November_EDFA_Digital

edfas.org 51 ELECTRONIC DEVICE FAILURE ANALYSIS | VOLUME 19 NO. 4 We can categorize two general sources of ideas that might lead to patents: problems in search of a solution, and solutions in search of a problem. The former is of coursemore common. Engineers, technicians, and scien- tists encounter problems and find solutions every day. But not every newway of doing something is patentable. More often we merely apply “good engineering,” for example, automating a test program, altering an illumination path for higher quantumefficiency, ormaking a chemical waste systemmore efficient. New? Yes, butmaybe only to you or your lab. Useful? To your work, certainly. But would most other labs benefit from it? And finally, is it nonobvious? Re-read Jefferson’s words and think about how much you’ve changed the original approach. All of this is not to say that problem solutions are never patentable—quite the contrary—but it’s usually a matter of the size of the problem and the breadth of the solution. Another pitfall is assuming your potentially patentable idea must be cost-effective and timely. In our work we naturally look for the least-expensive approach that we can implement as soon as possible. But neither condition is among the U.S. patent prerequisites. Our normal ten- dencies toward problem solving can really limit creative thinking. So, for patent purposes, it’s best to consider broader solutions to a problem apart from the one you actually need now and within budget. If it’s a serious enough issue that would generally affect others in the industry, fix your lab’s problem first. Then, with cost as no object and no time pressure, focus on more creative approaches. As Faber College’s Dean Wormer might have said to hapless Delta pledge Kent Dorfman if the 1978 classic film “Animal House” had taken place in a labora- tory: “Fast, cheap, and obvious is no way to get through the patent process, son.” So, how do we effect more innovative solutions and patentable ideas? Creativity is in large part a personality trait, but there are techniques we use to prime ourselves to thinkmore openly and unlock our imaginative tenden- cies. One method is to apply knowledge from a hobby or another field. Curiosity drives many failure analysis people, and they tend to be tinkerers with skills and inter- ests in a variety of fields. Trying to find a better way tomill a chip or package? Think about how router bits work on wood. Looking for a new way to sense acoustic signals in packages or printed circuit boards? Maybe guitar pickups have an answer. Want to improve theway a probe embeds into a metal pad? How does the shape and motion of a moldboard plow blade enable it to efficiently dig into soil?While a patentable idea cannot be obvious to anyone “skilled in the art,” the requirement says nothing about using skills from another art to solve problems. Another path is to consider the exact opposite of what you’re hoping to accomplish with your solution. Thinking about how things break forces us to think more broadly about how to keep them from breaking. The second and arguably more original category of generating patentable ideas is using solutions in search of problems. In failure analysis we see many different types of defects: unique processing anomalies, design errors, mask problems, reliability failure mechanisms, and so on. They can be an especially rich source of distinctive structures or processes thatmight be used tomake some- thing useful and solve a problem instead of creating one. What made your device fail might indeed be the seed of an entirely new structure. For example, the seminal idea of a MOSFET sidewall spacer (U.S. patent 4,256,514 A) to enable a lightly doped drain came from a manufacturing defect created by the accidental patterning of a narrow stud or mandrel. Referenced by almost 160 subsequent patents, it’s awonderful example of a solution in search of aproblem. Andwhen it comes tousingdefects and failures as patent ideas, remember that youonlyneed to showthat it’s “operable,” or able to bemade, not that it can bemade inexpensively, quickly, repeatedly, or reliably. What better proof than the image from your failure analysis report! Finally, a quick word of advice about creativity and thinking broadly. Everyone has “good ideas.” Whilemany seem creative and unique to their work group, most are not actually patentable. A simple online search usually shows someone else got there first or solved the problem another way. Deeper digging in a patent database can fre- quently turn up the same or similar idea as well. Evidence of prior publication or use is frustrating and disappoint- ing, but it’s better to find out early in the game. Do your homework. It’s easy and it will make you a better inventor. You’ll learn not only what HAS been patented in your area of expertise, butmore importantly, what HASN’T, resulting in more robust ideas. We’ve reviewed the three most important U.S. patent requirements: novelty, utility, and nonobviousness. We then focusedona fewways tobringpatent-worthy novelty and creativity to your everyday work (and did it without once referring to “thinking outside the six-sided cubical subpolyhedron”). Good luck and happy patenting. It can be a fun and challenging complement to your “day job” and rewarding to both you and your employer. And if you ever make it up to northern Vermont, I have a truck you might be interested in. But you’ll need your own long- handled hammer … I grant myself the exclusive right to keep using mine.