throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571.272.7822
`
`Paper 11
`Date Entered: November 30, 2015
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`A. Background
`Petitioner, ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`and Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG, filed a Petition (Paper 4, “Pet.”)
`requesting that we institute an inter partes review of claims 23 and 60 of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 B2 (Ex. 1201, “the ’982 Patent”). Patent Owner,
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`Energetiq Technology, Inc., did not file a Preliminary Response. We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes
`review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the
`petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 20,
`
`43):
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`Claims
`challenged
`Gärtner1 and Beterov2
`23 and 60
`§ 103(a)
`Gärtner and Wolfram3
`23 and 60
`§ 103(a)
`For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 23 and 60 of the ’982 Patent.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify, as related proceedings, a lawsuit
`in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
`captioned Energetiq Tech., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., Case Number
`1:15-cv-10240-LTS. Pet. 1; Paper 7. Petitioner and Patent Owner also
`indicate that other inter partes review petitions have been filed for the ’982
`Patent or patents that relate to the ’982 Patent as follows: IPR2015-01277,
`IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01300, IPR2015-01303, IPR2015-01362,
`
`1 French Patent Publication No. FR 2554302 A1, published May 3, 1985
`(Ex. 1204) (“Gärtner”). Unless otherwise noted, citations are to the certified
`English-language translation, submitted as part of Exhibit 1204.
`2 I.M. Beterov et al., Resonance Radiation Plasma (Photoresonance
`Plasma), 31(6) Sov. Phys. Usp. 535 (1988) (Ex. 1216) (“Beterov”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 4,901,330, issued Feb. 13, 1990 (Ex. 1215) (“Wolfram”).
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`IPR2015-01368, IPR2015-01375, IPR2016-00126, and IPR2016-00127.
`Pet. 1; Papers 7, 10.
`
`C. The ’982 Patent
`The ’982 Patent relates to a laser-driven light source. Ex. 1201, 1:5–
`6. Figure 1 of the ’982 Patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a block diagram of a light source.
`As shown in Figure 1, light source 100 includes laser 104 (id. at 4:36–
`37), chamber 128 that contains an ionizable medium (id. at 4:30–32), and
`ignition source 140 (id. at 5:28–29). Ignition source 140 generates an
`electrical discharge in region 130 of chamber 128 to ignite the ionizable
`medium (id. at 5:29–32), which creates plasma 132 (id. at 4:32–34).
`Laser 104 outputs laser beam 116 via fiber optic element 108. Id. at 5:15–
`16. Collimator 112 directs laser beam 116 to beam expander 118, which
`produces laser beam 122 and directs it to optical lens 120. Id. at 5:19–23.
`Optical lens 120 focuses the beam to produce smaller diameter laser beam
`124 and directs it to region 130 (id. at 5:23–25) to emit high brightness light
`136 (id. at 4:36–39).
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 23 and 60 depend, directly, from claims 1 and 37,
`respectively. Independent claim 1 and dependent claim 23 are illustrative
`and are reproduced below.
`1. A light source, comprising:
`a chamber;
`an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber;
`
`and
`
`at least one laser for providing energy to the ionized gas
`within the chamber to produce a high brightness light.
`Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:2.
`23. The light source of claim 1, wherein the at least one
`laser emits at least one wavelength of electromagnetic energy
`that is strongly absorbed by the ionized medium.
`Id. at 9:60–62.
`E. Claim Construction
`1. Legal Standard
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`Speed Techs., LLC., 793 F.3d 1268, 1277–1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA,”4 and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation.”). Under the broadest reasonable construction standard, claim
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire
`
`
`4 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) (“AIA”).
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`
`2. Summary of the Petitioner’s Contentions
`Here, Petitioner proposes constructions for “light source” and “high
`brightness light.” Pet. 8–13. Upon review of the present record, we
`determine that Petitioner’s proposed constructions for “light source” and
`“high brightness light” are consistent with the broadest reasonable
`constructions of these terms. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the
`following claim constructions:
`Construction
`Claim Term
`“light source” 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 (1μm to 10 μm), or far infrared (10 μm to
`1000 μm) regions of the spectrum.
`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, a microscopy
`system, a photoresist curing system, or an endoscopic tool.
`
`“high
`brightness
`light”
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Principles of Law
`The question of obviousness, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), is resolved on
`the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and
`content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;5 and (4)
`objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In that regard, an
`obviousness analysis can take account of the inferences and creative steps
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The level of ordinary skill in the art
`is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
`1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`B. Obviousness of Claims 23 and 60 over Gärtner and Beterov
`Petitioner contends that claims 23 and 60 of the ’982 Patent are
`unpatentable as obvious over Gärtner and Beterov. Pet. 20–43. By virtue of
`their dependency, claims 23 and 60 require the limitations of independent
`claims 1 and 37. To support its contentions, Petitioner provides detailed
`explanations as to how Gärtner and Beterov meet each limitation of claims
`1, 23, 37, and 60. Id. As support, Petitioner proffers a Declaration of Dr. J.
`Gary Eden, who has been retained as an expert witness for the instant
`proceeding. Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 19–20.
`
`1. Gärtner
`Gärtner teaches a radiation source for optical devices, in particular for
`photolithographic reproduction systems. Ex. 1204, 1. Figure 1 of Gärtner is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`5 Dr. Eden proposes a definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Ex.
`1203 ¶ 23. To the extent necessary and for purposes of this Decision, we
`adopt Petitioner’s unchallenged definition.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`
`Figure 1 of Gärtner shows an embodiment of a radiation source.
`Figure 1 of Gärtner illustrates a gas-tight chamber 1 that contains a
`discharge medium 2. Id. at 4. The discharge medium may be argon or
`xenon. Id. at 5. Entry aperture 3 is sealed by window 6 which allows
`infrared to pass, entry aperture 4 is sealed by lens 7 which allows ultraviolet
`to pass, and exit aperture 5 is provided with a window 8. Id. at 4–5. The
`radiation source includes two lasers 9 and 10 outside chamber 1. Id. at 5.
`Gärtner teaches that laser 9 is a stationary CO2 gas laser, and laser 10 is a
`nitrogen pulse laser. Id. Radiation 11 from laser 9 penetrates into chamber
`1 through window 6 and is focused by concave mirror 12. Id. Radiation
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`from laser 10 is focused by lens 7, which allows ultraviolet to pass and
`produces an electrical discharge, and as a result, absorbent plasma 14 is
`heated to high temperatures under the influence of radiation 11. Id. The
`radiation from the plasma can be fed into the downstream optical system
`through window 8. Id.
`
`2. Beterov
`Beterov is a technical article describing the formation of
`photoresonance plasmas. Ex. 1216, 535. Beterov teaches one type of
`formed plasma as a “quasiresonance laser plasma.” Id. at 539. In one
`example, Beterov teaches forming a quasiresonance plasma by irradiating,
`for example a sodium (Na) vapor, with a laser tuned in resonance with the
`3p-4d transition (λ=568.8 or 568.2 nm) of the Na atom. Id. at 540; Fig. 10.
`
`3. Independent Claims 1 and 37
`Regarding “a chamber,” “an ignition source,” and “at least one laser,”
`as recited in claim 1, Petitioner points to Gärtner’s description of gas-tight
`chamber 1, laser 10, and laser 9, respectively, in Gärtner’s radiation source
`for optical devices. Pet. 28–31, 34 (citing 1204, 1, 3–6, Figs. 1–4); see also
`id. at 21–23 (highlighting components corresponding to the elements of the
`claim in green, blue, and red, respectively). As discussed above, on this
`record, we find Petitioner’s construction reasonable i.e., that “high
`brightness light” means:
`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, [a] microscopy system[ ], [a] photoresist curing
`system[ ], or [an] endoscopic tool[ ]
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`(Pet. 10–11 (emphasis added)). As Petitioner notes (Pet. 30–31), Gärtner
`teaches a “highly powerful radiation source” for “photolithographic
`installations.” Ex. 1204, 3.
`Independent claim 37 is similar to claim 1, except that claim 37
`further recites that the laser provides substantially continuous energy to the
`ionized medium. As Petitioner notes (Pet. 30, 41), Gärtner teaches that
`laser 9 is “continuous.” Ex. 1204, 5.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner shows sufficiently that Gärtner
`teaches each of the limitations recited in claims 1 and 37.
`
`4. Dependent Claims 23 and 60
`Each of claims 23 and 60 further recites that the laser emits “at least
`one wavelength of electromagnetic energy that is strongly absorbed by the
`ionized medium.” Ex. 1001, 9:60–62, 11:42–44. The present record
`supports Petitioner’s contention (Pet. 14–20, 31–35, 42–43 (citing
`Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 45–52, 81–83, 86, 103, 104)) that Beterov teaches tuning to a
`resonance transition wavelength that has an absorption intensity that is
`strong. For example, Beterov teaches photoresonance plasmas can be used
`to obtain “practically complete absorption of the laser radiation.” Ex. 1216,
`539. Beterov also teaches using a laser “tuned in resonance with 3p-4d
`transitions (λ=568.8 or 568.2 nm) of the Na atom.” Id. at 540. Additionally,
`Petitioner provides evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood that energy emitted at a wavelength corresponding to the
`Na 3p-4d transition would have an intensity of absorption by the sodium
`vapor that is strong. Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 47–49.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`The present record also supports Petitioner’s conclusion that it would
`have been obvious to modify Gärtner with Beterov. Pet. 33–40, 43 (citing
`Ex. 1203 ¶¶ 84–96, 105). For example, the Petition explains that it would
`have been obvious at the time of the invention to tune the laser such that it
`provides energy that has an intensity of absorption that is strong to increase
`the efficiency and brightness of light produced by the plasma. Pet. 33–34;
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. Based on the record before us, Petitioner has articulated
`reasoning with rational underpinnings on why a person of ordinary skill in
`the art at the time of the invention would have combined Gärtner and
`Beterov.
`Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s unchallenged
`arguments and evidence that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`of prevailing in showing that each of claims 23 and 60 is unpatentable, under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Gärtner and Beterov.
`
`C. Obviousness of Claims 23 and 60 over Gärtner and Wolfram
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 316(b), rules for inter partes proceedings
`were promulgated to take into account the “regulation on the economy, the
`integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings.” The promulgated
`rules provide that they are to “be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). As a
`result, and in determining whether to institute an inter partes review of a
`patent, the Board, in its discretion, may “deny some or all grounds for
`unpatentability for some or all of the challenged claims.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.108(b).
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`We exercise our discretion and decline to institute review based on the
`other asserted ground advanced by Petitioner that is not identified below as
`being part of the trial. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, based on this record, we determine that the
`information presented establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in showing that claims 23 and 60 of the ’982 Patent are
`unpatentable. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final
`determination with respect to the patentability of any challenged claim.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4,
`an inter partes review of the ’982 Patent is instituted on the ground that
`claims 23 and 60 are unpatentable, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious
`over Gärtner and Beterov;
`FURTHER ORDERED that we institute inter partes review on no
`other ground other than those specifically noted above; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is given of the institution of a trial on the grounds of
`unpatentability authorized above; the trial commences on the entry date of
`this decision.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2015-01377
`Patent 7,435,982 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Donald R. Steinberg
`David Cavanaugh
`Michael H. Smith
`WILMERHALE
`don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`michaelh.smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`Gerald Worth
`Safraz W. Ishmael
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`jcapraro@proskauer.com
`gworth@proskauer.com
`sishmael@proskauer.com
`
`
`12

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket