Ex Parte Alon et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 14, 2013

11021514 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ELAD ALON, SUDHAKAR PAMARTI, FARIBORZ
ASSADERAGHI, and KUN-YUNG CHANG
____________________

Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before: JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
7, 18-25, 27-29, and 33-38. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claims 9-17, 26, 30-
32, and 39-41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

According to Appellants, the invention relates to a communication
system having a simultaneous bi-directional link for simultaneous
communication between a controller and a memory device. The bi-
directional link has two or more bands of frequencies that may be
dynamically adjusted and/or allocated to achieve a predetermined
unidirectional or bi-directional data rate. Spec. [0027]. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A memory system, comprising:
a controller;
a memory device; and
a set of signal lines, coupled to the controller and the
memory device, wherein, on each of the signal lines, the
controller is to communicate to the memory device using a first
band of frequencies while the memory device is communicating
to the controller using a second band of frequencies, and
wherein the controller is configured to dynamically adjust the
first band of frequencies based on a predetermined data rate
from the controller to the memory device and to dynamically
adjust the second band of frequencies based on a predetermined
data rate from the memory device to the controller.

Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Feldman
Liu
Funaba
Kuroodi
US 6,295,272 B1
US 6,442,195 B1
US 2007/0081376 A1
US 7,243,254 B1
Sep. 25, 2001
Aug. 27, 2002
Apr. 12, 2007
Jul. 10, 2007

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-2, 5, 19, and 37-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Kuroodi. Ans. 3.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuroodi. Ans. 6.
Claims 6-7, 21-23, 33, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kuroodi and Feldman. Ans. 7.
Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuroodi and Liu. Ans. 10.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuroodi, Feldman, and Funaba. Ans. 12.
Claims 25, 27-29, 34, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kuroodi, Feldman, and Liu. Ans. 13.

Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

4
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. With respect to claims 1, 211, 37 and 38, “Kuroodi does not
disclose a first band of frequencies for communication from a controller to a
memory device and a second band of frequencies for communication from
the memory device to the controller, as each independent claim requires.”
App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted).
2 (a). With respect to claims 37 and 38, “Kuroodi does not disclose
simultaneous bi-directional communication using first and second frequency
bands, as each independent claim requires.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis
omitted).
2 (b). With respect to claims 1 and 21, “[t]he term ‘while’ in these
claims requires simultaneous bi-directional communication from the
controller to the memory device and from the memory device to the
controller.” Id.
3. With respect to claims 1 and 38, “Kuroodi does not disclose
dynamically adjusting the first and second frequency bands.” App. Br. 12-
13 (emphasis omitted).
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-15)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4-11) the issue presented on appeal is whether
Kuroodi discloses the disputed claim limitations.

1 Because Appellants do not argue independent claim 21 separately we
consider it together with claim 1.
Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ conclusions in connection with contention
2(a) as to the rejections of claims 37 and 38. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions as to the rejections of claims 1 and 21. Except as noted below,
in connection with claims 1 and 21 we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief and furthermore concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following arguments for
emphasis.
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue “Kuroodi does not
disclose a first band of frequencies for communication from a controller to a
memory device and a second band of frequencies for communication from
the memory device to the controller, as each independent claim requires.”
App. Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellants argue that “[t]he
Examiner's rejection ignores the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ and ‘broadest
reasonable interpretation’ of a ‘band of frequencies.’” App. Br. 9 (emphasis
omitted). According to Appellants, the clock rate of the controller is
distinguishable from the frequency bands used for communication between
the controller and a memory device. App. Br. 10. The Examiner responds
that he “is not limited to Applicant’s definition, which is not specifically set
fourth [sic.] in the claims.” Ans. 18 (citing In re Tanaka et al., 193 USPQ
139 (CCPA 1977)). We disagree with the Examiner to the extent that the
Examiner asserts that definitions of terms relied upon in distinguishing
Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

6
claims must appear in the claims. Instead, Appellants are correct in stating
that “the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis
omitted). However, because Appellants’ Specification does not provide a
definition for “bands of frequencies,” the disputed language is to be afforded
its plain meaning. As explained by the Examiner, Kuroodi discloses that the
“external memory 12 is transmitting data to the memory controller 16 at a
clock rate having a frequency of XMHz (interpreted to be a first frequency
band) and the memory controller 16 is transmitting data to the external
memory at a clock rate having a frequency of X/2 MHz (interpreted to be a
second frequency band.)” Ans. 18 (emphasis omitted) (citing Kuroodi, col.
7, ll. 51-67, col. 8, ll. 1-3, 17-48). The Examiner relies on Kuroodi citing to,
inter alia, col. 4, ll. 35-60, disclosing that “[t]he memory controller can be
selectively clocked at either the first clock rate or a second clock rate that is
approximately one-half frequency of the first clock rate.” Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Kuroodo’s clock rate may be expressed as a
frequency.
Appellants further argue that “the Examiner’s interpretation of the
terms ‘a first band of frequencies’ and ‘a second band of frequencies’ is
contrary to the plain meaning of a band of frequencies as including a range
of frequencies, as opposed to only a single frequency.” App. Br. 10. We
disagree. Again, Appellants’ Specification provides no definition of a “band
of frequencies.” To the contrary, the Specification provides an example in
which there is a “zero band of frequencies.” Spec. [0044]. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that Kuroodi’s clock rates meet the disputed
requirement for respective bands of frequencies.
Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

7
Appellants additionally argue that “the frequencies F and F/2 are
clock rates, not communication frequency bands.” App. Br. 11. This
argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims since there is no
requirement for “communication frequency band(s)”, only “to communicate
to the memory device using a first band of frequencies.” See, e.g., claim 1.
As explained supra, we agree with the Examiner that the first and second
band of frequencies limitation is taught by Kuroodi’s first and second clock
rates. See Ans. 4 and 16-18. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive of Examiner error.
For the reasons supra, Appellants have failed to provide sufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding that
Kuroodi discloses a first band of frequencies for communication from a
controller to a memory device and a second band of frequencies for
communication from the memory device to the controller. Accordingly,
contention 1 is not persuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 2(a), Appellants argue “Kuroodi does
not disclose simultaneous bi-directional communication using first and
second frequency bands, as each independent claim requires.” App. Br. 11
(emphasis omitted). According to Appellants, “[e]ach independent claim
specifies that communication from the controller to the memory device
using the first band of frequencies occurs simultaneously with
communication from the memory device to the controller using the second
band of frequencies.” App. Br. 11. The Examiner responds that Kuroodi
discloses “[t]he external memory 12 is transmitting data to the memory
controller 16 at a clock rate having a frequency of XMHz (interpreted to be a
first frequency band) and the memory controller 16 is transmitting data to
Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

8
the external memory at a clock rate having a frequency of X/2 MHz
(interpreted to be a second frequency band) (see col 7, lines 51-67, col 8,
lines 1-3, col 8, lines 17-48).” Ans. 20 (emphasis omitted). However the
Examiner fails to explain why an alleged similarity between Fig. 1 of
Appellants’ application and Fig. 4 of Kuroodi leads to a finding that Kuroodi
discloses a “simultaneous” communication. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that Kuroodi fails to disclose or suggest the “simultaneously
communicating” feature recited in of claims 37 and 38.
With regard to Appellants contention 2(b) about the interpretation of
“while” as recited in claims 1 and 21, although we agree with Appellants
that Kuroodi fails to teach simultaneous communication, we do not agree
that the term “while” also requires simultaneously communicating. Absent
an explicit definition in Appellants’ Specification, we look to the plain and
ordinary meaning of the term “while” to include “during or in the time that”
or “throughout the time that; as long [as].”2 Thus, a reasonable
interpretation of “while” in claims 1 and 21 is that, during the time that the
controller is to communicate to the memory device using a first band of
frequencies, the memory device is communicating to the controller using a
second band of frequencies. Thus, for example, the disputed language of
claims 1 and 21 is satisfied so long as throughout the time that the first band
of frequencies is used to communicate to the memory device, the second
band of frequencies is used in communication to the controller. This is in
contrast to the language of claims 37 and 38 which requires “simultaneously
communicating” wherein the ordinary meaning of simultaneously includes

2 Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
New York: Gramercy, 1996. Print.

Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

9
“existing, occurring or operating at the same time; concurrent.”3 Therefore,
while we agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37 and 38
(contention 2(a)), Appellants’ arguments (contention 2(b)) directed to
simultaneous bi-directional communication are not commensurate in scope
with the language of claims 1 and 21. Therefore, contention 2 (b) is not
persuasive of Examiner error in the rejection of claims 1 and 21.
In connection with contention 3, Appellants argue “Kuroodi does not
disclose dynamically adjusting the first and second frequency bands”, as
recited in independent claims 1 and 38. App. Br. 12-13 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that Kuroodi discloses that “memory controller 16
can be used to control either SDR or DDR memory by simply changing the
clock speed within the controller itself' (changing the clock speed is
interpreted to be adjusting the first and second frequency bands).” Ans. 22
(emphasis omitted) (citing Kuroodi, col. 9, ll. 37-39). Thus, the Examiner
equates Kuroodi’s “changing the clock speed to the claimed “dynamically
adjust.” Ans. 4. In addition, we find Appellants have failed to adequately
traverse the specific factual findings the Examiner has set forth in the
rejection of claims 1 and 38. Because Appellants have not provided
sufficient evidence or argument in support of their argument that Kuroodi’s
changing clock rate that depends on the type of memory is not accomplished
“dynamically” within the meaning of the disputed claims, contention 3 is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
For the reasons discussed supra, we find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 37 and 38. However, Appellants have provided insufficient
evidence or argument to persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting

3 Id.
Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

10
claims 1 and 21 or in rejecting claims 2-7, 18-20, 22-25, 27-29, and 33-36,
not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 37 and 38 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Kuroodi.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-2, 5, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kuroodi.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuroodi
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6-7, 21-23, 33, and 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuroodi and Feldman.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 18 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuroodi and Liu.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuroodi, Feldman, and Funaba.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 25, 27-29, 34, and 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuroodi, Feldman, and
Liu.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 37 and 38 is reversed
and to reject claims 1-7, 18-25, 27-29, and 33-36 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

Appeal 2010-008694
Application 11/021,514

11

msc