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
`
`__________
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF DR. JOSE SASIAN
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 1
`
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________
`
`CARL ZEISS SMT GMBH
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NIKON CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`__________
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`__________
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF DR. JOSE SASIAN
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 1
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`1. My name is Jose Sasian. I have been retained by counsel for patent
`
`owner Nikon Corporation (“Nikon”) in the above captioned matter. I have been
`
`asked to consider and analyze the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,348,575 (“the 575
`
`Patent”). I have been specifically asked to consider whether certain prior art
`
`anticipates and/or renders obvious the invention claimed in claims 55-67 of the 575
`
`patent (“the challenged claims”).
`
`2.
`
`All statements made herein are, to the best of my knowledge, true.
`
`The opinions herein are my own.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at a rate of $400 per hour, and my opinions
`
`set forth herein are not contingent upon or influenced by my compensation. I do
`
`not generate income from the sale of lithography products such as catadioptric
`
`projection lenses.
`
`4.
`
`I understand that petitioner Carl Zeiss (“Zeiss”) submitted the
`
`declaration of Mr. Richard C. Juergens in support of their allegations that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious over certain prior
`
`art references submitted with the petition.
`
`5.
`
`In addition to the opinions set forth herein, I reserve the right to
`
`amend and/or supplement my opinions in response to any additional filings made
`
`
`
`2
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 2
`
`
`
`by Zeiss and/or Mr. Juergens, or in response to any other submissions made in this
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. Expertise and Qualifications
`
`6. My qualifications as an expert are included in my curriculum vitae,
`
`which is Nikon’s Exhibit 2005.
`
`7.
`
`I am currently a full-time, tenured Professor of Optical Sciences at the
`
`College of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, a
`
`position I have held since 2002. As a professor, I teach and conduct research in the
`
`field of optical design. For example, I teach my students how to design lenses and
`
`mirrors and how to think about light so that they can design useful optical systems.
`
`As part of my academic and research responsibilities, I am frequently involved
`
`with the design, fabrication, and testing of optical devices.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to receiving tenure, I was an Associate Professor of Optical
`
`Sciences at the University of Arizona from 1995 to 2001. Prior to joining the
`
`University of Arizona faculty, I was a member of the technical staff with AT&T
`
`Bell Laboratories from 1990 to 1995. From 1984 to 1987, I was a Research
`
`Assistant, and from 1988 to 1990, I was a Research Associate, in the Optical
`
`Sciences Center at the University of Arizona. From 1976 to 1984, I was an
`
`optician at the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Mexico.
`
`
`
`3
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 3
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the
`
`9.
`
`University of Mexico in 1982, a Master of Science degree in Optical Sciences from
`
`the University of Arizona in 1987, and a Ph.D. degree in Optical Sciences from the
`
`University of Arizona in 1988. My research areas include optical design;
`
`fabrication and testing of optical instruments; astronomical optics; diffractive
`
`optics; opto-mechanical design; light in gemstones; lithography optics; and light
`
`propagation.
`
`10. At the University of Arizona, I have taught the courses Lens Design
`
`OPTI 517 (1997-present), Advanced Lens Design OPTI 595A (2008, 2012),
`
`Illumination Optics Seminar (1997-2000), Introduction to Aberrations OPTI518
`
`(2005-present), and Optical Shop Practices OPTI 597A (1996-present). I have
`
`directed several theses and dissertations in the areas of lens design. I have lectured
`
`regarding my work, and have published, along with students and colleagues, over
`
`one hundred scientific papers in the area of optics. These include technical papers,
`
`patents, thesis research done under my direction, related to optical design for
`
`optical lithography. For example,
`
`a. Lenny Laughlin, “Optical Source Modeling,” M. Sc. Report,
`
`2003.
`
`
`
`4
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 4
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`b. Tony Lin, M. Sc. “Lens Design Guidelines for Coherence
`
`Studies in the Optical Design of a Lithographic System,” M. Sc.
`
`Thesis, 2001.
`
`c. Tamer T. Elazhary, Masatsugu Nakano, and José Sasián,
`
`“Hyper numerical aperture imaging lens using a thin multi
`
`reflection Catadioptric optical element,” Optics Express, Vol.
`
`21, Issue 13, pp. 15809-15814 (2013).
`
`d. Sasian J. M., Lerner S. A., Lin, T. Y., and Laughlin, L., “Ray
`
`and Van Citter-Zernike characterization of Spatial Coherence,”
`
`Appl. Opt. 40(7), 1037-1043, March 2001.
`
`e. Liang, C., Descour, M., Sasian, J., and Lerner, S., “Multilayer-
`
`coating-induced aberrations in extreme-ultraviolet lithography
`
`optics,” Appl. Opt. 40(1), 129-135, January 2001.
`
`f. J. M. Sasian, “Passive pupil correction as applied to annular
`
`field systems,” Opt. Eng. 38 (4) 646-649, 1999.
`
`g. J. M. Sasian, “Annular surfaces in annular field systems,”
`
`Optical Engineering, 36(12), 3401-3403, 1997.
`
`h. U.S. Patent No. 7,405,871, “Efficient EUV collector designs,”
`
`2009.
`
`
`
`5
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 5
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`i. U.S Patent No. 6,307,913, “Shaped source of soft x-ray,
`
`extreme ultraviolet and ultraviolet radiation,” 2001.
`
`j. U.S. Patent Application No. 20130329283, “Catadioptric
`
`optical system with total internal reflection for high numerical
`
`aperture imaging,” 2013.
`
`11. At the University of Arizona, I directed an effort for the
`
`Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC), 1998-2001, related to illumination
`
`optics and projection cameras for lithography. I have served as a consultant for
`
`Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, Sandia National Laboratories and JMAR about
`
`illumination optics and projection cameras for lithography. Recently, I have
`
`conducted a three-year project for Canon involving immersion optics, and a project
`
`for Samsung involving projection optics for lithography.
`
`12. Since 1995, I have been a consultant and have provided to industry
`
`solutions for a variety of projects in lens design. I hold patents and patent
`
`applications related to lithography optics.
`
`13.
`
`I have been a topical editor and reviewer for the peer-reviewed journal
`
`Applied Optics. I am a fellow of the International Society for Optics and
`
`Photonics (SPIE), a fellow of the Optical Society of America (OSA), and a lifetime
`
`member of the Optical Society of India.
`
`
`
`6
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 6
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`I have served as a co-chair for the conferences “Novel Optical
`
`14.
`
`Systems: Design and Optimization” (1997-2006), “Optical Systems Alignment,
`
`Tolerancing, and Verification” (2007-2012), and “International Optical Design
`
`Conference,” (2002). I am the author of the book, “Introduction to Aberrations in
`
`Optical Imaging Systems,” by Cambridge University Press, 2013.
`
`III. Materials Considerered
`
`15.
`
`In forming my opinions in this matter, I considered Zeiss’ Petition for
`
`Inter Partes Review of the challenged claims, dated June 17, 2013, along with
`
`Zeiss Exhibits 1101 through 1131. I also considered the Board’s Decision to
`
`Institute Trial (Paper 7) and Nikon’s Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition,
`
`along with Nikon Exhibits 2001, 2003, and 2004.
`
`IV. Applicable Legal Standards
`
`16.
`
`I am not an attorney. Nikon’s counsel has informed me about the
`
`legal standards of patent validity. I also understand from Nikon’s counsel that
`
`Zeiss, as the Petitioner, bears the burden of proving unpatentability by a
`
`preponderance of evidence.
`
`
`
`A. Anticipation
`
`17.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that invalidity by anticipation
`
`requires that the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element
`
`
`
`7
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 7
`
`
`
`of the claimed invention, either expressly, implicitly, or inherently, such that a
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue
`
`experimentation.
`
`18.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that if the prior art reference does
`
`not expressly set forth a particular element of the claim, that reference still may
`
`anticipate if that element is “inherent” in its disclosure. An element is inherent in a
`
`disclosure if a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the filing of the
`
`patent at issue, would have found that the disclosure makes clear that the missing
`
`descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the disclosure.
`
`Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The
`
`mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
`
`sufficient.
`
`19.
`
`In addition to disclosing every element of the challenged claim, I
`
`understand from Nikon’s counsel that a prior art reference must enable a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to make the anticipating subject matter without undue
`
`experimentation. I further understand from Nikon’s counsel that undue
`
`experimentation is a conclusion reached by weighing factual considerations, such
`
`as, the quantity of experimentation necessary and the amount of direction of
`
`guidance presented.
`
`
`
`8
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 8
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`B. Obviousness
`
`20.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that a patent is obvious if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Nikon’s counsel has also
`
`informed me that obviousness is based on underlying questions of fact.
`
`21.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that the underlying factual
`
`inquiries in an obviousness analysis include: (1) determining the scope and content
`
`of the prior art; (2) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the prior art; (3)
`
`ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
`
`(4) considering objective evidence of nonobviousness.
`
`22.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that a patent claim composed of
`
`several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its
`
`elements was, independently, known in the prior art. I also understand from
`
`Nikon’s counsel that the Petitioner, Zeiss, has the burden to show that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant field had a reason to combine the elements in the
`
`manner claimed when asserting obviousness in view of a combination of
`
`references. Nikon’s counsel has further informed me that I should value “common
`
`sense” over “rigid preventative rules” in determining whether a motivation to
`
`
`
`9
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 9
`
`
`
`combine exists. I understand that any need or problem known in the field of
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason
`
`for combining the elements in the manner claimed. However, I also understand
`
`that if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to attempt to
`
`make the composition or device, or carry out the claimed process, the Petitioner,
`
`Zeiss, must also demonstrate that such a person would have had a reasonable
`
`expectation of success in doing so.
`
`23.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that the express, implicit, and
`
`inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of
`
`claims for anticipation and obviousness.
`
`24.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that hindsight may not be used to
`
`determine obviousness; in other words, it is wrong to use the patent as a guide
`
`through the prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so
`
`as to achieve the result of the claims of the challenged patent.
`
`25.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that conclusory statements are
`
`insufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Instead, I have been
`
`informed that Zeiss must articulate a basis on which it concludes that it would have
`
`been obvious to make the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`10
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 10
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`In forming my opinions on non-obviousness, I have considered
`
`26.
`
`interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the
`
`design community or present in the market place, and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art in order to determine whether
`
`there was an apparent reason to combine known elements in the fashion claimed by
`
`a patent. To facilitate this review, I understand from Nikon’s counsel that Zeiss
`
`must provide explicit analysis in support of their obviousness based invalidity
`
`allegations. In particular, I have been informed from Nikon’s counsel that Zeiss
`
`must provide some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
`
`support its legal conclusion of obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I have also been informed by Nikon’s counsel that a teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine prior art references can provide useful insight
`
`into whether patent claims are obvious. However, I understand that this
`
`obviousness analysis is not confined by a formalistic conception of the words
`
`teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of
`
`published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. Although the
`
`obviousness analysis is not confined by a formalistic conception of the words
`
`teaching, suggestion, and motivation, I understand that it does require identifying a
`
`
`
`11
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 11
`
`
`
`reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand from Nikon’s counsel that a reference may be
`
`said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
`
`would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be
`
`led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. I also
`
`understand that a reference may teach away from a use when that use would render
`
`the result inoperable.
`
`29.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that there is no suggestion or
`
`motivation to make a modification to a prior art reference if the proposed
`
`modification would render the prior art invention unsatisfactory for its intended
`
`purpose. I also understand that an obviousness allegation cannot be supported by a
`
`combination of references that would require a substantial reconstruction and
`
`redesign of the elements shown in the primary reference as well as a change in the
`
`basic principle under which the primary reference was designed to operate.
`
`V. Customary Usage of the Term “Units” in Optical Design
`
`30. At the time of the invention of claim 55, typical designs of complex
`
`optical systems often included numerous optical elements. This is especially true
`
`in the design of projection optical systems for lithography. A customary practice
`
`
`
`12
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 12
`
`
`
`of optical designers now, as well as at the time of the invention of the 575 Patent,
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`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 usually being preceded by a modifier
`
`that is descriptive of the function performed by that unit. Common examples
`
`include “relay” unit, “magnification” unit, and “zoom” unit.
`
`31. Based on my experience, certain systems, however, are not conducive
`
`to grouping optical units by specific purpose or common function. For example,
`
`many optical designs purposefully distribute multiple optical functions across large
`
`portions of an optical system, either purposefully or as a result of poor design. In
`
`such cases no groups or units of optical elements can be identified that cooperate
`
`together to perform a specific purpose or common function.
`
`32.
`
`It is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, when
`
`presented with an optical system including units, can determine whether or not a
`
`grouping of optical elements into units is possible. Such a determination merely
`
`requires studying the purpose or function of these elements within the optical
`
`design. Specifically, when presented with projection optical systems, common
`
`optical functions can be divided into two classes: imaging and optical aberration
`
`control. Typical examples of imaging functions include: (a) forming an image, (b)
`
`
`
`13
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 13
`
`
`
`relying an image, (c) forming a pupil, (d) relying a pupil, (e) providing
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`telecentricity, and (f) providing specific system size. Typical examples of optical
`
`aberration control functions include correcting for specific aberrations such as:
`
`(i) spherical aberration, (ii) coma, (iii) astigmatism, (iv) Petzval field curvature, (v)
`
`distortion, and (vi) chromatic aberrations.
`
`33. Based on my review of the record here, 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 common practice in the art of projection
`
`optical systems. In fact, during his deposition, Mr. Juergens confirmed, within the
`
`field of optics, that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
`
`would have readily understood that “units” in an optical system are defined by the
`
`function the optical elements in the unit perform. (Ex. 2004 26:8-14.)
`
`34.
`
` Consistent with the above-described customary practice of optical
`
`designers, the 575 Patent uses the term “unit.” Specifically, the 575 Patent 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. As I
`
`explained above, a person of ordinary skill in the art, when presented with this
`
`optical system, could have determined whether or not a grouping of the 575
`
`
`
`14
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 14
`
`
`
`patent’s optical elements into units was possible by simply studying the purpose or
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`function of the optical elements within the design. In doing so, from the disclosure
`
`and the claims of the 575 Patent, it would have been readily apparent to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that a numbered unit meant something more than simply an
`
`arbitrary grouping of optical elements. In my opinion, it would have been clear to
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art that the recited numbered units meant a group of
`
`optical elements that cooperate together to perform a specific purpose or common
`
`function.
`
`VI. Summary of the 575 Patent
`
`35.
`
` In my opinion, 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.
`
`36. Based on my review of the disclosure, 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, and is capable of securing a large effective
`
`image-side numerical aperture while well suppressing the reflection loss on optical
`
`
`
`15
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 15
`
`
`
`surfaces. (Ex. 1101 2:1-9.) In my opinion, an indispensable feature in the 575
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`Patent is the manufacturability of the embodiments to suit exposure tools.
`
`37. 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 first unit, second unit, third unit, and fourth unit. As described above,
`
`the 575 Patent divides the projection optical system in a manner that is consistent
`
`with my understanding of 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 one of ordinary skill in the art 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 16
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`38. For example, Figure 9 the 575 Patent (reproduced above) teaches an
`
`optical design of a catadioptric projection optical system PL1 that includes a first
`
`optical system G1 and a second optical system G2. The first 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.)
`
`39. The 575 Patent 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.
`
`NUMBERED UNIT
`First Unit
`(G11)
`Second Unit
`
`Third Unit
`(G21)
`
`Fourth Unit
`(G22 and G23)
`
`
`
`
`
`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, 12:31-36.)
`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.)
`
`17
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 17
`
`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`40. 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 where the object-side and image-side numerical apertures of the catadioptric
`
`projection optical system are increased in order to enhance the resolution. (See,
`
`Ex. 1101, 31:36-48.)
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`41.
`
`I understand from Nikon’s counsel that in an inter partes review,
`
`claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear, as those terms
`
`would be interpreted by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Numbered Units – First Unit, Second Unit, Third Unit, and Fourth Unit
`
`42. 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 575 Patent’s specification and the context of the term
`
`within the claims, it is my opinion that 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.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, the above construction is consistent with the disclosure
`
`of the 575 Patent. Specifically, the 575 Patent teaches a catadioptric projection
`
`
`
`18
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 18
`
`
`
`optical system that is divided into four numbered units. As described above, the
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`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, as was consistent with the common practice in the art, each
`
`numbered unit would have been readily understood by a one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to be a group of optical elements that cooperate together to perform a specific
`
`purpose or common function as described in the chart above.
`
`44. Accordingly, the recited numbered units would have had a specific
`
`meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 a catadioptric projection system. In my opinion, using 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 one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the numbered
`
`units recited in independent claim 55 as optical elements that are grouped
`
`according to a specific purpose or common function.
`
`45.
`
`It is my opinion that the claim construction of “a first unit,” “a second
`
`unit,” “a third unit,” and “a fourth unit” as “a group of optical elements (lenses or
`
`
`
`19
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 19
`
`
`
`mirrors) that cooperate together to perform a specific purpose or common
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`function” is consistent with both the common practice in the art as described above
`
`and with the disclosure of the 575 Patent.
`
`Both Zeiss and the Board Improperly Parse the Claim Recitation, and
`Thus Only Construe the Term “Unit”
`
`46. From my study of claim 55, I believe that 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.) I believe that such
`
`construction is improper as overly broad because the surrounding language of
`
`claim 55 clearly requires that the recited numbered units include optical elements.
`
`Further, it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the 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.
`
`47.
`
`I also believe that the Board would realize that its construction for the
`
`word “unit” is very broad. For example, the Board states that 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
`
`
`
`20
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 20
`
`
`
`broader interpretation, the Board cited examples where the 575 Patent uses the
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`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 that I
`
`disagree with Zeiss’ construction, I also respectfully disagree with the Board’s
`
`construction as being a generic and overly broad construction of the recited
`
`numbered units that is both inconsistent with the plain language of independent
`
`claim 55, as well as the disclosure in the 575 Patent.
`
`48.
`
`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
`
`arbitrary group of lenses, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
`
`from the disclosure of the 575 Patent that the term “unit” has a more particular
`
`meaning. As such, I disagree with Zeiss’ construction of the term “boundary lens”
`
`as overly broad. Likewise, I respectfully disagree with the Board’s even broader
`
`construction of the term “unit,” primarily based on a dictionary definition that is
`
`inconsistent with the plain language of claim 55.
`
`The Intrinsic Evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Language of Claim 55
`
`49. 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
`21
`
`
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 21
`
`
`
`words in claim 55 reveal that each of these numbered units relates to optical
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`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 limited to units of optical elements would be inconsistent with the
`
`language of claim 55.
`
`50. 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.
`
`51.
`
`I believe 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
`
`
`
`22
`
`CARL ZEISS V. NIKON
`IPR2013-00363
`Substitute Ex. 2002, p. 22
`
`
`
`plain language of claim 55, which limits the recited “units” to units of optical
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasian
`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575
`
`
`elements. I respectfully submit that no reasonable interpretation
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
