Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2022

2021003783 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2022)

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. 15/143,500 04/29/2016 Liang YIN 1535-237 2505 124044 7590 03/14/2022 Renaissance IP Law Group LLP (SSI) 17933 NW Evergreen Place, Suite 121 Beaverton, OR 97006 EXAMINER TECHANE, MUNA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2827 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2022 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): dkt@renaissanceiplaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com pto@renaissanceiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LIANG YIN Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 15-20, and 26-31. See Final Act. 3, 8, 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 “Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.” Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 26, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus comprising: a memory module comprising: a plurality of memory banks configured to store data; a plurality of memory bank power down controllers, each included by a respective one of the plurality of memory banks and configured to place the respective memory bank in a power down mode; and a memory module command interface configured to receive a handshake command from a memory controller, wherein the handshake command comprises a command to remove an indicated memory bank from a first power mode, which includes the power down mode, and place the memory bank in a second power mode. 26. A method comprising: determining if a memory access is to a selected target memory bank of a memory module, wherein the memory module comprises a plurality of memory banks; if not, incrementing a counter associated with the selected target memory bank; determining if the counter has exceeded a threshold value; and if the counter has exceeded the selected threshold value, placing via a respective memory power down controller only the target memory bank in a power down mode, wherein at least one other memory bank of the memory module is in a second power mode. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 29, 33). Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 3 REFERENCES The Examiner’s rejections rely on the following prior art references: Name Reference Date Joo US 2007/0008802 A1 Jan. 11, 2007 Jain US 2015/0277541 A1 Oct. 1, 2015 Shurin US 2017/0115723 A1 Apr. 27, 2017 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 29 112(b) Indefiniteness 1, 5-7, 15, 18-20, 31 102 Joo 2, 4, 16, 26-30 103 Joo, Shurin 3, 17 103 Joo, Shurin, Jain OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant has identified reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 4 Claim 29 (Indefiniteness) The Examiner rejects claim 29 finding that the claim term “the target memory bank” lacks antecedent basis. Final Act. 2. Appellant “admits to the typographical error” and “respectfully requests that this be corrected by Examiner’s Amendment.” Appeal Br. 26. Because Appellant does not argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 29, we sustain the rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 12 Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 over Joo because Joo has one power down controller 135 which does not disclose the “plurality of memory bank power down controllers” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 16.3 Appellant, however, does not adequately explain why the Examiner erred in finding that prior art components 160_1, 160_2, 160_3, and 160_4 as well as 170_1, 170_2, 170_3, and 170_4 disclose this claim element. Compare id. at 17, with Final Act. 14-15 (finding that “there is no clear [distinction] between the plurality of memory bank power down controllers having their own separate function/functionality”). Appellant’s disagreement that prior art component 160 is a voltage supply section rather than a power down controller (Appeal Br. 17) does not structurally distinguish the prior art and does not identify error. 2 Appellant argues against the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 15, 18- 20, 31 as a group with claim 1 as the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 13-20. Claims 5-7, 15, 18-20, 31 stand or fall together with claim 1. See id. 3 Appellant raises arguments regarding office actions prior to the Final Rejection of October 15, 2020 from which the pending appeal arises. Appeal Br. 13-15. We decline to consider these arguments. See 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 5 Appellant’s argument based on paragraph 28 of Joo is unpersuasive likewise because it does not adequately explain why the Examiner erred and does not structurally distinguish the prior art. See Appeal Br. 18. Paragraph 28 of Joo states that “internal power supply voltage sections 160_1, 160_2, 160_3, and 160_ 4 are enabled and disabled by respective high and low states for DPD [deep power down] bank designation signals BS0, BS1, BS2, and BS3.” Joo ¶ 28 (cited in Appeal Br. 18). Whether sections 160 are controlled by a single DPD controller, however, does not show that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that the prior art components 160_1, 160_2, 160_3, and 160_4 disclose the “plurality of memory bank power down controllers” required by claim 1. Moreover, paragraph 24 of Joo states: “DPD control[ler] 135 is adapted to disable one or more internal power supply voltages otherwise supplied by internal power supply voltage sections 160_1, 160_2, 160_3, and 160_ 4, thereby placing selected ones of memory banks 110_1, 110_2, 110_3, and 110_4 into the DPD mode.” Joo ¶ 24. The Examiner’s finding that prior art components 160_1, 160_2, 160_3, and 160_4 disclose the recited “plurality of memory bank power down controllers” which are “configured to place the respective memory bank in a power down mode” recited in claim 1 is therefore supported by the record. Appellant’s argument that Joo does not disclose “a memory module command interface configured to receive a handshake command from a memory controller” as recited in claim 1 is unpersuasive. Appellant defines the claim term “handshake” based on an external reference but does not respond to the Examiner’s finding that paragraph 6 of the Specification provides a definition of the term. Compare Appeal Br. 19, with Final Act. Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 6 15. The Examiner finds that the claim term “handshake command” is disclosed in Joo based on how Specification paragraph 6 defines the term. Final Act. 15. Appellant does not identify error in this finding and we are accordingly unpersuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred. Appellant also argues that “claim requires that the handshake occur between the memory module command interface 224 and the memory controller 104” which is not disclosed in Joo because the prior art signals “are between the DPD 135 and the voltage supplies 160.” Appeal Br. 19. To the extent Appellant argues that the claim requires the “memory module command interface configured to receive a handshake command from a memory controller” without any intermediate component, the claim language is not so limited. We sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1. Claim 24 Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and additionally recites, among other claim elements, “a plurality of memory bank power down triggers,” which is dispositive to the appeal before us. See Appeal Br. 21-22. Appellant repeats the argument that “Joo only includes a single deep power down (DPD) controller 135” (Appeal Br. 21) which is unpersuasive based on the analysis supra. Appellant also argues that the recited power triggers include physical structures “such as a counter and a threshold value (and a memory to store that)” (id.) and the prior art signals BS0, BS1, BS2, and BS3 are “incapable 4 Appellant argues against the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4, and 16 as a group with claim 2 as the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 20-22. Claims 4 and 16 stand or fall together with claim 2. See id. Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 7 of including” such structural elements. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is incommensurate in scope with the claim language. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting appellant’s nonobviousness argument as based on limitation not recited in claim). Contrary to Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 21), the plain language of claim 2 does not require “a memory to store” the threshold value. Nor does claim 2 require the recited sleep counter and threshold value to be physical structures of the “plurality of memory bank power down triggers.” The rejection of claim 2 is sustained. Claim 265 Appellant argues that Joo does not teach or suggest “placing via a respective memory power down controller only the target memory bank in a power down mode, wherein at least one other memory bank of the memory module is in a second power mode” as recited in claim 26. Appellant argues that whereas claim 26 requires two power banks, Figure 3 of Joo only shows a single memory bank. Appeal Br. 24. Appellant argues that the Examiner “does not assert that Shurin ameliorates this deficiency.” Id. at 25. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it is unsupported by the record. Contrary to Appellant’s argument that the Examiner does not cite Shurin for the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner finds that whereas Joo teaches or suggests “at least one other memory bank of the memory module is in a second power mode,” Shurin teaches or suggests, among other claim 5 Appellant argues against the obviousness rejection of claims 26-30 as a group with claim 26 as the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 22-25. Claims 27-30 stand or fall together with claim 26. See id. Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 8 elements, “placing via a respective memory power down controller only the target memory bank in a power down mode.” Final Act. 10. It is therefore based on the combined prior art teaching that the Examiner finds this claim limitation taught or suggested. Id. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive also because it attacks the references individually, rather than considering what the combined references would have suggested to the person of ordinary skill in the art. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant also argues that the Examiner “fails to provide a clearly articulated line of reasoning (as to both why and how) Shurin would have been modified in light of Joo to arrive at the invention of Applicant’s claim.” Appeal Br. 25. “[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this case, the Examiner cites paragraph 3 of Shurin in support of the rationale. Final Act. 11 (stating that “it would be obvious to include the teachings of Shurin to include sleep counters with threshold in the teaching of Joo for the benefit of avoiding poor communication bandwidth utilization that degrades over performance”). Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings with regard to paragraph 3 of Shurin and does not adequately explain why the Examiner reversibly erred in the rationale to combine. Compare Appeal Br. 25, with Final Act. 11. No reversible error has therefore been identified. Appeal 2021-003783 Application 15/143,500 9 Remaining Claims Appellant does not raise separate arguments for the remaining claims. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of the remaining claims. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 29 112(b) Indefiniteness 29 1, 5-7, 15, 18-20, 31 102 Joo 1, 5-7, 15, 18-20, 31 2, 4, 16, 26- 30 103 Joo, Shurin 2, 4, 16, 26-30 3, 17 103 Joo, Shurin, Jain 3, 17 Overall Outcome 1-7, 15-20, 26-31 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED