`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________
`
`PDF SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________
`
`Case No. 2022-01196
`Patent No. 6,836,691
`_____________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,836,691
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest ................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ............................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), (4): Counsel and Service Information ............ 2
`
`II.
`
`FEES. ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§42.104 AND 42.108 ..................... 2
`
`A. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge .................................................................... 3
`
`IV. THE ‘691 PATENT ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Subject Matter ....................................................................................... 3
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 5
`
`Litigation History .................................................................................. 5
`
`Petition History ...................................................................................... 6
`
`POSA ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`The State of the Art ............................................................................... 7
`
`Claim Construction..............................................................................10
`
`V.
`
`CLAIMS 1-19 OF THE ‘691 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ..............11
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Prior Art ..........................................................................11
`
`1. Bushman ......................................................................................11
`
`2. Yelverton ......................................................................................15
`
`i
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-19 Were Obvious Over Bushman in View of
`Yelverton .............................................................................................16
`
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................18
`
`2. Claim 2 ........................................................................................29
`
`3. Claim 3 ........................................................................................31
`
`4. Claim 4 ........................................................................................32
`
`5. Claim 5 ........................................................................................34
`
`6. Claim 6 ........................................................................................35
`
`7. Claim 7 ........................................................................................36
`
`8. Claim 8 ........................................................................................37
`
`9. Claim 9 ........................................................................................38
`
`10. Claim 10 .......................................................................................38
`
`11. Claim 11 .......................................................................................40
`
`12. Claim 12 .......................................................................................41
`
`13. Claim 13 .......................................................................................41
`
`14. Claim 14 .......................................................................................42
`
`15. Claim 15 .......................................................................................43
`
`16. Claim 16 .......................................................................................43
`
`17. Claim 17 .......................................................................................44
`
`18. Claim 18 .......................................................................................45
`
`19. Claim 19 .......................................................................................45
`
`ii
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness Do Not Weigh in Favor of
`Patentability of Claims 1-19 ................................................................46
`
`VI. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IS NOT JUSTIFIED .....................................46
`
`A. Discretionary Denial Under Fintiv Is Not Justified ............................46
`
`B.
`
`Discretionary Denial Under 325(d) Is Not Justified ...........................48
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,836,691
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,691
`
`Declaration of P.K. Mozumder, Ph.D.
`
`Order Granting Defendants’ Opposed Motion to Modify Scheduling
`Order in 6:20-cv-1210, 1212, 1214, 1215, and 1216 (WDTX)
`
`1005
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`Decision Denying Institution of IPR2021-01348
`
`Bushman, S., et al., Integration of the APC Framework with AMD's
`Fab25 Factory System, Proc. SPIE 3882, Process, Equipment, and
`Materials Control in Integrated Circuit Manufacturing V (1999)
`(“Bushman”)
`
`Yelverton, M., et al., Factory-Wide Run-to-Run Process Control, Solid
`State Technology, Vol. 42, No. 12, p. 45 (1999) (“Yelverton”)
`
`Moyne J., & White, J., “Existing and Envisioned Control Environment
`for Semiconductor Manufacturing,” in Run-to-Run Control in
`Semiconductor Manufacturing, CRC Press (2001) (“Moyne”)
`
`Barna, G., “APC in the Semiconductor Industry, History and Near
`Term Prognosis,” IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor
`Manufacturing Conference (1996) (“Barna”)
`
`Alptekin S. E., “A suggested model program for CIM education.
`Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,” May 21:8 (1990)
`(“Alptekin”)
`
`Cherrington, B. E., “An Integrated Approach to Graduate Education in
`Manufacturing Systems—The UT Dallas Model,” Journal of
`Engineering Education, Jan;82(1):43-7 (1993) (“Cherrington”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Exhibit Description
`1012
`Kenneth W. Tobin Jr., Thomas P. Karnowski, Fred Lakhani,
`"Integrated applications of inspection data in the semiconductor
`manufacturing environment," Proc. SPIE 4275, Metrology-based
`Control for Micro-Manufacturing, (5 June 2001) (“Tobin”)
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`PDF Solutions, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests Inter Partes Review
`
`of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,691 (“the ‘691 patent”) (Ex. 1001) pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100.
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest
`A.
`
`PDF Solutions, Inc. is the only real party-in-interest. No other party funded,
`
`controlled, or participated in drafting or filing this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`
`Patent Owner has claimed infringement of the ‘691 patent in these cases:
`
`Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-12310 (D. Mass.);
`
`Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Infineon Tech. AG et al., No. 1:20-cv-12311 (D.
`
`Mass.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., No. 4:20-cv-
`
`991 (E.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01210 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01211 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. NXP USA, Inc., et al., No. 6:20-
`
`cv-01212 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Renesas Elec. Corp., et al.,
`
`No. 6:20-cv-01213 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Silicon Labs. Inc.,
`
`No. 6:20-cv-01214 (W.D. Tex.); Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. STMicroelectronics
`
`Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01215 (W.D. Tex.); and Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Western
`
`Digital Tech., Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01216 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`1
`
`

`

`A Petition for inter partes review of the ‘691 patent was filed on August 3,
`
`2021, by a party unrelated to PDF. Applied Materials, Inc. v. Ocean Semiconductor
`
`LLC, IPR2021-01348. The Board denied institution of that petition. Ex. 1005.
`
`C.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), (4): Counsel and Service Information
`
`Petitioner designates Daniel B. Ravicher as lead counsel and Ognjan V.
`
`Shentov as back-up counsel, whose current contact information is as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Daniel B. Ravicher (Reg. No. 47,015)
`dan@zeisler-law.com
`ZEISLER PLLC
`777 Brickell Ave Ste 500
`Miami, FL 33131
`Tel.: 786-505-1205
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Ognjan V. Shentov (Reg. No. 38,051)
`oshentov@gmail.com
`ZEISLER PLLC
`45 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10111
`Tel.: 212-671-1921
`
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at the email addresses listed above and
`
`concurrently submits a Power of Attorney pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.10(b).
`
`II.
`
`FEES
`
`The undersigned authorizes charging Deposit Account No. 604464 the
`
`$41,500 fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) for this Petition requesting review of
`
`nineteen claims ($19,000 IPR Request fee and $22,500.00 IPR Post-Institution fee).
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§42.104 AND 42.108
`A. Grounds for Standing
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘691 Patent is available for IPR, and that Petitioner
`
`is not barred or otherwise estopped.
`
`2
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge
`
`Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of the ‘691 patent on:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Challenge under §103(a)
`
`1
`
`1-19
`
`Obvious over Bushman (Ex. 1006) in view of
`Yelverton (Ex. 1007)
`
`
`Copies of the cited prior art accompany the Petition. Also submitted along with the
`
`Petitioner is the Declaration of P.K. Mozumder (Ex. 1003), a qualified technical
`
`expert. Ex. 1003, 3-11. The Ground presented in this Petition establishes a
`
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1-19 of the ’691 patent are unpatentable.
`
`IV. THE ‘691 PATENT
`Subject Matter
`A.
`
`The ‘691 patent is entitled, “Method and Apparatus for Filtering Metrology
`
`Data Based on Collection Purpose Data.” It “relates generally to an industrial
`
`process, and, more particularly, to a method and apparatus for filtering metrology
`
`data based on collection purpose in a semiconductor device manufacturing
`
`environment.” Ex. 1001, 1:8-11.
`
`Specifically, the ‘691 patent is directed to, “a method for filtering metrology
`
`data [that] includes [(i)] collecting metrology data related to the processing of
`
`[w]orkpieces in a plurality of tools,” (ii) generating “context data for the metrology
`
`data”, including “collection purpose data,” (iii) filtering the metrology data “based
`
`on the collection purpose data,” and (iv) conducting a “process control activity
`
`3
`
`

`

`related to one of the tools [] based on the filtered metrology data.” Ex 1001, 2:33-
`
`40. The ‘691 patent is also directed to, “a system including at least one metrology
`
`tool, a computer, and a process controller,” that performs the disclosed method.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:41-51.
`
`The ‘691 patent has 20 claims, of which claims 1, 10, and 20 are independent.
`
`Independent Claim 1 of the ‘691 patent recites:
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`[1A]1 collecting metrology data related to the processing of workpieces in a
`plurality of tools;
`
`[1B] generating context data for the metrology data, the context data including
`collection purpose data;
`
`[1C] filtering the metrology data based on the collection purpose data; and
`
`[1D] conducting a process control activity related to one of the tools based on
`the filtered metrology data.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:19-27. Independent Claim 10 of the ‘691 patent recites:
`
`10. A system, comprising:
`
`[10A] at least one metrology tool configured to collect metrology data
`related to the processing of workpieces in a plurality of tools;
`
`[10B] a computer configured to generate context data for the metrology
`data, the context data including collection purpose data; and
`
`[10C] a process controller configured to filter the metrology data based
`on the collection purpose data and conduct a process control activity
`
`
`1 These bracketed reference numbers ([1A], [1B], …) have been added for
`convenience in referring to individual elements of the overall claim(s).
`
`4
`
`

`

`related to one of the tools based on the filtered metrology data.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:63 – 9:8.
`
`The earliest claimed priority date of the ’691 patent is May 1, 2003. While
`
`initially issued to Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the current owner of the ‘691
`
`patent is Ocean Semiconductor LLC (“Ocean”).
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ‘691 patent issued from an application that contained twenty claims, none
`
`of which were amended during prosecution. Compare Ex. 1001 at 8:19 – 10:28 to
`
`Ex. 1002, 19-22. The Examiner rejected the claims for being anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,864,773 (“Barna”). Ex. 1002, 61. Applicant responded by arguing
`
`Barna did not teach “filtering data based on collection purpose.” Id., 70- 71.
`
`Unpersuaded, the Examiner made his rejection Final. Id., 73-80. Applicant appealed,
`
`arguing in its appeal brief the same point, that Barna did not filter based on collection
`
`purpose. Id., 99-101. The Examiner relented, issuing a Notice of Allowance allowing
`
`all claims. The ’691 patent issued December 28, 2004. Id., 112.
`
`The Examiner never made an obviousness rejection of the issued claims and
`
`never considered any of the art supporting the Ground asserted herein.
`
`C. Litigation History
`
`Section I.B. above identifies the ten cases in which Ocean asserts the ‘691
`
`patent. All ten cases were filed by Ocean in December 2020.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Two of the cases, against Huawei and Renesas, are stayed pending dismissal
`
`due to settlement by the parties. The two Massachusetts cases, against Infineon and
`
`Analog Devices, involve several patents but are only proceeding at this time on the
`
`‘691 patent because there are pending inter partes reviews of all the other patents.
`
`The remaining six cases are on a consolidated pre-trial schedule in the
`
`Western District of Texas, but none have a scheduled trial date. Ex. 1004.
`
`D.
`
`Petition History
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. (“AMAT”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–19 of the ‘691 patent in August 2021 (“the AMAT Pet.”). Ex. 1005. The
`
`AMAT Pet. argued claims 1-19 of the ‘691 patent were obvious in light of a
`
`combination of two references: (i) U.S. Pat. No. 7,123,980 B2, issued Oct. 17, 2006
`
`(“Funk”) and (ii) U.S. Pat. No. 6,587,744 B1, issued July 1, 2003 (“Stoddard”). Id.
`
`The Board denied institution of the AMAT Pet. because AMAT failed to
`
`demonstrate that the combination of Funk and Stoddard taught “generating context
`
`data for the metrology data, the context data including collection purpose data,” a
`
`requirement of every claim of the ‘691 patent.
`
`This Petition does not rely on either Funk or Stoddard, neither of which are
`
`patents issued to AMD, the original recipient of the ‘691 patent. Rather, this petition
`
`relies on two previously unseen publications, both of which were written expressly
`
`about AMD systems (and even by AMD employees): (i) Scott Bushman, William
`
`6
`
`

`

`Jarrett Campbell, and Michael L. Miller, “Integration of the APC framework with
`
`AMD’s Fab25 factory system,” Process, Equipment, and Materials Control in
`
`Integrated Circuit Manufacturing V., Vol. 3882. SPIE (1999) (“Bushman”); and, (ii)
`
`Mark Yelverton, Kostas Tsakalis, and Kevin Stoddard, “Factory-wide run-to-run
`
`process control,” Solid State Technology 42.12 (1999): 45, 49-52 (“Yelverton”).
`
`As explained below, Bushman and Yelverton taught all of the elements of
`
`each of claims 1-19 of the ‘691 patent, and specifically the “generating context data
`
`for the metrology data, the context data including collection purpose data” limitation
`
`the Board found missing from the AMAT Pet. references.
`
`E.
`
`POSA
`
`In its denial of the AMAT Pet., the Board adopted the proposal 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. Ex. 1005.
`
`PDF agrees that definition of POSA is appropriate for the ‘691 patent. Ex. 1003, 18.
`
`F.
`
`The State of the Art
`
`By the mid-1980’s, the need for and use of tool-based sensors, data links, and
`
`computer-based control in semiconductor manufacturing was well known. Moyne
`
`J., & White, J., “Existing and Envisioned Control Environment for Semiconductor
`
`7
`
`

`

`Manufacturing,” in Run-to-Run Control in Semiconductor Manufacturing, CRC
`
`Press (2001) (“Moyne”) (Ex. 1008); Ex. 1003, ¶ 52.
`
`As described in Moyne:
`
`The industry as a whole has been pursuing the identification,
`specification, and
`standardization of control
`integration
`for
`semiconductor manufacturing along many fronts. The three major
`players in this arena are the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA),
`Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (SEMI), and
`Semiconductor Manufacturing TECHnology (SEMATECH). The SIA
`is an organization of leaders in the semiconductor manufacturing
`industry. Members of the SIA have been instrumental in the process or
`addressing the technology needs of the industry by establishing
`precompetitive partnerships
`and
`consortiums
`such
`as
`the
`Semiconductor Research Corp. (SRC) in 1982, SEMATECH in 1987,
`and the International 300-mm Initiative (I300I) in 1996.
`
`Moyne, Ex. 1008, 1.
`
`As described by Gabriel Barna’s 1996 article, “APC in the Semiconductor
`
`Industry, History and Near Term Prognosis,” IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor
`
`Manufacturing Conference (1996) (“Barna”) (Ex. 1009), by the mid-1990s, many
`
`different parties were developing APC frameworks for semiconductor processing
`
`tool control that included collection of metrology data. Ex. 1009, 3.
`
`The various parties included Texas Instruments, IBM, Intel, and Motorola.
`
`Ex. 1009, 3. Barna’s article recognizes what was widely known, that TI, “was an
`
`early leader in univariate fault detection in processing tools.” Ex. 1009, 1; Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 55. However, by 1996, APC was “being accepted and pursued by all major
`
`semiconductor manufacturers.” Id. at 2.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Indeed, by the mid-1990s, computer integrated manufacturing (“CIM”) to
`
`implement APC frameworks was commonly taught in university engineering
`
`programs. Alptekin S. E., “A suggested model program for CIM education.
`
`Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,” May 21:8 (1990) (Ex. 1010);
`
`Cherrington, B. E., “An Integrated Approach
`
`to Graduate Education
`
`in
`
`Manufacturing Systems—The UT Dallas Model,” Journal of Engineering
`
`Education, Jan;82(1):43-7 (1993) (Ex. 1011).
`
`By the early 2000s, and well before 2003, significant resources were being
`
`invested to use metrology data to improve semiconductor manufacturing yield.
`
`Kenneth W. Tobin Jr., Thomas P. Karnowski, Fred Lakhani, “Integrated applications
`
`of inspection data in the semiconductor manufacturing environment,” Proc. SPIE
`
`4275, Metrology-based Control for Micro-Manufacturing, (5 June 2001) (“Tobin”)
`
`(Ex. 1012). Tobin provided a figure (below) that, “demonstrates the current financial
`
`impact of the need to develop higher accuracy metrology capabilities and to reduce
`
`metrology information rapidly for the purpose of making accurate assessments and
`
`predictions of the causes of yield loss.” Ex. 1012, 3.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`As described by Tobin, “Revenue spending for test and metrology (the bulk
`
`of which is wafer inspection) approached $10B in 2000 and is projected to increase.”
`
`Ex. 1012, 3. “The issues driving these trends are the direct result of decreasing line
`
`widths (and therefore increased sensitivity to smaller particles), increasing device
`
`complexities, and increasing wafer dimensions.” Ex. 1012, 3.
`
`G. Claim Construction
`
`The Board previously determined that no express constructions of any claim
`
`terms in the ‘691 were needed. Ex. 1005, 8. PDF agrees.
`
`10
`
`

`

`V. CLAIMS 1-19 OF THE ‘691 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE
`Summary of Prior Art
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Bushman
`
`Scott Bushman, William Campbell, and Michael Miller published Integration
`
`of the APC Framework with AMD's Fab25 Factory System, in Proceedings of SPIE
`
`in September 1999. SPIE 3882, Process, Equipment, and Materials Control in
`
`Integrated Circuit Manufacturing V, pp. 55-61 (1999). Ex. 1006 (“Bushman”).
`
`Bushman generally, “discusses the integration and development of advanced
`
`process control technologies with AMD's Fab25 factory systems using the Advance
`
`Process Control Framework.” Ex. 1006, 2. Figures 1 and 2, reproduced below,
`
`illustrate Bushman’s Advanced Process Control (“APC”) Framework and APC
`
`Framework Infrastructure respectively.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In Bushman, “[t]he main components of the framework include the Plan
`
`Execution Manager (PEM), Plan Manager (PM), Machine Interface (MI), Operator
`
`Interface (0I), Plugin Management (PIM), and Data Store (DS),” and “the main
`
`12
`
`

`

`communication link between the equipment and the factory system is the
`
`Configurable Equipment Interface (CEI).” Ex. 1006, 4.
`
`In Bushman, “[d]uring the specification process for a process control strategy,
`
`the engineer specifies the data to be measured at metrology tool and the recipe
`
`parameters that will serve as manipulated variables for the processing tools.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 4. Bushman specifically taught that before an operation is performed, the
`
`APC system is contacted by the Configurable Equipment Interface (CEI) with “the
`
`context and parameters for the lot to be measured.” Ex. 1006, 6 (emphasis added).
`
`Figure 4 of Bushman, reproduced below, shows, “The CEI then passes the
`
`context and parameter set information to the MI with the 'run_apc' command.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Ex. 1006, 5.
`
`After describing the framework’s structure, Bushman described that, “[t]he
`
`MI passes the information to other APC components for action -- either preparing to
`
`receive data from metrology equipment, or to calculate recipe parameters for
`
`processing equipment,” and that, “context information is used by the Plan Manager
`
`to determine which APC Plan will be used (step 2).” Ex. 1006, 5.
`
`Thus, Bushman taught that an APC Framework could be used to either receive
`
`metrology data or to determine the recipe for the equipment, and that the decision
`
`regarding which of those two options was to be performed was contained in “context
`
`information” provided to the Plan Manager. Ex. 1003, ¶ 67.
`
`Bushman further taught that when the APC framework is used for general
`
`control, “metrology information from a previous operation is feed-forward to the
`
`current operation, where it and the targets are used to determine the appropriate
`
`recipe settings for the processing tool.” Ex. 1006, 6.
`
`Figure 5 of Bushman, reproduced below, “shows the flow of information in
`
`the generic feed-forward/feedback controller.” Ex. 1006, 6.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1006, 6.
`
`2.
`
`Yelverton
`
`Mark Yelverton, Kostas Tsakalis, and Kevin Stoddard published Factory-
`
`wide run-to-run process control, in Solid State Technology in December 1999.
`
`Yelverton, M., et al., Factory-Wide Run-to-Run Process Control, Solid State
`
`Technology, Vol. 42, No. 12, p. 45 (1999) (“Yelverton”).
`
`Yelverton was directed to automatic control of semiconductor processes to
`
`eliminate “most problems associated with manual control.” Ex. 1007, 1. Yelverton
`
`taught that, as part of an effective run-to-run APC system, “it is [] necessary to
`
`implement proper fault detection and classification logic to deal with faulty
`
`metrology measurements caused by drifting metrology tools, operator error, or bad
`
`wafers.” Yelverton further taught that, “[p]roper classification of metrology data is
`
`15
`
`

`

`essential to ensure that correct measurements are provided to the run-to-run
`
`controller.” Ex. 1007, 2.
`
`Yelverton also taught that, “metrology results must be acquired in a timely
`
`manner to be useful,” and that, “[f]urther integration with the process tool (i.e.,
`
`recipe management) is also required to provide the process adjustment mechanism
`
`for tools that do not directly support adjusting process parameters.” Ex. 1007, 2.
`
`B. Ground 1: Claims 1-19 Were Obvious Over Bushman in View of
`Yelverton
`
`As explained in detail below, a POSA would have combined the teachings of
`
`Bushman and Yelverton because they both related to the same subject matter of
`
`advanced semiconductor processing control and specifically collection and use of
`
`metrology data
`
`to “improve manufacturing capital productivity, product
`
`consistency, and product yields.” Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1003, ¶ 73.
`
`In particular, one of the stated objectives of the APCFI projects described by
`
`Bushman included support for Feed-forward and Feedback Run-to-Run control and
`
`Fault Detection applications spanning multiple processes and fabrication tools.
`
`Ex. 1006, 3. A POSA interested in run-to-run control would have found Yelverton’s
`
`description of the necessity to reduce faulty metrology measurements caused by
`
`drifting metrology tools, operator error, or bad wafers particularly fit for use.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 73.
`
`A POSA would also have combined the teachings of Bushman and Yelverton
`
`16
`
`

`

`because they both specifically related to semiconductor manufacturing systems
`
`developed by Advanced Micro Devices (“AMD”). Bushman is indeed titled,
`
`“Integration of the APC Framework with AMD’s Fab25 Factory System,”
`
`Ex. 1006, 1 (emphasis added), and Yelverton’s lead author, Mark Yelverton, was an
`
`employee at AMD (as were several additional authors), Ex. 1007, 1, 4 (“Additional
`
`authors include Mike Simpson and Brian Cusson of Advanced Micro Devices”).
`
`Combining Bushman and Yelverton with respect to the ‘691 patent is even more
`
`justified given the ‘691 patent was itself originally issued to AMD. Ex. 1001, cover.
`
`A POSA would have found claims 1-19 of the ‘691 patent obvious in light of
`
`the combined teachings of Bushman and Yelverton because a POSA seeking to
`
`avoid use of unreliable metrology measurements in run-to-run process control,
`
`which Yelverton taught was “necessary”, would have done so, at least in part, using
`
`the “context” based “filter[ing]” of metrology data taught by Bushman. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶ 76. Indeed, as Yelverton taught, “[p]roper classification of metrology data is
`
`essential to ensure that correct measurements are provided to the run-to-run
`
`controller.” Ex. 1007, 2.
`
`For example, a POSA would have understood that a context like “bad wafer”
`
`as taught in Yelverton would produce metrology measurements that should not be
`
`used for subsequent process control because they were collected for fault diagnosis
`
`purposes. Ex. 1003, ¶ 77. It would have been natural and obvious for a POSA to add
`
`17
`
`

`

`context data that the run-to-run system could rely upon to avoid using “bad wafer”
`
`metrology data for process control purposes. Id. In sum, as Yelverton taught, “Proper
`
`classification of metrology data is essential to ensure that correct measurements are
`
`provided to the run-to-run controller.” Ex. 1007, 2.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1
`
`As shown below, claim 1 would have been obvious to a POSA in light of the
`
`combined teachings of Bushman and Yelverton. Ex. 1003, ¶ 78.
`
`Preamble: “A method, comprising”
`
`Both Bushman and Yelverton taught methods for advanced process control
`
`(“APC”) of semiconductor manufacturing processes in which metrology data was
`
`collected and used to determine whether and how to adjust the run-to-run operation
`
`of the process. Ex. 1003, ¶ 79.
`
`For example, Bushman taught, a “script contains commands that are sent to
`
`the CEI to setup the metrology tool to measure the data required for the control
`
`strategy and to receive the data collected by the CEI after the metrology operation is
`
`complete,” and that, “the script can contain code to force the metrology to be
`
`repeated if required or to filter the metrology data, if appropriate.” Ex. 1006, 6.
`
`Bushman further taught that, “metrology information from a previous operation is
`
`feed-forward to the current operation, where it and the targets are used to determine
`
`the appropriate recipe settings for the processing tool.” Ex. 1006, 6.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Yelverton taught, “it is [] necessary to implement proper fault detection and
`
`classification logic to deal with faulty metrology measurements caused by drifting
`
`metrology tools, operator error, or bad wafers,” and that, “[p]roper classification of
`
`metrology data is essential to ensure that correct measurements are provided to the
`
`run-to-run controller.” Ex. 1007, 2 (emphasis added). Yelverton discloses methods
`
`and systems for run-to-run process control, and thus likewise covers the preamble.
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 81.
`
`Element 1A: “collecting metrology data related to the processing of
`workpieces in a plurality of tools;”
`
`Collecting metrology data relating to multi-tool processing of semiconductor
`
`pieces is an essential step of any run-to-run APC implementation, Ex. 1003, ¶ 82,
`
`and is indeed expressly taught by both Bushman and Yelverton.
`
`For example, Bushman taught, “[d]uring the specification process for a
`
`process control strategy, the engineer specifies the data to be measured at metrology
`
`tool,” and “[t]he metrology data is then stored to the Data Store (DS) in the APC
`
`Framework.” Ex. 1006, 4, 6.
`
`In the overview of the APC Framework illustrated in Fig. 1, Bushman further
`
`discloses a plurality of equipment tools (such as “Litho,” “Deposition,” and
`
`“Diffusion”) and states that the APC Framework includes “support for Feed-forward
`
`and Feedback Run-to-Run control and Fault Detection applications spanning
`
`multiple processes and fabrication tools.” Ex. 1006, 3.
`
`19
`
`

`

`As further illustrated in Fig. 1, Bushman’s APC Framework collects and
`
`stores various types of metrology data, including “Sensor Data,” “Product State”
`
`data, “Alarms,” “Fault State” and various other types of data. Id. Thus, Bushman
`
`expressly discloses this claim limitation. Ex. 1003, ¶ 85.
`
`
`
`Yelverton taught, “metrology results must be acquired in a timely manner to
`
`be useful”, and that “[p]roper classification of metrology data is essential to ensure
`
`that correct measurements are provided to the run-to-run controller.” Ex. 1007, 2.
`
`Yelverton specifically discussed the APC Framework that is also discussed in
`
`Bushman, and thus relates to the same manufacturing and testing setup. See Id.; Ex.
`
`1003, ¶ 87. Yelverton also discusses a number of processing steps, including
`
`diffusion, oxidation, etching, polishing, etc., and hence a plurality of processing
`
`20
`
`

`

`tools. Ex. 1007 at 3, 4. The reference also expressly discusses collecting
`
`corresponding metrology data from a variety of measurements. Id. at 2, 3. Thus,
`
`Bushman and Yelverton both expressly disclosed the processing step recited in claim
`
`element 1A. Ex. 1003, ¶ 87.
`
`Also, as discussed above, it was well known in the field as of 2003 that APC
`
`frameworks collected metrology data relating to the processing of workpieces by a
`
`plurality of tools. Ex. 1003, ¶ 88. Both Barna and Tobin taught as much. Ex. 1009,
`
`3; Ex. 1012, 3.
`
`Element 1B: “generating context data for the metrology data, the context data
`including collection purpose data”
`
`As illustrated in Fig. 2 (below), Bushman disclosed a number of APC
`
`Framework Components that communicated with each other over a common
`
`electronic “CORBA” bus, including a Plan Execution Manager (PEM), Plan
`
`Manager (PM), Machine Interface (MI), Operator Interface (01), Plugin
`
`Management (PIM), and Data Store (DS); where the PEM coordinates the execution
`
`of user-controlled processing plans. Id. at 4.
`
`21
`
`

`

`
`
`Bushman disclosed that among the main objectives of the system was
`
`(1) generation of controlled settings for a processing tool, or (2) manipulation of data
`
`from a metrology tool. Ex. 1006, 4.
`
`Bushman described a “pre-metrology operation” that creates “context … for
`
`the lot to be measured.” Ex. 1006, 6. Bushman further described associating a
`
`“context” and “parameters” with collected metrology data. Ex. 1006, 6 (“the CEI
`
`