Ex Parte Stott et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 5, 2019

15250685 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/250,685 08/29/2016 Bret G. Stott
44429 7590 03/07/2019
Peninsula Patent Group
5061 Crail Way
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
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.
RBS2.P053C2 5308
EXAMINER
HAILEGIORGIS, FITWI Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2632
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2019 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):
lkreisman@peninsulaiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRET G. STOTT, CRAIGE. HAMPEL,
and FREDERICK A. WARE
Appeal2018-006582 1
Application 15/250,685
Technology Center 2600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 2-21. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Rambus, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-006582
Application 15/250,685
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to a "signaling system that adaptively
compensates for phase errors between data signals and corresponding
sample-timing signals." Spec. ,r 6. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are independent;
claim 2 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added):
2. An integrated circuit (IC) memory controller, comprising:
a timing signal pin to receive a timing signal;
a first data pin to receive first data and having first
sampling circuitry;
a second data pin to receive second data and having second
sampling circuitry;
a timing controller coupled to the timing signal pin, the
first data pin and the second data pin, the timing controller
operative during a runtime operation mode to
detect a first phase difference between a phase of
the timing signal and a phase of the first data, and adjust the
phase of the first data to a first calibrated phase based on the first
phase difference, and
detect a second phase difference between the phase
of the timing signal and a phase of the second data, and adjust
the phase of the second data to a second calibrated phase based
on the second phase difference;
the timing controller to detect the first phase difference
and the second phase difference in a sequence;
wherein the first sampling circuitry samples the first data
based on the first calibrated phase; and
wherein the second sampling circuitry samples the second
data based on the second calibrated phase.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 2-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee (US 2004/0187046 Al; Sept. 23, 2004) and Jakobs
(US 2005/0094462 Al; May 5, 2005). Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2018-006582
Application 15/250,685
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred; we adopt the
Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following
for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding that claim 2' s "'run-
time mode' may be interpreted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
standard, to include initialization or start-up circuitry and/or procedures"
because "Applicant's specification contrasts the difference between run-
time' and 'initial synchronization['] or 'initialization."' App. Br. 13 (citing
Spec. ,r 53). Appellants contend the Examiner has failed to "provide 'an
interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes
[the] invention in the specification."' App. Br. 14, quoting In re Smith
International, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that "Lee teaches the "run-time" mode of operation, even though Lee did not
explicitly mention the term 'run-time' mode of operation," as "Lee teaches
continuous calibration data paths which Examiner interpreted as the run-time
mode of operation." Ans. 10, citing Lee ,r,r 5, 38, 40, 54; see also In re
Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("the reference need not
satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test"). We also agree that "when a device 'starts-
up' or 'reset', the device is 'running,"' within the meaning of the claims.
Ans. 10. That is, the particularly claimed "mode" is taught or suggested by
Lee's mode of operation in which calibration occurs. See Final Act. 2-3.
3
Appeal2018-006582
Application 15/250,685
We are not persuaded that the Examiner's interpretation of the
claimed "runtime operation mode" is in conflict with the claimed usage of
"runtime" ( or run-time) in light of the disclosure. The disclosure fails to
provide a definition for run-time mode; however, the disclosure discusses
different modes of operation in which the calibration mode is different from
the conventional operating mode:
Accordingly, the memory controller may read the non-
volatile storage device to determine whether the memory
subsystem or some subset of the memory devices therein
include circuitry to support adaptive timing calibration and, if
so, operate the memory system in an adaptive timing
calibration mode instead of a conventional operating mode.
Spec. ,r 45 ( emphasis added); see also Advisory Act. 2. Based on the record
before us, we disagree with Appellants' argument that
[a]s those skilled in the art understand, an initialization, start-up
or reset procedure for a memory device involves setting key
parameters to an "initial" value. Those initial values are
generally determined, and stored in registers, during calibration
operations carried out prior to run-time operation.
Reply. Br. 6 (emphasis added). Rather, we agree with the Examiner that
those skilled in the art recognize that "run-time" is a broad term that includes
the execution operations taught by the cited references. See Ans. 10-11.
Further, Appellants have not persuasively shown the Examiner errs in
finding one of ordinary skill would modify Lee's teachings to "detect[] a
first phase difference between a phase of the timing signal and a phase of the
first data and similarly detect[] a second phase difference between the phase
of the timing signal and the phase of the second data, as taught by Jakobs."
Final Act. 8; Jakobs ,r 64, claim 1; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425
4
Appeal2018-006582
Application 15/250,685
( CCP A 19 81) ("The test for obviousness is not ... that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.")
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
2, and independent claims 9 and 16 commensurate in scope and not argued
separately, as well as all dependent claims. See App. Br. 15.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5