DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US1
`Filed By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`60 State Street,
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
` David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
` MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 1, 3, 13, AND 16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 1 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 1 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2 
`A.  Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 2 
`C. 
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 3 
`IV.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 3 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT ............................................................ 3 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 5 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6 
`A. 
`“Light source” ....................................................................................... 7 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................ 9 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent ........................................... 9 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 12 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16 are obvious over Gärtner ............. 12 
`B. 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 are obvious over Gärtner in
`view of Hiura ....................................................................................... 34 
`Claims 1, 3, 13, 16 ............................................................................... 35 
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 are obvious over Gärtner in
`view of Ikeuchi .................................................................................... 46 
`Claims 1, 3, 13, 16 ............................................................................... 47 
`1. 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 55 
`
`1. 
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`A. 
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding the Content of the Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 55 
`B.  Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 55 
`C. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 57 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59 
`
`X. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq
`
`Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 8,309,943 (“the ’943 patent,” Ex. 1001) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and divisional applications. Exhibit 1002 shows the
`
`U.S. members of this patent family and the relationships among them. Petitioners
`
`are also seeking inter partes review of related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,435,982 (“the
`
`’982 patent”); 7,786,455 (“the ’455 patent”); 8,525,138 (“the ’138 patent”); and
`
`8,969,841 (“the ’841 patent”). Petitioners request that the inter partes reviews of
`
`the ʼ943, ’982, ’455, ’138 and ’841 patents be assigned to the same Panel for
`
`administrative efficiency.
`
`The following litigation matter would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`this proceeding: Energetiq Tech., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V. et al, Civil Action
`
`No.: 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass.).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Donald R. Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`Second Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Email: Donald R. Steinberg, don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: WilmerHale, 60 State St., Boston MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6453
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104 (b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`claims 1, 3, 13 and 16 of the ’943 patent (“the challenged claims”) and request that
`
`each challenged claim be cancelled.
`
`A. Grounds for Challenge
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering at the University of Illinois (“Eden Decl.,” Ex. 1006),
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims and that each of the challenged
`
`claims is unpatentable for the reasons cited in this petition. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a).
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`B.
`Petitioners rely upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1. French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`
`(“Gärtner,” Ex. 1003), and is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b).
`
`2. U.S. Patent Publication No. US2005/0225739, filed April 11, 2003, published
`
`October 13, 2005 (“Hiura,” Ex. 1004), and is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 102(b), and/or 102(e).
`
`3. Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003-317675, published November 7, 2003
`
`(“Ikeuchi,” Ex. 1005), and is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`C. Relief Requested
`Petitioners request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel the
`
`challenged claims because they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT
`The ’943 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for use in
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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)); (Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 25 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`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, 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
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b). Any claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is also
`
`given a broad interpretation. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
`
`1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Should the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, contend that the
`
`claims have a construction different from their broadest reasonable construction,
`
`the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to
`
`expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,764, 48,766-48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Consistent with this standard, this section proposes, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, constructions of terms that lack a definition in
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the specification and provides support for these proposed constructions. Terms not
`
`included in this section have their broadest reasonable meaning in light of the
`
`specification as commonly understood by those of ordinary skill. (See Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 23 (defining level of ordinary skill) (Ex. 1006).)
`
`“Light source”
`
`A.
`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.” (Eden Decl. at ¶ 28 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`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
`
`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., ’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).) (See Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 29 n. 1 (Ex. 1006).).
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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
`
`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) (Eden Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex.
`
`1006).)
`
`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) (Eden Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 31
`
`(Ex. 1006).)
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent
`
`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.
`
`9
`
`

`
`1, 2 (Ex. 1003); Eden Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1003)
`
`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 a result of multiple reflection.” (Hiura ¶ 0079 (Ex. 1004)) (Eden
`
`10
`
`

`
`Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Hiura Fig. 10 (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`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
`
`apparatus. (See, e.g., Ikeuchi, ¶¶ 0002, 0006, 0010, 0034, and 0046, Fig. 1 (Ex.
`
`11
`
`

`
`1005).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 35
`
`(Ex. 1006).)
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), specific grounds for finding the
`
`challenged claims invalid are identified below and discussed in the Eden
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1006). 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
`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
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`disclosed in a single embodiment of Gärtner, it would have been obvious to
`
`combine features discussed in connection with various exemplary figures in
`
`Gärtner.
`
`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
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex.
`
`1006).)
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`light. . . . [T]hese arc lamps do not provide sufficient brightness for some
`
`applications, especially in the ultraviolet spectrum. . . . Accordingly, a need
`
`therefore exists for improved high brightness light sources.”) (Ex. 1001).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`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).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1003)
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`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
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`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
`
`(“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).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`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
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 3 (Ex. 1003)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 4 (Ex. 1003)
`
`2. Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16
`
`As illustrated below, Gärtner renders every limitation of claims 1, 3, 13, and
`
`16 of the ’943 patent obvious. (See Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1006).) 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 (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])
`
`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
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1:31-32 (recognizing light sources were known in the art) (Ex. 1001).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`
`b)
`
`Claim 1 - Chamber and Ignition Source (elements [1a],
`[1b])
`
`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 constitute the gas-
`
`tight chamber containing the discharge medium 19.”); 6:9, Figs. 3-4 (“discharge
`
`chambers 35 and 36”) (Ex. 1003); see also ’943 patent at 1:31-34 (recognizing
`
`light source chambers were known in the art) (Ex. 1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex.
`
`1006).)
`
`Claim 1 further recites “an ignition source for ionizing a medium within the
`
`chamber.” (’943 Patent, 30:37-38 (Ex. 1001).) Gärtner’s gas-tight chamber
`
`contains a “discharge medium” such as “argon or xenon,” and Gärtner’s “laser 10”
`
`is an ignition source for ionizing the medium. (Gärtner at 4:32, 5:5-7, 5:15-16 (Ex.
`
`1003).) In particular, laser 10 is “a nitrogen pulse laser” that “produces an
`
`electrical discharge” in the medium to create “absorbent plasma 14.” (Gärtner at
`
`5:5-7 (Ex. 1003).) Gärtner also discloses electrodes as an ignition source.
`
`(Gärtner at 1:22 (“the electrodes of the discharge cavity”) (Ex. 1003).) Thus,
`
`Gärtner discloses both electrode and pulsed laser ignition sources for ionizing a
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`medium within the chamber. (Eden Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - Laser providing energy to the ionized medium
`within the chamber to produce a light (element [1c])
`
`Claim 1 recites “a laser for providing energy to the ionized medium within
`
`the chamber to produce a light.” (’943 Patent, 30:39-40 (Ex. 1001).) Gärtner
`
`discloses a laser that provides energy to the ionized medium within the chamber to
`
`produce light. (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1006).) For example, Gärtner teaches “the
`
`production and maintenance of a radiation-emitting plasma in the discharge
`
`medium are ensured, in a known manner, by at least one laser situated outside the
`
`chamber. . .” (Gärtner at 3:22-24 (Ex. 1003).) Gärtner shows “continuous laser
`
`9,” which is a “stationary CO2 gas laser,” in Figure 1 as an example of such a laser.
`
`(Gärtner at 5:3-4, 11-12; see also id. at 5:7-9 (“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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`
`d)
`
`Claim 1 - Blocker (elements [1d])
`
`Claim 1 recites “a blocker suspended along a path the energy travels and
`
`blocking the energy provided to the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the
`
`ionized medium.” (’943 Patent at 30:41-43 (Ex. 1001).) Gärtner discloses a
`
`blocker suspended along a path the energy travels and blocking the energy
`
`provided to the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium, as
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`recited in the claim. For example, Gärtner’s “concave mirror 12” in Fig. 1 is a
`
`blocker suspended along a path the energy travels and serves to block the energy
`
`provided to the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium. In
`
`particular, concave mirror 12 is “mounted on the wall of the chamber” along a path
`
`radiation 11 from laser 9 travels. (Gärtner at 5:4-5 (Ex. 1003).) Concave mirror
`
`12 serves to block the laser energy provided to the plasma 14 that is not absorbed
`
`by the plasma 14. Indeed, like an embodiment of the ’943 patent, concave mirror
`
`12 blocks this laser energy by reflecting it back toward the plasma 14. (Cf. ’943
`
`patent, 29:33-36 (“In some embodiments, the blocker 1550 is configured to reflect
`
`the laser energy 1556 back toward the ionized medium in the chamber 1528.”) (Ex.
`
`1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`Gärtner also discloses a blocker positioned between the laser and an output
`
`of the light source as depicted in Figure 15A of the ’943 patent. For example, in
`
`Figure 3, concave mirror 39 is a blocker suspended along a path the energy travels
`
`and serves to block the energy provided to the ionized medium that is not absorbed
`
`by the ionized medium. Like the arrangement in Figure 15A of the ’943 patent,
`
`concave mirror 39 is positioned between the laser 38 and the output of the light
`
`source. Additionally, like an embodiment of the ’943 patent, concave mirror 39
`
`blocks the beam 37 by reflecting it toward plasma 41. (Cf. ’943 patent, 29:33-36
`
`(“In some embodiments, the blocker 1550 is configured to reflect the laser energy
`
`21
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1556 back toward the ionized medium in the chamber 1528.”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`Additionally, concave mirror 39 is suspended along a path the energy travels
`
`because it is attached to the output window in the path the laser energy travels.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1006).)
`
`Similarly, in Figure 4, Gärtner discloses an output window that is a blocker
`
`suspended along a path the energy travels and blocking the energy provided to the
`
`ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium. In particular, in
`
`Figure 4, lens 40 focuses the beam 37 into the plasma 42. (Gärtner at 6:10-12 (Ex.
`
`1003).) The output window absorbs the remainder of the laser energy provided to
`
`the plasma that is not absorbed by the plasma. A person of skill in the art would
`
`appreciate