IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`
`
`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 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2 
`A.  Overview of the ’000 Patent ............................................................................. 2 
`III.  THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET PETITIONER’S BURDEN TO SHOW A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON ITS INVALIDITY
`GROUNDS .......................................................................................................... 4 
`A.  Legal Standards ................................................................................................. 5 
`B.  The Petition fails to demonstrate that the challenged claims are obvious based
`on Gärtner in view of Mourou .......................................................................... 7 
`1.  Background on Gärtner ................................................................................ 7 
`2.  Background on Mourou ............................................................................... 9 
`3.  Gärtner fails to render claims 1, 15, and 18 obvious in view of Mourou
`(Ground 1) .................................................................................................. 10 
`i.  Gärtner’s shortcomings ............................................................................ 10 
`a.  Gärtner fails to disclose providing laser energy having a wavelength
`range of up to about 2000 nm .............................................................. 10 
`b.  Gärtner fails to disclose an operating pressure of at least 10
`atmospheres ......................................................................................... 10 
`ii.  Mourou fails to remedy Gärtner’s deficiencies ........................................ 12 
`iii. There is no motivation to combine because Mourou is directed to
`different underlying technology for generating EUV radiation ............... 12 
`a.  Mourou’s pulsed laser generates EUV plasma, which would have
`been too hot to serve as an alternative for Gärtner’s laser .................. 13 
`b.  Mourou’s pulsed laser provides too much power to sustain the plasma
`in Gärtner ............................................................................................. 14 
`c.  Mourou’s pulsed laser generates EUV radiation in water droplets and
`not a gas as in Gärtner ......................................................................... 14 
`iv. Replacing Gärtner’s laser with Mourou’s laser would be expected to
`change Gärtner’s principle of operation by changing the wavelength of
`the radiation produced .............................................................................. 16 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`a.  Citing Mourou’s laser wavelength and ignoring the generated EUV
`radiation fails to consider Mourou in its entirety ................................ 20 
`v.  One skilled in the art would not have been motivated to replace Gärtner’s
`laser with Mourou’s laser due to differences between pulsed lasers and
`cw lasers ................................................................................................... 22 
`a.  Lasers cannot readily be converted from a pulsed operation to a
`continuous wave .................................................................................. 22 
`1)  Petitioner is mischaracterizing Silfvast ..................................... 23 
`b.  Gärtner also fails to motivate one to operate Mourou’s pulsed laser to
`produce continuous laser energy ......................................................... 25 
`vi. The cited prior art teaches away from the proposed combination by
`discouraging shorter wavelengths ............................................................ 26 
`a.  Shorter wavelengths were contrary to the understood inverse
`bremsstrahlung absorption mechanism of plasma generation ............ 27 
`b.  Cross discourages use of shorter wavelength lasers ........................... 28 
`c.  Keefer also discourages use of shorter wavelength lasers .................. 29 
`d.  Cremers discourages use of shorter wavelength lasers ....................... 30 
`vii.The Petition is based on impermissible hindsight .................................... 32 
`a.  Petitioner improperly cites the ’000 Patent to justify proposed
`modifications ....................................................................................... 32 
`viii.The Petition fails to prove requirements for “obvious to try” ................ 38 
`a.  Petitioner fails to show a need or pressure to solve a problem ........... 38 
`b.  Petitioner fails to show a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions ............................................................................................... 39 
`c.  Petitioner also fails to show a skilled person would have had “good
`reason to pursue” shorter wavelengths as “known options” within
`their technical grasp ............................................................................. 41 
`C.  The Petition also fails to demonstrate that the challenged claims are obvious
`based on Gärtner in view of Kensuke ............................................................. 42 
`1.  Background on Kensuke ............................................................................ 42 
`2.  Gärtner fails to render claims 1, 15, and 18 obvious in view of Kensuke
`(Ground 2) .................................................................................................. 43 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`i.  Replacing Gärtner’s laser with Kensuke’s laser would be expected to
`change the principle of operation of Gärtner by changing the wavelength
`of the radiation produced .......................................................................... 43 
`ii.  One skilled in the art would not have been motivated to replace Gärtner’s
`laser with Kensuke’s laser due to differences between pulsed lasers and
`cw lasers ................................................................................................... 44 
`a.  Lasers cannot simply be converted from a pulsed laser to a continuous
`wave laser ............................................................................................ 44 
`b.  Gärtner also fails to motivate one to operate Kensuke’s pulsed laser to
`produce continuous laser energy ......................................................... 45 
`iii. The prior art teaches away from using shorter wavelengths .................... 46 
`iv. The Petition fails to prove requirements for “obvious to try” .................. 48 
`a.  Petitioner fails to show a need or pressure to solve a problem ........... 48 
`b.  Petitioner fails to show a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions ............................................................................................... 49 
`c.  Petitioner also fails to show a skilled person would have had “good
`reason to pursue” shorter wavelengths as “known options” within
`their technical grasp ............................................................................. 51 
`v.  Petition improperly relies on the ’000 Patent for its motivation to
`combine, which uses impermissible hindsight ......................................... 53 
`IV. THE PETITION PRESENTS REDUNDANT GROUNDS OF REJECTION . 56 
`V.  REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF PATENT OFFICE TYPOGRAPHICAL
`PRINTING ERROR IN ISSUED CLAIM 25 ................................................... 58 
`VI. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................... 59 
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`Pursuant to § 42.107, Patent Owner Energetiq Technology, Inc. (“Energetiq”
`
`or “Patent Owner”) hereby files this preliminary response (“Preliminary
`
`Response”) to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`
`(the “Petition”) in IPR2015-01375 filed by ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas
`
`Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG, (“ASML” or
`
`“Petitioner”).
`
`Patent Owner, by submitting this Preliminary Response, does not waive its
`
`rights to add or modify arguments should the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the
`
`Board”) decide to institute a trial on this matter. Patent Owner has limited its
`
`identification of only certain deficiencies in Petitioner’s argument in this
`
`Preliminary Response. The absence of any subject matter addressing or rebutting
`
`any arguments or other material presented in the Petition should not be deemed a
`
`waiver or admission by Patent Owner, nor should it be deemed to be a concession
`
`that the Petitioner has satisfied the heavy burden it must meet for the Board to
`
`institute a trial. Additionally, Patent Owner’s discussion or emphasis on any
`
`particular claim elements or features of the ’000 Patent in this Preliminary
`
`Response, unless otherwise noted herein, is intended to relate only to this IPR
`
`proceeding and in no way is a concession regarding other patentable features or
`
`aspects of claims in any related proceedings.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`The PTAB should deny the Petition’s request to institute an inter partes
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000 (the “’000 Patent”) because the
`
`grounds in the Petition do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of any claims
`
`being invalid. If the Board nonetheless institutes trial on any of the challenged
`
`claims, Patent Owner will address in detail in its § 42.120 Response the numerous
`
`substantive errors and shortcomings that underlie each of Petitioner’s arguments
`
`and its purported evidence. In this paper, however, pursuant to Rule 42.107 Patent
`
`Owner addresses only the meaning of certain of the challenged claims’ pertinent
`
`terms and some fundamental shortcomings of the Petition; in particular:
`
`Petitioner’s failure to demonstrate, as to any of the challenged claims, a reasonable
`
`likelihood of success on any asserted ground of invalidity. Because of this clear
`
`threshold failure, the Petition should be denied and no inter partes review should
`
`be instituted under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of the ’000 Patent
`
`Claim 1 of the ’000 Patent recites: a method for illuminating features of a
`
`semiconductor wafer, comprising: ionizing a gas within a sealed pressurized
`
`plasma chamber having an operating pressure of at least 10 atmospheres; providing
`
`substantially continuous laser energy having a wavelength range of up to about
`
`2000 nm through a region of material of the sealed pressurized chamber that is
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`transparent to the substantially continuous laser energy to the ionized gas to sustain
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`a plasma within the sealed pressurized plasma chamber to produce plasma-
`
`generated light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm; and illuminating the wafer
`
`with plasma-generated light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm that exits the
`
`sealed pressurized chamber.
`
`Claim 15 of the ’000 Patent recites a method for producing light comprising:
`
`ionizing with an ignition source a gas within a pressurized plasma chamber, the
`
`pressure of the plasma chamber during operation is greater than 10 atmospheres;
`
`providing (i) laser energy having a wavelength range up to about 2000 nm and (ii)
`
`energy from the ignition source to the ionized gas within the pressurized plasma
`
`chamber to generate or sustain a plasma in the chamber to produce a plasma-
`
`generated light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm; and directing the plasma-
`
`generated light out of the pressurized plasma chamber through a transparent region
`
`of the pressurized plasma chamber.
`
`However, as discussed below, throughout its Petition, Petitioner is
`
`suggesting that, now in hindsight of the benefits of the ’000 Patent, the inventive
`
`and unexpected combination recited in the claims would have been obvious and
`
`unpatentable merely because one or more lasers, which allegedly could provide
`
`energy within the claimed wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm, could have
`
`existed. This is simply untrue and Petitioner’s argument does not meet the
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`requirements set forth in the governing laws, as explained below. The Patent
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`Owner is not attempting to claim or improperly expand the inventive nature of the
`
`inventor’s discovery to cover a laser providing energy within a wavelength range
`
`up to about 2000 nm on its own. But rather, as the detailed herein, and as the
`
`Board should agree, the inventor of the ’000 Patent unconventionally combined
`
`components – in a way that was generally discouraged by his predecessors – to
`
`produce a nonobvious and commercially successful light source, which is
`
`patentable over the cited references presented by the Petitioner.
`
`III. THE PETITION FAILS TO MEET PETITIONER’S BURDEN TO SHOW
`A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON ITS INVALIDITY
`GROUNDS
`
`Inter partes review should not be granted because the Petition does not
`
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the proposed grounds of
`
`invalidity. The Petition fails to show how or why one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had good reason to pursue the proposed modifications to Gärtner; the
`
`proposed modifications to Gärtner would have been expected to change Gärtner’s
`
`principle of operation; the prior art cited by the Petitioner actually discourages one
`
`skilled in the art from making the proposed modifications; the proposed
`
`modification is based on hindsight and improperly relies on the ’000 Patent in its
`
`motivation to combine; and the petition fails to present evidence to support its
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`motivation to combine as being obvious to try, thereby failing to consider the
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`references in their entirety.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1, 15, and 18 as invalid for being directed to
`
`obvious subject matter. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the question is whether the
`
`claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time the invention was made. To assess the issue, the scope and content
`
`of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the
`
`claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent
`
`art resolved. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). A party
`
`seeking to invalidate a patent on obviousness grounds must demonstrate that “a
`
`skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art
`
`references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`“The inventor’s own path itself never leads to a conclusion of obviousness;
`
`that is hindsight. What matters is the path that the person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have followed, as evidenced by the pertinent prior art.” See Otsuka Pharm.
`
`Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see KSR at 421
`
`(discussing with affirmation the Supreme Court’s “warning against a ‘temptation
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue’” in Graham at 36);
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`see also Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341,
`
`1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Importantly, the obviousness inquiry must be taken without any “hint of
`
`hindsight,” Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1375
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011), so as to avoid “reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a
`
`guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in
`
`the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.” In re NTP, Inc., 654
`
`F.3d 1279, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Hindsight is forbidden in an obviousness
`
`analysis. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 998 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also Kinetic
`
`Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012). This
`
`means that the reasons for combining references or modifying the teachings of a
`
`reference must be apparent at the time of the invention and thus apparent without
`
`the use of hindsight analysis. A tell-tale sign of impermissible hindsight analysis
`
`that the analysis “use[s] the invention to define the problem that the invention
`
`solves.” Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1376-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Conclusory allegations regarding obviousness are insufficient to establish a
`
`reasonable likelihood of unpatentability in an IPR petition. See Sony Corp. of Am.
`
`v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-00092, Paper 21 Decision Partially
`
`Denying Institution at 19, 28 (May 24, 2013). The Petitioners “must show some
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have thought to combine
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`particular available elements of knowledge, as evidenced by the prior art, to reach
`
`the claimed invention.” Heart Failure Tech. v. Cardiokinetix, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00183, Paper 12 Decision Denying Institution at 9 (July 31, 2013) (citing KSR
`
`International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
`
`“It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose
`
`from any reference only so much of it as will support a given position to the
`
`exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference
`
`fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
`
`1041 (1986).
`
`For example, to invalidate a claim under §103 as being obvious to try, the
`
`Petitioner needs to show that “there [was] a design need or market pressure to
`
`solve a problem and there [was] a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,
`
`a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his
`
`or her technical grasp.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 550 U.S. 398,
`
`421 (2007).
`
`B.
`
`The Petition fails to demonstrate that the challenged claims are obvious
`based on Gärtner in view of Mourou
`
`1.
`
`Background on Gärtner
`
`Gärtner appears to relate to a radiation source for optical devices, in
`
`particular for photolithographic reproduction systems. Gärtner at 1:1-5 (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`For example, Fig. 1 schematically shows an embodiment of the radiation source
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`according to the invention in which a purported gas-tight chamber 1 contains the
`
`discharge medium 2. Id. at 4:31-32. The chamber 1 is described to include two
`
`entry apertures 3 and 4 which allow laser radiation to pass and an exit aperture 5
`
`which allows plasma radiation to pass. Id. at 4:33-33. The device purportedly
`
`includes two lasers 9 and 10 outside the chamber 1. Id. at 5:2-3. The coherent
`
`radiation 11 from the laser 9, which is a stationary CO2 gas laser, purports to
`
`penetrate into the chamber 1 through the window 6 and is focused by the concave
`
`mirror 12 mounted on the wall of the chamber. Id. at 5:3-5. Based on the
`
`description purported in Gärtner, the radiation 13 from the laser 10 is focused on
`
`the same point by the lens 7 which appears to allow ultraviolet light to pass
`
`through and purportedly produces an electrical discharge there, and as a result an
`
`absorbent plasma 14 which is heated to high temperatures under the influence of
`
`the radiation 11. Id. at 5:5-8.
`
`The above statements of Gärtner’s alleged functions are based solely on the
`
`description purported in the translation provided as Ex. 1004. As such, Patent
`
`Owner reserves the right to present additional arguments regarding the deficiencies
`
`of Gärtner in this IPR or in related proceedings.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`2.
`Background on Mourou
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`Mourou is related to a method and apparatus for extreme ultraviolet (EUV)
`
`lithography that provides a high EUV radiation source having a lower power
`
`consumption by the laser and a reduced amount of debris generated by the plasma
`
`target. Mourou at ¶ 0007 (Ex. 1014). Mourou describes a purportedly improved
`
`laser source that uses fiber lasers in combination with adaptive optics. Id. The
`
`invention in Mourou uses a pulsed high-power fiber laser configuration which uses
`
`optimum-duration pulses to further enhance the generation of EUV radiation. Id.
`
`In one described example, in which water is used as the plasma target 30,
`
`conversion efficiencies of laser energy into 13.5nm radiation energy are allegedly
`
`obtained from water droplet targets at various pulse durations using a Ti:sapphire
`
`laser at 800nm. Id. at ¶ 0022. Mourou does not disclose continuous lasers.
`
`The arguments presented herein are focused on identifying only certain
`
`insufficiencies in Petitioner’s proposed combination of Gärtner and Mourou and do
`
`not address or otherwise take into account one or more individual deficiencies of
`
`Gärtner or Petitioner’s characterization of Gärtner. Therefore, Patent Owner’s use
`
`of any of Petitioner’s characterization of Gärtner or Mourou are only for
`
`explanation purposes to illustrate Petitioner’s inadequate arguments. As such,
`
`Patent Owner does not necessarily concede any specific characterizations of
`
`Gärtner or Mourou and reserves the right to further address the Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`arguments or description of the prior art in its Patent Owner response in the event
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`that the Board institutes this inter partes review on any Grounds. Therefore, Patent
`
`Owner restates Petitioner’s characterization of Gärtner and Mourou for illustrative
`
`purposes only, to illustrate Petitioner’s inadequate arguments, and does not
`
`concede or adopt those characterizations as its own.
`
`3.
`
`Gärtner fails to render claims 1, 15, and 18 obvious in view of
`Mourou (Ground 1)
`
`i.
`
`Gärtner’s shortcomings
`
`a.
`
`Gärtner fails to disclose providing laser energy having a
`wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm
`
`Gärtner fails to disclose the claimed laser wavelength ranges. For example,
`
`Gärtner describes purportedly using a CO2 laser to generate a plasma discharge.
`
`CO2 lasers produce energy at a wavelength of around 9.4 and 10.6 µm (around
`
`9,400 to 10,600 nm), which far exceeds the claimed wavelength range of up to
`
`about 2000 nm. Gärtner at pg. 5. Therefore, Gärtner does not describe or suggest
`
`any use of lasers that provide laser energy having a wavelength range of up to
`
`about 2000 nm.
`
`b.
`
`Gärtner fails to disclose an operating pressure of at least
`10 atmospheres
`
`Gärtner fails to disclose the claimed operating pressure ranges. For
`
`example, Gärtner describes purportedly generating plasma radiation using an
`
`active medium with a working pressure of 106 Pa, which is about 9.869 atm (at 1
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`Pascal = 0.00000986923267 atm) and therefore fails to fall within the claimed
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`range. Gärtner at pg. 5. Attempting to reconcile this insufficiency, Petitioner cites
`
`another passage that purports “[t]he optical depth and the temperature can be
`
`varied within a vast range by altering the pressure. As the pressure increases, the
`
`temperature falls and the spectral distribution approaches Planck’s function. As
`
`pressure decreases, the temperature increases, and the emission becomes linear.”
`
`Gärtner at pg. 5. This passage merely describes the phenomena by which
`
`temperature, pressure, and electromagnetic radiation can depend on one another in
`
`a particular system. Nonetheless, this does not disclose or suggest that the pressure
`
`in Gärtner should actually be increased to at least 10 atmospheres.
`
`Acknowledging the insufficiencies in Petitioner’s above-described
`
`arguments, the Petition further provides that “[t]o the extent this is not explicitly
`
`disclosed in Gärtner, it would have been obvious to use Gärtner’s teaching of
`
`varying the pressure and/or the knowledge of a person of skill in the art to increase
`
`the pressure to above 10 atmospheres, as recited in element [1a]. (Eden Decl. ¶ 68
`
`(Ex. 1003).) Sustaining plasmas in chambers with pressures of at least 10
`
`atmospheres was a matter of routine skill. (citations omitted). Lamps having gas or
`
`vapor pressure of tens of atmospheres have been sold for decades. (Eden Decl. ¶ 68
`
`(Ex. 1003).)” Petition at pg. 26. However, the Petitioner fails to present any
`
`articulated connection between the additionally cited materials and Gärtner to
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`explain why it would have been obvious to have modified the pressure of the
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`systems described in Gärtner. Specifically, the mere existence of other lamps that
`
`may have operated at “tens of atmospheres,” in no way provides sufficient
`
`reasoning that it would have been obvious, or even possible, for one skilled in the
`
`art to have modified Gärtner accordingly.
`
`Thus, Gärtner does not describe or suggest any use of a sealed pressurized
`
`plasma chamber having an operating pressure of at least 10 atmospheres.
`
`ii. Mourou fails to remedy Gärtner’s deficiencies
`
`Mourou has been cited as allegedly disclosing the various claim features
`
`missing from Gärtner. However, as detailed herein, Mourou fails to remedy these
`
`deficiencies at least because there is no motivation to combine Mourou and
`
`Gärtner as proposed in the Petition or because Mourou simply fails to disclose the
`
`purported feature.
`
`iii. There is no motivation to combine because Mourou is directed
`to different underlying technology for generating EUV
`radiation
`
`A party seeking to invalidate a patent on obviousness grounds must
`
`demonstrate that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the
`
`teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the
`
`skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing
`
`so.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1347 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`2014). Here, one skilled in the art would simply not have looked to Mourou for
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`advancements to Gärtner because Mourou is directed to EUV radiation and the
`
`underlying considerations that affect EUV sources are completely different than
`
`that of UV sources. For example, as discussed in greater detail below, factors that
`
`are treated differently between EUV and UV plasma generation can include at least
`
`laser power and wavelength, principle of operation for plasma generation, pressure,
`
`medium in which a plasma is to be sustained (e.g., gases, liquids, solids, vacuum),
`
`and temperatures of the plasmas being produced, among other factors.
`
`a. Mourou’s pulsed laser generates EUV plasma, which
`would have been too hot to serve as an alternative for
`Gärtner’s laser
`
`One skilled in the art would not have looked to an EUV device to identify a
`
`laser to serve as a replacement for Gärtner’s laser, particularly without any
`
`motivation or need whatsoever for an alternative laser because of the significantly
`
`different technical requirements needed to sustain EUV radiation. Specifically, in
`
`order to sustain a plasma producing EUV radiation (at 13.5 nm), very high
`
`temperatures, for example on the order of 300,000 K to 400,000 K would need to
`
`be generated. One skilled in the art would readily understand that very high
`
`powered lasers, particularly high powered pulsed lasers, are needed to generate the
`
`high temperatures needed to generate EUV radiation. For example, Mourou
`
`describes at paragraph [0003] that “such EUV generation requires very high laser
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`light peak intensities on the target, thus necessitating the use of large and complex
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`laser systems capable of producing high energy pulses at high average power.”
`
`Therefore, even Mourou recognized that pulsed lasers used for generating EUV
`
`radiation are generally higher power than those that would be considered for UV
`
`sources.
`
`b. Mourou’s pulsed laser provides too much power to
`sustain the plasma in Gärtner
`
`One skilled in the art simply would not have been motivated to consider
`
`replacing the CO2 laser of Gärtner with Mourou’s pulsed laser because Mourou’s
`
`described lasers are, at least partially because they are used to generate an EUV
`
`plasma, too powerful to sustain a UV plasma as in Gärtner. Specifically, rather
`
`than the UV plasmas purported in Gärtner, Mourou describes a laser that is used to
`
`strike a plasma target (e.g., typically small portions or droplets of solid material or
`
`a liquid) to create pulses of plasma generation like a series of explosions. This
`
`explosion-like plasma generation is described in Keefer, which states “[h]igh-
`
`energy pulsed lasers can generate plasma breakdown… in a transient expanding
`
`plasma similar to an explosion.” Keefer (Ex. 1017) at pg. 172.
`
`c. Mourou’s pulsed laser generates EUV radiation in water
`droplets and not a gas as in Gärtner
`
`Mourou’s described plasma targets would have further discouraged one
`
`skilled in the art from considering Mourou for further improvements or
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`developments to Gärtner’s device. For example, Gärtner’s device purports to use
`
`
`
`
`
` Attorney Docket No. EGQ-000IPR
`
`gases (e.g., argon or xenon) as an active medium. However, as Mourou is directed
`
`to generating EUV radiation, Mourou describes using various other types of media
`
`as primary plasma targets including mainly solid films and liquids, in addition to
`
`some gaseous targets. Mourou’s focus on non- gaseous targets is generally
`
`consistent with other EUV plasma radiation devices because such devices are
`
`typically operated under very low pressure, such as a vacuum (as described in
`
`Mourou), because the high powered lasers would be expected to be absorbed by
`
`gas in the chamber before the laser energy could be concentrated to a small enough
`
`area to support generation of EUV plasma generation. This is why most EUV
`
`plasma generation devices use solids or liquids (e.g., controlled droplets or water
`
`or tin) in a low pressure chamber as a plasma target.
`
`In fact, the example in paragraph [00022] of Mourou – to which Petitioner
`
`cites as providing a laser to be combined with Gärtner – uses water droplets as a
`
`plasma target and not a gas as in Gärtner. However, due to the underlying
`
`differences between generating a UV plasma in a gas (Gärtner) and an EUV
`
`plasma in water droplets (Mourou), one skilled in the art would not have
`
`considered Mourou as providing alternatives for the components of Gärtner, which
`
`would have been chosen and designed specifically for sustaining UV radiation in a
`
`gas and not EUV radiation in water droplets.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01375
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000
`iv. Replacing Gärtner’s laser with Mourou’s laser would be
`expected to cha