Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 17
`
` Date : February 23, 2022
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT B. HOWARD, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
`DAVID COTTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 1 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Applied Materials, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No.
`6,836,691 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’691 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311.
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization,
`Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 10) to the Preliminary Response
`relating to discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and Patent Owner
`filed a Preliminary Sur-Reply (Paper 11) in response to the Preliminary
`Reply.1
`We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
`review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2021). An inter
`partes review may be instituted if “the information presented in the petition
`filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`(2018).
`Upon consideration of the papers, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one challenged claim is
`unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do not institute inter
`partes review.
`
`
`1 We do not reach the issue of discretionary denial under § 314(a) because
`we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’691 patent is
`unpatentable.
`
`2
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 2 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`The parties identify themselves as the real party-in-interest. Pet. 1;
`
`Paper 8, 2. Petitioner also identifies PDF Solutions, Inc. as a “potential real
`party-in-interest” with whom Petitioner “discussed this Petition and the
`Ground presented.” Pet. 1. Petitioner also identifies Analog Devices, Inc.;
`Huawei Device USA, Inc.; Huawei Device Co., Ltd.; HiSilicon
`Technologies Co., Ltd.; Infineon Technologies AG; Infineon Technologies
`Americas Corp.; MediaTek Inc.; MediaTek USA Inc.; NVIDIA Corporation;
`NXP USA, Inc.; Renesas Electronics Corporation; Renesas Electronics
`America, Inc.; Silicon Laboratories Inc.; STMicroelectronics, Inc.; and
`Western Digital Technologies, Inc. as “potential real parties-in-interest, none
`of whom had any access to the Petition,” according to Petitioner. Id. at 1–2.
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’691 patent has been asserted in the
`following proceedings: Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc.,
`No. 1:20-cv-12310 (D. Mass); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Infineon
`Technologies AG, No. 1:20-cv-12311 (D. Mass.); Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 4:20-cv-911 (E.D. Tex.); Ocean
`Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1210 (W.D. Tex.);
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC V. NVIDIA Corp., No. 6:20-cv-1211 (W.D.
`Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP Semiconductors NV, No. 6:20-cv-
`1212 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Electronics Corp.,
`No. 6:20-cv-1213 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon
`Laboratories Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1214 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor
`LLC v. ST Microelectronics Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1215 (W.D. Tex.); and Ocean
`Semiconductor LLC v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-1216
`(W.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 8, 2–3.
`
`3
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 3 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`C. The Challenged Patent
`The ’691 patent “relates generally to an industrial process . . . in a
`semiconductor device manufacturing environment.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. In
`such an environment, “a set of processing steps is performed on a wafer
`using a variety of processing tools, including photolithography steppers, etch
`tools, deposition tools, polishing tools, rapid thermal processing tools, [and]
`implantation tools.” Id. at 1:27–30. “One technique for improving the
`operation of a semiconductor processing line includes using a factory wide
`control system to automatically control the operation of the various
`processing tools,” such as “an advanced process control (APC) system.” Id.
`at 1:31–34, 1:39–44.
`In such a system, “metrology data is collected on a regular basis,
`generally in accordance with a sampling plan, for process control purposes.”
`Ex. 1001, 1:49–51. More specifically, “[t]he collected metrology data is
`used by the process controllers for the tools.” Id. at 1:51–53. For example,
`“[o]perating recipe parameters are calculated by the process controllers
`based on the performance model and the metrology information to attempt to
`achieve post-processing results as close to a process target value as
`possible.” Id. at 1:53–57.
`According to the ’691 patent, “[m]etrology data[, however,] is also
`used for other purposes not related to process control,” such as for fault
`detection and classification. Ex. 1001, 1:61–62. Thus, “when a process
`controller gathers metrology data to update its control model or generate a
`control action for subsequent processing, it retrieves . . . metrology data
`collected through the regular sampling plans implemented in the facility, and
`the metrology data collected for other purposes.” Id. at 2:10–17. However,
`“[s]ome of the metrology data does not accurately reflect the state of the
`
`4
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 4 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`process or the devices manufactured” (e.g., “devices processed by a tool that
`was malfunctioning may have characteristics that were affected by the
`malfunction ([i.]e., a special cause) rather than by normal process variation
`(i.e., common cause)).” Id. at 2:17–23. “Employing this data for use in
`process control routines may introduce a source of variation that cannot be
`addressed by the process controller . . . .” Id. at 2:23–26. The invention of
`the ’691 patent is directed to overcoming this problem. Id. at 2:27–29.
`
`To that end, the ’691 patent teaches storing “context data that includes
`identification data and collection purpose data,” in addition to storing the
`collected metrology data. Ex. 1001, 6:11–13. “Exemplary identification
`data includes lot identification number (ID), wafer ID, location data (e.g.,
`location of measurement on die or wafer), [and] process-operation data (e.g.,
`last completed step in the fabrication process).” Id. at 6:14–17. “The
`collection purpose data indicates the initial purpose for the collection of the
`metrology data” (e.g., for “process control sampling, fault detection
`sampling, [and] targeted fault detection”). Id. at 6:17–21. The ’691 patent
`teaches that the collection purpose data can comprise collection purpose
`codes, such as (i) “01” for “Process Control Sampling,” (ii) “02” for “Fault
`Detection Sampling,” (iii) “03” for “Targeted Fault Detection,” (iv) “88” for
`“Fault Detection - no fault identified,” and (v) “99” for “Known Defective.”
`Id. at 6:66–7:12 (including Table 1).
`
`For embodiments of the ’691 patent, “the collection purpose data is
`used to filter the metrology data for subsequent uses.” Ex. 1001, 6:22–24.
`In particular, “a process controller . . . [, which] would conventionally
`employ all metrology data for a particular tool . . . for updating the states of
`its control model and generating a control action for modifying an operating
`recipe parameter for the tool,” can use the collection purpose data to filter
`
`5
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 5 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`the metrology data so as to exclude metrology data collected for fault
`detection purposes. Id. at 6:24–32. Put differently, when a process
`controller “gathers metrology data for process control purposes (e.g., state
`update or control action generation), it filters the metrology data, so that data
`that is less useful for process control purposes is ignored.” Id. at 7:52–55.
`“For example, the process controller . . . may gather ‘01,’ ‘02,’ and ‘88’ data
`and exclude the metrology data where fault conditions are more likely to
`exist ([i.]e., the ‘03’ and ‘99’ data).” Id. at 7:56–59. According to the ’691
`patent, “[f]iltering the metrology data in this manner may improve the
`performance of the process controller . . . by removing outlier data that
`exhibits variation from a source other than normal process variation.” Id. at
`6:32–35. “[A] process control activity related to one of the tools [then can
`be] conducted based on the filtered metrology data.” Id. at 8:4–6.
`D. The Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–19 of the ’691 patent. Claims 1 and 10
`are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`collecting metrology data related to the processing of
`workpieces in a plurality of tools;
`
`generating context data for the metrology data, the
`context data including collection purpose data;
`
`filtering the metrology data based on the collection
`purpose data; and
`
`conducting a process control activity related to one of the
`tools based on the filtered metrology data.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:19–27.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 6 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`E. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`
`Claim(s)
`Challenged
`1–19
`
`35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis2
`
`103(a)3
`
`Funk,4 Stoddard5
`
`
`Pet. 15, 33–66. Petitioner submits the Declaration of Miltiadis Hatalis,
`Ph.D. (Ex. 1002) in support of its arguments.
`II. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`To determine whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17 (1966). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors
`may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art;
`prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are
`made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active
`workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`(quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d
`955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id.
`
`
`2 Petitioner also lists the “background knowledge” of one of ordinary skill in
`the art. Pet. 15. We consider such knowledge as part of our obviousness
`analysis, but do not identify it separately as a reference. See Randall Mfg. v.
`Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
`35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
`’691 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we
`apply the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. See
`Ex. 1001, code (22).
`4 US 7,123,980 B2, issued Oct. 17, 2006 (Ex. 1005, “Funk”).
`5 US 6,587,744 B1, issued July 1, 2003 (Ex. 1008, “Stoddard”).
`
`7
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 7 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention of the ’691 patent “would have at least a B.S. in mechanical
`engineering, electrical engineering, materials science engineering, or a
`related field, and four years of experience working with semiconductor
`manufacturing processes and measurement techniques.” Pet 17 (citing
`Ex. 1002 ¶ 29). Patent Owner does not identify a level of skill in the art that
`one would have had at the time of the invention of the ’691 patent or identify
`any specific shortcoming in Petitioner’s formulation. See generally Prelim.
`Resp.
`For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we
`adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in
`the art. Pet. 17.
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Because the Petition was filed after November 13, 2018, we construe
`the challenged claims by applying the standard used in federal courts, in
`other words, the claim construction standard that would be used to construe
`the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is articulated in
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.100(b). Under Phillips, the words of a claim are generally given their
`“ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning they would have
`to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of
`the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13.
`The parties do not identify any claim terms for construction. Pet. 15;
`see Prelim. Resp. And we determine that no express constructions are
`needed for us to render our Decision on Institution. See, e.g., Nidec Motor
`Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.
`Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and
`
`8
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 8 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid
`Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a
`person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
`U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis
`of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of
`the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
`prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence
`of non-obviousness, if present.6 Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. When
`evaluating a claim for obviousness, we also must “determine whether there
`was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
`V. ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER FUNK AND STODDARD
`Petitioner argues that the combination of Funk and Stoddard renders
`claims 1–19 obvious. Pet. 33–66. We have reviewed the parties’ arguments
`and the evidence of record. For the reasons that follow, we determine that
`Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail
`in showing that at least one of these claims of the ’691 patent would have
`been obvious.
`
`
`6 Patent Owner does not present arguments or evidence of such objective
`evidence of non-obviousness. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`
`9
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 9 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`A. Summary of Funk
`Funk “is related to semiconductor processing systems, particularly to
`
`semiconductor processing systems, which use Advanced Process Control
`(APC).” Ex. 1005, 1:35–37. More specifically, Funk provides an APC
`system, which includes Graphical User Interfaces (“GUIs”) “for monitoring
`and controlling a semiconductor manufacturing process that is performed by
`a semiconductor processing system.” Id. at code (57). “The semiconductor
`processing system includes a number of processing tools, a number of
`processing modules (chambers), and a number of sensors, and the APC
`system comprises an APC server, database, interface server, client
`workstation, and GUI component.” Id.
`B. Summary of Stoddard
`Stoddard relates “to microelectronic circuit fabrication and, more
`
`particularly, to methods and apparatus for controlling microelectronic circuit
`fabrication processes.” Ex. 1008, 1:15–18. More specifically, Stoddard
`teaches “an advanced run-to-run controller for controlling manufacturing
`processes compris[ing a] set of processing tools, a set of metrology tools for
`taking metrology measurements from the processing tools, and a supervising
`station for managing and controlling the processing tools.” Id. at 2:19–23.
`Stoddard’s “supervising station comprises an interface for receiving
`metrology data from the metrology tools and a number of variable parameter
`tables, one for each of the processing tools, collectively associated with a
`manufacturing process recipe.” Id. at 2:24–28. Stoddard teaches that its
`“supervising station also includes one or more internal models which relate
`received metrology data to one or more variables for a processing tool, and
`which can modify variables stored in the variable parameter table to control
`
`10
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 10 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`the process tools using feedback and/or feed-forward control algorithms.”
`Id. at 2:28–33.
`C. Generating Context Data for the Metrology Data, the Context
`Data Including Collection Purpose Data
`Petitioner argues that the combination of Funk and Stoddard teaches
`
`“generating context data for the metrology data, the context data including
`collection purpose data,” as recited in independent claim 1. Pet. 44–48. We
`focus on Petitioner’s showing for generating collection purpose data for the
`metrology data and find its showing insufficient for the reasons discussed
`below.7
`
`First, Petitioner argues that “[t]he combination of the Funk APC
`system, leveraging the collection and analysis of metrology data as taught by
`Stoddard, discloses the context data including collection purpose data.”
`Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 135). Petitioner argues that “Funk discloses that a
`control strategy defines a set of sequences for a single wafer, a single tool, a
`single lot, or a combination of tool activities, including a combination of
`processing activities, and that ‘context information associates a process step
`or recipe with one or more strategies and/or plans.’” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005,
`22:35–44; citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136). Petitioner argues that Funk teaches “that
`plans for data collection, preprocessing, judgment, sensors, parameter
`selection, and trim are executed as part of the data collection strategy and
`overall control strategy.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 25:8–12, 26:3–6; Ex. 1002
`¶ 136). Petitioner adds that “[t]he data collection, data preprocessing, and
`
`
`7 We address one limitation of independent claim 1 here because Petitioner’s
`insufficient showing for this limitation is dispositive for our decision on
`institution. By doing so, however, we do not suggest that Petitioner has
`made a sufficient showing for the remaining limitations of the challenged
`claims.
`
`11
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 11 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`judgment plans are associated with their own IDs.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005,
`24:61–65, Fig. 10; Ex. 1002 ¶ 136). According to Petitioner, “[e]ach of
`these plans reflects a purpose within the control strategy (i.e., a data
`collection plan has the purpose of process control sampling and
`judgment/intervention plans have the purpose of fault detection), and the
`data collection plan ID and judgment plan ID are therefore collection
`purpose data included within the context data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136).
`
`We find that these arguments are insufficient to show that Funk and
`Stoddard teach the limitation. Petitioner relies on Funk’s control strategies
`and plans, but Petitioner does not identify generated context data that
`corresponds to collection purposes (e.g., a collection purpose code or other
`such data) for the strategies or plans. Id. At most, Petitioner identifies plan
`IDs, but does not show sufficiently how such plan IDs provide the generated
`collection purpose data for the corresponding collected metrology data. Id.
`Rather, such plan IDs are akin to context data that comprises “identification
`data.” Compare Ex. 1001, 6:14–17 (“Exemplary identification data includes
`lot identification number (ID), wafer ID, location data (e.g., location of
`measurement on die or wafer), process-operation data (e.g., last completed
`step in the fabrication process), etc.”), with Ex. 1005, 24:46–55 (“Each
`control strategy can contain at least some of the following context
`information: tool ID, lot ID, chamber ID, cassette ID, slot ID, wafer ID,
`recipe ID, control job ID, process job ID, start time, end time, step number,
`state, maintenance counter value, product ID and material ID.”), and id. at
`24:61–65). In contrast, “[t]he collection purpose data indicates the initial
`purpose for the collection of the metrology data” (e.g., “process control
`sampling, fault detection sampling, [and] targeted fault detection”).
`
`12
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 12 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`Ex. 1001, 6:11–21. Again, Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Funk’s
`plan IDs indicate the collection purpose of the collected metrology data.
`
`In addition, Petitioner incorrectly conflates an alleged purpose of a
`plan with a collection purpose for collected metrology data. For example,
`Petitioner argues that “judgment/intervention plans have the purpose of fault
`detection.” Pet. 46. However, Petitioner does not sufficiently show how
`these plans relate to a collection purpose and collecting metrology data. In
`particular, the portions of Funk that Petitioner cites for
`judgment/intervention plans do not relate to collecting data (nor have an
`associated collection purpose), but rather relate to other processes or analysis
`(e.g., selecting actions, sending messages, determining whether an alarm has
`been produced, stopping a tool). See, e.g., Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1005, 26:57–
`27:4, 28:60–29:48, Fig. 9), 46.
`
`Second, Petitioner argues that “Funk discloses several other examples
`of context data that include collection purpose data.” Id. at 47. In particular,
`Petitioner argues that these examples comprise (i) “data collected during
`production runs that yield high quality product to establish ‘good tool state’
`data”; (ii) “when a tool health control strategy is executed, the context can
`be tool, module, or sensor diagnostics”; and (iii) “dummy wafers used in
`fingerprinting-related data collection plans and recipes, which can be used to
`refine process and tool modeling.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 25:13–15, 25:25–
`29, 25:46–50; Ex. 1002 ¶ 138).
`
`We find that these arguments also are insufficient to show that Funk
`and Stoddard teach the limitation. In particular, we find that Petitioner does
`not explain sufficiently how these teachings from Funk, as modified by
`Stoddard, teach generating collection purpose data for the collected
`metrology data. Id. More specifically, Petitioner does not identify
`
`13
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 13 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`sufficiently what it contends is the disclosed collection purpose data for the
`three examples. Id. As to the first example, Funk teaches that “[d]ata
`collected during production runs that yield high quality product can be used
`to establish ‘good tool state’ data, and data collected subsequently can be
`compared with this baseline data to determine if a tool is performing
`correctly in real-time.” Ex. 1005, 25:13–15. At most, this passage teaches
`that as part of production runs, data is collected that can be used for
`subsequent process control if deemed to yield high quality product. Id.
`There is no teaching of generating collection purpose data indicating the
`initial purpose for the collection of the data. Id. Likewise, with regard to
`Petitioner’s latter two examples, we find that Funk teaches context data that
`is identification data, rather than teaching generating collection purpose data
`indicating the initial purpose for the collection of the data. See Ex. 1005,
`25:25–29, 25:46–50; Pet. 47.
`
`Third, Petitioner argues that Funk teaches that the data collected can
`be sent to a Structured Query Language database “to be processed by
`different algorithms defined by the user through plans in the data
`management portion of the APC system and by scripts defined by a control
`job.” Pet. 47 (quoting Ex. 1005, 8:36–40, 26:33–34; Ex. 1002, ¶ 139).
`According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have
`understood that Funk discloses context data including collection purpose
`data and that using a data collection plan ID associated with each collection
`purpose would correspondingly limit the data to be processed by a specified
`algorithm.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 139). “For instance, [(i)] an algorithm
`relying on data collected for a specific collection purpose can be used ‘to
`establish a “good tool state” model,’” or (ii) “after a cleaning process (i.e.[,]
`wet clean) the data collected from a number of dummy wafers can be
`
`14
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 14 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`analyzed using seasoning related models.” Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1005,
`28:8–12, 28:28–31; Ex. 1002 ¶ 139).
`
`We find that these arguments also are insufficient to show that Funk
`and Stoddard teach the limitation. In particular, we find that Petitioner does
`not show that Funk, as modified by Stoddard, teaches generating collection
`purpose data for the collected metrology data. Rather, we find Petitioner’s
`arguments unavailing for the reasons we discuss above, including that
`Petitioner does not show that Funk’s plan IDs are collection purpose data,
`and does not explain sufficiently how Funk’s teachings concerning a good
`tool state model and dummy wafers teach this limitation.
`
`Moreover, we provide little weight to the cited testimony of
`Dr. Hatalis as we find that the testimony does not explain sufficiently why
`Funk’s teachings, as modified by Stoddard, allegedly disclose generating
`collection purpose data for the collected metrology data, and does not
`provide a factual basis to support what Dr. Hatalis opines that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood in light of these teachings.
`See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 135–139; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does
`not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is
`entitled to little or no weight.”).
`
`In sum, Petitioner does not show that the combination of Funk and
`Stoddard teaches “generating context data for the metrology data, the
`context data including collection purpose data.”
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood
`of success in challenging independent claim 1, as well as independent claim
`10, which comprises limitations of commensurate scope, and for which
`Petitioner does not provide separate arguments. The remaining challenged
`claims (i.e., 2–9 and 11–19) depend from these independent claims, and
`
`15
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 15 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`Petitioner’s arguments for these dependent claims do not cure the above
`deficiencies of the independent claims. Pet. 51–65. Thus, Petitioner has not
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging claims 1–19
`as being rendered obvious by Funk and Stoddard.
`VI. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the
`challenged claims of the ’691 patent on the asserted ground of
`unpatentability.
`
`VII. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
`
`16
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 16 of 17
`
`

`

`IPR2021-01348
`Patent 6,836,691 B1
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Eric Krause
`Pan Lee
`AXINN VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`ekrause@axinn.com
`plee@axinn.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Timothy Devlin
`Alex Chan
`Joel Glazer
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`TD-PTAB@devlinlawfirm.com
`achan@devlinlawfirm.com
`jglazer@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`PDF Solutions v Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2022-01196
`PDF Exhibit 1005, Page 17 of 17
`
`