IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`THE CLAIMED INVENTION AND STATE OF THE ART ........................ 4 
`A. 
`Energetiq’s Laser Driven Light Source, and the ’000 Patent ............... 5 
`B. 
`Energetiq’s Patented Laser-Driven Light Sources Prove To Be
`A Success, and Take Over the Market ................................................ 10 
`Petitioners Copy Energetiq’s Laser Driven Light Source ................... 12 
`C. 
`III.  CLAIM INTERPRETATION ....................................................................... 12 
`A. 
`“Light” ................................................................................................. 13 
`B. 
`“Sustain” .............................................................................................. 13 
`IV.  THE DEFINITION OF AN ORDINARY ARTISAN IN THE FIELD ........ 16 
`A.  Active Workers In The Field And The Inventor ................................. 17 
`B. 
`Problems In The Art, Prior Art Solutions, Rapidity with Which
`Innovations are Made, and Sophistication of the Technology ............ 17 
`Petitioners Provides No Factual Support For Their Definition
`And Do Not Rely On Any Of The Relevant Factors .......................... 18 
`V.  OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE CLAIMS WOULD
`NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ..................................................................... 19 
`A. 
`Summary Of Nexus ............................................................................. 20 
`B. 
`Long-Felt Need .................................................................................... 22 
`C. 
`Industry Skepticism And Failure Of Others........................................ 23 
`D. 
`Commercial Success............................................................................ 25 
`E. 
`Industry Praise ..................................................................................... 29 
`F. 
`Copying ............................................................................................... 30 
`G. 
`Licensing ............................................................................................. 33 
`H. 
`Investment In R&D ............................................................................. 34 
`VI.  THE CLAIMS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER THE
`COMBINATION OF GÄRTNER IN VIEW OF MOUROU OR
`KENSUKE AND SILFVAST ....................................................................... 35 
`
`C. 
`
`REDACTED
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`ii. 
`
`iii. 
`
`F. 
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`A.  Overview Of Gärtner ........................................................................... 37 
`B. 
`Overview Of Mourou .......................................................................... 39 
`C. 
`Overview Of Kensuke ......................................................................... 39 
`D.  Overview Of Silfvast ........................................................................... 40 
`E. 
`An Ordinary Artisan Would Not Have Redesigned Gärtner By
`Replacing Its Continuous Long Wavelength Laser With
`Mourou’s Or Kensuke’s Pulsed Short Wavelength Lasers ................. 41 
`i. 
`At the time of the invention, it was believed that a short
`wavelength laser would have led to energy being
`absorbed less efficiently, resulting in lower brightness
`light ........................................................................................... 41 
`At the time of the invention, it was believed that a short
`wavelength laser would have led to larger plasma,
`resulting in lower brightness light ............................................ 45 
`Energetiq’s recognition of an unexpected physical result
`led to the claimed invention ...................................................... 47 
`Petitioners Fail To Demonstrate Why An Ordinary Artisan
`Would Have Combined Gärtner With Mourou Or Kensuke and
`Silfvast ................................................................................................. 49 
`i. 
`Petitioners’ argument that suitable short wavelength
`lasers had only become available at the time of the
`invention is demonstrably false ................................................ 50 
`1. 
`Suitable short wavelength lasers existed long
`before the ’000 priority date ........................................... 50 
`The years-long commercial availability of suitable
`short wavelength lasers before the invention,
`coupled with the teachings away from the use of
`such, shows that the invention was not obvious
`when made ...................................................................... 52 
`Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that an ordinary
`artisan would have been motivated to replace Gärtner’s
`long wavelength laser with a short wavelength laser ............... 53 
`
`2. 
`
`ii. 
`
`REDACTED
`
`ii
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`
`3. 
`
`iii. 
`
`iv. 
`
`Petitioners are wrong that replacing Gärtner’s long
`wavelength laser with a short wavelength laser would
`have been a “simple substitution” ............................................. 56 
`1. 
`There would have been no expectation of success ......... 56 
`2. 
`The resulting device would have been inoperative
`for its intended purpose .................................................. 56 
`An ordinary artisan would not have known to
`increase the pressure in the plasma chamber to
`increase the brightness of the light ................................. 57 
`Combining Gärtner With Either Mourou or Kensuke and
`Silfvast Would Not Have “Sustained” A Plasma As
`Required By The Claims ........................................................... 58 
`VII.  PETITIONERS INCORRECTLY ASSERT THAT THE ’000
`PATENT IS NOT ENTITLED TO A PRIORITY CLAIM TO THE
`’455 PATENT ................................................................................................ 60 
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`iii
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`
`This case is about an invention for a high brightness light source that was so
`
`much better than what preceded it, that it has essentially replaced the arc lamps
`
`previously used in semiconductor wafer inspection, lithography, and metrology
`
`tools.
`
`Energetiq’s invention solved a fundamental problem – how to generate a
`
`light brighter than arc lamps. Energetiq accomplished this after recognizing that –
`
`against the weight of scientific literature – using a short wavelength laser to
`
`generate, and sustain a plasma in a pressurized chamber worked better than a long
`
`wavelength laser. Petitioners concede that Energetiq was the first to do this – they
`
`cite no Section 102 art. Instead, they institute this proceeding based on an
`
`unusable device described in a 1985 patent application, and then say that the
`
`invention was nothing more than substituting – more than 20 years later – a short
`
`wavelength laser. But, what Energetiq did here was a classic invention – it took
`
`components that had been available for years, ignored the teachings away from a
`
`combination of those components, and discovered that using a short wavelength
`
`laser, when pressure is properly adjusted, will work better than anyone would have
`
`expected for sustaining a plasma.
`
`The challenged claims cover this invention. There is no contention here that
`
`the claims do not recite a novel apparatus and method for illuminating features on
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`a semiconductor wafer, using a sealed pressurized chamber with a gas having a
`
`pressure of at least 10 atmospheres and a continuous wave laser having a
`
`wavelength of up to about 2000 nanometers [i.e., a wavelength much shorter than
`
`Gärtner, Petitioners’ primary prior art reference].
`
`Petitioners cannot now simply say this is a simple and obvious substitution.
`
`Energetiq patented a novel approach that results in a light source with a brightness
`
`that exceeds that of prior devices – laser driven plasma, or otherwise. And, the two
`
`largest manufacturers of semiconductor equipment (
`
` and
`
`Petitioner ASML) have recognized Energetiq’s invention for what it is: a long
`
`needed improvement demanded by the industry. Since Energetiq’s introduction of
`
`its laser-driven light source in 2008, its devices have replaced arc lamps in
`
`
`
`and ASML’s equipment. Energetiq has made millions of dollars in sales of its
`
`patented products—including from ASML—and has seen its revenues increase by
`
`more than 13,700% between 2008 to 2015.
`
`Industry insiders and researchers alike were quick to praise Energetiq’s light
`
`source. One of Energetiq’s customers referred to it as a “breakthrough
`
`technology” that “dramatically changed the playing field.” Energetiq won two
`
`important industry awards—the 2010 Prism Award and the 2011 R&D 100
`
`Award—and received praise for inventing a device that generates “10 times the
`
`brightness” of arc lamps. Others referred to Energetiq’s invention as an “important
`
`REDACTED
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`achievement of the recent years” that “has made it possible to create efficient light
`
`sources with spectral brightness substantially exceeding that of traditional plasma-
`
`based sources [i.e., arc lamps].” And, Petitioner ASML, itself recognizing the
`
`innovation, sought a license to it and introduced a metrology system “replac[ing]”
`
`its arc lamps with an infringing light source to “dramatically [increase] the amount
`
`of light reaching the wafer.” (Images, ASML’s Customer Magazine at 18 (2014)
`
`(Ex. 2005).)
`
`Petitioners concede the claims are novel. They attempt to build an
`
`obviousness case in the classically wrong way – they look at what Energetiq did,
`
`find in the prior art the various components Energetiq used, and then, using
`
`hindsight, but with no documentary evidence in support, say that it would have
`
`been obvious to combine these components. But, the primary “motivation”
`
`Petitioners say would have led to this combination, that suitable short wavelength
`
`lasers had only “recently” become available, is simply false—suitable commercial
`
`short wavelength lasers were available for more than 20 years before the invention.
`
`At the end, Petitioners’ case is nothing more than conclusory argument,
`
`made in hindsight, and based on an expert’s naked conclusory testimony on what
`
`he thinks one of ordinary skill would have done, but conflating “one of ordinary
`
`skill” with experts in the field. (Eden Tr. at 192:11-193:17 (Ex. 2006).) In fact,
`
`the documentary record shows that authoritative references taught away from the
`
`REDACTED
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`claimed invention, reporting only “unsuccessful attempts” to sustain a plasma
`
`using short wavelength lasers, and making “clear” that a “short-wave” laser “is not
`
`advantageous for sustaining a plasma.” (Cremers et al., “Evaluation of the
`
`continuous optical discharge for spectrochemical analysis,” Spectrochemica Acta
`
`Vol. 40B, No. 4, 671 (1985) (Ex. 2002) (“Cremers”); Raizer, Gas Discharge
`
`Physics 308 (1st ed. 1991) (Ex. 2007) (“Raizer 1991”).)
`
`Because Petitioners have not met their burden of proof, and because
`
`Energetiq presents facts that demonstrate the non-obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims, the claims must be confirmed.1
`
`II. THE CLAIMED INVENTION AND STATE OF THE ART
`The ’000 patent describes a high brightness laser-driven light source.
`
`(Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 98 (Ex. 2010).) For at least a decade prior to the invention,
`
`semiconductor manufacturing equipment used arc lamps to produce a light for use
`
`in wafer inspection and metrology systems. (Smith Decl. at ¶ 8 (Ex. 2016).) But,
`
`arc lamps suffered from a number of shortcomings that constrained the accuracy
`
`and efficiency of the equipment that used them. (Id.) These problems included
`
`
`1 This Response is supported by the declarations of Dr. Philip H. Bucksbaum, a
`
`professor in Physics, Applied Physics, and Photon Science at Stanford University,
`
`and Dr. Donald K. Smith, president and founder of Energetiq.
`
`REDACTED
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`instability of the arc, undesirable time to failure, and limits on brightness
`
`(brightness of arc lamps is limited by the maximum current density – if too high,
`
`the arc lamps’ electrodes melt). (Id.)
`
`Over time, the industry demanded improvements in the brightness level of
`
`light sources beyond that which could be met by traditional xenon and mercury arc
`
`lamps (ordinarily in the range of about 1 to 9 mW/mm2-sr-nm). (Id.) In 2005,
`
`Energetiq was approached by
`
`, the market leader in semiconductor wafer
`
`metrology and inspection equipment (Petitioner ASML is
`
`
`
` in the metrology space), to evaluate whether Energetiq could develop
`
`for them a “high brightness broadband light for wafer inspection” with the “highest
`
`possible brightness.” (See id. at ¶ 10; “A Novel Electrodeless Light Source for
`
`Wafer Inspection Applications,” at 3, 5 (Ex. 2008) (“Novel Electrodeless Light
`
`Source”). ASML agrees that “[s]ignificant… brightness improvements [were]
`
`necessary” from commercially available arc lamps.
`
` (U.S. Pub. No. US
`
`2013/0329204 A1, at ¶ 0008 (Ex. 2009).)
`
`A. Energetiq’s Laser Driven Light Source, and the ’000 Patent
`
`To satisfy the industry’s need for a higher brightness light source, Energetiq
`
`developed a laser-driven light source that uses fundamentally different technology
`
`and physics principles than arc lamps. (Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 98 (Ex. 2010).) In
`
`particular, Energetiq’s laser-driven light source eliminated electrodes altogether, to
`
`REDACTED
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`“remov[e] [the] brightness limit[s] imposed by constrained current density at [the]
`
`electrodes.” (“Novel Electrodeless Light Source,” at 5 (Ex. 2008).)
`
`The invention combines a sealed pressurized chamber with a gas having a
`
`pressure of at least 10 atmospheres and a continuous wave laser having a
`
`wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm (i.e., “a short wavelength laser”) to
`
`sustain a plasma. (Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 98 (Ex. 2010).) Energetiq’s invention
`
`was able to sustain a plasma that was substantially brighter than the light generated
`
`by arc lamps. (Id.) For example, an experiment described in the patent showed a
`
`brightness of 8 to 18W/(mm2-sr) over the 200-400 nm wavelength band, which is
`
`equivalent to a spectral brightness of 40 to 90 mW/(mm2-sr-nm)—i.e., four to ten
`
`times the brightness of existing xenon and mercury arc lamps. (U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,048,000 at Fig. 3 (Ex. 1001) (“’000 Patent”); Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 98 (Ex.
`
`2010).)
`
`In making its invention, Energetiq was the first to discover that the
`
`industry’s understanding of
`
`laser-driven plasma heating was
`
`incomplete.
`
`(Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 99 (Ex. 2010).) Before Energetiq’s invention, laser-
`
`sustained plasma was understood to operate under the inverse bremsstrahlung2
`
`
`2 Inverse bremsstrahlung is a process in which free electrons in plasma absorb
`
`energy from an incident laser beam during collisions with ions and neutral atoms.
`
`REDACTED
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`absorption mechanism, “one of the fundamental interactions in optical physics”
`
`that an ordinary artisan at the time of the invention would have been aware of.
`
`(Eden Tr. at 97:6-14 (Ex. 2006); Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 99 (Ex. 2010).) According
`
`to the “inverse bremsstrahlung” absorption mechanism, it was believed at the time
`
`of the invention that the laser wavelength played a significant role in sustaining the
`
`plasma. (Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 146 (Ex. 2010).) According to Petitioners’
`
`expert, “[o]ne of the critical aspects of [laser-produced plasma] is that the plasma
`
`absorbs the laser light.” (Eden Tr. at 89:17-90:1 (Ex. 2006).) Because energy
`
`absorbed by the plasma is approximately proportional to the square of the
`
`wavelength (λ2) of the light being absorbed, it was believed that as the wavelength
`
`
`(Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 148 (Ex. 2010); D. Keefer, “Laser Sustained Plasmas,”
`
`Chapter 4, in Radziemski et al., Laser-Induced Plasmas and Applications 173
`
`(1989) (Ex. 1017) (“Keefer”).) The amount of energy absorbed by the plasma is
`
`based on the absorption coefficient, which is given by:
`
`(cid:2009)(cid:3404)(cid:4672)(cid:2024)(cid:1855)(cid:2033)(cid:4673)(cid:2870)(cid:1866)(cid:1845)(cid:2868)(cid:1833)(cid:1863)(cid:1846) (cid:4678)1(cid:3398)(cid:1857)(cid:2879)(cid:1328)(cid:3104)/(cid:3038)(cid:3021)
`(cid:1328)(cid:2033)/(cid:1863)(cid:1846) (cid:4679)
`
`Eq. (1)
`
`wherein ω, frequency, is given by ω=(2πc)/(λ) and c is the speed of light. (Keefer
`
`at 173 (Ex. 1017); Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 83 (Ex. 2010).) Relatedly, the absorption
`
`length of the plasma is equal to 1/α. (Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 80 (Ex. 2010).)
`
`REDACTED
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`became shorter, the energy absorbed by the plasma would decrease. (Bucksbaum
`
`Decl. at ¶ 89 (Ex. 2010).) Less energy absorbed means lower brightness. (Id.)
`
`Similarly, because the absorption length of the plasma is approximately
`
`proportional to 1/(λ2) of the light being absorbed, it was believed that as the laser
`
`wavelength became shorter, the absorption length (and resulting plasma size)
`
`would increase. (Id. at ¶ 90.) Because brightness is a measure of power radiated
`
`by a source per unit surface area, longer (and larger) plasma again means lower
`
`brightness. (Id.)
`
`For many years, these principles guided the work in the field and, as a result,
`
`long wavelength CO2 lasers, as in Gärtner, which have a wavelength λ=10,600 nm,
`
`were the preferred source for laser-sustained plasmas – because they had a long
`
`wavelength. (Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 79.) By the time of the invention, numerous
`
`references recognized the inverse bremsstrahlung mechanism, and expressly taught
`
`away from using a short wavelength laser. (Id. at ¶ 100.) For example, a 1991
`
`textbook by Raizer—re-printed in 1997 and used by Petitioners’ expert today to
`
`teach a class on plasma fundamentals—warned that a short wavelength laser is
`
`“clearly…not advantageous for sustaining a plasma.” (Raizer 1991 at 308 (Ex.
`
`2007); Raizer, Gas Discharge Physics 308 (Corrected 2nd Printing 1997) (Ex.
`
`2011) (“Raizer 1997”); ECE 523 Syllabus (Spring 2016) (Ex. 2012).) Similarly, a
`
`1985 article by Cremers (Ex. 2002) reported “unsuccessful attempts” to sustain
`
`REDACTED
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`plasma using a short wavelength laser. (Cremers at 671.) According to Cremers,
`
`“[b]ecause laser heating of a plasma via inverse [b]remsstrahlung varies as λ2…,
`
`the failure to form the [plasma] was probably due to the 100 times lower
`
`absorption of the plasma at 1.06 μm [1,060 nm] compared to 10.6 μm [10,600
`
`nm].” (Id.) Petitioners have cited no contrary evidence.
`
`Energetiq was the first to recognize that, even though short wavelength
`
`lasers were supposed to produce lower absorption and larger plasma according to
`
`inverse bremsstrahlung, they instead were able to sustain small, bright plasmas in
`
`higher pressure gases. (Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 100 (Ex. 2010).) It was only after
`
`Energetiq’s invention that researchers, trying to understand this phenomenon,
`
`recognized that short wavelength lasers produced significant additional heating due
`
`to absorption by bound-bound electrons which could sustain a plasma even though
`
`these
`
`lasers produced
`
`lower absorption for free electrons under
`
`inverse
`
`bremsstrahlung. (Id.) That is, after Energetiq made its invention, it was
`
`discovered that for short wavelength lasers, the plasma heating due to bound-
`
`bound electron absorption took dominance over inverse bremsstrahlung. (Id.;
`
`Bezel et al, “High Power Laser-Sustained Plasma Light Sources for KLA-Tencor
`
`Broadband Inspection Tools” at page 18 (undated) (Ex. 2014) (“Bezel”).)
`
`Energetiq filed its first application on its laser-driven light source technology
`
`on March 31, 2006, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982. The ’000 patent is
`
`REDACTED
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`a continuation of U.S. Pat. App. No. 13/024,027; which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`several other applications.3 The ’000 patent issued on June 2, 2015 and is titled
`
`“High Brightness Laser Driven Light Source.”
`
`B.
`
`Energetiq’s Patented Laser-Driven Light Sources Prove To Be A
`Success, and Take Over the Market
`
`Energetiq introduced its first laser-driven light source (the EQ-1000) to the
`
`market in 2008. (Smith Decl. at ¶ 18 (Ex. 2016).) It advertised its laser driven
`
`light sources as having “extremely high brightness” which “other light sources
`
`such as arc or deuterium lamps can’t achieve.” (Id.; “LDLS™ Laser-Driven Light
`
`Source EQ-1000 High Brightness DUV Light Source,” at 1 (2008) (Ex. 2015).)
`
`The market immediately recognized the advantages of Energetiq’s light
`
`sources. (Smith Decl. at ¶ 19 (Ex. 2016).) Energetiq’s annual revenue increased
`
`by more than 13,700% from $64,500 in 2008 to $8,950,729 in 2015. (Id.)
`
`,
`
`one of the two largest users of this technology, licensed Energetiq’s patents so it
`
`could manufacture wafer inspection and metrology tools incorporating Energetiq’s
`
`patented technology. (Id.)
`
`Industry experts and researchers alike were quick to praise Energetiq’s
`
`technology. (Id. at ¶ 20.) For example, Semrock, one of Energetiq’s customers,
`
`wrote to a group of industry judges that Energetiq’s laser-driven light source was a
`
`
`3 Energetiq expressly reserves the right to an earlier priority date.
`
`REDACTED
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`“breakthrough technology” that “dramatically changed the playing field” and
`
`provides “at least two orders of magnitude higher brightness” than arc lamps. (Id.;
`
`Letter from Semrock, Inc. to R&D Awards, dated February 28, 2011) (Ex. 2017).)
`
`Energetiq’s light source won two important industry awards—the 2010
`
`Prism Award and 2011 R&D 100 Award. (Smith Decl. at ¶ 21 (Ex. 2016).)
`
`Energetiq’s invention received recognition for using “a laser beam instead of
`
`traditional lamp to deliver 10 times the brightness” of arc lamps and “provid[ing]
`
`the high brightness required by UV-Vis-NIR instruments.” (See M. Rose,
`
`“Winners of 2010 Prism Awards Announced,” at 3 (Ex. 2018); R&D Magazine,
`
`“2011 R&D 100 Winner,” at 1 (Ex. 2019).)
`
`Even recently, a 2015 article by Rudoy et al. praised Energetiq’s light source
`
`as an “important achievement of the recent years” “with [] spectral brightness
`
`substantially exceeding that of traditional plasma-based sources.” (Rudoy et al.,
`
`“Xenon Plasma Sustained by Pulse-Periodic Laser Radiation,” Plasma Physics
`
`Reports Vol. 41, No. 10, 858 (2015) (Ex. 2020) (“Rudoy”)); and a 2016 article by
`
`Zimakov et al. credited Energetiq’s work for its “unexpected” discovery that a
`
`short wavelength laser could sustain a bright plasma. (Zimakov et al., “Interaction
`
`of Near-IR Laser Radiation with Plasma of a Continuous Optical Discharge,”
`
`Plasma Physics Reports, Vol. 42, No. 1 68 (2016) (Ex. 2013) (“Zimakov 2016”).
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petitioners Copy Energetiq’s Laser Driven Light Source
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`
`C.
`
`Starting in 2011, ASML began purchasing Energetiq’s patented devices (i.e.,
`
`the EQ-99) for its lithography tools. (Smith Decl. at ¶ 24 (Ex. 2016).) But, in
`
`2014, ASML introduced a metrology system, the YieldStar 250, which, unlike all
`
`previous ASML metrology systems, for the first time incorporated a laser-driven
`
`light source instead of an arc lamp. (Id. at ¶ 26.) This infringing laser-driven light
`
`source, referred to by the parties in litigation as the “LS1” (for Light Source 1),
`
`was manufactured for ASML by Qioptiq, which now competes with Energetiq for
`
`the sale of these products. (Id.)
`
`III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`In inter partes review, claims are given their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation consistent with the patent specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); In re
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert granted, 84
`
`U.S.L.W. 3562 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). Within this framework, terms
`
`generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The relevant consideration in
`
`claim construction is the meaning that would be assigned a claim term by an
`
`ordinary artisan at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Even under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, the Board’s construction ‘cannot be divorced from the specification
`
`REDACTED
`
`12
`
`

`
`and the record evidence.’” See Microsoft Coip. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292,
`
`IPR20l5-01375
`
`US. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`1298 Ged. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
`
`A.
`
`“Light”
`
`In its
`
`Institution Decision,
`
`the Board “determine[d]
`
`that Petitioner’s
`
`construction [was] consistent with the broadest reasonable construction,” and
`
`adopted the following construction:
`
`light
`
`within the range of 10 nm to 1,000 um
`
`Enereti ’s Construction
`electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet
`extreme UV, vacuum UV, visible,
`near infrared, middle infrared, or far infrared
`
`regions of the spectrum, having wavelengths
`
`Institution Decision at 5-6. While Energetiq asserts that the term “light” should
`
`more properly be construed to mean “electromagnetic energy,” Energetiq’s
`
`positions on the challenged claims do not turn on the meaning of the term “light,”
`
`and the adopted construction is applied where appropriate.4
`
`B.
`
`“Sustain”
`
`Neither Petitioners nor Energetiq proposed a construction for the term
`
`‘ While the Board adopted this construction here, in other parallel IPR proceedings,
`
`it adopted a different construction with wavelength ranges as initially proposed by
`
`Petitioners in this case. Petition at 11. That construction is wrong. See
`
`Bucksbaum Decl. at 1] 54 (Ex. 2010).
`
`REDACTED
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`“sustain” prior to institution—and the Board did not construe it in its Decision.
`
`But given some of the arguments Petitioners have made confusing “initiating” or
`
`“generating” a plasma with “sustaining” a plasma, it is believed the Board should
`
`define the tenn, and make clear that it is used according to its ordinary and
`
`customary meaning. That is, the Board should adopt the following construction for
`
`the term sustain:
`
`Enereti ’s Construction sustain
`
`maintain without interruption
`
`The term “sustain” is used in the claims to contrast the behavior of the
`
`plasma, from other terms relating to the plasma, such as “generate” or “initiate-”
`
`An illustrative use of this term appears in claim 1, which states: “providing
`
`substantially continuous laser energy. . .to sustain a plasma. .
`
`(’000 patent, claim
`
`1 (Ex. 1001)-) The ’000 patent discusses that “the light source 700 includes an
`
`ignition source...that,
`
`for example, generates an electrical discharge in the
`
`chamber 728. - _to ignite the ionizable medium. The laser source 704 then provides
`
`laser energy to the ionized medium to sustain the plasma 732 which generates the
`
`high brightness light 736.” (Id. at 2l:8—l6 (emphases added).)
`
`The distinction between “igniting” or
`
`“generating”
`
`a plasma
`
`and
`
`“sustaining” a plasma is brought
`
`into sharper focus with reference to other
`
`embodiments in the ’000 patent,
`
`in which laser energy is both “igniting” and
`
`REDACTED
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`“sustaining” the plasma. In those instances, each term, i.e., ‘ignite’ and ‘sustain,’
`
`has independent meaning with respect to the effect that the laser is having on the
`
`plasma. See id. at 21:2-8 (“The laser beam 724 passes through the chamber
`
`728…where the plasma 732 exists (or where it is desirable for the plasma 732 to be
`
`generated by the laser 724 and sustained)…[T]he ionizable medium is ignited by
`
`the laser beam 724.”) Similarly, claim 15 requires a “pressurized plasma chamber
`
`to generate or sustain a plasma…” (Id. at claim 15.)
`
`An ordinary artisan would understand that to “sustain a plasma” means to
`
`maintain the plasma without interruption. Petitioners’ expert acknowledges he
`
`understood the term “sustain” to mean “to maintain the existence of” such that the
`
`“plasma would continue to exist.” (Eden Tr. 66:16-19; 68:18-21 (Ex. 2006).) The
`
`term “laser sustained plasma” is frequently used in the art to contrast plasmas
`
`exhibiting other modes of operation, such as “pulsed” plasmas existing only
`
`transiently, to which “sustain” would not be not applied. (See Keefer at 172
`
`(“High-energy pulsed lasers can generate plasma breakdown directly within a gas
`
`that results in a transient expanding plasma similar to an explosion.”) (Ex. 1017);
`
`Bucksbaum Decl. at ¶ 59 (Ex. 2010).)
`
`The customary and ordinary meaning of the term is also reflected in
`
`dictionary definitions. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002)
`
`defines “sustain” to mean “to cause to continue (as in existence or a certain state or
`
`REDACTED
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`in force or intensity): to keep up esp. without interruption, diminution, or flagging :
`
`maintain.” (Webster’s Third New Int’l Dict. of the English Language, Unabridged,
`
`“Sustain,” 2304 (2002) (Ex. 2023); see also The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 722
`
`(2004) (sustain, “to keep going: prolong”) (Ex. 2024); The American Heritage
`
`Dictionary of the English Language 1744 (4th ed. 2006) (sustain, “To keep in
`
`existence; maintain.”) (Ex. 2025).) Thus, Energetiq submits that “sustain” should
`
`be construed to mean “maintain without interruption.”
`
`IV. THE DEFINITION OF AN ORDINARY ARTISAN IN THE FIELD
`Here, the level of ordinary skill is a master of science degree in physics,
`
`electrical engineering or an equivalent field, and 4 years of work or research
`
`experience in plasmas and a basic understanding of lasers; or a Ph.D. degree in
`
`physics, electrical engineering or an equivalent field and 2 years of work or
`
`research experience in plasmas and a basic understanding of lasers. (Bucksbaum
`
`Decl. at ¶ 45 (Ex. 2010).)
`
`The main difference between Energetiq’s definition and Petitioners’
`
`(adopted in the Institution Decision) is that Petitioners definition requires expertise
`
`in lasers—knowledge that the active workers in the field did not have.5 Not
`
`
`5 Petitioners proposed definition is “a Ph.D. in physics, electrical engineering, or an
`
`equivalent field, and 2–4 years of work experience with lasers and plasma, or a
`
`REDACTED
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`surprisingly, Petitioners provide no factual support. To the contrary, Energetiq’s
`
`definition is fully supported, taking into account the experience of active workers
`
`in the field, and further informed by other pertinent factors that determine the level
`
`of skill of an ordinary artisan (see Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., 501
`
`F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
`
`A. Active Workers In The Field And The Inventor
`
`Energetiq’s R&D staff at the time of the invention typifies the educational
`
`level of active workers in the field. At the time of the invention, when they were
`
`hired, 4 out of 7 individuals in Energetiq’s R&D staff had a basic understanding of
`
`lasers, which is consistent in scope with Energetiq’s proposed definition—the rest
`
`had no experience in lasers. (Smith Decl. at ¶ 34 (Ex. 2016).) Importantly, none
`
`had the lasers expertise Petitioners propos