`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V., EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP., AND QIOPTIQ
`PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-01277
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 13, and 16
`
`ASML 1006
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1(cid:3)
`I.(cid:3)
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 6(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT ............................................................ 8(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10(cid:3)
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`“Light source” ..................................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3) THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 13(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent ......................................... 13(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 16(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16 are obvious over Gärtner ............ 16(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3) Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3) Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16 ................................................................. 21(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Independent Claim 1 is obvious over Gärtner .............................. 22(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Independent Claim13 is obvious over Gärtner ............................. 30(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3) Dependent Claims (claims 3, 16) ................................................. 36(cid:3)
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 are obvious over Gärtner in
`view of Hiura ....................................................................................... 38(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3) Claims 1, 3, 13, 16 ........................................................................ 39(cid:3)
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 are obvious over Gärtner in
`view of Ikeuchi .................................................................................... 50(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3) Claims 1, 3, 13, 16 ........................................................................ 51(cid:3)
`VIII.(cid:3) RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 59(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding the Content of the Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 59(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 59(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`

`

`C.(cid:3)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 61(cid:3)
`IX.(cid:3) AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 63(cid:3)
`X.(cid:3)
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 63(cid:3)
`XI.(cid:3)
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 64(cid:3)
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`I, J. Gary Eden, Ph.D. , declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is J. Gary Eden.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`2.
`
`I am the Gilmore Family Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering and Director of the Laboratory for Optical Physics and Engineering at
`
`the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois.
`
`3.
`
`I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering (High Honors) from the
`
`University of Maryland, College Park in 1972 and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1973 and 1976, respectively.
`
`4.
`
`After receiving my doctorate, I served as a National Research Council
`
`Postdoctoral Research Associate at the United States Naval Research Laboratory
`
`(“NRL”), Optical Sciences Division, in Washington, DC from 1975 to 1976. As a
`
`research physicist in the Laser Physics Branch (Optical Sciences Division) from
`
`1976 to 1979, I made several contributions to the visible and ultraviolet lasers and
`
`laser spectroscopy field, including the co-discovery of the KrCl rare gas-halide
`
`excimer laser and the proton beam pumped laser (Ar-N2, XeF). In 1979, I received
`
`a Research Publication Award for my work at the NRL.
`
`5.
`
`In 1979, I was appointed assistant professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois. In 1981, I
`
`became associate professor in this same department, and in 1983, I became
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`professor in this department. In 1985, I was named the Director of the Laboratory
`
`for Optical Physics and Engineering, and in 2007, I was named the Gilmore Family
`
`Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I continue to hold both
`
`positions today. In addition, I am also Research Professor in the Coordinated
`
`Science Laboratory and the Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory.
`
`6.
`
`Since joining the faculty of the University of Illinois in 1979, I have
`
`been engaged in research in atomic, molecular and ultrafast laser spectroscopy, the
`
`discovery and development of visible and ultraviolet lasers, and the science and
`
`technology of microcavity plasma devices. My research has been featured in Laser
`
`Focus, Photonics Spectra, Electronics Weekly (UK), the Bulletin of the Materials
`
`Research Society, Microwaves, Optical Spectra, Electro-Optical Systems Design,
`
`Optics and Laser Technology, Electronics, Optics News, Lasers and Optronics,
`
`IEEE Potentials, IEEE Spectrum, and IEEE Circuits and Devices. My work was
`
`highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences report Plasma 2010, published in
`
`2007.
`
`7.
`
`I have made several major contributions to the field of laser physics,
`
`plasma physics, and atomic and molecular physics. I co-invented a new form of
`
`lighting, “light tiles,” that are thin and flat. This culminated in the formation of a
`
`company called Eden Park Illumination. I discovered numerous ultraviolet, visible
`
`and near-infrared atomic and molecular lasers, including the KrCl ultraviolet
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`(excimer) laser, the optically-pumped XeF, HgCl, and rare gas lasers and the CdI,
`
`CdBr, ZnI, Li, Fe, and Cd visible and near-infrared lasers. I demonstrated the first
`
`long pulse (> 1 μs) excimer laser and the first lasers (Ar – N2, XeF) pumped by a
`
`proton beam. The excimer lasers are now used worldwide in photolithography,
`
`surgical procedures (such as corneal refractive correction) and micromachining of
`
`materials. I discovered the laser excitation spectroscopy of photoassociation (the
`
`absorption of optical radiation by free atomic pairs) of thermal atoms as a probe of
`
`the structure of transient molecules. I demonstrated with my graduate students the
`
`first ultraviolet and violet glass fiber lasers. I discovered the excimer-pumped
`
`atomic lasers (lasing on the D1 and D2 lines of Na, Cs, and Rb) for laser guide stars
`
`and mesosphere probing by LIDAR. I conducted the first observation (by laser
`
`spectroscopy) of Rydberg series for the rare gas diatomics (Ne2, Ar2, Kr2, Xe2) and
`
`the first measurement of the rotational constants for Ne2 and Ar2, as well as the
`
`vibrational constants for Ne2+. I pioneered the development of microcavity plasma
`
`devices and arrays in silicon, Al/Al2O3, glass, ceramics, and multilayer
`
`metal/polymer structures. For this, I was the recipient of the C.E.K. Mees Award
`
`from the Optical Society of America, the Aaron Kressel Award from the Photonics
`
`Society of the IEEE, and the Harold E. Edgerton Award from the International
`
`Society for Optical Engineering. I was the Fulbright-Israel Distinguished Chair in
`
`the Physical Sciences and Engineering from 2007 to 2008. I am a Fellow of the
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`American Physical Society, the Optical Society of America, the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Association for the
`
`Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the SPIE (International Society for Optical
`
`Engineering).
`
`8.
`
`I taught/teach courses in laser physics, electromagnetics (including
`
`optics, optical waveguides, antennas), plasma physics, semiconductor electronic
`
`devices, electromagnetics, and analog signal processing, among others. I have
`
`directed the dissertations of 46 individuals who received the Ph.D. degree in
`
`Physics, Electrical and Computer Engineering, or Materials Science and
`
`Engineering.
`
`9.
`
`I have also served as Assistant Dean in the College of Engineering,
`
`Associate Dean of the Graduate College, and Associate Vice-Chancellor for
`
`Research.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 280 peer-reviewed academic
`
`publications in the fields of laser physics, plasma physics, atomic and molecular
`
`physics, and quantum electronics. I have served as Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE
`
`Journal of Quantum Electronics and am currently Editor-in-Chief of Progress in
`
`Quantum Electronics and Associate Editor of Applied Physics Reviews.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently a member of four honorary organizations. In 1998, I
`
`served as President of the IEEE Lasers and Electro-Optics Society (LEOS),
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`following earlier service as a member of the LEOS Board of Governors, and as the
`
`Vice-President for Technical Affairs.
`
`12. From 1996 through 1999, I was the James F. Towey University
`
`Scholar at the University of Illinois. I received the LEOS Distinguished Service
`
`Award, was awarded the IEEE Third Millennium Medal in 2000 and was named a
`
`LEOS Distinguished Lecturer for 2003-2005.
`
`13.
`
`I am a co-founder of Eden Park Illumination (2007) and EP
`
`Purification (2010).
`
`14.
`
`In 2014, I was elected into the National Academy of Engineering, and
`
`the National Academy of Inventors.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor on over seventy three (73) United States and
`
`international patents and have patent applications pending both in the United States
`
`and abroad.
`
`16. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,309,943 (the “’943 patent”; Ex. 1001). I have been informed that the ’943 patent
`
`claims priority to March 31, 2006 based on the filing date of U.S. Application No.
`
`11/395,523.
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’943 patent:
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`(cid:120) French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3,
`1985 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1003).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent Publication No. US2005/0225739, published October
`13, 2005 (“Hiura,” Ex. 1004).
`
`(cid:120) Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003-317675, published
`November 7, 2003 (“Ikeuchi,” Ex. 1005).
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on, and in no way affects, the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`20.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioners. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’943 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`21.
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before
`
`the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” I have also been informed that a
`
`claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if “the invention was
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the
`
`application for patent in the United States.” Further, I have been informed that a
`
`claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if “the invention was
`
`described in … an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent
`
`….” It is my understanding that for a claim to be anticipated, all of the limitations
`
`must be present in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 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 to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). I understand that a claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious, and therefore not patentable, if the subject matter claimed would have
`
`been considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the
`
`invention was made. I understand that when there are known elements that
`
`perform in known ways and produce predictable results, the combination of those
`
`elements is likely obvious. Further, I understand that when there is a predictable
`
`variation and a person would see the benefit of making that variation,
`
`implementing that predictable variation is likely not patentable. I have also been
`
`informed that obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success, but
`
`that what does matter is whether the prior art gives direction as to what parameters
`
`are critical and which of many possible choices may be successful.
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`23. A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’943 patent would have had a Ph.D. in physics, electrical engineering, or an
`
`equivalent field and 2-4 years of work experience with lasers and plasma, or a
`
`master’s degree in physics, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field and 4-5
`
`years of work experience with lasers and plasma.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT
`24. The ’943 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for
`
`use in testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As depicted in Fig.
`
`15A below, the light source includes a chamber (green), an ignition source 1529a
`
`and 1529b (blue) for igniting a plasma, a laser 1524 (purple) for providing energy
`
`to the plasma (yellow) to produce a high brightness light, and a suspended blocker
`
`1550 (red) to prevent laser energy from escaping. (’943 patent, 28:14-30, 58-67;
`
`29:1-9; claim 1 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`25. The alleged invention involves using a laser to provide energy to
`
`sustain the plasma for a light source. According to the’943 patent, the prior art
`
`relied upon the electrodes used for ignition to also sustain the plasma, which
`
`resulted in wear and contamination. (’943 patent, 1:31-46 (Ex. 1001).) Thus, a
`
`need arose for a way to sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge.
`
`Id. The alleged invention also involves the use of a suspended blocker to absorb or
`
`reflect laser energy not absorbed by the plasma. (’943 patent, 9:17-30 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`26. As discussed below, there was nothing new about sustaining a plasma
`
`with a laser to produce high brightness light and using a blocker to absorb or
`
`deflect laser energy. Multiple prior art references, including Gärtner and Hiura,
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`disclosed laser-sustained plasma light sources with the same elements as the ’943
`
`patent: a chamber, an ignited plasma, a laser, and suspended blocker.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`27. The ’943 patent (Ex. 1001) issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`13/099,823, filed on May 3, 2011. The ’943 patent application is a continuation of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,989,786 (“the’786 patent”), which is a continuation-in-part of the
`
`’455 patent, which is a continuation-in-part of the ’982 patent, filed March 31,
`
`2006. On August 3, 2013, the claims were allowed after an Examiner-initiated
`
`interview. The interview summary notes that independent claim 1 was amended,
`
`claim 2 was canceled, and claim 6 was rewritten in independent form. (Examiner
`
`Initiated Interview Summary dated Aug. 6, 2012 (Ex. 1009).) The Notice of
`
`Allowance states that the “key element of the applicant’s invention, not disclosed
`
`in prior art but present in all of the independent claims, is that the blocker
`
`suspended along a path the energy travels blocks or reflects the energy provided to
`
`the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium.” (Notice of
`
`Allowance dated Aug. 6, 2012, at 3-4 (Ex. 1010).). The ’943 patent issued on
`
`November 13, 2012. (’943 Patent (Ex. 1001).) The features identified in the
`
`Notice of Allowability as missing from the prior art are present in the prior art used
`
`in the proposed grounds of unpatentability.
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Light source”
`28. The term “light source” is recited in challenged claims 1 and 3.
`
`“Light source” should be construed to mean “a source of electromagnetic radiation
`
`in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum ultraviolet (100 nm to 200
`
`nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700 nm), near-infrared (700
`
`nm to 1,000 nm (1μm)), middle infrared (1 μm to 10 μm), or far infrared (10 μm to
`
`1,000 μm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`29. The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”1 is a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1μm)), middle infrared (1 μm to 10 μm),
`
`or far infrared (10 μm to 1,000 μm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., Silfvast,
`
`LASER FUNDAMENTALS, at 4 (Ex. 1007)).) The Patent Owner publishes a data
`
`sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning in recognizing
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’943 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., (cid:1932)943 patent, 7:33-34; 8:44-45; 10:19-20; 10:48-50;
`
`12:3-5; 12:11-13; 12:44-46; 13:64-14:4; 14:55-57; 17:3-4 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`that “light source” includes EUV wavelengths. (See, e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data
`
`Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10M product operating at 13.5 nm as an
`
`“EUV [Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”) (Ex. 1008).
`
`30. The ’943 patent does not provide a definition of the term “light
`
`source” and uses the term consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the term. Consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “light source,”
`
`the ’943 patent states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light from a
`
`light source vary depending upon the application. (’943 patent, 1:29-30 (Ex.
`
`1001).) The specification describes “ultraviolet light” as an example of the type of
`
`light that can be generated: “emitted light 136 (e.g., at least one or more
`
`wavelengths of ultraviolet light).” (’943 patent, 15:10-11 (Ex. 1001); see also id.
`
`at 13:54-56 (discussing the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the plasma 132 of the
`
`light source 100).
`
`31. Therefore, the term “light source” should be construed to mean “a
`
`source of electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm),
`
`vacuum ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible
`
`(400 to 700 nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1μm)), middle infrared (1 μm
`
`to 10 μm), or far infrared (10 μm to 1,000 μm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`VI.
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
` THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent
`32. When the application that led to the ’943 patent was filed, there was
`
`nothing new about a light source using an ignition source to generate a plasma in a
`
`chamber, a laser to sustain the plasma to produce high brightness light from the
`
`plasma, and a blocker (or a “beam dump”) to absorb or deflect unused laser
`
`energy. This concept had been known and widely used since at least as early as the
`
`1980s, more than two decades before the application date. For example, in 1983,
`
`Gärtner et al. filed a patent application entitled “Radiation source for optical
`
`devices, notably for photolithographic reproduction systems,” which published on
`
`May 3, 1985 as French Patent Application No. 2554302. (Ex. 1003). Gärtner
`
`discloses a light source with the same features claimed in the ’943 patent: (1) a
`
`sealed chamber (green); (2) an ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (blue), which
`
`generates a plasma (within the yellow box); (3) a laser (purple), which provides
`
`energy to the plasma (yellow) to produce light; and (4) a blocker to absorb or
`
`reflect laser energy unabsorbed by the plasma (red). (See, e.g., Gärtner at 4-5; Fig.
`
`1, 2 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1003)
`
`33.
`
`In addition, on April 11, 2003, Hiura filed U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 2005/00225739 entitled “Exposure Apparatus and Device Fabrication Method
`
`Using the Same.” Hiura describes an exposure apparatus containing a laser plasma
`
`light source. As shown in Fig. 10, reproduced below, Hiura discloses a laser
`
`sustained plasma light source with features similar to the ’943 patent: (1) a
`
`chamber 180 (green); (2) an ignited plasma 104 (yellow); (3) laser 100 (purple) for
`
`providing energy in the form of beam 101 to the plasma; and (4) a blocker 150
`
`(red) to absorb and/or reflect laser energy unabsorbed by the plasma. (See, e.g.,
`
`Hiura, ¶¶ 0012, 0017, 0039, 0064-65, Fig. 10 (Ex. 1004).) Hiura specifically states
`
`that stopper 150 includes a “triangle part 155” that “reflects laser, and absorbs it as
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`a result of multiple reflection.” (Hiura ¶ 0079 (Ex. 1004))
`
`
`
`Hiura Fig. 10 (Ex. 1004)
`34. Further, on April 26, 2002, Ikeuchi filed a patent application entitled
`
`“Light radiation apparatus,” which published as Japanese Patent No. JP2003-
`
`317675 on November 7, 2003. (Ex. 1005.) Ikeuchi discloses a continuous high-
`
`power light source using ignited plasma. As shown in Fig. 1, reproduced below,
`
`Ikeuchi discloses a light source with features similar to the ’943 patent: (1) a sealed
`
`chamber 10 (green); (2) an ignited plasma (yellow); (3) an external energy source
`
`(purple) to sustain the plasma to emit a high brightness light; and (4) an
`
`electromagnetic radiation absorber 11 and an absorbent window 7 (i.e., blockers)
`
`(red) to prevent unabsorbed electromagnetic energy from escaping the radiation
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`apparatus. (See, e.g., Ikeuchi, ¶¶ 0002, 0006, 0010, 0034, and 0046, Fig. 1 (Ex.
`
`1005).)
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`35. Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’943 patent are nothing
`
`more than the standard features of laser sustained plasma light sources across
`
`several generations of technology from the 1980’s to the early 2000’s.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`36. Specific grounds for finding the challenged claims invalid are
`
`identified below. These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 1, 3, 13, and 16
`
`are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16 are obvious over Gärtner
`37. Gärtner discloses and renders each limitation of Claims 1, 3, 13, and
`
`16 obvious. To the extent the Patent Owner asserts that these features are not
`
`disclosed in a single embodiment of Gärtner, it would have been obvious to
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`combine features discussed in connection with various exemplary figures in
`
`Gärtner.
`
`38. Gärtner is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because it was published
`
`more than a year before the earliest claimed priority date for the ’943 patent, which
`
`is March 31, 2006. Gärtner was not considered by the Examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’943 patent.
`
`1. Overview of Gärtner
`39. Gärtner describes a light source for optical systems: “The present
`
`invention relates to a radiation source for optical devices, in particular for
`
`photolithographic reproduction systems.” (Gärtner at 1:1-2 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`40. Gärtner is directed to the same problem as the ’943 patent, namely,
`
`producing light that is brighter than that produced by conventional arc lamps for
`
`applications such as photolithography. (Compare Gärtner at 1:2-4 (“It is
`
`preferably applied in cases where a radiated power is required which is greater than
`
`that from pressurised mercury vapour lamps, such as in photolithographic
`
`appliances for illuminating a photoresist layer on a semiconductor wafer.”) (Ex.
`
`1003) with ’943 patent, 1:31-49 (“The state of the art in, for example, wafer
`
`inspection systems involves the use of xenon or mercury arc lamps to produce
`
`light. . . . [T]hese arc lamps do not provide sufficient brightness for some
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`applications, especially in the ultraviolet spectrum. . . . Accordingly, a need
`
`therefore exists for improved high brightness light sources.”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`41. Gärtner proposes the same solution as the ’943 patent, albeit over 20
`
`years earlier: (1) a chamber, (2) an ignition source, (3) a laser to provide energy to
`
`a plasma, and (4) a blocker. (Compare Gärtner at 4:31-35, 5:1-9, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1003)
`
`with ’943 patent, 1:66-2:3, 9:15-17; Fig. 15A (Ex. 1001).) For example, as shown
`
`below, Figure 1 of Gärtner shows a “gas-tight chamber 1” (green); “laser 10”
`
`(blue) for generating the plasma 14 (yellow); a “laser 9” (purple) for producing
`
`radiation (light) from the plasma (yellow); and concave mirror 12 (red) (i.e., a
`
`blocker) for blocking radiation from the laser that is not absorbed by the plasma
`
`and reflecting that radiation back toward the plasma. (Gärtner at 4-5 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1003)
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`42. The system in Gärtner operates in the same manner as the system
`
`described in the ’943 patent. In particular, Gärtner explains that gas-tight chamber
`
`1 contains a discharge medium 2. (Compare Gärtner at 4:32 (“gas-tight chamber 1
`
`contains the discharge medium 2”) (Ex. 1003) with ’943 patent, 11:15-16 (“light
`
`source 100 includes a chamber 128 that contains an ionizable medium (not
`
`shown).”) (Ex. 1001).) The discharge medium 2 is an ionizable gas such as xenon.
`
`(Compare Gärtner at 5:15-16 (describing using “argon or xenon atmosphere as
`
`active medium”) (Ex. 1003) with ’943 patent, 3:47-50 (“[T]he ionizable medium
`
`can be . . . Xe, Ar . . . .”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`43. Gärtner’s laser 10 is an ignition source that ionizes the discharge
`
`medium 2. (Compare Gärtner at 5:5-7 (“The radiation 13 from the laser 10, which
`
`is a nitrogen pulse laser, is focussed on the same point by the lens 7 which allows
`
`ultraviolet to pass and produces an electrical discharge there and as a result an
`
`absorbent plasma 14. . .”) (Ex. 1003) with ’943 patent, 12:19-21 (“The ignition
`
`source 140 generates an electrical discharge in the chamber 128 (e.g., the region
`
`130 of the chamber 128) to ignite the ionizable medium.”), 14:28-33 (“Alternative
`
`types of ignition sources 140 that can be used in the light source 100 include . . .
`
`pulsed lasers . . . .”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`44. Gärtner’s laser 9 is a laser that provides energy to the ionized gas
`
`within the chamber to produce a high brightness light. (Compare Gärtner at 5:7-9
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`(“absorbent plasma 14 which is heated to high temperatures under the influence of
`
`the radiation 11 [from laser 9]. The radiation 15 from the plasma can be fed into
`
`the downstream optical system through the window 8.”) (Ex. 1003) with ’943
`
`patent, 11:22-25 (“The light source 100 also includes at least one laser source 104
`
`that generates a laser beam that is provided to the plasma 132 located in the
`
`chamber 128 to initiate and/or sustain the high brightness light 136.”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`45. Gärtner also discloses the use of blockers for preventing energy from
`
`escaping. Gärtner’s concave mirror 12, concave mirror 39, and the output window
`
`constitute blockers suspended along a path the energy travels and serve to block
`
`the energy provided to the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized
`
`medium. In particular, mirrors 12 and 39 block radiation from lasers 9 and 39 that
`
`is not absorbed by the plasma and reflect that radiation back toward the plasma;
`
`and the output window in Figure 4 blocks radiation from laser 38 that is not
`
`absorbed by the plasma, while allowing the light from the plasma to exit the light
`
`source. (Compare Gärtner Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1003) with ’943 patent 28:58-60 (“the
`
`blocker 1550 is a mirror that deflects the laser energy 1556 that is not absorbed by
`
`the plasma away from the opening 1520 . . . ); 29:40-42 (“the laser energy blocker
`
`1550 is made of a material that absorbs, rather than reflects, the laser energy 1556”
`
`(Ex. 1001).)
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 3 (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 4 (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`2.
`Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16
`46. As illustrated below, Gärtner renders every limitation of claims 1, 3,
`
`13, and 16 of the ’943 patent obvious. Gärtner describes a light source for optical
`
`devices and discloses the key components of the ’943 patent: (1) a chamber, (2) an
`
`ignition source to ionize the gas, (3) a laser to provide energy to the ionized gas
`
`21
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`(plasma) to sustain the plasma for providing light, and (4) a blocker. (Gärtner at 1,
`
`Fig. 2 (Ex. 1003).).
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim 1 is obvious over Gärtner
`a)
`Claim 1 - Preamble (element [1p])
`47. The Preamble of claim 1 recites a “light source.” (’943 Patent, 30:35
`
`(Ex. 1001).) Gärtner discloses a light source. Particularly, the reference discloses
`
`a “radiation source for optical devices,” which is a light source. (Gärtner at 1:1,
`
`Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1003).) Gärtner’s light source can be used for applications such as
`
`“illuminating a photoresist.” (Gärtner at 1:4 (Ex. 1003); see also ’943 patent at
`
`1:31-32 (recognizing light sources were known in the art) (Ex.1001).)
`
`b) Claim 1 - Chamber and Ignition Source (elements
`[1a], [1b])
`48. Claim 1 recites “a chamber.” (’943 Patent,30:36 (Ex. 1001).) Gärtner
`
`discloses a chamber. For example, Gärtner discloses a “gas-tight chamber.”
`
`(Gärtner at 3:20; 4:32; 5:3, Fig. 1 (“gas-tight chamber 1”); see also 5:27-28, Fig. 2
`
`(“A casing 16, the concave mirror 17 and the quartz window 18 constitut