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 IPR2015-01303
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,435,982
`CLAIMS 1, 3-4, 10, 16, 21, 24-27, 30, 31, and 34
`
`ASML 1003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1(cid:3)
`I.(cid:3)
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 6(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 7(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT ............................................................ 8(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 9(cid:3)
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`“Light source” ..................................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`“High brightness light” ........................................................................ 12(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3) THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ......................................... 15(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent ......................................... 15(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 17(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-25, 30, and 31 are
`anticipated by Gärtner ......................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3) Gärtner is prior art that was not considered by the Patent Office
`during examination ....................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3) Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 18(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 21(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Independent Claim 30 .................................................................. 24(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3) Dependent Claims 3 and 31 – Optical Element for the Laser ...... 28(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 4 – Optical element is a lens or mirror ............ 29(cid:3)
`7.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 10 – Sealed Chamber ...................................... 29(cid:3)
`8.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 16 – Gas is xenon or other gases ..................... 29(cid:3)
`9.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 21 – Laser is pulsed or continuous .................. 30(cid:3)
`10.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 24 – Ignition source is a pulsed laser,
`electrodes, or other types of ignition sources ............................... 30(cid:3)
`11.(cid:3) Dependent Claim 25 – Ignition source is external or internal to
`the chamber .................................................................................. 31(cid:3)
`Ground 2: Claims 26, 27, and 34 are obvious over Gärtner ............... 31(cid:3)
`
`B.(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`1.(cid:3) Claims 26 and 34 – Optical element to modify the light ............. 32(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3) Claim 27 - optical element is a mirror or a lens ........................... 35(cid:3)
`VIII.(cid:3) RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 36(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding ”High Brightness Light” ....... 36(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 40(cid:3)
`IX.(cid:3) AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 41(cid:3)
`X.(cid:3)
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 42(cid:3)
`XI.(cid:3)
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 43(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`I, J. Gary Eden, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is J. Gary Eden.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`2.
`
`I am the Gilmore Family Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering and Director of the Laboratory for Optical Physics and Engineering at
`
`the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois.
`
`3.
`
`I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering (High Honors) from the
`
`University of Maryland, College Park in 1972 and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1973 and 1976, respectively.
`
`4.
`
`After receiving my doctorate, I served as a National Research Council
`
`Postdoctoral Research Associate at the United States Naval Research Laboratory
`
`(“NRL”), Optical Sciences Division, in Washington, DC from 1975 to 1976. As a
`
`research physicist in the Laser Physics Branch (Optical Sciences Division) from
`
`1976 to 1979, I made several contributions to the visible and ultraviolet lasers and
`
`laser spectroscopy field, including the co-discovery of the KrCl rare gas-halide
`
`excimer laser and the proton beam pumped laser (Ar-N2, XeF). In 1979, I received
`
`a Research Publication Award for my work at the NRL.
`
`5.
`
`In 1979, I was appointed assistant professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois. In 1981, I
`
`became associate professor in this same department, and in 1983, I became
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`professor in this department. In 1985, I was named the Director of the Laboratory
`
`for Optical Physics and Engineering, and in 2007, I was named the Gilmore Family
`
`Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I continue to hold both
`
`positions today. In addition, I am also Research Professor in the Coordinated
`
`Science Laboratory and the Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory.
`
`6.
`
`Since joining the faculty of the University of Illinois in 1979, I have
`
`been engaged in research in atomic, molecular and ultrafast laser spectroscopy, the
`
`discovery and development of visible and ultraviolet lasers, and the science and
`
`technology of microcavity plasma devices. My research has been featured in Laser
`
`Focus, Photonics Spectra, Electronics Weekly (UK), the Bulletin of the Materials
`
`Research Society, Microwaves, Optical Spectra, Electro-Optical Systems Design,
`
`Optics and Laser Technology, Electronics, Optics News, Lasers and Optronics,
`
`IEEE Potentials, IEEE Spectrum, and IEEE Circuits and Devices. My work was
`
`highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences report Plasma 2010, published in
`
`2007.
`
`7.
`
`I have made several major contributions to the field of laser physics,
`
`plasma physics, and atomic and molecular physics. I co-invented a new form of
`
`lighting, “light tiles”, that are thin and flat. This culminated in the formation of a
`
`company called Eden Park Illumination. I discovered numerous ultraviolet, visible
`
`and near-infrared atomic and molecular lasers, including the KrCl ultraviolet
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`(excimer) laser, the optically-pumped XeF, HgCl, and rare gas lasers and the CdI,
`
`CdBr, ZnI, Li, Fe, and Cd visible and near-infrared lasers. I demonstrated the first
`
`long pulse (> 1 μs) excimer laser and the first lasers (Ar – N2, XeF) pumped by a
`
`proton beam. The excimer lasers are now used worldwide in photolithography,
`
`surgical procedures (such as corneal refractive correction) and micromachining of
`
`materials. I discovered the laser excitation spectroscopy of photoassociation (the
`
`absorption of optical radiation by free atomic pairs) of thermal atoms as a probe of
`
`the structure of transient molecules. I demonstrated with my graduate students the
`
`first ultraviolet and violet glass fiber lasers. I discovered the excimer-pumped
`
`atomic lasers (lasing on the D1 and D2 lines of Na, Cs, and Rb) for laser guide stars
`
`and mesosphere probing by LIDAR. I conducted the first observation (by laser
`
`spectroscopy) of Rydberg series for the rare gas diatomics (Ne2, Ar2, Kr2, Xe2) and
`
`the first measurement of the rotational constants for Ne2 and Ar2, as well as the
`
`vibrational constants for Ne2+. I pioneered the development of microcavity plasma
`
`devices and arrays in silicon, Al/Al2O3, glass, ceramics, and multilayer
`
`metal/polymer structures. For this, I was the recipient of the C.E.K. Mees Award
`
`from the Optical Society of America, the Aaron Kressel Award from the Photonics
`
`Society of the IEEE, and the Harold E. Edgerton Award from the International
`
`Society for Optical Engineering. I was the Fulbright-Israel Distinguished Chair in
`
`the Physical Sciences and Engineering from 2007 to 2008. I am a Fellow of the
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`American Physical Society, the Optical Society of America, the Institute of
`
`Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Association for the
`
`Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the SPIE (International Society for Optical
`
`Engineering.
`
`8.
`
`I taught/teach courses in laser physics, electromagnetics (including
`
`optics, optical waveguides, antennas), plasma physics, semiconductor electronic
`
`devices, electromagnetics, and analog signal processing, among others. I have
`
`directed the dissertations of 46 individuals who received the Ph.D. degree in
`
`Physics, Electrical and Computer Engineering, or Materials Science and
`
`Engineering.
`
`9.
`
`I have also served as Assistant Dean in the College of Engineering,
`
`Associate Dean of the Graduate College, and Associate Vice-Chancellor for
`
`Research.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 280 peer-reviewed academic
`
`publications in the fields of laser physics, plasma physics, atomic and molecular
`
`physics, quantum electronics. I have served as Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE
`
`Journal of Quantum Electronics and am currently Editor-in-Chief of Progress in
`
`Quantum Electronics and Associate Editor of Applied Physics Reviews.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently a member of four honorary organizations. In 1998, I
`
`served as President of the IEEE Lasers and Electro-Optics Society (LEOS),
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`following earlier service as a member of the LEOS Board of Governors, and as the
`
`Vice-President for Technical Affairs.
`
`12. From 1996 through 1999, I was the James F. Towey University
`
`Scholar at the University of Illinois. I received the LEOS Distinguished Service
`
`Award, was awarded the IEEE Third Millennium Medal in 2000 and was named a
`
`LEOS Distinguished Lecturer for 2003-2005.
`
`13.
`
`I am a co-founder of Eden Park Illumination (2007) and EP
`
`Purification (2010).
`
`14.
`
`In 2014, I was elected into the National Academy of Engineering, and
`
`the National Academy of Inventors.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor on over seventy (73) United States and
`
`international patents and have patent applications pending both in the United States
`
`and abroad.
`
`16. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,435,982 (the “’982 patent”; Ex. 1001). I have been informed that the ’982 patent
`
`claims priority to March 31, 2006.
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’982 patent:
`
`(cid:120) French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3,
`1985 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1004).
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`19.
`
`My compensation is not dependent, on and in no way, affects the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`20.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’982 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`21.
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) if “the invention was patented or described in a printed publication
`
`in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than
`
`one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” I have
`
`also been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`if “the invention was described in … an application for patent, published under
`
`section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`
`applicant for patent ….” It is my understanding that for a claim to be anticipated,
`
`all of the limitations must be present in a single prior art reference, either expressly
`
`or inherently.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). I understand that a claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious, and therefore not patentable, if the subject matter claimed would have
`
`been considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the
`
`invention was made. I understand that when there are known elements that perform
`
`in known ways and produce predictable results, the combination of those elements
`
`is likely obvious. Further, I understand that when there is a predictable variation
`
`and a person would see the benefit of making that variation, implementing that
`
`predictable variation is likely not patentable. I have also been informed that
`
`obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success, but that what does
`
`matter is whether the prior art gives direction as to what parameters are critical and
`
`which of many possible choices may be successful.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`23. 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.
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT
`24. 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, 1:46-50 (Ex. 1001).) The ’982 patent identifies
`
`several types of “ignition sources,” such as “electrodes” (shown below) and
`
`“pulsed lasers” (not shown). (’982 Patent at 7:7-24 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`
`
`25. 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. 1001).) Thus, a need allegedly arose for
`
`a way to sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes.
`
`(’982 patent, 1:20-40 (Ex. 1001).) The alleged invention involves using a laser to
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`provide energy to sustain the plasma to produce a “high brightness” light. (See,
`
`e.g., ’982 patent, 1:46-50 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`26. 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.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`27. 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. 1001).)
`
`28.
`
`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. 1007).) Thus, the Examiner recognized that using a
`
`laser to generate a plasma light source was not inventive.
`
`29. 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. 1007).)
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`30. 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 light. In fact, as further discussed 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.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Light source”
`31. The term “light source” appears in claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-26,
`
`27, 30, 31, and 34. “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 (1 μm to 10 μm),
`
`or far infrared (10 μm to 1000 μm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`32. The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”1 is a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`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. 1009).) 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. 1008).
`
`33. 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-
`
`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.
`
`1001).)
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`20 (Ex. 1001).) The specification describes “ultraviolet light” as an example of the
`
`type of light that can be generated: “emitted light 136 (e.g., at least one or more
`
`wavelengths of ultraviolet light).” (’982 patent, 7:65-67 (Ex. 1001); 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.)
`
`34. Therefore, the term “light source” should be construed to mean “a
`
`source of electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm),
`
`vacuum ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible
`
`(400 to 700 nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1μm)), middle infrared (1 μm
`
`to 10 μm), or far infrared (10 μm to 1000 μm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`B.
` “High brightness light”
`35. All the challenged claims recite the term “high brightness light.” For
`
`purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness light” 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, microscopy systems, photoresist curing systems,
`
`or endoscopic tools.”
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`36. The ’982 patent defines “brightness” 2 as “the power radiated by a
`
`source of light per unit surface area onto a unit solid angle.” (’982 patent, 4:46-47
`
`(Ex. 1001).) 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.” (’982 patent, 4:47-51 (Ex. 1001).) Accordingly, the brightness of a
`
`light is associated with the ability to see or measure properties of a surface.
`
`37. 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. 1001).) 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 examples
`
`of high brightness light sources. (’982 patent, 1:11-17 (Ex. 1001).) 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
`
`2 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, the unit of solid angle.
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`light is produced. (’982 patent, 2:33-38, 10:11-14 (Ex. 1001).) More generally,
`
`the patent acknowledges that the brightness and other parameters of the light “vary
`
`depending upon the application.” ((cid:1932)982 patent, 1:18-20) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`38.
`
`It is my understanding that 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 March 17, 2015 (“Second Smith Decl.”) at ¶ 20 (Ex.
`
`1011).)
`
`39. Therefore, the term “high brightness light” should be interpreted to
`
`include “light sufficiently bright to be used 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.”
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent
`40. 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
`
`devices, notably for photolithographic reproduction systems,” which published on
`
`May 3, 1985 as French Patent Application No. 2554302 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1004).
`
`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.
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`41. Similarly, Cremers et al. published a paper in 1984 entitled,
`
`“Evaluation of the continuous optical discharge for spectrochemical analysis.”
`
`(Ex. 1005.) Cremers describes a laser sustained plasma light source producing a
`
`“continuous optical discharge” (COD) that generated a “very bright white light.”
`
`(Cremers at 666 (Ex. 1005).) 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.)
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cremers, Fig. 2 (Ex. 1005)
`
`42. By the late 1980’s, this concept was already being taught in textbooks.
`
`(See D. Keefer, “Laser Sustained Plasmas,” Chapter 4, from Radziemski et al.,
`
`“Laser-Induced Plasmas and Applications”, CRC Press (1989) (Ex. 1006).)
`
`43. 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.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-25, 30, and 31 are
`anticipated by Gärtner
`44. Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-25, 30, and 31 are anticipated by
`
`Gärtner.
`
`1. Gärtner is prior art that was not considered by the Patent
`Office during examination
`
`45.
`
`It is my understanding that Gärtner is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) because it was published more than a year before the earliest claimed
`
`priority date for the ’982 patent, which is March 31, 2006. It is my understanding
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`that Gärtner was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’982
`
`patent.
`
`2. Overview of Gärtner
`46. 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 1004).)
`
`47. 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
`
`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. 1004) 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. 1001).) 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
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`nanometers to 300 nanometers) than is the spectral radiance from a xenon
`
`flashlamp of comparable size and input energy.”) (Ex. 1010).)
`
`48. 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. 1004) with ’982 patent, 1:46-50, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`For example, as shown below, Figure 1 of Gärtner a depicts a “gas-tight chamber
`
`1” (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 4-5 (Ex. 1004).)
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`49. Gärtner operates in the same manner described in the ’982 patent. In
`
`particular, Gärtner explains that gas-tight chamber 1 is filled with a discharge
`
`medium 2. (Compare Gärtner at 4:31-34 (“gas-tight chamber 1 contains the
`
`discharge medium 2”) (Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent, 4:29-32 (“light source 100
`
`includes a chamber 128 that contains an[] ionizable medium (not shown).”) (Ex.
`
`1001).) The discharge medium 2 is an ionizable gas such as xenon. (Compare
`
`Gärtner at 5 (describing using “argon or xenon atmosphere as active medium”)
`
`(Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent, 7:49-52 (“[T]he ionizable medium can be . . . Xe, Ar .
`
`. . .”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`50. Gärtner’s laser 10 is an ignition source that ionizes the discharge
`
`medium 2. (Compare Gärtner at 5:5-8 (“The radiation 13 from the laser 10, which
`
`is a nitrogen pulse laser, is focussed on the same point by the lens 7 which allows
`
`ultraviolet to pass and produces an electrical discharge there and as a result an
`
`absorbent plasma 14”) (Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent, 5:29-33 (“The ignition source
`
`140 generates an electrical discharge in the chamber 128 (e.g., the region 130 of
`
`the chamber 128) to ignite the ionizable medium.”), 7:3-14 (“Alternative types of
`
`ignition sources 140 that can be used in the light source 100 include . . . pulsed
`
`lasers . . . .”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`51. Gärtner’s laser 9 is a laser that provides energy to the ionized gas
`
`within the chamber to sustain a high brightness light. (Compare Gärtner at 5:5-9
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`(“absorbent plasma 14 which is heated to high temperatures under the influence of
`
`the radiation 11 [from laser 9]. The radiation 15 from the plasma can be fed into
`
`the downstream optical system through the window 8.”) (Ex. 1004) with ’98