`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________
`
`CARL ZEISS SMT GMBH
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`__________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
` 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Customary Usage of the Term “Units” in Optical Design ............................... 1
`III. Summary of the 575 Patent .............................................................................. 4
`A. Disclosure ................................................................................................... 4
`B. Independent Claim 55 ................................................................................. 7
`IV. Claim Construction ........................................................................................... 8
`A. Applicable Law........................................................................................... 8
`B. Numbered Units – First Unit, Second Unit, Third Unit, and Fourth Unit . 9
`C. Both Zeiss and the Board Improperly Parse the Claim Recitation, and
`Thus Only Construe the Term “Unit” ...................................................... 10
`D. The Intrinsic Evidence .............................................................................. 12
`
`1. The Language of Claim 55 .................................................................. 12
`
`2. The Disclosure of the 575 Patent ........................................................ 15
`E. The Extrinsic Evidence ............................................................................. 18
`
`1. Zeiss’ Dictionary Definition of “Unit” ............................................... 19
`
`2. The Board’s Dictionary Definition of “Unit” ..................................... 20
`
`3. The Testimony of Mr. Juergens .......................................................... 20
`V. Cited References ............................................................................................. 23
`A. Mann ......................................................................................................... 23
`B. Asai ........................................................................................................... 25
`VI. Mr. Juergens is Not an Expert in Projection Optical Systems ....................... 25
`VII. Mr. Juergens’ Selection of Numbered Units in Mann is Improper ................ 27
`VIII. Mr. Juergens’ Declaration Contains Errors in the Underlying Data Used to
`Form His Conclusions and Thus Should Be Given Little Weight ................. 34
`
`
`
` 
`
`i
`
`

`
`IX.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`Independent Claim 55 is not Anticipated By Mann ....................................... 37
`A. Applicable Law......................................................................................... 37
`B. Mann Fails to Disclose the Recited Numbered Units of Independent
`Claim 55 ................................................................................................... 38
`X. Dependent Claims 56-67 ................................................................................ 38
`A. Dependent Claims 56-63 and 65-67 are not Anticipated By Mann ......... 38
`B. Dependent Claim 64 is Not Obvious in View of the Combined Teachings
`of Mann and Asai ..................................................................................... 39
`XI. Conclusion and Relief Requested ................................................................... 39
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
`
`346 F.3d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 13
`
`Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
`
`776 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................................................... 29
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................... 9
`
`Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co.,
`
`804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ................................................................. 29, 30
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc.,
`
`183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ..................................................................... 13
`
`In re Morris,
`
`127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................... 8
`
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 15
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 8
`
`Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Commission,
`
`545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 13
`
`Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co.,
`
`864 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................... 33
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 13, 22
`
`Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co.,
`311 U.S. 211 (1940)....................................................................................... 15
`
`iii
`
` 
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`
`Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC,
`
`109 USPQ2d 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................ 8, 9, 12, 18
`
`Velander v. Garner,
`
`348 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................... 33
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ....................................................................... 37
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`
`
`On December 16, 2013, the Board ordered Inter Partes Review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,348,575 (“the 575 Patent,” Ex. 1101), instituting review on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`1) Claims 55–63 and 65–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
`
`Mann; and
`
`2) Claim 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mann and Asai.
`
`Decision to Institute (Paper 7)
`
`For at least the reasons described below, the Board should confirm the
`
`patentability of claims 55-67 of the 575 Patent.
`
`
`
`II. Customary Usage of the Term “Units” in Optical Design
`
`Typical designs of complex optical systems often include numerous optical
`
`elements. This is especially true in the design of projection optical systems. A
`
`customary practice of optical designers today, as well as at the time of the
`
`invention of the 575 Patent, was to group optical elements (lenses or mirrors) that
`
`cooperate together to perform a specific purpose or common function. Such a
`
`group of optical elements is referred to as a “unit,” with the term unit typically
`
`being preceded by a modifier that is descriptive of the function performed by that
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`
`unit. Common examples include “relay” unit, “magnification” unit, and “zoom”
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`unit. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 30.)
`
`However, it is not always possible to group optical elements of an optical
`
`system into units by the specific purpose or the common function that they
`
`perform. For example, some optical designs distribute multiple optical functions
`
`across large portions of an optical system, either purposefully or as a result of
`
`design. In such cases a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) could not
`
`reasonably identify groups or units of optical elements that cooperate together to
`
`perform a specific purpose or common function. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 31.)
`
`A POSITA can determine whether or not a grouping of optical elements into
`
`units is possible by studying an optical system design, such as a lens diagram and a
`
`corresponding prescription table. Specifically, by studying the purpose or function
`
`of the various optical elements within the optical design, a POSITA would be able
`
`to make such a determination as to whether lenses may be grouped. (Ex. 2002 ¶
`
`32.) In the context of projection optical systems, common optical functions can be
`
`divided in two classes: imaging and optical aberration control. Examples of
`
`imaging functions include: (a) forming an image, (b) relaying an image, (c)
`
`forming a pupil, (d) relaying a pupil, (e) providing telecentricity, and (f) providing
`
`specific system size. Examples of optical aberration control functions include
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`
`correcting for specific aberrations such as: (i) spherical aberration, (ii) coma, (iii)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`astigmatism, (iv) Petzval field curvature, (v) distortion, (vi) chromatic aberrations,
`
`and (vii) reducing the wavefront RMS error. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 32.)
`
`Zeiss’ expert, Mr. Juergens, even agrees that dividing complex projection
`
`optical systems into groups or units of optical elements that cooperate together to
`
`perform a specific purpose or common function was and remains a quite common
`
`practice in the art of projection optical systems. In fact, during his deposition, Mr.
`
`Juergens confirmed, within the field of optics, that a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention would have readily understood that “units” in an optical system are
`
`defined by the function that the optical elements in the unit perform. (Ex. 2004
`
`26:8-14.)
`
` Consistent with the above-described customary practice of optical
`
`designers, the 575 Patent uses the term “unit.” Specifically, the 575 Patent
`
`discloses and claims a high-resolution catadioptric projection optical system that
`
`includes four numbered units, a first unit, a second unit, a third unit, and a fourth
`
`unit. In light of the disclosure and the claims of the 575 Patent, it would have been
`
`readily apparent to a POSITA that a numbered unit meant something more than
`
`simply an arbitrary grouping of optical elements. It would have been clear to a
`
`POSITA that the recited numbered units meant a group of optical elements that
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`cooperate together to perform a specific purpose or common function. (Ex. 2002 ¶
`
`34.)
`
`III. Summary of the 575 Patent
`
`A. Disclosure
`
` The 575 Patent provides for the first time a complete specification for a
`
`lithographic exposure apparatus that employed an immersed lithographic
`
`catadioptric system that is compact, provides high resolution, off-axis imaging, and
`
`is inline. That is, the 575 Patent provided a new technology directed to a high-
`
`resolution projection optical system to meet the industry’s needs. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 35.)
`
`
`
`The disclosure of the 575 Patent describes a relatively compact design of a
`
`projection optical system having excellent imaging performance that is well
`
`corrected for various aberrations, such as chromatic aberration and curvature of
`
`field. The projection optical system described in the 575 Patent is also capable of
`
`securing a large effective image-side numerical aperture while well suppressing the
`
`reflection loss on optical surfaces. (Ex. 1101 2:1-9.) A significant feature in the
`
`575 Patent is the manufacturability of the embodiments to suit exposure tools. (Ex.
`
`2002 ¶ 36.)
`
`With reference to Figures 9 and 10, the 575 Patent teaches an optical design
`
`of a projection optical system that is divided into four numbered units, including a
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`
`first unit, second unit, third unit, and fourth unit. As described above, the 575
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`Patent divides the projection optical system in a manner that is consistent with the
`
`customary practice in the art of projection optical system design. As such, the
`
`description of numbered units by the 575 Patent would have been readily
`
`understood by a POSITA to teach that each of the numbered units contained a
`
`group of optical elements (lenses or mirrors) that cooperate together to perform a
`
`specific purpose or common function. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 37.)
`
`
`
`By way of example with reference to Figure 9 (reproduced above), the 575
`
`Patent teaches an optical design of a catadioptric projection optical system PL1
`
`
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`
`that includes a first optical system G1 and a second optical system G2. The first
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`optical system G1, functions to form an intermediate image, marked O in Figure 9,
`
`of the pattern of the reticle R1, while the second optical system G2 functions to
`
`reduce an image of the reticle pattern on the wafer W on the basis of light from the
`
`intermediate image. (See, Ex. 1101 21:56-67; Ex. 2002 ¶ 38.)
`
`However, the 575 Patent further divides the optical elements of the
`
`projection optical system PL1 by common function into four numbered units, with
`
`each numbered unit performing primarily the function shown in the chart below.
`
`FUNCTION
`Makes the optical system telecentric on the reticle RI
`side and creates a first pupil. (Ex. 1101 29:42-43.)
`Guides the beam from the first to the second imaging
`optical system and forms an intermediate image in order
`to readily and securely achieve optical path separation,
`even where the numerical aperture of the catadioptric
`projection optical system is increased. (Ex. 1101 12:7-
`14 and 12:31-36.)
`Readily satisfies Petzval’s condition, adjusts the
`magnification, suppresses aberration, and decreases
`system length. (Ex. 1101 12:14-23, 29:49-53, 30:36-42,
`and 31:36-48.)
`Converges and condenses the beam so as to achieve a
`large numerical aperture on the wafer side. (Ex. 1101
`29:53-55.)
`
`(Ex. 2002 ¶ 39.)
`
`NUMBERED UNIT
`First Unit
`(G11)
`Second Unit
`
`Third Unit
`(G21)
`
`Fourth Unit
`(G22 and G23)
`
`
`
`Additionally, the 575 Patent teaches that the third unit permits good imaging
`
`performance throughout an entire region in an exposure area, even in the case
`6
`
` 
`
`

`
`where the object-side and image-side numerical apertures of the catadioptric
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`projection optical system are increased in order to enhance the resolution. (See,
`
`Ex. 1101 31:36-48; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40.)
`
`B. Independent Claim 55
`
`Independent claim 55 recites a catadioptric projection optical system that
`
`includes the first through fourth units of the 575 Patent:
`
`55. A catadioptric projection optical system, which forms an
`image of a first surface on a second surface, comprising:
`a first unit disposed in an optical path between the first surface
`and the second surface and having a positive refractive power;
`a second unit disposed in an optical path between the first unit
`and the second surface and comprising at least four mirrors;
`a third unit disposed in an optical path between the second unit
`and the second surface, comprising at least two negative lenses, and
`having a negative refractive power; and
`a fourth unit disposed in an optical path between the third unit
`and the second surface, comprising at least three positive lenses, and
`having a positive refractive power, wherein an intermediate image is
`formed in the second unit and wherein an aperture stop is provided in
`the fourth unit.
`
`
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`IV. Claim Construction
`
`A. Applicable Law
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted
`
`according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of
`
`the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Also, claim terms are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`In construing the claims of an unexpired patent, the Board is required to
`
`consult the “intrinsic” evidence, i.e., the language of the claims, the specification,
`
`and the prosecution history, before turning to “extrinsic evidence,” such as
`
`dictionary definitions. See Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 109 USPQ2d
`
`1599, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“In claim construction, this court gives primacy to the
`
`language of the claims, followed by the specification. Additionally, the
`
`prosecution history, while not literally within the patent document, serves as
`
`intrinsic evidence for purposes of claim construction. This remains true in
`
`construing patent claims before the PTO.”) (citing In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
`
`1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). It is improper for the Board to construe the claims based
`
`on extrinsic evidence that is inconsistent with more reliable intrinsic evidence. See
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`
`Tempo Lighting, 109 USPQ2d at 1602 (citing Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`Commc’ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[E]xtrinsic evidence may
`
`be used only to assist in the proper understanding of the disputed limitation; it may
`
`not be used to vary, contradict, expand, or limit the claim language from how it is
`
`defined, even by implication, in the specification or file history.”)).
`
`B. Numbered Units – First Unit, Second Unit, Third Unit, and Fourth
`Unit
`
`Claim 55 recites a catadioptric projection optical system having four
`
`“numbered units” that include “a first unit,” “a second unit,” “a third unit,” and “a
`
`fourth unit.” In view of the specification and the context of the term within the
`
`claims, the recitation of numbered units should be construed to mean a group of
`
`optical elements (lenses or mirrors) that cooperate together to perform a specific
`
`purpose or common function. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 42.)
`
`This construction is consistent with the disclosure of the 575 Patent.
`
`Specifically, the 575 Patent teaches a catadioptric projection optical system that is
`
`divided into four numbered units. As described above, the numbered units
`
`described in the 575 Patent clearly correspond to groups of optical elements that
`
`cooperate together to perform a specific purpose or common function. Further,
`
`consistent with the common practice in the art, each numbered unit would have
`
`been readily understood by a POSITA to be a group of optical elements that
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`
`cooperate together to perform a specific purpose or common function that are
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`described above. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 43.)
`
`Accordingly, the recited numbered units would have had a specific meaning
`
`to a POSITA. That meaning would require the optical elements of a numbered unit
`
`to perform a common function, and thus would have been narrower than an
`
`arbitrary collection of optical elements or a single, distinct part of catadioptric
`
`projection system. An arbitrary selection of lenses to define units was not a
`
`practice in the art of projection lens design. From both the language of the claims
`
`and the corresponding disclosure in the 575 Patent it is clear that a POSITA would
`
`interpret the numbered units recited in independent claim 55 as optical elements
`
`that are grouped according to a specific purpose or common function. (Ex. 2002 ¶
`
`44.)
`
`C. Both Zeiss and the Board Improperly Parse the Claim Recitation,
`and Thus Only Construe the Term “Unit”
`
`Zeiss’ construction improperly parses the recited claim limitation, and
`
`merely construes the word “unit” in isolation, instead of construing the entire
`
`numbered unit term (i.e., first unit, second unit, third unit, and fourth unit) as
`
`recited by the claims. Zeiss defines unit as a “single, distinct part or object.” (Pet.
`
`13:12-14.) Zeiss’ construction is improper as overly broad because the
`
`surrounding language of claim 55 clearly requires that the recited numbered units
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`
`include optical elements. Further, it would be understood by a POSITA in the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`context of the entire disclosure of the 575 Patent that the optical elements are
`
`grouped into numbered units according to the common functions that they
`
`cooperate to perform. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 46.)
`
`Nikon respectfully submits that the Board, misled by Zeiss’ parsing of the
`
`recited numbered units, construes the word “unit” even more broadly than Zeiss,
`
`stating the term “unit” should “encompass not only ‘a single, distinct part or
`
`object,’ but also ‘a determinate quantity adopted as a standard of measurement for
`
`other quantities of the same kind.’” (Decision to Institute “Dec.”, Paper 7, 9-10.)
`
`In support of this interpretation, the Board cites examples where the 575 Patent
`
`uses the term “unit,” including “lens unit,” “unit area,” “unit pulse,” “unit
`
`magnification,” and “unit time,” and states that the interpretation of the term “unit”
`
`in claim 55 must encompass all of these uses. (Dec. 9-10.) For the same reasons
`
`Nikon disagrees with Zeiss’ construction, Nikon also respectfully disagrees with
`
`the Board’s construction as being a generic and overly broad construction of the
`
`recited numbered units which is both inconsistent with the plain language of
`
`independent claim 55, as well as the disclosure in the 575 Patent. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 47.)
`
`In the context of the 575 Patent, a numbered unit is a group of optical
`
`elements that operate together to perform a common function. As opposed to an
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`
`arbitrary group of lenses, a POSITA would understand from the disclosure of the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`575 Patent that the term unit has a more particular meaning. As such, Nikon
`
`disagrees with Zeiss’ construction of the term “boundary lens,” as Zeiss’ definition
`
`is overly broad. Likewise, Nikon respectfully disagrees with the Board’s even
`
`broader construction of the term “unit,” primarily based on extrinsic evidence – a
`
`dictionary definition – that is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence, including the
`
`plain language of claim 55. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 48.)
`
`D. The Intrinsic Evidence
`In construing claims of an unexpired patent, the Board must give primacy to
`
`the language of the claims, followed by the specification. See Tempo Lighting, Inc.
`
`v. Tivoli, LLC, 109 USPQ2d 1599, 1602 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In this case, both the
`
`language of the claims and the corresponding disclosure in the specification
`
`provide guidance that the first through fourth “units” recited in claim 55 should be
`
`interpreted as a group of optical elements that cooperate together to perform a
`
`specific purpose or common function.
`
`1. The Language of Claim 55
`
`The first step involved in proper claim construction is to look at the language
`
`of the claims and understand how a particular term is used within the context of the
`
`surrounding language. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[p]roper claim
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`
`construction … demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`element in isolation.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d
`
`1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International
`
`Trade Commission, 545 F.3d 1340, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“this court does not
`
`interpret claim terms in a vacuum, devoid of the context of the claim as a whole.”);
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“the
`
`context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive”);
`
`ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“While
`
`certain terms may be at the center of the claim construction debate, the context of
`
`the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of those terms.”).
`
`Claim 55 recites a catadioptric projection optical system that includes “a first
`
`unit,” “a second unit,” “a third unit,” and “a fourth unit.” The surrounding words
`
`in claim 55 reveal that each of these numbered units relates to optical elements,
`
`such as lenses and/or mirrors. For example, claim 55 recites the “second unit”
`
`comprises “at least four mirrors,” the “third unit” includes “at least two negative
`
`lenses,” and the “fourth unit” comprises “at least three positive lenses.” Thus, any
`
`interpretation of the first through fourth “units” as recited in claim 55 that is not
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`
`limited to units of optical elements would be inconsistent with the language of
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`claim 55. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 49.)
`
`Zeiss interprets the term “unit” as a “single, distinct part or object.” (Pet.
`
`13:12-14.) However, this interpretation is overly broad because the surrounding
`
`language of claim 55 contextually defines the recited “units” as limited to optical
`
`elements. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 50.)
`
`Nikon respectfully submits that the Board construes the term “unit” even
`
`more broadly than Zeiss, stating the term “unit” should “encompass not only ‘a
`
`single, distinct part or object,’ but also ‘a determinate quantity adopted as a
`
`standard of measurement for other quantities of the same kind.’” (Dec. 9-10.) In
`
`support of this interpretation, the Board cites examples where the 575 Patent uses
`
`the term “unit,” including “lens unit,” “unit area,” “unit pulse,” “unit
`
`magnification,” and “unit time,” and states that the interpretation of the term “unit”
`
`in claim 55 must encompass all of these uses. (Dec. 9-10.) This interpretation
`
`conflicts with the plain language of claim 55, which limits the recited “units” to
`
`units of optical elements. Nikon respectfully submits that no reasonable
`
`interpretation of claim 55 would support a reading of the claimed first through
`
`fourth units as encompassing “unit area,” “unit pulse,” “unit magnification,” or
`
`“unit time.” (Ex. 2002 ¶ 51.)
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`Accordingly, interpretations of the term “unit” proffered by Zeiss and the
`
`Board are inconsistent with the plain language of claim 55. Any reasonable
`
`interpretation of the first through fourth “units” recited in claim 55 must be limited
`
`to units of optical elements. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 52.)
`
`2. The Disclosure of the 575 Patent
`
`“The broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term ‘comprising’ does
`
`not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything
`
`remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be read in
`
`light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.” In re Suitco
`
`Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing) Schriber-Schroth Co.
`
`v. Cleveland Trust Co., 311 U.S. 211, 217 (1940) (“The claims of a patent are
`
`always to be read or interpreted in light of its specifications.”). In this case, the
`
`specification provides guidance as to a proper construction of the first through
`
`fourth “units” recited in independent claim 55.
`
`The 575 Patent uses the terms “a first unit,” “a second unit,” “a third unit,”
`
`or “a fourth unit,” in several places throughout the specification. (Ex. 1101, 11:58-
`
`13:22; 29:27-30:60; and 31:49-33:18.) In each instance, the 575 Patent
`
`consistently uses the term “units” to refer to optical elements, such as lenses or
`
`mirrors. For example, when describing the embodiment shown in Figure 9, the
`
` 
`
`15
`
`

`
`575 Patent discloses that the “first unit” corresponds to the lens unit G11; the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`negative meniscus lens L5, concave reflecting mirror M1, convex reflecting mirror
`
`M2, concave reflecting mirror M3, and convex reflecting mirror M4 constituting “a
`
`second unit”; the lens unit G21 corresponding to a “third unit”; and the lens unit
`
`G22, aperture stop AS1, and lens unit G23 constituting a “fourth unit.” (Ex. 1101,
`
`29:27-30:60; Ex. 2002 ¶ 53.)
`
`Of particular note, the 575 Patent distinguishes between a “lens unit” and the
`
`“first unit”, “second unit”, “third unit”, and “fourth unit” in the description of the
`
`embodiments shown in Figures 9 and 10. For example, the 575 Patent discloses
`
`that lens units G22 and G23 are part of the fourth unit, stating “[t]he lens unit G22,
`
`aperture stop AS1, and lens unit G23 constitute a fourth unit.” (Ex. 1101, 30:58-
`
`60.) Likewise, the 575 Patent refers to lens unit G11 as the “fourth lens unit or
`
`first unit,” and refers to the lens unit G11 as “first lens unit or third unit.” (Ex.
`
`1101, 29:39-42; 29:43-49; Ex. 2002 ¶ 54.)
`
`The 575 Patent does not arbitrarily group optical elements into first through
`
`fourth “units.” Instead, the 575 Patent discloses that the optical elements in each
`
`numbered unit are a group optical elements that cooperate together to perform a
`
`specific purpose or common function. As described above, each of the four
`
`numbered units primarily performs a function. For example, the optical elements
`
` 
`
`16
`
`

`
`of the “first unit” function to make the optical system telecentric, the optical
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`elements of the “second unit” function to form an intermediate image, the optical
`
`elements of the “third unit” provide a negative refracting power which performs an
`
`adjustment of magnification and satisfies Petzval’s condition, and the optical
`
`elements of the “fourth unit” converge and condense the beam so as to achieve a
`
`large numerical aperture on the wafer side. (Ex. 1101, 12:7-18, 31-36, 47-51;
`
`29:39-43; 29:53-55; 31:36-40; and 33:61-65.) (Ex. 2002 ¶ 55.)
`
`Zeiss also fails to acknowledge that the terms “a first unit,” “a second unit,”
`
`“a third unit,” or “a fourth unit” are used in several places in the specification of
`
`the 575 Patent. In construing the term “unit,” to mean a “single, distinct part or
`
`object,” Zeiss notes that “the Omura Patent identifies single, distinct parts of
`
`catadioptric projection objectives consisting of one or more consecutive lenses
`
`and/or mirrors as corresponding to a unit. For example, the Omura Patent
`
`identifies distinct parts of catadioptric projection optical systems composed on one
`
`or more lenses as lens ‘units.’” (Pet. 13:16-14:2.) Zeiss’ analysis is problematic in
`
`at least three respects: (1) although Zeiss acknowledges that the “units” in claim 55
`
`correspond to units “consisting of one or more consecutive lenses and/or mirrors,”
`
`Zeiss’ construction of the first through fourth “units” in claim 55 is not limited to
`
`optical elements, (2) Zeiss fails to acknowledge how the 575 Patent defines the
`
` 
`
`17
`
`

`
`metes and bounds of the first through fourth units, and (3) Zeiss implies that the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
` 
`
`575 Patent uses the terms first through fourth units interchangeably with “lens
`
`units,” whereas the 575 Patent distinguishes between the first through fourth units
`
`and lens units. (Ex. 2002 ¶ 56.)
`
`In contrast, it is apparent from the disclosure of the 575 Patent that the first
`
`through fourth units are not merely arbitrarily selected optical elements. Rather,
`
`the numbered units are groupings of optical elements that perform a specific
`
`purpose or common function. Thus, consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of each of the first through fourth “units” recited
`
`in claim 55, these terms should be construed as a group of optical elements that
`
`cooperate together to perform a specific purpose or common function. (Ex. 2002 ¶
`
`57.)
`
`E. The Extrinsic Evidence
`Both the Board and Zeiss rely on dictionary defini