Patent US1697348A successfully refreshed from Google Patents.
Patent US5883818A successfully refreshed from Google Patents.
US5883818A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Method for generating an improved model for evaluating the operation of an integrated circuit design
Assignee: International Business Machines Corp
•
Filing: 1996-08-29
•
Granted: 1999-03-16
•
Expires: 2016-08-29
Abstract
Abstract Modeling of propagation delay and output transition time by use of fitting functions comprised of standard Taylor series and inverse powers is disclosed. These components are used as a basis for generating an equation that predicts circuit performance over a wide range of input transition and output capacitive loads. The present invention includes a computer implemented method for adding functions to the fitting functions or removing functions from the fitting functions until an acceptable error limit has been reached.
Inventors
- 👤 Bijan Salimi
- 👤 David Bruce White
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-04 18:29
CPC Classifications
G; G06; G06F; G06F30/00; G06F30/30; G06F30/32; G06F30/33
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 32
Claim 1
Independent Claim
198 words
A method of designing an integrated circuit, said method comprising the steps of selecting and combining a set of logic cells utilizing models for one or more portions of the logic cells, a model of at least one portion of said portions being generated by: 1) evaluating the performance of the portion of the logic cell at different operating parameters to generate simulation data; 2) generating said model for said portion utilizing a modeling function; 3) exercising the model to generate modeling data for said portion; 4) comparing the modeling data to said simulation data to determine an error profile therebetween for said model; 5) determining whether the error profile is within an acceptable limit; 6) if the error profile is not within an acceptable limit, then performing the following steps: a) adding an additional modeling function to the model based on said error profile; b) determining whether the error profile was improved by the addition of the additional modeling function; c) if the error profile was not improved by the addition of the additional modeling function, removing the additional modeling function from the model; 7) repeating steps 3)-6) until the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
198 words
A method of designing an integrated circuit, said method comprising the steps of selecting and combining a set of logic cells utilizing models for one or more portions of the logic cells, a model of at least one portion of said portions being generated by: 1) evaluating the performance of the portion of the logic cell at different operating parameters to generate simulation data; 2) generating said model for said portion utilizing a modeling function; 3) exercising the model to generate modeling data for said portion; 4) comparing the modeling data to said simulation data to determine an error profile therebetween for said model; 5) determining whether the error profile is within an acceptable limit; 6) if the error profile is not within an acceptable limit, then performing the following steps: a) adding an additional modeling function to the model based on said error profile; b) determining whether the error profile was improved by the addition of the additional modeling function; c) if the error profile was not improved by the addition of the additional modeling function, removing the additional modeling function from the model; 7) repeating steps 3)-6) until the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
55 words
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein steps 2) and 6)a) further comprise the steps of: a) subtracting the simulation data from the modeling data to produce a resultant; b) dividing said resultant by the simulation data to produce a percentage error; and c) using the percentage error to generate coefficients for the model.
Claim 4
Independent Claim
49 words
The method as recited in claims 1 or 2, wherein the step of generating said model and the step of choosing an additional modeling function includes the step of basing the first and additional modeling functions on standard Taylor series and inverse powers of load capacitance and input transition.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
30 words
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the step of evaluating the performance includes the step of determining the load capacitance and input transition at the different operating parameters.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
29 words
The method as recited in claim 1, further including the step of minimizing coefficients of each of the modeling functions after the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
34 words
The method as recited in claim 5, wherein the steps of generating said model and adding an additional modeling function include the step of using steepest descent and Levenberg-Marquardt techniques to optimize the coefficients.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
28 words
The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising the step of selecting the modeling functions to be included in the model from a set of heuristic rules.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
41 words
The method as recited in claim 1, wherein steps 2) and 6)a) further comprise the steps of: a) subtracting the simulation data from the modeling data to produce a resultant; and b) using the resultant to generate coefficients for the model.
Claim 10
Independent Claim
40 words
The method as recited in claims 1 or 8, wherein the step of generating said model and the step of choosing an additional modeling function includes the step of basing the first and additional modeling functions on standard Taylor series.
Claim 11
Independent Claim
133 words
A method for evaluating the operation of an integrated circuit design comprising a set of logic cells, said method comprising the steps of: 1) evaluating the performance of at least a portion of one of the logic cells at different operating parameters to generate simulation data; 2) generating a model for said portion utilizing a modeling function; 3) exercising the model to generate modeling data for said portion; 4) comparing the modeling data to the simulation data to determine an error profile for said model; 5) determining whether the error profile is within an acceptable limit; 6) adding a next modeling function to the model which reduces the error profile toward the acceptable limit, based on said error profile; and 7) repeating steps 3)-6) until the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 12
Independent Claim
133 words
A method for evaluating the operation of an integrated circuit design comprising a set of logic cells, said method comprising the steps of: 1) evaluating the performance of at least a portion of one of the logic cells at different operating parameters to generate simulation data; 2) generating a model for said portion utilizing a modeling function; 3) exercising the model to generate modeling data for said portion; 4) comparing the modeling data to the simulation data to determine an error profile for said model; 5) determining whether the error profile is within an acceptable limit; 6) adding a next modeling function to the model which reduces the error profile toward the acceptable limit, based on said error profile; and 7) repeating steps 3)-6) until the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
55 words
The method as recited in claim 10, wherein steps 2) and 6) further comprise the steps of: a) subtracting the simulation data from the modeling data to produce a resultant; b) dividing the resultant by the simulation data to produce a percentage error; and c) using the percentage error to generate coefficients for the model.
Claim 14
Independent Claim
49 words
The method as recited in claims 10 or 11, wherein the step of generating a model and the step of choosing a next modeling function includes the step of basing the first and second modeling functions on standard Taylor series and inverse powers of load capacitance and input transition.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
30 words
The method as recited in claim 10, wherein the step of evaluating the performance includes the step of determining the load capacitance and input transition at the different operating parameters.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
30 words
The method as recited in claim 10, further including the step of minimizing the coefficients of each of the modeling functions after the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
26 words
The method as recited in claim 14, wherein the step of minimizing includes the step of using steepest descent and Levenberg-Marquardt techniques to optimize the coefficients.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
28 words
The method as recited in claim 10, further comprising the step of selecting the modeling functions to be included in the model from a set of heuristic rules.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
41 words
The method as recited in claim 10, wherein steps 2) and 6) further comprise the steps of: a) subtracting the simulation data from the modeling data to produce a resultant; and b) using the resultant to generate coefficients for the model.
Claim 20
Independent Claim
40 words
The method as recited in claims 10 or 17, wherein the step of generating a model and the step of choosing a next modeling function includes the step of basing the first and next modeling functions on standard Taylor series.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim
73 words
The method as recited in claim 10, wherein the step of choosing a next modeling function further comprises performing the following steps if the error profile is not within the acceptable limit: a) determining whether the error profile was improved by the addition of the next modeling function; and b) if the error profile was not improved by the addition of the next modeling function, removing the next modeling function from the model.
Claim 22
Dependent Claim
160 words
A computer program product comprising: a program storage device readable by a computer system tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by said computer system to perform a process for evaluating the operation of an integrated circuit design comprising a set of logic cells, said process comprising the steps of: 1) evaluating the performance of at least a portion of one of the logic cells at different operating parameters to generate simulation data; 2) generating a model for said portion utilizing a modeling function; 3) exercising the model to generate modeling data for said portion; 4) comparing the modeling data to the simulation data to determine an error profile for said model; 5) determining whether the error profile is within an acceptable limit; 6) adding a next modeling function to the model which reduces the error profile toward the acceptable limit, based on said error profile; and 7) repeating steps 3)-6) until the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 23
Dependent Claim
160 words
A computer program product comprising: a program storage device readable by a computer system tangibly embodying a program of instructions executable by said computer system to perform a process for evaluating the operation of an integrated circuit design comprising a set of logic cells, said process comprising the steps of: 1) evaluating the performance of at least a portion of one of the logic cells at different operating parameters to generate simulation data; 2) generating a model for said portion utilizing a modeling function; 3) exercising the model to generate modeling data for said portion; 4) comparing the modeling data to the simulation data to determine an error profile for said model; 5) determining whether the error profile is within an acceptable limit; 6) adding a next modeling function to the model which reduces the error profile toward the acceptable limit, based on said error profile; and 7) repeating steps 3)-6) until the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 24
Dependent Claim
60 words
The computer program product as recited in claim 16, wherein steps 2) and 6) of said process further comprises the steps of: a) subtracting the simulation data from the modeling data to produce a resultant; b) dividing the resultant by the simulation data to produce a percentage error; and c) using the percentage error to generate coefficients for the model.
Claim 25
Dependent Claim
51 words
The computer program product as recited in claims 20 or 21, wherein the step of generating a model and the step of choosing a next modeling function include the step of basing the first and second modeling functions on standard Taylor series and inverse powers of load capacitance and input transition.
Claim 26
Dependent Claim
32 words
The computer program product as recited in claim 20, wherein the step of evaluating the performance includes the step of determining the load capacitance and input transition at the different operating parameters.
Claim 27
Dependent Claim
35 words
The computer program product as recited in claim 20, wherein said process further includes the step of minimizing the coefficients of each of the modeling functions after the error profile is within the acceptable limit.
Claim 28
Dependent Claim
28 words
The computer program product as recited in claim 24, wherein the step of minimizing includes the step of using steepest descent and Levenberg-Marquardt techniques to optimize the coefficients.
Claim 29
Dependent Claim
33 words
The computer program product as recited in claim 20, wherein the process further comprises the step of selecting the modeling functions to be included in the model from a set of heuristic rules.
Claim 30
Dependent Claim
75 words
The computer program product as recited in claim 20, wherein the step of choosing a second modeling function further comprises performing the following steps if the error profile is not within the acceptable limit: a) determining whether the error profile was improved by the addition of the next modeling function; and b) if the error profile was not improved by the addition of the next modeling function, removing the second modeling function from the model.
Claim 31
Dependent Claim
46 words
The computer program product as recited in claim 20, wherein steps 2) and 6) of said process further comprises the steps of: a) subtracting the simulation data from the modeling data to produce a resultant; and b) using the resultant to generate coefficients for the model.
Claim 32
Dependent Claim
42 words
The computer program product as recited in claims 20 or 28, wherein the step of generating a model and the step of choosing a next modeling function includes the step of basing the first and next modeling functions on standard Taylor series.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US3564223A
Cited
US5092780A
Cited
US5092780B1
Cited
US4949259A
Cited
US5047969A
Cited
US5377122A
Cited
US5164911A
Cited
US5345579A
Cited
US5128607A
Cited
US5274568A
Cited
US5359535A
Cited
JPH06103332A
Cited
US5477474A
Cited
JPH06223127A
Cited
US5553008A
Cited
US5469366A
Cited
US5452225A
Cited
JPH07249060A
Cited
US5475607A
Cited
US5535145A
Cited
US5666288A
Cited
US5655109A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 2002-03-15 | 2002-09-14 | 2003-03-16 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2006-03-15 | 2006-09-14 | 2007-03-16 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2010-03-15 | 2010-09-14 | 2011-03-16 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |