Ex Parte Radke

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2016

14148019 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 2016)

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.
14/148,019 01/06/2014 William H. RADKE M3400.397.104 5812
128996 7590 12/12/2016
DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA - MICRON
100 S 5TH ST STE 2250
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
RIZK, SAMIR WADIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2112
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2016 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):
USPTO.PATENTS @dbclaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM H. RADKE
Appeal 2016-003128
Application 14/148,019
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
integrated circuits. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2016-003128
Application 14/148,019
1. A memory device, comprising:
an array of memory cells arranged in a plurality of
sectors, wherein the array of memory cells is further arranged in
a plurality of ECC coverage areas; and
control circuitry, wherein the control circuitry is
configured to adjust a size of one or more of the ECC coverage
areas.
Reference and Rejection1
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Egner (US 8,402,325 B2; Mar. 19, 2013).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner erred in finding Egner discloses “control
circuitry, wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust a size of one or
more of the ECC [error correcting code] coverage areas,” as recited in
independent claim 1. See App. Br. 15—20; Reply Br. 2—6.
The Examiner initially cites Egner’s input/encoder 10 and error rate
assessment 12 of Figure 1, and column 4, lines 20-25 and column 5, lines
50-60 for disclosing the disputed claim limitation. See Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues, and we agree, the cited Egner portions do not disclose the
disputed claim limitation. See App. Br. 15—20.
1 The Examiner withdrew a non-statutory double patenting rejection. Ans.
2.
2
Appeal 2016-003128
Application 14/148,019
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner cites excerpts
from Egner’s columns 3—5 (Ans. 3—4), and finds “Egner teaches several
embodiments for dynamically selecting (i.e. adjusting) an ECC for encoding
data prior to storage in a memory device.” Ans. 3.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not shown Egner’s
disclosure of selecting an ECC constitutes “adjust[ing] a size of one or more
of the ECC coverage areas,” as required by claim 1. See Reply Br. 2—3.
Both the Specification and Egner define ECC as “error correction code.”
Spec. 1 5, Egner 1:12. In contrast, the Specification defines the claimed
“ECC coverage area” as “the data coverage area of the ECC codes”—not
merely ECC. Spec. 4; see Reply Br. 3. Further, the Examiner has not
provided any reasoning or evidence to show Egner’s teaching of selecting an
ECC necessarily discloses “adjust[ing] a size of one or more of the ECC
coverage areas.” See In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (Inherency can only be established when “prior art
necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, the claimed
limitations.”) (citations omitted).2
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claim 17 and 18 recites a claim limitation that is
substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims 17 and
2 Because a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is not before us, we express no
opinion as to whether claim 1 would have been obvious over Egner alone, or
in combination with additional references. We leave any such further
consideration to the Examiner.
3
Appeal 2016-003128
Application 14/148,019
18. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 17 and 18.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—16,
19, and 20, which depend from claims 1 and 18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
4