1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates in general to integrated circuit (IC) manufacturing and, more specifically, to methods in IC manufacturing processes for sorting IC devices using identification (ID) codes, such as fuse IDs, in the devices.
2. State of the Art
Integrated circuits (ICs) are small electronic circuits formed on the surface of a wafer of semiconductor material, such as silicon, in an IC manufacturing process referred to as “fabrication.” Once fabricated, ICs are electronically probed to evaluate a variety of their electronic characteristics, cut from the wafer on which they were formed into discrete IC dice or “chips,” and then assembled for customer use using various well-known IC packaging techniques, including lead frame packaging, Chip-On-Board (COB) packaging, and flip-chip packaging.
Before being shipped to customers, packaged ICs are generally tested to ensure they will function properly once shipped. Testing typically involves a variety of known test steps, such as pre-grade, burn-in, and final, which test ICs for defects and functionality and grade ICs for speed. As shown in
The testing standards for a particular IC product are sometimes relaxed as the product “matures,” such that ICs previously rejected under strict testing standards may pass the relaxed testing standards. Consequently, reject bins containing previously rejected ICs are sometimes “culled” for ICs that are shippable under relaxed testing standards by testing the rejected ICs again using the relaxed testing standards. Unfortunately, while this culling process does retrieve shippable ICs from reject bins, it makes inefficient use of expensive and often limited testing resources by diverting those resources away from testing untested ICs in order to retest previously rejected ICs. Therefore, there is a need in the art for an improved method of culling or sorting such reject bins for shippable ICs.
Similarly, as shown in
Likewise, as shown in
As described above, ICs are typically tested for various characteristics before being shipped to customers. For example, as shown in
As described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,301,143, 5,294,812, and 5,103,166, some methods have been devised to electronically identify individual ICs. Such methods take place “off” the manufacturing line and involve the use of electrically retrievable ID codes, such as so-called “fuse IDs,” programmed into individual ICs to identify the ICs. The programming of a fuse ID typically involves selectively blowing an arrangement of fuses and anti-fuses in an IC so that when the fuses or anti-fuses are accessed, they output a selected ID code. Unfortunately, none of these methods address the problem of identifying and sorting ICs “on” a manufacturing line.
An inventive method for sorting integrated circuit (IC) devices of the type to have a substantially unique identification (ID) code, such as a fuse ID, including automatically reading the ID code of each of the IC devices and sorting the IC devices according to their automatically read lID codes. The inventive method can be used in conjunction with an IC manufacturing process that includes providing semiconductor wafers, fabricating the ICs on each of the wafers, causing each of the ICs to store its ID code, separating each of the ICs from its wafer to form an IC die, assembling the IC dice into IC devices, and testing the IC devices. The method can also be used in conjunction with Single In-line Memory Module (SIMM), Dual In-line Memory Module (DIMM), and other multi-chip module (MCM) manufacturing processes.
In another embodiment, an inventive method for recovering IC devices from a group of IC devices that have previously been rejected in accordance with a test standard that has since been relaxed includes: storing test results that caused each of the IC devices in the group to be rejected in connection with an ID code, such as a fuse ID, associated with each device; automatically reading the ID code from each of the IC devices; accessing the test results stored in connection with each of the automatically read ID codes; comparing the accessed test results for each of the IC devices with the relaxed test standard; and sorting the IC devices according to whether their accessed test results pass the relaxed test standard in order to recover any of the IC devices having test results that pass the relaxed test standard.
By sorting the IC devices in accordance with their previously stored test results and their ID codes, the above-described inventive method eliminates the need to retest the IC devices after the test standard is relaxed in order to cull shippable IC devices from the rejected devices.
In still another embodiment, a method for sorting a group of IC devices in accordance with a first IC standard, such as a speed standard, that have previously been sorted in accordance with a second IC standard, such as a speed standard, that is less stringent than the first IC standard, includes storing test results that caused each of the IC devices in the group to be sorted into the group in connection with ID codes, such as fuse IDs, of the devices, automatically reading the ID code from each of the IC devices, accessing the test results stored in connection with each of the automatically read ID codes, comparing the accessed test results for each of the IC devices with the first IC standard, and sorting the IC devices according to whether their test results pass the first IC standard.
In a further embodiment, an inventive back-end test method for separating IC devices in need of enhanced reliability testing from a group of IC devices undergoing back-end test procedures includes: storing a flag in connection with an ID code, such as a fuse ID, associated with each of the IC devices in the group indicating whether each IC device is in need of enhanced reliability testing; automatically reading the ID code of each of the IC devices in the group; accessing the enhanced reliability testing flag stored in connection with each of the automatically read ID codes; and sorting the IC devices in accordance with whether their enhanced reliability testing flag indicates that they are in need of enhanced reliability testing.
Thus, the inventive method described above provides an advantageous method for sorting ICs from the same wafer lot into those ICs that require enhanced reliability testing and those that do not.
In a still further embodiment, an inventive method in an IC manufacturing process for testing different fabrication process recipes includes the following: providing first and second pluralities of semiconductor wafers; fabricating a first plurality of ICs on each of the first plurality of wafers in accordance with a control recipe; fabricating a second plurality of ICs on each of the second plurality of wafers in accordance with a test recipe; causing each of the ICs on each of the wafers to permanently store a substantially unique ID code, such as a fuse ID; separating each of the ICs on each of the wafers from its wafer to form one of a plurality of IC dice; assembling each of the IC dice into an IC device; automatically reading the ID code from the IC in each of the IC devices; testing each of the IC devices; and sorting each of the IC devices in accordance with the automatically read ID code from the IC in each of the IC devices indicating that the IC is from one of the first and second pluralities of ICs.
As shown in
The method 10 includes the step of fabricating 14 ICs on wafers from a wafer lot 16. ICs fabricated on the wafers are then programmed in a program step 18 in the manner described above with a fuse identification (ID) unique to each IC. The fuse ID may identify a wafer lot ID, the week the ICs were fabricated, a wafer ID, a die location on the wafer, and a fabrication facility ID. It will be understood, of course, that the present invention includes within its scope ICs having any ID code, including those having fuse IDs. It will also be understood that the ID code for each IC need not be unique, but instead may only specify the wafer the IC comes from, for example.
Once programmed, the ICs proceed through an assembly step 20 to a test step 22 where the fuse IDs are automatically read and stored in association with test data 24 generated in the test step 22. Although the fuse IDs are typically read electronically, it will be understood that they may also be read optically if the fuse ID consists of “blown” laser fuses that are optically accessible. It will also be understood that the test data 24 may include data such as the following: data identifying the testing equipment that tested the ICs, operating personnel who operated the testing equipment, and the set-up of the equipment when the ICs were tested; and data indicating the time and date the ICs were tested, the yield of shippable ICs through the test step 22, and test results for the ICs from the various stages of the test step 22.
ICs that pass the test step 22 are typically shipped to customers, while those that fail the test step 22 are directed to the reject bin 12. At a point in time when test standards of the test step 22 have been relaxed as described above, the ICs in the reject bin 12 are sorted in a sort step 26 by reading the fuse ID of each IC, accessing the test data 24 associated with the fuse ID, and comparing the accessed test data 24 with the relaxed test standards. Those ICs that fail even the relaxed test standards are directed back to the reject bin 12, while those ICs that pass the relaxed test standards are typically shipped to customers. The method 10 thus successfully culls shippable ICs from the reject bin 12 without retesting the ICs.
As shown in
The method 30 includes the step 32 of fabricating ICs on wafers from a wafer lot 34. ICs fabricated on the wafers are then programmed in a program step 36 in the manner described above with a fuse identification (ID) unique to each IC. The fuse ID may identify a wafer lot ID, the week the ICs were fabricated, a wafer ID, a die location on the wafer, and a fabrication facility ID. It will be understood, of course, that the present invention includes within its scope ICs having any ID code, including those having fuse IDs. It will also be understood that the ID code for each IC need not be unique, but instead may only specify the wafer the IC comes from, for example.
Once programmed, the ICs proceed through an assembly step 38. At this point in the IC manufacturing process, it is not uncommon for a number of wafers to have been identified as being unreliable for the reasons stated above. The fuse IDs of the ICs that come from these unreliable wafers may then be associated with a stored flag indicating the ICs come from unreliable wafers. If any wafers in the wafer lot 34 have been identified as being unreliable, the ICs proceed to a sort step 40, where their fuse IDs are automatically read so the ICs can be sorted into those flagged as coming from the unreliable wafers that require processing through an enhanced reliability testing step 42 and those not flagged as coming from the unreliable wafers that may proceed through a standard test step 44. Of course, those ICs that pass either the standard test step 44 or the enhanced reliability testing step 42 are typically shipped to customers, while those that fail these steps are directed to a reject bin (not shown).
Thus, the present invention provides a method 30 that directs those ICs needing enhanced reliability testing to the enhanced reliability testing step 42, while allowing those that do not require enhanced reliability testing to proceed through the standard testing step 44.
As shown in
The method 50 includes fabricating some of the wafers from a wafer lot 52 in a fabrication step 54 in accordance with a control process recipe that is typically the normal process recipe in use in the IC manufacturing process at the time. The remainder of the wafers from the wafer lot 52 is fabricated in another fabrication step 56 in accordance with a special or test process recipe. The special or test process recipe may change a variety of variables in the fabrication process, including doping, the thickness of IC layers, etc.
Once the ICs are fabricated in the fabrication steps 54 and 56, the ICs are then programmed in a program step 58 in the manner described above with a fuse identification (ID) unique to each IC. The fuse ID may identify a wafer lot ID, the week the ICs were fabricated, a wafer ID, a die location on the wafer, and a fabrication facility ID. It will be understood, of course, that the present invention includes within its scope ICs having any ID code, including those having fuse IDs. It will also be understood that the ID code for each IC need not be unique, but instead may only specify the wafer the IC comes from, for example.
Once programmed, the ICs proceed through an assembly step 60 to a test step 62 where the fuse IDs are automatically read and stored in association with test data 64 generated for both the control recipe ICs and the special or test recipe ICs in the test step 62. Although the fuse IDs are typically read electronically, it will be understood that they may also be read optically if the fuse ID consists of “blown” laser fuses that are optically accessible. It will also be understood that the test data 64 may include data such as the following: data identifying the testing equipment that tested the ICs, operating personnel who operated the testing equipment, and the set-up of the equipment when the ICs were tested; and data indicating the time and date the ICs were tested, the yield of shippable ICs through the test step 62, and test results for the ICs from the various stages of the test step 62.
Once the test data 64 is generated, the data 64 may be analyzed 67 to determine those ICs that are shippable and those that are not, and to determine any differences in test results between the control recipe ICs and the special or test recipe ICs. The ICs are sorted in a sort step 66 so they may be shipped, reworked, repaired, retested, or rejected in accordance with the analysis of the test results.
By sorting the control recipe 68 and special or test recipe 69 ICs at the end of the IC manufacturing process, the method 50 is able to assemble and test the ICs together and thus eliminate unintended variables introduced into the process of testing the special or test recipe by the conventional method of assembling and testing the ICs separately. The inventive method 50 thus provides more reliable test results.
As shown in
The method 70 includes the step 72 of fabricating ICs on wafers from a wafer lot 74. ICs fabricated on the wafers are then programmed in a program step 76 in the manner described above with a fuse identification (ID) unique to each IC. The fuse ID may identify a wafer lot ID, the week the ICs were fabricated, a wafer ID, a die location on the wafer, and a fabrication facility ID. It will be understood, of course, that the present invention includes within its scope ICs having any ID code, including those having fuse IDs.
Once programmed, the ICs proceed through an assembly step 78 to a test step 80 where the fuse IDs are automatically read and stored in association with test data 82 generated in the test step 80. Although the fuse IDs are typically read electronically, it will be understood that they may also be read optically if the fuse ID consists of “blown” laser fuses that are optically accessible. It will also be understood that the test data 82 includes speed-grading data for each IC, as described above, and may include data such as the following: data identifying the testing equipment that tested the ICs, operating personnel who operated the testing equipment, and the set-up of the equipment when the ICs were tested; and data indicating the time and date the ICs were tested, the yield of shippable ICs through the test step 80, and test results for the ICs from the various stages of the test step 80.
ICs that pass the test step 80 are typically directed to speed-graded bins 84, 86, and 88, while those that fail the test step 80 are directed to a reject bin 90. The speed-graded bins 84, 86, and 88 typically each contain ICs of varying speeds. For example, the bin 88 may contain a variety of 5.0 ns, 4.5 ns, 4.0 ns, 3.5 ns, etc., parts, the bin 86 may contain a variety of 6.0 ns, 5.5 ns, 5.1 ns, etc., parts, and the bin 84 may contain a variety of 7.0 ns, 6.5 ns, 6.1 ns, etc., parts.
On occasion, customers request ICs that meet a more stringent speed standard (e.g., 4 nanoseconds (ns)) than any of the ICs in the various bins 84, 86, and 88 have been graded for. While bin 88, for example, may contain ICs that will meet the more stringent speed standard, the bin 88 cannot be used to supply the customer's request because the ICs in the bin 88 have only been graded (i.e., are guaranteed to meet or exceed) a lower speed standard (e.g., 5 ns). Therefore, the present inventive method 70 sorts the ICs in a sort step 92 by reading the fuse ID of each IC, accessing the test data 82, including the speed-grading data, associated with the fuse ID, and comparing the accessed speed-grading data with the more stringent speed standard (e.g., 4 ns). Those ICs that fail the more stringent speed standard are directed to a speed-graded bin 94, while those ICs that pass the more stringent speed standard are directed to another speed-graded bin 96 where they can be used to fill the customer's request. The inventive method 70 thus sorts the ICs in accordance with a more stringent IC standard, such as speed, than they were previously sorted in accordance with the present invention without having to retest the ICs, and thus without reusing valuable testing resources to retest ICs.
Although the present invention has been described with reference to particular embodiments, the invention is not limited to these described embodiments. For example, while the various steps of the embodiments of the inventive sorting method have been described as occurring in a particular order, it will be understood that these steps need not necessarily occur in the described order to fall within the scope of the present invention. Thus, the invention is limited only by the appended claims, which include within their scope, all equivalent methods that operate according to the principles of the invention as described.
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/944,567, filed Aug. 30, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,437,271 B1, issued Aug. 20, 2002, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/653,101, filed Aug. 31, 2000, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,307,171 B1, issued Oct. 23, 2001, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/133,336, filed Aug. 13, 1998, now U.S. Pat. 6,147,316, issued Nov. 14, 2000, which is a divisional of application Ser. No. 08/785,353, filed Jan. 17, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,927,512, issued Jul. 27, 1999. The present application is also related to: application Ser. No. 08/591,238, filed Jan. 17, 1996, now abandoned; application Ser. No. 08/664,109, filed Jun. 13, 1996, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,895,962, issued Apr. 20, 1999; a divisional application having Ser. No. 09/133,336, filed Aug. 13, 1998, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,147,316, issued Nov. 14, 2000; an application having Ser. No. 08/822,731, filed Mar. 24, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,856,923, issued Jan. 5, 1999; an application having Ser. No. 08/806,442, filed Feb. 26, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,915,231, issued Jun. 22, 1999; an application having Ser. No. 08/871,015, filed Jun. 6, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,907,492, issued May 25, 1999; and an application having Ser. No. 08/801,565 filed Feb. 17, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,844,803, issued Dec. 1, 1998.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4027246 | Caccoma et al. | May 1977 | A |
4032949 | Bierig | Jun 1977 | A |
4150331 | Lacher | Apr 1979 | A |
4454413 | Morton, Jr. | Jun 1984 | A |
4455495 | Masuhara et al. | Jun 1984 | A |
4510673 | Shils et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4534014 | Ames | Aug 1985 | A |
4667403 | Edinger et al. | May 1987 | A |
4871963 | Cozzi | Oct 1989 | A |
4954453 | Venutolo | Sep 1990 | A |
4958373 | Usami et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4967381 | Lane et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4985988 | Littlebury | Jan 1991 | A |
5003251 | Fuoco | Mar 1991 | A |
5043657 | Amazeen et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5103166 | Jeon et al. | Apr 1992 | A |
5105362 | Kotani | Apr 1992 | A |
5110754 | Lowrey et al. | May 1992 | A |
5118369 | Shamir | Jun 1992 | A |
5150331 | Harris et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5175774 | Truax et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5197650 | Monzen et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5217834 | Higaki | Jun 1993 | A |
5219765 | Yoshida et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5226118 | Baker et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5235550 | Zagar | Aug 1993 | A |
5253208 | Kang | Oct 1993 | A |
5256562 | Vu et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5256578 | Corley et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5271796 | Miyashita et al. | Dec 1993 | A |
5289113 | Meaney et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5294812 | Hashimoto et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5296402 | Ryou | Mar 1994 | A |
5301143 | Ohri et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5326709 | Moon et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5345110 | Renfro et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5347463 | Nakamura et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5350715 | Lee | Sep 1994 | A |
5352945 | Casper et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5355320 | Erjavic et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5360747 | Larson et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5399531 | Wu | Mar 1995 | A |
5420796 | Weling et al. | May 1995 | A |
5424652 | Hembree et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5428311 | McClure | Jun 1995 | A |
5440240 | Wood et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5440493 | Doida | Aug 1995 | A |
5442561 | Yoshizawa et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5448488 | Oshima | Sep 1995 | A |
5450326 | Black | Sep 1995 | A |
5467304 | Uchida et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5477493 | Danbayashi | Dec 1995 | A |
5483175 | Ahmad et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5495417 | Fuduka et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5504369 | Dasse et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5511005 | Abbe et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5516028 | Rasp et al. | May 1996 | A |
5537325 | Iwakiri et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5538141 | Gross, Jr. et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5539235 | Allee | Jul 1996 | A |
5550838 | Okajima | Aug 1996 | A |
5563832 | Kagami | Oct 1996 | A |
5568408 | Maeda | Oct 1996 | A |
5570293 | Tanaka et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5581510 | Furusho et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5590069 | Levin | Dec 1996 | A |
5600171 | Makihara et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5603412 | Gross, Jr. et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5606193 | Ueda et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5617366 | Yoo | Apr 1997 | A |
5619469 | Joo | Apr 1997 | A |
5625816 | Burdick et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5642307 | Jernigan | Jun 1997 | A |
5654204 | Anderson | Aug 1997 | A |
5726074 | Yabe | Mar 1998 | A |
5764650 | Debenham | Jun 1998 | A |
5787012 | Levitt | Jul 1998 | A |
5787190 | Peng et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5801067 | Shaw et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5801965 | Takagi et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5805472 | Fukasawa | Sep 1998 | A |
5822218 | Moosa et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828778 | Hagi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5837558 | Zuniga et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5844803 | Beffa | Dec 1998 | A |
5856923 | Jones et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5865319 | Okuda et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5867505 | Beffa | Feb 1999 | A |
5889674 | Burdick et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5890807 | Igel et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5895962 | Zheng et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5907492 | Akram et al. | May 1999 | A |
5915231 | Beffa | Jun 1999 | A |
5927512 | Beffa | Jul 1999 | A |
5963881 | Kahn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5976899 | Farnworth et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991699 | Kulkarni et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5994915 | Farnworth et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6000830 | Asano et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6018686 | Orso et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6049624 | Wilson et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6055463 | Cheong et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6067507 | Beffa | May 2000 | A |
6072574 | Zeimantz | Jun 2000 | A |
6075216 | Nakamura et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6100486 | Beffa | Aug 2000 | A |
6122563 | Beffa | Sep 2000 | A |
6130442 | Di Zenzo et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6138256 | Debenham | Oct 2000 | A |
6147316 | Beffa | Nov 2000 | A |
6148307 | Burdick et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6190972 | Zheng et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6194738 | Debenham et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6208947 | Beffa | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6219810 | Debenham | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226394 | Wilson et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6259520 | Zeimantz | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6265232 | Simmons | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6292009 | Farnworth et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6307171 | Beffa | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6350959 | Beffa | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6363295 | Akram | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363329 | Beffa | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6365421 | Debenham et al. | Apr 2002 | B2 |
6365860 | Beffa | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6365861 | Beffa | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6373011 | Beffa | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6373566 | Zeimantz | Apr 2002 | B2 |
6400840 | Wilson et al. | Jun 2002 | B2 |
6424168 | Farnworth et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6427092 | Jones et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6437271 | Beffa | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6441897 | Zeimantz | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6529793 | Beffa | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6534785 | Farnworth et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6553276 | Akram et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6588854 | Wilson et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6594611 | Beffa | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6613590 | Simmons | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6636068 | Farnworth | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6654114 | Zeimantz | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6703573 | Beffa | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6788993 | Beffa | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6895538 | Benedix et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
7120513 | Akram et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7155300 | Akram et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
20040024551 | Beffa | Feb 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0849675 | Jun 1998 | EP |
58-50728 | Mar 1983 | JP |
58052814 | Mar 1983 | JP |
58-60529 | Apr 1983 | JP |
361120433 | Jun 1986 | JP |
02164017 | Jun 1990 | JP |
02246312 | Oct 1990 | JP |
04080949 | Mar 1992 | JP |
04318911 | Nov 1992 | JP |
405013529 | Jan 1993 | JP |
4-74909 | Mar 1993 | JP |
05121573 | May 1993 | JP |
05315207 | Nov 1993 | JP |
06013443 | Jan 1994 | JP |
06267809 | Sep 1994 | JP |
06349691 | Dec 1994 | JP |
07050233 | Feb 1995 | JP |
07066091 | Mar 1995 | JP |
07-335510 | Dec 1995 | JP |
08162380 | Jun 1996 | JP |
410104315 | Apr 1998 | JP |
11008327 | Jan 1999 | JP |
1151-333 | Apr 1985 | SU |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20020189981 A1 | Dec 2002 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
08785353 | Jan 1997 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09944567 | Aug 2001 | US |
Child | 10218380 | US | |
Parent | 09653101 | Aug 2000 | US |
Child | 09944567 | US | |
Parent | 09133336 | Aug 1998 | US |
Child | 09653101 | US |