Ex Parte 7330952 et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2013

95001196 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
95/001,196 06/04/2009 7330952 2805.002REX9 8788
26111 7590 03/08/2013
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
CHOI, WOO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

NVIDIA CORPORATION
Respondent, Requester

v.

RAMBUS, INC.
Patent Owner, Appellant

____________________

Appeal 2012-003816
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,196
Patent 7,330,952
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, KARL D. EASTHOM, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
In papers filed October 11, 2012, Appellant requests a rehearing under
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(hereinafter Board), dated September 12, 2012. In the Opinion, we affirmed
Appeal 2012-003816
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,196
US Patent 7,330,952

2
the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 13, 15-17, and 26 as anticipated by Ware;
claims 5, 7-9, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 27 as unpatentable over Ware
and Gustavson; and claims 5, 7-9, 11, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 27 as
unpatentable over Ware and Ohshima.
Appellant argues that the Board misapprehended the construction of
the term “„write command‟ as „any instruction or data element that specifies
that a device receive write data” (Req. Reh‟g 3) but that “this construction
does not impact the basis for this rehearing” (Req. Reh‟g 4). Appellant does
not provide an alternate construction of the term “write command” or
evidence demonstrating a difference between a “write command” and our
previously stated broad but reasonable construction of the term.
Appellant argues that a “write command” is “transmitted over [its]
own „control‟ bus from the memory controller,” thus implying that a “data
element” is not transmitted over its own control bus from a memory
controller. However, Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that a “write command” must be transmitted over its own
control bus or that a “data element” cannot be transmitted over its own
control bus. We therefore continue to disagree with Appellant‟s contention
that we misapprehended the construction of the term “write command” for at
least the reasons previously provided (see, e.g., Opinion 6-7).
Appellant argues that “the Board‟s broad construction is at odds with
[the] Examiner‟s . . . construction” of the term (Req. Reh‟g 11). We
disagree with Appellant at least because the Examiner (as observed by
Appeal 2012-003816
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,196
US Patent 7,330,952

3
Appellant) does not provide a definition of the term “write command” (see,
e.g., Appellant‟s observation that “[t]he Examiner did not explicitly construe
the term „write command‟” – Req. Reh‟g. 11). More importantly, Appellant
does not demonstrate that “Start R/W” of Ware differs in any way from the
“write command” as recited in the disputed claim (i.e., a write command that
specifies that a memory device receive write data and store the write data in
memory cells, as recited in claim 21, for example).
Appellant alleges that the Board “overlooked the fact that Ware‟s
Start R/W timing signal does not specify „that a device receive write data‟
[which is] reserved for Ware‟s write command, not its Start R/W timing
signal” (Req. Reh‟g 3). We disagree with Appellant for at least the reasons
previously stated (see, e.g., Opinion 7). For example, Ware discloses a write
command (col. 8, l. 53) and an exemplary structure in which a “Start R/W”
instruction initiates an operation (i.e., a “write sequence” – see Fig. 17) that
one of skill in the art would have understood to be a write operation since
both the “Start R/W” of Ware and the write command result in the
performance of a write operation (or “sequence”).
Appellant alleges that the Board “overlooked the fact that Ware does
not disclose the origin of its Start R/W signal . . . [because] Ware does not
disclose that its Start R/W signal is „provided to‟ or „received‟ . . . by the
memory device” (Req. Reh‟g 3). We disagree with Appellant at least for the
reasons previously stated (see, e.g., Opinion 6-8). For example, Ware
discloses a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) (see, e.g., col. 1, ll. 9-
Appeal 2012-003816
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,196
US Patent 7,330,952

4
11) that receives a write command (see, e.g., col. 8, l. 53) with a
programmable write latency (see, e.g., col. 8, l. 60) by delaying the signal
(e.g., the “Start R/W”) in the DRAM control logic (see, e.g., col. 8, ll. 62-
65). In other words, Ware discloses a Start R/W signal displaying a
programmable write latency that is delayed via DRAM control logic. Claim
5, for example, recites a write command that specifies that the memory
device receive write data and store the write data in the memory. Since the
Start R/W signal of Ware initiates a write sequence (see, e.g., Fig. 17) and
one of skill in the art would have understood that initiating a write sequence
includes initiating a process that writes data into memory (a “write
sequence” being a sequence of steps that result in writing data into memory),
Ware discloses that the Start R/W signal of Ware specifies a memory device
to receive write data and store the write data in the memory, as recited in
claim 5, for example.
While Appellant now argues that Ware fails to disclose that the Start
R/W signal is “provided to” or “received by” a memory device, Appellant
does not indicate how a write sequence can be initiated by memory as
disclosed by Ware without receiving the signal that initiates the write
sequence. We disagree with Appellant that the memory of Ware writes data
(i.e., the write sequence being “initiated”) without receiving an instruction to
do so (i.e., Start R/W) – or being provided with the instruction – that is
disclosed as initiating the write sequence in the first place.
Appeal 2012-003816
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,196
US Patent 7,330,952

5
Appellant argues that Ware fails to disclose that the write command
“is provided to the memory device from an external source” (Req. Reh‟g 6).
Appellant does not indicate that any of the disputed claims recite that the
write command is received “from an external source.” While Appellant
cites claims 21 and 26 (Req. Reh‟g 6), Appellant does not indicate that either
claim 21 or claim 26 recites that the write command is received “from an
external source.” At least because none of the disputed claims appear to
require that the write command be received “from an external source,” we
are not persuaded by Appellant that Ware‟s alleged lack of disclosure of this
feature is pertinent.
In any event, even assuming that claim 21 or 26 recited that the write
command is received “from an external source,” we are still not persuaded
by Appellant that Ware fails to disclose this feature. As illustrated in Fig. 17
of Ware, the Start R/W signal is received from a control line 505 external to
the DRAM control logic (component 500) (see, e.g., Fig. 17 that illustrates
the Start R/W being received from outside – i.e., “external” to – the DRAM
control logic 500).
Appellant alleges that the Board “overlooked the fact that Ware never
conflates its disclosure of a „write command‟ with its single bit “Start R/W”
timing signal, which is separately and distinctly identified as „a signals to
initiate an operation‟” (Req. Reh‟g 3). However, as explained in the
Opinion, we disagree with Appellant that Ware fails to disclose the “write
command” as recited in the disputed claims (see, e.g., Opinion 6-8).
Appeal 2012-003816
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,196
US Patent 7,330,952

6
Claim 5, for example, recites a write command that specifies a
memory device receive write data and store the write data in the memory
during a write operation while Ware discloses a Start R/W signal that
initiates a write sequence (see, e.g., Fig. 17) and one of skill in the art would
have understood that a write sequence (as initiated by the Start R/W in
Ware) would specify a memory device to write and store data in memory
during a write operation, as recited in claim 5, for example.
Appellant argues that the Start R/W signal of Ware “is a single-bit,
timing signal that . . . only „initiates an operation‟” (Req. Reh‟g 4) that “does
not even specify what operation will be initiated” (id.). Thus, Appellant
argues that Ware‟s Start R/W signal cannot be the claimed “write command”
because Ware does not disclose what operation the Start R/W signal
initiates. We disagree with Appellant. Contrary to Appellant‟s assertion
that Ware fails to disclose what operation the Start R/W signal initiates,
Ware actually discloses that the Start R/W initiates a “write sequence” (see,
e.g., Fig. 17), which Appellant does not differentiate from the write
operation that is initiated by the “write command” as recited in the disputed
claims.
Appellant argues that while Ware discloses that the Start R/W initiates
a write sequence, Ware nevertheless fails to disclose the Start R/W
specifying that a device receive data. However, one of skill in the art would
have understood that data is written to a device during a write sequence and
that a device would have to be specified as the device into which the data is
Appeal 2012-003816
Inter partes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,196
US Patent 7,330,952

7
to be written in order for the write operation or sequence to be performed.
Appellant does not adequately explain how a device is not specified as
receiving data in a write sequence (initiated by a Start R/W signal) in which
data is written to a device.
We have considered Appellant‟s arguments but find no points that we
have misapprehended or overlooked. Therefore, the Request for Rehearing
is DENIED.

DENIED

alw

Patent Owner:

STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005

Third Party Requester:

David M. O‟Dell
Haynes and Boone, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219