Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`Paper 34
`Entered: November 4, 2014
`
`
`
`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 B2
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH (“Carl Zeiss”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`
`partes review of claims 55–67 of U.S. Patent No. 7,348,575 B2 (Ex. 1101,
`
`“the ’575 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). The Patent Owner, Nikon Corporation
`
`(“Nikon”), did not file a Preliminary Response. On December 16, 2013, we
`
`granted an inter partes review for all challenged claims on certain grounds
`
`of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
`
`After institution of trial, Nikon filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
`
`21, “PO Resp.”) to which Carl Zeiss filed a Reply (Paper 26, “Reply”).
`
`Oral hearing was held on July 17, 2014.1
`
`The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
`
`Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`
`Carl Zeiss has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
`
`55–67 of the ’575 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. The ’575 Patent
`
`The subject matter of the ’575 patent “relates to a catadioptric
`
`projection optical system, exposure apparatus, and exposure method and,
`
`more particularly, to a high-resolution catadioptric projection optical system
`
`suitable for . . . [use] in production of semiconductor devices [and] liquid-
`
`crystal display devices . . . by photolithography.” Ex. 1101, 1:18–23. In the
`
`production of semiconductor devices, photolithography uses a projection
`
`exposure apparatus to project an “image of a mask (or a reticle) through a
`
`projection optical system onto a wafer (or a glass plate or the like) coated
`
`
`
`1 A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 33
`(“Tr.”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`with a photoresist or the like.” Id. at 1:27–32. As the dimensions of
`
`semiconductor devices shrink, the projection optical system of the projection
`
`exposure apparatus requires greater resolving power (resolution). Id. at
`
`1:32–36. In order to satisfy the requirements for the resolving power of the
`
`projection optical system, it is necessary to shorten the wavelength of
`
`illumination light (exposure light) and to increase the image-side numerical
`
`aperture of the projection optical system. Id. at 1:37–41. It was known to
`
`increase the numerical aperture by putting a medium with a high refractive
`
`index, like a liquid, in the optical path between the projection optical system
`
`and the image plane. Id. at 1:55–58. However, there were known
`
`disadvantages to this approach. Id. at 1:59–67.
`
`The ’575 patent discloses systems and methods to provide a relatively
`
`compact projection optical system that is “corrected for various aberrations,
`
`such as chromatic aberration and curvature of field, and being capable of
`
`securing a large effective image-side numerical aperture while well
`
`suppressing the reflection loss on optical surfaces.” Id. at 2:3–9. An object
`
`of the embodiment is to achieve a large numerical aperture, without increase
`
`in the scale of optical members forming a catadioptric projection optical
`
`system. Id. at 2:30–32. In order to achieve that object, a projection optical
`
`system according to a third embodiment is a catadioptric projection optical
`
`system for forming an image of a first surface on a second surface, the
`
`projection optical system comprising four units. Id. at 3:8–27; see also id. at
`
`11:48–13:22. Figure 9 of the ’575 patent is reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 9 of the ’575 patent depicts an embodiment of the catadioptric
`
`projection optical system with four lens units. Id. at 4:31–33, 3:8–27. The
`
`lens unit G11 constitutes the first unit. Id. at 29:39–41. Negative meniscus
`
`lens L5, concave reflecting mirror M1, convex reflecting mirror M2,
`
`concave reflecting mirror M3, and convex reflecting mirror M4 constitute a
`
`second unit. Id. at 30:28–31. Lens unit G21 constitutes the third unit. Id. at
`
`29:45–46. Lens unit G22, aperture stop AS1, and lens unit G23 constitute a
`
`fourth unit. Id. at 30:59–60.
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`
`Claim 55 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
`
`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.
`
`C. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Challenges
`
`
`
`Carl Zeiss relies on the following prior art references, as well as the
`
`Declaration of Richard C. Juergens (Ex. 1116):
`
`Mann
`
`Asai
`
`US 2005/0036213 A1
`
`Feb. 17, 2005 Ex. 1110
`
`Dec. 1993
`
`Ex. 1115
`
`Satoru Asai et al., Resolution
`Limit for Optical Lithography
`Using Polarized Light
`Illumination, 32 JAPAN J.
`APPL. PHYS. 5863-5866 (1993)
`
`D. The Instituted Challenges of Unpatentability
`
`We instituted trial based upon the following grounds:
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Mann
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`Claim[s] challenged
`
`55–63 and 65–67
`
`Mann and Asai
`
`§ 103
`
`64
`
`E. Effective Filing Date
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that the earliest possible filing date to which
`
`claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent can claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 is
`
`October 9, 2003. Pet. 17–19. The ’575 patent claims priority to three
`
`earlier-filed Japanese applications. Ex. 1101. Independent claim 55 recites
`
`“a second unit . . . comprising at least four mirrors.” Carl Zeiss contends
`
`that the earliest-filed Japanese application, JP 2003-128154, does not
`
`disclose any embodiments of a catadioptric projection optical system having
`
`“at least four mirrors,” as required by claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent. Pet.
`
`18–19, citing Ex. 1107 (Translation of JP 2003-128154); Ex. 1116 ¶ 81.
`
`Patent Owner does not dispute this contention. Based on our review of
`
`Exhibit 1107, we agree with Carl Zeiss that claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent
`
`should not be accorded § 119 benefit of the JP 2003-128154 application. In
`
`contrast, the second-filed Japanese application, JP 2003-350647, discloses “a
`
`second unit . . . comprising at least four mirrors.” See, e.g., Ex. 1108
`
`(Translation of JP 2003-350647), claim 8, ¶¶ 22, 24, 26, 27. On this record,
`
`we determine that the earliest effective filing date to which claims 55–67 of
`
`the ’575 patent are entitled is October 9, 2003, the filing date of JP 2003-
`
`350647. Thus, based on the record before us, all of the patents and
`
`publications that Petitioner relies upon are prior art.
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`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);
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`
`2012). 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).
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that the words in the challenged claims generally
`
`should have their plain meaning. Pet. 13. However, Carl Zeiss provides its
`
`own interpretations of four terms—“unit,” “the fourth reflecting mirror of a
`
`double pass fens,” “the third reflecting mirror,” and “wherein an optical axis
`
`of every optical element with a predetermined refractive power in the
`
`catadioptric projection optical system is arranged substantially on a single
`
`straight line, and wherein a region of an image formed on the second surface
`
`by the catadioptric projection optical system is an off-axis region not
`
`including the optical axis.” Pet. 13–15. For this decision, we construe each
`
`of these claim terms in turn.
`
`1. “unit”(claims 55–57, 60)
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that the term “unit” should be interpreted to mean
`
`“a single, distinct part or object.” Pet. 13, citing Ex. 1121 (NEW WORLD
`
`DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE). The ’575 patent does not
`
`define the term “unit.” Although the ’575 patent uses “unit” primarily in the
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`context of a “lens unit,” it also refers to “unit area” (8:21–22), “unit pulse”
`
`(8:22), “unit magnification” (17:44), and “unit time” (19:52, 55, 60, and 62–
`
`63). Accordingly, in our Decision to Institute, we construed “unit” to
`
`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. to Inst. 10. See also, e.g., WEBSTER’S
`
`THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (1993) (“unit. c: a determinate
`
`quantity (as of length, time, heat, value, or housing) adopted as a standard of
`
`measurement for other quantities of the same kind”).
`
`According to Nikon, both Carl Zeiss’s proposed construction and the
`
`Board’s preliminary construction are overly broad because they do not limit
`
`“units” to optical elements. PO Resp. 14–15, 16–17. Nikon contends that
`
`“unit” should be construed as “a group of optical elements that cooperate
`
`together to perform a specific purpose or common function.” PO Resp. 1–4,
`
`9–22. Nikon argues that “units” are limited to units of optical elements
`
`because the language of claim 55 expressly recites how each “unit”
`
`comprises optical elements, such as lenses and/or mirrors, and because the
`
`Specification (1) uses the term “units” to refer to optical elements, such as
`
`lenses or mirrors; (2) distinguishes a “unit” from a “lens unit” by describing
`
`a “unit” consisting of two lens units; and (3) describes each of the four
`
`“units” of the embodiments shown in Figures 9 and 10 as performing a
`
`function. PO Resp. 12–17. Nikon also argues that the dictionary definition
`
`cited by Carl Zeiss supports its contentions that units are “used for a specific
`
`purpose.” PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1121) (emphasis omitted).
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Carl Zeiss counters that the ’575 patent does not limit a “unit” to
`
`optical elements because (1) the claim language itself prefaces the
`
`description of each claimed “unit” with the open-ended term “comprising”
`
`(Reply 4–5); and (2) the Specification uses the term “units” interchangeably
`
`with “lens units” by identifying element groups G11 and G21 as both “lens
`
`units” and as numbered “units” (id. at 6–7).
`
`We are not persuaded by Nikon’s argument that “unit” is limited to
`
`optical elements. As Carl Zeiss points out, the use of “comprising” in the
`
`description of each numbered “unit” recited in claim 55 indicates that the
`
`“unit” has at least the optical elements recited (none in the case of the “first
`
`unit”), but does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See, e.g., Mars
`
`Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover,
`
`nothing in the Specification defines “unit” as excluding elements other than
`
`lenses and mirrors, and Nikon’s expert, Dr. Jose Sasian, conceded that
`
`optical elements could include things other than lenses and mirrors, such as
`
`aperture stops, filters, polarizers, windows, and prisms. Ex. 1136, 19:19–
`
`20:15, 23:3–11. Similarly, nothing in the Specification defines “unit” as
`
`performing a specific purpose or a common function. We recognize that the
`
`Specification describes the numbered units of the embodiments illustrated in
`
`Figures 9 and 10 as each having a function. We decline, however, to import
`
`the details of those embodiments into the recited numbered “units” of claim
`
`55. Claim 55 explicitly recites that the “first unit . . . ha[s] a positive
`
`refractive power,” that “an intermediate image is formed in the second unit,”
`
`that the “third unit . . . ha[s] a negative refractive power,” and that the
`
`“fourth unit . . . ha[s] a positive refractive power.” Importing functions into
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`the construction of the term “unit” itself would render superfluous the
`
`functions explicitly attributed to each of the numbered “units” in the claim
`
`language.
`
`Finally, Carl Zeiss also argues that our construction is overly broad
`
`and urges us to adopt its construction. Reply 3, n.1. Although the term
`
`“unit” in isolation is used in the Specification to mean both “a single,
`
`distinct part or object,” and “a determinate quantity adopted as a standard of
`
`measurement for other quantities of the same kind,” after reviewing the
`
`testimony of both Mr. Juergens (Ex. 1116) and Dr. Sasian (Ex. 2002), we are
`
`persuaded that in the context of claim 55, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would not understand the term “unit” to refer to a determinate quantity.
`
`Accordingly, we construe “unit” as “a single, distinct part or object.”
`
`2. “the fourth reflecting mirror of [sic] a double pass fens [sic]”
`(claim 57)
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that “the fourth reflecting mirror of [sic] a double
`
`pass fens [sic]” includes two typographical errors, and should be interpreted
`
`as “the fourth reflecting mirror or a double pass lens.” Pet. 14. Carl Zeiss’s
`
`proposal is consistent with the Specification of the ’575 patent. Ex. 1101,
`
`12:37–42 (“. . . the fourth reflecting mirror or a double pass lens”). On this
`
`record, we determine that “the fourth reflecting mirror of [sic] a double pass
`
`fens [sic]” means “the fourth reflecting mirror or a double pass lens.”
`
`3. “the third reflecting mirror” (claims 58 and 59)
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that “the third reflecting mirror” in claims 58 and
`
`59 lacks antecedent basis, and should be interpreted as referring to the third
`
`of the “at least four mirrors” in the “second unit” recited in claim 55. Pet.
`
`14. Claim 56 recites a “third reflecting mirror” as a component of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`“second unit” recited in claim 55. It appears that claims 58 and 59
`
`mistakenly depend from claim 55 instead of from claim 56. On this record,
`
`we agree with Carl Zeiss that “the third reflecting mirror” in claims 58 and
`
`59 refers to a third of “the at least four mirrors” in the “second unit” recited
`
`in claim 55.
`
`4. “wherein an optical axis of every optical element with a
`predetermined refractive power in the catadioptric projection optical
`system is arranged substantially on a single straight line, and wherein
`a region of an image formed on the second surface by the catadioptric
`projection optical system is an off-axis region not including the
`optical axis” (claim 62)
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that this phrase should be interpreted to mean that
`
`the region of an image formed on the second surface does not include the
`
`optical axis of any of the optical elements because the claims require that
`
`they are all “arranged substantially on a single straight line.” Pet. 15
`
`(quoting claim 62). Carl Zeiss further interprets “wherein a region of an
`
`image formed on the second surface by the catadioptric projection optical
`
`system is an off-axis region not including the optical axis” to require that the
`
`portion of the reticle imaged on the wafer is offset from the single straight
`
`line. Id. Carl Zeiss’s proposal is consistent with the Specification of the
`
`’575 patent. As depicted in Figure 2, “the entire effective imaging area ER
`
`of the projection optical system PL exists in the region off the optical axis
`
`AX.” Ex. 1101, Fig. 2, 20:14–16. Figure 9 depicts “[t]he optical axis AX1
`
`of every optical element included in the catadioptric projection optical
`
`system PL1 . . . placed substantially on [a] single straight line, and the
`
`region of the image formed on the wafer by the catadioptric projection
`
`optical system PL1 is the off-axis region not including the optical axis
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`AX1.” Id. at Fig. 9, 31:19–25 (emphasis added). Figure 10 of the ’575
`
`patent depicts “[t]he optical axis AX2 of every optical element included in
`
`the catadioptric projection optical system PL2 . . . placed substantially on
`
`[a] single straight line, and the region of the image formed on the wafer by
`
`the catadioptric projection optical system PL2 is the off-axis region not
`
`including the optical axis AX2.” Id. at Fig. 10, 33: 44–50 (emphasis added).
`
`On this record, we agree that “wherein an optical axis of every optical
`
`element with a predetermined refractive power in the catadioptric projection
`
`optical system is arranged substantially on a single straight line, and wherein
`
`a region of an image formed on the second surface by the catadioptric
`
`projection optical system is an off-axis region not including the optical axis”
`
`requires that the region of the image formed on the second surface be offset
`
`from the optical axis along which every optical element is arranged.
`
`B. Whether Mr. Juergens is an Expert
`
`Nikon contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`had at least two years of experience in the lithography optics industry and
`
`experience in the specification of projection optical systems, and that Mr.
`
`Juergens is not an expert in the relevant field because he does not have the
`
`experience required to be a person of even ordinary skill in the art. PO
`
`Resp. 25–27.
`
`Carl Zeiss counters that Dr. Sasian invites Mr. Juergens to guest
`
`lecture Dr. Sasian’s class on lens design, and that Dr. Sasian conceded that
`
`Mr. Juergens is an expert on many aspects of optical design. Reply 9-10,
`
`n.2.
`
`Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are not
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art required at least two years
`
`of experience in the lithography optics industry and experience in the
`
`specification of projection optical systems. The claims are not limited to the
`
`field of lithography. Rather, based on the art of record, we find that the
`
`relevant field is projection optical systems. Mr. Juergens holds an M.A. in
`
`Physics and has more than 40 years of experience in the field of optical
`
`system design, including catoptric, dioptric, and catadioptric systems. Ex.
`
`1116 ¶¶ 3–9. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Mr. Juergens is a person
`
`of at least ordinary skill in the art of projection optical systems.
`
`C. Claims 55–63 and 65–67 – Anticipated by Mann
`
`Carl Zeiss alleges that claims 55–63 and 65–67 are unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Mann. Pet. 19–30.
`
`Nikon counters that Mann’s lenses E7–E20 are not divided into the
`
`recited numbered “units,” as construed by Nikon. Nikon argues that
`
`dependent claims 56–63 and 65–67, which depend from claim 55, are
`
`patentable for the same reasons. PO Resp. 38.
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence, we determine that Carl Zeiss has demonstrated by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence that claims 55–63 and 65–67 are unpatentable as anticipated
`
`by Mann.
`
`Mann (Ex. 1110)
`
`Mann describes a projection objective including a plurality of mirrors
`
`with lenses ahead of mirror M3. Ex. 1110, Abstract, ¶ 1. Figure 2 of Mann
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Mann depicts catadioptric projection optical system 200. Id.
`
`¶ 21. System 200 includes reticle 210 and wafer 220 on which a reduced
`
`image is formed based on reticle 210. Id. ¶ 43. System 100 has twenty lens
`
`elements, E1 to E20, and four mirrors, M1 to M4. Id. ¶¶ 43–50.
`
`
`
`Carl Zeiss’s contentions
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that:
`
`[T]he “first unit” disposed in an optical path between reticle 210 and
`wafer 220 is formed from lens element E1 and lens element E2.
`(ZEISS 1110, [0043]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 53, 85, 95, 96, 102.) Mann
`states that “[t]he first and second lens elements E1 and E2 are positive
`lenses.” (ZEISS 1110, [0043].) Because the only two elements
`forming the first unit are positive lenses, it follows that the unit as a
`whole has a positive refractive power. (ZEISS 1110, [0043], Table 2;
`ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 49, 52, 75-79, 96; ZEISS 1130.)
`
`. . . .
`
`[T]he “second unit” disposed in an optical path between the first unit
`and the wafer 220 is formed from the three lens elements E3-E5 and
`the four mirrors M1-M4. (ZEISS 1110, [0044]–[0048], Table 2;
`ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 53, 85, 97, 102.)
`
`. . . .
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`[T]he “third unit” disposed in an optical path between the second unit
`and wafer 220 is formed from lens elements E6-E10. (ZEISS 1110,
`[0050]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 53, 85, 98, 102.) Mann states that of the
`elements E6-E10. “[l]ens element E7 is a negative lens … lens
`element E10 is a negative lens element.” (ZEISS 1110, [0050].)
`Furthermore, based on the lens prescription for system 200, the
`combined refracting power of lens elements E6-E10 is negative, so
`the unit as a whole has a negative refracting power. (ZEISS 1110,
`[0050], Table 2; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 49, 52, 75-79, 98; ZEISS 1130.)
`
`. . . .
`
`[T]he “fourth unit” an optical path between the third unit and wafer
`220 is formed from lens elements E11 through E20. (ZEISS 1116,
`¶¶ 53, 85, 99, 102.) The fourth unit includes at least three positive
`lenses. (ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 49, 52, 99.) Specifically, Mann states that
`“lens element E11 is a positive lens, lens element E12 is a negative
`lens, lens elements E13-E16 are positive lenses, lens element E17 is a
`negative lens, lens elements E18-E20 are positive lenses.” (ZEISS
`1110, [0050].) Furthermore, based on the lens prescription for system
`200, the fourth unit as a whole has a positive refractive power.
`(ZEISS 1110, [0050], Table 2; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 75-79, ZEISS 1130.)
`
`. . . .
`
`[A]n intermediate image is formed between mirrors M2 and M3.
`(ZEISS 1110, Table 2, see also, [0035]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 34-38, 101,
`102.) This means that an intermediate image is provided in the
`second unit. (ZEISS 1110, [0051], Table 2; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 34-38,
`97, 101.) Furthermore, Mann states that “the aperture stop in system
`200 is indicated by marker 201 in Fig. 2.” (ZEISS 1110, [0051].)
`This corresponds with the location of lens element E13, which means
`that the aperture stop is provided in the fourth unit. (ZEISS 1110,
`[0051]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 99, 100, 102.)
`
`Pet. 21–22. We agree with Petitioner’s contentions.
`
`“First unit,” “second unit,” “third unit,” “fourth unit”
`
`Nikon contends that Mann’s lenses E7–E20 are not divided into the
`
`recited numbered “units,” as that term is construed by Nikon, because Carl
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`Zeiss and Mr. Juergens group lenses without consideration to the function of
`
`the group. PO Resp. 27–34, 38. We decline to adopt Nikon’s proposed
`
`construction of “unit” for the reasons discussed above. Even assuming,
`
`however, that we adopted Nikon’s proposed construction, we would not be
`
`persuaded that the groups of lenses identified in Mann by Carl Zeiss are not
`
`“units” because Dr. Sasian conceded that any two adjacent lenses whose
`
`optical properties did not cancel each other out would be an example of two
`
`lenses cooperating “to perform a specific purpose,” as required by Nikon’s
`
`construction. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1136, 23:18–26:10).
`
`Accuracy of Mr. Juergens’ CODE V Sequence Data
`
`Nikon contends that Mr. Juergens’ testimony should be given little
`
`weight because the CODE V Sequence data (Ex. 1130) he relied upon is
`
`inaccurate. PO Resp. 34–37.
`
`Carl Zeiss counters, and we agree, that neither of the two
`
`discrepancies identified by Nikon constitutes an error because (1) the first
`
`was introduced by the Patent Office in the publication of the Mann
`
`application, and the CODE V Sequence data used by Mr. Juergens is
`
`identical to the data in the Mann application as-filed; and (2) the second
`
`concerns a “dummy surface” which Dr. Sasian confirmed has no effect on
`
`ray trace and is fairly modeled by the CODE V Sequence data used by Mr.
`
`Juergens. Reply 11–13.
`
`Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are not
`
`persuaded that Mr. Juergens’ testimony should be given any less weight due
`
`to the issues in the CODE V Sequence data.
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Carl Zeiss has
`
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 55–63 and 65–
`
`67 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mann.
`
`D. Claim 64 – Obvious over Mann and Asai
`
`Carl Zeiss alleges that claim 64 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Mann and Asai. Pet. 54–56.
`
`Claim 64 depends from claim 63. Claim 63 is directed to “[a]n
`
`exposure apparatus” comprising “the projection optical system according to
`
`claim 55” (emphasis removed). As discussed above, Carl Zeiss has
`
`established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mann anticipates the
`
`subject matter of claim 55.
`
`Carl Zeiss acknowledges that Mann does not disclose expressly
`
`“illumination light which is s-polarized with respect to the second surface,”
`
`as recited in claim 64, but contends that:
`
`[I]t would have been obvious for a POSITA at the time of the
`alleged invention to provide s-polarized illumination at the
`wafer in the lithography exposure apparatus of Mann to
`improve the contrast of the image at the wafer. (ZEISS 1116,
`¶¶ 21-24, 72-77, 123-126, 218-224.)
`
`Pet. 55–56. Carl Zeiss cites to paragraph 219 of Dr. Juergens’ Declaration
`
`for the following:
`
`But s-polarized illumination was well-known long before
`the effective filing date of the Omura Patent. For example,
`back in 1993, Asai explained that: “[l]ight polarized parallel to
`the plane of incidence, or P polarization, gives lower contrast
`images than light polarized perpendicular to the plane of
`incidence, or S polarization, because destructive interference
`between diffracted waves does not occur when the electric-field
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`vectors are perpendicular,” and then reported demonstrating
`“superior resolution of S-polarized illumination” in optical
`lithography projection systems. (ZEISS 1115, p. 5863, abstract
`and intro.) Thus, it was well-known that an illumination optical
`system can be designed to provide polarized light in order to
`improve contrast of the image projected onto the wafer,
`especially for high numerical aperture optical systems.
`
`Ex. 1116, ¶ 219.
`
`Nikon counters that claim 64 is not obvious over Mann and Asai
`
`because Mann does not disclose the limitation of claim 55, from which claim
`
`64 depends, and Asai fails to cure the deficiencies in Mann with respect to
`
`claim 55. PO Resp. 39.
`
`Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
`
`evidence, we determine that Carl Zeiss has demonstrated by a preponderance
`
`of the evidence that claim 64 is unpatentable as obvious over Mann and
`
`Asai. We are not persuaded by Nikon’s argument that Mann does not
`
`disclose all limitations of claim 55 for the reasons discussed above.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Carl Zeiss has
`
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 64 is
`
`unpatentable as obvious over Mann and Asai.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Carl Zeiss has met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence in showing that claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent are unpatentable
`
`based upon the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Mann
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`Claim[s] challenged
`
`55-63, 65-67
`
`Mann and Asai
`
`§ 103
`
`64
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent are held
`
`unpatentable; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`
`the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
`
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Marc M. Wefers, Esq.
`Chris C. Bowley, Esq.
`Lawrence Kolodney
`Kurt Glitzenstein
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`wefers@fr.com
`bowley@fr.com
`kolodney@fr.com
`glitzenstein@fr.com
`
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`John S. Kern, Esq.
`Robert C. Mattson, Esq.
`Oblon Spivak
`CPdocketKern@oblon.com
`CPdocketMattson@oblon.com
`
`20
`
`