`
`
`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 IPR2015-01377
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,435,982
`CLAIMS 23 AND 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML 1203
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`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 ’982 PATENT ............................................................ 8 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 9 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11 
`A. 
`“Light source” ..................................................................................... 11 
`B. 
`“High brightness light” ........................................................................ 13 
`VI.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ......................................... 15 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent ......................................... 15 
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser emitting at least one
`wavelength of electromagnetic energy that is strongly absorbed
`by the ionized medium was well known in the art .............................. 16 
`VII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 22 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 23 and 60 Are Obvious Over Gärtner in
`View of Beterov .................................................................................. 22 
`1.  Gärtner and Beterov are prior art references that were not
`considered by the Patent Office during examination ................... 22 
`2.  Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 22 
`3.  Overview of Beterov .................................................................... 26 
`4.  Claim 23 ....................................................................................... 30 
`5.  Claim 60 ....................................................................................... 42 
`Ground 2: Claims 23 and 60 Are Obvious Over Gärtner in
`View of Wolfram ................................................................................. 44 
`1.  Gärtner and Wolfram are prior art references that were not
`considered by the Patent Office during examination ................... 45 
`2.  Claim 23 ....................................................................................... 45 
`3.  Claim 60 ....................................................................................... 52 
`
`B. 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`VIII.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 54 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding ”High Brightness Light” ....... 54 
`B. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 58 
`IX.  AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 59 
`X. 
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 60 
`XI. 
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 61 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`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 7,435,982
`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 known as Eden Park Illumination. I discovered numerous ultraviolet,
`
`visible and near-infrared atomic and molecular lasers, including the KrCl
`
`2
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`ultraviolet (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.
`
`3
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`I am a Fellow of the 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, and 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 as well as 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 7,435,982
`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.
`
`7,435,982 (the “’982 patent”; Ex. 1101). I have been informed that the ’982 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 ’982 patent:
`
` French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3,
`1985 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1204).
`
`5
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
` I.M. Beterov et al., Resonance radiation plasma (photoresonance
`plasma), Sov. Phys. Usp. 31 (6), 535 (1988) (“Beterov,” Ex. 1216).
`
` U.S. Patent No. 4,901,330, filed July 20, 1988 (“Wolfram,” Ex.
`1215).
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at 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 ’982 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`21.
`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 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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under 35
`
`22.
`
`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
`23. A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’982 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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 ’982 PATENT
`24. The ’982 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for
`
`use in, for example, testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As
`
`depicted in Figure 1, reproduced below, the light source includes: (1) a chamber
`
`128 (green), (2) an ignition source 140 (blue) for generating a plasma 132, and (3)
`
`a laser 104 (red) for providing energy to the plasma 132 to produce a high
`
`brightness light 136. (’982 patent, 1:46-50 (Ex. 1201).) The ’982 patent identifies
`
`several types of “ignition sources,” such as “electrodes” (shown below) and
`
`“pulsed lasers” (not shown). (’982 Patent, 7:7-24 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`25. According to the ’982 patent, prior art light sources relied upon
`
`electrodes to both generate and sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and
`
`contamination. (’982 patent, 1:20-40 (Ex. 1201).) Thus, a need allegedly arose for
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`a way to sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes.
`
`(’982 patent, 1:20-40 (Ex. 1201).) The alleged invention involves using a laser to
`
`provide energy to sustain the plasma to produce a “high brightness” light. (See,
`
`e.g., ’982 patent, 1:46-50 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`26. The alleged invention also involves using a laser to emit a wavelength
`
`that is “strongly absorbed” by the ionized medium. (’982 patent, 2:20-23, 3:33-35,
`
`4:40-43 (Ex. 1201).) However, the ’982 patent does not define the term “strongly
`
`absorbed.”
`
`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, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light sources with the same
`
`elements as the ’982 patent: a chamber, an ignition source, and a laser.
`
`28. Additionally, there was nothing new about operating the laser at a
`
`wavelength that is strongly absorbed. For example, Beterov disclosed tuning a
`
`laser onto or near a wavelength corresponding to a resonance transition line that is
`
`strongly absorbed. Similarly, Wolfram disclosed tuning a laser at a wavelength
`
`within 2 nm or less of an absorption peak that is strongly absorbed by an active
`
`medium or lasant material such as ions of chromium, titanium, or one of the rare
`
`earth elements.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`9
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`29. The ’982 patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/395,523, filed
`
`on March 31, 2006. On August 25, 2008, all the claims were allowed without
`
`rejection. The ’982 patent issued on October 14, 2008. (’982 Patent (Ex. 1201).)
`
`30.
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner explained that prior art to
`
`Hoshino disclosed “a light source which has a laser that generates a plasma,” and
`
`prior art to Sato disclosed a “light source where a laser beam excites gas (for
`
`emitting UV and EUV light) that is sealed in a bulb tube.” (Notice of Allowability
`
`dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 3 (Ex. 1207).) Thus, the Examiner recognized that using a
`
`laser to generate a plasma light source was not inventive.
`
`31. The Examiner nonetheless allowed the claims because the Examiner
`
`was not aware of prior art that disclosed the combination of an ignition source that
`
`generates the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma. (Notice of
`
`Allowability dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 3 (Ex. 1207).)
`
`32. The Examiner did not consider Gärtner, which was not of record
`
`during the prosecution of the ’982 patent. Gärtner discloses an ignition source that
`
`generates the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma to produce a high
`
`brightness light. In fact, as further discussed below, high brightness light sources
`
`with ignition sources that generate the plasma and laser beams that sustain the
`
`plasma were well-known long before the priority date of the ’982 patent.
`
`10
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`“Light source”
`33. The term “light source” appears in claims 23 and 60. “Light source”
`
`should be construed to mean “a source of 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 (1
`
`µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm), or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm) regions
`
`of the spectrum.”
`
`34. The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”1 is a source of
`
`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 (1 µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., William T.
`
`Silfvast, “Laser Fundamentals” at 4 (“Silfvast”) (Ex. 1209).) The Patent Owner
`
`publishes a data sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’982 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’982 patent, 6:47-49; 7:65-67; 8:6-9; 8:37-39 (Ex.
`
`1201).)
`
`11
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`meaning in referring to EUV wavelength as within the meaning of “light source.”
`
`(See, e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10
`
`product operating at 13.5 nm as an “EUV [Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”)
`
`(Ex. 1208).)
`
`35. The ’982 patent does not provide a definition of the term “light
`
`source” and uses the term consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the term. The ’982 patent states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light
`
`from a light source will vary depending upon the application. (’982 patent, 1:18-
`
`20 (Ex. 1201).) 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).” (’982 patent, 7:65-67 (Ex. 1201); see also id. at
`
`6:47-49 (discussing the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the plasma 132 of the
`
`light source 100), 8:6-9, 8:37-39.)
`
`36. Therefore, the term “light source” should be construed to mean “a
`
`source of 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 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`B.
` “High brightness light”
`37. All the challenged claims include the term “high brightness light.”
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness light” should be
`
`construed to include “light sufficiently bright to be useful for inspection, testing or
`
`measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials used in
`
`the fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a lithography system
`
`used in the fabrication of wafers, microscopy systems, photoresist curing systems,
`
`or endoscopic tools.”
`
`38. The ’982 patent defines “brightness”2 as “the power radiated by a
`
`source of light per unit surface area onto a unit solid angle.” (’982 patent, 4:46-47
`
`(Ex. 1201).) The brightness of the light produced by a light source “determines”
`
`the ability of a system or operator to “see or measure things [] with adequate
`
`resolution.” (Id. 4:47-51.) Accordingly, the brightness of a light is associated with
`
`the ability to see or measure properties of a surface.
`
`39. The ’982 patent recognizes that various uses for high brightness light
`
`existed before the ’982 patent was filed. The patent recognizes in the Background
`
`of the Invention that, “[f]or example, a high brightness light source can be used for
`
`2 Although the ’982 patent uses the term “brightness,” “spectral brightness” is the
`
`more common term in optics and lasers. “Spectral brightness” refers to the optical
`
`power radiated per unit of wavelength (nm) into steradians, the unit of slid angle.
`
`13
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers (e.g., reticles and photomasks).”
`
`(’982 patent, 1:11-14 (Ex. 1201).) It also identifies light sources that can be used
`
`“as a source of illumination in a lithography system used in the fabrication of
`
`wafers, a microscopy system[], or a photoresist curing system” as further examples
`
`of high brightness light sources. (’982 patent, 1:11-17 (Ex. 1201).) Additionally,
`
`it describes and claims “a wafer inspection tool, a microscope, a metrology tool, a
`
`lithography tool, [and] an endoscopic tool” as tools for which the high brightness
`
`light is produced. (’982 patent, 2:33-38, 10:11-14 (Ex. 1201).) More generally,
`
`the patent acknowledges that the brightness and other parameters of the light “vary
`
`depending upon the application.” (’982 patent, 1:18-20 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`40. The Patent Owner has argued that the term “high brightness light”
`
`should be understood as “bright enough to be used for inspection, testing, or
`
`measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials used in
`
`the fabrication of wafers, or in lithography systems used in the fabrication of
`
`wafers, microscopy systems, or photoresist curing systems—i.e., at least as bright
`
`as xenon or mercury arc lamps,” which is similar to the construction proposed
`
`below but omits some of the applications for high brightness light specifically
`
`described in the ’982 patent. See Second Declaration of Donald K. Smith, Ph.D. in
`
`14
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`Support of Energetiq’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Preliminary
`
`Injunction, dated March 17, 2015 (“Second Smith Decl.”) ¶ 20 (Ex. 1211).)
`
`41. Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness
`
`light” should be interpreted to include “light sufficiently bright to be used for
`
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a
`
`lithography system used in the fabrication of wafers, a microscopy system, a
`
`photoresist curing system, or an endoscopic tool.”
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent
`42. When the application that led to the ’982 patent was filed, there was
`
`nothing new about a light source using an ignition source to generate a plasma in a
`
`chamber and a laser to sustain the plasma to produce high brightness light from the
`
`plasma. 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 et al. 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. 1204).
`
`Gärtner discloses a light source with the same features claimed in the ’982 patent:
`
`(1) a sealed chamber 1 (green); (2) an ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (blue),
`
`15
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`which generates a plasma 14; and (3) a laser to produce light – laser 9 (red), which
`
`provides energy to the plasma 14 and produces light 15.
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1204)
`
`
`
`43. By the late 1980’s, this concept was already being taught in textbooks.
`
`(See D. Keefer, “Laser-Sustained Plasmas,” Chapter 4, in Radziemski et al.,
`
`Laser-Induced Plasmas and Applications, CRC Press (1989) (Ex. 1206).)
`
`44. Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’982 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.
`
`B.
`
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser emitting at least one wavelength
`of electromagnetic energy that is strongly absorbed by the ionized
`medium was well known in the art
`45. There was nothing new about operating a laser that emits at least one
`
`wavelength of electromagnetic energy that is strongly absorbed by the ionized
`
`16
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`medium. Two well understood mechanisms for sustaining plasmas are 1) through
`
`elementary collision-radiation processes, which involves supplying energy at or
`
`near an absorption line and 2) through excitation of collective motions in plasmas,
`
`which does not require the laser energy be at or near an absorption line. (Beterov
`
`at 536 (Ex. 1216) (“[A] photoresonance plasma whose properties are determined
`
`by elementary collision-radiation processes, is naturally distinguished from a laser
`
`plasma, in which the transformation of the energy of the laser radiation into the
`
`energy of the plasma particles results from the excitation of collective motions in
`
`the plasma”).) In other words, Beterov explains that the laser radiation required to
`
`ignite or sustain the plasma can be at or near an atomic transition (the first
`
`mechanism) or can operate through other processes that need not have a
`
`wavelength that matches an atomic transition (the second mechanism).
`
`46. Gärtner operates primarily through the second of these mechanisms.
`
`In particular, Gärtner’s laser 9 is a CO2 laser. (Gärtner at 5:3-5 (Ex. 1204).) 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. 1210).) The CO2 laser 9 in Gärtner sustains (and
`
`17
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`is capable of igniting) the plasma primarily through the process of inverse
`
`bremsstrahlung, which is simply the absorption of light (a laser photon) by an
`
`electron in the plasma. This absorption of laser light by the “free” electrons in the
`
`plasma leads to the “collective oscillations” to which Beterov refers when
`
`describing the second mechanism.
`
`47. The first mechanism occurs in plasmas referred to by Beterov as
`
`“photoresonance” and “quasi-photoresonance” plasmas, where the laser supplies
`
`energy at or near an absorption line. For example, Beterov, which was published
`
`in June 1988 in the journal “Soviet Physics Uspekhi” and titled “Resonance
`
`radiation plasma (photoresonance plasma),” discloses generating a plasma by
`
`tuning a laser wavelength to a resonance transition at which the laser energy is
`
`strongly absorbed by a gas or vapor. Beterov states, “One of the methods of
`
`creating a plasma involves the action of optical resonance radiation on a gas.”
`
`(Beterov at 535 (Ex. 1216).)
`
`48. Figure 10 of Beterov provides an example of a light source in which
`
`the laser is tuned to a resonance transition line that is strongly absorbed. Figure 10
`
`shows: 1) a chamber (green); (2) an ignited plasma (yellow); (3) a continuous dye
`
`laser (red) tuned to a wavelength that is strongly absorbed to sustain a plasma that
`
`emits light. (Beterov at 540, Fig. 10 (Ex. 1216).)
`
`18
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`Beterov, Fig. 10 (Ex. 1216)
`
`
`
`In this example, the chamber contains sodium (Na) vapor and the continuous dye
`
`laser is “tuned in resonance with the 3p-4d transitions (λ = 568.8 or 568.2 nm) of
`
`the Na atom.” (Beterov at 540 (Ex. 1216).) Beterov discusses the 3p-4d transition
`
`as an example because it was understood to be a transition having a wavelength
`
`that is strongly absorbed. In particular, a person of skill in the art would
`
`understand that the wavelength based on the 3p-4d transition is strongly absorbed
`
`because all of the alkali atoms (lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), rubidium
`
`(Rb), and cesium (Cs)) are what is known in physics as “one electron” atoms and
`
`the strengths of alkali atomic transitions are renown as being among the strongest
`
`of all atomic lines. Therefore, the laser emitting energy at a wavelength
`
`corresponding to the Na 3p-4d atomic transition would be strongly absorbed by the
`
`sodium vapor.
`
`49. This approach of supplying energy at a wavelength that is strongly
`
`absorbed became more feasible with the invention of tunable lasers. Beterov
`
`19
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`explains that the “potentialities of study of photoresonance plasmas, as well as the
`
`set of their application, have been expanded by the invention of frequency-tunable
`
`lasers.” (Beterov at 535 (Ex. 1216).)
`
`50. Wolfram, which was granted on February 13, 1990 as U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,901,330 and titled “Optically Pumped Laser,” (“Wolfram,” (Ex. 1215)), discloses
`
`a further example of operating a laser emitting at least one wavelength of
`
`electromagnetic energy that is strongly absorbed by the ionized medium. Wolfram
`
`teaches that lasers “can be tuned for the appropriate output radiation wavelength”
`
`such that they provide energy at an absorption peak that is strongly absorbed by the
`
`target materia