Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2021

2020002158 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2021)

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.
15/164,665 05/25/2016 Huichu LIU 01.P96779 8078
31817 7590 09/27/2021
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
EXAMINER
ALROBAIE, KHAMDAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2824
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2021 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
intelparalegal@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HUICHU LIU, DANIEL H. MORRIS,
SASIKANTH MANIPATRUNI, KAUSHIK VAIDYANATHAN,
IAN A. YOUNG, and TANAY KARNIK
____________

Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final
Office Action, dated March 28, 2019, rejecting claims 1–18 and 21–28. 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. 1.
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

2
The invention relates to a memory architecture of a resistive memory
with asymmetrical write drivers. Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter and is reproduced below (formatting added):
1. An apparatus comprising:
a select-line;
a select transistor coupled to a resistive memory element
and to the select-line;
a word-line coupled to a gate terminal of the select
transistor;
a bit-line coupled to the resistive memory element;
a first write driver to couple to the bit-line, wherein the
first write driver comprises first and second transistors coupled
in series and controllable by a first write enable and a second
write enable, respectively; and
a second write driver, separate from the first write driver,
to couple to the select line, wherein the second write driver
comprises first, second and third transistors coupled in series,
wherein:
the first transistor of the second driver is controllable by
a third write enable,
the second transistor of the second driver is controllable
by a fourth write enable, and,
the second write driver comprises a current mirror to be
coupled to the select line via the third transistor of the second
driver during a first mode and to be de-coupled during a second
mode.
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

3
Independent claims 21 and 26 recite similar subject matter of different
scope from the subject matter of claim 1.
Appellant (see generally Appeal Br.) requests review of the following
rejections maintained by the Examiner:
I. claims 24 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (preAIA), first paragraph, as failing to
comply with the written description requirement; and

II. claims 1–18 and 21–28 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ong (US 2014/0211557 A1,
published July 31, 2014) and Fasoli (US 2009/0323392 A1,
published December 31, 2009).

OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112- Lack of Written Descriptive Support
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (preAIA), first paragraph, for the reasons
presented by the Examiner and add the following.
The Examiner finds the original disclosure does not describe a current
mirror shared by the first and second drivers, as recited in claims 24 and 27.
Final Act. 2. According to the Examiner, the Specification discloses
different embodiments, as illustrated by the various Application Figures,
where the current mirror could be coupled to either the first or the second
driver but not shared by both drivers. Id.
Our reviewing court stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375 (Fed.
Cir. 1983):
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

4
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of the
application as originally filed reasonably conveys to the artisan
that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed
subject matter, rather than the presence or absence of literal
support in the specification for the claim language.

See also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2010).
This inquiry . . . is a question of fact. . . . [T]he level of detail
required [in the Specification as originally filed] to satisfy the
written description requirement varies depending on the nature
and scope of the claims and on the complexity and
predictability of the relevant technology.
Id. Whether the written description requirement is complied with is a
question of fact, judged from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the
art as of the relevant filing date. See Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1563–64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The claimed subject matter need not be described in haec verba in the
Specification in order for that Specification to satisfy the description
requirement. In re Smith, 481 F.2d 910, 914 (CCPA 1973). That is, it is
enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor
invented what is claimed without a claim using the same words as the
Specification. Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989,
997 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, in order for a disclosure to be inherent, the
missing descriptive matter must necessarily be present in the parent
application’s Specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize
such a disclosure. Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

5
Appellant argues Application Figure 1 shows and the Specification
discusses a “Shared Current Source” 106 which is shared by write drivers 1
through n. Appeal Br. 9; see Spec. ¶¶ 24–36. Thus, Appellant contends that
the subject matter of claims 24 and 27 is fully supported by the
Specification. Appeal Br. 9–10. Appellant further contends that the claims
do not state that the current mirror is connected to both first and second
drivers, but to the higher-level abstraction of multiple drivers. Id. at 10.
Appellant arguments do not point to reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the subject matter of claims 24 and 27 lacks written
descriptive support.
Based on the record, both Appellant and the Examiner agree that the
Specification, as originally filed, does not disclose connecting a current
mirror to more than one write driver at a time. In terms of the disputed
claim language, we agree with the Examiner that it contemplates connecting
the current mirror to more than one write driver at a time. Appellant has not
argued adequately otherwise.
Therefore, on this record, the Specification, as originally filed, does
not show that Appellant was in possession of the scope of the subject matter
described in claims 24 and 27.2
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (preAIA), first paragraph, for
the reasons the Examiner presents and the reasons we provide above.

2 We note Appellant contends that original claim 24 provides the requisite
descriptive support. Appeal Br. 10. However, we find no “original” claim
24 in the list of claims originally filed May 25, 2016.
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

6
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant presents arguments focusing only on independent claims 1,
21, and 26. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we select these claims
as representative of the claimed subject matter and decide all issues for this
rejection based on the arguments for patentability of claims 1, 21, and 26.
After review of the respective positions that Appellant presents in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner presents in the Final Office
Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejection of
claims 1–18 and 21–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for essentially the reasons the
Examiner presents. We add the following.
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites an apparatus including a second write
driver comprising a current mirror to be coupled to a select line via a third
transistor of the second driver during a first mode and to be de-coupled
during a second mode.
The Examiner finds Ong teaches a memory architecture of a resistive
memory that differs from the subject matter of claim 1 in that Ong fails to
disclose a second write driver comprising three transistors coupled in series
that includes a current mirror as claimed. Final Act. 3–4; Ong Figures 17–
18. The Examiner finds Fasoli teaches the claimed second write driver
including a current mirror is known in the art and determines that it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the
Ong’s apparatus to incorporate Fasoli’s second write transistor structure to
control the current during the program operation and prevent over
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

7
programing to a different state. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 5–6; Fasoli Figures 10,
19, ¶ 75.
Appellant argues none of the cited references provide any suggestion
or motivation to mitigate the asymmetrical switching characteristics that
may lead to write failures. Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, absent
impermissible hindsight, there is no motivation or suggestion to add a third
transistor to any one of the alleged first and second drivers of Ong. Id. at 11,
16. Appellant further argues that the architectures of Ong and Fasoli are
incompatible because the SL is essential in Ong while there is no SL in
Fasoli. Id. at 12. According to Appellant, there is no reason for Ong’s SL
driver to have an additional transistor to use a mirrored current. Id. at 13.
Thus, Appellant contends the architectures of Ong and Fasoli are so different
that one changes the principle of operation of the other when combined. Id.
at 13–14.
Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
We first note that Ong teaches as desirable for the disclosed circuitry
to include current mirrors to sense a state of the magnetization of the
memory cells. Ong ¶ 66. Ong discloses the placement of the current mirrors
as part of the sense circuitry associated with the source lines. As the
Examiner explains, Fasoli discloses it’s known to use a second write driver,
comprising 3 transistors coupled in series, in combination with a first write
driver, comprising two transistors in series, where the second write driver
further comprises a current mirror connected to one of the transistors to
couple or de-couple the current mirror. Final Act. 4–5; Fasoli Figures 10,
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

8
19. As the Examiner further explains in the Answer, Fasoli teaches a current
mirror that can be used in a write driver to limit the current going through
the memory cells. Ans. 5. In fact, like Ong, Fasoli teaches that the current
mirror is part of the sense circuitry and aids in preventing unpredictable
behavior related to current flow through a transistor. Fasoli ¶¶ 75, 83.
Given these disclosures, there is a reasonable basis for one skilled in the art
to modify Ong’s apparatus by incorporating a well-known transistor/current
mirror arrangement in a write driver to control the current flow through a
transistor. Ans. 5; see In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(“For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.”). Appellant fails to explain adequately why one
skilled in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have
been able to arrive at the claimed invention from the teachings of the cited
art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person
of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”);
see also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (presuming skill on
the part of one of ordinary skill in the art).
Appellant’s argument that Fasoli does not have a source line and the
disclosed current mirror is limited to bit lines is unavailing given that Ong
suggests associating current mirrors with the source line. Ong ¶ 66.
Moreover, Appellant fails to explain adequately why one skilled in the art,
using no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been able to adapt
Fasoli’s write driver/current mirror arrangement for use with a source line.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (2007); Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743.
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

9
Appellant argues that Ong uses the same enable signal to generate
complementary write enables while the claimed invention uses separate
enable signals to generate separate write enable. Appeal Br. 11–12.
This argument is also unpersuasive because, as the Examiner explains,
the subject matter of claim 1 does not recite that the write enable signals are
separate. Ans. 8.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites an apparatus comprising a first driver comprising a
push-pull circuitry and a second driver comprising a push-pull circuitry with
a current mirror.
The Examiner finds Ong and Fasoli teach the push-pull circuitry of
claim 21 and that Ong teaches the claimed pass-gate. Final Act. 12–13.
Appellant argues that Fasoli does not teach push pull circuitry.
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further argues neither Ong nor Fasoli are shown to
have pass-gates coupled to the first and second drivers. Id.
We have considered Appellant’s argument for this claim but are
unpersuaded of reversible error.
In the Answer, the Examiner provides a technical explanation of why
Appellant’s invention, Ong, and Fasoli all involve push pull circuitry and
Ong teaches the claimed pass-gate. Ans. 12–14. Appellant’s argument in
the Appeal Brief does not address the Examiner’s reasoning noted above.
Further, Appellant did not present additional arguments with respect to this
claim in the Reply Brief disputing this reasoning. As a result, we discern no
error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

10
Claim 26
The Examiner rejects claim 26 for the reasons expressed for the
rejection of claims 1 and 21. Final Act. 13. Likewise, Appellant relies on a
line of arguments similar to the ones presented when discussing claims 1 and
21. Appeal Br. 15.
Therefore, we find these arguments unpersuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner’s determination of obviousness for the reasons the Examiner
presents and we provide above with respect to these claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1–
18 and 21–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons the Examiner presents
and we give above.
Arguments not specifically addressed are deemed not persuasive for
the reasons the Examiner presents.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
24, 27 112 Written
Description
24, 27
1–18, 21–28 103 Ong, Fasoli 1–18, 21–28
Overall
Outcome
1–18, 21–28
Appeal 2020-002158
Application 15/164,665

11

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

AFFIRMED