1. Field of the Invention
The present invention concerns computer-related and/or assisted methods, systems and computer readable mediums for metrology during process control. More specifically, it relates to dynamic adjustment of metrology schemes and sampling during advanced process control methods, for example during control of semiconductor technology manufacture.
2. Related Art
In the wafer fabrication art, measurements are made by metrology tools on wafers as they are being manufactured by processing devices, in order to ensure that the wafers are produced according to a predefined specification. The measurements are made of physical properties such as film thickness and uniformity, dopant concentration, gate length and critical dimension. This is known as the science of “metrology.”
Measurements to be made are typically specified in a “die map”. The die map indicates where the different chips (or die) are located on a wafer (in the typical situation where multiple chips are formed on and eventually cut from a single wafer), as well as significant locations, such as corners, on each die. In order to measure the right hand corner on each die, for example, multiple points are measured on the wafer in accordance with the die map. Ordinarily a die map is a digital representation of coordinate points, or “metrology coordinates,” on the wafer.
The metrology coordinates are usually provided by an engineer, and vary depending on the engineer's preferences. Metrology coordinates are conventionally provided as x, y coordinates.
A “sampling plan,” alternatively referred to as a “metrology plan,” contains metrology coordinates drawn from the die map. The sampling plan denotes a specific plan for taking certain measurements. These measurements may include some or all of the possible points and/or chips in the die map.
A conventional metrology system assigns a sampling plan that predetermines which wafers are to be measured in connection with a processing device, and the measurements which are to be taken of those wafers by the metrology tool. For example, the sampling plan might define that each fifth wafer should be measured at pre-designated locations. These sampling plans are not changed after being initially assigned, and hence the metrology systems are static.
Unfortunately, manufacturing results tend to drift away from the intended target or specification when there is a change in the manufacturing process, such as a change in recipe, preventative maintenance, consumables change, environmental change or a new lot of wafers. Conventional metrology systems tend to miss some wafers which are outside specification limits, since these systems use a virtually consistent measurement scheme, having consistently frequent measurements with consistent spatial resolution, without taking into consideration whether any changes were introduced into the manufacturing process which might change the manufacturing results.
Manufacturing systems do not typically call for a measurement of every wafer, since measuring takes time and increasing the number of measurements results in a decrease of productivity. On the other hand, measuring fewer wafers tends to lead to delayed detection of critical information for process control that may significantly impact wafer yield. While conventional sampling systems will sample wafers during and/or after production, these systems do not adjust the initially assigned sampling plan for the wafers during production.
Thus, there remains a need for dynamic metrology to improve the quality of products. For semiconductor wafers, there remains a need to better check whether each specification is met under production conditions. There also remains a need to respond to a change in parameters which may cause a variance from intended target results, such as recipe parameters, and to adjust the frequency and/or spatial resolution of measurements. Unfortunately, taking measurements takes time, and most processing devices are faster than the measurements that need to be taken by metrology tools in order to characterize the wafers using a metrology. Thus, there remains a need for a method, system and medium to react to changes potentially affecting the system results, and to appropriately adjust, increase, or decrease the measurements accordingly.
The present invention alleviates the problems of the conventional techniques described above by dynamically determining whether a wafer needs to be measured for process control based on changes in the resources, recipes, etc. In addition, for a given wafer to be measured, measuring points are also dynamically assigned to the metrology tool.
More specifically, two variations of embodiments of the present invention are contemplated and may be used independently or together. According to the first variation, the frequency at which wafers are measured (“wafer-to-wafer”) is adjusted, following an event that suggests that more (or fewer) wafers should be measured. According to the second variation, the spatial resolution of the measurements of those wafers selected for measurement (“within-wafer”) is increased or decreased, following an event that suggests each wafer which is measured should be measured in greater (or lesser) detail.
In one or more embodiments of the present invention, candidate coordinate measurement points are mapped in a die map, and a subset of the candidate coordinate measurement points are selected as the initial points where measurements are to be made. Subsequently, according to the within-wafer variation, the invention dynamically selects more, fewer or different points (depending on the circumstances) to be measured from among the candidate coordinate measurement points. According to the wafer-to-wafer variation, when there is a change in the manufacturing process, the number of measurements may be increased, to measure every wafer rather than just every third wafer for example. As one example, when a new recipe is implemented to significantly change the thickness at a particular region on the wafer, a greater number of within-wafer measurements can be made at that location by selecting more and/or different candidate measurement points. As another example, when a fault is detected, the frequency of wafers selected for measurement is increased; this increases the probability of detecting defectively manufactured wafers and correcting the control parameters (such as in connection with a feed forward/feedback method). In some situations, large deviations may require less frequent measurement or less spatial resolution than small deviations when the large deviations clearly identify the problem, whereas small deviations may be difficult to identify and more frequent and/or dense measurements may be necessary. The reverse may be appropriate in other situations regarding the frequency and density of measurements, or it may be the case that the same number of measurements may be taken regardless of deviation.
According to one or more embodiments of the present invention, there is provided a method, system and/or computer-implemented method for measuring at least one manufacturing characteristic for at least one product manufactured by a manufacturing process. Information is provided, representative of a set of candidate points to be measured by the manufacturing process on the at least one product. The manufacturing process executes a plan for performing measurements on the at least one product to measure the at least one manufacturing characteristic, the plan defining the measurements to be made responsive to the set of candidate points. A change in the manufacturing process is detected, the change including at least one of: receiving new material in the manufacturing process, detecting a fault in the manufacturing process, detecting a change in a control parameter in the manufacturing process, and detecting a variation in a measurement of the at least one product.
According to one or more embodiments, the plan for performing measurements is adjusted based on the detected change and at least one additional measurement is performed responsive thereto.
According to one or more embodiments, the measurements of the plan are adjusted wafer-to-wafer and/or within-wafer.
According to one or more embodiments, the product is a semi-conductor wafer and the manufacturing process is an automated semi-conductor manufacturing process.
According to one or more embodiments, the plan further includes information representative of a metrology recipe.
According to one or more embodiments, the candidate points are included in a map corresponding to the at least one product. The plan may be a pre-determined sampling plan.
According to one or more embodiments, the plan defines at least one region on the product, each of the candidate points corresponding to the at least one region.
According to one or more embodiments, the adjustment includes determining the at least one region corresponding to the detected change, selecting the at least one additional measurement responsive to the candidate points corresponding to the determined region, assigning the selected at least one additional measurement to be performed under the plan, and revising at least one of the measurements, the additional measurement and the plan. The adjustment may include determining whether the detected change may affect a series of products, and if so, determining whether to measure at least one of the products in the series of products. The products may be provided in a group, and the plan may further include first information representative of the products in the group that are available to be measured, and second information representative of the products in the group that are to be measured under the plan.
According to one or more embodiments, information representative of measurement results on the product is discarded when the measurements results indicate a variation in measurement of the product and/or when a fault is detected in the manufacturing process.
According to one or more embodiments, the sampling plan includes a plurality of splines radiating from a center of a product, and the candidate points are distributed along the splines. The distribution of the candidate points along the splines may be weighted according to a surface area of the product. According to one or more other embodiments, the sampling plan includes a plurality of radially distributed candidate points.
The above mentioned and other advantages and features of the present invention will become more readily apparent from the following detailed description in the accompanying drawings, in which:
The following detailed description includes many specific details. The inclusion of such details is for the purpose of illustration only and should not be understood to limit the invention. Throughout this discussion, similar elements are referred to by similar numbers in the various figures for ease of reference. In addition, features in one embodiment may be combined with features in other embodiments of the invention.
In one or more embodiments of the present invention, static metrology means there is a pre-determined sampling plan in connection with a wafer (or other device) to be measured, specifying substantially the same points for each wafer (or the other device). In contrast, a dynamic metrology plan utilizes an initial sampling plan and adjusts the sampling responsive to certain events or non-events. As an example of an adjustment due to a non-event, if the last ten wafers measured are all the same, and if the processing device did not change, and if the recipe on the processing device did not change, one could reasonably assume that the next series of wafers will have measurements that are also all the same. That being the case, then in order to increase throughput and decrease the time it takes to do measurements, the invention provides for dynamically adjusting the measurements, for example, such that every third wafer instead of every wafer is measured. This invention thus detects and adjusts for not only potential errors, which could arise for example upon a recipe change, but also for accuracy.
One or more embodiments of the present invention contemplate that the invention may be used in connection with wafer-to-wafer measurements described above, as well as, or alternatively, in connection with within-wafer measurements. Consider an example of within-wafer measurements, in which measurements are taken along a radius of a 200 mm diameter wafer and the radius is measured in 10 mm increments. During processing it is noted or detected by the usual detection process that there is a large variation at the 50 mm and 60 mm points. For the next sample, the system adjusts to measure another point from the sampling plan between 50 mm and 60 mm to better characterize that variation, or optionally to measure an additional point, for example, between 40 mm and 50 mm that is near the location of the variation. If the die map includes points at 45 mm and 55 mm, these points can then be added as measurement points. Adjusted measurements now encompass in this example, 40 mm, 45 mm, 50 mm, 55 mm, and 60 mm. The system dynamically added the two additional points (in the example) to better characterize the measurement and/or the variation. Where there are provided a number of candidate points in the die map allowing points to be added or substituted, the system can select among the points any of several ways, such as selecting the closest to mean, mode, other statistical analysis, etc.
A sampling plan provides specific measure points within a die, a die being the section on the wafer that will typically eventually become a single chip after processing. There are specified points within the die that are candidates for measuring. The map of the die is stored, preferably in an electronic format representing the map. One appropriate place for storing the die map information is in the factory automation system (“MES” or manufacturing execution system). The stored die map information may be advantageously retrieved and translated to determine the available points for measurement on the wafer. Referring back to the previous example proposing measurement points on the radius at 45 mm and 55 mm, if these specific points are not relevant to the current die (e.g., they are not specified by the die map), an appropriate replacement would be points selected from the candidate points specified by the die map which are close to or between 45 mm and 55 mm. Those points could be selected dynamically as well. Other criteria may be used for selecting points as well.
Dynamic metrology is performed to better meet a certain specification. For example, if recipe parameters are changed on the processing device, to adjust the thickness of a film that is deposited on the wafer, it may be desirable to more closely check whether the specification is still being achieved by performing measurements.
In order to avoid slowing down the process, one or more embodiments of the present invention advantageously determine the appropriateness of performing additional measurements when one or more events occur that are likely to indicate an internal or external change affecting the manufacturing process or results. The increase in measurements and possible corresponding decrease in processing occur on an as-needed basis and/or based on predetermined criteria.
The wafer-to-wafer variation of the invention, for example, can check for events which may affect a series of wafers and may adjust the sampling plan. For example, during processing, the system determines if an increase is needed in the frequency of wafers measured for process control, for example, based on 1) a change in the processing device the wafers are processed on, 2) a change in the parameters or recipe that were used by the processing device to process the wafer, 3) large detected variations or errors in measurements, and/or 4) a significant run of wafers without errors.
Particularly regarding within-wafer variation, one or more embodiments of the present invention contemplate that the system obtains a stored die map with metrology coordinate information from the MES. As indicated, the system can provide not only for assigning the measurement points optionally dynamically, but also for de-assigning.
One or more embodiments of the present invention envision changing the sampling plan using information that is gathered from the MES and automatically using that new sampling plan, depending on, for example the type of processing device on which the wafers are processed. Advantageously, the system has stored information about a wafer that indicates, among other things, the type of chip or type of device and an associated sampling plan to be used when measuring a wafer containing a specific device. Based on the type of device, the associated sampling plan or die map can be obtained, where the die map includes a set of candidate metrology points. The system then selects metrology points for the current wafer from the set of, or responsive to, the candidate points in the die map.
With respect to the sampling plan, generation of the sampling plan can vary from device to device (chip type to chip type) and some measurements may be based on die distribution on the wafer. By dividing a wafer into regions and using regions of the wafer for measurement, one or more embodiments of the present invention provide flexibility in selecting one or more points from available points in the region. Use of regions is one way to provide a pool of candidate points, from which the system may select points that are most relevant to the desired information about the film on the wafer.
In practice, the system may, for example, measure twenty-two to twenty-five points per wafer from the pool of candidate points. For some processes the system might measure fewer points, such as eight points, because it takes longer to measure those points or the wafer processing time is faster. For other processes the system might measure one point of another type of property, such dopant concentration, which is a relatively slow measurement.
In any event, it is important to balance the time consumed in a measurement against the need to produce quality products. Manufacturers consider it to be more important to be within specifications and not produce defective product, than to rapidly produce product of suspect qualities.
Each processing device on which a wafer is processed has a different processing time, and therefore the selected standard sampling rate may depend on the speed of processing of the processing device and metrology tool. On some processing devices, measurements on every wafer will not slow down processing since the speed of the processing device is slower than the measurements by the metrology tool. For example, polishing and cleaning processing devices may consume five minutes or more to process a wafer. In that case a post-processing measurement by the metrology tool on every wafer would often not reduce throughput.
Additionally, the system may determine whether or not to make additional measurements based on the initial and the final condition of the wafers. For example, if there is a situation in which the incoming thickness profile of a cross section of a wafer does not change very much, the system may reduce the frequency of samples of incoming profiles, wafer-to-wafer. On the other hand, if the incoming profile is changing significantly, it may be desirable to measure every entering wafer.
Reference is made to
One or more embodiments, of the present invention also envision the following. Assume that there is provided an initial sampling plan. The plan could, for example, direct measuring of specific points on each wafer and/or comprise information indicating which wafers within the lot will be measured. The wafer is measured according to the sampling plan. According to the wafer-to-wafer metrology plan, the system deviates from the initial sampling plan when warranted. The system could return to the initial sampling plan once it detects that the process is again “normal” or again producing product within specification.
Referring still to
If a wafer being processed by a processing device is the first wafer of a particular lot on the processing device then it may be desirable to measure this wafer, in order to detect if perhaps there was some processing device related property that changed. Thus, at block 103, the system checks whether it is processing the first wafer on the resource. This could also include situations such as following preventative maintenance where the chamber in the processing device has been cleaned or perhaps a consumable was replaced in the processing device.
If a processed wafer was the first (or other predetermined) wafer on the resource in accordance with block 103, then the system checks at block 105 whether the processing device was idle, greater than some specified time before starting the present process; and if the processing device was not significantly idle, the system checks at block 107 whether the process was changed or altered. If the process was not changed, a measurement of the wafer may or may not be implemented according to the initial sampling plan at block 116; the wafer is accordingly measured at block 120 or not measured at block 118. On the other hand, if the resource was idle for a sufficiently long time, or if the process has changed, at blocks 109 or 111 respectively, a new measurement is taken.
If the wafer was not the first one on the processing device, then as indicated, at block 113, the system checks whether a significant change was made to the recipe, such as by the process control algorithm or process controller. It is typically desirable to ensure that even if a significant change was made, the specifications are still satisfied. A change to the recipe could include time, pressures, flow rates, etc., or even a completely different recipe. If the recipe was significantly changed, then at block 115, the system calls for a measurement of the wafer.
The system also checks whether a fault was detected, such as in the processing device. Processing devices may be monitored by the factory automation system, for example to determine whether there is some problem with the processing device, either from the automation system side or from the processing device itself. Also, the processing device itself may include the ability to detect a fault. If a fault is detected, the system could subsequently measure to confirm that the wafer is within specifications. Thus, at block 117, it is determined whether a fault was detected. If a fault was detected, at block 123 the system measures the wafer. Since it is likely that the wafer has errors, it might be desirable not to use such measurements for feedback purposes.
There may be two cases for uses of measurement values. In the first case, the system uses the measurement value or stores that measurement value for further processing, such as measurements following a resource idle condition. In the second case, such as following a fault detection, the system may check the wafer or series of wafers for acceptability but does not store the value which might skew historical results. In the first case, the system is using the historical value for modeling of the processing device in order to better predict how the processing device will behave, or for other purposes. For example, where a fault is know to have occurred, the manufacturer will want to find and correct the cause of the fault, often by changing a process component or parameter. Thus, the process data attributed to a wafer that triggered detection of a fault is not indicative of the “normal” processing in the process system. On the other hand, for the fault detection case, the system merely ensures that that wafer is a good (e.g., usable) wafer versus a bad wafer. Unfortunately, usually following a fault there are several wafers in a series potentially affected by the fault, and it is desirable to measure the wafers in the series. Once the wafer(s) are measured following a fault, if the wafer(s) are bad, it is desirable to mark the wafer as questionable and discard the measurement value as well as perhaps the wafer itself.
Similarly, if a wafer is off target despite no change to the recipe, no detection of a fault, and no other likely cause of error, there is likely to be a series of off-target wafers. Consequently, where a wafer with errors is detected, the next wafer is significantly more likely to also experience errors. Thus, at block 119, the system checks whether the previous wafer was sufficiently far from the target, as determined by a previous measurement made in accordance with
Finally, it may be desirable to measure the wafer according to the initial sampling plan. Thus, at block 125, the system checks the initial sampling plan to advantageously determine whether the current wafer should be measured according to the initial sampling plan. If not, then the system does not measure the wafer. According to one or more embodiments, a modified sampling plan is used to measure the wafer under appropriate situations, such as after a change of type of chip.
Similarly, if no conditions affecting wafer processing are changed, and if the series of wafers have been on target, one would expect the wafers to continue to be on target. Thus, as indicated at block 127, if the measurement of the last n wafers were sufficiently on target, there is no need to measure the wafer in this instance or as frequently. In this manner, the number of measurements can be reduced and processing time is potentially reduced. On the other hand, if at block 127 the system determines that the last series of n wafers were not on target, at block 129 the system measures the current wafer.
Reference is made to
Where the process performed by the processing device on the wafer is symmetric such that the system is affecting portions of the film on the wafer in a symmetric matter, it may be reasonable to measure fewer points, perhaps a measurement of only one radii. On the other hand, where there were previous steps performed by the processing device on the wafer that were asymmetric, information on additional measurement values may need to be captured. The number of desirable measurement points therefore additionally depends upon the type of process, and upon the step in the process if applicable.
For instance, given a very uniform process, perhaps only five points on the wafer need to be measured to provide sufficient precision. On the other hand, given a very non-uniform process or much unresolved information, perhaps twenty-five points should be measured to achieve a sufficient level of precision.
Typically the factory automation system, or the software in the factory automation system, is programmed to determine which process (or processes) or step within a process is being run on which processing device. Based on that information, the system can determine whether few or many points are desired for an adequately precise measurement or set of measurements of the wafer.
Consider, for example, a processing device with multiple chambers or resources independently processing wafers. In this example, the process control algorithm describes four recipe changes. The invention determines which wafers need to be measured (wafer-to-wafer), and any desired change in number of measurement points due to the dynamic recipe change (within-wafer). This metrology strategy consequently enables a dynamic metrology change based on the die map from the MES or other factory automation system.
The die map provides a pool of candidate points corresponding to a wafer to be measured, and the system can select from among the candidate points, the points that correspond most directly to the information needed or desired in connection with that wafer. The MES or other factory automation system provides information indicating allowable or relevant possible points that could be measured; from those candidate points, one or more embodiments of the present invention contemplate that the system selects the minimal set of points that would capture the desired information.
A die map includes a sampling plan that optionally distinguishes among different regions of the wafer. Such a sampling plan would include information indicating a set of measurement points, associated with regions of the wafer.
The flowchart of
Reference is now made to
At block 303, it is determined whether there is a variation from the specification within one or more of the regions on the current wafer. If not, then as indicated by block 305 there is no need to add more sampling points.
At block 307, if there was a variation in a region, it is then determined whether the variation was due to an outlier or flier. An outlier or flier is a situation in which the measurement point is not an accurate reflection of the actual value. If there is a speck of dust on the wafer, for example, this may cause an erroneous thickness measurement; or for instance the actual measured point may be significantly distant from the correct measurement coordinates, resulting in significantly higher or lower thickness. An outlier or flier can be determined statistically in a number of ways based on how different the measured point is from the expected measurement. It may be difficult to determine in some cases whether the variation is due to a flier or if there is an actual variation. The data collected could be used to indicate a potentially defective die.
Of course, it should be understood that one or more embodiments of the present invention contemplate that any number of other causes for variations can be detected, and a decision made accordingly as to whether (and how) the sampling plan may be changed.
Referring still to
At block 311, it is determined whether the variation from the specification is one for which the processing device can possibly compensate. For example, a processing device may be able to correct for radial variation, but not for a variation that is angular or azimuthal. Thus, at block 313, if the processing device cannot compensate for the variation in the region, then the sampling plan is not changed. On the other hand, if the processing device can compensate for the variation in the region, then at block 315 points are added to the region in the sampling plan for the next wafer in order to better characterize the region. Optionally, the data may be fed back to system controller in order to change the process in response to this drift condition.
According to one or more embodiments of the inventions, an error in one or more wafers may initiate some level of error handling and/or alarming. If there is an error that does not result in a change to the sampling plan, such as a non-systematic variation, and even if the system cannot compensate, in one or more embodiments of the present invention the system might generate an alarm or trigger performance of other error handling. If the error exhibits the characteristics of a systematic effect, such as wafers out of specification, then an alarm could be generated. If the error is one wafer that is out of specification, according to one or more embodiments of the invention, the system flags that wafer.
The flow chart of
Reference is now made to
Still referring to the example sampling plan illustrated in
Moreover, the variation on the edge typically will be much higher than variation toward the center of the wafer. The variation tends to increase proportionately further away from the center. As a result, the density of the points to be measured may be advantageously increased as the points move radially outward.
Furthermore, the present invention optionally optimizes the measuring speed of the spiral sampling plan. In performance of metrology, a measurement is faster if performed radially across the wafer. According to the spiral sampling plan contemplated by one or more embodiments of the present invention, the wafer may be rotated approximately 120 degrees subsequent to a linear measurement, and then the next measurement is taken at the next point positioned radially across the wafer; then the wafer is again rotated approximately 120 degrees for the next measurement and so forth. The angle of rotation can be varied to correspond to the disposition of points as well as to accommodate the capabilities and/or limitations of the metrology tool. The wafer may be positioned on a pedestal and rotated and shifted while the metrology tool performs the measurement of the wafer.
Other sampling plans are also contemplated by one or more embodiments of the present invention, including a sampling plan with a large number of points, such as forty-nine (illustrated in
Reference is made to
Examples of processing devices that may be used in conjunction with the invention include chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) tools, etch tools, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) tools, lithography tools and others. It should be noted that the processing device may incorporate the metrology tool in some configurations.
While this invention has been described in conjunction with the specific embodiments outlined above, many alternatives, modifications and variations will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the preferred embodiments of the invention as set forth are intended to be illustrative and not limiting. Various changes may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the following claims.
For example, it would be possible to use any sampling plan with the invention. A sampling plan may include information in addition to that mentioned above. Further, a sampling plan may combine information from multiple sampling plans. As another example, although the above discusses a pre-determined or static sampling plan, such pre-determined or static sampling plan includes those sets of coordinate points measured on the fly such as just prior to wafer processing.
As another example, events or conditions in addition to, in combination with, and/or replacing these discussed above, could be checked as part of the wafer-to-wafer metrology determination. For example, a metrology tool, a processing device, or the system itself could indicate a fault. Moreover, it is possible that the reason for the fault could be indicated, and such information could be specifically checked and appropriately handled as well. The system could check for changes to the recipe in several different ways, such as replacement of a recipe, or change in recipe parameters.
Similarly, other events or conditions could be handled as part of the within-wafer determination. For example, there may be one or more regions of any shape on the wafer. As another example, points could be omitted from the sampling plan in appropriate cases. A further example includes other events mentioned above in connection with wafer-to-wafer processing.
As another example, the factory automation system may be a general purpose computer, or a specially programmed special purpose computer. It may also be implemented as a distributed computer system rather than as a single computer; some of the distributed system might include embedded systems. Further, the programming may be distributed among processing devices and metrology tools or other parts of the process control system. Similarly, the processing could be controlled by a software program on one or more computer systems or processors, or could be partially or wholly implemented in hardware. Moreover, the factory automation system may communicate directly or indirectly with the relevant metrology tool(s), processing devices, and metrology system(s); or the metrology tool(s), processing devices and metrology system(s) may communicate directly or indirectly with each other and the factory automation system.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/322,459, filed Sep. 17, 2001, which is expressly incorporated herein by reference; and U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/298,878, filed Jun. 19, 2001, which is expressly incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3205485 | Noltingk | Sep 1965 | A |
3229198 | Libby | Jan 1966 | A |
3767900 | Chao et al. | Oct 1973 | A |
3920965 | Sohrwardy | Nov 1975 | A |
4000458 | Miller et al. | Dec 1976 | A |
4207520 | Flora et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4209744 | Gerasimov et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4302721 | Urbanek et al. | Nov 1981 | A |
4368510 | Anderson | Jan 1983 | A |
4609870 | Lale et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4616308 | Morshedi et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
4663703 | Axelby et al. | May 1987 | A |
4698766 | Entwistle et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4717596 | Barbee et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4750141 | Judell et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4755753 | Chern | Jul 1988 | A |
4757259 | Charpentier | Jul 1988 | A |
4796194 | Atherton | Jan 1989 | A |
4901218 | Cornwell | Feb 1990 | A |
4938600 | Into | Jul 1990 | A |
4957605 | Hurwitt et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4967381 | Lane et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5089970 | Lee et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5108570 | Wang | Apr 1992 | A |
5208765 | Turnbull | May 1993 | A |
5220517 | Sierk et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5226118 | Baker et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5231585 | Kobayashi et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5236868 | Nulman | Aug 1993 | A |
5240552 | Yu et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5260868 | Gupta et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5270222 | Moslehi | Dec 1993 | A |
5283141 | Yoon et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5295242 | Mashruwala et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5309221 | Fischer et al. | May 1994 | A |
5329463 | Sierk et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5338630 | Yoon et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5347446 | Iino et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5367624 | Cooper | Nov 1994 | A |
5369544 | Mastrangelo | Nov 1994 | A |
5375064 | Bollinger | Dec 1994 | A |
5398336 | Tantry et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5402367 | Sullivan et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5408405 | Mozumder et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5410473 | Kaneko et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5420796 | Weling et al. | May 1995 | A |
5427878 | Corliss | Jun 1995 | A |
5444837 | Bomans et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5469361 | Moyne | Nov 1995 | A |
5485082 | Wisspeintner et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5490097 | Swenson et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5495417 | Fuduka et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5497316 | Sierk et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5497381 | O'Donoghue et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5503707 | Maung et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5508947 | Sierk et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5511005 | Abbe et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5519605 | Cawlfield | May 1996 | A |
5525808 | Irie et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5526293 | Mozumder et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5534289 | Bilder et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5535128 | Laube et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5541510 | Danielson | Jul 1996 | A |
5546179 | Cheng | Aug 1996 | A |
5546312 | Mozumder et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5553195 | Meijer | Sep 1996 | A |
5586039 | Hirsch et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5599423 | Parker et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5602492 | Cresswell et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5603707 | Trombetta et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5617023 | Skalski | Apr 1997 | A |
5627083 | Tounai | May 1997 | A |
5629216 | Wijaranakula et al. | May 1997 | A |
5642296 | Saxena | Jun 1997 | A |
5646870 | Krivokapic et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5649169 | Berezin et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5654903 | Reitman et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5655951 | Meikle et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5657254 | Sierk et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5661669 | Mozumder et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5663797 | Sandhu | Sep 1997 | A |
5664987 | Renteln | Sep 1997 | A |
5664990 | Adams et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5665199 | Sahota et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5665214 | Iturralde | Sep 1997 | A |
5666297 | Britt et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5667424 | Pan | Sep 1997 | A |
5674787 | Zhao et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5694325 | Fukuda et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5695810 | Dubin et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5698989 | Nulman | Dec 1997 | A |
5711843 | Jahns | Jan 1998 | A |
5719495 | Moslehi | Feb 1998 | A |
5719796 | Chen | Feb 1998 | A |
5733171 | Allen et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5735055 | Hochbein et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5740429 | Wang et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5751582 | Saxena et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754297 | Nulman | May 1998 | A |
5761064 | La et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5761065 | Kittler et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5764543 | Kennedy | Jun 1998 | A |
5777901 | Berezin et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787021 | Samaha | Jul 1998 | A |
5787269 | Hyodo | Jul 1998 | A |
5808303 | Schlagheck et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5812407 | Sato et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5823854 | Chen | Oct 1998 | A |
5824599 | Schacham-Diamand et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825356 | Habib et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825913 | Rostami et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828778 | Hagi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5831851 | Eastburn et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5832224 | Fehskens et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838595 | Sullivan et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838951 | Song | Nov 1998 | A |
5844554 | Geller et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5857258 | Penzes et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5859777 | Yokoyama et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5859964 | Wang et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5859975 | Brewer et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5862054 | Li | Jan 1999 | A |
5863807 | Jang et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5867389 | Hamada et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5870306 | Harada | Feb 1999 | A |
5871805 | Lemelson | Feb 1999 | A |
5883437 | Maruyama et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889991 | Consolatti et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5901313 | Wolf et al. | May 1999 | A |
5903455 | Sharpe, Jr. et al. | May 1999 | A |
5910011 | Cruse | Jun 1999 | A |
5910846 | Sandhu | Jun 1999 | A |
5912678 | Saxena et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5916016 | Bothra | Jun 1999 | A |
5923553 | Yi | Jul 1999 | A |
5926690 | Toprac et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930138 | Lin et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5940300 | Ozaki | Aug 1999 | A |
5943237 | Van Boxem | Aug 1999 | A |
5943550 | Fulford, Jr. et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5960185 | Nguyen | Sep 1999 | A |
5960214 | Sharpe, Jr. et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5961369 | Bartels et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5963881 | Kahn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5975994 | Sandhu et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5978751 | Pence et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5982920 | Tobin, Jr. et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6002989 | Shiba et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012048 | Gustin et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6017771 | Yang et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6036349 | Gombar | Mar 2000 | A |
6037664 | Zhao et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6041263 | Boston et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6041270 | Steffan et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6054379 | Yau et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6059636 | Inaba et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064759 | Buckley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6072313 | Li et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6074443 | Venkatesh et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6074517 | Taravade | Jun 2000 | A |
6077412 | Ting et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078845 | Friedman | Jun 2000 | A |
6094688 | Mellen-Garnett et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6096649 | Jang | Aug 2000 | A |
6097887 | Hardikar et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6100195 | Chan et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108092 | Sandhu | Aug 2000 | A |
6111634 | Pecen et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112130 | Fukuda et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6113462 | Yang | Sep 2000 | A |
6114238 | Liao | Sep 2000 | A |
6123983 | Smith, Jr. et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6127263 | Parikh | Oct 2000 | A |
6128016 | Coelho et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6136163 | Cheung et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141660 | Bach et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6143646 | Wetzel | Nov 2000 | A |
6148099 | Lee et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148239 | Funk et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148246 | Kawazome | Nov 2000 | A |
6150270 | Matsuda et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157864 | Schwenke et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6159073 | Wiswesser et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6159075 | Zhang | Dec 2000 | A |
6159644 | Satoh et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161054 | Rosenthal et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6169931 | Runnels | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6172756 | Chalmers et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6173240 | Sepulveda et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6175777 | Kim | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6178390 | Jun | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6181013 | Liu et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6183345 | Kamono et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6185324 | Ishihara et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6191864 | Sandhu | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192291 | Kwon | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6194231 | Ho-Cheng et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6197604 | Miller et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6204165 | Ghoshal | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6210745 | Gaughan et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6210983 | Atchison et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6211094 | Jun et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6212961 | Dvir | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6214734 | Bothra et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6217412 | Campbell et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219711 | Chari | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6222936 | Phan et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226563 | Lim | May 2001 | B1 |
6226792 | Goiffon et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6228280 | Li et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230069 | Campbell et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236903 | Kim et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6237050 | Kim et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240330 | Kurtzberg et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240331 | Yun | May 2001 | B1 |
6245581 | Bonser et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6246972 | Klimasauskas | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6248602 | Bode et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249712 | Boiquaye | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6252412 | Talbot et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253366 | Mutschler, III | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6259160 | Lopatin et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263255 | Tan et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6268270 | Scheid et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6271670 | Caffey | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6276989 | Campbell et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6277014 | Chen et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278899 | Piche et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6280289 | Wiswesser et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6281127 | Shue | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6284622 | Campbell et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6287879 | Gonzales et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6290572 | Hofmann | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6291367 | Kelkar | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292708 | Allen et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298274 | Inoue | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6298470 | Breiner et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6303395 | Nulman | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6304999 | Toprac et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6307628 | Lu et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314379 | Hu et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6317643 | Dmochowski | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6320655 | Matsushita et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324481 | Atchison et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6334807 | Lebel et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6336841 | Chang | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6339727 | Ladd | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6340602 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6345288 | Reed et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6345315 | Mishra | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6346426 | Toprac et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6355559 | Havemann et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360133 | Campbell et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360184 | Jacquez | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363294 | Coronel et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366934 | Cheng et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6368879 | Toprac | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6368883 | Bode et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6368884 | Goodwin et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6379980 | Toprac | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381564 | Davis et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6388253 | Su | May 2002 | B1 |
6389491 | Jacobson et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6391780 | Shih et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6395152 | Wang | May 2002 | B1 |
6397114 | Eryurek et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6400162 | Mallory et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405096 | Toprac et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405144 | Toprac et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6417014 | Lam et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6427093 | Toprac | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6432728 | Tai et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6435952 | Boyd et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438438 | Takagi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6440295 | Wang | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442496 | Pasadyn et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6449524 | Miller et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6455415 | Lopatin et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6455937 | Cunningham | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6465263 | Coss, Jr. et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6469518 | Davis et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470230 | Toprac et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477432 | Chen et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6479902 | Lopatin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6479990 | Mednikov et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6482660 | Conchieri et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6484064 | Campbell | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6486492 | Su | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6492281 | Song et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6494766 | Wiswesser et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6495452 | Shih | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6503839 | Gonzales et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6515368 | Lopatin et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6517413 | Hu et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6517414 | Tobin et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6528409 | Lopatin et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6529789 | Campbell et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6532555 | Miller et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535783 | Miller et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6537912 | Agarwal | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6540591 | Pasadyn et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6541401 | Herner et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6546508 | Sonderman et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6556881 | Miller | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560504 | Goodwin et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6563308 | Nagano et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6567717 | Krivokapic et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6577914 | Bode | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6580958 | Takano | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6582277 | Korovin | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6587744 | Stoddard et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6590179 | Tanaka et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6604012 | Cho et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6605549 | Leu et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6607976 | Chen et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6609946 | Tran | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6616513 | Osterheld | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6618692 | Takahashi et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6624075 | Lopatin et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625497 | Fairbairn et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6630741 | Lopatin et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6640151 | Somekh et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6652355 | Wiswesser et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6660633 | Lopatin et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6669782 | Thakur | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678570 | Pasadyn et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6708074 | Chi et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6708075 | Sonderman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6725402 | Coss, Jr. et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728587 | Goldman et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6735492 | Conrad et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6751518 | Sonderman et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6774998 | Wright et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6913938 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6988017 | Pasadyn et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7160739 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
20010001755 | Sandhu et al. | May 2001 | A1 |
20010003084 | Finarov | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010006873 | Moore | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20010030366 | Nakano et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010039462 | Mendez et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010040997 | Tsap et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042690 | Talieh | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010044667 | Nakano et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020032499 | Wilson et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020058460 | Lee et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020070126 | Sato et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077031 | Johansson et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020081951 | Boyd et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020089676 | Pecen et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020102853 | Li et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107599 | Patel et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107604 | Riley et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020113039 | Mok et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020127950 | Hirose et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020128805 | Goldman et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020149359 | Crouzen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165636 | Hasan | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020183986 | Stewart et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020185658 | Inoue et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020193899 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020193902 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020197745 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020197934 | Paik | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020199082 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030017256 | Shimane | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030020909 | Adams et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030020928 | Ritzdorf et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030154062 | Daft et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20050221514 | Pasadyn et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20070102116 | Shanmugasundram et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2050247 | Aug 1991 | CA |
2165847 | Aug 1991 | CA |
2194855 | Aug 1991 | CA |
0 397 924 | Nov 1990 | EP |
0 621 522 | Oct 1994 | EP |
0 747 795 | Dec 1996 | EP |
0 869 652 | Oct 1998 | EP |
0 877 308 | Nov 1998 | EP |
0 881 040 | Dec 1998 | EP |
0 895 145 | Feb 1999 | EP |
0 910 123 | Apr 1999 | EP |
0 932 194 | Jul 1999 | EP |
0 932 195 | Jul 1999 | EP |
1 066 925 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1 067 757 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1 071 128 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1067757 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1 083 470 | Mar 2001 | EP |
1 092 505 | Apr 2001 | EP |
1072967 | Nov 2001 | EP |
1 182 526 | Feb 2002 | EP |
2 347 885 | Sep 2000 | GB |
2 365 215 | Feb 2002 | GB |
61-66104 | Apr 1986 | JP |
61-171147 | Aug 1986 | JP |
01-283934 | Nov 1989 | JP |
3-202710 | Sep 1991 | JP |
05-151231 | Jun 1993 | JP |
05-5136098 | Jul 1993 | JP |
05-5190457 | Jul 1993 | JP |
05-216896 | Aug 1993 | JP |
05-266029 | Oct 1993 | JP |
06-110894 | Apr 1994 | JP |
06-176994 | Jun 1994 | JP |
06-184434 | Jul 1994 | JP |
06-252236 | Sep 1994 | JP |
06-260380 | Sep 1994 | JP |
8-23166 | Jan 1996 | JP |
08-50161 | Feb 1996 | JP |
08-149583 | Jun 1996 | JP |
08-304023 | Nov 1996 | JP |
09-34535 | Feb 1997 | JP |
9-246547 | Sep 1997 | JP |
09-269294 | Oct 1997 | JP |
10-34522 | Feb 1998 | JP |
10-173029 | Jun 1998 | JP |
11-67853 | Mar 1999 | JP |
11-126816 | May 1999 | JP |
11-135601 | May 1999 | JP |
2000-183001 | Jun 2000 | JP |
2001-76982 | Mar 2001 | JP |
2001-284299 | Oct 2001 | JP |
2001-305108 | Oct 2001 | JP |
2002-9030 | Jan 2002 | JP |
2002-343754 | Nov 2002 | JP |
434103 | May 2001 | TW |
436383 | May 2001 | TW |
455938 | Sep 2001 | TW |
455976 | Sep 2001 | TW |
WO 9534866 | Dec 1995 | WO |
WO 9805066 | Feb 1998 | WO |
WO 9845090 | Oct 1998 | WO |
WO 9909371 | Feb 1999 | WO |
WO 9925520 | May 1999 | WO |
WO 9959200 | Nov 1999 | WO |
WO 0000874 | Jan 2000 | WO |
WO 0005759 | Feb 2000 | WO |
WO 0035063 | Jun 2000 | WO |
WO 0054325 | Sep 2000 | WO |
WO 0079355 | Dec 2000 | WO |
WO 0111679 | Feb 2001 | WO |
WO 0115865 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0118623 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0125865 | Apr 2001 | WO |
WO 0133277 | May 2001 | WO |
WO 0133501 | May 2001 | WO |
WO 0152055 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO 0152319 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO 0157823 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 0180306 | Oct 2001 | WO |
WO 0217150 | Feb 2002 | WO |
WO 0217150 | Feb 2002 | WO |
WO 0231613 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO 0231613 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO 0233737 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO 02074491 | Sep 2002 | WO |
WO 02103778 | Dec 2002 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20020193899 A1 | Dec 2002 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60322459 | Sep 2001 | US | |
60298878 | Jun 2001 | US |