2019001908 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020)

Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 1, 2020

2019001908 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020)

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. 14/068,454 10/31/2013 Jan Otterstedt INFAP577US 6209 51092 7590 05/01/2020 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC. Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER OLSON, ALEX G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2137 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2020 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): docketing@eschweilerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAN OTTERSTEDT and THOMAS KERN ____________ Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRYAN F. MOORE, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–16, and 18–23. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 2, 5, 17, and 24 are cancelled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Infineon Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 31, 2018, “Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed January 3, 2019, “Reply. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed November 30, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed July 21, 2017, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed October 31, 2013, Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention The claims relate to a method for processing data. See Abstract. Claims Claims 1, 16, and 23 are independent. Claims App’x. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1 which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method for data processing comprising: determining a blank state for several data bits based on a majority decision, wherein each data bit of the several data bits is represented by a group of at least two memory cells, wherein the at least two memory cells of this group are complementary cells of a differential read memory; setting a blank indicator for the several data bits in case the blank state is determined; and re-setting the blank indicator for the several data bits in case the blank state is not determined. “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 3 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS References Name Publication Number Date Wuidart US 2003/0126513 A1 July 3, 2003 Kasai US 2009/0254696 A1 Oct. 8, 2009 Kato US 2012/0033495 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 Krick US 2012/0079350 A1 Mar. 29, 2012 D’Abreu US 2013/0073924 A1 Mar. 21, 2013 Rejections3 1. Claims 1, 3–11, 16, 18–20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai, Wuidart, and Kato. Final Act. 5–11. 2. Claims 12–14 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai, Wuidart, Kato, and D’Abreu. Final Act. 11–13. 3. Claims 15 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kasai, Wuidart, Kato, and Krick. Final Act. 13–14. 3 The Application is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–16, and 18–23 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4–9; and in the Reply Brief, pages 2–5. CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 6–16, AND 18–23: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KASAI, WUIDART, AND KATO. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “setting a blank indicator for the several data bits in case the blank state is determined; and re-setting the blank indicator for the several data bits in case the blank state is not determined.” Independent Claims 16 and 23 contain commensurate recitations. Appellant contends the prior art fails to teach this limitation. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends the Specification discloses a table having a field which is set to “0” to indicate that a read data word is not blank and is set to “1” to indicate the data word is blank. Appeal Br. 5 (citing Spec., ¶¶ 37, 38; Fig. 6). Appellant argues the Examiner finds Kato, but not either Kasai or Wuidart teaches this limitation. Id. Appellant argues Kato checks whether cells are in a blank state and returns a value for a variable labeled “BLKCHK,” but that Kato fails to set or reset a blank indicator field, as claimed. Appeal Br. 6. Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 5 The Examiner finds: “applicant treats the ‘setting of the blank indicator’ as a separate piece of data that is set and reset.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds: “the claims do not support that interpretation.” Id. Appellant contends, contrary to the Examiner that “the blank indicator is an additional piece of information and is separate from whether data bits are blank.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues the Answer does not dispute that Kato does not teach setting a blank indicator. Id. Appellant argues, rather, the Answer misinterprets the claims such that only an indication, but not setting a field is required. Id. Claim Construction Because Appellant and the Examiner differ, we first construe the claims. Claim construction is an important step in a patentability determination. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Both anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 are two- step inquiries. The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims. . . . The second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” (internal citations omitted)). A determination of anticipation, as well as obviousness, involves two steps. First is construing the claim, a question of law, followed by, in the case of anticipation or obviousness, a comparison of the construed claim to the prior art. This comparison process involves fact-finding. See Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Appellant and the Examiner differ in their interpretation of the claimed “setting of the blank indicator.” The MPEP makes clear that the Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 6 intrinsic record (e.g., the specification) must be consulted to identify which of the different possible definitions is most consistent with the invention’s use of the terms. See MPEP § 2111.01 (III) quoting Brookhill-Wilk 1, 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Where there are several common meanings for a claim term, the patent disclosure serves to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings.”). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “setting a blank indicator for the several data bits in case the blank state is determined.” Appellant’s Specification discloses: “Fig.6 shows an example table comprising a blank indicator which indicates whether a data word read is deemed blank or not.” Spec., ¶ 12. The Specification further discloses: “Fig.12 shows an example table that utilizes two thresholds for the ratio m/n to enable a distinction between the states blank, erroneous and valid.” Spec., ¶ 18. Further: Fig.6 shows an example table comprising a blank indicator which indicates whether a data word read is deemed blank or not. Hence, if the ratio m/n is less than 50%, the data word is assumed to be valid, each bit of the data word is assumed to have a value of either “0” or “1” depending on the currents of their respective complementary cells. In such case, the blank indicator is set to “0.” Spec., ¶ 37 (emphasis added). In contrast to Appellant’s construction, the Examiner’s construction of the claimed “setting of the blank indicator,” relies upon the prior art, Kato, but does not refer to Appellant’s Specification. See Ans. 3 Contrary to the Examiner, Claim 1 explicitly recites “setting a blank indicator for the several data bits in case the blank state is determined” and Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 7 independent Claims 16 and 23 contain commensurate recitations. Moreover, the Specification explicitly discloses setting the blank indicator. See Spec., 37 (“In such case, the blank indicator is set to “0”). “Above all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original). See In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–50 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (vacating Board decision due to Board’s unreasonably broad claim interpretation). The Examiner applies Kato, but not the remaining art, to teach this disputed limitation. See Ans. 3–7. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–16, and 18–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2019-001908 Application 14/068,454 8 CONCLUSION4 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6– 16, 18–23 103 Kasai, Wuidart, Kato, D’Abreu, Krick 1, 3, 4, 6– 16, 18–23 REVERSED 4 Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons discussed herein, we need not address Appellant’s further arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).