Ex Parte Wells

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 21, 2004

10113506 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 21, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte STEVE WELLS
________________
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before JERRY SMITH, DIXON and SAADAT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 22-53, which constitute
all the claims remaining in the application. An amendment after
final rejection was filed on August 11, 2003 but was denied entry
by the examiner.
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
-2-
The disclosed invention pertains to a method and
apparatus for controlling the access and storage of data in a
non-volatile memory device.
Representative claim 22 is reproduced as follows:
22. A method comprising:
receiving an encoded sequence of values by a non-volatile
memory device;
storing the encoded sequence of values in storage elements
of the non-volatile memory device; and
decoding the stored encoded sequences of values in a
decoding circuit within the non-volatile memory device.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Lawman 6,028,445 Feb. 22, 2000
Collins et al. (Collins) 6,378,072 Apr. 23, 2002
(filed Feb. 03, 1998)
Claims 22, 25, 31-34, 41-44 and 51-53 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Lawman. Claims 22-26, 31-36, 41-46 and 51-53 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure
of Collins. Claims 27-30, 37-39 and 47-49 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness the examiner
offers Collins taken alone. We note that pending claims 40 and
50 do not appear in any of these rejections. Since claims 40 and
50 recite limitations similar to rejected claim 30, we assume the
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
-3-
failure to include these claims in the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 was simply an oversight by the examiner. Appellant’s brief
includes claims 40 and 50 as part of the appeal. We also note
that the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of the claims under
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 [answer, page 2].
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon supports each of the examiner’s
rejections. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
-4-
Appellant has indicated that for purposes of this appeal
the claims will all stand or fall together as a single group
[brief, page 6]. Consistent with this indication appellant has
made no separate arguments with respect to any of the claims on
appeal. Accordingly, all the claims before us, within each
rejection, will stand or fall together. Note In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
We consider first the rejection of claims 22, 25, 31-34,
41-44 and 51-53 as being anticipated by Lawman. The examiner has
indicated how he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of
Lawman [answer, pages 3-6]. With respect to representative,
independent claim 22, appellant argues that the rejection is
improper because Lawman does not disclose a decoding circuit
within a non-volatile memory device to decode stored encoded
sequences of values as claimed. More specifically, appellant
argues that the decoding circuit of Lawman is situated separate
from the non-volatile memory [brief, pages 14-15]. The examiner
responds that the FPGA 1510 in Lawman is a non-volatile memory
device and the decoding circuit 1540 is located within this non-
volatile memory device. The examiner notes that the decoding
circuit of Lawman is separate from the non-volatile memory but
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
-5-
still within the non-volatile memory device in the same manner as
disclosed in appellant’s own invention [answer, pages 13-14].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 22,
25, 31-34, 41-44 and 51-53. We agree with the examiner’s
findings that the decoding circuit of Lawman is within the non-
volatile memory device in the same manner that the decoding
circuit of appellant’s own invention is within the non-volatile
memory device as shown in Figure 2. The non-volatile memory 1520
and the decoding circuit 1540 of Lawman are both included within
the non-volatile memory device 1510 as found by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claims 22-26, 31-36, 41-
46 and 51-53 as being anticipated by Collins. The examiner has
indicated how he reads the claimed invention on the disclosure of
Collins [answer, pages 6-11]. With respect to representative,
independent claim 22, appellant argues that the rejection is
improper because Collins does not disclose a decoding circuit
within a non-volatile memory device as claimed. More
specifically, appellant argues that the cryptographic processor
110 of Collins is located separate from memory devices 124 and
126 and that the DES engine 250 of Collins is located separate
from any of the memory devices [brief, pages 16-17]. The
examiner responds that the element 107 of Figure 1 of Collins
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
-6-
corresponds to the claimed non-volatile memory device and the
decoding circuit 110 is located within this non-volatile memory
device. The examiner notes that the decoding circuit of Collins
is separate from the non-volatile memory but still within the
non-volatile memory device in the same manner as disclosed in
appellant’s own invention [answer, pages 14-16].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 22-26,
31-36, 41-46 and 51-53. We agree with the examiner’s findings
that the decoding circuit of Collins is within the non-volatile
memory device in the same manner that the decoding circuit of
appellant’s own invention is within the non-volatile memory
device as shown in Figure 2. The non-volatile memory 124 and the
decoding circuit 110 of Collins are both included within the non-
volatile memory device 107 as found by the examiner.
We now consider the rejection of claims 27-30, 37-40 and
47-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant’s only argument in
response to this rejection is to repeat the fundamental argument
considered above with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. Since this argument was decided adversely to appellant
above, and since no other arguments have been presented, we
sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same
reasons discussed above.
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
-7-
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 22-53 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JS/ki
Appeal No. 2004-1425
Application 10/113,506
-8-
Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman
12400 Wilshire Boulevard
Seventh Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025