Ex Parte LI et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201613445995 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/445,995 04/13/2012 Wendi Li 56436 7590 06/29/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82963093 7474 EXAMINER MARTINEZ QUILES, IVELISSE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2699 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WENDI LI, WEI YI, WEI WU, and JIANHUA YANG Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 Technology Center 2600 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to using "a memristive device in each of the memristive pixel cells ... as opposed to a silicon-based semiconductor device (e.g., thin film transistor (TFT) devices)" in a "flat- panel display system" (Spec. i-f 10). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A flat-panel display system comprising: a display controller to generate image data; and a plurality of memristive pixel cells arranged in a plurality of rows and in a plurality of columns, each of the plurality of memristive pixel cells comprising a memristive device to control a respective pixel associated with the flat panel display based on the image data. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chang Wu US 2007 /0035495 Al WO 2010/068221 Al Feb. 15,2007 June 17, 2010 Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings and suggestions of Chang and Wu. II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention 2 Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 was made would have found it obvious to combine Wu's memristive devices with the flat-panel display system of Chang. III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellants' Invention 1. Appellants' invention is directed to a memristive pixel cell, wherein Figure 3 is reproduce below: 212 Figure 3 discloses a memristive pixel cell including a memristive device 102, a capacitor CPxL, and an LC element 104, wherein the memristive device is arranged as a three-terminal memristive device 102 that is configured as a switch (Spec. i-f 16). Chang 2. Chang discloses a display employing a transmissive active-matrix liquid crystal pixel array, wherein Figure 3(A) is reproduce below: 3 Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 FIG. 3(A} ~ I ~ I I Figure 3(A) discloses an active pixel structure comprising a storage capacitor Cs, a liquid crystal cell Crc, and a three-terminal thin-film transistor Tl (i-f 32). Wu 3. Wu discloses memristive routing devices (Abstract), which are electrical components such as switching devices, that may be used to store data, calibrate circuits, or provide self programming, fuzzy logic, or neural learning capabilities (i-f 22). In particular, Wu discloses that memristive devices can be used in a variety of switching applications, wherein various geometries can be used to increase the switching speed and flexibility of memristive devices to direct one or more inputs to the desired outputs (i-f 109). IV. ANALYSIS Appellants contend the rejection of claim 1 is "based on references having unrelated teachings" wherein the Examiner "has not articulated a legal reasoning" to support the rejection (App. Br. 11 ). In particular, Appellants contend "Chang is directed to a stereoscopic display that includes an array of liquid crystal-based pixels that are activated via thin-film transistors" (App. Br. 11-12) but "fails to provide any indication that other 4 Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 types of switching devices can be substituted," while "Wu discloses memristors that are implemented to provide memristive routing devices" (App. Br. 12). Appellants then reference Gale (Gale et al., "Is Spiking Logic the Route to Memristor-Based Computers?" (Exhibit A of the Evidence Appendix)) and contend "while Gale provides advantages of the use of memristors, Gale indicates that memristors do not provide a faster switching speed than 'standard electronics'" (App. Br. 13-14). Appellants also reference Welser (Interview of Dr. Jeff Welser, the Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Institute, available at http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/sander-olson-interview-of-jeff-welser.html (Exhibit B of the Evidence Appendix)) and quote"[i]t isn't clear if memristors are suitable for logic" since "memristors operate slower than silicon transistors" (App. Br. 14). Thus, Appellants contend "it would not have been predictable for one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve faster switching speeds, as contended by the Office Action, to incorporate the memristor of Wu in the display device of Chang" (id.) wherein such combination "demonstrates a blatant application of impermissible hindsight" (App. Br. 17). As an initial matter, we note Appellants' contentions are premised on "[the] references having unrelated teachings," and that the Examiner "has not articulated a legal reasoning" to support the rejection (id. at 11 ), which "demonstrates a blatant application of impermissible hindsight" (id. at 17). We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejection of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings, 5 Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. Chang discloses a flat-panel display system comprising a plurality of TFT pixel cells, each pixel cell comprising a three-terminal, switching TFT device to control a respective pixel associated with the flat panel display based on the image data (FF 2). That is, Chang discloses a flat-panel display system similar to Appellants' (FF 1), with the exception that Chang's switching device is a TFT and not a memristive device (id.). Even Appellants do not contest that Chang discloses switching devices, but rather contend that Chang "fails to provide any indication that other types of switching devices can be substituted" (App. Br. 12). As the Examiner points out, "[t]he sole difference between Chang and the claimed invention is that the switches in the pixel cell are memristive devices" (Ans. 5). Wu discloses memristive devices used as switching devices, wherein various geometries can be used to increase the switching speed and flexibility of memristive devices (FF 3). We agree with the Examiner's finding that "Wu[] teaches switching/routing devices ... can be used in a variety of switching applications" (Ans. 4). We find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Wu for the teaching and suggestion of "memristive devices" used as switching devices, as required in claim 1. We find Appellants' contention that references are directed to "unrelated teachings" (App. Br. 11) unpersuasive, and agree with the Examiner that the references are both are directed to switching/routing devices. The test for obviousness is what Chang, when combined with Wu, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We agree with the 6 Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 Examiner that "it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to substitute one routing device with another" (Ans. 3). We are not persuaded of Examiner error in finding "the simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another" would have obtained "predictable results" (Ans. 5). Although we are fully aware that hindsight bias can plague determinations of obviousness, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966), we are also mindful the Supreme Court has clearly stated the "combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). That is, when considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id. at 417. The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421. Here, even Appellants concede that it is well-known that there are "advantages of the use of memristors" (App. Br. 13-14 (citing Gale)). Appellants also concede that there is a "surge of interest in memristors" among the skilled artisans, wherein there is "focus" on determining whether "memristors are suitable for logic" (App. Br. 14 (citing Welser)). Further, Appellants have presented no evidence that incorporating Wu's memristor devices into the pixel cells of Chang would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Although Appellants contend "Gale indicates that memristors do not provide a faster switching speed than 7 Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 'standard electronics'" (App. Br. 13-14), and that "memristors operate slower than silicon transistors" (id. at 14 (citing Welser)), we agree with the Examiner's finding Wu discloses that various geometries can be used to increase the switching speed and flexibility of memristor devices (Ans. 5; FF 3). Further, "a finding that the prior art as a whole suggests the desirability of a particular combination need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggests that the combination claimed ... is the preferred, or most desirable, combination." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). It is sufficient that references suggest doing what Appellants did, although the Appellants' particular purpose was different from that of the references. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538-39 (CCPA 1967)). As our reviewing court guides in KSR: When a work is available in one field 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. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. This reasoning is applicable here. We conclude that it would have been well within the skill of one skilled in the art to substitute Wu's memristive devices as the switching devices in Chang, and then using the various geometries to increase the switching speed and flexibility of memristive devices as desired. Such a substitution/design choice would have been well within the skill of the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That is, we agree Appellants' invention is simply a modification of familiar prior art 8 Appeal2015-002281 Application 13/445,995 teachings (as taught or suggested by the cited references) that would have realized a predictable result, id. at 421. Minor differences between the prior art and a claimed device may be a matter of design choice absent evidence to the contrary. See In re Rice, 341F.2d309, 314 (CCPA 1965). On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2-7 falling therewith (App. Br. 19), over Chang and Wu. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for independent claims 8 and 12 separate from claim 1 (id. at 19-20), and thus claims 8 and 12, and claims 9-11 and 13-15 depending respectively therefrom fall with claim 1 over Chang and Wu. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation