throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`Paper 13
`Date Entered: November 30, 2015
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`A. Background
`Petitioner, ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG, filed a Petition (Paper 4, “Pet.”)
`requesting that we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 13, and 16
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,309,943 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`’943 Patent”). Patent Owner, Energetiq Technology, Inc., did not file a
`Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which
`provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the
`information presented in the petition . . . 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 12,
`34, 46):
`
`Claims challenged
`Basis
`References
`Gärtner1
`1, 3, 13, and 16
`§ 103(a)
`Gärtner and Hiura2
`1, 3, 13, and 16
`§ 103(a)
`Gärtner and Ikeuchi3
`1, 3, 13, and 16
`§ 103(a)
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of each
`of the challenged claims of the ’943 Patent.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify, as related proceedings, a lawsuit
`in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
`captioned Energetiq Tech., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., Case Number
`1:15-cv-10240-LTS. Pet. 1; Paper 7, 2. Petitioner and Patent Owner also
`indicate that other inter partes review petitions have been filed for patents
`
`1 French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`(Ex. 1003) (“Gärtner”). Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the certified
`English-language translation, submitted as part of Exhibit 1003.
`2 U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2005/0225739 A1, published Oct. 13, 2005
`(Ex. 1004) (“Hiura”).
`3 Japanese Patent Publication No. JP2003-317675, published Nov. 7, 2003
`(Ex. 1005) (“Ikeuchi”). Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the certified
`English-language translation, submitted as part of Exhibit 1005.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`that relate to the ’943 Patent as follows: IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01300,
`IPR2015-01303, IPR2015-01362, IPR2015-01368, IPR2015-01375,
`IPR2015-01377, IPR2016-00126, and IPR2016-00127. Id.; Paper 7, 3,
`Paper 12, 3.
`
`C. The ’943 Patent
`The ’943 Patent relates to a laser-driven light source. Ex. 1001, 1:15–
`16. Figure 1 of the ’943 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of a light source.
`As shown in Figure 1, light source 100 includes laser 104 (id. at
`11:22–24), chamber 128 that contains an ionizable medium (id. at 11:15–
`17), and ignition source 140 (id. at 12:17–19). Ignition source 140 generates
`an electrical discharge in region 130 of chamber 128 to ignite the ionizable
`medium (id. at 11:19–22), which creates plasma 132 (id. at 11:18–20).
`Laser 104 outputs laser beam 116 via fiber optic element 108. Id. at 12:3–4.
`Collimator 112 directs laser beam 116 to beam expander 118, which
`produces laser beam 122 and directs it to optical lens 120. Id. at 12:8–12.
`Optical lens 120 focuses the beam to produce smaller diameter laser beam
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`124 and directs it to region 130 (id. at 12:12–14) to emit high brightness
`light 136 (id. at 11:22–25).
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claims 3
`and 16 depend, directly, from claims 1 and 13, respectively. Independent
`claim 1 and dependent claim 3 are illustrative and are reproduced below.
`1. A light source, comprising:
`a chamber;
`an ignition source for ionizing a medium within the
`chamber;
`a laser for providing energy to the ionized medium within
`the chamber to produce a light; and.
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 30:35–43.
`3. The light source of claim 1, wherein the blocker
`absorbs the energy provided to the ionized medium
`that is not absorbed by the ionized medium.
`
`Id. at 30:46–48.
`E. Claim Construction
`1. Legal Standard
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC., 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, 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. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`2. Summary of the Petitioner’s Contentions
`Here, Petitioner proposes a construction for “light source.” Pet. 7–9.
`Upon review of the present record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed
`construction for “light source” is consistent with the broadest reasonable
`constructions of this term. For purposes of this Decision, for term “light
`source,” we adopt the following claim construction: “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 (1 μm)), middle
`infrared (1μm to 10 μm), or far infrared (10 μm to 1000 μm) regions of the
`spectrum” (Pet. 8–9).
`
`3. “a blocker”
`For purposes of this Decision, we find it necessary to construe the
`claim term “a blocker” expressly. 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.” Ex. 1001,
`
`
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`30:41–43 (emphasis added.) Claim 13 similarly recites “blocking energy . . .
`with a blocker.” Id. at 31:13–15 (emphasis added.)
`The ’943 Patent Specification states that “[i]n some embodiments, the
`blocker deflects energy,” whereas in other embodiments “the blocker
`absorbs the energy.” Id. at 9:17–24; see also id. at 28:58–67 (“In this
`embodiment, the blocker 1550 is a mirror that deflects the laser energy 1556
`. . . [t]he housing 1510 absorbs part of the reflected laser energy 1584.”)
`The ’943 Patent Specification describes exemplary blockers as follows: “a
`mirror” (id. at 9:21), “graphite” (id. at 9:24), “a coating on a portion of the
`chamber” (id. at 9:29–30), and “wall . . . of the housing” (id. at 28:67).
`In light of the Specification, we determine that “a blocker” means “an
`element that deflects or absorbs energy.” Additionally, we determine that “a
`blocker” encompasses each of the examples described in the ’943 Patent
`Specification noted above.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`The question of obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), is resolved on
`the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art5; and (4)
`objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In that regard, an
`obviousness analysis can take account of the inferences and creative steps
`
`5 Dr. Eden proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex.
`1006 ¶ 23. To the extent necessary and for purposes of this Decision, we
`adopt Petitioner’s unchallenged definition.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The level of ordinary skill in the
`art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`B. Obviousness of the Challenged Claims over Gärtner
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims of the ’943 Patent are
`unpatentable as obvious over the teachings of Gärtner. Pet. 12–34. To
`support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how
`the teachings of Gärtner meet each limitation of the challenged claims. Id.
`As support, Petitioner proffers a Declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, who has
`been retained as an expert witness for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 19–20.
`
`1. Gärtner
`Gärtner teaches a radiation source for optical devices, in particular for
`photolithographic reproduction systems. Ex. 1003, 1. Figure 1 of Gärtner is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Gärtner shows an embodiment of a radiation source.
`Figure 1 of Gärtner illustrates a gas-tight chamber 1 that contains
`discharge medium 2. Id. at 4. The discharge medium may be argon or
`xenon. Id. at 5. Entry aperture 3 is sealed by window 6 which allows
`infrared to pass, entry aperture 4 is sealed by lens 7 which allows ultraviolet
`to pass, and exit aperture 5 is provided with a window 8. Id. at 4–5. The
`radiation source includes two lasers 9 and 10 outside chamber 1. Id. at 5.
`Gärtner teaches that laser 9 is a stationary CO2 gas laser, and laser 10 is a
`nitrogen pulse laser. Id. Radiation 11 from laser 9 penetrates into chamber
`1 through window 6 and is focused by concave mirror 12. Id. Radiation
`from laser 10 is focused by lens 7, which allows ultraviolet to pass and
`produces an electrical discharge, and as a result, absorbent plasma 14 is
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`heated to high temperatures under the influence of radiation 11. Id. The
`radiation from the plasma can be fed into the downstream optical system
`through window 8. Id.
`
`2. Independent Claims 1 and 13
`Claim 1 is directed to a light source that comprises a chamber, an
`ignition source, a laser for producing light, and a blocker for blocking the
`energy provided by the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized
`medium. Ex. 1001, 30:35–43. Claim 13 recites a method for producing
`light using the elements similar to those recited in claim 1 to perform similar
`functions. Id. at 31:8–15. We discuss independent claims 1 and 13 together
`because of their similarities.
`Regarding “a chamber,” “an ignition source,” and “a laser,” as recited
`in claim 1 (Ex. 1001, 30:36–40), Petitioner points to Gärtner’s description of
`gas-tight chamber 1, laser 10, and laser 9, respectively, in Gärtner’s radiation
`source for optical devices. Pet. 12–20, 24, 26–28, 32 (citing 1003, 1, 3–6,
`Figs. 1–4); see also id. at 9–10 (highlighting components corresponding to
`the elements of the claim in green, blue, and purple, respectively).
`Regarding “a blocker suspended along a path the energy travels and
`blocking the energy provided by the ionized medium that is not absorbed by
`the ionized medium” as recited in claim 1 (Ex. 1001, 30:41–43), as noted
`above with respect to claim construction, we determine that “a blocker”
`means “an element that deflects or absorbs energy” and encompasses each of
`the examples described in the ’943 Patent Specification including the
`following: “a mirror” (id. at 9:21), “graphite” (id. at 9:24), “a coating on a
`portion of the chamber” (id. at 9:29–30), and “wall . . . of the housing” (id.
`at 28:67). Petitioner notes (Pet. 20–23, 28–32), Gärtner teaches “concave
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`mirror 12” (Ex. 1003, 5, Fig. 1), “concave mirror 39” (id. at 6, Fig. 3), and
`an output window (id. at Fig. 4). Each of these elements blocks energy
`provided by laser 9. Id. at Figs. 1, 3, 4. Petitioner also relies on the
`testimony of Dr. Eden that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`that the output window in Figure 4 is quartz. Pet. 22, 30–31 (citing
`Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 53, 65.) At this stage of the proceeding, we credit Dr. Eden’s
`testimony as it is consistent with the teaching with respect to Figure 2 of
`Gärtner of “quartz window 18.” Ex. 1003, 5.
`The present record also supports Petitioner’s conclusion that it would
`have been obvious to combine various teachings of Gärtner. Pet. 24–26, 32
`(citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 55–58.) For example, the Petition explains the
`following: (1) it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to use
`pulsed laser 10 illustrated in Figure 1 to ignite discharge medium of alternate
`embodiments when the discharge is not sufficient; (2) it would have been
`obvious to substitute quartz window 8 taught with respect to Figure 2 into
`any of Figures 1, 3, and 4 because quartz would have been a known material
`and the substitution would require no more than routine skill; and (3) it
`would have been obvious to include a chamber with a reflective surface in
`any embodiment to focus radiation. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 56–58).
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has articulated reasoning with
`rational underpinnings on why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`of the invention would have combined the teachings of Gärtner.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that each of claims 1 and 13 is unpatentable, under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over the teachings of Gärtner.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`3. Dependent Claims 3 and 16
`Claim 3 further recites that the blocker absorbs the energy (Ex. 1001,
`30:46–48) and claim 16 similarly recites that blocking comprises absorbing
`the energy (id. at 32:3–4). As Petitioner notes (Pet. 32–34), Gärtner teaches
`an output window (id. at Fig. 4). Additionally, Dr. Eden testifies that one of
`ordinary skill in the art would have known that the output window in
`Figure 4 is quartz. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 70, 71. At this stage of the proceeding, we
`credit Dr. Eden’s testimony as it is consistent with the teaching with respect
`to Figure 2 of Gärtner of “quartz window 18.” Ex. 1003, 5.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that each of claims 3 and 16 is unpatentable, under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over the teachings of Gärtner.
`
`C. Obviousness of the Challenged Claims over Gärtner and Ikeuchi
`Petitioner contends that the challenged claims of the ’943 Patent are
`unpatentable as obvious over the teachings of Gärtner and Ikeuchi. Pet. 46–
`54. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as
`to how Gärtner and Ikeuchi meet each limitation of the challenged claims.
`Id. As support, Petitioner proffers a Declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, who
`has been retained as an expert witness for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 19–20.
`
`1. Ikeuchi
`Ikeuchi teaches a continuous high-power light source of ultraviolet
`and visible light. Ex. 1005, Abstract. In accordance with one embodiment
`of the light source, electromagnetic radiation absorber 11 is provided on the
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`back wall to prevent leaking of electromagnetic radiation outside of the
`chamber. Id. ¶ 25, Fig. 1.
`
`2. The Challenged Claims
`As discussed above, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable,
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over the teachings of Gärtner.
`Petitioner also has persuaded us that Ikeuchi provides additional details
`regarding absorbing energy, which specifically relate to dependent claims 3
`and 16. For example, as Petitioner notes (Pet. 47–49), Ikeuchi teaches
`electromagnetic radiation absorber 11 that is comprised of “carbon black and
`absorbs submillimeter waves.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. As an additional example,
`Ikeuchi teaches “window member 7 may also be made of a material in which
`quartz glass is doped with 20 ppm of TiO2 with the aim of absorbing
`millimeter/submillimeter waves.” Id. ¶ 26.6
`The present record also supports Petitioner’s conclusion that it would
`have been obvious to modify the teachings of Gärtner with the teachings of
`Ikeuchi. Pet. 49–53, 55 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 96–102.). For example, the
`Petition explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known
`to implement a blocker to avoid damage by laser radiation unabsorbed by
`the light producing plasma and implementing Ikeuchi’s blocker in Gärtner’s
`
`6 Petitioner indicates that Patent Owner argued during prosecution of related
`patents that EUV light sources are distinguishable from UV light sources.
`Pet. 48 n. 6. Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s arguments and further
`contends that, unlike Gärtner and Hiura, Patent Owner’s prosecution
`arguments do not apply to Ikeuchi, which teaches production of visible and
`ultraviolet light. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 2.)
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`light source would have been obvious to try, required no more than routine
`skill, and would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex.
`1006 ¶¶ 100–102.) Based on the record before us, Petitioner has articulated
`reasoning with rational underpinnings on why a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention would have combined the teachings of
`Gärtner and Ikeuchi.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that each of the challenged claims is unpatentable,
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over the teachings of Gärtner and
`Ikeuchi.
`
`D. Remaining Ground Challenging the Claims of the ’943 Patent
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(b).
`We exercise our discretion and decline to institute review based on the
`other asserted ground advanced by Petitioner that is not identified below as
`being part of the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, based on this record, we determine that the
`information presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in showing that the challenged claims of the ’943 Patent are
`unpatentable. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final
`determination with respect to the patentability of any challenged claim.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4,
`an inter partes review of the ’943 Patent is instituted on the following
`grounds of unpatentability:
`1. Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
`obvious over the teachings of Gärtner; and
`2. Claims 1, 3, 13, and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
`obvious over the teachings of Gärtner and Ikeuchi;
`FURTHER ORDERED that we institute inter partes review on no
`other ground other than those specifically noted above; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is given of the institution of a trial on the grounds of
`unpatentability authorized above; the trial commences on the entry date of
`this decision.
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01277
`Patent 8,309,943 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Donald R. Steinberg
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Michael H. Smith
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`Gerald Worth
`Safraz W. Ishmael
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`jcapraro@proskauer.com
`gworth@proskauer.com
`sishmael@proskauer.com
`
`15

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket