PTAB

IPR2019-00369

ASM IP Holding BV v. Kokusai Electric Corp

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Substrate Processing Apparatus, Method of Controlling The Same, and Program
  • Brief Description: The ’396 patent describes a system for monitoring substrate processing equipment. The invention aims to solve the problem where standard signal indicators (e.g., light towers, buzzers) do not adequately inform an operator why an alarm state exists, by providing a display unit that shows the specific "operation cause" that triggered the signal indicator.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Kang, Tencor, and Rusnica - Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are obvious over Kang in view of Tencor, and further in view of Rusnica.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kang (KR Publication # 2003-0058863), Tencor (a 1996 product manual), and Rusnica (Patent 5,859,885).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kang, which describes a wafer burn-in system, discloses the basic substrate processing apparatus with signal indicators (a display member and buzzer) that operate based on a plurality of "operation conditions" (detected error states). However, Kang did not explicitly disclose displaying the full list of pre-set operation conditions or highlighting the active condition in a different color. To remedy this, Petitioner asserted that Tencor, a manual for a wafer surface profiler, teaches a "Tower UI" that displays a list of all possible equipment states ("Profiler States") and allows a user to configure the signal tower behavior for each. Finally, to meet the "different color" limitation of claim 1, Petitioner relied on Rusnica, which teaches that using color-coding for alarm messages (e.g., red for abnormal states) improves an operator's ability to quickly assimilate information in a complex manufacturing environment.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kang with Tencor's graphical user interface to provide a more intuitive and efficient way to set the numerous alarm conditions in Kang's system. The addition of Rusnica's color-coding to the error messages displayed by the combined Kang/Tencor system was argued to be a predictable solution to the known problem of improving operator comprehension of alarms, allowing for quicker assessment of an error's nature and severity.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved implementing known software and user interface design principles to display information more effectively.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Kang, Tencor, Rusnica, and Eryurek - Claims 4 and 5 are obvious over the combination for Ground 1, further in view of Eryurek.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kang (KR Publication # 2003-0058863), Tencor (a 1996 product manual), Rusnica (Patent 5,859,885), and Eryurek (Patent 7,079,984).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination of Kang, Tencor, and Rusnica to address the additional limitations of claim 4, which requires a setting screen where conditions are set by "inputting a logical formula and brackets in one frame." While Tencor provided a graphical interface, Petitioner argued Eryurek teaches a system for detecting abnormal conditions in a process plant using a configuration screen that allows users to create rules with textual logical expressions (e.g., IF/THEN, AND/OR) and use brackets to group conditions.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Eryurek's textual, logic-based interface into the system of Ground 1. This would allow users to define more complex and sophisticated alarm conditions than a purely graphical interface might permit. Furthermore, it would accommodate known user preferences for different data entry methods (textual vs. graphical).
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because implementing textual-based user interfaces for creating logical rules was a well-understood programming technique at the time of the invention.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kang and Tencor - Claim 10 is obvious over Kang in view of Tencor.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kang (KR Publication # 2003-0058863) and Tencor (a 1996 product manual).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claim 10 requires a display unit that, when signal indicators operate under instructions from a host computer, displays all "operation causes" and displays the instructions with a different color. Kang was asserted to teach the basic system comprising a substrate processing apparatus, signal indicators, and a host computer (workstation) connected via a communication line. Tencor was relied upon to teach the remaining limitations. Tencor's "Tower UI" displays all operation causes (the list of "Profiler States"). Crucially, when a user selects a state from the list to edit its behavior, that selected state (representing the "instruction" from the host) is displayed with a different color (e.g., white text on a black background) to distinguish it from the unselected states (black text on a white background).
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to improve Kang's system by incorporating the user-friendly and informative graphical interface from Tencor. Highlighting a selected item for editing is a fundamental and predictable feature of graphical user interface design that improves usability.
    • Expectation of Success: This was presented as a straightforward combination of known user interface elements with a predictable and successful outcome.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted that claim 9 is obvious over Tencor alone. This argument was based on modifying Tencor's interface to include states corresponding to the buzzer's status (e.g., "buzzer acknowledged") to allow for escalating the visual light alarm even after the audible alarm was silenced by an operator.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "operation conditions" / "operation causes": Petitioner argued that based on the specification, "operation conditions" are the predetermined rules or prerequisites (e.g., "Apparatus RUN") that trigger a signal indicator. The term "operation causes" as used in the claims refers to the display of these pre-set conditions on the screen, regardless of whether they are currently active.
  • "the operation cause which corresponds to the operation of the signal indicator": Petitioner construed this phrase to mean the specific operation condition that was actually satisfied by a running state, thereby causing the signal indicator to activate.
  • "sound of the buzzer is recognized depending on a lighting state of the signal tower" (Claims 5-8): Petitioner contended that because the specification lacks a description where the buzzer sound is causally dependent on the light state, a POSITA would understand this phrase to simply mean the sound of the buzzer is associated with a particular lighting state as part of a combined warning condition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’396 patent as unpatentable.