IPR2021-01342, IPR2021-01344
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,968,248/6,907,305
`
`Applied Materials, Inc., Petitioner
`v.
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC, Patent Owner
`
`November 15, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,968,248/6,907,305
`
`Applied Materials, Inc., Petitioner
`v.
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC, Patent Owner
`
`November 15, 2022
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`’305 Patent (Parent)/’248 Patent (Child)
`
`’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) Cover
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) Cover, 1:5-7
`Page 2 of 31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Both Patents Claim Same Features
`
`What is claimed:
`1. A method for scheduling in an automated
`manufacturing environment, comprising:
`detecting an occurrence of a predetermined event
`in a process flow;
`notifying a software scheduling agent of
`occurrence; and
`reactively scheduling an action from the software
`scheduling agent responsive to the detection of
`the predetermined event.
`
`the
`
`’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claim 1
`
`What is claimed:
`1. A method for scheduling in an automated
`manufacturing environment, comprising:
`a
`automatically detecting an occurrence of
`predetermined event in an integrated, automated
`process flow;
`automatically notifying a software scheduling
`agent of the occurrence; and
`reactively scheduling an action from the software
`scheduling agent responsive to the detection of
`the predetermined event.
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claim 1
`
`• Patent Owner’s expert agrees that “minor differences” between the two patents have
`no impact on the obviousness determination.
`
`’305 Ex. 1044/’248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 68:1-69:8;
`’248 Ex. 1003 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶ 70-71;
`’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 4-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`Claimed Features: “Software Scheduling Agent” + Three Steps
`
`the
`
`What is claimed:
`1. A method for scheduling in an automated
`manufacturing environment, comprising:
`detecting an occurrence of a predetermined event
`in a process flow;
`notifying a software scheduling agent of
`occurrence; and
`reactively scheduling an action from the software
`scheduling agent responsive to the detection of
`the predetermined event.
`
`What is claimed:
`1. A method for scheduling in an automated
`manufacturing environment, comprising:
`a
`automatically detecting an occurrence of
`predetermined event in an integrated, automated
`process flow;
`automatically notifying a software scheduling
`agent of the occurrence; and
`reactively scheduling an action from the software
`scheduling agent responsive to the detection of
`the predetermined event.
`’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claim 1;
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claim 1;
`see also ’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 3-4
`see also ’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 3-4
`Applicant focused on the “software scheduling agent” limitation to overcome
`rejections during prosecution.
`’305 Ex. 1004/’248 Ex. 1006 (FH) 165-66, 204-05, 222-23;
`see also ’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 4-6/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 4-7;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14-15/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`Characteristics of “Software Scheduling Agent”
`
`Referring now to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, 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.∗∗∗
`
`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.
`
`• During prosecution, Applicant stressed
`these characteristics to overcome the
`cited art:
`
`Thus, “software scheduling agents” possess three
`characteristics:
`as the phrase implies, they are implemented in
`•
`software;
`they represent some respective manufacturing
`domain entity; and
`they reactively schedule
`
`•
`
`•
`
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 5 n.2/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 6 n.2,
`citing ’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) 6:38-41/
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) at 6:40-43;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13-14/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 12-
`13, citing ’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) 6:61-64/
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) 6:63-66
`
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14-15/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13-14,
`citing ’305 Ex. 1004/’248 Ex. 1006 (FH) 165-166;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 4-5/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 5-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`Undisputed Limitations of Independent Claims
`’305 Claim ’248 Claim Limitation
`Status
`1[pre], 12
`1[pre], 14[b]
`“a method for scheduling,” “a computer readable, program storage
`Disclosed
`[pre], 19 [pre],
`medium,” “a computer system,” “processing stations”
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 51-53;
`’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 48-50
`33[b], 44[b]
`
`1[a], 12[a],
`19[a]
`
`1[a], 14[c]
`
`“[automatically] detecting an occurrence of a predetermined
`event” / “an automatic detection … of a plurality of predetermined
`events”
`
`Disclosed
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 41-42;
`’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 42, 50
`
`1[b], 12[b],
`19[b]
`
`1[b], 14[c]
`
`“[automatically] notifying … of the occurrence” / “automatic …
`notification of a plurality of predetermined events”
`
`1[c], 14[c]
`
`1[c], 12[c],
`19[c], 33[c],
`44[c]
`
`“reactively scheduling an action … responsive to the detection of
`the predetermined event” / “capable of reactively scheduling
`appointments for activities … responsive to … a plurality of
`predetermined events” / “capable of scheduling appointments for
`processing the work pieces through the process stations … capable
`of reactively scheduling responsive to predetermined events”
`
`Disclosed
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 42-44;
`’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 42-45, 50
`
`Disclosed
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 44-46, 48-
`51; ’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 45-47,
`50-51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’305 Paper 30/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 1-2
`Page 6 of 31
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Undisputed Claims
`
`“[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.”
`Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs.,
`719 F.3d 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`’305 Paper 30/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 1-2
`
`Claim
`’305 patent
`claims 2-11, 13-18,
`20-25, 34-43, 45-53
`
`’248 patent
`claims 2-13, 15-22
`
`Status
`Disclosed ’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 51-67
`Only disputed based on independent claims
`1, 12, 19, 33, 44 ’305 Paper 21 (POR) at 32
`
`Disclosed
`’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 51-67
`Only disputed based on independent
`claims 1, 14 ’248 Paper 21 (POR) at 31-32
`
`• No dispute that there are no objective indicia of
`non-obviousness.
`
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 68/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 67;
`’305 Ex. 1044/’248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 79:7-17;
`’305 Paper 30/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`Combination of Schulze and Gupta
`Schulze (assigned to Petitioner)
`• Automated Monitoring and Assessment System 107
`for a semiconductor manufacturing facility
`• Tools or MES transmit or publish messages to
`Automated Monitoring System 107 via bus 105
`• Automated Monitoring System 107 tracks states like
`“Unscheduled Downtime,” “Scheduled Downtime,” etc.
`• Software “written in any suitable programming
`language”
`
`Gupta
`• Software scheduler for process flow in manufacturing
`facility for integrated circuits
`Local decision-making performs real-time local
`optimization in response to events (e.g., machine load,
`coming on-line)
`
`•
`
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 33-39/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 33-41;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 16-17/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`Schulze Tracks Information Needed by Gupta
`Schulze
`Gupta
`[0010] As the E58 Standard was apparently envisioned,
`The remaining items in the data structure of FIG. 3
`tool and equipment manufacturers would include special
`are related to the dynamic operation of the scheduler . . .
`software with their tools and equipment, allowing
`The LAST-LOADED-AT and NEx. T AVAILABLE-AT
`controllers or monitoring equipment to read information
`items are used to determine when the machine will be
`about trigger events that could be gathered and used in
`available to accept the next incoming load. The NEx. T-
`the calculations of tool availability, reliability and
`AVAILABLE-AT item also indicates the expected time
`maintainability.
`that a machine will be returned to service if it is currently
`down for repair or maintenance. The NEx. T-
`’305 Ex. 1005/’248 Ex. 1007 (Schulze) [0010], cited in ’305
`MAINTENANCE-TIME item indicates when the
`Paper 30 (Reply) at 17-18/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 16-17;
`machine is next expected to be taken out of service. This
`see also ’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 36/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 37-38
`refers to scheduled maintenance.
`
`’305 Ex. 1006/’248 Ex. 1008 (Gupta) 7:6-21, cited in ’305 Paper 30
`(Reply) at 17-18/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 16-17;
`see also ’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 36/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 37-38
`• Patent Owner’s Expert agrees that “a conventional MES of the type disclosed in Schulze is [] one
`component of the comprehensive scheduling system taught and claimed by” the ’305 patent and
`’248 patent.
`’305 Ex. 2041/’248 Ex. 2041 (Humphrey Decl.) ¶ 45,
`cited in ’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 17/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Raises Three Claim Construction Arguments
`1. preamble “automated manufacturing environment”
`• Schulze discloses a “semiconductor fabrication facility” with
`an “automated monitoring and assessment system”
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 23-27, 31-34, 40-41/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 24-
`29, 33-36, 41-42; ’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 2-4, 16-20/’248 Paper 30
`(Reply) at 2-4, 15-19
`2. “process flow” (’305) / “integrated, automated process
`flow” (’248)
`• Patent Owner’s expert agrees AMHS not required
`• Also agrees Schulze discloses process flow
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 22-27, 40-42/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 23-29, 41-
`45; ’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 7-8/’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 7-9, citing
`’305 Ex. 1044/’248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 93:8-19, 94:18-21,
`95:20-96:18
`
`’248 Patent Claim 1
`What is claimed:
`1. A method for
`scheduling in an
`automated manufacturing
`environment,
`comprising:
`automatically detecting an occurrence of a
`predetermined event
`in an integrated,
`automated process flow;
`software
`a
`automatically
`notifying
`scheduling agent of the occurrence; and
`reactively scheduling an action from the
`software scheduling agent responsive to
`the detection of
`the predetermined
`event.
`
`1 2 3
`
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claims 1, 14;
`’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claims 1, 12, 19, 33, 44
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3. “a [plurality of] software scheduling agent[s]”
`• Applicant distinguished the claimed agent from prior art
`system that performs “fab-wide” scheduling
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 27-31, 36-39, 42-46, 48-50/
`’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 29-32, 37-46, 48-50;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 10-16/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 9-15
`Page 10 of 31
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Preamble “Automated
`Manufacturing Environment”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`Preambles Not Limiting
`
`limiting where a
`“[A] preamble is not
`patentee defines a structurally complete
`invention in the claim body and uses the
`preamble only to state a purpose or
`intended use for the invention.”
`
`What is claimed:
`1. A method for scheduling in an
`automated manufacturing environment,
`comprising:
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods.,
`919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
`’305 Paper 30/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 2-3
`Patent Owner’s Expert:
`“I don’t believe the – the preambles are
`particularly relevant to the issue of
`obviousness.”
`
`’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claims 1, 12, 19, 33, 44;
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) Claims 1, 14;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 40-41, 46-48/
`’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 41-42, 47-48
`
`’305 Ex. 1044/’248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 92:8-19, 86:2-21;
`’305 Paper 30/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`Schulze-Gupta Discloses Scheduling in an
`“Automated Manufacturing Environment”
`Schulze
`Gupta
`FIG. 1 is a top-level diagram illustrating
`[0040]
`Abstract
`an example of
`a
`semiconductor
`fabrication
`scheduling the operation of
`A system for
`system 100 in which an automated monitoring and
`interrelated machines which perform a process
`assessment system incorporating features of the
`flow.
`present invention.
`
`∗∗∗
`∗∗∗
`
`The preferred scheduling system will be
`described with
`relation
`to
`a
`front-end
`manufacturing facility for integrated circuits.
`
`The scheduling system will be described with
`respect to a front end which is highly automated,
`but automation is not a necessary feature for its
`use.
`
`’305 Ex. 1005/’248 Ex. 1007 (Schulze) [0040], Fig. 1;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 40-41/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 41-42
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`’305 Ex. 1006/’248 Ex. 1008 (Gupta) Abstract, 3:49-58;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 40-41/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 41-42;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 2-4/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 2-4
`
`
`
`• Patent Owner’s expert acknowledged that fabs
`akin to Schulze were “automated.”
`’305 Paper 30/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 3-4
`
`Schulze Discloses Tracking for Scheduling
`Schulze
`[0055] In a preferred embodiment, the monitoring
`and assessment system defines a hierarchy of
`potential states for each semiconductor fabrication
`tool 415 connected in the system 400. The
`hierarchy of potential states is preferably based at
`least in part on the E10 and/or E58 Standards. For
`example,
`the hierarchy of potential states may
`include
`six
`top-level
`states
`(Unscheduled
`Downtime, Scheduled Downtime, Engineering
`Time, Standby Time, Productive Time, and Non-
`Scheduled Time), a set of intermediate states (e.g.,
`10 intermediate states) associated with each top-
`level states, and one or more optional levels of sub-
`states beneath each intermediate state.
`
`∗∗∗
`
`Q. To what extent were those fabs automated when you
`were at Rockwell?
`A. Again, it was mostly tool loading and unloading; and, of
`course, they had lot tracking systems as well. I believe
`their system was a little more sophisticated in terms of
`scheduling lots and trying to respond to bottlenecks and
`down equipment . . .
`
`I would say it was -- I guess to make -- to make a
`connection, it was more akin to what’s described in the
`Schulze – the Schulze application, one of the exhibits
`that’s been used in -- in this IPR proceeding or exhibits
`that’s been referred to in this IPR proceeding.
`
`’305 Ex. 1005/’248 Ex. 1007 (Schulze) [0055]; ’305 Paper 1
`’305 Ex. 1044/’248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 47:6-13, 50:9-
`(Pet.) at 24-26, 34-36/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 25-27, 35-38;
`54:19; ’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 18-19/
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 16-18/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 15-17
`’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 17-18
`Page 14 of 31
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`“[Integrated, Automated]
`Process Flow”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`AMHS Not Process Flow Requirement
`
`“‘[When] it will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that many more embodiments and implementations are possible that are
`within the scope of this invention’ … we do not read limitations from the embodiment of the invention depicted in [the figure] into the
`challenged claims.”
`
`Samsung v. Imperium (IP) Holdings, IPR2015-01232, Paper 51 at 30-31 (PTAB Dec.1, 2016)
`’305 Paper 30/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 7
`FIG. 2 conceptually depicts,
`in a partial block diagram,
`selected portions of the hardware and software architectures,
`respectively, of the computing devices in FIG. 1;
`
`FIG. 1 conceptually depicts a portion of one particular
`embodiment of a process flow constructed and operated in
`accordance with the present invention;
`
`∗∗∗
`∗∗∗
`
`FIG. 1 conceptually illustrates a portion of one particular
`embodiment of a process flow 100 constructed and operated in
`accordance with
`the
`present
`invention. The
`process
`flow 100 fabricates semiconductor devices. However,
`the
`invention may be applied to other types of manufacturing
`processes.
`’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) 4:20-25, 5:1-6/’248 Ex. 1001 (patent)
`4:22-27, 5:3-8; ’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 6-9/’248 Paper 30
`(Reply) at 6-8; ’305 Paper 17/’248 Paper 17 (ID) at 4-5
`Page 16 of 31
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`’305 Ex. 1001/’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) Fig. 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Schulze Detects Events in “[Integrated, Automated] Process Flow”
`
`[0055]
`In a preferred embodiment, the monitoring and
`assessment system defines a hierarchy of potential states
`for each semiconductor fabrication tool 415 connected
`in the system 400. The hierarchy of potential states is
`preferably based at least in part on the E10 and/or E58
`Standards. For example, the hierarchy of potential states
`may
`include
`six
`top-level
`states
`(Unscheduled
`Downtime, Scheduled Downtime, Engineering Time,
`Standby Time, Productive Time, and Non-Scheduled
`Time), a set of intermediate states (e.g., 10 intermediate
`states) associated with each top-level states, and one or
`more optional
`levels of
`sub-states beneath each
`intermediate state …
`
`[0214] The automated monitoring and assessment system
`407 can be configured to generate a trigger when an
`SVID changes
`from one value
`to another. This
`functionality may be particularly useful when an SVID is
`used to monitor an equipment process state. For example,
`a process state SVID may be defined that is used to
`denote when the tool 415 is processing, idle, cleaning,
`loading, etc.
`
`’305 Ex. 1005/’248 Ex. 1007 (Schulze) [0055], [0214], Fig. 1;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 41-42/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 42;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 5, 8-9/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 8-9;
`’305 Paper 17/’248 Paper 17 (ID) at 10-11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 17 of 31
`
`
`
`“Software Scheduling Agent”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 18 of 31
`
`
`
`Gupta Discloses “Software Scheduling Agent”
`Gupta
`Attached as an Appendix, and incorporated by
`reference hereto, is a listing of LISP code which
`implements the scheduler (Appendix A), simulator
`(Appendix B) and user interfaces (Appendix C).
`
`software-implemented
`
`event-driven
`
`performing scheduling for a specific
`machine in the process flow
`
`∗∗∗
`
`a
`and
`driven,
`event
`is
`Decision-making
`for each
`determination of what comes next
`machine is made whenever certain events take
`place. Events which drive the decision making
`process include machine loads and unloads, and a
`machine
`going
`off-line
`or
`coming
`on-line.
`Whenever one of
`these
`events occurs,
`the
`scheduling system must
`calculate what
`that
`machine will do next.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’305 Ex. 1006/’248 Ex. 1008 (Gupta) 30:13-16, 13:54-60;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 28-29, 42-46/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 29-30, 42-47;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 15/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14;
`’305 Paper 17/’248 Paper 17 (ID) at 9-10
`Page 19 of 31
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`
`
`Gupta Discloses “Software Scheduling Agent”
`Under District Court Constructions
`Gupta
`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.
`
`EDTX/WDTX Constructions
`“a software agent that at least schedules
`activities on behalf of a single manufacturing
`domain entity at any given time”
`’305 Ex. 1046/’248 Ex. 1048 (EDTX Markman Order) 27-31;
`’305 Ex. 1047/’248 Ex. 1049 (WDTX Markman Order) 3;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14 n.6/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13 n.6
`
`∗∗∗
`
`Local prediction is a fairly simple, but extremely
`powerful, concept. Each machine looks at its short
`term future, and decides what will happen based on
`incoming lots and its one decision process.
`
`’305 Ex. 1006/’248 Ex. 1008 (Gupta) 13:42-60, 20:5-14;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 28-30, 42, 44-45/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at
`30-31, 43, 45-46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 20 of 31
`
`
`
`No Support for Agent Scheduling “Fab-Wide”
`
`• No claim recites “fab-wide” scheduling.
`• No mention of “fab-wide” scheduling in specification.
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 12-15/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 11-14
`
`Q. So are you offering opinion that Claim 1
`of the ’248 patent and ’305 patent requires
`a fabwide reactive scheduling?
`A. Give me a minute to review Claim 1. The
`language of Claim 1 does not require
`fabwide scheduling.
`
`’305 Ex. 1044/’248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 103:20-104:3;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 12
`
`Q. [I]f the environment is just performing
`scheduling for one tool in the fab, would
`that not be covered by Claim 1 of the ’248
`patent or the ’305 patent? That’s a yes-or-
`no question. Is it covered or is it not
`covered?
`A. Yes it -- it would be covered.
`
`’305 Ex. 1044/’248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 110:8-14;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 21 of 31
`
`
`
`No Support for Agent Scheduling “Fab-Wide”
`Applicant’s Statements During Prosecution
`EDTX/WDTX Constructions
`Applicants’ review of Kline, et al. fails to identify any
`Regarding the second dispute, the Court finds that the
`“software scheduling agent.” … the software components
`intrinsic evidence indicates that the software agent is limited
`involved in scheduling do not represent respective
`to acting on behalf of a single manufacturing domain. The
`manufacturing domain entities, but rather operate across the
`patentees
`relied on an understanding of a “software
`whole fab. (col. 4, line 57 to col. 6, line 48; Figure 4) Kline, et
`scheduling agent” as operating on behalf of a single
`al.
`manufacturing domain entity at any given time during
`prosecution. Specifically, the patentees made clear that the
`specification could not support any relationship that includes
`more than one manufacturing domain entity. The patentees
`argued that “there is no support in applicants’ specification
`for the proposition that a scheduling agent represent more
`than one manufacturing domain entity at any given time.”
`Dkt. #33-14 at 15-16 (emphases added).
`
`* * *
`[T]here is no support in Applicants’ specification for the
`proposition that a scheduling agent represent more than one
`manufacturing domain entity at any given time or that a
`scheduling agent be implemented in anything other than
`software.
`Thus, 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.
`
`’305 Ex. 1004/’248 Ex. 1006 (FH) 164-66, 204-05, 222-23;
`’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 4-6; 248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 4-7;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14-15/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13-14
`
`’305 Ex. 1046/’248 Ex. 1048 (EDTX Markman Order) 27-31;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14 n. 6/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13 n.6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 22 of 31
`
`
`
`Specification Relies on Multiple Agents To Broadly Schedule
`Specification Cited in POR
`Specification Cited in Sur-Reply
`Note that, as booked appointments are shifted,
`canceled, shrunk, expanded, and rescheduled, the
`changes can ripple through the process flow and,
`in particular, the calendars. Changes are instituted
`by a single software agent, but a changed
`appointment may be booked on multiple calendars.
`The changes must consequently be communicated
`to the other software agents so they can update
`their calendars respectively. This is true also of
`other types of events in the process flow.
`
`For example, the [machine scheduling agent] may
`expand the scheduled duration of the appointment
`375 on its calendar 370 due to the appointment 375
`running late. The [lot scheduling agent] reacts to that
`change by expanding the corresponding appointment
`375 on its calendar 385 to keep the appointments 375
`synchronized across the two calendars 370, 385.
`
`’305 Paper 41 (PO Sur-Reply) at 11, citing 305 Ex. 1001
`(patent) 13:50-55/ ’248 Paper 41 (PO Sur-Reply) at 10-
`11, citing ’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) 12:47-52
`
`’305 Paper 21 (POR) at 23-24, citing ’305 Ex. 1001 (patent)
`37:54-62/’248 Paper 21 (POR) at 23, citing ’248 Ex. 1001
`(patent) 29:26-35
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Page 23 of 31
`
`
`
`Schulze-Gupta Discloses Multiple Schedulers Propagating Updates
`
`Dr. Shanfield Illustrates Schedulers Propagating
`Demand Signals in a Process Flow
`
`174. As taught in Gupta, Machine C may send the Demand
`signal 1 message (i.e., a load time update) to Machine B
`requesting Machine B to advance the processing of a specific
`lot needed by Machine C. Ex. 1006, 22:54-63.
`Correspondingly, Machine B detects this load time update (i.e.,
`the Demand signal 1 message), but may not be able to meet the
`demand because the requested lot has not yet been processed by
`Machine A further upstream in the process.
`175. In this scenario, Machine B must notify Machine A of
`the load time update by sending a “Demand signal 2” message
`to Machine A as taught in Gupta. Ex. 1006, 20:22-27.
`
`’305 Ex. 1002 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶ 152-153, 171-176/ ’248 Ex. 1003 (Shanfield Decl.) ¶¶ 147-148,
`164-169; ’305 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 48-49, 57-59/’248 Paper 1 (Pet.) at 49-50, 57-60; ’305 Paper 30
`(Reply) at 15-16/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14-15; ’305 Paper 17/248 Paper 17 (ID) at 16-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 24 of 31
`
`
`
`“Resource Scheduling Agent” Is One Embodiment of
`“Software Scheduling Agent”
`
`scheduling
`the
`embodiment,
`illustrated
`the
`In
`agents 265 are typed by the manufacturing domain entities
`they represent. There may be many different types of
`scheduling agents 265, depending on the implementations.
`The principle 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;
`(“MSA”) 310 that
`a Machine Scheduling Agent
`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
`(“RSA”) 320 that
`a Resource Scheduling Agent
`schedules activities on behalf of
`resources (not
`shown).
`
`’305 Ex. 1001/’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) Fig. 3
`• Patent Owner’s Expert agrees that a “Resource Scheduling Agent” is merely
`one of many possible embodiments of the claimed agent.
`’305 Ex. 1044/248 Ex. 1046 (Humphrey Dep.) 97:12-99:11,
`cited in ’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 10/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`’305 Ex. 1001 (patent) 7:17-29/
`’248 Ex. 1001 (patent) 7:19-30;
`’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 10-11/
`’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 9-10
`
`Page 25 of 31
`
`
`
`Subject to Board Decision on
`Motion to Strike
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 26 of 31
`
`
`
`New Sur-Reply Arguments Not in POR
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Enablement
`• Whether the disclosures of Schulze and Gupta lack enablement
`See ’305 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 6-7/’248 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 6;
`’305 Paper 46/’248 Paper 46 (Mot. Strike) at 3-4
`
`District Court Claim Construction
`• Belatedly argues the phrase “at least” in the district court construction means a software scheduling
`agent is not limited to scheduling for a single entity after failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)
`See ’305 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 10-11/’248 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 10;
`’305 Paper 46/’248 Paper 46 (Mot. Strike) at 4-6
`
`Prosecution Disclaimer
`• Whether Applicant’s prosecution arguments prohibits an agent representing different entities at
`different times
`
`See ’305 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 12-13/’248 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 12;
`’305 Paper 46/’248 Paper 46 (Mot. Strike) at 6-9
`“Additional Software Components Created by Agents”
`• Whether any “additional software components created by agents” constitute technical obstacle
`See ’305 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 17/’248 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 16;
`’305 Paper 46/’248 Paper 46 (Mot. Strike) at 9-10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 27 of 31
`
`
`
`Schulze and Gupta Presumed to Be Enabling
`
`is well-settled that prior art patents and printed
`“It
`publications … are presumed enabling.
`In addition, the
`burden of proving that a prior art reference is not enabling
`is on the patentee …. This presumption and burden apply …
`during AIA trial proceedings.”
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am. v. Kannuu Pty. Ltd,
`IPR2020-00737, Paper 105 at 48-49 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2021)
`’305 Paper 46/’248 Paper 46 (Mot. Strike) at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 28 of 31
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes District Courts’ Construction
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposal
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`
`District Courts’ Construction
`
`No construction is necessary
`
`“a software agent that schedules, initiates,
`and executes activities on behalf of a single
`manufacturing domain entity”
`
`“a software agent that at least schedules
`activities on behalf of a single manufacturing
`domain entity at any given time”
`
`The parties dispute whether the software agent needs to perform all three functions of scheduling,
`initiating, and executing activities. The parties also dispute whether the software agent is limited to
`acting on behalf of a single manufacturing domain.
`
`Regarding the first dispute related to whether the software agent must perform all three functions
`… [w]hile a software scheduling agent may perform all three functions of scheduling, initiating, and
`executing activities, the specification does not require that it do so.
`
`∗∗∗
`∗∗∗
`
`Regarding the second dispute, the Court finds that the intrinsic evidence indicates that the software
`agent is limited to acting on behalf of a single manufacturing domain.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 29 of 31
`
`’305 Ex. 1046/’248 Ex. 1048 (EDTX Markman Order) 27-31;
`See also ’305 Paper 30 (Reply) at 14 n.6/’248 Paper 30 (Reply) at 13 n.6
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Backtracks Its Prosecution Disclaimer Argument
`
`New Prosecution Disclaimer
`Argument in Sur-Reply
`
`New Prosecution History Argument
`in Opposition to Motion to Strike
`
`In addition, the possibility that a given
`scheduling agent might represent different
`domain entities at different times, contemplated
`by the Applicants’ statements in prosecution,
`would be prohibited.
`
`See ’305 Paper 41 (Sur-Reply) at 12-13/’248 Paper
`41 (Sur-Reply) at 12; ’305 Paper 46/’248 Paper 46
`(Mot. Strike) at 6-9
`
`The argument … does nothing more than point
`out that the portion of the file history of the
`[’305/’248] Patent cited by Petitioner in its
`Reply … leaves open the possibility that a
`given software scheduling agent could
`schedule for multiple manufacturing domain
`entities at different times.
`
`See ’305 Paper 49/’248 Paper 49
`(Opp’n to Mot. Strike) at 7;
`’305 Paper 53/’248 Paper 53
`(Reply ISO Mot. Strike) at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. Ex. 1050 Applied v. Ocean IPR2021-01342
`
`Page 30 of 31
`
`
`
`Schulze-Gupta Discloses “Subscribing Listener”
`
`To the extent Ocean’s sur-reply argument regarding “additional software
`components” is intended to reference “subscribing listener,” the Schulze-Gupta
`combination disclo
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
