Ex Parte Warnes et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 2, 201411878860 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LIDIA WARNES, MICHAEL BOZICH CALHOUN, DENNIS CARR, TEDDY LEE, DAN VU, and RICARDO ERNESTO ESPINOZA-IBARRA ____________ Appeal 2011-011228 Application 11/878,860 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-011228 Application 11/878,860 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a memory controller having one or more DIMM channels coupled thereto. Each DIMM channel includes one or more DIMMS, and each of the one or more DIMMs includes at least one rank of DRAM devices. The memory controller is loaded with programming to test the DIMMs to designate at least one specific rank of DRAM devices as a spare rank (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A system for implementing rank sparing, comprising: a memory controller; and one or more DIMM channels coupled to the memory controller, wherein each DIMM channel comprises one or more DIMMs, wherein each of the one or more DIMMs comprises at least one rank of DRAM devices, and wherein the memory controller comprises programming to test all the DIMMs (ranks) installed in the DIMM channels to designate at least one specific rank of DRAM devices as a spare rank. REFERENCE and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Nagaraj (US 2008/0270675 A1, published Oct. 30, 2008). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Nagaraj teaches all the limitations of Appellants’ claimed invention. The Examiner asserts Appellants have not shown how Appeal 2011-011228 Application 11/878,860 3 designating a specific rank as claimed is different from the spare memory locations in Nagaraj (Ans. 12). We agree with the Examiner Nagaraj’s paragraph [0024] teaches monitoring in-use memory locations or data errors that have been detected (Ans. 4, 11). However, the Examiner’s reliance on Nagaraj’s paragraph [0023] as teaching “specifying the amount of data or the whole rank” to meet the limitation of “designate at least one specific rank” is unfounded as paragraph [0023] makes no such assertion (Ans. 12). That is, paragraph [0023]’s statement “multiple spare regions may be allocated, with each of these spare regions being located on different rows of the DRAMS” does not teach testing all DIMMs (ranks) in the DIMM channels “to designate at least one specific rank of DRAM” as a spare rank, as claimed. Although the Examiner has pointed to spare memory locations, the Examiner has not provided where Nagaraj teaches designating at least one specific rank of DRAM devices as a spare rank. Thus, “Nagaraj’s ‘set of spare locations’ is not equivalent to, and does not teach, ‘rank sparing’” (App. Br. 11). As Nagaraj does not teach every limitation of Appellants’ claimed invention (all claims were argued together), we are constrained by this record to find Appellants’ claims not anticipated by Nagaraj. We do not consider an obviousness rejection as the Examiner did not make such a rejection. Appeal 2011-011228 Application 11/878,860 4 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation