Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 35. The article does not mention using either hot spot detection in
2 general or the disclosed hot spot detection method for applications other than
3 failure analysis.
4 Jung’s and Lim’s Rule 132 declarations (Br. Exs. F and G)
5 36. Jung and Lim each claim to be a person having ordinary skill in
6 the art of failure analysis. Jung Decl. para. 3; Lim Decl. para. 1.
7 37. Jung testified that the ‘857 patent is “exclusively within the field
8 of semiconductor failure analysis” and that “the term ‘detecting hot spot’ in
9 claim 11 of the ‘857 patent has the same meaning as in the field of semi-
10 conductor failure analysis.” Jung Decl. para. 8. Lim similarly testified that
11 “in the ’857 patent specification, the term ‘hot spot detection method’ means
12 nothing but a failure analysis method.” Lim Decl. para. 5.
13 38. Both declarants testified that a person having ordinary skill in
14 failure analysis would have understood that the hot spot detection method
15 disclosed in the ‘857 patent necessarily includes locating the center of the
16 hot spot in order to identify the site of a failed component whose location
17 was not previously known. Jung Decl. paras. 6-10; Lim Decl. paras. 3-10.
18 Both declarants base that testimony on the example of a shorted diode given
19 in the ‘857 patent specification and on the Hiatt and Fleuren articles. Jung
20 Decl. paras. 9-10; Lim Decl. paras. 6-10.
21 39. Jung does not address Stephens or Sinnadurai, which describe
22 using hot spot detection to generate isotherms and thermal profiles of
23 nondefective devices. Lim discusses Stephens and Sinnadurai without
24 acknowledging that aspect of their disclosures. Lim Decl. paras. 16-17.
25
26
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013