Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 5, 2020

14483260 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 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.
14/483,260 09/11/2014 Umberto Siciliani P63927 1085
120376 7590 02/05/2020
Compass IP Law PC
4804 NW Bethany Blvd, Ste. I-2 #237
Portland, OR 97229
EXAMINER
KHAN, MASUD K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2131
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/05/2020 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):
admin@compassiplaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte UMBERTO SICILIANI, GUIDO LUCIANO RIZZO, and
MARCO CARMINATI
Appeal 2019-001728
Application 14/483,260
Technology Center 2100
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 11–15. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

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 Intel Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001728
Application 14/483,260
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a memory array with two or more volumes,
the volumes comprising two or more dice. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A memory array comprising:
two or more volumes, the volumes comprising two or
more dice, respectively;
wherein the volumes are connected in a daisy chain
configuration such that an output of a first volume is coupled to
an input of a next volume; and
wherein the dice included in a volume are connected in a
daisy chain configuration such that an output of a first die is
coupled to an input of a next die within the volume.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Xiao US 2010/0327420 A1 Dec. 30, 2010
Grunzke US 2012/0233433 A1 Sept. 13, 2012

REJECTION
Claims 1–5 and 11–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Grunzke and Xiao. Final Act. 3–9.
OPINION
Appellant argues Grunzke fails to teach the following limitations of
claim 1:
two or more volumes, the volumes comprising two or
more dice, respectively;
wherein the volumes are connected in a daisy chain
configuration such that an output of a first volume is coupled to an
input of a next volume.
Appeal 2019-001728
Application 14/483,260
3

Appeal Br. 7. In particular, Appellant argues that Grunzke’s “volumes” only
exist in a single memory device. Id. at 8. Appellant also argues that
Grunzke’s memory devices are not equivalent to the “volumes” recited in
claim 1. Id.
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs and the
Examiner’s Answer. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for the
following reasons.
As an initial matter, during examination of a patent application, a
claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms
generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In
re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appellant does not provide us with an ordinary meaning of a
“volume.” Appeal Br. 7–9. When we consider an ordinary meaning of
“volume,” we find that the term includes: “a disk or storage device.”2 Claim
1 recites “two or more volumes, the volumes comprising two or more dice,
respectively.” As such, a “volume” can be a storage device that comprises
two or more dice.

2 DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING (6th ed. 2010), available at:
https://search.credoreference.com/content/title/acbcomp?tab=entry_view&h
eading=volume&sequence=0.

Appeal 2019-001728
Application 14/483,260
4
The Examiner maps Grunzke’s “memory devices” to the claimed
“volumes” “because they are both storage units connected to [a] memory
controller and they comprise[] a number of dice.” Ans. 4. In particular, the
Examiner finds “[e]ach memory device[ of Grunzke] represents a storage
volume.” Id. at 3. We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Grunzke’s
“memory devices” teach storage devices that include a number of dies. Id.;
Grunzke ¶ 21 (“the memory devices 230-1, . . . , 230-N can comprise a
number of dies and/or chips . . . .”)
Although, as Appellant mentions (Reply Br. 3), Grunzke also uses the
words “storage volume” or “volumes” intermittently (e.g., Grunzke ¶¶ 21–
22), the Examiner explains that the volumes mentioned in Grunzke are not
what is mapped to the recited “volumes” of claim 1. Rather, Grunzke’s
memory devices teach the claimed volumes because they are both storage
devices that comprise a number of dies. Ans. 3–4; see also Grunzke,
Abstract (“A unique volume address can be assigned to each of the memory
devices.”). Thus, we are not persuaded that Grunzke’s multiple memory
devices only teach a single storage volume, as argued by Appellant. Reply
Br. 3.
Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Grunzke’s
memory devices 330-1 through 330-N are arranged in a daisy chain
configuration. Ans. 5. Appellant argues, however, that the volumes of
Grunzke are only coupled “via a single chip enable signal path” in Figures 3
and 4. Appeal Br. 9 (underlining and bolding omitted); Reply Br. 3. Yet, as
the Examiner explains, Grunzke’s volumes 313-1, 313-2, 313-3, and 313-P
alone are not what are used to teach the recited “volumes.” Ans. 5. Rather,
Grunzke’s memory devices, which are arranged in a daisy chain
configuration, teach the “volumes are connected in a daisy chain
Appeal 2019-001728
Application 14/483,260
5
configuration such that an output of a first volume is coupled to an input of a
next volume,” as recited in claim 1. Grunzke, ¶¶ 21, 26, Figs. 3–4.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1,
and we therefore sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For
the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2–5 and 11–15, for
which Appellant presents no additional arguments. See Appeal Br. 7–9.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5 and 11–15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 11–
15
103 Grunzke, Xiao 1–5, 11–15

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED