DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US6
`Filed By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
` David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
` MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq Photonics
`GmbH & Co. KG,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Energetiq Technology, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01362
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,969,841
`CLAIMS 1, 2, 3, AND 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 1 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 1 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2 
`A.  Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 2 
`C. 
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 3 
`IV.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 3 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’841 PATENT ............................................................ 3 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 5 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`“Light source” ..................................................................................... 10 
`B. 
`“Laser Driven Light Source” ............................................................... 12 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE Unpatentable .................................... 12 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’841 Patent ......................................... 13 
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser at various wavelengths,
`including in the range of 700-2000 nm, was well known in the
`art ......................................................................................................... 14 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 20 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Mourou .............................................................................. 20 
`1.  Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 21 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 24 
`3.  Dependent Claim 2 - Optical element to modify the laser energy40 
`4.  Dependent Claim 3 - Optical element is a mirror or a lens .......... 41 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`5.  Dependent Claim 7 - Ignition source is a pulsed laser, electrodes,
`or other types of ignition sources ................................................. 42 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Kensuke ............................................................................. 43 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 44 
`2.  Dependent Claim 2 - Optical element to modify the laser energy55 
`3.  Dependent Claim 3 - Optical element is a mirror or a lens .......... 55 
`4.  Dependent Claim 7 - Ignition source is a pulsed laser, electrodes,
`or other types of ignition sources ................................................. 56 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 57 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 58 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq
`
`Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 8,969,841 (“the ’841 patent,” Ex. 1001) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and continuation in part applications. Exhibit 1002
`
`shows the members of this patent family and the relationships among them.
`
`Petitioners are also seeking inter partes review of related U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,435,982 (“the ’982 patent”); 7,786,455 (“the ’455 patent”); 8,309,943 (“the ’943
`
`patent”); 8,525,138 (“the ’138 patent”); and 9,048,000 (“the ’000 patent”).
`
`Petitioners request that the inter partes reviews of the ’841, ’982, ’455, ’943,’138,
`
`and ’000 patents be assigned to the same Panel for administrative efficiency.
`
`The following litigation matter would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`this proceeding: Energetiq Tech., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., No. 1:15-cv-
`
`10240-LTS (D. Mass.).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Donald R. Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`Second Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Email: Donald R. Steinberg, don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: WilmerHale, 60 State St., Boston MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6453
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104 (b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 of the ’841 patent (“the challenged claims”) and request that
`
`each challenged claim be cancelled.
`
`A. Grounds for Challenge
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering at the University of Illinois (“Eden Decl.,” Ex. 1003),
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims and that each of the challenged
`
`claims is unpatentable for the reasons cited in this petition. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a).
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`B.
`Petitioners rely upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1. French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`
`(“Gärtner,” Ex. 1004), with English Translation, and is prior art to the ʼ841
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`2. International Publication WO-2004097520, published November 11, 2004
`
`(“Mourou,” Ex. 1014), and is prior art to the ʼ841 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) and 102(b).
`
`3. Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006010675A, filed on February 24, 2005 and
`
`published January 12, 2006 (“Kensuke,” Ex. 1005), with English Translation,
`
`and is prior art to the ʼ841 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`C. Relief Requested
`Petitioners request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel the
`
`challenged claims because they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’841 PATENT
`The ’841 patent family is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`ʼ841 Patent, Figure 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.
`
`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. 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.)
`
`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:
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`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 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.)
`
`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
`
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 31 n. 1 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(“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.)
`
`The Examiner, however, did not consider Gärtner or Mourou, nor was the
`
`Examiner provided a complete English translation of Kensuke.2 As discussed
`
`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.
`
`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 section VIII.B.1.d).)
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims in inter partes review are given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48, 764, 48,766. Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as
`
`would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification sets forth an
`
`alternate definition of a term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,
`
`the patentee’s lexicography governs. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`Should the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, contend that the
`
`claims have a construction different from their broadest reasonable construction,
`
`the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to
`
`expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,764; 48,766-67 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Consistent with this standard, this section proposes, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, constructions of terms and provides support for
`
`these proposed constructions. Terms not included in this section have their
`
`broadest reasonable meaning in light of the specification as commonly understood
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`by those of ordinary skill.
`
`“Light source”
`
`A.
` 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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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
`
`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).) (See Eden Decl. ¶ 35 n. 3 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`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. 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)) (Eden Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 37
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`“Laser Driven Light Source”
`
`B.
`The term “laser driven light source” should be construed to mean a “light
`
`source having a laser supplying energy to generate light.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`The term “laser driven light source” is not a term of art. (Eden Decl. ¶ 39
`
`(Ex. 1003).) 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 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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Therefore, the term “laser driven light source” should be construed to mean
`
`a “light source having a laser supplying energy to generate light.” (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`40 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`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.
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’841 Patent
`
`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
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`’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
`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 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
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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). (Eden Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1003).) 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 middle 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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Lasers operating in the 700-2000 nm wavelength range were known to have
`
`several advantages relative to longer wavelength lasers. For example, 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
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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 fiber lasers also produced
`
`hundreds of watts by 2004, and did so in a much smaller package. Furthermore,
`
`since the laser is a fiber, it is a simple matter to direct the beam to the chamber of
`
`the light source. Finally, it is not unusual for the efficiency of a diode laser-
`
`pumped fiber laser to exceed 50%. (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`In fact, the ’841 patent acknowledges that shorter wavelength lasers with
`
`these known advantages had recently become available. (’841 patent, 16:6-14
`
`(“Efficient, cost effective, high power lasers (e.g., fiber lasers and direct diode
`
`lasers) are recently available in the NIR (near infrared) wavelength range from
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`about 700 nm to about 2000 nm. Energy in this wavelength range is more easily
`
`transmitted through certain materials (e.g., glass, quartz and sapphire) that are
`
`more commonly used to manufacture bulbs, windows and chambers. It is therefore
`
`more practical now to produce light sources that operate using lasers in the 700 nm
`
`to 2000 nm range than has previously been possible.”) (Ex. 1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`49 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`As a result, by the early-2000’s, there was nothing new about operating a
`
`laser with a wavelength range from about 700 nm to 2000 nm in a laser sustained
`
`plasma light source. For example, Mourou, which was published on November 11,
`
`2004 as Patent No. WO 2004/097520 and titled “Fiber Laser-Based EUV-
`
`Lithography,” discloses a plasma sustained light source using a laser providing
`
`energy within a wavelength range from about 700 nm to 2000 nm. (Mourou ¶
`
`0022 (Ex. 1014).) (See Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1003).) Specifically, Mourou
`
`discloses a laser operating at about 1,000 nm that provides energy to a plasma.
`
`(Mourou ¶ 0013 (Ex. 1014) (“For [laser] light at ~ 1-μm wavelengths [i.e., 1000
`
`nm], the diffraction-limited spot size on a plasma target 30 attainable with
`
`compensated high-NA (numerical aperture) adaptive optics is ~ 1-μm in
`
`diameter.”) (emphasis added); see also ¶ 0022 (disclosing “a Ti:sapphire laser at
`
`800nm.”).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Additionally, on February 24, 2005, Kensuke filed a patent application
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`entitled “Method for Generating Ultraviolet Light, and Ultraviolet Light Source
`
`Apparatus,” which published as Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006010675A.
`
`(Kensuke, Ex. 1005.) Kensuke describes an ultraviolet light source comprising a
`
`laser-generated plasma. As shown in Figure 1, Kensuke discloses a laser sustained
`
`plasma light source with features similar to the ’841 patent: (1) a sealed chamber
`
`(green); (2) a laser ignited plasma (yellow); and (3) 500-1000 nm laser energy for
`
`providing energy to the plasma (red). (Kensuke ¶¶ 0011, 0012 (Ex. 1005).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Kensuke Fig. 1 (Ex. 1005)
`
`
`
`Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’841 patent are nothing more
`
`than the standard features of laser sustained plasma light sources across several
`
`generations of technology from the 1980’s to the early 2000’s. (Eden Decl. ¶ 52
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 8,969,841
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), specific grounds for finding the
`
`challenged claims invalid are identified below and discussed in the Eden
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1003). These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 1, 2, 3,
`
`and 7 are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 7 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Mourou
`
`Gärtner is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(b) because it published
`
`on May 3, 1985, which is more than a year before both the actual priority date of
`
`October 9, 2014, and even the earliest possible date for a parent of the ’841 patent,
`
`which is March 31, 2006 (based on application No. 11/395,523, now the ’982
`
`patent). Gärtner was not listed in the “References Cited” section of the ʼ841
`
`patent, nor was it cited by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’841 patent.
`
`Mourou is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(b) because it
`
`published on November 11, 2004, which is more than a year before both the actual
`
`priority date of October