Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 27, 2020

2019005966 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 27, 2020)

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. 15/427,968 02/08/2017 Sasikanth MANIPATRUNI 01.P42908USC2 7446 119829 7590 11/27/2020 Green, Howard, & Mughal LLP 5 Centerpointe Dr. Suite 400 Lake Oswego, OR 97035 EXAMINER HIDALGO, FERNANDO N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2827 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2020 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): docketing@ghmip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SASIKANTH MANIPATRUNI, DMITRI E. NIKONOV, and IAN A. YOUNG Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and MERRELL C. CASHION JR., Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–19, and 23–242. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claim 22 is not subject to any rejection in this appeal in view of the Examiner’s withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Ans. 4. Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 2 We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appellant’s invention is directed to an apparatus of or method for making a magnetic state element or a spin state element (SSE) for implementing spintronic logic (Spec. ¶ 22; Claims 1 and 16). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. An apparatus comprising: an input magnet; an output magnet; a channel coupled to the input and output magnets; and a magnetic junction having a free magnetic layer coupled to the input and the output magnet, wherein the input and output magnets have free magnetizations. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 10, 12, 16, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and/or 102(e) as unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 2011/028264 A1 published November 24, 2011). 2. Claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over Lilja (US 2012/0314489 A1 published December 13, 2012). 3. Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lilja in view of Zhu (US 2010/0074092 A1 published March 25, 2010). 4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lilja in view Behin-Aein (US 2012/0176154 A1 published July 12, 2012). 5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Behin-Aein. Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 3 6. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Ducuret (US 2012/0181644 A1 published July 19, 2012). 7. Claim 1, 3–19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,570,139 and claims 1–25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,070,468. Appellant’s arguments focus on the subject matter common to claims 1 and 16 only in rejections (1) and (2) (Appeal Br. 12, 14–16). For reasons discussed in this decision, claims 13–15 under rejections (5) and (6) will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1 under rejection (1). Appellant’s arguments regarding rejections (3) and (4) are based on the additionally cited Zhu and Behin-Aein as not curing the deficiencies argued with respect to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 17). Accordingly, claims 8, 15, and 19 will stand or fall with our analysis of the rejection of claim 1 in the context of rejection (2) over Lilja. The Examiner did not reject claims 10–14 and 22–24 over Lilja in combination with another reference (Final Act. 8–13). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS Rejections (1), (5) and (6) The Examiner’s findings regarding the §§ 102(a)/102(e) rejections over Kobayashi are located on pages 7 to 8 of the Final Office Action. The Examiner finds, inter alia, that Kobayashi teaches magnets 11a and 11b have free magnetizations in order to permit changes in magnetization (Final Act. 7). The Examiner finds Kobayashi’s paragraph 52 teaches that even if the magnetization direction of a part of the magnetization fixed Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 4 regions 11a and 11b changes during the write operation, the magnetization direction turns back after the write operation (Final Act. 7). The Examiner interprets paragraph 52 as teaching magnets 11a and 11b have free magnetizations (Final Act. 7). Appellant argues that magnets 11a and 11b in Kobayashi are fixed magnets, not free magnets as determined by the Examiner (Appeal Br. 15). Appellant contends that paragraph 52 defines fixed magnets as magnetizations that do not change before or after a write operation (Reply Br. 10). Appellant argues that the portion of paragraph 52 cited by the Examiner as teaching that portions of magnets 11a and 11b changed during a write operation revert back after the operation concerns noise in the magnet (Reply Br. 10). Appellant contends that noise in the magnet does not make the magnet a free magnet as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (Reply Br. 10). Appellant contends that Kobayashi teaches away from input and output magnets 11a and 11b having free magnetizations (Reply Br. 10). The Examiner’s finding that regions 11a and 11b in Kobayashi are free magnets is contrary to Kobayahsi’s teaching that regions 11a and 11b are fixed in opposite magnetic directions (i.e., -Z or +Z direction) (¶ 52). Although the Examiner finds that the definition of free magnetization includes an ability to change magnetization direction, Kobayashi discloses that the magnetic regions 11a and 11b are fixed magnetic regions (Ans. 5). Kobayashi’s teaching that “even if the magnetization direction of a part of the magnetization fixed regions 11a and 11b changes during the write operation, the magnetization direction turns back after the write operation” supports Appellant’s position that regions 11a and 11b are fixed magnetic regions in Kobayashi (¶ 52). The Examiner fails to provide any evidence Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 5 that the interpretation of free magnet would include a fixed magnet that may have a portion of it that temporarily changes magnetic direction. The Examiner has not established that Kobayashi anticipates the subject matter of claim 1. The Examiner’s § 103 rejections over Kobayashi in view of Behin-Aein and Ducruet are reversed for the same reason. Rejections (2) to (4) The Examiner’s findings regarding Lilja are located on pages 8–10 of the Final Office Action. The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Lilja’s Figure 1 shows input magnet 126, output magnet 136, and channel 155 coupled to input and output magnets and the magnetic junction 116 having a free magnetic layer coupled to the input and output magnets (Final Act. 9). The Examiner finds that input magnet is coupled to output magnet 136 via channel 155 (Ans. 6). The Examiner cites to Lilja’s paragraph 26 as teaching that channel 155 connects MTJs (i.e., magnetic tunnel junctions) 110, 120, and 130 (Ans. 6). Appellant argues that free layer 116 of MTJ 110 may be coupled to free magnet 126 of MTJ 120, but it is not coupled to free magnet 136 of MTJ 130 (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant contends that magnet 126 is not coupled to magnet 136 through any channel (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant argues that channel 155 is coupled to fixed magnetic layers 122 and 132 of MTJs 120 and 130, respectively (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant alleges that if the channel 155 connected free magnets 126 and 136, the device would cease to work (Appeal Br. 16). Claim 1’s disputed limitations recite “a channel coupled to the input and output magnets, and a magnetic junction having a free magnetic layer Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 6 coupled to the input and output magnet. …” Coupled is defined in the Specification as “either a direct electrical or magnetic connection between the things that are connected, or an indirect connection through one or more passive or active intermediary devices.” (Spec. ¶ 27). Based on the definition of coupled, the channel and magnetic junction can be indirectly connected to the input and output magnets and still meet the claim limitations. With this claim interpretation in mind, the Examiner correctly finds that Lilja’s input magnet 126 and output magnet 136 are coupled together via channel 155. The presence of fixed magnets 122 and 132 and nonmagnetic layers 124, 134 does not preclude the free magnets 126 and 136 from being indirectly connected (i.e., coupled) to one another within the meaning of the claims. Moreover, Lilja discloses changing the wiring of the device to manipulate the bias voltages applied to MTJ 130 (¶ 32). Lilja discloses that the device 100 may be wired so that current 160 enters the output MTJ 130 from the free layer 136, and exits from the fixed layer 132 (¶ 32). This teaching in combination with the proper claim construction indicates that Lilja teaches coupling the input and output free magnets via a channel 155. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 16–18 over Lilja. Regarding the § 103(a) rejections including Lilja, Appellant argues that Zhu and Behin-Aein do not cure the argued deficiencies with Lilja (Appeal Br. 17–18). In other words, Appellant relies on the same arguments made regarding the § 102(e) rejection over Lilja to address the separate § 103(a) rejections based on Lilja and either Zhu and Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 7 Behin-Aein. We therefore affirm these § 103(a) rejections for the same reasons we affirmed the § 102(e) rejection over Lilja. Rejection (7): Obviousness-type Double Patenting Appellant contends that the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection is improper because the Examiner has not made clear the differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims and the Examiner has not made clear why a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude the invention define in the claim at issue is either anticipated or would have been an obvious variation thereof (Appeal Br. 12). The Examiner finds that the instants claims are “anticipated” by the patented claims (Final Act. 17). The Examiner finds that the claims in the patents and present claims recite the following common subject matter: an apparatus comprising an input magnet, an output magnet, and a magnetic junction device having free magnetism coupled to the input and output magnets (Final Act. 17). The Examiner further explains how the appealed claims and the patented claims each recite the required input and output magnets and a magnetic junction coupled to the input and output magnets (Final Act. 17). The Examiner’s analysis acknowledges there are differences between the appealed claims and the claims of the two issued patents (Final Act. 17). The Examiner, however, does not identify any of the differences and instead states that the patented claims “anticipate” the appealed claims (Final Act. 17). In fact, it is unclear whether the Examiner is attempting to make a statutory double patenting rejection instead of a non-statutory (obviousness- type) double patenting rejection. Without a clear presentation of the Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 8 differences, the Examiner has not established that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over the claims of U.S. patents 9,570,139 and 9,070,468 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. We are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION Because no affirmed rejection reaches all the claims on appeal, our decision is an affirmance-in-part. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Prior Art Affirmed Reversed 1, 10, 12, 16, 23, 24 102(a)/102(e) Kobayashi 1, 10, 12, 16, 23, 24 1, 3–7, 9, 16–18 102(e) Lilja 1, 3–7, 9, 16–18 8, 19 103(a) Lilja, Zhu 8, 19 15 103(a) Lilja, Behin- Aein 15 15 103(a) Kobayashi, Behin-Aein 15 13, 14 103(a) Kobayashi, Ducruet 13, 14 1, 3–19 Obviousness- type Double Patenting Manipatruni 9570139, Manipatruni 9070468 1, 3–19 Overall Outcome 1, 3–9, 15–19 1, 2–19, 23, 24 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). See Appeal 2019-005966 Application 15/427,968 9 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART