Ex Parte Hutcheon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 13, 2018

14501710 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/501,710 09/30/2014 Graeme A. Hutcheon
46429 7590 08/15/2018
CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM POUGHKEEPSIE
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
POU920130084US2 1098
EXAMINER
QUIGLEY, KYLE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2865
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usptopatentmail@cantorcolbum.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GRAEME A. HUTCHEON,
BAOZHEN LI, and K. PAUL MILLER
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501,710
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 4--9, 12, and 13 of
Application 14/501,710 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. 3-
11 (July 14, 2016). The Examiner also provisionally rejected claims 1, 4--9,
12, and 13 for obviousness-type double patenting. Id. at 11-12. The
Examiner further rejected claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2 as
indefinite, id. at 2, and claims 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed toward non-statutory subject matter, id. at 3. Appellants 1 seek
1 International Business Machines Corp. is identified as the applicant and
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The '710 Application describes a system and method for remote
electromigration monitoring of electronic chips. Spec. ,r 2.
In the context of the '710 Application, electromigration refers to a
phenomenon associated with current flow through a conductor. Id. ,r 3.
When current flows through a conductor, momentum transfer from the
electrons to the conductor's metal ions causes the metal ions to move
gradually. Id. The significance of electromigration increases as conductor
size decreases and increases as the operating temperature of the conductor
increases. Id. ,r,r 3--4. For microelectronic components, electromigration
limits the effective life of the component. Id. ,r 3. As a microelectronic
component near the end of its effective life, periodic glitches resulting from
electromigration can occur. Id. Eventually, electromigration causes the
microelectronic chips to fail. Id.
The system described in the '710 Application senses, at least at one
location, the temperature of an electronic chip, accumulates a plurality of
temperature values during a reporting period, and calculates an
Electromigration Life Consumed (EMLC) value of the electronic chip for
the reporting period. Id. ,r 5. The system then determines whether the
calculated EMLC for the chip exceeds a threshold and, if so, provides a
signal. Id.
2
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
Claim 1 is representative of the '710 Application's claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix.
1. A method of remotely monitoring electromigration in an
electronic chip, the method comprising:
sensing, at a first location, a plurality of temperature
values, each of the plurality of temperature values being sensed
at a different position on the chip of the electronic chip;
determining a high temperature value of the plurality of
temperature values;
setting a temperature value of the electronic chip at the
high temperature value;
sending the high temperature value of the plurality of
temperature values to a remote monitoring system;
accumulating a plurality of high temperature values of
the electronic chip at the remote monitoring system during a
reporting period;
calculating, at the remote monitoring system, an
Electromigration Life Consumed (EMLC) value of the
electronic chip for the reporting period based on the plurality
of high temperature values;
determining, at the remote monitoring system, whether
the EMLC of the electronic chip is above a predetermined
EMLC threshold;
providing a signal from the remote monitoring system to
the first location when the EMLC of the electronic chip is
above the predetermined EMLC threshold; and
diverting processing operations from the electronic chip
when the EMLC of the electronic chip is above the
predetermined EMLC threshold.
Appeal Br. 9 ( emphasis added).
3
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 5-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination ofVera3 and Feng. 4 Final
Act. 3-9.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Vera, Feng, and Peng. 5 Final Act. 10.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. Appellants provide only generalized argument for
reversal of the rejection of claims 1, 5-9, 12, and 13 as obvious over the
combination of Vera and Feng. See Appeal Br. 5-7. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 and independent claim 9 as representative of the claims
on appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Furthermore, because
Appellants' arguments do not distinguish between independent claims 1 and
9, we limit our discussion to claim 1 with the understanding that it applies
equally to claim 9.
Appellants' sole argument for reversal of this rejection is that "the
prior art, when taken singly or in combination, does not teach all of the
claimed elements. Specifically, the prior art, when taken singly or in
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5 and 12 as indefinite
and of claims 9, 12, and 13 as directed toward non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner also has withdrawn the provisional rejection of claims 1, 4--9,
12, and 13 for obviousness-type double patenting.
3 US 2009/0287909 Al, published November 19, 2009.
4 US 8,274,301 B2, issued September 25, 2012.
5 US 8,152,372 Bl, issued April 10, 2012.
4
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
combination[,] does not teach to calculate an EMLC value." Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner, however, found that Vera describes calculating an EMLC
value. Final Act. 6 (citing Vera ,r,r 3, 25), Answer 3-6.
To determine whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
obvious over the combination of Vera and Feng, we must construe the claim
term "an Electromigration Life Consumed (EMLC) value of the electronic
chip." Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int'!, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2003) ( explaining that anticipation and obviousness require comparison of
the properly construed claims to the available prior art); Amazon. com, Inc. v.
Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("Only
when a claim is properly understood can a determination be made ...
whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed
invention.").
During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account any definitions or other enlightenment provided by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054--55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Baker Hughes, Inc., 215 F.3d
1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the PTO cannot adopt a construction that is
"beyond that which was reasonable in light of the totality of the written
description" in the Specification).
Review of the '710 Application's Specification does not reveal any
specific definition for either "EMLC" or "an EMLC value." The
Specification does provide an example of a determination of an EMLC value
in a single embodiment. See Spec. ,r ,r 21-22 ( concluding "remote
electromigration monitoring system 2 calculated a total EMLC for the
5
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
combined four periods of POH at 3.5 periods"). The Specification, however,
does not reveal any formula used to make this determination. Id. Indeed,
the Specification specifically cautions against inferring a formula based
upon the discussion in paragraphs 21 and 22: "At this point it should be
understood that the 3.5 period EMLC is provided for illustrative purposes
only and should not be considered an as an actual calculated EMLC based
on the exemplary temperatures illustrated in FIG. 4." Id. ,r 22.
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the Examiner correctly
construed the claim term "an EMLC value" according to the ordinary
meaning of this phrase to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Although the
Examiner did not expressly state the claim construction used in this
rejection, we infer from the Examiner's explanation of the basis for the
rejection that the Examiner interpreted the phrase "an EMLC value" to mean
a calculated value in which electromigration is a factor. 6 For example, in
response to Appellants' arguments that Vera does not describe calculation of
an EMLC, the Examiner stated:
The instant Claims [sic] do not recite "an EMLC," but
rather recite "an EMLC value." The calculated mileage of Vera
constitutes an EMLC value (under a reasonably broad
interpretation of the claim language) because electromigration
is disclosed as a factor of the degradation of the lifetime of the
device in Paragraph [0003] of Vera.
Answer 4.
Appellants argue that the claim construction inherent in the
Examiner's statement of the reasons for this rejection is incorrect:
6 In the future, the Examiner would be well served by expressly stating the
claim interpretation used as a basis for a rejection in situations where the
proper interpretation of the claim term is in dispute.
6
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
"Conversely, EMLC is a much more specific calculation [than the
calculation described in Vera]. EMLC is the operational life of an electronic
device that has been consumed due to electromigration." Appeal Br. 5.
Appellants argue that EMLC calculated by a specific method: "The
Appellant respectfully submits that as is also known in the art, EMLC is
calculated using Blacks [sic, Black's] Law,[7J which is an exponential
equation that relies on an inverse temperature function as a functional
element." Id. at 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, the
Specification does not contain any description of methods used to calculate
EMLC, let alone actual formulas used in that calculation. Nor have
Appellants pointed us to any evidence in the record concerning the
7 Also known as Black's Equation, which can be used to calculate the mean
time to failure (MTTF) for a wire:
A Ea
MTTF = -ekr Jn
where A is a constant based on the material properties and geometry of the
interconnect, J is the current density, Ea is the activation energy, k is
Boltzmann's constant, Tis temperature in kelvins, and n is an empirically
determined scaling factor that varies according to the mechanism of
interconnect failure. See generally, J.R. Lloyd, Electromigration for
Designers: An Introduction for the Non-Specialist, EEITimes, (April 12,
2002 4:00 AM) https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc id=l275855;
Electromigration, Wikipedia,
https:// en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration#Electromigration_reliability _
of_a_wire_(Black's_equation); R.L. de Orio, Electromigration Modeling
and Simulation,§ 1.3.1 (June 2010) (Ph.D. dissertation, Vienna University
of Technology) (available at http://www.iue.ac.at/phd/orio/nodel 6.html).
The fact that Black's Equation is used to calculate a MTTF value is
inconsistent with Appellants' argument that MTTF is not a measure of
EMLC. See Appeal Br. 6.
7
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
qualifications and characteristics of a person of ordinary skill in the art or
evidence that such a person would have used Black's law to calculate
EMLC. As a result of these deficiencies, Appellants' arguments are without
evidentiary support and amount to mere attorney argument. It, of course, is
well-settled that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually
supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40
(Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As the Examiner found, Vera describes the calculation of a "mileage"
measurement that is an estimate of the amount of the expected lifetime of the
electronic component that has been consumed due to a number of sources of
degradation including electromigration. Vera ,r 3. Vera explains that for
steady state operation, the MTTF may be determined by considering the
failure rate of the various component structures due to each potential failure
mechanism. Id. ,r 31. Vera further teaches that its estimated mileage
calculation includes a component reflecting the failure rate due to
electromigration. Id. ,r,r 31-39. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that
Vera describes calculation of an EMLC value under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of that claim term.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 5-9, 12, and 13.
Rejection 2. Appellants do not provide any argument for reversal of
this rejection. See generally Appeal Br. 5-8. We, therefore, summarily
affirm the rejection of claim 4 as obvious over the combination of Vera,
Feng, and Peng.
8
Appeal2017-008891
Application 14/501, 710
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1, 4--9, 12, and 13 of the '710 Application.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9