBER
Appeal2015-004751
Application 11/672,924
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Decision rejecting claims 21, 24--29, 31-34, and 44, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. See App. Br. 2. 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") (filed Feb. 8, 2007)
(claiming benefit of US 60/772,414 (filed Feb. 9, 2006) and US 60/865,624
(filed Nov. 13, 2006)); Appeal Brief ("App. Br,") (filed Oct. 17, 2014); and
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") (filed Mar. 18, 2015). We also refer to the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") (mailed Feb. 20, 2015), and Final Office
Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") (mailed May 8, 2014).
Appeal2015-004751
Application 11/672,924
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns apparatuses, systems and
methods for controlling memory, in particular, simulating (virtualizing)
memory circuits and associating the virtual memory circuits with a set of
scheduling constraints. (Spec. i1i12, 4; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 21, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
21. An apparatus comprising:
an interface circuit electrically connected to a first number
of physical dynamic random access memory ("DRAM") devices
via multiple data paths including a first data path and a distinct
second data path, wherein each of the physical DRAM devices is
an individual and independent monolithic device, the interface
circuit configured to:
communicate with the first number of physical DRAM
devices and a memory controller,
interface the first number of physical DRAM devices to
simulate a different, second number of virtual DRAM devices,
such that the first number of physical DRAM devices appear to
the memory controller as the second number of virtual DRAM
devices, each of the virtual DRAM devices being simulated as an
individual and independent monolithic device,
simulate a first virtual DRAM device using a first physical
DRAM device on the first data path and a second physical
DRAM device on the distinct second data path,
use both a physical row of the first physical DRAM device
and a physical row of the second physical DRAM device to
simulate a virtual row of the first virtual DRAM device,
2
Appeal2015-004751
Application 11/672,924
receive a row-access command from the memory
controller, directed to the first virtual DRAM device, for the
virtual row of the first virtual DRAM device,
receive a column-access command from the memory
controller, directed to the first virtual DRAM device, for a
particular column of the virtual row, wherein the column-access
command from the memory controller is received before the
row-access command is used to activate any physical DRAM
device,
based on the received column-access command, translate
the row-access command for the virtual row to a row-access
command for either the physical row of the first physical DRAM
device or the physical row of the second physical DRAM device
that corresponds to part of the virtual row, and
activate either the physical row of the first physical
DRAM device or the physical row of the second physical DRAM
device based on the translated row-access command to activate
only part of the virtual row.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 21, 24--29, 31--41, and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ruckerbauer et al. (US
2006/0129740 Al; published June 15, 2006 (filed Dec. 13, 2004))
("Ruckerbauer"), Lee et al. (US 6,262,938 Bl, issued July 17, 2001)
("Lee"), and Manton et al. (US 4,500,958, issued Feb. 19, 1985) ("Manton")
RELATED APPEAL
Appellants indicate that an Appeal Brief was filed for a related patent
application, U.S. Patent Application No. 11/672,921, January 24, 2014.
App. Br. 1. The appeal has been assigned Appeal No. 2014-006763. The
Board has not issued a decision on Appeal No. 2014-006763. Appellants
3
Appeal2015-004751
Application 11/672,924
indicate that an Appeal Brief was filed for a related patent application, U.S.
Patent Application No. 11/929,225, January 24, 2014. App. Br. 1. The
appeal has been assigned Appeal No. 2014-006782. The Board has not
issued a decision on Appeal No. 2014-006782. Appellants indicate that an
Appeal Brief was filed for a related patent application, U.S. Patent
Application No. 13/620,650, May 27, 2014. App. Br. 1. The appeal has
been assigned Appeal No. 2015-001955. The Board has not issued a
decision on Appeal No. 2015-001955.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us is as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Ruckerbauer, Lee, and Manton collectively would have taught or suggested
"an interface circuit configured to" "interface the first number of physical
DRAM devices to simulate a different, second number of virtual DRAM
devices," within the meaning of Appellants' claim 21 and the commensurate
limitations of claims 31 and 36?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Ruckerbauer does not teach the disputed
limitation of claim 21 because Ruckerbauer does not describe an interface
circuit configured to interface a number of physical DRAM devices to
simulate a different, second number of virtual DRAM devices. See App. Br.
11-1 7; Reply Br. 1-7. Specifically Appellants contend that Ruckerbauer
4
Appeal2015-004751
Application 11/672,924
contains "no disclosure of a virtual memory device or of virtualization of
memory devices." App. Br. 13.
Appellants persuade us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim
21. We have reviewed the sections of Ruckerbauer cited by the Examiner.
While Ruckerbauer generally describes multiple independent memory
devices sharing a data bus (see Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 2-7 (citing Ruckerbauer
i-fi-19, 27, 39, 41; Fig. 1), which the Examiner maintains meets Appellants'
virtualization limitation (supra), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
does not establish these sections disclose simulating memory circuits (i.e.,
virtual memory). Appellants' claim requires an interface not only capable of
simulating memory (memory circuits), but simulating a first group (number)
of memory circuits as second group of memory circuits having a different
number of memory circuits. The Examiner has not shown that Ruckerbauer
describes virtual (simulated) memory, much less the specific simulation
recited in claim 21.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Ruckerbauer, Lee, and Manton teach the
disputed limitations of Appellants' claim 21. Independent claim 31 includes
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 24--29, 32--41, and 44 depend
on claims 21, 31 and 36, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 21, 24--29, 31--41, and 44.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21,
24--29, 31--41, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal2015-004751
Application 11/672,924
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 21, 24--2 9, 3 1--41, and
44.
REVERSED
6