`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