Electricity: measuring and testing – Measuring – testing – or sensing electricity – per se – With rotor
Reexamination Certificate
1999-12-24
2003-12-02
Abrams, Neil (Department: 2839)
Electricity: measuring and testing
Measuring, testing, or sensing electricity, per se
With rotor
Reexamination Certificate
active
06657426
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates generally to processing systems and more particularly to programmable device programmer systems.
BACKGROUND ART
In the past, certain operations of electronic circuit board assembly were performed away from the main production assembly systems. While various feeder machines and robotic handling systems would populate electronic circuit boards with integrated circuits, the operations related to processing integrated circuits, such as programming, testing, calibration, and measurement were performed in separate areas on separate equipment rather than being integrated into the main production assembly systems.
For example, in the programming of programmable devices such as electrically erasable programmable read-only memories (EEPROMs) and Flash EEPROMs, separate programming equipment was used which was often located in a separate area from the circuit board assembly systems. There were a number of reasons why programming was done off-line.
First, the programming equipment was relatively large and bulky. This was because of the need to accurately insert and remove programmable devices at high speeds into and out of programming sockets in the programmer. Since insertion and removal required relatively long traverses at high speed and very precise positioning, very rigid robotic handling equipment was required. This rigidity requirement meant that the various components had to be relatively massive with strong structural support members to maintain structural integrity and precision positioning of the pick and place system moving at high speeds. Due to the size of the programming equipment and the limited space for the even larger assembly equipment, they were located in different areas.
Second, a single high-speed production assembly system could use up programmed devices faster than they could be programmed on a single programming system. This required a number of programming systems which were generally operated for longer periods of time in order to have a reserve of programmed devices for the production assembly systems. This meant that the operating times and the input requirements were different between the two systems.
Third, no one had been able to build a single system which could be easily integrated with both the mechanical and electronic portions of the production assembly systems. These systems are complex and generally require a great deal of costly engineering time to make changes to incorporate additional equipment.
A major problem associated with programming the programmable devices in a separate area and then bringing the programmed devices into the production assembly area to be inserted into the electronic circuit boards was that it was difficult to have two separate processes running in different areas and to coordinate between the two separate systems. Often, the production assembly system would run out of programmable devices and the entire production assembly system would have to be shut down. At other times, the programming equipment would be used to program a sufficient inventory of programmed devices to assure that the production assembly system would not be shut down; however, this increased inventory costs. Further problems were created when the programming had to be changed and there was a large inventory of programmed integrated circuits on hand. In this situation, the inventory of programmable devices would have to be reprogrammed with an accompanying waste of time and money.
While it was apparent that a better system would be desirable, there appeared to be no way of truly improving the situation. There were a number of apparently insurmountable problems that stood in the way of improvement.
First, the operating speeds of current production assembly systems so greatly exceeded the programming speed capability of conventional programmers that the programmer would have to have a much greater through-put than thought to be possible with conventional systems.
Second, not only must the programmer be faster than existing programmers, it would also have to be much smaller. The ideal system would integrate into a production assembly system, but would do so without disturbing an existing production assembly system or requiring the lengthening of a new production assembly system over that of the length without the ideal system. Further, most of these production assembly systems were already filled with, or designed to be filled with, various types of feeding and handling modules which provide limited room for any additional equipment.
Third, any programmer integrated with the production assembly system would apparently also have to interface with the control software and electronics of the production system software for communication and scheduling purposes. This would be a problem because production assembly system software was not only complex, but also confidential and/or proprietary to the manufacturers of those systems. This meant that the integration must be done with the cooperation of the manufacturers, who were reluctant to spend engineering effort on anything but improving their own systems, or must be done with a lot of engineering effort expended on understanding the manufacturers' software before working on the programmer's control software.
Fourth, the mechanical interface between a programmer and the production equipment needed to be highly accurate for placing programmed devices relative to the pick-and-place handling equipment of the production assembly system.
Fifth, there are a large number of different manufacturers of production handling equipment as well as production manufacturing equipment. This means that the a large number of different production assembly system configurations would have to be studied and major compromises in design required for different manufacturers.
Sixth, the ideal system would allow for changing quickly between different micro devices having different configurations and sizes.
Seventh, the ideal system needed to be able to accommodate a number of different micro device feeding mechanisms including tape, tube, and tray feeders.
Finally, there was a need to be able to quickly reject micro devices which failed during the programming.
All the above problems seemed to render an effective solution impossible. This was especially true when trying to invent a comprehensive system which would be portable, allow “plug and play” operation with only external electric and air power, provide automated programming and handling, and be able to present programmed programmable devices to an automated production assembly system.
DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides a micro device processing system for processing a plurality of unprocessed micro devices into a plurality of processed micro devices. A circuit board has electronic components connected to circuit board contacts provided thereon. A backplane has backplane contacts electrically connected to the circuit board contacts. The flat surface of the backplane is held in a fixed relationship with the flat surface of the circuit board and socket holder having a predetermined plurality of sockets capable of holding the plurality of micro devices, the plurality of sockets in line in parallel to the depth of the backplane and positionable over the backplane with the plurality of backplane contacts exposed through the sockets. The backplane has a space provided underneath so a tape for feeding the plurality of micro devices can pass beneath the backplane.
The present invention provides a micro device programming system for programming a plurality of unprocessed micro devices into a plurality of processed micro devices. A circuit board has electronic components connected to circuit board contacts provided thereon. A backplane has backplane contacts electrically connected to the circuit board contacts. The flat surface of the backplane is held in a fixed relationship with the flat surface of the circuit board and socket holder having a predetermined plurality of sockets capable of holding the plurality of mi
Anderson George Leland
Bolotin Lev M.
Cameron Robin Edward
Powell Bryan D.
Abrams Neil
Data I/O Corporation
Mikio Ishimaru
LandOfFree
Programmer does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Programmer, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Programmer will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3183068