DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US4
`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 IPR2015-01300
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,435,982
`CLAIMS 37, 42-43, 49, 55, 61-64, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, AND 78
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`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
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 3
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`A.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 5
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`A.
`“Light source” ....................................................................................... 7
`B.
`“High brightness light” .......................................................................... 9
`C.
`“A first ignition means for ionizing an ionizable medium within
`the chamber” ........................................................................................ 12
`1. Function ........................................................................................ 12
`2. Structure ....................................................................................... 12
`“Means for providing substantially continuous laser energy to
`the ionized medium within the chamber” ........................................... 13
`1. Function ........................................................................................ 13
`2. Structure ....................................................................................... 14
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ......................................... 14
`A.
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent ......................................... 14
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 17
`
`D.
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Ground 1: Claims 37, 42-43, 49, 55, 61-62, 67-68, 71, 74 and
`78 are anticipated by Gärtner .............................................................. 17
`1. Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 17
`2.
`Independent Claim 37 .................................................................. 20
`3.
`Independent Claim 67 .................................................................. 24
`4.
`Independent Claim 74 .................................................................. 28
`5.
`Independent Claim 78 .................................................................. 31
`6. Dependent Claims 42 and 68 – Optical Element for Modifying a
`Property of the Laser Energy ........................................................ 33
`7. Dependent Claim 43 – Optical Element Is a Lens or Mirror ....... 34
`8. Dependent Claim 49 – Sealed Chamber ...................................... 35
`9. Dependent Claim 55 – Ionizable Media ....................................... 35
`10. Dependent Claim 61 – Ignition source is a pulsed laser,
`electrodes, or other types of ignition sources ............................... 36
`11. Dependent Claim 62 – Ignition Source is External or Internal to
`the Chamber .................................................................................. 36
`12. Dependent Claim 71 – Ionizable Medium Comprises a Solid,
`Liquid, or Gas ............................................................................... 37
`Ground 2: Claims 61, 63, 64, and 72 are Obvious over Gärtner ........ 37
`1. Dependent Claims 63 and 72 – Optical Element For Modifying A
`Property of the Emitted Light ....................................................... 38
`2. Dependent Claim 64 – Optical Element is Mirror or Lens .......... 41
`IX. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 42
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding the Content of the Prior
`Art ........................................................................................................ 42
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 46
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`
`
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 (“the ’982 patent,” Ex. 1101) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and continuation in part applications. Exhibit 1102
`
`shows the members of this patent family and the relationships among them.
`
`Petitioners are also seeking inter partes review of related U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,786,455 (“the ’455 patent”); 8,309,943 (“the ’943 patent”); 8,525,138 (“the ’138
`
`patent”); and 8,969,841 (“the ’841 patent”). Petitioners request that the inter
`
`partes reviews of the ʼ982, ’455, ’943, ’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: Don R. Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`First 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 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Email: Don 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 37, 42-43, 49, 55, 61-64, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, and 78 of the ’982 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. 1103),
`
`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 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`1. French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985 with
`
`English Translation (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1104), and is prior art to the ʼ982 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. §§ 102 and 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 ’982
`
`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. 1103).)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT
`The ’982 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for use in,
`
`for example, testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As depicted
`
`in Figure 1, reproduced below, the light source includes: (1) a chamber 128
`
`(green), (2) an ignition source 140 (blue) for generating a plasma 132, and (3) a
`
`laser 104 (red) for providing energy to the plasma 132 to produce a high brightness
`
`light 136 (’982 patent, 4:29-38 (Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1103).) The
`
`’982 patent identifies several types of “ignition sources,” such as “electrodes”
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(shown below) and “pulsed lasers” (not shown). (’982 patent, 7:7-24 (Ex. 1101).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`’982 Patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`According to the ’982 patent, prior art light sources relied upon electrodes to
`
`both generate and sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and contamination.
`
`(’982 patent, 1:20-40 (Ex. 1101).) Thus, a need allegedly arose for a way to
`
`sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes. (Id.
`
`1:20-40.) The alleged invention involves using a laser to provide energy to sustain
`
`the plasma to produce a “high brightness” light. (See, e.g., id. 1:46-50.) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`As discussed below, there was nothing new about sustaining a plasma with a
`
`laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art references, including
`
`Gärtner, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light sources with the same elements as
`
`the ’982 patent: a chamber, an ignition source, and a laser. (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`1103).)
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The ’982 patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/395,523, filed on
`
`March 31, 2006. On August 25, 2008, all the claims were allowed without
`
`rejection. The ’982 patent issued on October 14, 2008. (’982 Patent (Ex. 1101).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner explained that prior art to
`
`Hoshino disclosed “a light source which has a laser that generates a plasma[,]” and
`
`prior art to Sato disclosed a “light source where a laser beam excites gas (for
`
`emitting UV and EUV light) that is sealed in a bulb tube. . .” (Notice of
`
`Allowability dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 3 (Ex. 1107).) Thus, the Examiner recognized
`
`that using a laser to generate a plasma light source was not inventive. (Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 28 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`The Examiner nonetheless allowed the claims because the Examiner was not
`
`aware of prior art that disclosed the combination of an ignition source that
`
`generates the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma. (Notice of
`
`Allowability dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 3 (Ex. 1107).)
`
`The Examiner did not consider Gärtner, which was not of record during the
`
`prosecution of the ’982 patent. Gärtner discloses an ignition source that generates
`
`the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma to produce a high brightness
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`light. In fact, as discussed further below, high brightness light sources with
`
`ignition sources that generate the plasma and laser beams that sustain the plasma
`
`were well-known long before the priority date of the ’982 patent.
`
`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); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766
`
`(Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification sets forth an
`
`alternate definition of a term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,
`
`the patentee’s lexicography governs. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`reasonable construction standard, constructions of terms that lack a definition in
`
`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. For “means-
`
`plus-function” terms under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6, the section below explicitly
`
`identifies the function and corresponding structure of each term.
`
`“Light source”
`
`A.
`The term “light source” appears in claims 37, 42-43, 49, 55, 61-64, 74, and
`
`78. “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 (1 µm)), middle infrared (1µm to 10 µm), or far infrared (10
`
`µm to 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`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
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’982 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’982 patent, 6:47-49; 7:65-67; 8:6-9; 8:37-39 (Ex.
`
`1101).) (See Eden Decl. ¶ 32 n.1 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` 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 (1 µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., William T.
`
`Silfvast, “Laser Fundamentals” at 4 (“Silfvast”) (Ex. 1109).) The Patent Owner
`
`publishes a data sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning in referring to EUV wavelengths as within the meaning of “light source.”
`
`(See, e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10
`
`product operating at 13.5 nm as an “EUV [Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”)
`
`(Ex. 1108); (Eden Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`The ’982 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. The
`
`’982 patent states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light from a light
`
`source will vary depending upon the application. (’982 patent, 1:18-19 (Ex.
`
`1101).) 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).” (’982 patent, 7:65-67 (Ex. 1101); see also id. at
`
`6:47-49 (discussing “the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the plasma 132 of the
`
`light source 100”), 8:6-9, 8:37-39.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Therefore, the term “a source of electromagnetic radiation in the extreme
`
`ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(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 1000 µm)
`
`regions of the spectrum.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1103).)
`
` “High brightness light”
`
`B.
`All the challenged claims except for claim 74 recite the term “high
`
`brightness light.” For purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness
`
`light”2 should be construed to include “light sufficiently bright to be useful for:
`
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a
`
`lithography system used in the fabrication of wafers, a microscopy system, a
`
`photoresist curing system, or an endoscopic tool.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`2 For purposes of this proceeding, it is sufficient to interpret “high brightness light”
`
`as Petitioners explain above and each prior art reference used in the grounds of
`
`unpatentability is directed to providing light with sufficient brightness for purposes
`
`identified in the challenged patent. Petitioners note that in an infringement
`
`proceeding in which the required brightness of the light were at issue, claims
`
`reciting “high brightness light” would be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`
`paragraph for indefiniteness because the patent does not specify how bright the
`
`light must be.
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The ’982 patent defines “brightness”3 as “the power radiated by a source of
`
`light per unit surface area onto a unit solid angle.” (’982 patent, 4:46-47 (Ex.
`
`1101).) The brightness of the light produced by a light source “determines” the
`
`ability of a system or operator to “see or measure things … with adequate
`
`resolution.” (Id. at 4:47-51 (Ex. 1101).) Accordingly, the brightness of a light is
`
`associated with the ability to see or measure properties of a surface. (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`36 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`The ’982 patent recognizes that various uses for high brightness light existed
`
`before the ’982 patent was filed. The patent recognizes in the Background of the
`
`Invention that, “[f]or example, a high brightness light source can be used for
`
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers (e.g., reticles and photomasks).”
`
`(’982 patent, 1:11-14 (Ex. 1101).) It also identifies light sources that can be used
`
`“as a source of illumination in a lithography system used in the fabrication of
`
`wafers, a microscopy system[], or a photoresist curing system[,]” as further
`
`
`3 Although the ’982 patent uses the term “brightness,” “spectral brightness” is the
`
`more common term in optics and lasers. “Spectral brightness” refers to the optical
`
`power radiated per unit of wavelength (nm) into a steradian. (Eden Decl. ¶ 36 n.2
`
`(Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`examples of high brightness light sources. (’982 patent, 1:11-17 (Ex. 1101).)
`
`Additionally, it describes and claims “a wafer inspection tool, a microscope, a
`
`metrology tool, a lithography tool, [and] an endoscopic tool” as tools for which the
`
`high brightness light is produced. (’982 patent, 2:33-38, 10:11-14 (Ex. 1101).)
`
`More generally, the patent acknowledges that the brightness and other parameters
`
`of the light “vary depending upon the application.” (’982 patent, 1:18-19 (Ex.
`
`1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`The Patent Owner has argued that the term “high brightness light” should be
`
`understood as “bright enough to be used for inspection, testing, or measuring
`
`properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials used in the
`
`fabrication of wafers, or in lithography systems used in the fabrication of wafers,
`
`microscopy systems, or photoresist curing systems—i.e., at least as bright as xenon
`
`or mercury arc lamps,” which is similar to the construction proposed below but
`
`omits some of the applications for high brightness light specifically described in
`
`the ’982 Patent. (See Second Declaration of Donald K. Smith, Ph.D. in Support of
`
`Energetiq’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated
`
`Mar. 17, 2015 (“Second Smith Decl.”) at pp. 6 (Ex. 1111).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1103).)
`
`Therefore, for the purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness
`
`light” should be interpreted to include “light sufficiently bright to be used for:
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a
`
`lithography system used in the fabrication of wafers, a microscopy system, a
`
`photoresist curing system, or an endoscopic tool.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`C.
`
` “A first ignition means for ionizing an ionizable medium within
`the chamber”
`
`The term “ignition means” should be interpreted according to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112, ¶ 6 because it recites a “means for” performing a function. The addition of
`
`the term “ignition” to “means” does not overcome the presumption that claims
`
`reciting a “means for” performing a function should be interpreted under §112, ¶ 6.
`
`The term “ignition means” does not connote a particular structure, nor does the
`
`’982 patent describe any structure features of an ignition means. Rather, the term
`
`is merely a “nonce” word that merely substitutes for the term “means” associated
`
`with functional language.
`
`Function
`
`1.
`The function is “ionizing an ionizable medium within the chamber.” (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Structure
`
`2.
`The corresponding structure for performing the function includes a pair of
`
`electrodes, ultraviolet ignition sources, capacitive discharge ignition sources,
`
`inductive ignition sources, RF ignition sources, flash lamps, continuous wave or
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`pulsed lasers, and pulsed lamps. The ’982 patent describes an embodiment where
`
`an ignition source 140 is “a pair of electrodes located in the chamber.” (’982
`
`Patent, 7:3-14 (Ex. 1101).) It further states, “Alternative types of ignition sources
`
`140 . . . include ultraviolet ignition sources, capacitive discharge ignition sources,
`
`inductive ignition sources, RF ignition sources, … microwave ignition sources,
`
`flash lamps, pulsed lasers, and pulsed lamps.” (Id. 7:15-24.) Additionally, the
`
`patent explains that “[t]he ignition source can be a continuous wave (CW) or
`
`pulsed laser. . .”4 (Id. 2:24-29.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`D.
`
`“Means for providing substantially continuous laser energy to the
`ionized medium within the chamber”
`1.
`The function is “providing substantially continuous laser energy to the
`
`Function
`
`
`4 The ’982 patent additionally states, “In one embodiment, no ignition source 140
`
`is required and instead the laser source 104 is used to ignite the ionizable medium
`
`and to generate the plasma 132 and to sustain the plasma and the high brightness
`
`light 136 emitted by the plasma 132.” (’982 patent, 7:24-28 (Ex. 1101).) Thus, the
`
`’982 patent distinguishes between embodiments that have an ignition source (e.g.,
`
`electrodes or a laser) to generate the plasma and a separate laser to sustain the
`
`plasma, and embodiments that use the same laser to both generate and sustain the
`
`plasma. (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 n.3 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`ionized medium within the chamber.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Structure
`
`2.
`The corresponding structure for performing the function includes a laser
`
`source. The ’982 patent states:
`
`The laser source can be, for example, an infrared (IR) laser source, a
`diode laser source, a fiber laser source, an ytterbium laser source, a
`CO2 laser source, a YAG laser source, or a gas discharge laser source.
`In some embodiments, the laser source 104 is a pulse laser source
`(e.g., a high pulse rate laser source) or a continuous wave laser source.
`In some embodiments, multiple lasers (e.g., diode lasers) are coupled
`to one or more fiber optic elements (e.g., the fiber optic element 108).
`In some embodiments, fiber laser sources and direct semiconductor
`laser sources are desirable for use as the laser source 104 . . . .
`(’982 Patent at 5:41-52 (Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent
`
`When the application that led to the ’982 patent was filed, there was nothing
`
`new about a light source using an ignition source to generate a plasma in a
`
`chamber and a laser to sustain the plasma to produce high brightness light from the
`
`plasma. 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
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`devices, notably for photolithographic reproduction systems,” which published on
`
`May 3, 1985 as French Patent Application No. 2554302. (“Gärtner” (Ex. 1104).)
`
`Gärtner discloses a light source with the same features claimed in the ’982 patent:
`
`(1) a sealed chamber 1 (green); (2) an ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (blue),
`
`which generates a plasma 14; and (3) a laser to produce light – laser 9 (red), which
`
`provides energy to the plasma 14 and produces light 15. (Eden Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex.
`
`1103).)
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1104)
`
`Similarly, Cremers et al. published a paper in 1984 entitled, “Evaluation of
`
`the continuous optical discharge for spectrochemical analysis.” (Ex. 1105.)
`
`Cremers describes a laser sustained plasma light source producing a “continuous
`
`optical discharge” (COD) that generated a “very bright white light.” (Cremers at
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`666 (Ex. 1105).) As shown in Figure 2, reproduced below, Cremers’s light source
`
`included the same features as the ’982 patent: (1) a sealed chamber (green); (2) an
`
`ignition source – a pair of electrodes or pulsed laser PB (both shown in blue),
`
`which ionizes a gas to generate a plasma in the chamber; and (3) a laser, the cw-
`
`CO2 laser (red), to supply energy to the plasma to produce the continuous optical
`
`discharge. (Id. Fig. 2.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cremers, Fig. 2 (Ex. 1105)
`
`By the late 1980’s, this concept was already being taught in textbooks. (See
`
`D. Keefer, “Laser Sustained Plasmas,” Chapter 4, in Radziemski et al., “Laser-
`
`Induced Plasmas and Applications,” CRC Press (1989) (Ex. 1106).) (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`46 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’982 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. ¶ 47
`
`(Ex. 1103).)
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`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. 1103). These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 37, 42-43,
`
`49, 55, 61-64, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, and 78 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and
`
`103.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 37, 42-43, 49, 55, 61-62, 67-68, 71, 74 and 78 are
`anticipated by Gärtner
`
`Claims 37, 42-43, 49, 55, 61-62, 67-68, 71, 74 and 78 are anticipated by
`
`Gärtner. (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Gärtner is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it published more than
`
`a year before the earliest claimed priority date for the ’982 patent, which is March
`
`31, 2006. Gärtner was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the
`
`’982 patent.
`
`Overview of Gärtner
`
`1.
`Gärtner describes a light source for optical devices: “The present invention
`
`relates to a radiation source for optical devices, in particular for photolithographic
`
`reproduction systems.” (Gärtner at 1:1-2 (Ex 1104).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex.
`
`1103).)
`
`Gärtner is directed to the same problem as the ’982 patent, namely,
`
`producing light that is brighter than that produced by conventional arc lamps for
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`applications like 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 1104) with ’982
`
`patent, 1:20-40 (“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 applications, especially in the
`
`ultraviolet spectrum. . . . Accordingly, a need therefore exists for improved high
`
`brightness light sources.”) (Ex. 1101).) In fact, it has been known since at least the
`
`1970’s that laser produced plasmas are brighter than conventional arc lamps. (See,
`
`e.g., U.S. Patent No. 3,900,803 at 1:39-43 (“[T]he total light output, from a laser-
`
`produced plasma is two to three times greater in the ultraviolet region (200
`
`nanometers to 300 nanometers) than is the spectral radiance from a xenon
`
`flashlamp of comparable size and input energy.”) (Ex. 1110).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 51
`
`(Ex. 1103).)
`
`Gärtner proposes the same solution as the ’982 patent, albeit over 20 years
`
`earlier: (1) a sealed chamber, (2) an ignition source, and (3) a laser that provides
`
`energy that sustains a plasma providing high-brightness light. (Compare Gärtner
`
`at 4:32-5:9, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1104) with ’982 patent, 1:46-50, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1101).) For
`
`example, as shown below, Figure 1 of Gärtner a depicts a “gas-tight chamber 1”
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
` Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`(green); “laser 10” (blue) as an ignition source for generating the plasma 14; and a
`
`“laser 9” (red) for sustaining the plasma and producing a high brightness light.
`
`(Gärtner at 4:32-5:9 (Ex 1104).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1104)
`
`Gärtner operates in the same manner described in the ’982 patent. In
`
`particular, Gärtner explains that gas-tight chamber 1 is fill