Appeal 2006-3235
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,696
1 discussion, we assume that both have the qualifications to testify in that
2 capacity; the examiner does not contend otherwise.
3 Because Jung and Lim are testifying as persons having ordinary skill
4 in the field of failure analysis, their testimony sheds little light on the
5 question of how the phrase “hot spot detection method” as used in the ‘857
6 patent would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the
7 broader field of endeavor indicated by the ‘857 patent, i.e., the use of liquid
8 crystals to detect hot spots in defective and nondefective integrated circuits.
9 Their testimony is also unpersuasive even if we assume for the sake of
10 argument that they are testifying as persons having ordinary skill in that
11 broader field of endeavor. They have not testified that an artisan in that
12 broader field of endeavor would have understood the terms “hot spot” and
13 “hot spot detection” to be terms of art limited to failure analysis. Nor could
14 they have given such testimony, since Stephens and Sinnadurai, which are in
15 that field of endeavor, describe using their “hot spot” detection methods on
16 nondefective devices for the purpose of generating isotherms and
17 temperature profiles, Stephens at 643 (under heading “3.4 Isothermal
18 Plotting”); Sinnadurai at 2, ll. 110-20, and also for testing integrated circuits
19 against procurement specifications that set an upper limit to surface
20 temperatures. Sinnadurai at 2, l. 129 to p. 3, l. 9. Instead, they testified that
21 the artisan would have would have understood the phrase “hot spot detection
22 method” as used in the ‘857 patent to be limited to failure analysis. As
23 support for this conclusion they rely on the shorted-diode example given in
24 the ‘857 patent and on Hiatt and Fleuren, which reliance is misplaced for the
25 reasons given above.
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013