May_EDFA_Digital

54 / 58

ELECTRONIC DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS | VOLUME 18 NO. 2
54
GUEST COLUMNIST
THE PROCESS OF INVENTING A PATENTABLE ITEM
Jason Higgins, TSMC WaferTech
Today’s professionals are continually pushed to
deliver innovation to ensure that a company can
remain competitive and, more importantly, profit-
able in the global market. There are many ways to show
innovation, whether it’s through internal continuous-
improvement projects, the formation of trade secrets,
or the strongest method, obtaining patents. Patents are
essentially the backbone of industry. A patent provides
protection that an innovation will not be used by others
for their financial gain. How important are patents to a
company? Ask Samsung—they fought a fierce battle with
Apple for several years over phone patents covering 40 or
more infringements. In 2012, Apple was awarded 1 billion
dollars in damages.[1] For many companies, this could be
an unrecoverable judgment. It is a considerable amount
of money for an idea that was turned into a reality by two
separate companies, but only one of themheld the patent.
Major changes to the way patents are awarded
occurred in 2013 with the implementation of phase III of
the America Invents Act.[2] The most important change
was the conversion from a first-to-invent system to a
first-inventor-to-file system.[3] This places at serious risk
all in-progress inventions that are being tinkered with to
attain the perfect product before a patent application
is filed. If it has not been filed with the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, it is not protected.
Another significant change is that U.S. patents and
U.S. patent application publications as “prior art” are now
treated according to their earliest effective filing date,
regardless if that date is based on an application filed in
the United States or in another country. Also eliminated
was the requirement that a prior public use or sale be “in
this country” to qualify it for prior-art activity.
What does all this boil down to? If you have an idea,
sketch it out on paper, describe it in as much detail as
possible, and file it, even if there isn’t a final product or
the beginning of one. Ideas can be patented; they don’t
have to physically exist.
Every year there’s a drive to obtain new patents. I’m
frequently asked, “When can failure analysis provide a
new patent idea, and what would it be about?” Because
failure analysis does not deal in the direct manufactur-
ing of devices nor with the equipment used, it can be
challenging to come up with an invention, especially one
that would directly impact the semiconductor industry.
Certainly, there are numerous ideas for improving the
analytical side for lab efficiency or capability, but it may
not be of interest to the company. After all, we are not
making analytical equipment, so a patent in that area
isn’t as beneficial or profitable to pursue.
Nevertheless, failure analysis personnel are in a key
position within the semiconductor process. We interact
with virtually every engineering team in the organization,
which exposes us to all facets of the business. Failure
analysts actually “see” the product—electrically, opti-
cally, in the SEM, cross sections, top-downs, and so on.
Observation is often the key to inspire creative thinking,
which leads to an idea, and an idea can lead to a patent. Of
course, that’s easier said than done. Looking at circuits all
day, every day can lead to autopilot, squashing creativity.
However, seeing the same thing over and over can also
be beneficial. We tend to eagerly chase things that are
observed as being different from the “normal” findings. A
newanomalywill receivemuchmore attention andwill be
studied in greater detail, due to our curious nature. Even
an accident, whether in sample preparation or handling,
can ultimately lead to a great invention.
“BEING FAILURE ANALYSTS, WE DIDN’T
HAVE THE RESOURCES TO CREATE A
WAFER WITH THESE EXPOSED p/n
JUNCTIONS, AND THEREFORE, WE DIDN’T
HAVE AN OPERATIONAL DEVICE, BUT
THAT DIDN’T STOP US FROM FILING
FOR A PATENT. THE THEORY BEHIND THE
PHENOMENON WAS SOLID, AND THE
FINDINGS WERE REPRODUCIBLE.. ”