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 IPR2015-01362
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,969,841
`CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, AND 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML 1003
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V. 
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 6 
`II. 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8 
`III. 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’841 PATENT ............................................................ 8 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`A. 
`“Light source” ..................................................................................... 13 
`B. 
`“Laser Driven Light Source” ............................................................... 15 
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 16 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’841 Patent ......................................... 16 
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser at various wavelengths,
`including in the range of 700-2000 nm, was well known in the
`art ......................................................................................................... 17 
`VII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 23 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Mourou .............................................................................. 23 
`1.  Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 24 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 27 
`3.  Dependent Claim 2 - Optical element to modify the laser energy43 
`4.  Dependent Claim 3 - Optical element is a mirror or a lens .......... 44 
`5.  Dependent Claim 7 - Ignition source is a pulsed laser, electrodes,
`or other types of ignition sources ................................................. 45 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Kensuke ............................................................................. 46 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 47 
`2.  Dependent Claim 2 - Optical element to modify the laser energy57 
`3.  Dependent Claim 3 - Optical element is a mirror or a lens .......... 58 
`4.  Dependent Claim 7 - Ignition source is a pulsed laser, electrodes,
`or other types of ignition sources ................................................. 59 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`VIII.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 60 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 60 
`IX.  AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 61 
`X. 
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 62 
`XI. 
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 63 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`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 8,969,841
`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 8,969,841
`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 8,969,841
`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 8,969,841
`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. In 2005, I received the IEEE/LEOS
`
`Aron Kressel Award. I was awarded the C.E.K. Mees Medal of the Optical
`
`Society of America in 2007, and was the recipient of the Fulbright-Israel
`
`Distinguished Chair in the Natural Sciences and Engineering for 2007-2008.
`
`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 three (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.
`
`8,969,841 (the “’841 patent”; Ex. 1001). I have been informed that the ’841 patent
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`claims priority to U.S. Application No. 11/395,523, filed on March 31, 2006, now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 (the “’982 patent”; Ex. 1013).
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’841 patent:
`
` French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3,
`1985 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1004), with English Translation
`
` International Publication WO-2004097520, published November
`11, 2004 (“Mourou,” Ex. 1014).
`
` Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006010675A, filed on February
`24, 2005 and published January 12, 2006 (“Kensuke,” Ex. 1005),
`with English Translation.
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`20. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`21.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioners. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’841 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`22.
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before
`
`the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” I have also been informed that a
`
`claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if “the invention was
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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.” Further I have 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.
`
`23.
`
`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
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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
`24. A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’841 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.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’841 PATENT
`25. The ’841 patent family is directed to a laser sustained plasma light
`
`source for use in, for example, testing and inspection for semiconductor
`
`manufacturing. As depicted in Fig. 1 below, the light source includes a sealed
`
`pressurized chamber containing gas (green), an ignition source for ionizing the gas
`
`(blue), a laser providing energy to the plasma (red), a plasma-generated light, and
`
`the chamber having a transparent region to allow the plasma-generated light to
`
`exit. (’841 patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`ʼ841 Patent, Figure 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`26. According to the ’841 patent, prior art light sources relied upon
`
`electrodes to both generate and sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and
`
`contamination. (’841 patent, 1:42-58 (Ex. 1001).) Thus, a need arose for a way to
`
`sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes. (’841
`
`patent, 1:59-63 (Ex. 1001).) The alleged invention of the patent family involves
`
`using a laser to provide energy to sustain the plasma for a light source. The ’841
`
`continuation adds claims that require that the laser operate within a range of 700-
`
`2000 nm wavelength.
`
`27. As discussed below, there was nothing new in 2006 about sustaining a
`
`plasma with a laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art references,
`
`including Gärtner, Mourou, and Kensuke, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`sources with pressurized chambers, lasers operating within certain wavelength
`
`ranges, and emitting light at certain wavelengths. Moreover, there was nothing
`
`new about providing energy to a plasma with a laser operating within a range of
`
`700-2000 nm. As the patent admits, such lasers had recently become more widely
`
`available. Mourou and Kensuke provide two examples of systems that provide
`
`energy to a plasma with a laser operating within a range of 700-2000 nm. It would
`
`have been obvious to combine Mourou and Kensuke’s teachings with Gärtner to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`28. The ’841 patent (Ex. 1001) issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`14/510,959, filed on October 9, 2014. The ’841 patent application is a
`
`continuation of the ’000 patent, which is a continuation of the ’138 patent, which is
`
`a continuation in part of the ’786 patent, which is a continuation in part of the ’455
`
`patent, which is a continuation in part of the ’982 patent, filed March 31, 2006.
`
`(See Ex. 1002.) As explained below, the Examiner allowed the claims of the ʼ841
`
`patent only after the applicant amended the claims to include a limitation requiring
`
`the laser wavelength range to be between about 700 nm to 2000 nm.
`
`29. On November 12, 2014, the Examiner rejected the claims in light of
`
`various prior art references. (Office Action dated Nov. 12, 2014 (Ex. 1008).) The
`
`claims were primarily rejected based on U.S. 4,780,608 (“Cross”) and U.S.
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`6,541,924 (“Kane”). The Office Action asserted that Cross discloses a light source
`
`comprising a pressurized chamber in which a laser sustained plasma emits light,
`
`and that Kane discloses a ultraviolet light source comprising a pressurized chamber
`
`and an electrode ignition source. (Id. at 2-4.)
`
`30. On December 17, 2014, the applicant responded by amending the
`
`claims to include features such as a “sealed” chamber, pressure above 10 atm,
`
`wavelength ranges for the laser and the light produced by the plasma, and a
`
`chamber that is transparent/includes windows. (Applicant’s Amendment and
`
`Response dated Dec. 17, 2014 at 3 (Ex. 1009).) For example:
`
`31. The applicant also added dependent claims further specifying the
`
`pressure and properties of the laser and plasma. The applicant argued that the
`
`claims, as amended to include the additional limitations, were distinct from the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`prior art because allegedly “none of the references of record produce a plasma
`
`generated light having output wavelengths greater than 50 nm.”1 (Id. at 10.)
`
`32. On January 22, 2015, the newly amended claims were allowed.
`
`(Notice of Allowability dated Jan. 22, 2015 at 2 (Ex. 1010).) With respect to
`
`claims 1, 15, and 20, the Examiner introduced Manning U.S. PGPUB No.
`
`2006/0152128 (“Manning”) but noted that Manning did not disclose the use of a
`
`laser with a wavelength from 700-2000 nm to create a plasma that produced a light
`
`with a wavelength greater than 50 nm. (Id.) Regarding Cross, the Examiner stated
`
`that in addition to not disclosing a laser with a wavelength from 700-2000 nm, the
`
`reference did not disclose a transparent region of the chamber and was concerned
`
`with producing ions instead of light produced by a plasma. (Id. at 2-3.) The
`
`Examiner also stated that it would not have been obvious to combine Manning and
`
`Cross because “they belong to different fields of endeavor; namely, Manning uses
`
`a plasma to generate light, while Cross uses a plasma to generate ions.” (Id. at 3.)
`
`33. The Examiner, however, did not consider Gärtner or Mourou, nor was
`
`the Examiner provided a complete English translation of Kensuke.2 As discussed
`
`1 Patent Owner was in fact mistaken. For example, Kane discloses a “plasma
`
`lamp” that is “capable of providing a source of high-peak-power incoherent
`
`ultraviolet (UV) light (80-350 nm, more typically 11-320 nm).” (U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,541,924 (“Kane”) at 7:53-59 (Ex. 1018).)
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`below, Gärtner in view of Mourou and Gärtner in view of Kensuke each render the
`
`challenged claims unpatentable as obvious in view of the combinations below.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Light source”
`34.
`
` The term “light source” is recited in challenged claims 1, 2, 3, and 7.
`
`“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
`
`1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`
`2 Kensuke (JP 2006-10675) was included in an Information Disclosure Statement
`
`filed by applicant on October 9, 2014. However, applicant only submitted an
`
`English translation for the abstract and Kensuke was not used in any of the
`
`Examiner’s rejections. Notably, as described further below, Kensuke discloses the
`
`use of a laser with a wavelength from 700-2000 nm to create a plasma that
`
`produced a light with a wavelength greater than 50 nm, but the abstract does not
`
`provide this disclosure. (See infra at ¶¶ 104-109.)
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`35. The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”3 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 (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., Silfvast,
`
`Laser Fundamentals at 4 (Ex. 1006).) The Patent Owner publishes a data sheet
`
`which is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning in recognizing that
`
`“light source” includes EUV wavelengths. (See, e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data
`
`Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10M product operating at 13.5 nm as an
`
`“EUV [Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”) (Ex. 1007).)
`
`36. The ’841 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. Consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “light source,”
`
`the ’841 patent states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light from a
`
`light source vary depending upon the application. (’841 patent, 1:39-41 (Ex.
`
`3 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’841 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’841 patent, 7:52; 17:13; 18:43; 20:32-33; 23:29;
`
`26:33) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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).” (’841 patent, 18:34-36 (Ex. 1001); see also id.
`
`at 17:12-14 (discussing the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the plasma 132 of the
`
`light source 100).)
`
`37. 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 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`B.
`“Laser Driven Light Source”
`38. The term “laser driven light source” should be construed to mean a
`
`“light source having a laser supplying energy to generate light.”
`
`39. The term “laser driven light source” is not a term of art. As used in
`
`the ’841 patent, a person of skill in the art would have understood the term “laser
`
`driven light source” to refer to light sources where a laser supplies energy to
`
`generate light. (E.g., ’841 patent, 14:45-50, 63-65 (“The light source 100 also
`
`includes at least one laser source 104 that generates a laser beam that is provided to
`
`the plasma 132 located in the chamber 128 to initiate and/or sustain the high
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`brightness light 136. . . . It is also desirable for the laser source 104 to drive and/or
`
`sustain the plasma with a high power laser beam.”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`40. Therefore, the term “laser driven light source” should be construed to
`
`mean a “light source having a laser supplying energy to generate light.”
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`41. Challenged claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the ʼ841 patent recite and claim
`
`features that were known in the art prior to the earliest priority date, and are
`
`obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’841 Patent
`42. When the application that led to the ’841 patent was filed, there was
`
`nothing new about a light source using an ignition source to generate a plasma in a
`
`pressurized chamber and a laser operating at certain wavelengths to sustain the
`
`plasma to produce high brightness light at certain wavelengths. 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 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 ’841 patent: (1) a sealed
`
`chamber 1 (green); (2) transparent region of a chamber so that the light could exit
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`the chamber; (3) an ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (blue), which generates a
`
`plasma 14 (yellow); and (4) a laser to produce light – laser 9 (red), which provides
`
`energy to the plasma 14 (yellow) and produces light 15 having a wavelength
`
`greater than 50 nm. (Gärtner at 4-5, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004).)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’841 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`B.
`
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser at various wavelengths, including
`in the range of 700-2000 nm, was well known in the art
`43. Gärtner’s laser 9 is a CO2 laser. (Gärtner at 5:3-5 (Ex. 1004).) CO2
`
`lasers, which generally operate at a wavelength of 10.6 µm, were commonly used
`
`during the 1970s and 1980s because they provided high power and were cost-
`
`effective at the time. (See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 4,780,608 to Cross at 5:44-47
`
`(“Carbon dioxide lasers have been used since the output therefrom is readily
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`absorbed by plasmas and they are available with very high power in both pulsed
`
`and cw operating modes.”) (Ex. 1015).) It was recognized at the time of Gärtner
`
`that shorter wavelength lasers could also be used. (See, e.g., id. at 5:40-52
`
`(“[L]asers other than carbon dioxide may be used for the initiation and the
`
`sustaining of the continuous optical discharge plasma. For example, a Nd:YAG
`
`laser has been used for the initiation step. . . . Moreover, laser heating of plasma
`
`via the inverse Bremsstrahlung process varies as λ2, so that cw-laser sources
`
`having shorter wavelengths such as Nd:Yag, for example, are absorbed less
`
`effectively, and would require substantially greater cw-laser output power levels to
`
`sustain the plasma.”) (Ex. 1015).)
`
`44. During the 1990s and early 2000s, laser technology for shorter
`
`wavelengths (i.e., in the 700-2000 nm range (near-infrared and middle infrared
`
`regions)) improved significantly because of the development of the titanium-doped
`
`sapphire and rare earth-doped glass fiber lasers making it easier and more desirable
`
`to sustain plasmas with lasers in this wavelength range. For example, at the time
`
`of Gärtner, the continuous Nd:YAG laser (a crystal into which neodymium atoms
`
`have intentionally been introduced as an impurity), for example, was available
`
`commercially and supplied tens of watts but was physically large (several feet in
`
`length, not including the power supply).
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`45. By the early 2000s, however, the rare earth-doped fiber lasers were
`
`capable of supplying more than 100 watts from a compact package. For example,
`
`“Since the mid-1990s, high power Yb-doped fiber lasers have progressed rapidly
`
`from 2 W in 1995 [134], to 20 W [141] and 35 W [143] in 1997, and 110 W in
`
`1999 [61], the published record at the time of this writing.” (Michel Digonnet,
`
`Rare Earth Doped Fiber Lasers and Amplifiers, 2d ed. (2001) at 148) (Ex. 1022).)
`
`The ytterbium-doped glass fiber laser operates at typically 1.03 um (1030 nm) in
`
`the infrared and, in the years following Digonnet’s statement, the power available
`
`from Yb:glass fiber lasers increased rapidly to hundreds of watts.
`
`46. Several years before the priority date for the ’841 Patent, Yb: glass
`
`fiber lasers providing more than 100 W of power at 1030 nm were available
`
`commercially. Furthermore, by 2004, titanium-doped lasers were available that
`
`produced at least 50 watts of power over a broad range of wavelengths in the near-
`
`infrared and infrared regions (660-1180 nm). (Id.) Silfvast states, for example,
`
`that the output power of the Ti:sapphire laser was “up to 50 W (cw)” and the laser
`
`wavelengths are “660-1080 nm.” (Silfvast, Laser Fundamentals, at 567 (Ex.
`
`1006).) As a result, several compact and efficient near infrared lasers became
`
`viable for sustaining plasma by the early 2000s.
`
`47. Lasers operating in the 700-2000 nm wavelength range were known to
`
`have several advantages relative to longer wavelength lasers. For example,
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`according to the Handbook of Laser Technology and Applications, published in
`
`2004, “Nd:YAG laser light [at 1.06 µm] can travel through glass (CO2 light
`
`cannot). This means that high-quality glass lenses can be used to focus the beam
`
`down to a minimum spot size.” (Handbook of Laser Technology and Applications,
`
`Vol. III at 1601 (“Handbook of Laser Tech.”) (Ex. 1016).) Additionally, as
`
`recognized by the handbook, “quartz optical fibres can be employed to carry the
`
`beam [from Nd:YAG laser light at 1.06 µm] a relatively long distances (hundreds
`
`of metres) . . . .” (Id.)
`
`48. Two additional advantages of shorter wavelength lasers are that
`
`several of them are considerably smaller and more efficient than CO2 lasers. For
`
`example, “Commercially available cw CO2 lasers range in power from 6 watts to
`
`10,000 watts, and custom lasers are available at even higher powers. Small (2 to 3
`
`feet long) CO2 lasers can produce hundreds of watts of average power at an
`
`efficiency of 10%.” (Kelin Kuhn, Laser Engineering, at 385 (1998) (Ex. 1023).)
`
`Therefore, even a “small” laser was 2 to 3 feet in length and these numbers do not
`
`include the laser’s power supply. In contrast, rare earth-doped fib