Micron Technology, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 8, 2021

2020000452 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 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.
15/167,649 05/27/2016 Jeremiah James Willcock 2014-0324.00 (MICS:0367) 6983
52142 7590 01/08/2021
FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
RADKE, JAY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2827
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2021 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):
Yapp@fyiplaw.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
manware@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEREMIAH JAMES WILLCOCK
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–14, 23, 26, 32, and 34–37.2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Micron Technology, Inc. as the real
party in interest. (Appeal Br. 1.)
2 The Examiner includes claim 33 in listing of claims rejected. Final Act. 1;
Ans. 3. However, Appellant submitted an amendment on April 12, 2018
that modified the claims prosecuted, including the cancellation of claim 33.
Given that Appellant recognizes tacitly that claim 33 was erroneously
included in the rejection statement by listing the actual claims appealed in
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a histogram creation process for memory
devices. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A processor-in-memory device, comprising a memory array
including a plurality of memory locations; and
a plurality of compute components;
a plurality of storage elements, wherein the plurality of
compute components and the plurality of storage elements are
coupled to the memory array; and
wherein the processor-in-memory device is configured
to:
determine a category of each of one or more data points
in a first batch of data from a data set;
set a flag representing the category of each data point of
the one or more data points in each of a respective one of the
plurality of compute component;
increment a value stored in each of the plurality of
memory locations based on the flag set in each of the plurality
of compute components;
set a flag representing the category of each of the one or
more data points in each of a respective one of the plurality of
storage elements; and
set the flag representing the category of each of the one
or more data points in each of a respective one of the plurality
of compute components based on the set flags in each of the
plurality of storage elements.

the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 2), we find the Examiner’s inclusion of claim
33 in the rejection to be harmless error. Accordingly we deem that the
rejection of claims 1, 3–14, 23, 26, 32, and 34–37 is presented for review on
appeal.
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

3
REJECTION3
Claims 1, 3–14, 23, 26, 32, and 34–37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a
law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without
significantly more. (Final Act. 2.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101.4 We note the
USPTO current eligibility guidance is found in the Ninth Edition, Revision
10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure
(MPEP), and particularly within Sections 2103 through 2106.07(c).
“Because the MPEP now incorporates the 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), October 2019 Patent Eligibility
Guidance Update (October 2019 Update), and the Berkheimer Memo,5 all
references to those materials should now be directed to the MPEP.” See

3 The rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been
withdrawn. (Advisory Act. 1.)
4 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). In response to received public
comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019,
clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at
1.
5 Referring to Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d. 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2018).

Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

4
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-
policy/subject-matter-eligibility (emphasis added).
We note that all references to the MPEP throughout this Decision are
to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last Revised June 2020), unless
otherwise indicated.
Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).6
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.

See MPEP § 2106.05(d).

6 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by (1)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional
elements individually and in combination to determine whether [the claim as
a whole] integrate[s] the exception into a practical application.”
MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

5
DISCUSSION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
With respect to the first step under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573
U.S. 208, 217 (2014), we agree with the Examiner that the claims fall under
a statutory category, a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Final Act. 3.) In this case,
claim 1 is directed to a processor-in-memory device; claim 23 is directed to
non-transitory computer readable medium comprising the instructions to be
implemented by a computer; and claim 32 is directed method.
We now follow the guidance provided in the MPEP to analyze
independent claims 1, 23, and 32 to determine if they are directed to a
patent-ineligible subject matter (Step 2A, prong 1).7
Applying the guidance set forth in the MPEP, we conclude that claims
1, 3–14, 23, 26, and 32–37 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter. We
determine the claimed subject matter is directed to mental processes which
include concepts of forming and observation, evaluation, judgment or
opinion. Claim 1 recites the processor-in-memory device is configured to:
determine a category of each of one or more data points
in a first batch of data from a data set;
set a flag representing the category of each data point of
the one or more data points in each of a respective one of the
plurality of compute component;
increment a value stored in each of the plurality of
memory locations based on the flag set in each of the plurality
of compute components;

7 Appellant present arguments to independent claims 1, 23, and 32 as a
unitary group (Appeal Br. 3–15), we will do likewise. Thus, when we
discuss issues with respect to a specific independent claim, it is understood
that the discussion also applies to the other independent claims.
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

6
set a flag representing the category of each of the one or
more data points in each of a respective one of the plurality of
storage elements; and
set the flag representing the category of each of the one
or more data points in each of a respective one of the plurality
of compute components based on the set flags in each of the
plurality of storage elements.

These limitations are all directed to certain methods of collecting,
analyzing, and manipulating data. Our reviewing court has concluded that
the concepts of collecting and manipulating data often are ineligible subject
matter. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d
1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Content Extraction, LLC v. Wells
Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
involving data recognition and storage.
Further, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the
combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d
1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another
abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination of
abstract ideas).
Appellant argues the independent claims are distinguished from
methods for generating conventional histograms because the claims recite
features, such as setting a flag representing the category of each of the one or
more data points in each of a respective one of the plurality of storage
elements, and setting the flag representing the category of each of the one or
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

7
more data points in each of a respective one of the plurality of compute
components based on the set flags in each of the plurality of storage
elements. (Appeal Br. 10.) Appellant argues to the extent a human mind is
allegedly able to generate a histogram, a human mind does not perform these
features, and is therefore not merely a mental process. (Appeal Br. 10.)
Appellant argues additionally that claims 23 and 32 generally recite
performing a bit-wise OR operation using the values stored in the plurality
of storage elements and the cleared values in the sensing circuitry as
operands to generate a result. (Reply Br. 4.)
“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is
nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed
by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the
determining a category of each of one or more data, the setting a flag
representing the category of each of the one or more data points in each of a
respective one of the plurality of storage elements, and the setting the flag
representing the category of each of the one or more data points in each of a
respective one of the plurality of compute components based on the set flags
in each of the plurality of storage elements steps can all be performed
mentally. The bit-wise OR operation described in claims 23 and 32
represents the analysis and manipulation of data utilizing sensed values
wherein the results are saved which can all be performed mentally.
The record does not adequately support the argument that the claimed
system provides a technical improvement. The record does not adequately
describe how a histogram is improved.
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

8
Having determined that the subject matter of claims 1, 23, and 32 recites
an abstract idea, we now consider under MPEP § 2106(d) Step 2A (Prong 2)8
whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a
practical application of the exception. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2). “We now
follow the MPEP to analyze independent claims 1, 23, and 32 to determine if
the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (Step 2A, prong 2).
Appellant contends that the present claims include meaningful
limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment, and thus, are directed to patent-
eligible subject matter that provides a solution necessarily rooted in
computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in
searching for particular data stored on a memory device. (Appeal Br. 13–
14.) Appellant further states “the specification provides explicit support that
the claims are improvements over conventional methods for generating
histograms in a computer device. (Appeal Br. 14.)

We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the problem or
solution is technological. The Federal Circuit is clear that “[t]he abstract
idea itself cannot supply the inventive concept, no matter how [*6]
groundbreaking the advance.” Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921
F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). The Specification

8 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office Guidance). Solely for
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
it under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office Guidance).
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

9
describes the invention utilizes processor-based systems such as any type of
generic computer. (Spec. ¶ 17.) As discussed above, the claim steps can be
performed mentally. Thus, Appellant cannot rely on the abstract idea as
providing significantly more.
To show that the invention is an improvement in the field of
generating histograms, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such
that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as
providing an improvement. Compare McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–16 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the Specification
explained how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the
automation of specific animation tasks), with Affinity Labs of Tex. v.
DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264–65 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the Specification
failed to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention
accomplished the alleged improvement); and MPEP § 2016.05(a).
Appellant has not directed us to portions of the Specification to support the
position that the claimed invention is an improvement to the field of
generating the efficient histograms. The Specification lacks any description
or evidence as to how the field of histograms is improved as argued by
Appellant.
We now turn to the Step 2B to consider if there is an inventive
concept that is sufficient to ensure that the patent amounts to significantly
more than a patent on the patent-ineligible concept. The independent claims
1, 23, and 32 do not include additional elements that contain inventive
concept that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As pointed out by the Examiner, the components a memory array, a plurality
of computer components, a processor, a processor-in-memory, and a sense
Appeal 2020-000452
Application 15/167,649

10
amplifier are components that are well-understood, routine, and/or
conventional (Ans. 6–7; Spec. ¶¶ 2–6).
In sum, whether the additional limitations are considered individually
or in ordered combination, claims 1, 23 and 32 fails to recite an inventive
concept beyond the abstract idea.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–14, 23, 26, 32, and
34–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–14, 23,
26, 32, 34–
37
101 Eligibility 1, 3–14, 23,
26, 32, 34–
37

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)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED