throbber
Paper: 33
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: March 18, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HAMAMATSU PHOTONICS K.K.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SEMICAPS PTE LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KEN B. BARRETT, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`Finding All Challenged Claims Not Shown to Be Unpatentable
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`and
`Dismissing Patent Owner’s Contingent Motion to Amend
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition requesting
`
`inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,623,982 B2 (“the ’982 patent,”
`Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of
`claims 2, 3, and 8–20 of the ’982 patent (“the challenged claims”) on the
`grounds of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under
`35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner asserted a total of seven grounds. Id. at 3.
`SEMICAPS Pte Ltd. (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response to the
`Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`On March 19, 2018, an inter partes review was instituted on
`Petitioner’s challenge of all the challenged claims 2, 3, and 8–20, but not as
`to all of the asserted grounds. Paper 8 (“Inst. Dec.”), 31–32.
`
`On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS
`Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). On May 3, 2018, we issued an
`order modifying our institution decision to institute on all of the challenged
`claims and all of the grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 12.
`
`Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 21, “PO Resp.”)
`to the Petition, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner Response (Paper 23,
`“Pet. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 28, “PO
`Sur-Reply”), with our authorization (Paper 25).
`
`
`1 Petitioner identifies Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. as the real-party-in-interest.
`Pet. 1; Paper 14.
`2 Patent Owner identifies SEMICAPS Pte Ltd. as the real-party-in-interest.
`Paper 4, 1.
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`Patent Owner filed, concurrently with its Response to the Petition, a
`
`Motion to Amend. Paper 22 (“MTA”). The Motion to Amend is contingent
`upon the patentability determination of challenged claims 2, 3, and 8–20, and
`requests the issuance of the corresponding one of proposed substitute claims
`36–50 for each claim determined to be unpatentable. Id. at 1. Petitioner filed
`an Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 24, “MTA Opp.”),
`and Patent Owner filed a Reply in Support of Its Motion to Amend (Paper 26,
`“MTA Reply”).
`
`An oral hearing was held on December 3, 2018, and a transcript of the
`hearing is included in the record. Paper 32 (“Tr.”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision
`is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). After consideration of the parties’
`arguments and evidence, and for the reasons discussed below, we determine
`that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
`2, 3, and 8–20 of the ’982 patent are unpatentable. Accordingly, we dismiss
`as moot Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`One or both parties identify, as matters involving or related to the ’982
`
`patent, SEMICAPS Pte Ltd. v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., Hamamatsu
`Corp., and Photonics Management Corp., Case No. 3:17-cv-03340 (N.D.
`Cal. 2017), and Patent Trial and Appeal Board case IPR2017-02110, which
`was filed by Petitioner and involves a challenge to claims 1, 4–7, and 21–25
`of the ’982 patent. Pet. 1–2; Paper 4.
`
`C. The ’982 Patent
`The ’982 patent is titled “Method of Testing an Electronic Circuit and
`
`Apparatus Thereof.” The testing of the circuit is performed by radiating a
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`laser beam onto the circuit, determining a plurality of samples of a response
`signal output by the circuit, accumulating those samples to generate a value,
`and generating a test result based on the value. Ex. 1001, Abstract. Based on
`the generated value, a fault in the circuit may be represented on a display as a
`bright spot at a pixel location corresponding to the location of the fault in the
`circuit. Id. at 4:16–24, 4:34–38. According to the ’982 patent, the disclosed
`method and apparatus provide an improvement to conventional, laser-based
`fault detection systems by increasing the detection sensitivity, which has
`particular application with advanced integrated circuits (“IC”). See id. at
`1:28–37.
`
`A redacted version of Figure 1 of the ’982 patent shown below.
`
`
`The redacted version of Figure 1 depicts an exemplary embodiment of the
`apparatus of the ’982 patent with the omission of the digital image of the
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`electronic circuit under test and the digital image generated as the result of
`the processing. See id. at 2:29–30, 4:8–9, 4:16–18. As indicated by Figure 1,
`the depicted system includes laser beam source 103, control system 105,
`measuring circuit 107, signal processor 109, and display unit 117. Id.
`at 2:65–3:3, 4:16–19. “Any suitable laser beam source 103 may be used,”
`and the specification identifies, as an exemplary laser beam source, that
`which is described in U.S. Patent No. 6,897,664 B1 to Bruce (Ex. 1010). Id.
`at 3:4–13. “The laser beam can be a continuous laser beam or a pulsed laser
`beam.” Id. at 3:29–30. Signal processor 109 accumulates the plurality of
`samples to generate a value and generates a test result based on that value.
`Id. at 3:65–67.
`
`D. The Independent Claim
`The challenged claims of the ’982 patent, claims 2, 3, and 8–20, all
`
`depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1. Claim 1 is
`reproduced below:
`1. A method of testing an electronic circuit, comprising:
`
`radiating a laser beam onto the electronic circuit,
`
`determining a plurality of samples of a response signal
`output by the electronic circuit during the period when the laser
`beam is radiated,
`
`accumulating the plurality of samples to generate a value,
`and
`generating a test result based on the value.
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:60–67.
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`E. Applied References and Evidence
`
`Reference
`JP2003-179108A, published June 27, 2003 (“Hamada”3)
`ACT Quah et al., DC-Coupled Laser Induced Detection
`System for Fault Localization in Microelectronic Failure
`Analysis4 (“Quah”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,066,956, issued May 23, 2000
`(“Nikawa”)
`F. Beaudoin et al., From Static Thermal and Photoelectric
`Laser Stimulation (TLS/PLS) to Dynamic Laser Testing,
`43 MICROELECTRONICS RELIABILITY 1681–86 (2003)
`(“Beaudoin”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,897,664 B1, issued May 24, 2005
`(“Bruce”)
`JP2000-292503A, published Oct. 20, 2000 (“Nishida”5)
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1003/1004
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Ex. 1011/1012
`
`Petitioner also relies on the Declaration of Melvin Ray Mercer, Ph.D.
`
`dated September 8, 2017 (Ex. 1014), the Declaration of Kiyoshi Nikawa,
`Ph.D. dated Sept. 11, 2018 (Ex. 1025), and the Second Declaration of Melvin
`Ray Mercer, Ph.D. dated Sept. 18, 2018 (Ex. 1026) in support of its
`arguments. Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Michael Bruce, Ph.D.
`dated December 18, 2017 (Ex. 2004), the Declaration of Alfred Quah dated
`Oct. 24, 2017 (Ex. 2011), and the Declaration of Dr. Gary Woods dated
`June 15, 2018 (Ex. 2029) in support of its arguments. The parties rely on
`other exhibits as discussed below.
`
`
`3 Exhibit 1003 is a Japanese-language publication. All references to Hamada
`in this decision are to the English translation (Ex. 1004) of the publication.
`4 As discussed below, the parties disagree as to when Quah was published.
`5 Exhibit 1011 is a Japanese-language publication. All references to Nishida
`in this decision are to the English translation (Ex. 1012) of the publication.
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`
`
`F. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Claim(s)
`Hamada
`§ 102(b)
`2, 3, 8–12, 16, 19, and 20
`Hamada
`§ 103(a)
`2, 3, 8–16, 19, and 20
`Hamada and Beaudoin
`§ 103(a)
`13–15
`Hamada and Bruce
`§ 103(a)
`12–15
`Hamada and Nikawa
`§ 103(a)
`9–15
`Hamada and Quah
`§ 103(a)
`8
`Hamada and Nishida
`§ 103(a)
`17 and 18
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Principles of Law
`Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the claims
`
`challenged in the Petition, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner.
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed.
`Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the
`evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37
`C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`
`“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
`the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
`art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
`631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`A patent 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 the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`subject matter pertains. 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 skill in the art; and (4) any objective evidence of
`non-obviousness.6 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Petitioner, relying on the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Mercer,
`
`asserts, in the Petition, that the person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`one who has experience with testing electronic circuits and who
`has a working knowledge of apparatus for testing integrated
`circuits, semiconductor devices, and other electronic circuits.
`[Ex.] 1014 ¶ 33. This person would have (1) at least an
`undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering or Physics, or
`comparable training, and (2) at least two years of industrial or
`other professional experience
`in designing, developing,
`analyzing, and/or utilizing electronic circuit testing equipment.
`Id. A higher level of training/experience in one area could
`compensate for a deficit in the other. Id.
`Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner initially agreed with Petitioner’s definition of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 27. After Institution and after
`deposing Dr. Mercer, Patent Owner began advocating for an elevated and
`very specific level of experience. PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner:
`a POSITA would have at least two years of experience in this type
`of laser-based testing of semiconductor circuits and would be
`familiar with the use of laser stimulation to localize defects in
`semiconductor devices, including static laser stimulation (e.g.
`
`
`6 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of non-
`obviousness.
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`TIVA, OBIRCH), dynamic laser stimulation (e.g. LADA, SDL)
`and their fundamental differences.
`Id. (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner characterizes “[t]his type of
`laser-based testing [as] the area of focus of the ’982 patent, as well as that of
`the references relied upon in the petition.” Id. Notwithstanding the
`purported “area of focus,” Patent Owner’s new definition is much more
`specific than the subject matter of the independent claims of the ’982
`patent—which do not specify, for example, the type of laser stimulation or
`require a pulsed laser—and is directed to, at most, certain specific
`embodiments disclosed in the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 10:60–67
`(independent claim 1), 11:8–9 (dependent claim 4: “The method of claim 1,
`wherein the laser beam is a pulsed laser beam.”); cf. PO Resp. 18 (Patent
`Owner characterizing “the use and operation of lock-in amplifiers [as] a
`common and critical component of pulsed laser-based systems”).
`
`Patent Owner attempts to use its elevated definition as a vehicle to
`make the argument that Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Mercer, is not a person of
`ordinary skill and to attack his credibility.7 See PO Resp. 18–20 (segueing,
`still under the heading of “The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art,” into an
`argument that Patent Owner’s two experts have more experience and
`expertise “in the relevant field” as compared to Petitioner’s expert); id. at 19–
`20 (concluding this same section with the argument that Dr. Mercer’s
`opinions should be afforded little weight). However, in directing its
`arguments almost exclusively at attacking Dr. Mercer, Patent Owner fails to
`
`
`7 Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Mercer
`on the basis that he is unqualified to offer opinion testimony regarding the
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`adequately address the pertinent issue—whether Petitioner’s proposed
`hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would lack the requisite
`experience and understanding of the art. Patent Owner does not identify
`adequately a substantive difference between Petitioner’s hypothetical person
`of ordinary skill in the art and Patent Owner’s. See PO Resp. 17–20. For
`example, Patent Owner does not argue that an electrical engineer or physicist
`with two years of experience utilizing electronic circuit testing equipment
`would lack adequate knowledge of the use of lasers in circuit testing. To the
`contrary, Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Woods, “generally agree[s] with
`petitioner’s definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]”—including
`the type of education and level of experience—and testified that “[t]hese
`techniques [of OBIRCH and TIVA] were known and widely used around the
`time of the invention of the ’982 patent to determine the location of defects in
`a semiconductor device and would have been known to those of ordinary
`skill in the art.” Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 30–31.
`
`To the extent that Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the level of
`ordinary skill is more than merely an elaboration upon Petitioner’s, we find it
`to be directed to a super-expert in a very narrowly defined field and
`calculated to undermine Dr. Mercer’s credibility while simultaneously
`promoting the credentials of its own experts. We do not find this
`litigation-induced argument persuasive.
`
`We determine that the definition offered by Dr. Mercer comports with
`the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement
`the teachings of the ’982 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself may
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Accordingly, we apply
`Dr. Mercer’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`C. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2017)8; see also Cuozzo
`Speed Techs. LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under the
`broadest reasonable construction standard, claim terms are given their
`ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`“accumulating”
`Independent claim 1 recites “accumulating.” Petitioner maintains that
`
`this term “relates to the plurality of samples being accumulated to generate a
`value” and “[t]he accumulation process described in the ’982 patent involves
`adding together the plurality of samples.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:63–65,
`8:20–9:19, Fig. 6). Petitioner’s proposed construction for “accumulating” is,
`in part, “adding or performing any act that includes adding as a step.” Id.;
`see Pet. Reply 6 (“accumulating” would encompass “adding”).
`
`Patent Owner similarly contends that “accumulating” “refer[s] to
`collecting a number of individual samples to be mathematically processed,
`for example to generate a single value from the multiple samples.” PO Resp.
`
`
`8 A recent amendment to this rule does not apply here because the Petition
`was filed before November 13, 2018. See Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018).
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`20. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]he specification illustrates the accumulation
`of these values using an equation showing summation, or adding, of the
`values” and that “the ordinary meaning of ‘accumulate’ is to gather together,
`increase, or add.” Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:55–62; Ex. 2007, 12
`(American Heritage Dictionary)).
`
`Thus, the parties agree that accumulating encompasses, at least, adding
`values together. This understanding is consistent with the specification’s
`discussion of accumulated samples. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 8:20–29.
`
`Petitioner initially asserted, in the Petition, that “accumulating” should
`be construed to include the act of averaging. Pet. 4–5. In the Institution
`Decision, we declined to construe “accumulating” as necessarily including
`the act of averaging. Inst. Dec. 7–8. In its Reply, Petitioner no longer
`advocates this as a matter of claim construction. See Pet. Reply 6. As
`discussed below, the parties address the issue as a factual matter, and
`specifically as to whether a prior art reference’s use of the term “average”
`discloses “accumulating” within the meaning of the claims of the ’982 patent.
`
`We again, as we did in the Institution Decision, Inst. Dec. 8, construe
`the term “accumulating” merely as encompassing the process of addition.
`
`We determine that, for purposes of resolving the dispositive issues in
`this decision, no other claim terms require express construction.
`
`D. The Alleged Anticipation of Claims 2, 3, 8–12, 16, 19, and 20 by Hamada
`
`Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Mercer (Ex. 1014), alleges
`that dependent method claims 2, 3, 8–12, 16, 19, and 20 (each of which
`depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1) are anticipated by
`Hamada. See Pet. 9–15 (addressing underlying independent claim 1). Patent
`Owner focuses its arguments on independent claim 1, arguing that Hamada
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`does not disclose “determining a plurality of samples of a response signal . . .
`during the period when the laser beam is radiated” or “accumulating the
`plurality of samples to generate a value.” PO Resp. 2.
`1. Hamada (Ex. 1004)
`Hamada discloses a method and device for inspection of a
`
`semiconductor device by irradiating it with an optical beam and measuring
`the resistance change in the circuit to determine a defective portion of the
`circuit. Ex. 1004 ¶ 9. Figure 1 of Hamada is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 “is a block diagram showing a configuration of an inspection device
`for inspecting a semiconductor device.” Id. ¶ 21. Figure 1 depicts, as the
`“device under test” (“DUT”), an integrated circuit (a semiconductor device).
`Also depicted are: “test signal generator 3 for generating a test signal of the
`same pattern repeating multiple times periodically and applying the same to
`the device under test 1 [the integrated circuit]”; optical beam generator 5 for
`scanning a desired location on the integrated circuit with an optical beam and
`irradiating the desired location for a fixed time; electrical current meter 6 for
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`measuring an operation current at various locations on the integrated circuit
`for a fixed time; timing processor 8 for controlling the operation timing for
`the test signal generator 3, the operation timing for the optical beam
`generator 5, and the electrical current meter 6 through a controller 7; and
`signal processing and display device 9 for calculating an average current at a
`respective scanning site based on an operational current measured when the
`respective site of the integrated circuit is measured, converting the same to a
`contrast image, and displaying the same. Id.
`
`Figure 2, including Figures 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), of Hamada is
`reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 2(a) is a timing chart showing an LSI (large scale integrated circuit)
`test signal applied to the integrated circuit. Id. ¶ 23. As shown in
`Figure 2(b), “the optical beam generator 5 scans each of the sites 1, 2, 3 on
`the device under test 1 stepwise with the optical beam, irradiating the sites 1,
`2, and 3 for a fixed time T1.” Id. “[A]s shown in FIG. 2(c), the electrical
`current meter 6 measures the operation current at the site 1, site 2, and site 3
`on the device under test 1 for a fixed time T10.” Id. ¶ 24. “In this
`embodiment, the operation current is measured only for the fixed time T10 in
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`synchronization with the H-level interval; the operation current is not
`measured during the L-level interval.” Id.
`
`Hamada explains:
`[B]ased on the operation current measured at the sites 1, 2, and 3
`of the device under test 1 at the measurement time T10 by the
`electrical current meter 6, the signal processing and display
`device 9 calculates the average current at each of the sites scanned
`by the optical beam generator 5, converts the calculation into a
`contrast image and displays the same.
`
`Id.
`
`2. “determining a plurality of samples” and “accumulating the
`plurality of samples”
`The dispositive issue regarding Hamada is whether it discloses
`
`determining and accumulating a plurality of samples.
`
`Independent method claim 1 recites:
`
`determining a plurality of samples of a response signal
`output by the electronic circuit during the period when the laser
`beam is radiated, [and]
`
`accumulating the plurality of samples to generate a value.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 10:62–66.
`
`As an initial matter, we note that Petitioner does not point to any
`explicit disclosure in Hamada of determining a plurality of samples when the
`laser beam is radiated or of accumulating, or even adding, the plurality of
`samples. Petitioner’s theory, at least in part, is rooted in inherency9,
`
`9 “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
`mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
`not sufficient. . . . If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the
`natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the
`performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`notwithstanding Petitioner’s denial of that assertion. See PO Resp. 33 (Patent
`Owner asserting that “[Petitioner’s] argument constitutes an anticipation by
`inherent disclosure argument, i.e., ‘average’ inherently discloses multiple
`samples”); Pet. Reply 14 (“Petitioner has never made an inherency argument.
`. . . Petitioner’s argument is and has always been that Hamada discloses the
`accumulating and determining steps because ‘[b]y definition, ‘averaging’
`requires the addition of the values of a number of samples.’”); see also
`Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 87, 90–93 (Petitioner’s expert repeatedly using the term
`“necessarily” in the opinions related to Hamada’s purported disclosure of a
`plurality of samples). Additionally, much of Petitioner’s argument hinges on
`the proper meaning of Hamada’s Japanese-terms translated here as “average”
`and “calculate.” See, e.g., Pet. 11 (arguments referring to the “calculation of
`an average current”), Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that the Japanese language term
`translated as “calculate” should be understood to refer to digital, rather than
`analog, processing).
`
`Regardless as to the proper characterization of Petitioner’s theory, we,
`for the reasons discussed below, determine that Petition has failed to establish
`by a preponderance of the evidence that Hamada discloses the “determining a
`plurality of samples” and “accumulating the plurality of samples,” as
`required by independent claim 1 and, therefore, the challenged claims that
`depend therefrom.
`
`
`disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578,
`581 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214 (CCPA
`1939)).
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`
`Determining a Plurality of Samples
`For the recited step of “determining a plurality of samples of a
`
`response signal output by the electronic circuit during the period when the
`laser beam is radiated,” Petitioner points to Hamada’s paragraphs 21–25 as
`disclosing the electrical current meter determining a plurality of samples of
`the response signal output of the DUT (the integrated circuit). Pet. 10–12.
`Specifically, Petitioner contends:
`
`Hamada’s indication that the calculation of an average
`current at each of sites 1, 2, and 3 is performed based on the
`operation current measured by electrical current meter 6 at each
`respective site, 1003/1004 ¶¶ [0021], [0022], [0024], means that
`Hamada determines or measures a plurality of samples of the
`response signal at each of the sites. 1014 ¶ 93. By definition, the
`process of “averaging” requires the addition of the values of a
`number of samples resulting in a sum, and a division of that sum
`by the number of samples that were added. 1015; 1014 ¶ 93.
`Thus, Hamada’s disclosure that the average current is determined
`at each of sites 1, 2, and 3 constitutes a teaching by Hamada that
`electrical current meter 6 determines multiple samples of the
`response signal output by DUT 1 for each of the sites. 1003/1004
`¶¶ [0021], [0024], 1014 ¶ 94.
`Id. at 11–12 (emphasis added).10 Petitioner further contends that Hamada
`additionally discloses the “determining a plurality of samples” step in
`describing the measurements relative to the repeating LSI test signal. Id.
`at 12–14 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1004, Fig. 2; Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 89–97).
`
`
`10 Petitioner places great weight on the purported applicable definition of the
`English word “average.” We note that Petitioner’s “[b]y definition”
`argument technically is not applied to the term utilized by the author of the
`article—which would have been a Japanese term—but rather involves a
`proposed definition for the English word selected by Petitioner’s translator
`when translating the article from Japanese.
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`Petitioner, in support of its “[b]y definition” argument, relies on a
`
`definition of “average” from a general dictionary,11 and specifically one
`identified by Petitioner as “Oxford Living Dictionaries,
`https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/average, Oxford University
`Press, 2017.” Pet. v (Exhibit List), 11–12 (citing Ex. 1015); see Ex. 1015 (an
`online dictionary lacking facial identification via, e.g., a footer). Petitioner
`also relies on the testimony of Dr. Mercer, which offers little more than
`Petitioner’s argument phrased as an opinion and also is based on the general
`dictionary. See Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 93, 94. Dr. Mercer opines that “the reference to
`calculating an average current at each of the sites in Hamada necessarily
`means that Hamada determines or measures a plurality of samples.” Id. ¶ 93
`(citing Ex. 1015).
`
`Patent Owner argues that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would
`not interpret ‘average current’ in Hamada to mean that multiple samples of
`the response signal were obtained.” PO Resp. 29. Unlike Petitioner’s
`argument and Dr. Mercer’s opinion based on a general dictionary, Patent
`Owner’s argument, relying on the testimony of Dr. Woods, presents a
`technology-based case. Id. at 27–36 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 42–43,
`75). Patent Owner contends that Hamada’s system was like similar systems
`of the time, which utilized analog averaging by, for example, a low-pass
`filter, and thereafter used an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter to create a
`
`
`11 Assuming Petitioner is referring to the first definition set forth in the
`dictionary, it appears that Petitioner actually is relying on the definition of
`“mean,” which is identified as one of several forms of an “average.” See
`Ex. 1015, 1.
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`digital signal for display purposes. Id. at 27–3012 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 42–43,
`75; Ex. 2025 (Kiyoshi); Ex. 1012 (Nishida)); see also id. at 34–35. Patent
`Owner asserts that such an analog averaging process produces a single analog
`measurement and does not, as Petitioner argues, involve determining a
`plurality of samples. Id. at 27. Dr. Woods testifies credibly that:
`In terms of determining an average current, a low-pass filter or an
`integrator circuit can be used to obtain an average current, which
`does not involve sampling. This was the primary technique used
`in the scanning microscopes used for laser-based testing of
`semiconductor circuits at the time of the Nikawa, Nishida,
`Kiyoshi, Cole, and Hamada references.
`Ex. 2029 ¶ 43. Dr. Woods notes that Hamada cites to the Kiyoshi reference
`and further testifies credibly that:
`[f]rom inspecting the figures and the translation of this [Kiyoshi]
`publication (Ex. 2025), it is clear that the Hamada system, based
`on NEC’s Kiyoshi application, also operates like the system
`described in NEC’s Nikawa patent; all these systems measure the
`output current variation caused by the laser irradiation using a
`single analog average current measurement per location.
`Ex. 2029 ¶ 42 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶ 35, Fig. 6).
`
`In Reply, Petitioner pivots from its original “[b]y definition” position
`and argues that Hamada must utilize digital processing utilizing multiple
`samples because “Hamada does not disclose any A/D converter located
`downstream from current meter 6 of Figure 1.” Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1026
`¶ 23). Even if Petitioner is correct, we do not find the lack of disclosure to
`
`
`12 We do not view, as Petitioner argues, Pet. Reply 10, Patent Owner’s
`arguments as incorporation by reference of the other references, but as an
`assertion that those references reflect the typical practice at the time of
`Hamada and that Hamada followed that typical practice.
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-02112
`Patent 7,623,982 B2
`
`satisfy Petitioner’s burden to establish a particular disclosure (i.e. a
`determination of a plurality of samples). See PO Sur-Reply 8 (“[T]he
`absence of an express mention of an A/D converter does not provide a
`disclosure of ‘digital sampling.’”). Also, Petitioner pits one of its technical
`witnesses against its own translator in impliedly arguing that the translator
`failed to provide an allegedly full and correct meaning for the word translated
`as “calculate.” Pet. Reply 9–10. Petitioner’s technical witness, Dr. Nikawa,
`testifies that the corresponding Japanese-language term in Hamada is “most
`commonly used” to refer to digital-based calculation. See Ex. 1025 ¶ 33.
`The stated basis for this opinion is only “my expertise and experience.” Id.
`Rather than supporting Petitioner’s position, this apparent inconsistency
`between Petitioner’s witnesses calls into question the credibility of
`Petitioner’s own translation of the reference. Petitioner further presents the
`speculative argument th

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket