throbber
Paper No. 12
`Date: April 27, 2015
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`LINEAR TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IN-DEPTH TEST LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015–00421
`Patent 6,792,373 B2
`
`
`
`IN-DEPTH TEST LLC’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
`GROUNDS ..................................................................................................................... 3
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Petitioner Relies upon Expert Who Uses the Wrong Standard ....... 4
`B.
`Proposed Terms .............................................................................................. 5
`1.
`“outlier” (claims 1, 6–8, 11, 13–16 and 18) ...................................... 5
`a. Claims Define “Outlier” as a Test Result, Not the
`Tested Component ......................................................................... 5
`b. The ’373 Patent Explicitly Defines “Outlier” as a
`Measured Value that Statistically Strays from a Data
`Set ........................................................................................................ 6
`c. Petitioner’s Own References Support Patent Owner’s
`Definition ......................................................................................... 10
`d. Petitioner’s Support Consists of a Misinterpretation
`of Figure 9 and Misleading Quotation ................................... 10
`e. Petitioner Uses Patent Owner’s Definition in
`Argument ........................................................................................ 14
`f. Prior Claim Construction and Inventor Agree with
`Patent Owner ................................................................................. 14
`g. Petitioner’s Litigation Codefendant Agrees with
`Patent Owner ................................................................................. 15
`h. The Correct Definition of “Outlier” .......................................... 16
`“test data” (claims 1, 3–5, 7–8, 10–12, 14–15 and 17–20) ........ 16
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`5.
`6.
`7.
`
`8.
`
`“output report [including the identified outlier]” (Claims
`1 and 8) ................................................................................................. 18
`“[identify the outlier at] run time” (Claims 6, 13 and 15) ....... 21
`“component” (Claims 1, 3, 10, 15 and 17) ................................... 22
`“recipe file” (Claims 2, 9 and 16) .................................................. 23
`“section group [of components on a wafer]” (Claims 3,
`10 and 17) ............................................................................................ 24
`“correlate/correlating the test data” (Claims 5, 12 and
`20) .......................................................................................................... 25
`EKSTEDT IN LIGHT OF GHAEMI FAILS TO RENDER OBVIOUS
`INDEPENDENT CLAIMS ......................................................................................... 26
`A.
`Claim 1 (“A computer . . . configured to . . . identify an outlier
`in the test data”); Claim 8 (“a supplementary data analysis
`element configured to identify outliers in the semiconductor
`test data”); Claim 15 (“automatically identifying an outlier in
`the test data”) ................................................................................................ 26
`Claim 1 (“a computer . . . configured to . . . generate an
`output report including the identified outlier”); Claim 8
`(“output element configured to generate an output report
`including the identified outliers”) ............................................................ 28
`Ghaemi Fails to Correct Ekstedt’s Missing Limitations ...................... 31
`C.
`O’NEILL FAILS TO ANTICIPATE ANY OF THE ’373 PATENT CLAIMS ....... 35
`A.
`Claim 1 (“A computer connected to the tester and configured
`to . . . identify an outlier in the test data”); Claim 8 (“a
`supplementary data analysis element configured to identify
`outliers in the semiconductor test data”); Claim 15
`(“automatically identifying an outlier in the test data”) ................... 35
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Claim 1 (“a computer . . . configured to . . . generate an
`output report including the identified outlier”); Claim 8
`(“output element configured to generate an output report
`including the identified outliers”) ............................................................ 40
`Claim 8 (“supplementary data analysis element configured to
`identify outliers in the semiconductor test data”; “output
`element configured to generate an output report including
`the identified outliers.”) .............................................................................. 42
`Claim 15 (“identifying an outlier in the test data at run time”);
`Claim 6 (“the computer is configured to identify the outlier at
`run time”); Claim 13 (“supplementary data analysis element is
`configured to identify the outliers at run time”) ................................ 44
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE NONOBVIOUS OVER SIX
`REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 45
`1.
`Claim 2 (“the computer is configured to operate in
`conjunction with a set of configuration data in a recipe
`file”); Claim 9 (“Supplementary data analysis element is
`configured to operate in conjunction with a set of
`configuration data in a recipe file”); Claim 16
`(“identifying the outlier according to the configuration
`data in the recipe file”) ................................................................... 46
`Claim 3 (“test data corresponds to a section group of
`components on a wafer”); Claim 10 (same); Claim 17
`(same) ................................................................................................... 48
`Claim 4 (“computer is configured to automatically
`calibrate a sensitivity of the computer to the test data”);
`Claim 11 (“supplementary data analysis element is
`configured to automatically calibrate a sensitivity of the
`outlier identification element to the test data”); Claim
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`iii
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`4.
`
`18 (“calibrating a sensitivity for identifying the outlier in
`the test data using the computer system.”) .............................. 51
`Claim 5 (“computer further comprises a data
`correlation element configured to correlate the test
`data”); Claim 12 (“supplementary data analysis element
`includes a data correlation element configured to
`correlate the test data”); Claim 20 (“correlating the test
`data to identify similarities in the test data using the
`computer system”) ........................................................................... 52
`a. O’Neill .............................................................................................. 52
`b. Ekstedt ............................................................................................. 54
`c. La ....................................................................................................... 54
`d. Ghaemi ............................................................................................ 56
`Claim 7 (“a data smoothing element configured to
`receive the test data and smooth the test data, and
`wherein the computer is configured to receive the
`smoothed test data and identify the outlier in the
`smoothed test data”); Claim 14 (“a data smoothing
`element configured to receive the test data and
`smooth the test data, and wherein the supplementary
`data analysis element is configured to identify the
`outliers in the smoothed test data”); Claim 19
`(“smoothing the test data using the computer system.”) ... 57
`a. O’Neill .............................................................................................. 57
`b. Ekstedt ............................................................................................. 58
`c. Daasch ............................................................................................. 58
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 59
`
`5.
`
`VI.
`
`iv
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`CASES
`01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc.,
`687 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................... 42
`Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... 32
`Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,
`216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................................................................... 10
`Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc.,
`512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 53
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................................... 31
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................... 47
`Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................... 53
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................... 48
`Merrill v. Yeomans,
`94 U.S. 568 (1876) .............................................................................................................. 6
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................... 6
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...........................................................................................7
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK APPEALS BOARD
`Ex parte Grafenauer,
`No. 2010–001906, pp. 8–9 (BPAI Mar. 2, 2012) ...................................................... 43
`Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. In-Depth Test LLC,
`No. CBM2015–00060, Paper 1 (PTAB Jan. 13, 2015) ............................................... 15
`
`v
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`Marvel Semi v. Intellectual Ventures,
`No. IPR2014-00547, Paper 19 (PTAB Jan. 14, 2015)............................................... 47
`Space Exploration Tech v. Blue Origin LLC,
`No. IPR2014-01378, Paper 6 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015) ................................................... 5
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 ................................................................................................................ 25
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ...................................................................................................... 3, 4, 5
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ......................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................................ 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) .............................................................................................................. 3
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,419, 48,627 cmt. 17 (Aug. 14, 2012) .................................................. 18
`
`vi
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`CURRENT EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Brief Description
`No.
`1001 U.S. Patent 6,792,373 to Tabor (“’373 patent”)
`1002 U.S. Patent 6,792,373 Non-Final Office Action
`1003 U.S. Patent 6,792,373 Amendment and Response
`1004 U.S. Patent 6,792,373 Notice of Allowance
`1005 Reexamination 90/008,313 Request for Reexamination
`1006 Reexamination 90/008,313 Order Granting Reexamination
`1007 Reexamination 90/008,313 Patent Owner’s Statement
`1008 Reexamination 90/008,313 Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Statement
`1009 Reexamination 90/008,313 Non-Final Office Action
`1010 Reexamination 90/008,313 Patent Owner’s Response to Office Action
`1011 Reexamination 90/008,313 Final Office Action
`1012 Reexamination 90/008,313 Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`1013 Reexamination 90/008,313 Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination
`Certificate
`1014 Andrew Grochowski, Integrated Circuit Testing for Quality Assurance
`in Manufacturing: History, Current Status, and Future Trends, IEEE
`TRANS. ON CIR. & SYS., Vol. 36, No. 8, 610-33 (Aug. 1997)
`1015 Wesley H. Higaki, Remote Monitoring and Control of Semiconductor
`Processing, Hewlett-Packard Journal, Vol. 36, No. 7, 30-34 (Jul. 1985)
`1016 Computer Focus – International, Hewlett Packard (Sept. 1985)
`1017 Semiconductor Process Analysis Software Incorporates Graphics
`Package, IEEE CG&A, 8-10 (Dec. 1985)
`1018 Zarrin Ghaemi, Application of Data Screening to the Characterization
`of Integrated Circuits, CAN. J. PHYS., Vol. 67, No. 4, 221-224 (Apr.
`1989)
`1019 U.S. Patent 6,366,108 to O’Neill et al.
`1020 W. Robert Daasch et al., Variance Reduction Using Wafer Patterns in
`IddQ Data, Proceedings of International Test Conference, 189-198 (Oct.
`3, 2000)
`1021 U.S. Patent 5,206,582 to Ekstedt et al.
`
`vii
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`1022 Peter Maxwel et al., Current Ratios: A Self-Scaling Technique for
`Production IDDQ Testing, International Test Conference, 1148-1156
`(2000)
`1023 U.S. Patent 5,789,933 to Brown
`1024 U.S. Patent 5,442,282 to Rostoker
`1025 U.S. Patent 5,761,064 to La et al.
`1026 Thomas Gneiting et al., Measurement Related and Model Parameter
`Related Statistics (Oct. 11, 2000)
`1027 U.S. Patent 6,574,760 to Mydill
`1028 Declaration of Adit Singh
`1029 Proof of Service of Summons showing the date of service of
`September 29, 2014
`1030 U.S. Patent 6,792,373 C1 to Tabor (Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate)
`2001 Claim Construction Order, Test Advantage, Inc. v. Tabor, No. 2005-cv-
`03392 (D. Az. filed Feb. 16, 2007)
`2002 Bullock, Statistical Outliers Impossible in Small Samples, The Secret
`Garden of Maths (Oct. 13, 2013), available at
`http://www.mickybullock.com/blog/2013/10/statistical-outliers-
`impossible-in-small-samples/
`2003 Ex parte Grafenauer, No. 2010-001906 (BPAI filed Mar. 2, 2012)
`2004 File, Computer-Dictionary-Online (2015), available at
`http://www.computer-dictionary-online.org/index.asp?q=file
`
`viii
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The heart of petitioner’s argument is that the ’373 patent claim scope
`
`encompasses semiconductor pass-fail threshold testing, but, as patent owner
`
`demonstrates in this preliminary response, the ’373 patent claims are drawn to
`
`a different invention: identification of outlier data from parts that have already
`
`passed threshold testing, not detection of inoperable components themselves.
`
`On one hand, the primary references petitioner puts forth as purportedly
`
`rendering the ’373 patent claims obvious, Ekstedt and O’Neill, are concerned
`
`with conventional testing of semiconductor parts by subjecting these
`
`components to an input, and classifying the part as defective and discarding it
`
`if a known good output is not sensed. For example, O’Neill or Ekstedt might
`
`engage in threshold testing by simply measuring the current drawn by a device
`
`to see if the amperes exceed or fall below the part tolerances, and, if so, the
`
`part is marked “bad.” The PTO extensively considered this type of testing
`
`during the initial prosecution and reexamination of the ’373 patent, and found
`
`the ’373 patent to be non-obvious in light of such art.
`
`On the other hand, the ’373 patent invention analyzes many data
`
`measurements from chips that have already passed threshold testing (i.e., had
`
`measurements that did not exceed the part control limits), and performs
`
`statistical analysis within this test data to find any measurements that stray from
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`the main group of data (outlier data points). As the ’373 patent explains, this
`
`identification of outliers may be used to “bin” functional parts already marked
`
`as “good” into further subcategories as “marginal” or “critical” based upon the
`
`number of outliers and the degree to which the outliers stray from the main
`
`data set. [Ex. 1001 15:24–67.] Additionally, the outlier detection can also be
`
`used to scrutinize the tests themselves, rather than the parts, by identifying
`
`incorrect, questionable, or unusual results, repetitive tests, and/or tests with a
`
`relatively high probability of failure. [Id. 5:11–13].
`
`In reality, petitioner does not simply argue the ’373 patent’s claims
`
`encompass defective component threshold testing, as much as petitioner
`
`attempts to rewrite the claim language, through creative and improper
`
`constructions, to make the claims cover the prior art, contrary to the ’373
`
`patent’s teaching. In particular, despite the ’373 patent’s explicit claim
`
`language that the machine or method is analyzing test results, i.e., measured
`
`data points, petitioner attempts to define terms to include the identification of
`
`a failed part. In spite of a specification that makes it clear that outliers for
`
`identification do not include values that are outside of device control limits,
`
`petitioner ignores this differentiation in its proposed claim construction.
`
`Notwithstanding the fact that it is impossible to have an outlier in a data set
`
`without enough points for there to be a main group for one datum to be an
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`outlier to, petitioner attempts to define terms such that one data point can be
`
`an outlier simply based upon the single point’s value. And, in the face of claim
`
`language requiring an output report showing the identified outlier, petitioner
`
`attempts to manipulate the limitations so that the indication of a failed part
`
`falls within the claim scope.
`
`However, if the claims are construed with the appropriate § 42.100(b)
`
`standard, grounded in the claim and specification language, and petitioner’s
`
`conspicuously litigation-driven proposals are not adopted, petitioner’s cited
`
`prior art clearly does not render any of the claims anticipated or obvious. And
`
`even with petitioner’s calculated claim definitions, the prior art still falls outside
`
`the ’373 patent claim scope as described in full below. Because petitioner relies
`
`on prior art that is cumulative over the prosecution and reexamination, drawn
`
`to a different invention altogether, and asserts the same arguments repeatedly
`
`considered and rejected by the PTO, petitioner fails to demonstrate a
`
`reasonable likelihood that any of the ’373 patent claims are unpatentable.
`II. GROUNDS
`Petitioner embeds claim charts, reference to exhibits, and other
`
`arguments to support its unpatentability challenges in its expert declaration
`
`that do not appear in the petition. [See, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶ 61.] Because such
`
`incorporation by reference is against PTAB rules, 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3),
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(4), patent owner will limit its preliminary response to the
`
`arguments actually put forth in the petition.
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A. Petitioner Relies upon Expert Who Uses the Wrong Standard
`As a preliminary matter, petitioner almost exclusively relies upon its
`
`expert, to support its proposed definitions; however, Dr. Singh is using the
`
`wrong standard for claim construction, and, as such, all of petitioner’s proposed
`
`definitions are suspect. As Dr. Singh repeatedly states, “My understanding is
`
`that the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable construction.” [Ex.
`
`1028 ¶¶ 67, 110, 176; see also ¶ 191 (“Given the broadest reasonable construction
`
`. . .”); ¶ 20 (“[B]roadest reasonable ordinary meaning”); ¶ 19 (“[B]roadest
`
`reasonable interpretation that is consistent with the specification of the
`
`patent.”).] But the correct standard is that a claim “shall be given its broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification.” § 42.100(b).
`
`Apparently, as a consequence of using the wrong standard, petitioner
`
`and its expert first find the broadest possible construction that can be thought
`
`of, and then only reject the definition if it is not “consistent with the
`
`specification.” [Pet. 15–17 (citing expert for every term and arguing “[t]his is
`
`consistent with the ‘373 Patent . . .”).]. This is wrong. The words “in light of”
`
`make clear that proper claim construction takes into account “the specification
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`of the patent in which it appears” before determining the broadest reasonable
`
`construction, § 42.100(b), not using the specification as some afterthought
`
`sanity-check. As such, petitioner’s definitions riddled with language such as
`
`“any,” “associated,” “on some measure,” “any form,” any means,” “something
`
`else,” and “any kind” are simply unreasonably broad. See Space Exploration
`
`Tech v. Blue Origin LLC, No. IPR2014-01378, Paper 6, at 6 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015)
`
`(rejecting petitioner’s claim definition of “any structure” as violating the
`
`‘broadest reasonable construction’ standard) (emphasis in original).1
`B. Proposed Terms
`Patent owner’s proposed definitions using the correct standard, and
`
`specific issues that render petitioner’s proposed definitions incorrect, are
`
`
`
`addressed below.
`1. “outlier” (claims 1, 6–8, 11, 13–16 and 18)
`Petitioner
`Patent Owner
`any semiconductor device or
`a test result whose value strays from
`part or data point associated
`a set of test results having statistically
`with the device or part that on
`similar values, but does not exceed
`some measure falls above or
`control limits or otherwise fail to be
`below a threshold value
`detected [Ex. 1001 6:32–46]
`a. Claims Define “Outlier” as a Test Result, Not the Tested Component
`Petitioner’s proposed definition of “outlier,” beginning with “any
`
`
`1 In this response, all emphasis in quotations is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`semiconductor device or part . . .,” is a transparent, but impermissible, attempt
`
`to unreasonably broaden the term in an effort to bring prior art into the ’373
`
`patent claim scope. Specifically, petitioner is trying to include the component
`
`as an outlier, not just the measured data for the component.
`
`Inspection of the claims, however, shows that the term “outlier” is
`
`consistently used in the larger phrase “outlier in the test data” (claims 1 and 15)
`
`or “outliers in the semiconductor test data” (claim 8). The claims themselves,
`
`therefore, make it clear that an outlier is one of the component’s
`
`measurements, not the component itself. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ("[T]he Supreme Court made clear that the claims
`
`are ‘of primary importance, in the effort to ascertain precisely what it is that is
`
`patented.’”) (citing Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (1876)). Therefore, an
`
`outlier is “a test result,” not a “semiconductor device or part.”
`b. The ’373 Patent Explicitly Defines “Outlier” as a Measured Value that
`Statistically Strays from a Data Set
`The ’373 patent specifically defines “outliers” as so: “For the present
`
`purposes, those test results that stray from the first set [of test results having
`
`statistically similar values] but do not exceed the control limits or otherwise fail
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`to be detected are referred to as ‘outliers.’”2 [Ex. 1001 6:41–46.] When a
`
`patentee specifically defines a term, as here, this definition controls. Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[A] patentee may
`
`choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their
`
`ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated
`
`in the patent specification.”). And the ’373 patent’s definition of outlier is clear:
`
`an outlier is a measured test data that “statistically strays” from a main set of
`
`data points. It is not, as petitioner attempts to define the term, simply a “data
`
`point associated with the device or part that on some measure falls above or
`
`below a threshold value.”
`
`The difference between the ’373 patent’s definition of outlier and
`
`petitioner’s not-so-subtle attempt to bring traditional threshold testing within
`
`the purview of the patent claims, is that “outlier,” as used in the ’373 patent, is
`
`found based upon the relationship of one datum to the data set, not simply by
`
`comparing the datum to a static threshold value. Indeed, the ’373 patent
`
`acknowledges that the tester 102 may conduct traditional pass-fail part
`
`classification (threshold testing) using a device’s “upper test limit and . . . lower
`
`
`2 Petitioner acknowledges the ’373 patent’s definition, but maintains, without
`explanation, that “the ’373 patent is not limited to this definition.” [Pet. 25.]
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`test limit” control value to see if a “component may be classified as a ‘bad part.’”
`
`[Id. 6:38–40.] See also annotated Figure 1 below (left):
`
`But such part classification is explicitly excluded from the ’373 patent’s
`
`definition of “outlier” that says outliers do not include measurements that
`
`“exceed the control limits.” Therefore, it is incorrect to include this part
`
`threshold testing using the device’s predefined maximum and minimum ratings
`
`in the definition of “outlier,” the type of testing done by the prior art.3 [See,
`
`e.g., O’Neill, Ex. 1019 9:2–4 (“It is well known that most circuits 14 have an
`
`absolute maximum value for IDDQ that is established by the circuit’s design and
`
`3 Additionally, the ’373 patent definition of “outlier” also specifically excludes
`measurements that “fail to be detected.” This makes sense, because when a
`tester cannot measure a part, that part would be classified as broken, but the
`invention cannot operate to identify outlier data from this part, because there
`is no data to operate upon.
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`specifications of the process in which it is manufactured.”); see also Ekstedt, Ex.
`
`1021 8:51–52 (“Another set of input variables relate to design characteristics of
`
`the device.”).]
`
`More importantly, the ’373 patent explains that the traditional threshold
`
`testing done by the tester 102, is different than the claimed outlier identification
`
`subsequently done by the analysis element 206 operating on the computer
`
`108. See Ex. 1001 Fig. 2, shown in part & annotated (above on right). The data
`
`from the tester, including the “bad part” classification [id. 6:58–59], is actually
`
`stored in “a tester data file [that] is then provided to the computer 108” [id.
`
`6:61–62]. This test-gathered data is subsequently processed by the computer
`
`108 that has “the supplementary data analysis element 206 [which] analyzes the
`
`data to provide enhanced output results” [id. 6:64–66], including the claimed
`
`“outlier identification” [id. 7:8–15].
`
`The ’373 patent further clarifies the distinction between part classification
`
`and outlier identification noting that the components may be further classified,
`
`once the outliers have been identified, based upon the number of outliers and
`
`in what range outliers fall. [Id. 15:58–
`
`67; see also id. 14:59–62 (explaining
`
`that it is “the outlier classification
`
`element
`
`[212
`
`that]
`
`is
`
`suitably
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`configured to classify the components 106 into critical/marginal/good part
`
`categories, for example in conjunction with user-defined criteria.”).]
`
`But part classification, done by comparing a data measurement to the
`
`component characteristic (i.e., threshold testing) or other user defined criteria,
`
`is not the claimed identification of an outlier that is done by comparing a data
`
`measurement to the rest of the measured data in a set. And petitioner’s
`
`attempt to shoehorn part classification into the definition, against the ’373
`
`patent teaching, is improper.
`c. Petitioner’s Own References Support Patent Owner’s Definition
`Even artisans in the field, including the very references that petitioner
`
`relies upon, such as O’Neill (“[a]s known in the art, an outlier is defined as points
`
`outside of the distribution of a population” [Ex. 1019 6:52–54]) and Ghaemi
`
`(“outliers (one or several points lying outside the main group . . .)” [Ex. 1018, p.
`
`221]), define outlier as being in relation to other measured component data
`
`rather than threshold comparison. See Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,
`
`216 F.3d 1042, 1044–45 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Even when prior art is not cited in the
`
`written description or the prosecution history, it may assist in ascertaining the
`
`meaning of a term to a person skilled in the art.”).
`d. Petitioner’s Support Consists of a Misinterpretation of Figure 9 and
`Misleading Quotation
`Petitioner and its expert’s primary support for the contention that
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`“outlier” should include any device “that on some measure falls above or below
`
`a threshold value” is a mischaracterization of Figure 9 that directly contradicts
`
`the ’373 patent’s explanation of this figure. [See Pet. 13; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 42–43.] In
`
`particular, petitioner incorrectly says that Figure 9 shows that “[a]n outlier is
`
`shown as any part that produces a test result beyond the set threshold.” [Id.]
`
`To the contrary, the ’373 patent explains that Figure 9 shows “test results
`
`for a single test of multiple components” [Ex. 1001 6:33–34] and notes there can
`
`be more than one result per component [id. 6:32–33 (“Each test generates at
`
`least one result for at least one of the components.”); see also 1:48–49 (“For
`
`example, each tester may perform 200 tests on a single component.”).]
`
`Additionally, the ’373 patent describes Figure 9 as having two sets of test
`
`results: “a first set of test results having statistically similar values and a second
`
`set of test results characterized by values that stray from the first set.” [Ex. 1001
`
`6:34–37.] As clarified, the second set
`
`of test results are outliers because
`
`they statistically “stray from the first
`
`set,” not because they are outside a
`
`“set threshold” like the lower test limit
`
`(“LTL” shown as 0.001 on the bottom
`
`of the y-axis) or upper test limit (“UTL”
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`

`
`In-Depth Test’s Pre-Trial Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2015-00421 (6,792,373 B2)
`
`shown as 0.005 on the top of the y-axis). [Id. 6:34–37.]
`
`Further, the patent explains that the second set is additionally broken
`
`down in to two types of test results: “Some of the test results in the second set
`
`that stray from the first set may exceed the control limits [circles of Figure 9],
`
`while others do not [triangles of Figure 9].” [Id. 6:42–44.] The patent explains
`
`in no uncertain terms that it is the subset in the second set that do not exceed
`
`the control limits that are “outliers” to be identified by the supplemental data
`
`analysis element based upon their relationship to the first data set. [Id. 6:44–
`
`46 (“[T]est results that stray from the first set but do not exceed the control
`
`limits . . . are re

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket