Applied Materials Inc v. Ocean Semiconductor LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01340
• Patent #: Patent 6,725,402
• Filed: August 3, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Applied Materials, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Ocean Semiconductor LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-17

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Fault Detection in Semiconductor Manufacturing
• Brief Description: The ’402 patent is directed to methods and systems for detecting faults in a semiconductor fabrication tool during the manufacturing of a workpiece, such as a silicon wafer. The invention uses an advanced process control (APC) framework to receive operational state data from the tool, determine if a fault exists, and perform a predetermined action on the tool in response to a detected fault.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Coronel and Fox - Claims 1-17 are obvious over Coronel in view of Fox.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Coronel (European Patent Application Publ. EP 0 932 194) and Fox (Patent 5,479,340).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Coronel discloses the basic framework of the challenged claims, and Fox provides the missing element of advanced data analysis. Coronel teaches a system for real-time supervision of a semiconductor fabrication tool, including a computer linked to the tool that receives operational data, and a "supervisor" that functions as a fault detection unit (FDU). When the supervisor detects a deviation, it sends an alert to the computer, which acts as an APC to take corrective action, such as stopping the tool. Petitioner contended that Coronel, however, relies on simpler fault detection methods.

  Fox addresses the problem of handling large quantities of process data by teaching a method for real-time, in-situ process control using advanced multivariate statistical analysis, specifically Hotelling’s T² statistic. In Fox, sensor data is collected, stored, and processed to calculate a T² value, which is then compared to a pre-established acceptable range (an upper and lower control limit). If the T² value falls outside this range, a fault is detected, and an out-of-tolerance signal is generated to control or terminate the process.

  Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have combined these teachings by modifying Coronel’s system to incorporate Fox’s multivariate analysis. The computer in the Coronel system would be adapted to collect tool state data, process it into a T² value as taught by Fox, and send this value to Coronel’s supervisor (the FDU). The supervisor would then determine if a fault exists by comparing the T² value to an acceptable range stored in its database. The existing APC framework in Coronel would then perform a predetermined action based on the supervisor’s determination. This combination, Petitioner asserted, meets all limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as the dependent claims.

  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSA would combine Coronel and Fox to improve the fault detection capabilities of the Coronel system, thereby increasing process yields and reducing manufacturing costs. Coronel acknowledges the "huge quantity of data" generated during fabrication, and Fox provides a well-known, superior method for analyzing such complex, interdependent data to detect subtle process deviations that simpler methods might miss. Applying Fox's robust statistical techniques to Coronel's established real-time control framework was presented as a logical step to enhance its effectiveness.

  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved applying known software-based statistical techniques (Fox) to a computer-controlled system (Coronel) operating in the same technical field. The implementation would rely on standard computer hardware (processors, memory) that would have been present in the Coronel system to perform the necessary calculations, making the integration predictable and straightforward.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The core arguments were that Petitioner is not a party to any of the parallel district court litigations involving the ’402 patent, and those cases were in their early stages, with no invalidity contentions yet served and trial dates that remained distant and uncertain.
• Petitioner also asserted that denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) was not warranted because the ground presented relies on a combination of prior art (Coronel and Fox) that was never presented to or considered by the USPTO examiner during the original prosecution of the ’402 patent. Therefore, the petition raised new questions of patentability not previously addressed by the Office.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-17 of the ’402 patent as unpatentable.