Ex Parte Pedrazzini et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 201612908661 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/908,661 10/20/2010 30424 7590 06/01/2016 ADDMG - ST (first filed US/ Asia) 255 S. Orange A venue, Suite 1401 Orlando, FL 32801 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Giorgio Pedrazzini 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. Ol-S-157US02 (5200026) 4310 EXAMINER PARK,ILWOO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2184 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2016 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): creganoa@addmg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GIORGIO PEDRAZZINI, SANDRO CERATO, and ALBERTO SALINA 1 Appeal2014-006965 Application 12/908,661 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-18 and 21-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify ST Microelectronics, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-006965 Application 12/908,661 Introduction Appellants state their invention particularly relates "to a self- configuring multiple IC system having a device performance signature stored in at least one chip." Spec. i-f 2 ("Field of the Invention"). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of making and using a multi-chip system compnsmg: fabricating a device to include a signature file memory; determining one or more performance parameters of a linear device; storing the parameters in the signature file memory; packaging the device; using parametric testing information of the packaged device to write to the device signature file; assembling a multi-chip system in which the device having a signature file is coupled to a logic device that is capable of reading the signature file and adapting some feature of the system behavior to the value stored in the signature file; and self-tuning the system using the value stored in the device signature file. App. Br. 5 (Claims App'x). Rejections Claims 1-3, 5-18, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chliwnyj et al. (US 6,574,679 Bl; June 3, 2003) and Wyatt et al. (US 2003/0188091 Al; Oct. 2, 2003). Final Act. 2-9. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chliwnyj, Wyatt, and Kirihata et al. (US 5,764,655; June 9, 1998). Final Act. 9-10. 2 Appeal2014-006965 Application 12/908,661 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions of Examiner error. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because "Wyatt does not fairly teach that either the environmental conditions or the specific characteristics stored in the status register as taught in paragraphs [0022] and [0045] therein are in response to testing the linear device as claimed." Br. 3. We agree with the Examiner's answer, which points out claim 1 does not recite "in response to testing" (Ans. 12) and Wyatt stores "operation parameters" that are commensurate with the recited parametric testing information: a) because Wyatt's operation parameters are used for testing ["[it may be desirable to allow] the host 10 to access the operation parameters when the memory device is tested during manufacture. Operation parameters may be measured internally or may be set according to operating conditions or configurations of the memory device" in paragraph 0041] and/or b) because Wyatt's operation parameters are test results written into the device signature file ["[ [ d] uring a test of the memory product,] certain parameters stored in the status registers may be updated or modified" in paragraph 0045; "inputting sensed parameters and updating the parameters periodically" in paragraph 0046]. Ans. 13-14 (italicized material added (italics for distinction, not emphasis)). 3 Appeal2014-006965 Application 12/908,661 Appellants also argue the Examiner errs because "neither Chliwnyj nor Wyatt teach or suggest storing data from the parametric testing in the package." Br. 3. We agree with the Examiner in finding claim 1 does not recite the argued "storing data from the parametric testing" requirement. Ans. 12. Appellants provide no persuasive argument explaining why or evidence demonstrating that the Examiner erred in any relevant findings, including: (1) Chliwnyj 's teaching of "operating characteristics, performance, voltage parameters, etc." (see col. 5, 11. 23-25) is commensurate with the claimed "performance parameters;" (2) the teachings of Chliwnyj, with its analog sensor devices including stored microcode containing the operating characteristics (see col. 5, 11. 14--30) and Wyatt, with its system including a controller coupled to a memory (see Fig. 3, i-f 45), are both commensurate with the claimed "packaging the device" requirement; and (3) Wyatt's teaching that "[d]uring a test of the memory product, certain parameters stored in the status registers may be updated" (see i-f 45), in combination with Chliwnyj, is commensurate with the claimed "using parametric testing information of the packaged device to write to the device signature file" requirement. See Final Act. 2--4. Appellants further argue the Examiner errs because "Wyatt teaches that data can be updated during testing, but never suggests what that data is and never suggests that it is related in any way to the results of the test," and "Chliwnyj is silent on this point," so "[t]herefore, Chliwnyj and Wyatt in combination do not show or suggest every element of the claims." We again 4 Appeal2014-006965 Application 12/908,661 agree with the Examiner, who points out claim 1 does not recite the argued "results of the test" requirement (Ans. 12). Appellants do not persuade us of any error in the Examiner's findings and reasons for why the combination of Wyatt and Chliwnyj teaches "using parametric testing information of the packaged device to write to the device signature file" as recited. See Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 13-14. For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellants argue the Examiner errs in rejecting the remaining claims 2-18 and 21-24 solely on the basis of the arguments for claim 1. See App. Br. 4. We accordingly sustain the Examiner's rejection of all pending claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 and 21-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection \vith this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation