PTAB

IPR2022-00672

PDF Solutions Inc v. Ocean Semiconductor LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Detecting Faults with a Processing Tool
  • Brief Description: The ’402 patent discloses a method and system for detecting faults in a semiconductor fabrication tool. The system receives operational state data from the tool, determines if a fault exists, and performs a predetermined action (e.g., tool shutdown) via an advanced process control (APC) framework in response to the 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 EP 0 932 194) and Fox (Patent 5,479,340).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Coronel discloses the foundational elements of the challenged claims, including a system for real-time supervision of a semiconductor processing tool. This system includes a computer (acting as an interface and APC framework) that receives tool data and a "supervisor" (acting as a fault detection unit, or FDU) that analyzes data to detect deviations and signals the computer to take corrective action. However, Coronel’s fault detection is based on monitoring individual parameters against predefined limits. Petitioner asserted that Fox remedies this deficiency by teaching a sophisticated method for real-time process control using multivariate statistical analysis (specifically, Hotelling's T² statistic). Fox teaches collecting raw tool data, processing it into a single T² statistical value, and comparing that value against an acceptable range to detect faults. Petitioner contended that implementing Fox’s multivariate analysis within Coronel’s framework would satisfy the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, including receiving state data, sending it to a data collection unit, translating it for analysis, determining a fault, and performing a predetermined action via an APC framework.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Coronel with Fox to improve the fault detection capabilities of the Coronel system, thereby increasing process yields and reducing manufacturing costs. Coronel itself acknowledged that the "huge quantity of data" generated by processing tools had not been "effectively exploited." Fox provided a well-documented solution in the same technical field for handling large, interdependent data sets, which is superior to monitoring individual parameters. A POSITA would have recognized that applying Fox’s multivariate analysis would allow for the detection of more subtle process deviations that Coronel’s system would miss, leading to a predictable improvement in overall system performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in this combination. Both references address real-time fault detection in semiconductor manufacturing using similar hardware. The techniques taught in Fox are implemented via computer software and standard components (data storage, processing units) that were already present in the computer and supervisor of the Coronel system. Therefore, integrating Fox's statistical methods would have been a straightforward adaptation of software on an existing, compatible hardware platform, yielding a predictable result.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate under both 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and §325(d).
  • Fintiv Factors (§314(a)): Petitioner asserted that the Fintiv factors strongly favor institution. The core arguments were that Petitioner is not a party to any of the parallel district court litigations involving the ’402 patent, no stays are in place, and trial dates are uncertain. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that the parallel cases were in their early stages, with minimal investment by the parties and no invalidity contentions yet served, meaning there is no significant overlap of issues.
  • Same or Substantially Same Prior Art (§325(d)): Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the specific combination of Coronel and Fox was never presented to or considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution of the ’402 patent. Petitioner asserted that the asserted ground raises new issues of patentability not previously evaluated by the Examiner.

5. Relief Requested

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