Ex parte Hardee

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 13, 2000

08684328 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 13, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 35
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KIM C. HARDEE
____________
Appeal No. 1998-1815
Application No. 08/684,328
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the rejection of claims 13-46. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention at issue in this appeal is a method for
using a sense amplifier in an integrated circuit (IC) memory.
An IC memory includes many memory cells, which are arranged in
rows and columns. A column is a collection of memory cells
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 2
Application No. 08/684,328
along a bit line pair. Each column is connected to a sense
amplifier. The sense amplifier senses the effect a memory
cell has on the bit line pair and amplifies a signal for
reading data from the memory cell. In addition, the sense
amplifier drives, i.e., controls, the bit line pair for
writing data into the memory cell.
When conventional sense amplifiers are employed in
large memories, the amplifiers work inefficiently and slowly,
prolong access time, suffer patten sensitivities, and are
unstable. The invention aims to overcome these problems. In
particular, the inventive method includes coupling a local
read amplifier in communication with a sense amplifier latch.
Claim 45, which is representative for our purposes,
follows:
45. A method of reading data from a first bit
line in an integrated circuit memory including the
steps of:
operating a sense amplifier latch to develop a
first voltage on a first internal latch node
communicating with said bit line, said first voltage
corresponding to the data on said bit line;
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 3
Application No. 08/684,328
said operating step including operating at least
one local sense amplifier drive transistor to
provide power to said latch;
coupling said first voltage to a control
electrode of a first read amplifier transistor in a
local read amplifier communicating with said sense
amplifier latch; and
generating a pair of differential signals via
said local read amplifier based on said first
voltage and the state of said first read amplifier
transistor;
wherein said differential signals are generated
without disturbing said first internal latch node.
The references relied on in rejecting the claims follow:
U.S. Patent Application 08/674,282 ('282
Application)
(filed July 1, 1996)
U.S. Patent Application 08/284,183 ('183 Application)
(filed Aug. 2, 1994)
Young 5,247,479 Sep. 21, 1993
(filed May 23, 1991)
Toshiba et al. (Toshiba), European Patent
Application
0 175 880 Apr. 2,
1986.
Claims 30-40 and 45-46 stand provisionally rejected under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 4
Application No. 08/684,328
over claims 5-7,20-26, and 28-39 of the '282 Application.
Claims 43 and 44 stand provisionally rejected under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application. Claims
45 and 46 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Young in view of Toshiba. Rather than repeat the
arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we refer the
reader to the briefs and answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejection and evidence
advanced by the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the
arguments of the appellant and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are persuaded that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 13-46. Accordingly, we reverse.
Our opinion addresses the following rejections:
• obviousness-type double patenting
• obviousness.
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 5
Application No. 08/684,328
We begin by addressing the rejections for obviousness-type
double patenting.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Regarding the obviousness-type double patenting rejection
over claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 of the '282 Application, the
appellant argues, "[c]laims 30-40 and 45-46 ... are directed
to a method of operating a sense amplifier, i.e. reading, and
are not directed to an apparatus which is the subject of the
related application." (Appeal Br. at 48.) Regarding the
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 8, 9, and 14-50
of the '183 Application, the appellant argues, "[c]laims 43-44
are directed to a method of operating a sense amplifier, i.e.
writing, and are not directed to an apparatus,which is the
subject of the related application."" (Id. at 50.) The
examiner collectively responds, "claims-30-40 and 43-46 ...
have been amended and changed since the original restriction
requirement regardless that the claims are directed to a
method, and hence are not consonant with the restriction
requirement made by the examiner ...." (Examiner's Answer at
5.)
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 6
Application No. 08/684,328
We note the following principles concerning consonance
from Symbol Technologies Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569,
1579,
19 USPQ2d 1241, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Consonance requires that the line of
demarcation between the "independent and
distinct inventions" that prompted the
restriction requirement be maintained.
Though the claims may be amended, they must
not be so amended as to bring them back
over the line imposed in the restriction
requirement. Where that line is crossed
the prohibition of the third sentence of
Section 121 does not apply.
Gerber Garment Technology Inc. v. Lectra Systems
Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 688, 16 USPQ2d 1436, 1440 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). The corollary to this Court's statement
in Gerber Garment is that new or amended claims in
a divisional application are entitled to the benefit
of
§ 121 if the claims do not cross the line of demarcation
drawn around the invention elected in the
restriction requirement.
With these principles in mind, we address the obviousness-type
double patenting rejections over claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39
of the '282 Application and over claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the
'183 Application separately.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting over the '282 Application
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 7
Application No. 08/684,328
The examiner fails to show a loss of consonance between
claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 of the '282 Application and
claims 30-40 and 45-46 of the instant application. In U.S.
Patent Application 07/976,312 ('312 Application), the
grandparent application of the instant application, the
examiner issued a restriction requirement dividing the initial
claims into five groups. (Paper No. 3 at 2.) He explained
that the second group comprised "[c]laims 5-7, drawn to a
sense amplifier utilizing a column read amplifier for read
operation" and that the fifth group comprised "[c]laim 13,
drawn to a method of operating a sense amplifier utilizing a
read amplifier and data write circuitry ...." (Id.) It is
uncontested that the appellant elected to prosecute claims 5-7
and claims similar thereto in the '282 Application and its
parent application and to prosecute claim 13 and claims
similar thereto in the instant application and its parent
application. (Appeal Br. at 47.)
Although claims 30-40 and 45-46 have been added to the
instant application and amended since the restriction
requirement, the examiner fails to allege, let alone show,
that the claims have been altered to recite a sense amplifier
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 8
Application No. 08/684,328
utilizing a column read amplifier for read operation or an
apparatus of any sort. To the contrary, the claims are still
method claims drawn to "[a] method of reading from memory
cells associated with corresponding bit lines in an integrated
circuit memory ...." Because claims 30-40 and 45-46 omit a
method, we are not persuaded that the claims cross the line of
demarcation drawn in the restriction requirement. Cf.
Applied Mats., Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Mats., 98 F.3d
1563, 15??, 40 USPQ2d 1481, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("In this
case consonance was not violated, for the process claims
remained in separate patents from the apparatus claims
although the scope of the process claims was modified.")
Therefore, we reverse the provisional rejection of claims 30-
40 and 45-46 over claims 5-7, 20-26, and 28-39 of the '282
Application.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting over the '183 Application
The examiner fails to show a loss of consonance between
claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application and claims 43
and 44 of the instant application. In the restriction
requirement of the '312 Application, he explained that the
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 9
Application No. 08/684,328
third group comprised "[c]laims 8-9, drawn to a sense
amplifier utilizing a data write driver circuit for write
operation ...." (Paper No. 3 at 2.) It is uncontested that
these are the claims in the '183 Application. (Appeal Br. at
40.)
Although claims 43 and 44 have been added to the instant
application and amended since the restriction requirement, the
examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the claims have
been altered to recite a sense amplifier utilizing a data
write driver circuit for a write operation. To the contrary,
the claims are still method claims drawn to "[a] method of
writing data to a selected memory cell in an integrated
circuit memory having a plurality of sense amplifiers coupled
to a plurality
of bit lines which are coupled to a plurality of memory
cells ...." Because claims 43 and 44 omit a method, we are
not persuaded that the claims cross the line of demarcation
drawn in the restriction requirement. Therefore, we reverse
the provisional rejection of claims 43 and 44 over claims 8,
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 10
Application No. 08/684,328
9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application. We next address the
rejection for obviousness.
Obviousness
We note the following principles from In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case, the rejection is improper and will be
overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With these principles in mind, we address the examiner's
rejection and the appellants' argument.
The examiner's rejection follows in pertinent part.
"Young shows all the limitations of the claimed method of
reading from memory cells in figs. l-4, utilizing a sense
amplifier latch 21a-24b and a local column read amplifier 28,
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 11
Application No. 08/684,328
25, 27 . . . ." (Final Rejection at 2.) His rejection
continues as follows.
Young is applied as stated above.
What is not shown in Young is the use of at
least one local sense amplifier drive transistor, as
recited in claims 45-46.
However, EP ('880) clearly shows the use of at
least one local sense amplifier drive transistor 58
and 61 in figs. 1-13.
In regard to claims 45-46, therefore, to utilize
the use [sic] of at least one local sense amplifier
drive transistor from the teachings of EP ('880)
into Young would have been obvious to one ordinarily
skilled in the art to provide the claimed method of
reading data because the advantage of the use of at
least one local sense amplifier drive transistor is
in detail discussed in EP ('880).
(Id. at 4.) The appellant argues, "28,25,27 etc. are not a
read amplifier but a column sense amplifier. Likewise, 21a-
24b are not a sense amplifier latch but form a memory cell
latch." (Appeal Br. at 40.)
Claims 45 and 46 specify in pertinent part the following
limitations:
operating a sense amplifier latch to develop a
first voltage on a first internal latch node
communicating with said bit line, said first voltage
corresponding to the data on said bit line;
...

Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 12
Application No. 08/684,328
coupling said first voltage to a control
electrode of a first read amplifier transistor in a
local read amplifier communicating with said sense
amplifier latch
....
Accordingly, claims 45 and 46 require coupling a local read
amplifier in communication with a sense amplifier latch.
The examiner fails to show a suggestion of the
limitations in the prior art. “Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13
(Fed. Cir. 1983)). “The mere fact that the prior art may be
modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification.”
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 13
Application No. 08/684,328
The prior art belies the examiner's allegation that
elements 21a, 21b, 24a, and 24b of Young form a sense
amplifier latch while elements 25, 27, and 28 of the reference
form a local column read amplifier. (Final Rejection at 2.)
“‘Every patent application and reference relies to some extent
upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement
that [which is] disclosed ....’” In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656,
660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488
F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons
“must be presumed to know something” about the art “apart from
what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513,
516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962).
Here, U.S. Patent 5,265,047 (Leung) (copy attached),
which the examiner "made of record" in the '312 Application,
(Paper No. 16 at 5.), evidences that in memory circuits
comprising memory cells and a sense amplifier, word lines are
used by the memory cells rather than the sense amplifier.
Specifically, "two separate word lines (WL and WLC) are used
in each memory cell." Col. 3, ll. 54-54. Figure 3 of the
reference specifically shows that the word lines WL and WLC
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 14
Application No. 08/684,328
are connected to memory cells 400 and 500 rather than to sense
amplifier 504.
Similarly, Figure 2a of Young shows word line WL
connected to elements 21a, 21b, 24a, and 24b. As evidenced by
Leung and contrary to the examiner's allegation, therefore,
persons skilled in the art would interpret the elements as
forming a memory latch rather than a sense amplifier latch.
Also contrary to the examiner's allegation, such persons would
then interpret elements 25, 27, and 28 as the "local or column
sense amplifier," col. 1, ll. 65-66, shown in the Figure
rather than as a local column read amplifier. In summary, the
examiner fails to show that Young teaches a local read
amplifier let alone such an amplifier coupled to data read
lines and to an internal node of a sense amplifier latch. He
fails to allege, let alone show, that Toshiba remedies the
defect of Young.
Because Young omits a local read amplifier, we are not
persuaded that teachings from the prior art would have
suggested the limitations of "operating a sense amplifier
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 15
Application No. 08/684,328
latch to develop a first voltage on a first internal latch
node communicating with said bit line, said first voltage
corresponding to the data on said bit line; ... coupling said
first voltage to a control electrode of a first read amplifier
transistor in a local read amplifier communicating with said
sense amplifier latch ...."
The examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claims
45 and 46 as obvious over Young in view of Toshiba.
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 16
Application No. 08/684,328
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the provisional rejections of claims 30-40
and 45-46 under the doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 5-7,20-26, and 28-39 of
the '282 Application and of claims 43 and 44 under the
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 8, 9, and 14-50 of the '183 Application are
reversed. The rejection of claims 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Young in view of Toshiba is also
reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 17
Application No. 08/684,328
jg
Appeal No. 1998-1815 Page 18
Application No. 08/684,328
EDWARD D. MANZO
COOK, McFARRON & MANZO LTD.
200 WEST ADAMS STREET
SUITE 2850
CHICAGO, IL 60606