Ex parte Pignon

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 28, 1999

08168713 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 1999)

Application for patent filed December 16, 1993. 1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PATRICK PIGNON
____________
Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,7131
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1-15 and
17, which are all of the claims pending in this application.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a method for the processing of defective
elements in a memory. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A method for replacing defective elements of a memory array further comprising
redundant elements, the memory array having undergone a test for the detection of
defective elements, wherein said method comprises the following steps:
a) for each defective element detected:
- searching for a first non-defective redundant element which is
unassigned by testing of the redundant elements which have not
been assigned, and then
- assigning this first non-defective redundant element to the
defective element; and thereafter
b) after the assigning of a redundant element to each defective element has been
achieved, replacing each defective element with the assigned redundant element.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Saito et al. (Saito) 4,860,260 Aug. 22, 1989
Choi et al. (Choi) 5,299,161 Mar. 29, 1994
(Filed Nov. 18, 1991)
Claims 1 and 3-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Saito. Claims 2 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Saito in view of Choi.
Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
3
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s final
rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed Jul. 18, 1995), the examiner's answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed Jun. 13, 1996), the examiner’s answer to the reply brief (Paper No. 15, mailed Aug.
08, 1996) and the examiner's letter (Paper No. 17, mailed
Sep. 27, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to
the appellant's brief (Paper No. 11, filed Mar. 20, 1996), reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed Jul.
17, 1996) and supplemental reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed Sep. 12, 1996) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant argues that the examiner has not
Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
While we agree that the examiner has not addressed the limitation in claim 13 pertaining to2
“repeatedly,” we note that appellant has neither presented support for this limitation in the specification as
originally filed nor explained the limitation as it relates to the disclosed invention or prior art. We question
whether appellant intends to repeatedly search and assign redundant elements even after the first non-
defective element is located wherein all elements are retested in the sequence which were previously
assigned. Or, does appellant intend a different interpretation?
4
addressed the language of the invention as set forth in claims 1 and 13. We agree with2
appellant. The examiner has addressed the language of the claims and their limitations in
a general way rather than addressing the specific interrelation of the process steps. (See
final rejection at pages 3-5 which is incorporated into the answer at page 4.) Here, the
examiner addresses the individual steps and general functions being carried out by Saito.
In the Response to argument section, the examiner addresses the arguments with respect
to claim 23, which has been canceled by an amendment filed July 17, 1996.
Appellant argues that Saito does not teach or suggest the “SEQUENCE of steps”
as set forth in the language of claim 1. (See brief at page 10.) We agree with appellant.
Appellant further argues that:
[W]hile Saito uses a single method for testing the main memory and the
spare memory, the primary embodiment of the present application applies
two different methods for testing the main memory and the spare memory, in
order to improve the time needed to test and repair the memory. This
inventive method is different from that of Saito, and gives a corresponding
advantage in speed.
See brief at page 12. (Emphasis in original.) We agree with appellant.
The examiner addresses claim 1 in the examiner’s answer in response to the reply
brief. Here, the examiner states that “[c]laim 1 can be interpreted as describing the
Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
5
testing of all of the redundant elements (unassigned) prior to the search for a non-defective
redundant element.” (See examiner’s answer in response to the reply brief at page 3.)
We disagree with the examiner. The language of the claim states that “for each defective
element detected: searching for a first non-defective redundant element which is
unassigned by testing of the redundant elements which have not been assigned.”
(Emphasis added.) Therefore, the examiner’s interpretation of this limitation is
unreasonable in view of the fact that for each defective element, testing of redundant
elements is carried out. The examiner’s interpretation would equate the language of the
claim to the complete testing of the redundant elements prior to any search. For the
examiner’s interpretation, the language of the claim would have to recite “searching . . .
tested redundant elements” rather than “searching . . . by testing” as set forth in the claim.
This interpretation is contrary to the clear language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims over Saito alone.
Claim 13 includes a similar claim limitation that for each defective element, a
search is performed “by testing the redundant elements.” Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 13 and its dependent claims over Saito alone.
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Choi is added by the examiner, but the examiner
has not identified any teaching in Choi which remedy the above deficiency in Saito.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 17.
Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
6
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-15 and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JLD:clm
Appeal No. 1997-1015
Application No. 08/168,713
7
Michael J. Buchenhorner
Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart
500 East Broward Blvd.
Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394