throbber
Paper 11
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: November 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V., EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`and QIOPTIQ PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner, ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`
`and Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG, filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1–5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,525,138 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’138 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Energetiq Technology, Inc.
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`did not file a Preliminary Response. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted
`“unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1–5 of the ’138 patent.
`
`
`
`A. Related Proceeding
`
`The ’138 patent is involved in the following lawsuit: Energetiq Tech.,
`Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., et al., No. 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass.).
`Pet. 1.
`
`B. The ’138 Patent
`The ’138 patent relates to a method and apparatus for producing light.
`Ex. 1001, Abstract. The apparatus includes a chamber and an ignition
`source that ionizes a gas within the chamber. Id. A laser provides energy to
`the ionized gas within the chamber to produce a high brightness light. Id.
`The laser may be tuned to a wavelength near a strong absorption line of the
`excited gas within the chamber. Id. at 34:8–30. The laser can provide a
`substantially continuous amount of energy to the ionized gas to generate a
`substantially continuous high brightness light. Id. at Abstract.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 2–5 directly depend from claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced
`below.
`1. A light source comprising:
`
`
`a pressurized chamber having a gas disposed therein;
`
`an ignition source comprising electrodes for exciting the
`gas, the excited gas having at least one strong absorption line at
`an infrared wavelength;
`
`at least one laser configured to provide energy to the
`excited gas at a wavelength within 10 nm of a strong absorption
`line of the excited gas within the chamber to sustain a plasma
`and produce at least substantially continuous, plasma-generated
`light.
`
`Ex. 1001, 48:36–45.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–5 are unpatentable based on the
`following grounds:
`References
`Gärtner1 and Beterov2
`Gärtner and Wolfram3
`
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1–5
`1–5
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`
`1 French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`(Ex. 1004) (“Gärtner”).
`2 I.M. Beterov et al., Resonance Radiation Plasma (Photoresonance
`Plasma), SOV. PHYS. USP. 31(6), 535 (1988) (Ex. 1006) (“Beterov”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 4,901,330, issued Feb. 13, 1990 (Ex. 1017) (“Wolfram”).
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`
`Petitioner proposes a construction for the claim term “light source”
`recited in all of the challenged claims. Pet. 11–13.
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposed construction and determine
`that it is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction. For purposes
`of this Decision, we construe “light source” to mean “a source of
`electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet (“UV”), extreme UV, vacuum
`UV, visible, near infrared, middle infrared, or far infrared regions of the
`spectrum, having wavelengths within the range of 10 nm to 1,000 µm.”
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter 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 said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
`a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; see
`Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1259. A prima facie case of obviousness is
`established when the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`
`claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart,
`531 F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976).
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich,
`579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1–5 over Gärtner and Beterov
`Petitioner contends that claims 1–5 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Gärtner and Beterov. Pet. 21–44. To support its
`contentions, Petitioner provides detailed explanations as to how Gärtner and
`Beterov meet each limitation of claims 1–5. Id. Petitioner also relies upon a
`Declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, who has been retained as an expert witness
`by Petitioner for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1003.
`Gärtner describes a radiation source for optical devices, in particular
`for photolithographic reproduction systems. Ex. 1004, 1. Figure 1,
`reproduced below, shows an embodiment of the radiation source.
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Gärtner shows an embodiment of a radiation source.
`Figure 1 of Gärtner describes a gas-tight chamber 1 that contains a
`discharge medium 2. Id. at 4. The discharge medium may be argon or
`xenon with a working pressure of 106 Pa. Id. at 5. Entry aperture 3 is sealed
`by window 6 which allows infrared to pass, entry aperture 4 is sealed by lens
`7 which allows ultraviolet to pass, and exit aperture 5 is provided with a
`window 8. Id. at 4–5. The radiation source includes two lasers 9 and 10
`outside chamber 1. Laser 9 is described as a stationary CO2 gas laser, and
`laser 10 is described as a nitrogen pulse laser. Id. at 5. Radiation 11 from
`laser 9 penetrates into chamber 1 through window 6 and is focused by
`concave mirror 12. Id. Radiation from laser 10 is focused by lens 7 which
`allows ultraviolet to pass and produces an electrical discharge, and as a
`7
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`result, an absorbent plasma 14 is heated to high temperatures under the
`influence of radiation 11. The radiation from the plasma can be fed into the
`downstream optical system through window 8. Id. Gärtner describes that an
`ignition source may include electrodes for exciting the gas. Id. at 1:22.
`The present record supports the contention that Gärtner describes a
`light source. Pet. 30; Ex. 1004, 1:1–4, Figs. 1–4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 74. The
`present record also supports the contention that Gärtner describes a
`pressurized chamber having a gas disposed therein. Pet. 30–31; Ex. 1004,
`3:20, 4:32, 5:15–16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 75. The present record supports the
`contention that the chamber contains an ignition source, such as electrodes,
`and a gas that has at least one strong absorption line (xenon gas). Pet. 31–
`32; Ex. 1004, 1:22, 5:14–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 76–78. The present record also
`supports Petitioner’s contention that Gärtner describes providing laser
`energy (with laser 9) to the ionized gas in the chamber to produce a plasma
`that generates a continuous plasma generated light. Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1004,
`3:22–24, 5:10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80.
`Petitioner relies on Gärtner for at least its description of a laser
`configured to provide a continuous plasma, but acknowledges that Gärtner
`does not describe that the laser provides energy to the excited gas at a
`wavelength within 10 nm of a strong absorption line of the excited gas as
`claimed in claim 1. See, e.g., Pet. 32–33. For this feature, Petitioner relies
`on Beterov. Id.
`Beterov is a technical article describing the formation of
`photoresonance plasmas. Ex. 1006, 535. Beterov describes one type of
`formed plasma as a “quasiresonance laser plasma.” Id. at 539. In one
`example, Beterov describes forming a quasiresonance plasma by irradiating,
`
`8
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`for example a sodium (Na) vapor, with a laser tuned in resonance with the
`3p-4d transition (λ=568.8 or 568.2 nm) of the Na atom. Id. at 540; Fig. 10.
`The present record supports Petitioner’s contention that a person having
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood
`that the absorption line based on the 3p-4d transition is a strong absorption
`line with respect to Na, and that, therefore, the laser is tuned at a wavelength
`of a strong absorption line of the excited gas. Pet. 17, 29–30; Ex. 1003,
`¶¶ 48, 49, 72. The present record supports Petitioner’s contention that
`Beterov describes detuning (and tuning) by 0.0024 nm from (to) a strong
`absorption line, which also meets the limitation of a laser configured to
`provide energy to the excited gas at a wavelength within 10 nm of a strong
`absorption line of the excited gas. Pet. 34; Ex. 1006, 539; Ex. 1003 ¶ 83.
`The present record also supports Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have
`been obvious to modify Gärtner with Beterov. Pet. 34–41. For example, the
`Petition explains that it would have been obvious at the time of the invention
`to tune the laser such that it provides energy to the excited gas at a
`wavelength within 10 nm of a strong absorption line of the excited gas
`within the chamber to increase efficiency and the brightness of light
`produced by the plasma. Pet. 35; Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. Based on the record before
`us, Petitioner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings on why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
`combined Gärtner and Beterov.
`Petitioner also asserts that dependent claims 2–5 would have been
`obvious over Gärtner and Beterov. Pet. 41–43. Claim 2 recites “wherein the
`gas comprises a noble gas” and claim 3, which depends directly from claim
`1 recites “wherein the gas comprises xenon.” Ex. 1001, 48:46–49. The
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`present record supports Petitioner’s contention that Gärtner describes a
`chamber containing a noble gas as the discharge medium, such as argon or
`xenon. Pet. 42; Ex. 1004, 5:15–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98, 99. Claim 4, which
`depends directly from claim 1 recites “wherein the excited gas comprises
`atoms at a lowest excited state.” Ex. 1001, 48:50–51. Petitioner accounts
`for this limitation by explaining for example, with supporting evidence, that
`because a plasma is produced, there will inherently be atoms in the plasma
`in various excited states, including atoms residing in the lowest excited state.
`Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1003 ¶ 101. Claim 5 depends directly from claim 1 and
`recites “wherein the gas is absorptive near the wavelength of the at least one
`laser.” Petitioner accounts for this limitation by explaining that Gärtner
`describes the production and maintenance of a radiation-emitting plasma
`which is achieved by the gas absorbing energy supplied by the laser, which
`energy is provided at a certain wavelength. Pet. 43; Ex. 1003 ¶ 102.
`We have reviewed the asserted ground of obviousness over Gärtner
`and Beterov against claims 1–5, and we are persuaded, at this juncture of the
`proceeding, that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claims 1–5 on this ground.
`
`D. Remaining Grounds Challenging the Claims of the ’245 Patent
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`
`10
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(b).
`We exercise our discretion and decline to institute review based on the
`other asserted ground advanced by Petitioner that is not identified below as
`being part of the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information
`presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
`showing that claims 1–5 of the ’138 patent are unpatentable. At this stage of
`the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination with respect to
`the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted on the ground that claims 1–5 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gärtner and Beterov;
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01368
`Patent 8,525,138 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Donald R. Steinberg
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Michael H. Smith
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`Proskauer Rose LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`JCapraro@proskauer.com
`
`
`
`12

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket