Ex Parte Mouttet

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2014

12007174 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
12/007,174 01/08/2008 Blaise Laurent Mouttet 7425
7590 09/30/2014
Blaise Mouttet
1825 Harrison Street Apt # 14
Neenah, WI 54956
EXAMINER
DANG, CHRISTINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2014 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
____________

Ex parte BLAISE LAURENT MOUTTET
____________

Appeal 2012–004585
Application 12/007,174
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1, 8, 9, and 12–24. Claims 2–7,
10, and 11 have been canceled. (App. Br. 5.)
1
We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1
We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) filed January 8, 2008 and
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed August 12, 2011. We also refer to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 19, 2011.
Appeal 2012–004585
Application 12/007,174

2

Appellant’s Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns processors including a
crossbar array comprising rectification layers and a programmable resistance
layer which stores bit patterns representative of numerical values in the
columns of the array. (Spec. ¶ 9; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A processor comprising:
a crossbar array including row wires and column wires
wherein bit patterns representative of numerical values are
stored in a plurality of columns of the crossbar array and
wherein the bit patterns store data in the form of high or low
resistance states; and
an output unit electrically connected to the rows of the
crossbar array configured to sum the numerical values stored in
the columns of the crossbar array,
wherein the crossbar array is formed from a first
crossbar section including a first rectification layer to allow
current flow in one direction and disallow current flow in an
opposite direction and a second crossbar section including a
second rectification layer to allow current flow in one direction
and disallow current flow in an opposite direction and wherein
a programmable resistance material is sandwiched between the
first crossbar section and the second crossbar section.

Appeal 2012–004585
Application 12/007,174

3

Rejections on Appeal
2

1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 12–14, 17, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,249,144,
issued Sep. 28, 1993 (“Falk”) and Shamik Das et al, Architectures &
Simulations for Nanoprocessor Systems Integrated on the Molecular Scale,
479–512, Lect. Notes Phys. 680 (2005) (“Das”).
2. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Falk, Das, and U.S. Patent No. 7,459,927 B2, issued Dec.
2, 2008 (filed Aug. 24, 2005) (“Bedard”).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Falk, Das, Bedard, and U.S. Patent No. 5,307,065, issued
Apr. 26, 1994 (“Tokuhiro”).
4. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Falk, Das, and U.S. Patent No. 4,064,421, issued
Dec. 20, 1977 (“Gajski”).
5. The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Falk, Das, and U.S. Patent No. 7,441,267 B1, issued
Oct. 21, 2008 (filed Mar. 19, 2003) (“Elliott”).
6. The Examiner rejects claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Falk, Das, and U.S. Patent No. 4,633,386, issued
Dec. 30, 1986 (“Terepin”).

2
The Examiner includes claim 23 in the first (Ans. 5) and ninth (Ans. 17)
grounds of rejection, but only addresses claim 23 in the ninth ground of
rejection (Ans. 17). We find this typographical error to be harmless and
consider the grounds of rejection before us to include claim 23.
Appeal 2012–004585
Application 12/007,174

4

7. The Examiner rejects claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Falk, Das, and U.S. Patent No. 5,029,120, issued
July 2, 1991 (“Brodeur”).
8. The Examiner rejects claim 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Falk, Das, and Yu Huang et al., Logic Gates and
Computation from Assembled Nanowire Building Blocks, 1313–1317
SCIENCE 294 (2001) (“Huang”).
9. The Examiner rejects claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Falk, Das, and U.S. Patent No.
6,835,575 B2, issued Dec. 28, 2004 (filed Mar. 28, 2003) (“Chen”).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Falk and Das would have
collectively taught or suggested “bit patterns representative of numerical
values are stored in a plurality of columns of the crossbar array” within the
meaning of Appellant’s claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claim
20?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious in view of Falk and Das. (Ans. 5–7, 18–19.) Appellant
contends that Falk and Das do not teach the disputed features of claim 1.
(App. Br. 10.) Specifically, Appellant contends that “Falk does not store
Appeal 2012–004585
Application 12/007,174

5

data in the crossbar and the optical crossbar of Falk is simply used as a
medium for transmitting light with the level of light intensity being used as a
measure for arithmetic (see Fig. 1 and column 3, lines 38–51 of Falk).”
(App. Br. 10.)
The Examiner does not address Appellant’s contention. Instead, the
Examiner explains that Falk describes bit patterns representative of
numerical values. (Ans. 5, 19.) Consequently, we are constrained by the
record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding Falk and Das
teach the recited features of Appellant’s claim 1.
We restrict our findings solely to this issue — that the Examiner failed
to address Appellant’s argument that Falk does not store data in its crossbar.
We make no additional findings with respect to Appellant’s claim 1 or Falk
and Das. We leave it to the Examiner, in the event of further prosecution, to
interpret how numerical values are stored in Appellant’s crossbar and if the
prior art references describe equivalent “storage.” We note that Das
describes a programmable logic array having a programmable resistance at
the wire junctions similar to Appellant’s crossbar (Das, p. 483). We further
note that other issues raised by Appellant in the instant Appeal are similar to
issues previously addressed in related Appeal No, 2009–010041 of
Application 11/395,233 — that Falk does not teach programmed
conductivity states and that Falk and Das are not properly combinable (that
the combination would destroy Falk’s principle of operation). We need not
address any additional issues in view of our finding (supra) that the
Examiner erred in not addressing Appellant’s storage contention.

Appeal 2012–004585
Application 12/007,174

6

Appellant’s independent claim 20 includes limitations commensurate
in scope to claim1, and Appellant makes the same unrebutted argument with
respect thereto (App. Br. 10). Appellant’s dependent claims 8, 9, 12–19, and
21–24 depend on and stand with claims 1 and 20 respectively. Accordingly,
we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 8, 9, and 12–
24.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 8,
9, and 12–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 8, 9, and 12–24.

REVERSED

ELD