Ex Parte Mouttet

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2011

11395232 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2011)

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.
11/395,232 04/03/2006 Blaise Laurent Mouttet 1135
7590 03/29/2011
Blaise Mouttet
4201 Wilson Blvd. #110-364
Arlington, VA 22203
EXAMINER
DO, CHAT C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BLAISE LAURENT MOUTTET
____________

Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant invented a processor with a crossbar array and
programming unit designed to perform arithmetic processes and output a
numerical value. See generally Spec. 2, 4. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computing device comprising:
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N
conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a
second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of
rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive
parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first
and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of
the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high
conductive state representative of a binary value 1 or a relatively
low conductive state representative of a binary value 0;
a programming unit configured to program the crosspoints
to have one of the relatively high conductive state or the relatively
low conductive state so that at least one column of the crossbar
array stores a bit pattern representative of a programmed numerical
value;
an input unit configured to provide a bit pattern
representative of an input numerical value to the columns of the
crossbar array; and
a post-processing unit configured to convert analog signals
output from each of the rows of the crossbar array into digital
output bit patterns and configured to combine the digital output bit
patterns so as to form a resultant bit pattern representative of an
output numerical value,
wherein the output numerical value is mathematically
dependent on both the programmed numerical value and the input
numerical value.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Terepin US 4,633,386 Dec. 30, 1986
Falk US 5,249,144 Sept. 28, 1993
Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232

3
Hsu1 US 6,693,821 Feb. 17, 2004
Campbell US 6,867,996 Mar. 15, 2005

Shamik Das et al., Architectures & Simulations for Nanoprocessor Systems
Integrated on the Molecular Scale 1-34 (ch. 17), available at http://www-
mcg.uni-r.de (2006) (“Das”).

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-12, and 16-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Falk, Das, and Terepin. Ans. 3-8. 2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Falk, Das, Terepin, and Hsu. Ans. 8-9.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Falk, Das, Terepin, and Campbell. Ans. 9-10.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER FALK, DAS, AND TEREPIN
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that
Falk teaches all recited limitations, except for: (1) the crossbar array
includes wires; (2) the crosspoints are programmable to have an electrical
conductive state; and (3) the post-processing unit is configured to convert
analog signal outputs into a digital output bit patterns. Ans. 4-5. The
Examiner relies on Das to teach the crossbar being wires and its crosspoints
being programmable to have a conductive state, and Terepin to teach

1 Although Hsu and Campbell are not listed in the Answer’s “Evidence
Relied Upon” section (Ans. 3), these references are nonetheless included in
the rejection’s heading (see Ans. 8-9).
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 16,
2008 and (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 5, 2008.
Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232

4
including an analog-to-digital (A/D) component within the combined
Falk/Das system. Ans. 5, 12-13.
Appellant argues combining electrical circuitry as taught by Das and
Terepin with Falk’s optical circuitry would destroy Falk’s principle of
operation. Br. 10. Appellant also asserts that Falk fails to teach the
crossbar’s crosspoints are programmable to have relatively high and low
conductive states. See id. Lastly, Appellant contends that the Examiner has
not provided a reasonable teaching to combine Das and Terepin with Falk.
Br. 10-11.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Falk, Das, and Terepin collectively would have taught or
suggested a crossbar array that includes a first and second parallel wire set,
where intersections between the wire sets form crosspoints programmable so
as to be in a relatively high or low conductive state?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 4-5, 10-13.
2. Falk discusses that optical circuits or devices allow for
interconnect possibilities that do not exist with electronic hardware.
Falk, col. 1, ll. 11-21.
Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232

5
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, crossbar array that includes a first and second parallel wire set, where
intersections between the wire sets form crosspoints programmable so as to
be in a relatively high or low conductive state. Appellant states that Falk
does not teach programmed conductivity states. Br. 10. However, as the
Examiner notes (Ans. 11-12), the rejection relies on Falk and Das
collectively to teach this limitation, and thus, attacking Falk individually
does not show nonobviousness. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also adopt the Examiner’s finding regarding
what Falk and Das teaches relating to intersections forming crosspoints
programmable to have high or low states (see FF 1), and therefore disagree
with the Appellant (Br. 10) that Falk and Das collectively fail to teach the
crossbar array limitations.
That is, an ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that
substituting Das’ crossbar wired array (see FF 1) for Falk’s known optical
paths (see id.) would have predictably yielded no more than a computing
device having crossbar array whose intersections are now formed from the
wire sets and create crosspoints programmable so as to be in a relatively
high or low conductive state. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007). Also, to the extent that Appellant contends that Falk’s
system does not have programmable conductive states because Falk’s
system is an optical device (Br. 10), we again note that the obviousness
rejection is based on the collective teachings of Falk and Das which
predictably yield first and second parallel wire sets (e.g., a conductive path),
Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232

6
where the intersection between the sets form crosspoints programmable so
as to be in a relatively high or low conductive state. See id.; see also FF 1.
Appellant also argues that combining the teaching of Das with Falk
will destroy Falk’s principle of operation. See Br. 10. While Falk discusses
that the optical devices allow for interconnect possibilities that do not exist
with electronic hardware (FF 2), Falk in no way suggests that using
electronic hardware instead of optical hardware would destroy Falk’s
device’s ability to operate as a programmable arithmetic/logic unit. See id.
For example, even if Falk’s discusses a preferred embodiment (e.g., an
optical circuit with more interconnect possibilities), this does not teach away
from a non-preferred embodiment containing an arithmetic/logic system
having electrical circuitry with wire sets. See In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 446
(CCPA 1971). Additionally, a known system (e.g., an arithmetic/logic unit)
does not become patentable if described as somewhat inferior to some other
product for the same use (e.g., an arithmetic/logic unit with electrical
circuitry having less interconnect possibilities than one with optical
circuitry). See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Lastly, we disagree with Appellant that the Examiner has not provided
a reasonable teaching to combine Das and Terepin with Falk. Br. 10-11.
First, the Examiner has provided some reasoning from Das with some
rational underpinning to combine the references – namely to enable more
complex and specialized functions to be performed – (see Ans. 5, 12-13),
and Appellant has not challenged that this reasoning is without some basis
(Br. 10-11). Second, the Examiner does not have to demonstrate how Falk’s
optical circuit is transformed into an electrical circuit (Br. 10-11) or show
how to bodily incorporate Das’ features into Falk to establish obviousness.
Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232

7
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Obviousness focuses on
what the combined teachings would have suggested to an ordinarily skilled
artisan. See id. Third, as explained above, combining these references
would predictably yield and suggest no more than one skilled in the art
would expect—a computing device having a crossbar array whose
intersections between the wired sets form crosspoints programmable so as to
be in a relatively high or low conductive state. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Lastly, based on the cited teachings and the level of ordinary skill (i.e., an
electrical engineer with several years of related industry experience), an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized the relative advantages and
disadvantages of using electrical circuitry versus optical circuitry in the
recited application in terms of technical and practical considerations (e.g.,
cost, complexity, capabilities, etc.). Weighing these relative advantages and
disadvantages in selecting electrical circuitry in lieu of optical circuitry
amounts to an engineering tradeoff—a decision well within the level of
ordinarily skilled artisans. See Dystar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. v. C.H.
Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (2006).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the obviousness rejection of: independent claim 1 and claims 2, 6-12, and
16-20 not separately argued with particularity (see Br. 5, 10-11).

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Appellant has not particularly pointed out errors in the Examiner’s
reasoning to overcome the Examiner's obviousness rejection (Ans. 8-10) for
claims 3-5 and 13-15. See Br. 5, 10-11. We therefore sustain these
rejections for the reasons previously discussed.
Appeal 2009-010041
Application 11/395,232

8

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

erc