Ex Parte Pekny et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 28, 2011

10683075 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jan. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THEODORE T. PEKNY and STEPHEN J. GUALANDRI
_____________

Appeal 2009-005214
Application 10/683,075
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005214
Application 10/683,075

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ Figure 3 is reproduced below:

Appellants’ Figure 3 and claimed invention are directed to a memory
300 having segments 302, 304, 306, and 308. Each segment 302, 304, 306,
and 308 has four partitions and a single program/sense amp row. For
example, segment 302 comprises partitions labeled 0, 1, 2, and 3. Also in
each of the segments 302, 304, 306, and 308 there is a break, wherein a
program row 310, 312, 314, and 318 comprises sense amplifiers and
Appeal 2009-005214
Application 10/683,075

3
program pathways for each of the four partitions in a segment. In other
words, each segment or stack of partitions has its own set of amplifiers and
program pathways (see Spec. ¶¶ [0021]-[0022]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A multiple partition memory architecture, comprising:
a plurality of partitions, each partition comprising a plurality of
memory blocks of memory cells;
a plurality of groups of at least two partitions;
a plurality of program path and sense circuits, one common program
path and sense path circuit for each of the plurality of groups; and
separate pluralities of read and algorithm datalines, each of the
plurality of read and algorithm datalines spanning one of the plurality of
groups and its common program path and sense path circuit.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Motoshima US 5,847,994 Dec. 8, 1998
Kamei US 6,822,900 B2 Nov. 23, 2004
Honda US 6,829,194 B2 Dec. 7, 2004
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-15, 17-20, and 23-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamei in view of
Motoshima.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 10, 16, 21, and 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kamei in view of Motoshima
and Honda.

Appeal 2009-005214
Application 10/683,075

4
ISSUE
The issue is whether the combination of Kamei in view of Motoshima
teaches “one common program path and sense path circuit for each of the
plurality of groups,” as recited in claim 1.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow since applicants have the power during the
administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van
Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

ANALYSIS
Analysis with respect to claim 1
The Examiner finds that Kamei discloses the recited “one common
program path and sense path circuit for each of the plurality of groups” and
alternatively relies on Motoshima for such a teaching (Ans. 7).
Appellants argue (Br. 8-10) that Kamei does not disclose sense
amplifier circuitry for each group, and thus, the claim limitation of “one
common program path and sense path circuit for each of the plurality of
groups,” as recited in claim, 1 is not met. Appellants assert that Kamei’s
Y pass and sector select circuits are not in fact sense amplifiers, but instead
they connect to the sense amplifier/bitline 516 (Br. 8-9 (citing Kamei col.
14, ll. 51-55)). Appellants conclude that the Examiner ignored Appellants’
Appeal 2009-005214
Application 10/683,075

5
Specification (¶¶ [0021]-[0022]), which describes the claimed “one common
program path and sense path circuit for each of the plurality of groups” as
sense amplifiers and program pathways for each of the four partitions of a
segment.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We adopt the
Examiner’s findings of fact and reasoning as set out in the Answer and we
address the following for emphasis.
Claim 1 does not recite a “sense amplifier.” Thus, the Examiner
reasonably interpreted (Ans. 7) the claimed “program path and sense path
circuit” as broad enough to read on circuitry that provides a path for
programming and sensing data (i.e., in Kamei’s Figure 13, common Y pass
circuit and sector select circuit for each sector). Although claims are
interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are
not read into the claims (i.e., sense amplifier). See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at
1184.
The Examiner finds (Fin. Rej. 2-3), and Appellants do not deny, that
Kamei teaches a plurality of partitions (e.g., plurality of large blocks 0 to 7;
Fig. 13; col. 14, ll. 19-23), each partition (i.e., large block) having a plurality
of memory blocks (small blocks 212; Figs. 7C, 7D). The Examiner and
Appellants agree that each group of the recited “groups of at least two
partitions” reads on one of Kamei’s sectors sec0 to sec31 (Fig. 13) and that
each of the recited “plurality of groups of at least two partitions” therefore
reads on a respective plurality of sectors sec0 to sec31(Fin. Rej. 3; Br. 9).
Sectors sec0 to sec31 are connected via Y pass circuits and sector select
circuits 370-0 to 370-31 (Fig. 13) to sense amplifier/bit line driver 516 (Fig.
12). For the reasons given above, the Examiner reasonably interpreted the
Appeal 2009-005214
Application 10/683,075

6
claim language “one common program path and sense path circuit for each
of the plurality of groups” as broad enough to read on Y pass circuit and
sector select circuits 370-0 to 370-31. That is, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ reliance on the fact that Figure 12 of Kamei shows a single
amplifier 516 for multiple sectors 210 (Br. 9), because, as we stated supra,
the claim does not recite a “sense amplifier” and the Examiner reasonably
interpreted the claim language as explained in the Final Rejection (Fin. Rej.
2-3).
Appellants acknowledge (Br. 9) that Motoshima is not needed if (as
we have found) Kamei already teaches the above disputed limitation. We
therefore will sustain the rejection of claim 1. Because we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that the claim language in question is broad enough to
read on Kamei, it is not necessary to address the Examiner’s alternative
reliance on Motoshima, which assumes that the claim language in question
does not read on Kamei.
Analysis with respect to claim 2-25
For similar reasons as those stated above, we will also sustain the
rejections of independent claims 6, 12, 17, and 23-25, because Appellants
(Br. 10-24) repeat the same arguments as those presented supra. We will
also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 5, 10, 16, 21, and
22, as Appellants (Br. 24-26) do not present any separate arguments of
patentability, but rather, rely on their dependency from their respective
argued independent claims. Furthermore, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 18-20 because no
separate arguments for patentability were presented. See In re Nielson, 816
F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appeal 2009-005214
Application 10/683,075

7

CONCLUSION
The combination of Kamei in view of Motoshima teaches “one
common program path and sense path circuit for each of the plurality of
groups.”

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-25 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc

LEFFERT JAY & POLGLAZE, P.A.
P.O. BOX 581009
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55458-1009