13050349 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

Ex Parte Qureshi

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 13, 2016

13050349 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/050,349 03/17/2011 Muhammad Shakeel Qureshi 56436 7590 05/17/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82631707 2506 EXAMINER REIDLINGER, RONALD LANCE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2824 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/1712016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL QURESHI1 Appeal2015-000505 Application 13/050,349 Technology Center 2800 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, SHARON PENICK, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1and8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b).2 We AFFIRM. Technology The application is related to a memory device capable of being sensed using a memristive element connected to an alternating current. Abstract. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 2-5 and 9-12 stand objected to as being dependent on a rejected claim. Final Act. 4. Claims 15-20 stand allowed. Id. As discussed below, the rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 were also appealed but the Examiner intended to withdraw the rejections in the Answer. See Ans. 3. 1 Appeal2015-000505 Application 13/050,349 Representative Claim Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the key limitation emphasized: 1. A memory device capable of being sensed with an oscillating signal, the device comprising: a first terminal of a memristive element connected to an oscillating signal supply; and a second terminal of said memristive element connected to sensing circuitry, said sensing circuitry to determine an attenuation of an oscillating signal from said oscillating signal supply. Rejections Claims 1and8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Strachan et al. (US 2011/0204310 Al; Aug. 25, 2011). Final Act. 2. In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejections for "claims 6, 7, 13 and 8." Ans. 3. We determine inclusion of claim 8 to be an obvious typographical error. Specifically, we determine the Examiner meant to withdraw the rejection of claim 14. This is supported in two sections of the Examiner's Answer: Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal (Ans. 2-3) and Response to Argument (Ans. 3-5). Indeed, the Examiner's Answer maintains and explains the rejection of claim 8 as being anticipated. Ans. 2-5. Furthermore, it is clear from the Final Action and Answer that the Examiner intended to withdraw the rejection for claim 14, not claim 8, because claims 7 and 14 are substantially similar, and the same is clear from the Appeal Brief as even Appellant treats claims 7 and 14 as a group Gust as Appellant treats claims 6 and 13 as a group). See App. Br. 13. This is further confirmed by the lack of any discussion in the Answer of claim 14, whereas the Examiner does substantively discuss the rejection of claim 8. 2 Appeal2015-000505 Application 13/050,349 Ans. 3-5. Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner intended to withdraw the rejection of claim 14, and by continuing to discuss the merits of the rejection of claim 8 in the Answer, the Examiner maintained the rejection of claim 8. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Strachan discloses "said sensing circuitry to determine an attenuation of an oscillating signal from said oscillating signal supply," as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claim 8? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Strachan discloses "a memory controller of said crossbar array is to determine a resistive state of one of said memory elements," as recited in claim 8? ANALYSIS Claim Construction Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we note "attenuation" is not defined explicitly in the Specification. Appellant contends attenuation is limited to only the amplitude of voltage (see, e.g., Reply Br. 5), yet Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood attenuation to be limited to voltage rather than current or power. For example, the Specification discusses determining the resistive state "based on the attenuation of the signal" (Spec. i-f 30) and later states, "Throughout this specification and in the appended claims, the term signal may be an electrical signal either in a voltage or current form" (Spec. i-f 39). See also Spec. Fig. 3A, i-fi-129-30 (discussing 3 Appeal2015-000505 Application 13/050,349 attenuation in a graph of decibels, which is a measure of power). Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's determination that a difference in current constitutes attenuation. Anticipation We find Strachan discloses a nanowire switchable between two different states having two different resistances. Strachan i-f 7. Strachan further discloses that the voltage applied across the nanowire is constant regardless of which state it is in. Id. When the nanowire changes states (which Strachan also calls changing geometries), "the capacitive coupling to a nearby wire will change." Id. i-f 41. Thus, the nanowire's current state can be determined by monitoring the capacitive coupling. Id. "The capacitance measurement can be achieved by measuring an AC current flowing between the sense electrode 34 and any of the other electrodes 14, 16 in the system." Id. "If the amplitude of the applied AC sense voltage is kept low and its frequency high, then the sensing will not alter the memristive state of the nanowire 15." Id. Based on this, we find Strachan determines the state of the nanowire by measuring capacitance (Strachan i-f 41 ), which is achieved by measuring AC current (id.), yet throughout these measurements the voltage remains constant (id. i-f 7). Appellant argues the Examiner erred because in Strachan, the voltage is held constant and therefore the "amplitude of the AC voltage" is never measured. Reply Br. 5. Appellant contends that Strachan merely uses an alternating current to measure capacitance. App. Br. 9-10 (citing Strachan i-f 41 ). Appellant further urges that "[ o ]ne of skill in the art would know that capacitance is measured with an AC current by measuring a time lag, not 4 Appeal2015-000505 Application 13/050,349 amplitude of the current. ... This lag is caused by the capacitor being charged .... " App. Br. 10. Appellant has not persuasively shown error in the Examiner's conclusion. The Examiner finds and Appellant does not dispute that in Strachan's system, the following formula applies: I (current)= V (voltage)Â· w (frequency)Â· C (capacitance) Ans. 4. Therefore, "as capacitance increases so will the current, and vice versa." Id. Given that voltage is kept constant (Strachan i-f 7) and frequency is kept "high" (Strachan i-f 41 ), we agree with the Examiner that a change in capacitance will result in a corresponding change to current. This will be true regardless of the test used to measure capacitance. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that a difference in current constitutes "attenuation." Therefore, Strachan checking for high current versus low current constitutes determining the attenuation of current. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us Strachan fails to teach "said sensing circuitry to determine an attenuation of an oscillating signal from said oscillating signal supply," as recited in claim 1. For claim 8, Appellant repeats the same arguments as claim 1, which fail for the same reason. App. Br. 12. We also are not persuaded by Appellant's additional argument that Strachan fails to teach sensing circuitry "to determine a resistive state." Id. We agree with the Examiner that Strachan discloses a memristive nanowire with two states and performing a measurement to determine the current state of the nano wire. Ans. 4--5 (citing Strachan i-fi-17, 41). For example, Strachan discloses that "[t]his capacitance change can be used as the indicator of the state of the nanowire 15." Strachan i-f 41. Finally, Appellant argues that the Examiner's Answer 5 Appeal2015-000505 Application 13/050,349 withdrew the rejection of claim 8. Reply Br. 3 (citing Ans. 3). However, as discussed above, we determine this to be an obvious typographical error and by continuing to discuss the merits of the rejection elsewhere in the Answer, the Examiner maintained the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 8. DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 8. Correcting an obvious typographical error, we consider the rejection of claim 14 withdrawn. TIME TO RESPOND No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6