DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US8
`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 IPR2015-01375
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,048,000
`CLAIMS 1, 15, and 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`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 ’000 PATENT ............................................................ 3 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 5 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`“Light” ................................................................................................... 9 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE Unpatentable .................................... 11 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’000 Patent ......................................... 11 
`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 ............................................................................................... 12 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 18 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 1, 15, and 18 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Mourou .............................................................................. 18 
`1.  Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 19 
`2. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 23 
`3.  Dependent Claim 18 – Plasma chamber pressure greater than 10
`atmospheres .................................................................................. 39 
`Independent Claim 15 .................................................................. 39 
`
`B. 
`
`4. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`B. 
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 15, and 18 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner
`in View of Kensuke ............................................................................. 42 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 44 
`2.  Dependent Claim 18 - Plasma chamber pressure greater than 10
`atmospheres .................................................................................. 54 
`Independent Claim 15 .................................................................. 55 
`3. 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 58 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 58 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`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. 9,048,000 (“the ’000 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 8,969,841 (“the ’841 patent”).
`
`Petitioners request that the inter partes reviews of the ’000, ’982, ’455, ’943, ’138,
`
`and ’841 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., Civil Action 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 9,048,000
`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, 15, and 18 of the ’000 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 9,048,000
`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 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 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 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 ’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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`ʼ000 Patent, Figure 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`4
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 about 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 ’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.) During prosecution, the
`
`Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims and applicant’s arguments that
`
`features such a “pressurized chamber” distinguished the prior art. (See, e.g., Office
`
`Action dated July 17, 2014 at 2-3 (Ex. 1008).)
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.)
`
`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 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
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 700-2000nm.”)
`
`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.
`
`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 greater than 50
`
`nm, but the abstract does not provide this disclosure. (See infra at section
`
`VIII.B.1.c).) Moreover, Gärtner was submitted on March 11, 2015, several weeks
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`after the Examiner had indicated the claims recite allowable subject matter.
`
`(Information Disclosure Statement dated March 11, 2015 (Ex. 1021).)
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`
`by those of ordinary skill.
`
` “Light”
`
`A.
`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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light”1 is electromagnetic radiation
`
`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).)
`
`(See Eden Decl. ¶ 36 n.1 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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
`
`“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)) (Eden Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`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
`
`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
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`
`
`
`
`’000 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 up to about 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
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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 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
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`available commercially and supplied tens of watts but was physically large (several
`
`feet in length, not including the power supply). (Eden Decl. ¶ 42 (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
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 43 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 44 (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 operating at wavelength ranges of up to about
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`2000 nm became viable for sustaining plasma by the early 2000s. (Eden Decl. ¶ 44
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`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.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 45 (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” CO2 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
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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%. (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`47 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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).) (See Eden Decl. ¶ 48
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Ex. 1003).) 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.”).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`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 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 ’000 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. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`
`
`Kensuke Fig. 1 (Ex. 1005)
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’000 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. ¶ 50
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`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, 15, and
`
`18 are invalid 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.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 15, and 18 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 ’000 patent,
`
`which is March 31, 2006 (based on application No. 11/395,523, now the ’982
`
`patent). Gärtner was identified by the applicant several weeks after the Examiner
`
`had already indicated the claims were allowable. The prosecution history of the
`
`’000 patent provides no indication that the examiner appreciated the significance of
`
`Gärtner. 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 the filing date
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of the ’000 patent, and even the earliest possible date for a parent of the ’000
`
`patent, which is March 31, 2006. Mourou was not considered by the Examiner
`
`during prosecution of the ’000 patent.
`
`1. Overview of Gärtner
`
`Gärtner describes a light source for optical systems: “The present invention
`
`relates to a radiation source for optical devices, in particular for photolithographic
`
`reproduction systems.” (Gärtner at 1:1-2 (Ex. 1004).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`Gärtner is directed to the same problem as the ’000 patent, namely,
`
`producing light that is brighter than that produced by conventional arc lamps for
`
`applications such as illuminating features of a semiconductor wafer. (Compare
`
`Gärtner at 1:2-4 (“It is preferably applied in cases where a radiated power is
`
`required which is greater than that from pressurised mercury vapour lamps, such as
`
`in photolithographic appliances for illuminating a photoresist layer on a
`
`semiconductor wafer.”) (Ex. 1004) with ’000 patent, 1:38-56 (“The state of the art
`
`in, for example, wafer inspection systems involves the use of xenon or mercury arc
`
`lamps to produce light. . . . [T]hese arc lamps do not provide sufficient brightness
`
`for some applications, especially in the ultraviolet spectrum. . . . Accordingly, a
`
`need therefore exists for improved high brightness light sources.”) (Ex. 1001).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Gärtner proposes the same basic solution as the ’000 patent, albeit over
`
`twenty years earlier: (1) a sealed pressurized chamber, (2) an ignition source, and
`
`(3) a laser that provides energy that sustains a plasma providing high-brightness
`
`light. (Compare Gärtner at 4:31-35, 5:1-9, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004) with ’000 patent, 2:5-
`
`22, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001).) For example, as shown below, Figure 1 of Gärtner depicts a
`
`“gas-tight chamber 1” (green); “laser 10” (blue) as an ignition source for
`
`generat