The invention is directed towards an apparatus for routing nets using a Local Preferred Direction wiring model.
An integrated circuit (“IC”) is a semiconductor device that includes many electronic components (e.g., transistors, resistors, diodes, etc.). These components are often interconnected to form multiple circuit components (e.g., gates, cells, memory units, arithmetic units, controllers, decoders, etc.) on the IC. An IC also includes multiple layers of metal and/or polysilicon wiring that interconnect its electronic and circuit components. For instance, many ICs are currently fabricated with five metal layers. In theory, the wiring on the metal layers can be all-angle wiring (i.e., the wiring can be in any arbitrary direction). Such all-angle wiring is commonly referred to as Euclidean wiring. In practice, however, each metal layer typically has one global preferred wiring direction, and the preferred direction alternates between successive metal layers.
Many ICs use the Manhattan wiring model that specifies alternating layers of horizontal and vertical preferred direction wiring. In this wiring model, the majority of the wires can only make 90° turns. Occasional diagonal jogs are sometimes allowed on the preferred horizontal and vertical layers. Standard routing algorithms heavily penalize these diagonal jogs (i.e. assess proportionally high routing-costs), however, because they violate the design rules of the Manhattan wiring model. Some have recently proposed ICs that use a diagonal wiring model to provide design rules that do not penalize diagonal interconnect lines (wiring). Interconnect lines are considered “diagonal” if they form an angle other than zero or ninety degrees with respect to the layout boundary of the IC. Typically however, diagonal wiring consists of wires deposed at ±45 degrees.
Typical Manhattan and diagonal wiring models specify one preferred direction for each wiring layer. Design difficulties arise when routing along a layer's preferred direction because of obstacles on these wiring layers. For example, design layouts often contain circuit components, pre-designed circuit blocks, and other obstacles to routing on a layer. Such obstacles may cause regions on a layer to become essentially unusable for routing along the layer's single preferred direction.
An example that shows obstacles that cause regions on a design layout to become unusable for routing is illustrated in
Accordingly, a need exists for a wiring model that allows Manhattan and diagonal wiring and recaptures the routing resources lost because of obstacles on a wiring layer.
Some embodiments of the invention provide a Local Preferred Direction (LPD) wiring model for use with one or more EDA tools (such as placing, routing, etc). An LPD wiring model allows at least one wiring layer to have a set of regions that each have a different preferred direction than the particular wiring layer. In addition, each region has a local preferred direction that differs from the local preferred direction of at least one other region in the set. Furthermore, at least two regions have two different polygonal shapes and no region in the set encompasses another region in the set. Some embodiments also provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that facilitates a visual presentation of an LPD design layout and provides tools to create and manipulate LPD regions in a design layout.
The novel features of the invention are set forth in the appended claims. For purposes of explanation, however, several embodiments of the invention are set forth in the following figures.
The invention is directed towards an apparatus for routing nets using a Local Preferred Direction wiring model. In the following description, numerous details are set forth for purpose of explanation. One of ordinary skill in the art will realize, however, that the invention may be practiced without the use of these specific details. In some instances, well-known structures and devices are shown in block diagram form to simplify the description of the invention.
Some embodiments of the invention provide a Local Preferred Direction (LPD) wiring model for use with one or more EDA tools (such as placing, routing, etc). An LPD wiring model allows at least one wiring layer to have a set of regions that each have a different preferred direction than the particular wiring layer. In addition, each region has a local preferred direction that differs from the local preferred direction of at least one other region in the set. Furthermore, at least two regions have two different polygonal shapes and no region in the set encompasses another region in the set. Some embodiments also provide a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that facilitates a visual presentation of an LPD design layout and provides tools to create and manipulate LPD regions in a design layout.
Several features of the LPD Architecture will be discussed below. Section II describes some examples of the LPD Architecture and Section III describes a Graphic User Interface (GUI) for an EDA tool that employs an LPD wiring model. Before describing the examples of the LPD Architecture and the GUI, however, Section I describes an overview of the LPD wiring model.
I. Overview of Local Preferred Direction Wiring Model
The LPD wiring model of some embodiments allows for the creation of routes that have edges in the Manhattan or diagonal direction. A Manhattan edge is either horizontal (0°) or vertical (90°) with respect to one of the coordinate axes of the layout or IC. Conversely, a diagonal edge forms angles other than 0° or 90°. A diagonal edge typically forms a 45° angle with respect to the layout's or IC's coordinate axes. The coordinate axes are often parallel with the layout's boundary, the boundary of the layout's expected IC, or both.
Given a design layout or IC with several wiring layers, some embodiments describe the LPD wiring model of the layout or IC in terms of (1) several wiring layers, (2) a global preferred direction DL for each layer L, and (3) a potentially empty set of LPD regions for each wiring layer L. Some embodiments define a “preferred” direction as the direction that a majority of the wires are laid out in a region. Some embodiments further quantify this amount in terms of percentages or amount of the wiring. For example, some embodiments define the preferred direction of a layer as the direction for at least 50% of the wires (also called interconnect lines or route segments) on the layer. Other embodiments define the preferred direction of a layer as the direction for at least 1000 wires on the layer.
On a particular layer, a region is called an LPD region (or an LPDR) when the region has a local preferred wiring direction that is different than the global preferred wiring direction of the particular layer. Some embodiments impose several consistency requirements on an LPDR description. For instance, some embodiments require each LPDR to be entirely within the chip area. In some embodiments, all LPDRs on a given layer intersect only at their boundary (i.e., no overlaps). In addition, some embodiments require that all LPDRs are non-degenerate (contain at least one interior point).
II. LPD Architecture
As previously mentioned, an LPD wiring model allows at least one wiring layer to have several different local preferred directions in several different regions of the wiring layer.
The examples illustrated above in
To solve these routing problems, some embodiments define LPDRs about these obstacles that have local preferred directions running parallel to the edges of the obstacles.
This figure also shows three LPDRs 440 that have vertical local preferred directions defined between the RAM blocks 415. In addition, an LPDR 450 that has a vertical local preferred direction is defined between the right side of the IP block 410 and the right boundary of the wiring layer, and an LPDR 460 that has a horizontal local preferred direction is defined between the topside of the IP block 410 and the top boundary of the wiring layer. The boundary edge between LPDR 450 and LPDR 460 is defined as a 45° diagonal line to increase the capacity of the wiring between two such regions. Boundary edges as such are called “crowns”, the advantages of which will be further described below.
The LPDRs illustrated in
A. Crowns
Some embodiments define a boundary edge between two regions as an “impermeable edge” when the edge runs parallel to either one of the local preferred directions of the two regions sharing the respective boundary edge. These boundary edges are considered impermeable because of geometric design constraints. For example, two sets of wires that run parallel to each other do not typically intersect. As such, the wiring in two regions that share an impermeable boundary edge will be impeded from intersecting at that edge.
In order to solve this potential routing problem, some embodiments of the invention “extend” these impermeable boundary edges with “crowns.” A “crown” is an extension of an LPDR at a boundary between two regions. In some embodiments, a crown boundary is defined to not be parallel to either of the local preferred directions of the two regions sharing the crown boundary. These crowns thus form boundary edges that allow the intersection of wiring directed along the preferred directions of the regions sharing the boundary edge.
To avoid creating impermeable boundary edges, some embodiments of the invention add “crowns” to the LPDRs 520 and 530 as shown in
Crowns can be defined to have various shapes. Typically however crowns are triangular. The two shapes of crowns previously presented in
B. Merging LPD Regions
Some embodiments of the invention merge adjacent LPDRs that have the same local preferred direction to improve routability through the regions. Merging is particularly useful when individual LPDRs are defined around adjacent power stripes. For example,
To solve this potential routing problem,
This “merging” feature is not restricted for use with power stripes. Some embodiments of the invention merge adjacent LPDRs that have the same local preferred wiring direction whenever doing so would improve routing efficiency. In addition, some embodiments avoid having to merge adjacent LPDRs altogether by initially defining a single LPDR to encompass adjacent regions that require the same local preferred direction.
C. Over-Macro Traverse
The previous examples demonstrate the beneficial use of LPDRs on a single layer of a design layout or an IC. LPDRs are beneficial for particular multi-layer uses as well. For example,
D. Vias That Have Differently-Shaped Via Pads
Another multi-layer use of LPDRs is in the definition of vias. Some embodiments use the LPD wiring model to dynamically define vias based on the particular design layout. Specifically, when defining a via between a first region of a first layer and a second region of a second layer, these embodiments select the shape of the via pads in the first and second regions based upon the preferred direction of both regions. This dynamic selection of the via pad shapes allows these embodiments to use vias that are optimized for connecting wire segments along different directions.
In
The example above suggests just one of many combinations of via-pad-pairs between Layers N and N+1. Furthermore, there are a multitude of other LPDR configurations that can be used when designing a multi-layer IC. Accordingly, some embodiments of the invention tabulate the possible permutations of via-pad pairs to account for these variations in design layout configurations. This tabulation provides a user with via pad options when optimizing vias between regions that have different local preferred directions.
III. Graphical User Interface
Some embodiments of the invention provide a GUI to allow the user to view an LPD layout and/or create and manipulate LPDRs on a layout. The GUI of some embodiments (1) saves/loads/deletes LPDRs, (2) displays current LPDRs with their preferred directions and highlighted impermeable edges, (3) adds/manipulates the shapes of LPDRs and their respective local preferred directions, (4) snaps adjacent LPD regions to remove unwanted gaps, and (5) runs a consistency checker that highlights overlaps and degenerate regions of a design layout. In other embodiments, the GUI incorporates an Auto-LPD Region Generator that defines LPDRs to increase a design's routing resources, without forcing the user to create LPR regions manually.
The GUI's visual representation of a LPD design layout according to some embodiments of the invention is first described below. This discussion is then followed by a discussion of the GUI's creation and manipulation of LPDRs according to some embodiments of the invention.
A. Visual Representation of an LPD Design Layout
An LPD design layout typically consists of pre-designed circuit blocks, LPDRs, pins, wiring, and other layout elements.
A user can access menu options by performing a “clicking” operation while a cursor is over the desired menu choice. Another way for a user to access GUI menus is to perform a “right-clicking” operation while a cursor is within the design window. For example,
In addition to identifying the preferred directions of LPDRs in the design window, the GUI in some embodiments identifies any impermeable edges of the LPDRs. Impermeable edges are identified by (1) placing an identifier (e.g. graphical or textual icon such as an “X”) on the edge, or by (2) changing the attribute of the edge (dash, color, etc). In this example, an “X” icon 985 is superimposed on an impermeable boundary edge of LPDR 940. Identification of impermeable edges alerts the user to make changes to the layout to improve routabililty through the respective boundary edges (i.e., by adding “crowns”).
The GUI design window 900 not only provides a visual representation of the design elements on an “active” wiring layer (the layer currently viewed by the user), but some embodiments identify design elements on other wiring layers. To distinguish these “other layer” design elements from the design elements on the active layer, the GUI provides differing visual representations of these “other layer” design elements. For instance, some embodiments use different coloring, shape, fill patterns, or boundary-line dashing to identify design elements that are on a layer other than the active layer.
In this example, the “outlines” represent the relative location of IP block 910 and RAMS 915 on the lower third wiring layer. The outlining of lower-level pre-defined circuit blocks enables a user to accurately define LPDRs on an active layer to overlap the pre-defined circuit blocks. For example, LPDRs 1050 and 1060 are defined in design window 1000 to overlap the pre-designed circuit blocks on the lower layer. The benefits of defining LPDRs to overlap pre-defined circuit blocks on a lower level were previously discussed in Section II. C.
B. LPD Region Creation and Manipulation
The GUI's creation and manipulation of LPDRs according to some embodiments of the invention is first described below. This discussion is then followed by a discussion of alternate methods of creating and manipulating LPDRs according to other embodiments of the invention.
1. LPDR creation and manipulation
The GUI provides a user with precise tools to create and manipulate an LPD design layout. For example,
In order to create an LPDR, a user would first have to access an “LPR menu-window”. Typically, a user opens this LPDR menu window by performing a “right-clicking” operation with a pointing device as previously discussed above with reference to
An octangle in some embodiments is a data structure that is useful for design layouts that have items with horizontal, vertical, and/or ±45° directions. Specifically, in these embodiments, an octangle represents a convex geometric shape in terms of eight values, xLO, yLO, sLO, tLO, xHI, yHI, sHI, and tHI. These eight values define eight half-planes in two coordinate systems, where one coordinate system is a Manhattan coordinate system that is formed by an x-axis and a y-axis, and the other coordinate system is a 45′-rotated coordinate system that is formed by an s-axis and a t-axis. The s-axis is at a 45° counter-clockwise rotation from the x-axis, while the t-axis is at a 45° clockwise rotation from the x-axis. In the layouts of some embodiments, horizontal lines are aligned with the x-axis, vertical lines are aligned with the y-axis, 45° diagonal lines are aligned with the s-axis, and −45° diagonal lines are aligned with the t-axis.
Octangles are further described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/443,595, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Representing Items in a Design Layout,” which published as U.S. Published Patent Application 2004-0225983A1. This patent application is incorporated herein by reference. In the description below, both the wiring and non-wiring geometries of the design layout are convex shapes, or can be decomposed into convex shapes, that have horizontal, vertical, and ±45° sides. One of ordinary skill will realize, however, that some embodiments might use the octangle data structure in cases where the wiring or non-wiring geometries are more restricted.
As mentioned above, the half-planes are user-selectable and can be moved to define the shape of a proposed LPDR.
Once an LPDR is created in the design window, the GUI in some embodiments presents a user with features to manipulate the attributes of an LPDR. Some of these features include (1) resizing the LPDR, (2) moving the LPDR, (3) assigning/modifying the LPDR's local preferred direction, (4) changing the LPDR's layer designation, and (5) duplicating the LPDR. The resizing and moving features are typically implemented by “select and drag” operations with a cursor. However, the remaining features are typically implemented by selecting the particular option in an LPDR Modification Menu. These modification features of the GUI according to some embodiments of the invention will be described more thoroughly below.
To resize an LPDR, a user would move a particular half-plane as described above with reference to
To move an LPDR, the user would place a cursor over the surface of a particular LPDR and perform a “select and drag” operation along a desired direction.
To assign/modify the LPDR's local preferred direction, change the LPDR's layer designation, and/or duplicate the LPDR, the user would access an LPDR Modification Menu as illustrated in
Some embodiments of the invention assign a “default” local preferred direction for an LPDR when it is first created. The default local preferred direction to be assigned can be previously specified by the user. Nevertheless, in cases where an LPDR was assigned a default local preferred direction, the user can modify any LPDR's local preferred direction by using the same method as described above for assigning the LPD.
To change the LPDR's layer designation, the user would select the particular option from the LPDR Modification Menu. For example, the user can move a particular LPDR up or down a layer by selecting the “Layer Up” or “Layer Down” option in the LPDR Modification Menu 1250 previously referred to in
A user can also duplicate an LPDR by selecting the Duplicate LPD option in the LPDR Modification Menu. Doing so will prompt the GUI to create an LPDR in the design window that has the same attributes as the LPDR selected for duplication (i.e. same shape, local preferred direction, and layer designation). As previously discussed, the LPDR Modification Menu also provides a “Finish LPD” option. This option allows a user to finalize the creation/definition of an LPDR. As a result, some embodiments of the invention remove the half-planes of the LPDR Creation Tool so that the particular LPDR cannot be inadvertently resized. Other embodiments of the invention also “freeze” the LPDR in its particular location in the design layout so that the particular LPDR cannot be inadvertently moved. However, other embodiments of the invention still allow a user to modify the attributes of a “finalized” LPDR. An example of a “finalized” LPDR 1225 with the LPDR Creation Tool removed is illustrated in
2. Alternate Methods of LPDR Creation and Manipulation
The creation and manipulation of LPDR using the GUI of some embodiments of the invention was discussed above. However, these aforementioned embodiments presented only a few of the many ways to create and modify an LPDR using the GUI of the present invention. Various other methods of other embodiments of the invention are described below. In addition, another feature of the GUI called “crowning” will be introduced.
A user can also create LPDRs according to other embodiments of the invention by selecting and dragging a desired LPDR shape into the design window. The GUI can be configured to “dock” any menu options within a drop down menu onto the “menu bar”. As such, the LPDR shapes provided within the “Insert LPD” menu can be displayed along the menu bar as illustrated in
Another method of creating an LPDR according to some embodiments of the invention is called the “select and expand” method. In this method, after selecting a desired LPDR, a user can specify an exact location and size of an LPDR to be created.
Specifically,
Once an LPDR is created in the design window, the GUI presents the user with different ways to manipulate the attributes of an LPDR. Some embodiments of the invention allow a user to resize an LPDR region within the design window. One method would be to place a cursor over the vertex of two sides of a particular LPDR and perform a “select and drag” operation directed radially outward/inward from the LPDR. Referring again to
Another method to resize an LPDR is by “selecting and dragging” a boundary edge of a particular LPDR. This method is performed the same as described above except a user selects a boundary edge of an LPDR instead of a vertex. However, these methods typically provide different results as the aspect ratios of the sides of the LPDR are not usually maintained when resizing an LPDR by moving a boundary edge. Instead, adjoining boundary edges are “stretched” or “compacted” to conform with the movement of the particular boundary edge.
In addition to re-sizing an LPDR, some embodiments of the invention allow a user to move an LPD region within the design window. To do so, a user would place a cursor over the surface of a particular LPDR and perform a “select and drag” operation along a desired direction. Specifically,
Another attribute of LPDRs that the GUI of some embodiments can manipulate is the local preferred direction of LPDRs. In some embodiments, the direction arrows that represent the directions of LPDRs are user-selectable and can be manipulated by various methods. For example, some embodiments of the invention provide a user with a “menu window” method to manipulate a selected direction arrow by choosing a particular direction from a menu widow that lists typical preferred directions. Alternatively, a “select and drag” method permits a user to select a particular direction arrow with a cursor and then “drag” the direction arrow in a circular motion to arrive at any desired position. A variation of this “select and drag” method is called the “select and snap” method. The “select and snap” method permits a user to manipulate a direction arrow in the same way as the “select and drag” method except that a selected direction arrow “snaps” progressively through allowed preferred directions when dragged in a circular motion (i.e. from 0°, 45°, 90°, 135°, etc.). Typically, the specific preferred directions “allowed” are in increments of 45° from a standard horizontal axis, however some embodiments of the invention specify the “allowed” preferred directions according to other degree increments.
A user's manipulation of a direction arrow using this “select and snap” method can be seen by referring again to
As a result of a change to a region's preferred direction, some embodiments of the invention update the indication of any impermeable edges of the LPDRs within the design window. As shown in
The alternate “menu window” method of manipulating the preferred direction of a region or layer as opposed to the previously described “select and snap” method is illustrated in
As shown in
In order to extend these impermeable boundary edges to form “crowns”, the GUI according to some embodiments of the invention enables a user to select impermeable boundary edges for crowning. The “crowning” of an LPDR is illustrated in
All impermeable boundary edges have at least two vertices that represent the end-points of the edge. In this example, the user extended such a vertex of an impermeable boundary edge to form a triangular-shaped crown. However, a user can also create additional vertices for an impermeable boundary edge in order to define differently shaped crowns. Some embodiments allow a user to create and extend a vertex at any mid-point along an LPDR boundary edge by performing a click and drag operation at a desired mid-point on the edge as shown in
Specifically,
U.S. patent application 11/005,162, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,707,537, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Generating Layout Regions with Local Preferred Directions,” filed concurrently with the present application, describes an auto LPDR generator of some embodiments of the invention. Also, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/005,448, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,340,711, entitled “Local Preferred Direction Routing,” filed concurrently with the present application, describes the routing tools that can route a layout with LPD's. These applications are incorporated herein by reference. Other EDA tools can also consider layouts with LPD's. For instance, some embodiments might include a placer that computes placement costs (e.g., wirelength and/or congestion costs) based on the different LPD's within which the circuit modules or the pins of these modules fall.
While the invention has been described with reference to numerous specific details, one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the invention can be embodied in other specific forms without departing from the spirit of the invention. For instance, some embodiments define a crown boundary between an LPDR with a Manhattan LPD (e.g., a horizontal direction) and an LPDR with a non-Manhattan LPD (e.g., a 45° diagonal direction) in terms of an angle that is between the Manhattan and non-Manhattan directions (e.g., a 22.5° direction). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the invention is not to be limited by the foregoing illustrative details, but rather is to be defined by the appended claims.
This application is a divisional application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/005,316, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,441,220, filed on Dec. 6, 2004. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/005,316 claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 60/577,434, filed on Jun. 4, 2004. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/005,316 is also a continuation-in-part application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/733,104, now issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,858,928, filed on Dec. 7, 2000.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4571451 | Linsker et al. | Feb 1986 | A |
4615011 | Linsker | Sep 1986 | A |
4777606 | Fournier | Oct 1988 | A |
4855253 | Weber | Aug 1989 | A |
4855929 | Nakajima | Aug 1989 | A |
4910680 | Hiwatashi | Mar 1990 | A |
5375069 | Satoh et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5541005 | Bezama et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5635736 | Funkaki et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5650653 | Rostoker et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5673201 | Malm et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5723908 | Fuchida et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737237 | Tanaka et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5798936 | Cheng | Aug 1998 | A |
5801385 | Endo et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5801960 | Takano et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5811863 | Rostoker et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5814847 | Shihadeh et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5822214 | Rostoker et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5880969 | Hama et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5980093 | Jones et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6006024 | Guruswamy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6014507 | Fujii | Jan 2000 | A |
6077309 | Lin | Jun 2000 | A |
6209123 | Maziasz et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6256769 | Tamarkin et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6262487 | Igarashi et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263475 | Toyonaga et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6324674 | Andreev et al. | Nov 2001 | B2 |
6330707 | Shinomiya et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6407434 | Rostoker et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6441470 | Shenoy | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6448591 | Juengling | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6526555 | Teig et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6601222 | Mehrotra et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6671864 | Teig et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6711727 | Teig et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6769105 | Teig et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772406 | Trimberger | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6792587 | Xing et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6858928 | Teig et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6870255 | Teig et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6889371 | Teig et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6889372 | Teig et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6898773 | Teig et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6910198 | Teig et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6915500 | Teig et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6973634 | Teig et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6988258 | Tan et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996789 | Teig et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7003748 | Hsu | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7003752 | Teig et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7010771 | Teig et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7013445 | Teig et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7024650 | Teig et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7036101 | He et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7036105 | Teig et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7047513 | Teig et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7058919 | Young et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7062743 | Kahng et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7080342 | Teig et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7086024 | Hsu et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7096449 | Teig et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7117468 | Teig et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7171635 | Teig et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174529 | Hetzel | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7185304 | Suto et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7197738 | Hetzel et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7340711 | Hetzel et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7412682 | Malhotra et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7441220 | Hetzel et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7480885 | Frankle et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7493581 | Siegel et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7707537 | Malhotra et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
20010039643 | Kuroda et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020053067 | Kanazawa | May 2002 | A1 |
20020100009 | Xing et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20030009737 | Jan 2003 | A1 | |
20030084416 | Dai et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20050071797 | Fuji | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050138578 | Alpert et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050138593 | Okumura | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050240894 | Teig et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050273746 | Malhotra et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060156266 | Alpert et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20100180250 | Malhotra et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
04000677 | Jan 1992 | JP |
WO 2005122027 | Dec 2005 | WO |
WO 2005122028 | Dec 2005 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090024977 A1 | Jan 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60577434 | Jun 2004 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11005316 | Dec 2004 | US |
Child | 12241034 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09733104 | Dec 2000 | US |
Child | 11005316 | US |