Ex Parte Ong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

11403626 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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.
11/403,626 04/13/2006 Adrian E. Ong 27170.10 (L0010) 9948
7590 08/31/2017
Patent Dneket Administrator
EXAMINER
Lowenstein Sandler PC HSIEH, HSIN YI
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2816
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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 ADRIAN E. ONG and DONG SIK JEONG1
Appeal 2017-000640
Application 11/403,626
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JULIA HEANEY, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Rambus Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-000640
Application 11/403,626
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, and 11—17. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A semiconductor device package, comprising:
a semiconductor device comprising a first functional unit and a second
functional unit;
a first package pin to receive a signal and to provide an external
connection for the semiconductor device;
a first electric path connecting the first functional unit to the first
package pin;
a second electric path connecting the second functional unit to the
first package pin, wherein signals can pass from the first package pin
through the second electric path to the second functional unit regardless
of a configuration of a switch in the first electric path; and
the switch in the first electric path, wherein the configuration of the
switch is controlled by a control signal generated based on whether the first
electric path is busy or idle,
wherein, when the switch is in a first configuration, the first package
pin is electrically separated from the first functional unit, so that no current
flows between the first functional unit and the first package pin on the first
electric path; and
wherein, when the switch is in a second configuration, the first
package pin is electrically coupled to the first functional unit, so that current
flows between the first functional unit and the first package pin on the first
electric path.
2
Appeal 2017-000640
Application 11/403,626
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
of unpatentability:
Ong US 2006/0279308 A1 Dec. 14,2006
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 11—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Ong.
ANALYSIS
We focus on the claim element pertaining to “a second electric path
connecting the second functional unit to the first package pin, wherein
signals can pass from the first package pin through the second electric path
to the second functional unit regardless of a configuration of a switch in the
first electric path” in making our determination in this case.
Appellants argue on pages 4—5 of the Appeal Brief that Ong is
directed to an electronic device having an interface supported testing mode.
Ong, Abstract. Ong discloses a system for testing first and second ICs 910—
920 in a semiconductor device. Ong discloses that there is a “normal mode”
and a “test mode,” which are configured using an interface 930 to route
signals between the ICs 910-920 and electrical connectors 940A—H. Ong,
1104. Interface 930 is a multiplexing interface configured to convey
signals between a first connector of auxiliary IC 920 and system IC 910 in
the normal mode, and alternatively to convey signals between the first
connector of auxiliary IC 920 and a member of electrical connectors 940A-G
in the test mode. Ong, 1112. In the normal mode, signals are conveyed
between electrical connector 940B and system IC 910 through signal
3
Appeal 2017-000640
Application 11/403,626
path 1220. In the test mode, signals are conveyed between electrical
connector 940B and auxiliary IC 920 through multiplexer 1010B and signal
path 1230. Ong, 1118.
Appellants submit that Ong does not disclose that signals can pass
from electrical connector 940B through signal patch 1220 to the system IC
910 regardless of a configuration of multiplexer 1010B. Appeal Br. 5.
Rather, Ong discloses that current only flows to system IC 910 in the
“normal mode.” Appellants note that Ong specifically states that “electrical
connector 940B is configured to convey signals to different devices
depending on whether electronic device 900 is in the normal mode or the test
mode.” Ong, 1118. Id. Appellants submit that Ong’s conveying of the
signals to different devices when operating in the various modes of operation
cannot be properly interpreted as teaching that signals can pass to system IC
910 regardless of a configuration of the switch. Id.
In response, the Examiner states that Figure 10 of Ong teaches the
limitation "wherein signals can pass from the first package pin through the
second electric path to the second functional unit regardless of
a configuration of a switch in the first electric path." Ans. 6. The Examiner
submits that Figure 10 of Ong shows that the switch MUX 1010B is in the
first electric path (electric path 920-1030B-MUX1010B-1020C -940B) and
not in the second electric path (electric path 910-1020C-940B). Id. The
Examiner submits that switch MUX 1010B cannot block the signal
transmission in the second electric path because it is not in the second
electric path. Id. The Examiner concludes that Figure 10 of Ong teaches
wherein signals can pass from the first package pin (940B) through the
second electric path (electric path 910-1020C-940B) to the second functional
4
Appeal 2017-000640
Application 11/403,626
unit (910) regardless of a configuration of a switch (MUX 1010B) in the
first electric path (electric path 920-1030B-MUX1010B-1020C -940B). Id.
The Examiner further states that Figure 10 of Ong shows the same claimed
structure as Appellants’ Figure 3, which is Appellants’ support for this
limitation, which shows switch 350 is in the first electric path 330 and not
in the second electric path 340, i.e., Appellants’ Figure 3 teaches wherein
signals can pass from the first package pin 321 through the second electric
path 340 to the second functional unit 312 regardless of a configuration of a
switch 350 in the first electric path 330. Id. at 6—7. The Examiner
concludes that Ong teaches the claimed structure of the limitation of
"wherein signals can pass from the first package pin through the second
electric path to the second functional unit regardless of a configuration of a
switch in the first electric path" recited in claim 1. Id. at 7.
In reply, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of Ong’s
Figure 10 improperly ignores the description in Ong at 1118. Reply Br. 4—
5. Appellants explain that Ong is directed to an electronic device having an
interface supported testing mode. Ong, Abstract. Appellants state that Ong
discloses a system for testing first and second ICs 910-920 in a
semiconductor device. Ong discloses that there is a “normal mode” and a
“test mode,” which are configured using an interface 930 to route signals
between the ICs 910-920 and electrical connectors 940A-H. Ong, 1104.
Appellants state that interface 930 is a multiplexing interface configured to
convey signals between a first connector of auxiliary IC 920 and system IC
910 in the normal mode, and alternatively to convey signals between the first
connector of auxiliary IC 920 and a member of electrical connectors 940A-G
in the test mode. Ong, 1112. In the normal mode, signals are conveyed
5
Appeal 2017-000640
Application 11/403,626
between electrical connector 940B and system IC 910 through signal
path 1220. In the test mode, signals are conveyed between electrical
connector 940B and auxiliary IC 920 through multiplexer 1010B and signal
path 1230. Ong, 1118. Reply Br. 5.
Appellants also point to Figures 12 A and 12B of Ong which illustrate
portions of the same interface structure as shown in Figure 10. Reply Br. 5.
With respect to Figure 12 A, Ong states “in the normal mode state, signals
are conveyed through ... a signal path 1220 between system IC 910 and
electrical connector 940B.” Ong, 1118. With respect to Figure 12B, Ong
states “in the test mode state, signals are conveyed through a signal path
1230 between electrical connector 940B and auxiliary IC 920 through
interface 930. Ong, 1118. Reply Br. 5.
In view of the aforementioned disclosure, Appellants submit that Ong
makes it clear that in different test modes (i.e., different configurations of
MUX1010B in interface 930), different circuits are connected to
electronic connector 940B. Ong even explicitly states that “electrical
connector 940B is configured to convey signals to different devices
depending on whether electronic device 900 is in the normal mode or the test
mode.” Ong, 1118.
We are persuaded by the aforementioned position presented by
Appellants. As also pointed out by Appellants on page 6 of the Reply Brief,
in the test mode state, the resistance in the signal line between electrical
connector 940B and system IC 910 is significantly greater than that of the
signal line between electrical connector 940B and auxiliary IC 920, and as a
result, signals do not flow between electrical connector 940B and system
IC 910. Therefore, in Ong, signals need not necessarily always flow
6
Appeal 2017-000640
Application 11/403,626
between electrical connector 940B and system IC 910. Therefore, Ong does
not disclose that “signals can pass from the first package pin through the
second electric path to the second functional unit regardless of a
configuration of a switch in the first electric path,” as claimed.
In view of the above, we reverse the rejection.
DECISION
The rejection is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
7