`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.
`
`Cases IPR2015-01300 and
`IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 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 two Petitions including a
`Petition in IPR2015-01300 (Paper 4, “Pet.”) and a Petition in IPR2015-
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`01303 (Paper 2, “IPR ’1303 Pet.”).1 Petitioner requests that we institute an
`inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24–27, 30, 31, 34, 37, 42,
`43, 49, 55, 61–64, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, and 78 (the “challenged claims”) of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’982 Patent”). Because the
`subject matter of the claims and the challenges significantly overlap, we
`consolidate the IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303 inter partes reviews.
`We, however, note that although Petitioner filed a third Petition challenging
`claims 23 and 60 of the same ’982 Patent, we do not consolidate the third
`proceeding, i.e., IPR2015-01377, and will issue a separate decision in that
`inter partes review.
`Patent Owner, Energetiq Technology, Inc., did not file a Preliminary
`Response in either IPR2015-01300 or IPR2015-01303. 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).
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the Petition and other documents
`filed in IPR2015-01300.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 17,
`37; IPR ’1303 Pet. 14, 29):
`
`References
`
`French Patent Publication No.
`FR2554302 A1 (“Gärtner”)
`(Ex. 1104)2
`
`Gärtner
`
`Basis
`
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`Claims challenged
`
`1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24, 25,
`30, 31, 37, 42, 43, 49, 55,
`61, 62, 67, 68, 71, 74, and
`78
`26, 27, 34, 63, 64, and 723
`
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of the
`challenged claims of the ’982 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. Petitioner and Patent Owner also
`indicate that other inter partes review petitions have been filed for the ’982
`Patent or patents that relate to the ’982 Patent as follows: IPR2015-01277,
`IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01362, IPR2015-01368, IPR2015-01375,
`IPR2015-01377, IPR2016-00126, and IPR2016-00127. Pet. 1; Papers 7, 12.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the certified English-language
`translation, submitted as part of Exhibit 1104.
`3 Although claim 61 is included in the header of the section of the Petition
`discussing obviousness (Pet. 37), Petitioner’s contentions regarding claim 61
`are based on anticipation (Pet. 36), not obviousness (Pet. 38–42).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`C. The ’982 Patent
`The ’982 Patent relates to a laser-driven light source. Ex. 1101, 1:5–
`6. Figure 1 of the ’982 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 4:36–
`37), chamber 128 that contains an ionizable medium (id. at 4:30–32), and
`ignition source 140 (id. at 5:28–29). Ignition source 140 generates an
`electrical discharge in region 130 of chamber 128 to ignite the ionizable
`medium (id. at 5:29–32), which creates plasma 132 (id. at 4:32–34).
`Laser 104 outputs laser beam 116 via fiber optic element 108. Id. at 5:15–
`16. Collimator 112 directs laser beam 116 to beam expander 118, which
`produces laser beam 122 and directs it to optical lens 120. Id. at 5:20–23.
`Optical lens 120 focuses the beam to produce smaller diameter laser beam
`124 and directs it to region 130 (id. at 5:23–25) to emit high brightness light
`136 (id. at 4:36–39).
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 30, 37, 67, 74, and 78 are
`independent. Each of claims 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24–27, 31, 34, 42, 43, 49, 55,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`61–64, 68, 71, and 72, depends, directly or indirectly, from claim 1, 30, 37
`or 67, respectively. Independent claims 1 and 37 are illustrative and are
`reproduced below.
`1. A light source, comprising:
`a chamber;
`an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber;
`and
`at least one laser for providing energy to the ionized gas
`within the chamber to produce a high brightness
`light.
`Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:2.
`37. A light source, comprising:
`a chamber;
`an ignition source for ionizing an ionizable medium
`within the chamber; and
`at least one laser for providing substantially continuous
`energy to the ionized medium within the chamber
`to produce a high brightness light.
`
`Id. at 10:36–42.
`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
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim
`
`
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`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 constructions for “light source” and “high
`brightness light” and identifies functions and corresponding structures for
`two means-plus-function terms. Pet. 7–14; see also IPR ’1303 Pet. 6–11
`(proposing the same constructions for the same two terms identified in
`IPR2015-01300). Upon review of the present record, we determine that
`Petitioner’s proposed constructions for “light source” and “high brightness
`light” are consistent with the broadest reasonable construction. For purposes
`of this Decision, we adopt the following claim constructions:
`Claim Term
`Construction
`“light source” 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.
`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.
`Below we evaluate Petitioner’s contentions regarding the means-plus-
`function terms recited in independent claim 74.
`
`“high
`brightness
`light”
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`3. “a first ignition means for ionizing an ionizable medium
`within the chamber”
`Independent claim 74 recites “a first ignition means for ionizing an
`ionizable medium within the chamber.” Petitioner contends that the function
`is “ionizing an ionizable medium within the chamber.” Pet. 12. Petitioner
`also contends that “[t]he 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 pulsed lasers, and pulsed lamps.” Id. at 12–
`13.
`
`On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`identification of the function and corresponding structure as consistent with
`the ’982 Patent Specification. For example, the ’982 Patent describes an
`embodiment where an ignition source is “a pair of electrodes located in the
`chamber.” Ex. 1101, 7:3–4. The ’982 Patent provides alternative types of
`ignition sources, including “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.
`
`4. “a means for providing substantially continuous laser
`energy to the ionized medium within the chamber”
`Independent claim 74 recites “a means for providing substantially
`continuous laser energy to the ionized medium within the chamber.”
`Petitioner contends that the function is “providing substantially continuous
`laser energy to the ionized medium within the chamber.” Pet. 13–14.
`Petitioner contends that “[t]he corresponding structure for performing the
`function includes a laser source.” Id. at 14.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions regarding
`identification of the function. Regarding the corresponding structure, we
`note that the Specification of the ’982 Patent indicates that a light source can
`include a pulse laser or a continuous wave laser. Ex. 1101, 2:60–61. For
`instance, a high pulse rate laser that provides pulses of energy to the ionized
`medium so that the high brightness light is substantially continuous can be
`used. Id. at 2:61–64. In some embodiments, the substantially continuous
`energy provided to plasma 132 is sufficient to minimize cooling of the
`ionized medium to maintain a desirable brightness of emitted light 136. Id.
`at 5:61–64.
`In light of the Specification, we determine that the corresponding
`structure for performing the function of “providing substantially continuous
`laser energy” encompasses a continuous wave laser, a high pulse rate laser,
`and a laser that provides substantially continuous laser energy.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Overview
`Anticipation, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, requires the disclosure in a
`single prior art reference of each and every element of the claimed invention,
`arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242
`F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;5 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
`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. Anticipation by Gärtner
`Petitioner contends that each of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24, 25, 30,
`31, 37, 42, 43, 49, 55, 61, 62, 67, 68, 71, 74, and 78 of the ’982 Patent is
`anticipated by Gärtner. Pet. 17–37; IPR ’1303 Pet. 14–29. As support,
`Petitioner proffers a Declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, who has been retained
`as an expert witness for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 19–20.
`
`1. Gärtner
`Gärtner describes a radiation source for optical devices, in particular
`for photolithographic reproduction systems. Ex. 1104, 1. Figure 1 of
`Gärtner is reproduced below.
`
`
`5 Dr. Eden proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex.
`1103 ¶ 23. To the extent necessary and for purposes of this Decision, we
`adopt Petitioner’s unchallenged definition.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Gärtner shows an embodiment of a radiation source.
`Figure 1 of Gärtner describes a gas-tight chamber 1 that contains a
`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.
`Laser 9 is described as a stationary CO2 gas laser, and laser 10 is described
`as 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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`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
`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 30
`Claim 1 is directed to a light source and claim 30 recites a method for
`producing light. We discuss independent claims 1 and 30 together because
`of their similarities. Regarding “a chamber,” “an ignition source,” and “at
`least one laser,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 30,
`Petitioner points to Gärtner’s description of gas-tight chamber 1, laser 10,
`and laser 9 in Gärtner’s radiation source for optical devices. IPR ’1303 Pet.
`21–22 (citing 1004, 1, 3–6, Figs. 1–4); see also IPR ’1303 Pet. 15–17
`(highlighting components corresponding to the elements of the claim in
`green, blue, and red, respectively).6 As discussed above, on this record, we
`find Petitioner’s construction reasonable i.e., that “high brightness light”
`means:
`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
`
`
`6 Because Petitioner’s contentions regarding claims 1 and 30 are set forth in
`IPR2015-01303, we refer to the Petition filed in that case (“IPR ’1303 Pet.”)
`and the Gärtner Exhibit filed in that case, i.e., Exhibit 1004.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`(IPR ’1303 Pet. 9 (emphasis added)). As Petitioner notes (Pet. 21), Gärtner
`describes a “highly powerful radiation source” for “photolithographic
`installations.” Ex. 1004, 3.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that each of independent claims 1 and 30 is
`anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`3. Independent Claims 37, 67, and 74
`Independent claims 37 and 67 are similar to claims 1 and 30,
`respectively, except that claims 37 and 67 further recite that the laser
`provides substantially continuous energy to the ionized medium. With
`respect to the similar limitations, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments
`and evidence submitted in IPR2015-01300 and confirmed that Petitioner
`points to the same description in Gärtner in its submissions in IPR2015-
`01300 as discussed above with respect to IPR2015-01303. With respect to
`the further limitation of providing substantially continuous energy to the
`ionized medium, as Petitioner notes (Pet. 23, 24) Gärtner describes
`“continuous laser 9”. Ex. 1104, 5.
`Independent claim 74 is similar to independent claim 67, except claim
`74 is directed to an apparatus and recites limitations in means-plus-function
`format. Upon review of Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, we determine
`that Petitioner has shown sufficiently each of the limitations, including the
`functions and corresponding structures of the means-plus-function
`limitations. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1104, 1, 3–6, Figs. 1–4; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 77–
`84).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that each of independent claims 37, 67, and 74 is
`anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`4. Independent Claim 78
`Independent claim 78 recites some of the same limitations as the other
`independent claims and we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown these
`same limitations for the reasons discussed above. Claim 78 further recites a
`sealed chamber. As Petitioner notes (Pet. 31–33), Gärtner describes that the
`chamber is “gas-tight.” Ex. 1104, 4, 5.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that independent claim 78 is anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`5. Dependent Claims 3, 4, 31, 42, 43, and 68
`Claims 3, 31, 42, and 68 depend, directly, from claims 1, 30, 37, and
`67, respectively. We start by noting that each of claims 3, 31, 42, and 68
`further recites directing the laser energy through at least one optical element
`to modify a property of the laser energy provided to the gas (or ionizable
`medium, depending on the claim). In view of the similarity of claims 3 and
`31, challenged in IPR2015-01303, and claims 42 and 68, challenged in
`IPR2015-01300, we discuss Petitioner’s arguments and evidence once
`referring to submissions in IPR2015-01300.7
`
`
`7 We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence submitted in
`IPR2015-01303 and confirmed that Petitioner points to the same description
`in Gärtner in its submissions in IPR2015-01303 as we discuss with respect
`to IPR2015-01300. To avoid repetition in subsequent sections of our
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`With respect to the further recitation of directing the laser energy
`through at least one optical element to modify a property of the laser energy
`provided to the gas (or ionizable medium, depending on the claim), as
`Petitioner notes (Pet. 33–34), Gärtner describes using concave mirror 12 or
`lens 22 to focus laser energy. Ex. 1104, 5; see also id. at 6 (“radiation 37
`from the carbon dioxide (CO2) laser 38 is focused by the focusing elements,
`a concave mirror 39 or a lens 40.”).
`Claims 4 and 43 depend, directly, from claims 3 and 42, respectively.
`Each of claims 4 and 43 further recites that the optical element is a lens or a
`mirror. In view of Gärtner’s disclosure discussed above, we are persuaded
`that Petitioner has shown the further recitation of claims 4 and 43.
`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, 4, 31, 42, 43, and 68 is
`anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`6. Dependent Claims 10 and 49
`Claims 10 and 49 depend, directly, from claims 1 and 37,
`respectively. Each of claims 10 and 49 further requires that the chamber is
`sealed. For the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 78, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged arguments and evidence that
`
`
`Decision, we note that each of the other dependent claims challenged in
`IPR2015-01303 is similar to a claim challenged in IPR2015-01300. As we
`do here, in subsequent sections, we refer to only Petitioner’s submission in
`IPR2015-01300, but we have confirmed that our analysis also applies to
`IPR2015-01303.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`each of claims 10 and 49 is anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`7. Dependent Claims 16 and 55
`Claims 16 and 55 depend, directly, from claims 1 and 37,
`respectively. Each of claims 16 and 55 further requires a gas that is one or
`more of a group that includes xenon and argon. As Petitioner notes (Pet.
`35), Gärtner describes that the chamber contains an active medium such as
`argon or xenon gas. Ex. 1104, 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 16 and 55 is anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`8. Dependent Claims 21 and 71
`Claim 21 depends, directly, from claim 1 and further recites that the
`laser is a pulse or continuous wave laser. For the reasons discussed above
`with respect to claim 37, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that Gärtner describes the further limitation recited in claim 21.
`Dependent claim 71 depends, directly, from claim 67 and further
`recites that the ionizable medium comprises a solid, liquid, or gas. As
`Petitioner notes (Pet. 37), Gärtner describes the chamber as “gas-tight” and
`describes that argon or xenon are exemplary contents. Ex. 1104, 4, 5. We
`find that argon and xenon are gases. Ex. 1103 ¶ 103.
`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 21 and 71 is anticipated by
`Gärtner.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`9. Dependent Claims 24, 25, 61, and 62
`Each of claims 24 and 25 depends, directly, from claim 1 and each of
`claims 61 and 62 depends, directly, from claim 37. Each of claims 24 and
`61 further recites that the ignition source is selected from the particular
`group that includes electrodes and a pulsed laser. As Petitioner notes (Pet.
`38), Gärtner describes exemplary ignition sources including a nitrogen pulse
`laser and electrodes. Ex. 1104, 1, 5.
`Each of claims 25 and 62 further recites that the ignition source is
`external or internal to the chamber. As Petitioner notes (Pet. 38), Gärtner
`describes an ignition source that is external (Ex. 1104, Fig. 1) and internal
`(id. at 1) to the chamber.
`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 24, 25, 61, and 62 is anticipated
`by Gärtner.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 26, 27, 34, 63, 64, and 72 over Gärtner
`Petitioner contends that each of claims 26, 27, 34, 63, 64, and 72 of
`the ’982 Patent is rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Figures 1
`and 2 of Gärtner. Pet. 37–42; IPR ’1303 Pet. 29–34. Petitioner also relies
`upon the Declaration of Dr. Eden for support. Ex. 1103.
`
`1. Dependent Claims 26, 34, 63, and 72
`Claims 26, 34, 63, and 72 depend from claims 1, 30, 37, and 67. Each
`of claims 26 and 63 further recites at least one optical element for modifying
`a property of the radiation emitted by the ionized gas (or ionized medium).
`Each of claims 34 and 72 further recites directing the high brightness light
`through at least one optical element to modify a property of the light. We
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged contentions and evidence.
`Pet. 38–41 (citing Ex. 1104, 4–6, Figs.1–4; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 105–112). For
`example, as Petitioner notes (id.), Gärtner teaches that condenser lens 29 is
`placed downstream. Ex. 1004, 5–6. Additionally, we find reasonable
`Petitioner’s asserted rationale that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have combined the teachings of Gärtner to focus radiation. Pet. 38–41
`(citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 105–112).
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 26, 34, 63, and 72 on
`the basis of obviousness over the teachings of Gärtner.
`
`2. Dependent Claims 27 and 64
`Each of claims 27 and 64 depends, directly, from claims 26 and 63,
`respectively. Each of claims 27 and 64 further recites “wherein the optical
`element is a mirror or a lens.” As discussed above, Gärtner teaches an
`optical element that is a lens. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`unchallenged arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims
`27 and 64 on the basis of obviousness over the teachings of Gärtner.
`
`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 ’982 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.
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`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 ’982 Patent is instituted on the following
`grounds of unpatentability:
`1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24, 25, 30, 31, 37, 42, 43, 49, 55,
`61, 62, 67, 68, 71, 74, and 78, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as
`anticipated by Gärtner; and
`2. Claims 26, 27, 34, 63, 64, and 72, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
`as obvious over the teachings of Gärtner;
`FURTHER ORDERED that we institute inter partes review on no
`other ground other than those specifically noted above;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Case IPR2015-01300 is consolidated
`with Case IPR2015-01303, and all further filings in the consolidated
`proceedings shall be made in Case IPR2015-01300;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2015-01300 shall
`be changed to reflect consolidation as shown on the first page of this
`Decision;
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`the files of Cases IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303; 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.
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01300 and IPR2015-01303
`Patent 7,435,982 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
`
`
`19