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.
`
`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

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