UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
` OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-01342
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248
`
`DECLARATION OF KURT D. HUMPHREY
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
` OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2021-01342
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248
`
`DECLARATION OF KURT D. HUMPHREY
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`US Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`1
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My name is Kurt D. Humphrey and I have been retained by Plaintiff
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC (“Ocean” or “Plaintiff”) as an expert witness in the
`
`above- IPR2021-01342 brought by Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied Materials” or
`
`“Petitioner”) before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) of the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`2. I make this declaration in support of Patent Owner Ocean Semiconductor
`
`LLC’s (“Ocean”) Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition in IPR2021-01342.
`
`3. This report contains statements of my opinions formed to date regarding
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248 (“’248 patent”) and the bases and reasons for those
`
`opinions. I may offer additional opinions based on further review of materials in
`
`this case, including opinions and/or testimony of other expert witnesses.
`
`4. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or amend my opinions in
`
`this declaration based on future positions taken by Petitioner and/or their experts,
`
`additional documents, testimony, or other information provided by Petitioner or its
`
`witnesses, any orders from the Board, or as I may otherwise find necessary and to
`
`offer rebuttal analyses and/or opinions to any such positions of the Petitioner.
`
`5. My educational and professional background, patents, and professional
`
`association memberships are listed in my curriculum vitae. (Ex. 2042.)
`
`2
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`6. Based on the following qualifications and experience, I believe I am
`
`qualified to offer opinions as to whether or not the challenged claims of the ’248
`
`patent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date
`
`of the ’248 patent.
`
`7. I have more than 40 years of experience in all phases of design and
`
`implementation of electronic devices, including over 30 years of experience in the
`
`design and implementation of computer semiconductor devices. My work has
`
`focused on the development, integration, and optimization of new processes and
`
`circuits into one final work product and introducing it to production.
`
`8. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Ceramic Engineering from the
`
`University of Missouri. I then accepted a Product Development engineering
`
`position with General Motors’ AC Spark Plug division in 1978, where I received
`
`the General Motors Graduate Study Fellowship. I received my Master of Science
`
`degree in Ceramic Engineering from the University of Missouri in 1980.
`
`9. Between 1980 and 1983, I was a Process Development Engineer at Delco
`
`Electronics Div. General Motors. During that time, I evaluated external silicon
`
`wafer suppliers while also introducing intrinsic-gettered substrates into MOS
`
`fabrication, resulting in an average 7% increase in die yield across all devices.
`
`10. I worked for AT&T Technologies from 1983 through 1986 as a Process
`
`Engineering and Yield Enhancement Manager. During that time, I contributed to
`
`3
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`the successful start up of new 125 mm high volume memory fabrication facility. I
`
`also coordinated DRAM process transfer from research and development to fab,
`
`and directed yield enhancement activities for 256k DRAM production for a new
`
`125mm line.
`
`11. After leaving AT&T in 1986, I worked for Philips Research Labs in
`
`Eindhoven, The Netherlands from 1986 through 1989 as a Process Integration
`
`Manager for CMOS processes. During my employment at Philips Research Labs,
`
`I served as Sub-micron Process Integration Manager and directed the development
`
`of a state of the art 0.7μ CMOS process from research and development through
`
`final product qualification. I also developed the first sub-micron CMOS process
`
`utilizing retro-wells, suppressed-BB LOCOS, salicide with TiSi2 local
`
`interconnect, W plugs, and I-line lithography.
`
`12. My work with CMOS processes continued after leaving Philips
`
`Research Labs, when I became the Process Integration Manger at United
`
`Technologies Microelectronics Center, United Technologies Corp. from 1989
`
`through 1995. There, I directed next-generation CMOS and bipolar process
`
`technology development projects, incluging ACUTE (advanced dielectrically-
`
`isolated, complementary bipolar linear array process on SOI), UTERPROG
`
`(radiation-hardened 1.0μ CMOS process technology utilizing vertical amorphous
`
`Si antifuses), and UTERTLM (1.0μ triple-level metal, rad-hard CMOS). I also
`
`developed advanced amorphous silicon metal-to-metal antifuse technology to
`
`4
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`support 256k RHPROM and RHPAL field programmable products, and developed
`
`novel deep trench-isolated, complementary bipolar SOI process.
`
`13. I next worked for Rockwell Semiconductor Systems (a.k.a. Conexant
`
`Systems) in multiple areas between 1995 and 1999. While at Rockwell, I managed
`
`process integration and advanced process development. I demonstrated first fully-
`
`functional Trench IGBTs and silicon MEMS gyros using 125mm substrates and
`
`authored 3 MEMS and 1 SAW filter disclosures. I also successfully completed
`
`comprehensive STI and 90nm CMOS process development test chips in record
`
`time to support an aggressive 90nm qualification schedule. As the Advanced
`
`Process Development Manager, my primary focus was state-of-the-art
`
`semiconductor products. I coordinated design rules, mask/reticle specifications,
`
`test chip design/layout, process qualification and transfer to production for 90nm
`
`CMOS process development in Rockwell’s Advanced Process Technology (APT)
`
`department in Newport Beach.
`
`14. After leaving Rockwell, I worked for TAEUS International Corp. as the
`
`Director for Engineering Services between 1999 and 2005. During this time, I
`
`managed patent evaluation and reverse engineering projects from the initial
`
`proposal through project completion and final review stages. I served as a primary
`
`technical contributor/SME on wireless telecom/networking standards, including
`
`802.11, Bluetooth and 3G/4G cellular and associated SEPs, optical networking and
`
`opto-electronic/photonics components, e.g. solid state DFB/quantum well lasers,
`
`5
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`silicon and compound semiconductor devices, e.g. memories, microprocessors, IR
`
`detectors and focal plane arrays, MEMS and sensors, FPD technologies, e.g. LCD,
`
`plasma and LED/OLED, etc. and biotech related projects. My specific
`
`responsibilities included client interface, project definition, cost, resource and
`
`schedule planning, technical input, supervision of staff engineers, external
`
`consultants and labs, patent evaluation, claim chart construction, and technical
`
`report writing.
`
`15. I left TAEUS in 2005 to serve as Managing Director and Principal
`
`Technologiet for IP Enginuity.
`
`16. I am the named inventor of five patents, listed below. The patents are in
`
`the areas of electronic and semiconductor manufacturing:
`
`a. Microelectromechanical device manufacturing process. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,337,027;
`
`b. Method of making an antifuse structure using a metal cap layer.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,759,876;
`
`c. Antifuse structure and process for manufacturing the same. U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,658,819;
`
`d. Method of forming high speed, high voltage fully isolated
`
`bipolar transistors on a SOI substrate. U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,344,785; and
`
`6
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`e. Electrode sputtering process for exhaust gas oxygen sensor.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,253,931.
`
`17. Based upon my education, training and experience, as summarized
`
`above (see Ex. 2042), I believe that I am qualified to provide opinion testimony as
`
`an expert on how a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art (“POSITA”) would
`
`have viewed the claimed invention of the ’248 patent and the teachings of the art at
`
`the time of that invention.
`
`18. In the past 15 years, I have testified as an expert witness in either
`
`deposition or trial in approximately 4 patent-related proceedings. I am available to
`
`appear live for testimony in support of my opinions. The opinions to which I will
`
`testify are based on the education, experience, training and skill that I have
`
`accumulated in the course of my career, as well as materials I have reviewed in
`
`connection with this matter.
`
`III. PRIOR TESTIMONY
`
`19. I have been retained as a testifying expert and technical consultant in
`
`connection with a number of patent litigation matters, including matters before
`
`U.S. District Courts, International Trade Commision (ITC), and the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
`
`20. A list of all such cases in which, during the previous 15 years, I have
`
`testified as an expert at trial or by deposition can be found in my CV. (Ex. 2042.)
`
`7
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`IV. COMPENSATION
`
`21. I am being compensated for my services at a rate of $300 per hour. I
`
`am also being separately reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses. My
`
`compensation is not contingent upon the outcome of this matter or any opinions
`
`that I express herein. I have no other interests in these actions or with any party.
`
`V. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`22. My opinions are based on my experience in this field, and are
`
`necessarily informed by my own experiences, materials I have read over the years,
`
`and discussions I have had with colleagues during my career. In addition, I have
`
`reviewed and considered the following materials in forming my opinion:
`
`a. The Petition (Paper 1);
`
`b. The ’248 and ’305 patents and their prosecution histories (Exs.
`
`1001, 1002, 1005 and 1006);1
`
`c. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0116083
`
`(“Schulze”; Ex. 1007);
`
`d. United States Patent No. 4,888,692 (“Gupta”; Ex. 1008);
`
`
`1 I understand that Petitioner submitted multiple exhibits with the Petition and that
`
`Patent Owner submitted several Exhibits with its Preliminary Response. My
`
`citations to Exhibits in this Declaration (other than to my attached C.V.) are to those
`
`Exhibits.
`
`8
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`e. the Declaration of Stanley Shanfield, Ph.D. (Ex. 1002).
`
`VI. TASK AND METHODOLOGY
`
`23. I have been asked to consider whether or not all of the elements of
`
`claims 1-22 of the ’248 patent are obvious over Schulze in light of Gupta.
`
`VII. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`24. I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this declaration, Patent
`
`Owner’s counsel has informed me about certain aspects of the law that are relevant
`
`to my opinions. I have applied those legal principles in arriving at my conclusions
`
`expressed in this declaration.
`
`25. I have been informed that, in order to show anticipation, the Petitioner
`
`must demonstrate that the cited reference discloses each element of a challenged
`
`claim either explicitly or inherently. I have also been informed that, in order to
`
`show obviousness, the Petitioner must demonstrate that the asserted combination
`
`of cited references disclose each element of a challenged claim.
`
`26. I have also been informed that, for obviousness, the Petitioner has the
`
`burden to show that there would have been some motivation to combine the
`
`asserted prior art, and that the proposed combination would have rendered the
`
`patented claims obvious at the time of the claimed invention. It is my
`
`understanding that, even if individual modifications or choices were obvious, a
`
`petition must explain why making all of the changes at once would have been
`
`obvious to a POSITA at the relevant time.
`
`9
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`27. I have also been informed that the lack of a technological obstacle to
`
`combining two or more references, in and of itself, does not justify a finding of
`
`obviousness. Rather, there needs to have been a reason for combining disparate
`
`prior art references that reason should have been set out in a manner that would
`
`provide an appropriate motivation for combining the references.
`
`28. I have further been informed that technological incompatibility between
`
`two references that prevents them from being combined in the manner necessary to
`
`obtain a claimed invention is relevant to whether or not that combination of
`
`references would have rendered a patent claim obvious. Similarly, I am informed
`
`that the technical feasibility of a proposed combination is relevant to determining
`
`whether a patent’s claims are obvious in light of that combination.
`
`29. I have further been informed that the obviousness determination must be
`
`made as of the date of the patented invention and according to the perspective of a
`
`POSITA at that time.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`30. I understand that Petitioner has provided a definition of ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the ’248 patent as having a degree “in computer science,
`
`mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and three years of
`
`experience working with automated manufacturing processes.” (Paper 1 at 17.) I
`
`believe this definition would encompass a degree in materials science as well. To
`
`10
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`the extent that it does not, I disagree with Petitioner’s definition. I also believe that
`
`additional education might compensate for less experience, or vice versa.
`
`IX. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ’248 PATENT
`
`30. Semiconductor manufacturing technology advancement has continued
`
`at a torrid pace for the past 50 years. Market demands for increased device
`
`functionality and reliability at a lower cost has driven, and continues to drive,
`
`manufacturers to reduce defects in the manufacture of integrated circuits.
`
`X. THE ASSERTED REFERENCES DO NOT TEACH INDEPENDENT
`CLAIMS 1 AND 14
`
`31. Neither Schulze nor Gupta individually, or in combination, disclose
`
`each of the elements of Claims 1 and 14 of the ’248 patent.
`
`32. First, Claims 1 and 14 describe a sophisticated “automated
`
`manufacturing environment” (Preamble) comprising an “integrated, automated
`
`process flow” (Claim 1.a and Claim 14.a) and utilizing software scheduling agents
`
`for “reactive scheduling” (Claim 1.c and Claim 14.c), i.e. “capable of reactively
`
`scheduling appointments for activities in the [integrated, automated] process flow
`
`responsive to an automatic detection and notification of a plurality of
`
`predetermined events.”
`
`33. Schulze’s application (Ex. 1007), entitled SYSTEM AND METHOD
`
`FOR AUTOMATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF FABRICATION
`
`FACILITY, is limited to basic monitoring and assessing of individual tool states,
`
`11
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`e.g., “(Unscheduled Downtime, Scheduled Downtime, Engineering Time, Standby
`
`Time, and Productive Time) which, together with Non-Scheduled Time, comprise
`
`the six basic equipment states,” (Schulze at [0008]) and reporting standard tool-
`
`related metrics or performance indicators, e.g., “the Overall Equipment Efficiency
`
`(OEE) metric and Overall Fabrication Efficiency (OFE) metric” (id. at [0011]) to a
`
`conventional Manufacturing Execution System (MES).
`
`34. Specifically, Schulze summarizes its preferred embodiment as follows:
`
`In accordance with a first embodiment of the invention, a method for
`
`monitoring and assessing operation of a semiconductor fabrication
`
`facility comprises the steps of connecting a monitoring and
`
`assessment system to a system bus which is connected directly or
`
`indirectly to a manufacturing execution system and a plurality of
`
`semiconductor fabrication tools. . . .
`
`During operation, the state models are updated for each tool affected
`
`by one of the triggers and transitions within the state models are
`
`recorded in a tracking database.
`
`(Id. at [0015].)
`
`35. In a second embodiment, Schulze states:
`
`[i]n another embodiment of the invention, a system for monitoring and
`
`assessing operation of a semiconductor fabrication facility for assessing
`
`overall equipment effectiveness [OEE] and overall fabrication effectiveness
`
`[OFE] comprises a monitoring and assessment system for receiving
`
`messages having equipment information therein for tracking operation states
`
`of a plurality of semiconductor fabrication tools.
`
`12
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`(Id. at [0016].)
`
`36. Schulze makes no mention of a process flow, much less an integrated or
`
`automated process flow. Nor does Schulze mention or allude to scheduling
`
`appointments for activities in the process flow in any context, reactively or
`
`otherwise.
`
`37. What Schulze does describe, at Figures 1-3, are “top-level diagrams
`
`illustrating examples of semiconductor fabrication systems in which an automated
`
`monitoring and assessment system incorporates features of the present invention.”
`
`(Id. at [0018].)
`
`38. Figure 4 (reproduced below) is described as “illustrating further details
`
`of a semiconductor fabrication System in which an automated monitoring and
`
`assessment System incorporates features of the present invention.” (Id. at [0019].)
`
`13
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`39. Figure 2 from the ’248 patent is reproduced below for comparison to
`
`
`
`Schulze’s Figure 4.
`
`14
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`
`40. Essentially, the entirety of Schulze’s detailed system as shown in Figure
`
`4 above would correspond to the dotted line portion and MES 270 of Figure 2 from
`
`the ’248 patent. In other words, the detailed system of Schulze is little more than a
`
`standards-compliant collection of data communication interfaces/buses connecting
`
`fab equipment to an MES 402 and the associated E58-0697 Automated Reliability,
`
`Availability and Maintainability Standard (ARAMS) databases.
`
`41. Conversely, Figure 2 of the ’248 patent also illustrates additional key
`
`elements, most notably, Software Agent 265 and automated material handling
`
`system (AMHS) software components 280. Unlike Schulze, which discloses a
`
`system or method “which is connected directly or indirectly to a manufacturing
`
`execution system and a plurality of semiconductor fabrication tools.” (id. at
`
`[0015]) (underline added for emphasis), the software agents 265 of the ’248 patent
`
`15
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`are not restricted to specific tools but can consist of any manufacturing domain
`
`entity in the process flow—including work product, fab resources, or even events.
`
`42. For example, “the software agents 265 each represent some
`
`‘manufacturing domain entity,’” e.g., a lot 130, a process tool 115, a resource, a
`
`PM, or a Qual.” (’248 patent, at 6:40-43.) Moreover, one of the specified
`
`functions of the software agents is described as follows:
`
`Of particular interest to the present invention, the software agents 265
`
`reactively schedule, initiate, and execute activities on behalf of their
`
`respective manufacturing domain entities. In the illustrated embodiment, the
`
`software agents 265 also proactively schedule activities.
`
`(Id., at 6:63-66 (underline added).)
`
`43. Additionally, Schulze fails to disclose or suggest any system or method
`
`that provides the proactive and reactive scheduling functions of the ’248 patent. In
`
`fact, Schulze’s only reference to “schedule” in any context is with respect to
`
`specific tools and their designated states, e.g., “the user may initially be presented
`
`with a list of the default states as specified by the E10 and/or E58 Standards,
`
`including the Productive state (and its sub-states), Standby state (and its sub-
`
`states), Engineering state, Scheduled Downtime state, Unscheduled Downtime
`
`states (and its sub-states), and NonScheduled state.” (Schulze, Ex. 1007 at [0178].)
`
`44. With respect to Shanfield’s declaration stating in Section A.1 that “A
`
`POSA Would Have Been Motivated To Adopt a Semiconductor Fabrication
`
`16
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`System With Automated Monitoring and Assessment as Taught by Schulze,” and
`
`his subsequent commentary highlighting the alleged merits of Schulze’s
`
`disclosures in paragraphs 109-112, I can only say that these comments are
`
`irrelevant with respect to the ’248 patent.
`
`45. The ’248 patent has little to do with Schulze’s automated tool
`
`monitoring and assessment system. The ’248 patent only makes brief mention of
`
`tool status in the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION stating, “An automated
`
`MES enables a user to view and manipulate, to a limited extent, the status of
`
`machines and tools, or ‘entities,’ in a manufacturing environment” (‘248 patent at
`
`2:28-31), and this is set out in the context of a conventional MES which is widely
`
`used in the industry and in and of itself is merely one component in the
`
`comprehensive automated scheduling system of the ’248 patent.
`
`46. This fundamental distinction between the invention of the ’248 patent
`
`and the tool tracking of Schulze is further explained in the ’248 patent specification
`
`which states: “[a]lthough MES systems are sufficient for tracking lots and
`
`machines, such systems suffer several deficiencies, the most obvious of which are
`
`their passive nature, lack of advance scheduling and inability to support highly
`
`automated factory operations.” (’248 patent, at 2:45-49.) Thus, the ’248 patent
`
`teaches away from the simple MES system of Schulze.
`
`47. The ’248 patent and its claimed invention are directed to a system and
`
`method for proactive and reactive scheduling in an automated manufacturing
`
`17
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`environment, and not to a tool monitoring and assessment system. Beyond the use
`
`of the term “automated” in both Schulze and the ’248 patent, the two disclosures
`
`have little in common. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a POSITA at the time
`
`of the ’248 patent filing would have connected the tool monitoring disclosure of
`
`Schulze with the ’248 patent’s “AGENT REACTIVE SCHEDULING IN AN
`
`AUTOMATED MANUFACTURING ENVIRONMENT” in any meaningful way.
`
`The teachings of Schulze would not have led a POSITA to the critical
`
`improvements claimed in the ’248 patent.
`
`48. Based on Schulze’s failure to disclose fundamental elements of the ’248
`
`patent—including: (1) a “method for scheduling in an automated manufacturing
`
`environment” (Claim 1); (2) the use of “software scheduling agents” (Claims 1 and
`
`14); and (3) “software scheduling agents being capable of reactively scheduling
`
`appointments for activities in the process flow “ (Claim 14)—there are no
`
`reasonable grounds and no expectation for concluding that a POSITA at the time of
`
`the ’248 patent filing would have considered Schultz as relevant to the claimed
`
`inventions of the ’248 patent.
`
`49. Similarly, Gupta (Ex. 1008), individually or in combination with
`
`Schulze, fails to disclose or suggest many aspects of the claims of the ’248 patent.
`
`First, referring to the preamble of the claims in Gupta, it is notable that all three
`
`independent claims (i.e., Claims 1, 3, and 4) include either “controlling the
`
`operation of a machine” (Claims 1 and 3) or “controlling operation of a plurality of
`
`18
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`machines” (Claim 4). Therefore, although Gupta discloses a real-time scheduling
`
`system and method, the claims of Gupta suggest that the scope of the teachings of
`
`Gupta are primarily limited to local machine scheduling.
`
`50. More specifically, Gupta states:
`
` The real-time portion of the scheduling system depends on local
`
`optimization to function efficiently. Instead of recalculating the
`
`complete global state for the system each time a decision must be
`
`made, only the relevant local state is recalculated. This greatly
`
`decreases the processor load.
`
`(Ex. 1008 at 13:43-48 (underlining added).)
`
`51. Furthermore, Gupta states:
`
`A system for scheduling the operation of interrelated machines which
`
`perform a process flow. A global definition of the system is made
`
`once, and each machine has an individual profile describing its local
`
`interaction with the system. Local scheduling decisions for each
`
`machine are made based on that machines individual profile and the
`
`state of the manufacturing facility at the time a decision is needed.
`
`Operation of the individual machines is controlled by the local
`
`scheduling decisions made therefor.
`
`(Id. at Abstract.)
`
`52. Gupta further states that “[i]n the preferred embodiment, a single
`
`processing system runs the entire scheduling system” (id. at 14:6-8) and that
`
`“[s]ince decisions are made on a local basis, a single moderately powerful
`
`19
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`processor can easily handle all the computational demands of a large, complex
`
`manufacturing facility” (id. at 14:8-11). A POSITA at the filing date of the ‘248
`
`patent would have understood Gupta as being limited to real-time scheduling of
`
`fab tools using local optimization, not a comprehensive real-time resource
`
`scheduling system using global, i.e., fab-wide, distributed optimization.
`
`53. The preceding discussion points to two fundamental and important
`
`distinctions between the disclosures of Gupta and the ‘248 patent. First, Gupta
`
`focuses specifically and exclusively on machine, lot, and local PM scheduling.
`
`Gupta makes no mention of resource scheduling nor attempts to address resource
`
`scheduling in any context.
`
`54. Figures 2 and 3 from Gupta set out below illustrate Gupta’s Process and
`
`Machine data structures, respectively. Notably, neither of Gupta’s disclosed data
`
`structures include or comprehend fab resources in any manner, much less teach
`
`reactive scheduling of fab resources.
`
`
`
`20
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`
`55. Conversely, resource scheduling is a fundamental aspect of the invention
`
`
`
`of the ’248 patent, as noted in the following excerpt from the ’248 patent:
`
`The principle [sic] types of scheduling agents 265 in the illustrated
`
`embodiment, shown in FIG. 3, include:
`
`a Lot Scheduling Agent (“LSA') 305 that schedules activities on
`
`behalf of lots 130 of wafers 135;
`
`a Machine Scheduling Agent (“MSA”) 310 that schedules activities
`
`on behalf of process tools 115;
`
`a PM Scheduling Agent (“PMSA”) 315 that schedules activities on
`
`behalf of PMs and Quals (not shown); and
`
`a Resource Scheduling Agent (“RSA”) 320 that schedules activities
`
`on behalf of resources (not shown).
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 7:20-30.) Figure 3 from the ‘248 patent is reproduced below
`
`for reference:
`
`21
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`
`
`56. Fig. 3 depicts four scheduling agents defined in the ’248 patent,
`
`including the “Resource Scheduling Agent 320.”
`
`57. The absence of any reference to resource scheduling in Gupta may have
`
`been due, in part, to technical limitations, such as computational power, that
`
`existed in 1988 when Gupta was originally filed. Gupta alludes to the negative
`
`impact of limited computer resources with respect to implementing even his
`
`machine-only based scheduling system. For example:
`
`The computational resources required for decision making tend to
`
`grow at least geometrically, and usually exponentially, with the size of
`
`the problem. Decisions which consider many factors, such as those
`
`made for the entire facility at once, tend to require prohibitive
`
`computational resources.
`
`(Ex. 1008 at 13: 57-14:4.)
`
`22
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`58. Therefore, even if Gupta had contemplated real-time resource
`
`scheduling, which again was never mentioned or alluded to in the Gupta
`
`disclosure, there were no means at that time (circa 1988) to implement such real-
`
`time resource scheduling. It would be another 10+ years for computer hardware
`
`and software to advance to the point that the integrated software scheduling agents
`
`of the ‘248 patent—including the Resource Scheduling Agent—could be created,
`
`implemented, and reduced to practice. This is further evidence that Gupta does not
`
`teach or suggest such scheduling as claimed in the ’248 patent.
`
`59. The ’248 patent specification refers to an innovative implementation in
`
`which the scheduling agents for individual tools interface with one or more control
`
`systems that coordinate the activities of multiple process tools:
`
`In furtherance of these objectives, the software agents 265 interface
`
`with the software components 270, 280 of the MES and AMHS,
`
`respectively, and are integrated with other existing factory control
`
`systems (not shown). The software agents 265, where appropriate,
`
`also interface with the process tools 115 and other equipment through
`
`a software implemented “equipment interface” (“EI”) (not shown). As
`
`will be apparent to those skilled in the art having the benefit of this
`
`disclosure, the manner in which this interface and integration occurs is
`
`implementation specific, depending upon the makeup and
`
`configuration of the MES, the AMHS, and the other factory control
`
`systems.
`
`23
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 6:50-62.) It should be noted that the software agents’ interfacing with
`
`the process tools and other equipment (i.e., machines) represents only one aspect of
`
`the agent reactive scheduling system of the ’248 patent.
`
`60. Notably, Dr. Shanfield’s only reference to non-computational resources
`
`(i.e., manufacturing resources) appears in paragraph 113, under the heading “A
`
`POSA Would Have Been Motivated To Enhance the Operational Efficiency of
`
`Schulze’s Semiconductor Fabrication System With the Event-Driven Software
`
`Local Scheduler Taught by Gupta,” where he opines that “a POSA would have
`
`recognized that software-implemented dynamic scheduling offers a way to
`
`leverage already present data gathering capabilities to enhance resource utilization
`
`and productivity.” (Ex. 1003 at ¶ 113.)
`
`61. However, since Schulze does not even address the subject of
`
`scheduling, dynamic or otherwise, and since Gupta fails to consider resource
`
`scheduling in any manner, dynamic or otherwise, it is unlikely that a POSITA at
`
`the filing date of the ’248 patent would have understood (from the teachings of
`
`Gupta and Schulze) the software scheduling agent-based reactive scheduling
`
`including Resource Scheduling Agents that is taught and claimed in the ’248
`
`patent.
`
`62. Summarizing, neither Schulze nor Gupta disclose or address reactive
`
`resource scheduling in any context and a POSITA would not have anticipated the
`
`reactive resource scheduling aspects of the invention of the ’248 patent nor had any
`
`24
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor, Exhibit 2041
`
`
`
`practical means to implement such resource scheduling even if that scheduling had
`
`been contemplated at the time of filing of the ‘248 patent.
`
`63. Second, Gupta fails to disclose an integrated, globally-reactive
`
`scheduling system. On the contrary, Gupta teaches a local decision-making and
`
`scheduling method and system. As noted previously, Gupta describes this
`
`localized scheduling as: “The real-time portion of the scheduling system depends
`
`on local optimization to function efficiently. Instead of recalculating the complete
`
`global state for the system each time a decision must be made, only the relevant
`
`local state is recalculated.” (Ex. 1008 at 13:43-47.)
`
`64. Furthermore, Gupta’s real-time scheduling method and system rely on a
`
`static set of global parameters, described thusly:
`
`The results of the global analysis are made available to the local
`
`decision making portion of the scheduler to improve its optimization
`
`functions. The global analysis is preferably made only one time
`
`unless process parameters change significantly or process flows are
`
`changed. The purpose of the global planning stage is to define the
`
`steady-state features of the manufacturing facility.
`
`(Ex. 1008 at 8:5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
