`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR: IPR2021-01342
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248
`_____________________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 1
`OCEAN’S UNSUPPORTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REBUT THE SHOWING THAT ALL
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................... 2
`Even If the Preamble Were Limiting, the Prior Art Discloses
`the “Automated Manufacturing Environment” Referenced in
`the Preamble .......................................................................................... 2
`The Schulze-Gupta Combination Discloses an “Integrated,
`Automated Process Flow” ..................................................................... 5
`The Schulze-Gupta Combination Discloses “Software
`Scheduling Agent,” Even Under Ocean’s Unsupported
`Constructions ......................................................................................... 9
`“Software Scheduling Agent” Is Not Limited to
`“Resource Scheduling” ............................................................... 9
`“Software Scheduling Agent” Does Not Require “Fab-
`Wide” and “Globally-Reactive” Scheduling ............................ 11
` OCEAN HAS FAILED TO REBUT PETITIONER’S SHOWING
`THAT A POSA WOULD HAVE HAD A REASONABLE
`EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS COMBINING SCHULZE WITH
`GUPTA .......................................................................................................... 15
` CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc.,
`919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 2
`In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 18
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC,
`928 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 8
`Compaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.,
`596 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 18
`Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Acorne Enters., LLC,
`IPR2014-00352, Paper 36 (PTAB July 9, 2015) .................................................. 5
`Game & Tech. Co. v. Wargaming Grp. Ltd.,
`942 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 5
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.,
`719 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 2
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................ 9
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Imperium (IP) Holdings,
`IPR2015-01232, Paper 51 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2016) ................................................. 7
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 6
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 10
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 7
`Wyers v. Master Locks Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 18
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Statutes and Other Authorities
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248 (“’248 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,907,305 (“’305 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Stanley Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Stanley Shanfield, Ph.D.
`
`File Wrapper for the ’248 patent
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`File Wrapper for the ’305 patent
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`
`Schulze, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0116083
`(provisional application filed Oct. 17, 2000; application filed Oct. 16;
`2001; published Aug. 22, 2002)
`
`Gupta et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,888,692 (filed Nov. 10, 1988; issued
`Dec. 19, 1989)
`
`Schulze, U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/241,343 (filed Oct. 17,
`2000)
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Electronic Assignment
`Record for U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248
`
`District Court Trial Dates Tend to Slip After PTAB Discretionary
`Denials, available at https://www.patentspostgrant.com/district-
`court-trial-dates-tend-to-slip-after-ptab-discretionary-denials/ (last
`visited July 20, 2021)
`
`B.L. MacCarthy and J. Liu, Addressing the Gap in Scheduling
`Research: A Review of Optimization and Heuristic Methods in
`Production Scheduling, Int. J. Prod. Pres., Vol. 31, No. 1, 59-79
`(1993)
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Description
`
`W. Shen, L. Wang and Q. Hao, Agent-based Distributed
`Manufacturing Process Planning and Scheduling: A State-of-the-art
`survey, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C
`(Applications and Reviews), vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 563-577 (July 2006)
`
`W. Shen, Distributed manufacturing scheduling using intelligent
`agents, IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 17, no. 1, 88-94 (Jan.-Feb.
`2002)
`
`M. Yamamoto and S. Y. Nof, Scheduling/rescheduling in the
`manufacturing operating system environment , International Journal
`of Production Research, 23:4, 705-722 (1985)
`
`J. Sun and D. Xue, A Dynamic Reactive Scheduling Mechanism for
`Responding to Changes of Production Orders and Manufacturing
`Resources, Computers in Industry, 189-207 (2001)
`
`J. McGehee, The MMST Computer-Integrated Manufacturing System
`Framework, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 7:
`107-16 (1994)
`
`P. Cowling and M. Johansson, Using Real Time Information for
`Effective Dynamic Scheduling, European Journal of Operational
`Research 139, 230-244 (2002)
`
`P. Diwan and D. Kothari, Role of Automation and Robotics in
`Semiconductor Industry, IETE Technical Review, 7: 368-77 (1990)
`
`N.R. Jennings and M. Wooldridge, Applications of Intelligent
`Agents, Agent Technology, 3-28 (1998)
`
`J.Y. Pan and J.M. Tenenbaum, Toward an Intelligent Agent
`Flamework for Enterprise Integration, AAAI (1991)
`
`H. Fargher and R. Smith, Planning for the Semiconductor
`Manufacturer of the Future, AAAI (1992)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1013
`
`
`1014
`
`
`1015
`
`
`1016
`
`
`1017
`
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1023 W. Shen and D. Norrie, A Hybrid Agent-Oriented Infrastructure for
`Modeling Manufacturing Enterprises (1998)
`
`Description
`
`1024
`
`K. Kouiss, H. Pierreval, and N. Mebarki, Using Multi-Agent
`Architecture in FMS for Dynamic Scheduling, J. Intelligent
`Manufacturing, vol. 8, no. 1, 41–47 (Feb. 1997)
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`S. Parthasarathy and S.H. Kim, Manufacturing Systems: Parallel
`System Models and Some Theoretical Results, International Journal
`of Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. 3, No. 4, 225-238
`(1990)
`
`R. Uzsoy, C. Lee, and L. Martin-Vega, Models in the Semiconductor
`Industry Part I: System Characteristics, Performance Evaluation and
`Production Planning, IIE Transactions, 24:4, 47-60 (1992)
`
`H. Fargher, et al., A Planner and Scheduler for Semiconductor
`Manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor
`Manufacturing, Vol. 7, No. 2, 117-28 (May 1994)
`
`R. Leachman and D. Hodges, Benchmarking Semiconductor
`Manufacturing (2001)
`
`J. Macher et al., E-Business and Semiconductor Industry Value
`Chain: Implications for Vertical Specialization and Integrated
`Semiconductor Manufacturers, East-West Center Working Papers
`Economics Series No. 47 (May 2002)
`
`G. Tassey, Standardization in Technology-Based Markets (June
`1999)
`
`R. Langlois, Capabilities and Vertical Disintegration in Process
`Technology: The Case of Semiconductor Fabrication Equipment
`(January 1998)
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-
`12310 (D. Mass.), ECF No. 37, Sept. 20, 2021
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Infineon Tech. AG, No. 1:20-cv-12311
`(D. Mass.), ECF No. 38, Sept. 20, 2021
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1210
`(W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 49, Nov. 29, 2021
`Tetrad Tech., LLC v. Implus Footcare, LLC, No. 6:21-cv-796 (W.D.
`Tex.), ECF No. 15, Oct. 13, 2021
`Peters v. United States, No. 6:21-cv-550 (W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 13,
`Oct. 3, 2021
`Springman v. Fun Town Enter., LLC, No. 6:21-cv-63 (W.D. Tex.),
`ECF No. 14, Apr. 16, 2021
`Satco Prod., Inc. v. Signify N. Am. Corp., No. 6:21-cv-146 (W.D.
`Tex.), ECF No. 34, July 14, 2021
`How reliable are trial dates relied on by the PTAB in the Fintiv
`analysis? available at https://www.1600ptab.com/2021/10/how-
`reliable-are-trial-dates-relied-on-by-the-ptab-in-the-fintiv-analysis/
`(last visited Dec. 7, 2021)
`WSOU Inv., LLC v. Dell Tech. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00473 (W.D. Tex.),
`ECF No. 128, Dec. 1, 2021
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1210
`(W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 51, Dec. 9, 2021
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1210
`(W.D. Tex.), Docket Report, Dec. 10, 2021
`Declaration of Pan Lee in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Pro
`Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Jeannine Yoo Sano in Support of Petitioner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`Declaration of Don Zhe Nan Wang in Support of Petitioner’s Motion
`for Pro Hac Vice Admission Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c)
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1046
`
`Deposition Transcript of Kurt D. Humphrey, June 22, 2022
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`SEMI E81-0600 Provisional Specification for CIM Framework
`Domain Architecture (June 2000)
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No 4:20-cv-00991 (E.D. Tex.),
`ECF No. 39, Feb. 2, 2022
`Claim Construction Order, Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek
`Inc., No 6:20-cv-01210 (W.D. Tex.), ECF No. 51, Dec. 9, 2021
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`Despite agreeing that claim construction is not necessary to determine
`
`patentability of the ’248 patent, see Patent Owner’s Response (“POR”) at 7, Patent
`
`Owner (“Ocean”) advances constructions of independent claims 1 and 14 of the
`
`’248 patent which are contrary to the intrinsic record as well as its own expert’s
`
`testimony.1 Ocean then applies its erroneous constructions of “automated
`
`manufacturing environment” (preamble), “integrated, automated process flow”
`
`(1.a/14.a), “software scheduling agent” (1.c/14.c), and “reactive scheduling”
`
`(1.c/14.c), to Schulze and Gupta individually, see POR at 8-15 (addressing only
`
`Schulze), 16-23 (addressing only Gupta), and presents no evidence to support its
`
`conclusory assertion that the Schulze-Gupta “combination [does not] teach or
`
`suggest these limitations.” Apart from its faulty claim construction positions with
`
`respect to these limitations, Ocean does not otherwise present any arguments or
`
`
`1 The Western and Eastern Districts of Texas issued claim construction orders
`
`approximately 4-6 months after the filing of the present Petition on August 3, 2021
`
`and 3-5 months before Ocean filed the POR and supporting expert declaration on
`
`May 4, 2022. See Ex. 1048 (Feb. 8, 2022); Ex. 1049 (Dec. 9, 2021). Ocean’s
`
`expert has not reviewed and did not address these claim construction orders. See
`
`Ex. 1046 at 74:3-75:21, 115:16-116:4.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`evidence regarding the obviousness of dependent claims 2-13 and 15-22. See POR
`
`at 31-32.
`
`In view of the evidence presented in the Petition, which Ocean has failed to
`
`rebut, claims 1-22 should be cancelled as unpatentable. See Novo Nordisk A/S v.
`
`Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 719 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he
`
`presumption of validity does not relieve the patentee of any responsibility to set
`
`forth evidence in opposition to a challenger’s prima facie case which, if left
`
`unrebutted, would be sufficient to establish obviousness.”).
`
` OCEAN’S UNSUPPORTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`ARGUMENTS FAIL TO REBUT THE SHOWING THAT ALL
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`As shown below, the Schulze-Gupta combination discloses the disputed
`
`limitations of claims 1 and 14, even under Ocean’s contorted constructions.
`
` Even If the Preamble Were Limiting, the Prior Art Discloses the
`“Automated Manufacturing Environment” Referenced in the
`Preamble
`In addition to confirming that “preambles generally are not limiting,”
`
`Ocean’s expert, Mr. Humphrey, testified, “I don’t believe the preambles are
`
`particularly relevant to the issue of obviousness.” See Ex. 1046 at 86:2-21, 92:8-
`
`19; Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019) (“[A] preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally
`
`complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`or intended use for the invention.”). Yet Ocean argues that neither Schulze nor
`
`Gupta discloses “automated manufacturing environment,”2 recited in the preamble
`
`of claims 1 and 14. See POR at 8.
`
`The evidence presented in the Petition shows that the Schulze-Gupta
`
`combination discloses an “automated manufacturing environment” in the form of
`
`“a front-end manufacturing facility for integrated circuits,” or semiconductor fab,
`
`which is “highly automated.” See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100, 131; Ex. 1008 at Abstract,
`
`3:49-59; see also Ex. 1007 at [0039], [0040]. Mr. Humphrey acknowledged that
`
`semiconductor fabs “akin to what’s described in Schulze” in the 1995-1999
`
`timeframe were “automated fabs.” See Ex. 1046 at 47:6-13, 50:9-54:19
`
`
`2 Mr. Humphrey later testified that the portion of the claim that requires
`
`“scheduling multiple machine and/or resource operations simultaneously
`
`throughout a large semiconductor production facility” is the “automated
`
`manufacturing environment” recited in the preamble, “as well as the references, the
`
`exhibits from Gupta and Schulze ….” See Ex. 1046 at 108:7-109:5. As discussed
`
`below, the claims do not require scheduling multiple machines/resources
`
`simultaneously, and the specification and prosecution history expressly describe
`
`the claimed “software scheduling agent” as associated with only a single
`
`manufacturing domain entity at any given time. See Section II.C.2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`(automated fabs at Rockwell akin to Schulze); id. at 23:17-22, 25:3-26:10, 28:19-
`
`21, 31:12-32:19, 36:15-37:22, 39:6-40:9 (other examples of pre-2002 fabs that
`
`were also “automated”); see also Ex. 1008 at 3:49-59 (disclosed scheduling system
`
`is “described with respect to a front end [manufacturing facility] which is highly
`
`automated”).
`
`Whether fabs are “fully automated,” see Ex. 1046 at 39:19-40:1, is
`
`immaterial given that the claims and specification never distinguish an “automated
`
`manufacturing environment” from a “fully automated” manufacturing environment
`
`or fab. See POR at 6, 14 (citing ’248 patent disclosures concerning “highly
`
`automated factory operations”). As Mr. Humphrey recognized, “[t]here has been a
`
`steady evolution over the past four or five decades in semiconductor manufacturing
`
`that has constantly evolved towards higher and higher levels of automation,” and
`
`even today “there’s a spectrum out there of currently operating semiconductor fabs
`
`in terms of the degree of human interaction with the product.” See Ex. 1046 at
`
`18:11-19:3, 19:21-22:22.
`
`Therefore, even if the preamble were determined to be limiting, the Schulze-
`
`Gupta combination discloses the “automated manufacturing environment” recited
`
`in the preamble.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`
`The Schulze-Gupta Combination Discloses an “Integrated,
`Automated Process Flow”
`In an attempt to argue that the prior art presented does not disclose an
`
`“integrated, automated process flow,” Ocean proffers a construction that conflicts
`
`with the intrinsic record as well as its own expert’s testimony and then fails to
`
`compare even that flawed construction with the Schulze-Gupta combination. See
`
`Game & Tech. Co. v. Wargaming Grp. Ltd., 942 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`
`(“The question in an obviousness inquiry is whether it would have been obvious to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant disclosures of the two
`
`references, not whether each individual reference discloses all of the necessary
`
`elements”). The POR discusses only Schulze in connection with this limitation,
`
`see POR at 8-12, and includes only a conclusory assertion that neither Schulze nor
`
`Gupta teach or disclose an integrated, automated process flow. See id. at 24, 25.
`
`Ocean’s unsupported arguments are insufficient to rebut the evidence presented in
`
`the Petition showing that the Schulze-Gupta combination discloses an “integrated,
`
`automated process flow.” See Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. Acorne Enters., LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00352, Paper 36 at 15-16 (PTAB July 9, 2015) (arguments and
`
`conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence entitled to little probative
`
`value).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`Ocean contends that the term “integrated, automated process flow” requires
`
`“automated material handling system (AMHS) software components 280.”3 See
`
`POR at 8, 11, 24-25. Ocean’s sole support for the inclusion of “AMHS 280” is in
`
`connection with Figure 2, a portion of one particular embodiment described in the
`
`specification. See POR at 10-12. Figure 2 depicts “selected portions of the
`
`hardware and software architectures, respectively, of the computing devices in
`
`FIG. 1.” See Ex. 1001 at 4:25-27. Figure 1, in turn, “conceptually illustrates a
`
`portion of one particular embodiment of a process flow 100.” See Ex. 1001 at 5:3-
`
`5. The ’248 patent explains that the AMHS “‘handles’ the lots 130 and facilitates
`
`their transport from one station 105 to another, as well as other locations in the
`
`process flow 100.” See Id. at 5:29-32.
`
`
`3 Ocean further contends that the term “integrated, automated process flow”
`
`requires “Software Agent 265,” see POR at 11, even though “software scheduling
`
`agent” is separately recited by the claim. See Ex. 1001 at 30:44, 32:6-7; SimpleAir,
`
`Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 431 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings”). As discussed
`
`below in connection with the term “software scheduling agent” in Section II.C, the
`
`Schulze-Gupta combination discloses a software implemented scheduler for at
`
`least “machine, lot, and local PM scheduling.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`Nothing in the ’248 patent suggests limiting the claimed “integrated,
`
`automated process flow” to “process flow 100” shown in Figures 1 and 2. See
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(“We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine
`
`words.”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Imperium (IP) Holdings, IPR2015-01232, Paper
`
`51 at 30-31 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2016) (improper to import limitations from
`
`embodiment shown in figure where it is “apparent to [a POSA] that many more
`
`embodiments and implementations are possible”). The specification actually
`
`indicates the opposite, explaining that “process flow 100” pertains to an
`
`embodiment concerning “fabricat[ion of] semiconductor devices[, but] the
`
`invention may be applied to other types of manufacturing processes.” See Ex.
`
`1001 at 5:5-8.
`
`Ocean’s expert agreed that these figures merely “illustrate a portion of one
`
`particular embodiment of a process flow,” and “there are other possible
`
`embodiments of the process flow.” See Ex. 1046 at 93:8-19; 95:20-96:18. Thus,
`
`limiting the claimed “integrated, automated process flow” to require an AMHS is
`
`contrary to the disclosure of the ’248 patent, as well as the testimony of Ocean’s
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`own expert regarding a POSA’s understanding of that term.4 See Cisco Sys., Inc. v.
`
`TQ Delta, LLC, 928 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[I]t is improper to read
`
`limitation from a preferred embodiment described in the specification – even if it is
`
`the only embodiment – into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic
`
`record that patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”).
`
` Schulze discloses a “complex and involved process … typically performed
`
`in manufacture of a semiconductor wafer” carried out in a semiconductor
`
`fabrication facility, as well as the extensive processing information gathered from
`
`such a process. See Ex. 1007 at [0005], [0006], [0008]-[0010], [0012], [0055],
`
`[0064]; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87-97. Ocean’s expert acknowledged that Schulze discloses
`
`“a semiconductor fabrication facility” and “examples of semiconductor fabrication
`
`systems,” see Ex. 2041 ¶¶ 34, 37, and testified that a “semiconductor
`
`manufacturing or fabrication process” is an embodiment of the claimed “process
`
`flow.” See Ex. 1046 at 93:8-19, 94:18-21, 95:20-96:18. Gupta discloses a process
`
`flow of “interrelated machines” carried out in a “highly automated” fab, see Ex.
`
`1008 at Abstract, 3:49-59, and a software implemented scheduler that “can easily
`
`handle all the computational demand of a large, complex manufacturing facility.”
`
`
`4 Ocean does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art or the applicable date
`
`of April 30, 2002. See POR at 7.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`See Ex. 1008 at 14:8-11. As such, the Schulze-Gupta combination discloses an
`
`“integrated, automated process flow.”
`
` The Schulze-Gupta Combination Discloses “Software Scheduling
`Agent,” Even Under Ocean’s Unsupported Constructions
`
`“Software Scheduling Agent” Is Not Limited to “Resource
`Scheduling”
`Ocean’s argument that the Schulze-Gupta combination does not disclose a
`
`“software scheduling agent” is based on its position that the claimed software
`
`scheduling agent requires “resource scheduling,” relying on a particular
`
`embodiment listing four “principle types of scheduling agents 265,” including “a
`
`Resource Scheduling Agent (‘RSA’) 320.” See POR at 17-19 (citing Ex. 1001 at
`
`7:20-30). The ’248 patent describes “resource scheduling” as “scheduling
`
`activities on behalf of resources,” without further detail. See Ex. 1001 at 7:29-30.
`
`Mr. Humphrey confirmed that the RSA 320 in Figure 3 is merely one of many
`
`possible embodiments. See Ex. 1046 at 97:12-99:11; Philips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[A]lthough the specification often describes
`
`very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against
`
`confining the claims to those embodiments.”). Ocean provides no basis to elevate
`
`the resource scheduling agent embodiment over the others, contrary to the
`
`description in the specification that “[t]here may be many different types of
`
`scheduling agents 265, depending on the implementations,” as well as its own
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`expert’s view.5 See Ex. 1001 at 7:19-20; id. at 7:20-30 (listing different “types of
`
`scheduling agents 265”), Fig. 3 (illustrating each different type of scheduling agent
`
`in distinct boxes numbered 305, 310, 315, 320); see also Paper 17 at 4-5.
`
`Ocean further contends that a POSA had no means to implement resource
`
`scheduling “in 1988 when Gupta was originally filed.” See POR at 19-20.
`
`However, as Mr. Humphrey recognized, an “obviousness opinion for the ’248
`
`patent and ’305 patent is supposed to be based on a POSA’s knowledge in 2002,”
`
`the alleged time of invention for the ’248 patent, not 1988. See Ex. 1046 at 80:20-
`
`81:13, 82:6-18, 83:3-11; pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). By 2002, event-driven
`
`scheduling of manufacturing resources using software agents, such as a multi-agent
`
`architecture (proposed in 1997) where the agent was capable of performing
`
`dynamic rescheduling according to resource availability, was well known. See Ex.
`
`
`5 The case cited by Ocean, see POR at 22, also does not support limiting the
`
`claimed “software scheduling agent” to the resource scheduling embodiment “RSA
`
`320” in contravention of both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. In re Suitco
`
`Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (even under broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard for patent examination, proposed construction
`
`must be consistent with claim language and specification).
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`1003 ¶¶ 55-56; Ex. 1024 at 41-44; Ex. 1014 at 92; EX. 1016 at 198-205 (“4.2
`
`Reactive scheduling for manufacturing resource changes”).
`
`Even if the claims required “resource scheduling,” the combination of
`
`Schulze and Gupta discloses scheduling for manufacturing resources, such as
`
`machine availability, by describing scheduling “[e]vents which drive the decision
`
`making process includ[ing] machine loads and unloads, and a machine going off-
`
`line or coming online.” See Ex. 1008 at 13:56-58; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100-102, 139-140.
`
`This disclosure is consistent with other prior art disclosures that “[t]ypical
`
`manufacturing resources include facilities, persons, materials, and so on” and
`
`“[m]anufacturing resource changes include breakdowns of machines and sudden
`
`sickness of workers.” See Ex. 1016 at Abstract, 189 (cited by Ex. 1001 at Cover p.
`
`2). The SEMI E81 standard, a semiconductor industry standard that “deals
`
`specifically with scheduling” according to Mr. Humphrey, see Ex. 1046 at 100:18-
`
`22, also explains that “[f]actory resources, such as machines, people, and reticles,
`
`are the entities that participate in transforming materials into products.” See Ex.
`
`1047 at 22.
`
`
`
`“Software Scheduling Agent” Does Not Require “Fab-
`Wide” and “Globally-Reactive” Scheduling
`Ocean interprets the claimed “software scheduling agent” as “a dynamic
`
`globally-reactive scheduling system” or “an integrated fab-wide system” for
`
`“schedul[ing] multiple machine[s] and/or resource operations simultaneously
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`throughout a large semiconductor production facility.” See POR at 22-24, 28; Ex.
`
`1046 at 120:5-122:11. Ocean’s construction is not supported by the claims and
`
`contradicts the specification and prosecution history. Even Ocean’s expert
`
`confirmed that “Claim 1 does not require [fab-wide] scheduling,” and that
`
`“performing scheduling for one tool in the fab” would still be covered by the claim
`
`1 of the ’248 patent. See Ex. 1046 at 103:20-104:3, 110:8-14.
`
`The specification repeatedly describes “software scheduling agent” as
`
`associated with a single manufacturing domain entity, i.e., a lot, a process tool, a
`
`resource, a PM, or a Qual. See Ex. 1001 at 6:40-43, 6:63-66, 7:17-19, 9:60-10:2,
`
`11:36-39, 12:15-18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65; Ex. 2041 ¶ 42. Ocean relies on a portion of the
`
`specification stating that changes instituted by a single software scheduling agent
`
`“can ripple through the process flow and, in particular, the calendars.” See POR at
`
`23 (citing Ex. 1001 at 29:26-35). That same section of the specification, however,
`
`goes on to explain that “[t]he changes must consequently be communicated to the
`
`other software agents so they can update their calendars respectively.” See Ex.
`
`1001 at 29:31-34. The specification accordingly describes multiple agents
`
`propagating updates to calendars throughout the process flow, as opposed to a
`
`single software scheduling agent that can “schedule multiple machine[s] and/or
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`resource operations simultaneously throughout a large semiconductor production
`
`facility.”6 See POR at 28.
`
`The prosecution history further refutes Ocean’s position that the claimed
`
`“software scheduling agent” requires “schedul[ing] multiple machine[s] and/or
`
`resource operations simultaneously throughout a large semiconductor production
`
`facility.” During prosecution, the patentee expressly represented to the patent
`
`examiner that one of three characteristics of the claimed software scheduling
`
`agents is that “they represent some respective manufacturing domain entity” which
`
`distinguished them over the prior art. Ex. 1006 at 166-67 (“[T]he software
`
`components [of the prior art Kline reference] involved in scheduling do not
`
`represent respective manufacturing domain entities, but rather operate across the
`
`whole fab.”); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73-75. The patentee also repeatedly represented that
`
`
`6 Ocean’s position has been expressly rejected in both the Western and Eastern
`
`Districts of Texas. See Ex. 1048 at 27-31 (“[c]ontrary to [Ocean’s] contention, the
`
`patentees clearly expressed a specific meaning for the term [“software scheduling
`
`agent”] throughout the intrinsic record” that “the software agent is limited to acting
`
`on behalf of a single manufacturing domain” and the “specification could not
`
`support any relationship that includes more than one manufacturing domain
`
`entity”); see also Ex. 1049 at 3.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`IPR2021-01342
`
`
`“[t]here is no support in Applicant’s specification for the proposition that a
`
`scheduling agent represent more than one manufacturing domain entity at any
`
`given time,” and “there is no support for a definition of the term ‘software
`
`scheduling agent’ in which an entity represents, for instance, a whole subsystem
`
`comprising large numbers of manufacturing domain entities.” See Ex. 1006 at
`
`204-205, 222-223; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76-80.
`
`Not only is there no requirement of “fab-wide,” “globally-reactive”
`
`scheduling or scheduling for multiple machines/resources simultaneously in any
`
`claim, Ocean does not address the express disclosure of “dynamic operation of the
`
`scheduler” in Gupta for reactively responding to unexpected/unplanned events,
`
`such as machine breakages, in an automated fab. See Ex. 1008 at 7:6-9; 25:8-45;
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 120-121, 142; see also Paper 17 at 13-16. By acknowledging that the
`
`Schulze-Gupta combination “discloses a real-time scheduling system and method”
`
`for at least “machine, lot, and local PM scheduling,” Ocean concedes that Gupta’s
`
`local optimization meets the scheduling requirements of the claims. See POR at
`
`16-17.
`
`With respect to claim 14, Ocean argues that the Schulze-Gupta combination
`
`does not disclose a “plurality of software scheduling agents,” see POR at 24,
`
`without any discussion of the evidence presented in the Petition that it would have
`
`been obvious to a POSA to implement a plurality of software schedulers
`
`1
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
