Ex Parte 4682857 et al - Page 26

                Appeal 2006-3235                                                                                
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696                                                            

           1    “[t]herefore, the discussion shall be limited to the hot spot detection                         
           2    method.”  Id. at col. 1, ll. 12-14.  The foregoing statements, in our view,                     
           3    identify the relevant field of endeavor as the use of the phase transition                      
           4    property of liquid crystal materials to detect “hot spots” in integrated circuits               
           5    without regard to whether they include failed or defective components.  For                     
           6    the following reasons we reject Appellant’s position that the specification of                  
           7    the ‘857 patent further restricts the field of endeavor to failure analysis, i.e.,              
           8    the detection of hot spots generated by failed or defective components.                         
           9           Appellant argues that failure analysis is implied by the phrase “hot                     
          10    spot detection.”  Specifically, Appellant contends (1) that “hot spot                           
          11    detection” means discovering the location of a hot spot for the first time,                     
          12    citing the Webster’s definitions (i.e., “finding something unknown” or “to                      
          13    catch or discover something hidden or not easily noticed”) and (2) that the                     
          14    only type of hot spot whose location is unknown prior to performance of the                     
          15    detection method is a hot spot generated by a failed component.  Br. 19-20.                     
          16    The Examiner, on the other hand, argues that “hot spot detection” is broad                      
          17    enough to read on causing a hot spot to be manifested visibly, whether or not                   
          18    its location is already known, presumably relying on the second part of the                     
          19    American Heritage definition (“1. to discover or ascertain the existence,                       
          20    presence, or fact of.  2. to discern (something hidden or subtle)”).  Final                     
          21    Action 3.  As will appear, the Examiner’s broader interpretation is both                        
          22    reasonable and consistent with the ‘857 patent disclosure.                                      
          23           As further support for restricting “hot spot detection method” to                        
          24    failure analysis, Appellant argues that Hiatt and Fleuren are incorporated by                   
          25    reference into the ‘857 patent and disclose using their spot detection                          
          26    methods exclusively for failure analysis.  This argument fails for several                      

                                                      26                                                        

Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013