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
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,048,000
`CLAIMS 1, 15, and 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML 1003
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`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 .......................................... 7 
`III. 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT ............................................................ 8 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 13 
`A. 
`“Light” ................................................................................................. 13 
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 15 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’000 Patent ......................................... 15 
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser at various wavelengths,
`including in the range of up to about 2000 nm, was well known
`in the art ............................................................................................... 17 
`VII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 22 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 15, and 18 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Mourou .............................................................................. 22 
`1.  Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 23 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 26 
`3.  Dependent Claim 18 – Plasma chamber pressure greater than 10
`atmospheres .................................................................................. 43 
`Independent Claim 15 .................................................................. 43 
`4. 
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 15, and 18 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Kensuke ............................................................................. 46 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 48 
`2.  Dependent Claim 18 - Plasma chamber pressure greater than 10
`atmospheres .................................................................................. 58 
`Independent Claim 15 .................................................................. 59 
`3. 
`VIII.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 62 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`A. 
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 62 
`IX.  AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 63 
`X. 
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 64 
`XI. 
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 65 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`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 9,048,000
`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 9,048,000
`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 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 9,048,000
`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 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`following earlier service as a member of the LEOS Board of Governors, and as the
`
`Vice-President for Technical Affairs.
`
`12. From 1996 through 1999, I was the James F. Towey University
`
`Scholar at the University of Illinois. I received the LEOS Distinguished Service
`
`Award, was awarded the IEEE Third Millennium Medal in 2000 and was named a
`
`LEOS Distinguished Lecturer for 2003-2005.
`
`13.
`
`I am a co-founder of Eden Park Illumination (2007) and EP
`
`Purification (2010).
`
`14.
`
`In 2014, I was elected into the National Academy of Engineering, and
`
`the National Academy of Inventors.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor on over seventy (73) United States and
`
`international patents and have patent applications pending both in the United States
`
`and abroad.
`
`16. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,048,000 (the “’000 patent”; Ex. 1001). I have been informed that the ’000 patent
`
`claims priority to March 31, 2006.
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’000 patent:
`
` French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3,
`1985 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1004).
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
` 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).
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated ay my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`My compensation is not dependent on, and in no way affects, the substance of my
`
`statements in this Declaration.
`
`20.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’000 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`21.
`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 been informed that a
`
`claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if “the invention was
`
`patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
`
`public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the
`
`application for patent in the United States.” I have also been informed that a claim
`
`is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if “the invention was described
`
`in … an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in
`
`the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent ….” It is my
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`understanding that for a claim to be anticipated, all of the limitations must be
`
`present in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a). I understand that a claimed invention would have been
`
`obvious, and therefore not patentable, if the subject matter claimed would have
`
`been considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the
`
`invention was made. I understand that when there are known elements that perform
`
`in known ways and produce predictable results, the combination of those elements
`
`is likely obvious. Further, I understand that when there is a predictable variation
`
`and a person would see the benefit of making that variation, implementing that
`
`predictable variation is likely not patentable. I have also been informed that
`
`obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success, but that what does
`
`matter is whether the prior art gives direction as to what parameters are critical and
`
`which of many possible choices may be successful.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`23. A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’000 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 ’000 PATENT
`24. The ’000 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 claimed light source includes a
`
`pressurized chamber containing gas (green), an ignition source for ionizing the gas
`
`(blue), a laser for providing energy to the plasma (red), and a plasma-generated
`
`light. (’000 patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`ʼ000 Patent, Figure 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`25. According to the ’000 patent, prior art light sources relied upon
`
`electrodes to both generate and sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and
`
`contamination. (’000 patent, 1:45-51 (Ex. 1001).) Thus, a need arose for a way to
`
`sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes. (’000
`
`patent, 1:55-59 (Ex. 1001).)
`
`26. The alleged invention of the patent family involves using a laser to
`
`provide energy to sustain the plasma for a light source. The ’000 continuation adds
`
`claims that require a pressurized chamber and that the laser operate within a
`
`wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm and that the plasma-generated light have
`
`a wavelength greater than 50 nm.
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`27. As discussed below, there was nothing new about sustaining a plasma
`
`with a laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art references,
`
`including Gärtner, Mourou, and Kensuke, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light
`
`sources that included the pressurized chamber and transparency required of the
`
`chamber. Gärtner disclosed the plasma-generated light having a wavelength
`
`greater than 50 nm. Moreover, there was nothing new about providing energy to a
`
`plasma with a laser operating within a wavelength range of up to about 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 wavelength range of up to about2000 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 ’000 patent (Ex. 1001) issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`13/964938, filed on August 12, 2013. The ’000 patent is a continuation of the ’138
`
`patent, which is a CIP of the ’786 patent, which is a CIP of the ’455 patent, which
`
`is a CIP of the ’982 patent, filed March 31, 2006. (See Ex. 1002.)
`
`29. During prosecution, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending
`
`claims and applicant’s arguments that features such a “pressurized chamber”
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`distinguished the prior art. (See, e.g., Office Action dated July 17, 2014 at 2-3 (Ex.
`
`1008).)
`
`30. On January 6, 2015, the applicant further amended the independent
`
`claims to require a “pressure of at least 10 atmospheres,” a laser having a
`
`wavelength “of up to about 2000 nm,” a plasma producing light “having
`
`wavelengths greater than 50 nm,” and chamber portions for allowing laser energy
`
`to enter and emitted light to escape. For example:
`
`
`
`(Applicant’s Amendment and Response dated Jan. 6, 2015 at 2-6 (Ex. 1009).)
`
`Based on the amendments, the applicant argued that the newly amended claims
`
`were distinct from the prior art. (Id. at 7-10.)
`
`31. On February 27, 2015, the Examiner indicated that claims reciting “at
`
`least one substantially continuous laser for providing energy within a wavelength
`
`range of about 700 nm to 2000 nm to an ionized gas to sustain a plasma within a
`
`chamber having greater than atmospheric pressure to produce a plasma-generated
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm” contained allowable subject matter.
`
`(Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2015 at 7 (Ex. 1010).) (The claims did not in fact
`
`recite the language identified by the Examiner as allowable. For example, claim 1
`
`recited “a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm,” whereas the Examiner states
`
`that claim 1 recites “providing energy from 700-2000 nm.”)
`
`32. On March 25, 2015, the amended claims were allowed after the
`
`applicants filed a terminal disclaimer and amended the claims to overcome a
`
`section 112 rejection. (Notice of Allowability dated Mar. 25, 2015 (Ex. 1018);
`
`Applicant’s Amendment and Response dated Mar. 5, 2015 (Ex. 1020).) With
`
`respect to challenged claims 1 and 15 (as well as other claims), the Examiner noted
`
`that the prior art did not disclose a continuous laser providing energy from 700-
`
`2000nm, and light emission having wavelengths greater than 50 nm.
`
`33. The Examiner, however, did not consider Mourou, nor was the
`
`Examiner provided a complete English translation of Kensuke. Kensuke (JP 2006-
`
`10675) was included in an Information Disclosure Statement filed by applicant on
`
`August 12, 2013. (Information Disclosure Statement dated Aug. 12, 2013 (Ex.
`
`1024.) 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
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`greater than 50 nm, but the abstract does not provide this disclosure. (See infra at
`
`section VII.B.1.c).) Moreover, Gärtner was submitted on March 11, 2015, several
`
`weeks after the Examiner had indicated the claims recite allowable subject matter.
`
`(Information Disclosure Statement dated March 11, 2015 (Ex. 1021).)
`
`34. 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.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Light”
`35. The term “light” is recited in challenged claims 1, 15, and 18. “Light”
`
`should be construed to mean “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.”
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`36. The ordinary and customary meaning of “light”1 is 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” 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).)
`
`37. The ’000 patent does not provide a definition of the term “light” and
`
`uses the term consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term.
`
`Consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “light,” the ’000 patent
`
`states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light vary depending upon the
`
`application. (’000 patent, 1:35-37 (Ex. 1001).) The specification describes
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’000 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’000 patent, 1:51-54, 7:49-51, 12:25-29, 15:6-9,
`
`15:16-20, 17:12-14, 18:34-36, 18:42-44, 19:8-10, 20:31-32, 21:18-20) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`“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).” (’000 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).)
`
`38. Therefore, the term “light” should be construed to mean
`
`“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.”
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`39. Challenged claims 1, 15, and 18 of the ’000 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 ’000 Patent
`40. When the application that led to the ’000 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
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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 ’000 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).) Gärtner further teaches
`
`that the light source can be used “in photolithographic appliances for illuminating a
`
`photoresist layer on a semiconductor wafer.” (Gärtner at 1:1-4 (Ex. 1004).)
`
`
`
`’000 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`B.
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser at various wavelengths, including
`in the range of up to about 2000 nm, was well known in the art
`41. 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 for the initiation step. . . . Moreover, laser heating of a 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).)
`
`42. During the 1990s and early 2000s, laser technology for shorter
`
`wavelength ranges of up to about 2000 nm 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
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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) was available commercially and supplied tens of watts but was
`
`physically large (several feet in length, not including the power supply).
`
`43. 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 after Digonnet’s statement, the power of Yb:glass
`
`fiber lasers increased rapidly to hundreds of watts.
`
`44. Several years before the priority date for the ’000 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 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
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`(Ex. 1006).) As a result, several compact and efficient near infrared lasers
`
`operating at wavelength ranges of up to about 2000 nm became viable for
`
`sustaining plasma by the early 2000s.
`
`45. Lasers operating with ranges of up to about 2000 nm 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
`
`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.)
`
`46. 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” CO2 laser was 2 to 3 feet in length and these numbers do
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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, with a fiber laser, 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%.
`
`47.
`
`In fact, the ’000 patent acknowledges that shorter wavelength lasers
`
`with these known advantages had recently become available. (’000 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
`
`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).)
`
`48. As a result, by the early-2000’s, there was nothing new about
`
`operating a laser at a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm in a laser sustained
`
`plasma light source. For example, Mourou, which was published on November 11,
`
`2004 as 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 of up to about 2000 nm. (Mourou ¶ 0022 (Ex. 1014).)
`
`20
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`Specifically, Mourou discloses a laser for providing energy to a plasma that
`
`operates at about 1,000 nm. (Mourou ¶ 0013 (Ex. 1014) (“For [laser] light at ~ 1-
`
`μm wavelengths [i.e., 1000 nm] . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also ¶ 0022
`
`(disclosing “a Ti:sapphire laser at 800nm.”).)
`
`49. Additionally, on February 24, 2005, Kensuke filed a patent
`
`application entitled “Method for Generating Ultraviolet Light, and Ultraviolet
`
`Light Source Apparatus,” which published as Japanese Patent Publicatio