Chih-Cheng Hsiao

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 10, 2021

2021003182 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2021)

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.
15/949,077 04/10/2018 Chih-Cheng Hsiao INDP0091USA3 2814
27765 7590 06/10/2021
NORTH AMERICA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CORPORATION
5F., NO.389, FUHE RD., YONGHE DIST.
NEW TAIPEI CITY,
TAIWAN
EXAMINER
LEBOEUF, JEROME LARRY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2824
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2021 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):
Patent.admin.uspto.Rcv@naipo.com
mis.ap.uspto@naipo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
Ex parte CHIH-CHENG HSIAO
____________
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
JANE E. INGLESE Administrative Patent Judges.

DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 6 of Application 15/949,077,

1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) of Application No.
15/949,077 filed Apr. 10, 2018 (“the ’077 App.”); the Final Office Action
dated Jan. 8, 2021 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed Feb. 8, 2021
(“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated Feb. 26, 2021 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed Apr. 15, 2021 (“Reply Br.”).
2 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 Hsiao Chih
Cheng. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
2
which constitute all the claims pending in this application.3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter of the invention relates to memory devices with
purported low power consumption. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A memory device, comprising:
a plurality of word lines elongated along a first direction;
and
at least one memory unit, each memory unit comprising:
a plurality of memory cell groups arranged along a
second direction different from the first
direction, each of the memory cell groups
comprising a plurality of memory cells
arranged along the second direction;
at least one bit line elongated along the second
direction, and configured to transmit data of
a selected memory cell;
a column word line elongated along the second
direction;

3 The Final Office Action and the Appeal Brief indicate that claims 2–5 and
7–10 are withdrawn from consideration. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 2.
Therefore, our Decision does not address claims 2–5 and 7–10.
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
3
a plurality of row word lines elongated along the
first direction;
a plurality of column switches arranged along the
second direction, each of the column
switches having a control terminal coupled
to the column word line, a first terminal, and
a second terminal, each of the column
switches configured to control conduction
between the first terminal and the second
terminal according to signals received from
the control terminal; and
a plurality of row switches arranged along the
second direction, each of the row switches
having a control terminal coupled to a row
word line, a first terminal, and a second
terminal, each of the row switches
configured to control conduction between
the first terminal and the second terminal
according to signals received from the
control terminal;
wherein each of the column switches and each of
the row switches are electrically coupled in
series between the at least one bit line and
the plurality of memory cells of one of the
memory cell groups;
wherein the at least one bit line is coupled to the
plurality of memory cell groups arranged
along the second direction.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Name Reference Date
Gogl et al. (“Gogl”) US 6,982,902 B2 Jan. 3, 2006
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
4
Kyung US 2016/0260477 A1 Sept. 8, 2016
REJECTION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gogl in view of Kyung. Final Act. 3–13.
DISCUSSION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. 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 [E]xaminer’s rejections.”). After considering the
evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are
not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejection.
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 5–11. We select
claim 1 as representative. Claim 6 stands or falls with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that the combination of Gogl and Kyung discloses
the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3–10. A copy of the Examiner’s
annotated version of Gogl Figure 4B is reproduced below:
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
5

Final Act. 5.
Original Figure 4B of Gogl shows a schematic circuit of an MRAM
circuit 450 generally comprising global bit line 222K, networks 452
corresponding to segment structures 420 (see Figure 4A), and separate
global bit line 422K. In network 452, one transistor 206 is used, during the
read operation, to connect global bit line 222k to stacked local bit lines or,
during the write operation, to disconnect global bit line from stacked local
bit lines. Gogl col. 7, ll. 47–59.
The Examiner’s annotations to Gogl Figure 4B identify, inter alia, the
claimed first direction and second direction. See Final Act. 5. The
Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “a second direction different from the
first direction,” and does not require the directions to be vertical, horizontal,
or have any particular angular degree of difference. Ans. 4.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art that a semiconductor device as disclosed by Gogl
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
6
may have a particular arrangement of switches and lines to access memory
cells as disclosed by Kyung. Final Act. 10. The Examiner finds that the
combination of well-known variants of access arrangements for memory cell
groups to produce predictable results is obvious. In addition, the Examiner
finds that it would have been obvious to combine the references to obtain a
short read cycle time, as taught by Kyung. Id. (citing Kyung ¶ 68).
Appellant contends that the claimed first and second direction are a
horizontal direction and a vertical direction, respectively, and are
substantially perpendicular to each other, stating “those skilled in the art
know that word lines are substantially horizontal and bit lines are
substantially vertical in the memory device circuit design or even common
circuit design.” Appeal Br. 6, 7; see also Reply Br. 3, 7. Disputing the
Examiner’s finding regarding Kyung, Appellant contends that “those skilled
in the art of the memory circuit would analogize BL0/BL1/BL2/BL3 of
Kyung’s teaching with bit lines in the instant application instead of
analogizing LBL of Kyung’s teaching with bit lines of the instant application
and thus causing too long RC time constant.” Id. at 9. Appellant argues that
the first direction and second direction limitations “do not infringe any
patent and legally protect the appellant’s right.” Id. at 8.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error by the
Examiner.
“Determining patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the
basic character of the claimed subject matter.” MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC,
934 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). We give claims their broadest
reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
7
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim
must be read in light of the specification, as it would have been interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id.
“Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant
. . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain
more precise claim coverage.” Id.
The words “vertical,” “horizontal,” and/or “perpendicular” are not
found in the ’077 Application, including in the original claims. See
generally, ’077 App. Neither claim 1 nor the ’077 Application provides
support for Appellant’s proposed interpretation of the claim terms.
Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”). Claim 1 recites a first direction and a second
direction, but neither a horizontal nor vertical direction. See Appeal Br. 12
(Claims App.).
Appellant’s statements regarding the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art consist of mere attorney argument, and are not supported by
any evidence. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d
1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”); Estee
Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Counsel’s
argument cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the record.”); In re
Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Nothing in the record before us supports
Appeal 2021-003182
Application 15/949,077
8
Appellant’s representations as to how one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of invention would have interpreted the claims.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Gogl in view of
Kyung. For the same reasoning, we also sustain the rejection of claim 6 as
obvious over these references.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6 103(a) Gogl, Kyung 1, 6
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).
AFFIRMED