Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 16, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: December 16, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 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. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any
`response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of
`the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Upon consideration of the petition, we determine that the information
`
`presented by Carl Zeiss establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Carl
`
`Zeiss would prevail in showing unpatentability of claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent.
`
`Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we institute an inter partes review for
`
`claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent.
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`
`Seven applications claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to the application
`
`that issued as the ’575 patent: 11/513,160 (pending); 11/583,934 (issued as U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,309,870 ); 11/583,916 (issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,312,463 );
`
`11/882,208 (abandoned); 12/379,415 (pending); 12/884,332 (abandoned); and
`
`13/275,760 (pending). Pet. 1-2. United States Patent No. 7,309,870 has been the
`
`subject of four interference proceedings. Id. Carl Zeiss also has filed another
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`petition for inter partes review of claims 1–3, 8–12, 16–20, 23–26, and 29–33 of
`
`the ’575 patent: IPR2013-00362. In addition to these identified related
`
`proceedings, Nikon indicates that U.S. Patent Application No. 13/889,780 may
`
`affect, or may be affected by, a decision in this inter partes review. Paper 6.
`
`B. 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, col. 1, ll. 18–23. In the production of semiconductor
`
`devices, photolithography uses a projection exposure apparatus to project “an
`
`image of a mask (or reticle) through a projection optical system onto a wafer (or a
`
`glass plate or the like) coated with a photoresist or the like.” Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll.
`
`27–32. As the dimensions of semiconductor devices shrink, the projection optical
`
`system of the projection exposure apparatus requires greater resolving power
`
`(resolution). Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 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. Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 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. Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 55–58. However, there were
`
`known disadvantages to this approach. Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 59–67.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`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 is capable of securing a large
`
`effective image-side numerical aperture while suppressing the reflection loss on
`
`optical surfaces.” Ex. 1101, col. 2, ll. 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. Ex. 1101, col. 2, ll. 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. Ex. 1101, col. 3, ll. 8–27; see also id. at col. 11, l. 48 to col. 13, l. 22.
`
`Figure 9 of the ’575 patent is reproduced below:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 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. Ex. 1101, col. 4, ll 31–33; col. 3, ll. 8–27.
`
`The lens unit G11constitutes the first unit. Ex. 1101, col. 29, ll. 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. Ex. 1101, col. 30, ll. 28–31. Lens unit G21 constitutes the third unit. Ex.
`
`1101, col. 29, ll. 45–46. Lens unit G22, aperture stop AS1, and lens unit G23
`
`constitute a fourth unit. Ex. 1101, col. 30, ll. 59–60.
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`C. Exemplary Claim
`
`Claim 55 is representative 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.
`
`D. Prior Art Relied Upon
`
`
`
`Carl Zeiss relies on the following prior art references, as well as the
`
`declaration of Richard C. Juergens (Ex. 1116):
`
`Suwa
`
`Mann
`
`US 5,825,043
`
`Oct. 20, 1998 Ex. 1123
`
`US 2005/0036213
`
`Feb. 17, 2005 Ex. 1110
`
`Takahashi1 WO 02/035273
`
`May 2, 2002
`
`Ex. 1113
`
`
`
`1 Takahashi is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1113. Unless indicated
`otherwise, all subsequent references to Takahashi in this decision will refer to its
`publication in English by the European Patent Office, EP 1 336 887 A1. Ex. 1114.
`Patent Owner admitted that EP 1 336 887 A1 is the English publication of WO
`02/035273. Ex. 1128 at 35-36 (material facts 130 and 131, Admitted).
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Omura ’387 2 JP 2003-114387
`
`Apr. 18, 2003 Ex. 1111
`
`Asai
`
`Ulrich
`
`Satori Asai et al., “Resolution
`Limit for Optical Lithography
`Using Polarized Light
`Illumination,”32 Jpn. J. Appl.
`Phys. 5863-5866 (1993)
`
`Willi Ulrich et al., “The
`Development of Dioptric
`Projection Lenses for DUV
`Lithography,” 4832 Proc.
`SPIE 158-169 (2002)
`
`Dec. 1993
`
`Ex. 1115
`
`2002
`
`Ex. 1118
`
`E. The Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Carl Zeiss alleges that the challenged claims are unpatentable based upon the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Reference[s]
`
`Mann
`
`Mann and Asai
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`Mann and Takahashi
`
`§ 103
`
`Takahashi
`
`Takahashi, Suwa, and
`Ulrich
`Takahashi and Asai
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims challenged
`
`55-63, 65-67
`
`64
`
`67
`
`55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65–67
`
`61
`
`64
`
`
`
`2 Omura ’387 is a Japanese language document. Ex. 1111. Unless indicated
`otherwise, all subsequent references to Omura ’387 in this decision will refer to its
`certified English language translation. Ex. 1112.
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Omura ’387
`
`Omura ’387, Suwa, and
`Ulrich
`Omura ’387 and Asai
`
`Omura ’387 and
`Takahashi
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`55, 58–60, 62, 63, 65–67
`
`61
`
`64
`
`67
`
`F. Effective Filing Date
`
`Carl Zeiss contends that the earliest possible filing date to which claims
`
`55-67 of the ’575 patent can claim benefit 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. Based on
`
`our review of Exhibit 1107, we agree. 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, ¶¶ 0022,
`
`0024, 0026, 0027. 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.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 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. 48756, 48766 (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 conclude that all terms should be given their ordinary
`
`meaning, but make explicit the construction of those terms that we determine
`
`necessary to decide whether to institute a review.
`
`1. “unit”(claim 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.”
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`Although the ’575 patent uses “unit” primarily in the context of a “lens unit,” it
`
`also refers to “unit area” (col. 8, ll. 21-22), “unit pulse” (col. 8, l. 22), “unit
`
`magnification” (col. 17, l. 44), and “unit time” (col. 19, ll. 52, 55, 60, and 62–63).
`
`Carl Zeiss’s proposed interpretation does not adequately encompass these other
`
`usages in the ’575 patent. On this record, Carl Zeiss has not presented sufficient
`
`and credible evidence that patentee intended “unit” to mean only “a single, distinct
`
`part or object.” We instead construe “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.” See, 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”).
`
`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, col. 12, ll. 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`recites a “third reflecting mirror” as a component of the “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, col. 20, ll. 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 AX1.” Ex. 1101,
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`Fig. 9, col. 31, ll. 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.” Ex.
`
`1101, Fig. 10, col. 33, ll. 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 portion of the reticle imaged on the wafer be offset
`
`from the optical axis of every optical element.
`
`B. 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. In light of the arguments and
`
`evidence, Carl Zeiss has established a reasonable likelihood that claims 55–63 and
`
`65–67 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mann.
`
`Mann describes a projection objective including a plurality of mirrors with
`
`lenses ahead of mirror M3. Ex. 1110, Abstract, ¶ 0001. Figure 2 of Mann is
`
`reproduced below:
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Mann depicts catadioptric projection optical system 200. Ex. 1110, ¶
`
`0021. System 200 includes reticle 210 and wafer 220 on which a reduced image is
`
`formed based on reticle 210. Ex. 1110, ¶ 0043. System 100 has twenty lens
`
`elements, E1 to E20, and four mirrors, M1 to M4. Ex. 1110, ¶¶ 0043–0050.
`
`
`
`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.)
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 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 are persuaded by Carl Zeiss’s showing of anticipation with respect
`
`to claim 55.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`As such, Carl Zeiss has established a reasonable likelihood that it would
`
`prevail in showing that claim 55 is unpatentable as anticipated by Mann. We also
`
`are persuaded by Carl Zeiss’s arguments and evidence for the dependent claims
`
`proposed as unpatentable as anticipated by Mann.
`
`C. 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. In light of the arguments and evidence,
`
`Carl Zeiss has established a reasonable likelihood that claim 64 is unpatentable
`
`over Mann and Asai.
`
`Claim 64 depends from claim 63. Claim 63 is directed to “[a]n exposure
`
`apparatus” comprising “the projection optical system according to claim 55.” As
`
`discussed above, Carl Zeiss has established a reasonable likelihood 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 projection
`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
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`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 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. We are persuaded by the reasoning in the above-quoted analysis
`
`of Dr. Juergens.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Carl Zeiss has established a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it would prevail in showing that claim 64 is unpatentable as obvious over
`
`Mann and Asai.
`
`D. Other Grounds
`
`Carl Zeiss also asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`1. Claim 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mann and
`
`Takahashi;
`
`2. Claims 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, and 65–67 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`as anticipated by Takahashi;
`
`3. Claim 61 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Takahashi,
`
`Suwa, and Ulrich;
`
`4. Claim 64 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Takahashi
`
`and Asai;
`
`5. Claims 55, 58-60, 62, 63, and 65–67 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`as anticipated by Omura ’387;
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`6. Claim 61 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
`
`Omura ’387, Suwa, and Ulrich;
`
`7. Claim 64 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Omura ’387
`
`and Asai;
`
`8. Claim 67 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Omura ’387
`
`and Takahashi.
`
`Pet. 30–54, 56–59. Those asserted grounds are denied as redundant in light of the
`
`determination that there is a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable based on the grounds of unpatentability on which we institute an inter
`
`partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in
`
`the petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Carl Zeiss would
`
`prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent.
`
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of any
`
`challenged claim.
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is
`
`hereby instituted as to claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent on the following grounds:
`
`1. Claims 55–63 and 65–67 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Mann;
`
`2. Claim 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mann and Asai;
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that all other grounds raised in Carl Zeiss’s petition
`
`are denied because they are redundant in light of the grounds on the basis of which
`
`an inter partes review is being instituted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial on the grounds of
`
`unpatentability authorized above; the trial commences on the entry date of this
`
`decision; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that an initial conference call with the Board is
`
`scheduled for 2:30 PM Eastern Time on January 8, 2014; the parties are directed to
`
`the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide3 for guidance in preparing for the conference
`
`call, and should be prepared to discuss any proposed changes to the Scheduling
`
`Order entered concurrently herewith and any motion the parties anticipate filing
`
`during the trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48765-66 (Aug. 14,
`2012).
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00363
`Patent 7,348,575 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Marc M. Wefers, Esq.
`Chris C. Bowley, Esq.
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`wefers@fr.com
`bowley@fr.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`John S. Kern, Esq.
`Robert C. Mattson, Esq.
`Oblon Spivak
`CPdocketKern@oblon.com
`CPdocketMattson@oblon.com
`
`19
`
`
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
