Ex Parte Boeve

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 18, 2008

10536293 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 18, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HANS MARC BERT BOEVE
____________________

Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,2931
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Decided: December 18, 2008
____________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3 and 6-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to modulating a generated magnetic field
during a write operation of a magnetoresistive (“MR”) memory device
having memory cells logically arranged in a matrix of rows and columns

1 Application filed May 25, 2005. The real party in interest is NXP
Semiconductors.
Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,293

(Spec. 1). The matrix comprises a set of column lines, which are each
composed of a continuous conductive strip magnetically coupled to the MR
element of each of the memory cells of a column. Each column line has a
forward column line and a return column line on opposite sides of the MR
element and offset from one another (Spec. 6).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A matrix with magnetoresistive memory cells logically organized in
rows and columns, each memory cell including a magnetoresistive element,
the matrix comprising a set of column lines, a column line being a
continuous conductive strip which is magnetically coupled to the
magnetoresistive element of each of the memory' cells of a column, wherein
each column line has a forward column line and a return column line,
arranged on opposite sides of the magnetoresistive element and offset from
one another for forming a return path for current in that column line and for
altering a magnetic field at a selected magnetoresistive element and
generated by current flow in the column line for writing to the selected
magnetoresistive element.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Takashima US 5,894,447 Apr. 13, 1999
Hayashi US 2001/0040819 A1 Nov. 15, 2001
Deak US 6,816,402 B2 Nov. 9, 2004

Claims 1-3, 6-9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takashima in view of Deak.
Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Takashima in view of Deak and Hayashi.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed February 28, 2007), the Reply
2
Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,293

Brief (filed October 9, 2007), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed October
1, 2007) for their respective details.
ISSUE
The principal issue in the appeal before us is:
Does the combination of Takashima and Deak teach or fairly suggest
column lines each comprising a forward column line and a return column
line, arranged on opposite sides of a MR element, and offset from one
another?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns modulating a
generated magnetic field during a write operation of a magnetoresistive
(“MR”) memory device having memory cells logically arranged in a matrix
of rows and columns (Spec. 1). The matrix comprises a set of column lines,
each composed of a continuous conductive strip magnetically coupled to the
MR element of each of the memory cells of a column. Each column line has
a forward column line and a return column line on opposite sides of the MR
element and offset from one another (Spec. 6).
Takashima
2. Takashima teaches a memory device storing information in
accordance with change in the magnetic resistance (col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6, l.
1).
3
Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,293

Deak
3. Deak teaches a magnetoresistive random access memory
(MRAM) device which has a reduced width for one or both of the
orthogonal row and column lines relative to the corresponding memory cell
width (col. 2, ll. 21-24).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1734 (“While the sequence of these questions might
be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define
the inquiry that controls.”)
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” id. at 1739, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be
determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that
“the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the ‘functional approach’ of
Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.” KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1739 (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12 (1966) (emphasis added)), and reaffirmed
4
Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,293

principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” Id. The Court explained:

When a work is available in one form of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill.

Id. at 1740. The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus
“whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” Id.
“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field
of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent [or
application at issue] can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
manner claimed.” Id. at 1742.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 6-13
Appellant argues that neither Takashima nor Deak teaches a column
line that is a continuous conductive strip, having forward and return column
lines offset from one another (Br. 4).
The Examiner admits that Takashima does not disclose expressly that
its column lines are offset from one another (Ans. 4), but finds that Deak
teaches the use of a conductor 16 offset with respect to an adjacent MR
device 18 (Ans. 4; Deak Fig. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have
5
Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,293

been obvious to modify Takashima to place its forward and reverse column
lines offset with respect to each other and the intervening MR device, so as
“to concentrate the magnetic field at edges of the switching magnetic layer
so as to enhance nucleation of a reversely magnetized domain” (Ans. 4; see
Deak, col. 3, ll. 39-47).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s position that Deak teaches or
suggests positioning column lines at an offset from one another. First, it is
not correct to state that conductor 16 and MR device 18 suggest such an
offset, because only one column line and its associated MR device are
compared, rather than a forward and a return column line, as the claim
requires. Not only are conductor 16 and MR device 18 not both column
lines, but (in contradistinction to the instant invention) the two elements lack
both a common length and a common orientation.2 Second, it would be
incorrect to interpret conductors 14 and 16 as corresponding to column lines.
Because the claimed memory cells are “logically organized in rows and
columns,” orthogonally arranged conductors (such as conductors 14 and 16
of Deak) must necessarily be interpreted as corresponding to a respective
row line and column line. Under either interpretation, then, Deak fails to
teach or suggest a forward column line and a return column line on opposite
sides of a MR element, the column lines being offset from each other.
Because neither Takashima nor Deak contains a teaching or
suggestion to provide a forward column line and a return column line,
arranged on opposite sides of a magnetoresistive element, and offset from

2 We note that conductor 14 and MR device 18 share a common orientation,
but as with conductor 16, conductor 14 and MR device 18 are not the same
length.
6
Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,293

one another, as claim 1 requires, the Examiner has not made out a prima
facie case of obviousness, and we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as well as the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-13.
Claim 14
Claim 14, similar to claim 1, recites combining a magnetic field from
a current line with a magnetic field from at least one return current line
arranged on an opposite side of a magnetoresistive (MR) element and offset
from the MR element.
As explained supra with respect to claim 1, we find that neither
Takashima nor Deak teaches a current line including at least one return
current line, said return current line offset from the magnetoresistive
element.
The Examiner has thus failed to make out a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The combination of Takashima and Deak does not teach nor fairly
suggest column lines each comprising a forward column line and a return
column line, arranged on opposite sides of a MR element, and offset from
one another.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-14 is reversed.

7
Appeal 2008-3557
Application 10/536,293

REVERSED

Eld

NXP, B.V.
NXP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
M/S41-SJ
1109 MCKAY DRIVE
SAN JOSE, CA 95131
8