throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: April 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq
`Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 7–10 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,048,000 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’000 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Energetiq
`Technology, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review as
`to claims 7–10 of the ’000 patent.
`
`A. Related Matter
`The parties indicate that the ’000 patent is asserted in Energetiq
`Techn., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., No. 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass.),
`and identify related proceedings. Pet. 1; Paper 12, 2–3.
`
`B. The ’000 Patent
`
`The ’000 patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 120, through a series of
`continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit of the filing
`date of an application filed March 31, 2006. Ex. 1101, at [63]; Ex. 1102.
`The ’000 patent discloses a light source comprising a laser that ionizes a gas
`within a chamber to produce a plasma-generated light. Id. at Abs.
`According to the ’000 patent, such a light source can be used as a source of
`illumination in a semiconductor photolithographic system. Id. at 1:27–37.
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’000 patent illustrates a block diagram of a light
`source, and is reproduced below with annotations added.
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1, light source 100 includes laser 104,
`chamber 128, and ignition source 140. Id. at 14:40–16:5. Laser 104 outputs
`laser beam 116 via fiber optic element 108. Id. Collimator 112 directs the
`laser beam to beam expander 118, which produces laser beam 122 and
`directs it to optical lens 120. Id. Optical lens 120 focuses the beam to
`produce smaller diameter laser beam 124 and directs it to region 130. Id.
`Plasma 132 is generated within the chamber to produce light 136. Id.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claim 7 is the sole independent claim.
`Claims 8–10 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 7, which recites:
`7. A laser driven light source comprising:
`a sealed pressurized plasma chamber having an ignition source
`for ionizing a gas within the chamber and a sapphire window for
`maintaining a pressure therein;
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`a laser for providing at least substantially continuous energy
`through the sapphire window to the ionized gas within the
`pressurized plasma chamber to sustain a plasma and produce
`plasma-generated light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm,
`the pressure of the plasma chamber during operation is greater
`than 10 atmospheres
`wherein the sapphire window allows the plasma-generated light
`to exit the pressurized chamber.
`Ex. 1101, 49:5–17 (emphases added).
`
`D. Prior Art of Record
`In support of its Petition, Petitioner proffers the following prior art
`
`references1:
`(Ex. 1104)
`May 3, 1985
` FR 2554302 A1
`Gärtner
`(Ex. 1105)
`Aug. 27, 1986
` JPS61-193358
`
`Sato
`
`(Ex. 1114)
`Jul. 2, 2002
`Eastlund US 6,414,436 B1
`
`(Ex. 1115)
`Nov. 1, 2001
`Guthrie
`US 2001/0035720
`Zane A. Arp et al., Feasibility of Generating a Useful Laser-Induced
`Breakdown Spectroscopy Plasma on Rocks at High Pressure:
`Preliminary Study for a Venus Mission, in 59B SPECTROCHIMICA
`ACTA, PART B: ATOMIC SPECTROSCOPY, 987–999 (Elsevier 2004).
`Ex. 1106 (“Arp”).
`WILLIAM T. SILFVAST, LASER FUNDAMENTALS 1–6, 199–222, 565–68
`(2d ed. 2004). Ex. 1109 (“Silfvast”).
`PATEL & ZAIDI, THE SUITABILITY OF SAPPHIRE FOR LASER WINDOWS,
`in 10 MEAS. SCI. TECHNOL. 146–151 (1999). Ex. 1116 (“Patel”).
`
`
`1 The citations to Sato and Gärtner are to their certified English-language
`translations in Exhibits 1105 and 1104, respectively.
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`D. KEEFER, LASER SUSTAINED PLASMA, in RADZIEMSKI ET AL., LASER-
`INDUCED PLASMA AND APPLICATIONS (CRC Press 1989). Ex. 1117
`(“Keefer”).
`RONALD WAYNANT ET AL., ELECTRO-OPTICS HANDBOOK, Chapter 10
`(2d ed. 2000). Ex. 1122 (“Waynant”).
`KELIN J. KUHN, LASER ENGINEERING, Chapter 10, at 303–43 (Prentice
`Hall 1998). Ex. 1127 (“Kuhn”).
`CHRISTOPHER C. DAVIS, LASER AND ELECTRO-OPTICS:
`FUNDAMENTALS AND ENGINEERING (reprint 2000) (Cambridge Univ.
`Press 1996). Ex. 1128 (“Davis”).
`G.C. WEI, JOURNAL OF PHYSICS D 3057 (2005). Ex. 1129 (“Wei”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds (Pet. 18, 42):
`
`Claims
`7–10
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`References
`Sato in view of Gärtner
`
`7–10
`
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Gärtner in view of Arp
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`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). Here, Petitioner
`proposes construction for “light source” and “ignition source for ionizing
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`gas within the chamber,” which are recited in independent claim 7. Pet. 9–
`12. Upon review of the present record, we determine that Petitioner’s
`constructions are consistent with the broadest reasonable construction.
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the following claim constructions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`light source
`
`ignition source
`for ionizing a gas
`within the
`chamber
`
`
`
`Construction
`a source of electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet
`(“UV”), extreme UV, vacuum UV, visible, near
`infrared, middle infrared, or far infrared regions of the
`spectrum, having wavelengths within the range of
`10 nm to 1,000 µm
`An electrode, an ultraviolet ignition source, a
`capacitive ignition source, an inductive ignition
`source, an RF ignition source, a microwave ignition
`source, a flash lamp, a pulsed laser, a pulsed lamp or
`the laser for ionizing a gas within the chamber
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter 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 said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness 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 matter and the prior art;
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`It is well-settled that the level of ordinary skill in the art may be
`reflected by the prior art of record, as here. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Obviousness over Sato and Gärtner
`
`Petitioner asserts that claims 7–10 are unpatentable under § 103(a) 2 as
`obvious over the combination of Sato and Gärtner. Pet. 19–41. As support,
`Petitioner proffers a Declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, who has been retained
`as an expert witness for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1103.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this
`Decision that the combination of Sato and Gärtner teaches or suggests all of
`the limitations of claims 7–10, and renders the claimed subject matter as a
`whole obvious. In our discussion below, we provide a brief summary of
`Sato and Gärtner, and then we address certain claim limitations in detail as
`examples.
`
`
`2 Because, on this record, the effective filing date for the ’000 patent is
`before March 16, 2013, the pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
`No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), version of § 103 applies.
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`Sato
`Sato discloses a light source device, comprising a laser oscillator that
`
`emits a laser beam. Figure 1 of Sato is reproduced below:
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of Sato, laser oscillator 1 emits a continuous or pulsed
`laser beam. Ex. 1105, 2. Optical system elements 2, 3 and focusing optical
`system element 4 project the laser beam onto the focal point within sapphire
`tube bulb 5, which is filled with a noble gas, e.g., xenon. Id. The sealed gas
`is excited by the laser beam to produce a plasma-generated light. Id.
`
`Gärtner
`Gärtner discloses a radiation light source for a photolithographic
`system, which could be used for illuminating a photoresist layer on a
`semiconductor wafer. Ex. 1104, 1:1–4. Figure 1 of Gärtner is reproduced
`below with annotations added.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Gärtner, Gärtner’s light source
`includes continuous CO2 laser 9, laser 10 (an ignition source), and
`chamber 1. Id. at 4:31–5:12. Plasma 14 is generated inside chamber 1 and
`emits light 15 into a downstream optical system through window 8. Id.
`
`Sealed Pressurized Plasma Chamber
`Claim 7 recites a laser driven light source comprising “a sealed
`pressurized plasma chamber having . . . a sapphire window for maintaining a
`pressure herein,” and “wherein the sapphire window allows the
`plasma-generated light to exit the pressurized chamber.” Ex. 1101, 49:5–8.
`Claim 8 recites “wherein the pressurized plasma chamber contains one or
`more of a noble gas, Xe, Ar, Ne, or Kr.” Id. at 49:18–20.
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Sato and Gärtner discloses
`these limitations of claims 7 and 8. Pet. 20–26, 39–40. For purposes of this
`Decision, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s explanation and supporting
`evidence. Notably, Sato discloses an ultraviolet light source having a
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`sapphire tube bulb “for causing sealed gas to emit plasma through excitation
`with a laser beam.” Ex. 1105, 1, 2. Sato also discloses that the sapphire
`tube bulb is filled with a noble gas, e.g., xenon. Id. at 2. Further, Gärtner
`also discloses a light source comprising a sealed pressurized plasma
`chamber filled with a xenon gas. Ex. 1104, 4:31–5:16. On this record, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this
`Decision that the combination of Sato and Gärtner discloses a laser light
`source comprising a sealed pressurized plasma chamber that contains a
`xenon gas, and has a sapphire window for maintaining a pressure therein and
`allowing the light to exit the chamber, as required by claims 7 and 8.
`
`Ignition source and laser
`Claim 7 recites “an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the
`chamber,” and “a laser for providing at least substantially continuous energy
`through the sapphire window to the ionized gas within the pressurized
`plasma chamber to sustain a plasma and produce plasma-generated light
`having wavelengths greater than 50 nm.” Ex. 1101, 49:6–14 (emphases
`added). Claim 9 depends directly from claim 7, and recites “wherein the
`ignition source comprises or includes an electrode, . . . a pulsed laser, a
`pulsed lamp or the laser.” Id. at 49:21–26. Claim 10 depends directly from
`claim 9, and recites “wherein the laser source comprises a continuous wave
`(CW) laser.” Id. at 49:27–28.
`Petitioner contends that the combination of Sato and Gärtner discloses
`a laser ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber, and a
`continuous laser for sustaining a plasma to produce a light, as required by
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`claims 7, 9, and 10. Pet. 22–24, 40, 41. Based on the evidence presently
`before us, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention.
`Notably, Sato discloses a light source having a laser oscillator that
`“emits a continuous or pulsed laser beam of an intensity that is adequate to
`excite electrodischarge of the filled gas.” Ex. 1105, 2. Sato explains that the
`laser beam excites the gas to generate a plasma, producing an ultraviolet
`light, which has wavelengths greater than 50 nm. Id.; see also Ex. 1103 ¶ 73
`(an ultraviolet light has wavelengths in the range of 200–400 nm and
`vacuum ultraviolet light has wavelengths in the range of 100–200 nm). In
`short, Sato’s laser ionizes a xenon gas within a sapphire tube bulb and
`provides continuous energy to sustain a plasma, producing an ultraviolet
`light.
`Petitioner acknowledges that Sato discloses a single laser that is used
`to generate and sustain the plasma, and does not utilize a separate and
`independent ignition source. Pet. 22–24. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends
`that, even if the claims require a separate ignition source, the combination of
`Sato and Gärtner would still render the aforementioned limitations recited in
`claims 7, 9, and 10 obvious. Id. at 23–24, 27–28, 33–41. In particular,
`Petitioner explains that Gärtner discloses a laser light source having a
`separate ignition source for ionizing a gas and a laser for sustaining the
`plasma to produce an ultraviolet light. Id. Indeed, Gärtner describes using a
`pulse laser (shown as pulse laser 10 in Figure 1 of Gärtner reproduced
`above) as an ignition source to ionize a gas within the plasma chamber, and
`a continuous laser (shown as continuous laser 9 in Figure 1 of Gärtner
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`reproduced above) for sustaining the plasma to produce a light. Ex. 1104,
`3:20–31, 4:31–5:12. Gärtner also explains that a desired wavelength range
`for such a light is in the UV region. Id. at 2:28–30, 3:1–18, 4:34–5:1.
`More importantly, as Petitioner notes, Gärtner indicates that a single
`laser can be used to generate and sustain the plasma, like in Sato, or
`alternatively, if the power is insufficient, a separate ignition source can be
`employed. Pet. 24, 35–36; Ex. 1104, 5:12–14. Gärtner further teaches the
`advantages of using a separate ignition source in certain situations—e.g.,
`allowing a lower power laser to be used to sustain the plasma. Ex. 1104,
`3:29–32. In support of Petitioner’s contention, Dr. Eden testifies that “it
`would have been obvious to use a separate ignition source in Sato to enable
`a laser of modest power to be used to sustain the plasma.” Ex. 1103 ¶ 88.
`On this record, we give Dr. Eden’s testimony substantial weight in that
`regard as it is supported by the prior art disclosures. See, e.g., Ex. 1104,
`3:29–32, 5:12–14. Based on the evidence currently before us, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has articulated reasoning with rational
`underpinning for combining Gärtner’s teaching of a separate laser ignition
`source with Sato. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used
`to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
`technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
`skill.”).
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`of Sato and Gärtner discloses a pulsed laser ignition source for ionizing a
`gas, and a continuous laser for sustaining a plasma to produce a light that has
`wavelengths greater than 50 nm, as required by claims 7, 9, and 10.
`
`Pressure greater than 10 atmospheres
`Claim 7 recites “the pressure of the plasma chamber during operation
`is greater than 10 atmospheres.” Ex. 1101, 49:13–15. Petitioner asserts that,
`although Sato does not specify explicitly a particular operating pressure, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Sato’s sapphire
`tube bulb would allow pressures greater than 10 atmospheres. Pet. 27–35.
`Based on the present record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis.
`As Petitioner notes, Gärtner discloses an example of using a xenon
`gas as the “active medium with a working pressure of 106 Pa,” which is
`equivalent to approximately 9.9 atmospheres. Id. at 29 (citing Ex. 1104,
`4:32, 5:15–16). Gärtner also discloses that “[t]he optical depth . . . can be
`varied with a vast range by altering the pressure,” and “[a]s the pressure
`increases, . . . the spectral distribution approaches Planck’s function.”
`Ex. 1104, 5:15–19 (emphases added). Dr. Eden testifies that any light
`source emitting light having a spectrum that obeys Planck’s function is
`known as a “blackbody” source—“an optical source that loses (emits) as
`much energy as it absorbs.” Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 79–80. Dr. Eden further explains
`that, in such a light source, “[i]ncreasing the pressure in a lamp (light source)
`results in the light source absorbing more power, and emitting more power.”
`Id. According to Dr. Eden, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`recognized that increasing the pressure inside the plasma chamber of a light
`source will increase the brightness of the plasma-generated light. Id.
`Additionally, Dr. Eden testifies that 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,”
`because sustaining plasmas in chambers with such a pressure was a matter of
`routine skill. Id. at ¶¶ 81–82. Dr. Eden also testifies that it would have been
`obvious, in light of Gärtner, to operate Sato’s sapphire tube bulb with a
`pressure greater than 10 atmospheres to achieve a brighter light source. Id.
`We credit Dr. Eden’s testimony as it is supported by the prior art disclosures
`in this record and what the disclosures would have conveyed to one with
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1104,
`5:15–19; Ex. 1114, 7:25–27 (“By allowing operation at higher fill pressures,
`the stronger single crystal (SC) sapphire tubing allows higher power density
`and thus higher efficacy.”); Ex. 1106, 988 (disclosing a plasma chamber
`with sapphire windows that has a pressure of 204 atmospheres, which
`demonstrates that sapphire is sufficiently strong to withstand pressures of
`over 200 atmospheres).
`At this juncture, the evidence in this record does not show that the
`claimed range is critical or produces “a new and unexpected result which is
`different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.”
`In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). We are persuaded that
`Petitioner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for
`combining Gärtner’s teaching of increasing the pressure within the plasma
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`chamber to greater than 10 atmospheres with Sato. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
`417.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination
`of Sato and Gärtner teaches or suggests a plasma chamber having a pressure
`of greater than 10 atmospheres, as recited in claim 7.
`
`Conclusion for Obviousness over Sato and Gärtner
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`claims 7–10 are unpatentable over the combination of Sato and Gärtner.
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Gärtner and Arp
`Petitioner asserts that claims 7–10 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as
`obvious over the combination of Gärtner and Arp. Pet. 41–58; see also id. at
`19–41. As support, Petitioner directs our attention to Dr. Eden’s
`Declaration. Ex. 1103.
`Upon review of Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this
`Decision that the combination of Gärtner and Arp teaches or suggests all of
`the limitations of claims 7–10, and renders the claimed subject matter as a
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`whole obvious. In our discussion below, we provide a brief summary of
`Arp, and then we address certain claim limitations in detail as examples.3
`
`Arp
`Arp discloses a plasma light source comprising a chamber with a
`
`sapphire window for transmitting a plasma-generated light. Ex. 1106, 987–
`989. Figure 1 of Arp is reproduced below with annotations added by
`Petitioner, Pet. 44.
`
`
`As shown in the annotated Figure 1 of Arp above, a laser (in red)
`provides energy that enters through the sapphire window (in orange). Id. at
`989. Arp further explains that the laser beam enters the chamber through the
`same sapphire window by which the plasma light exits the chamber. Id.
`
`
`3 A brief summary of Gärtner has been provided previously.
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`Sapphire Window
`
`Claim 7 recites a sealed pressurized plasma chamber having
`“a sapphire window for maintaining a pressure therein,” and “wherein the
`sapphire window allows the plasma-generated light to exit the pressurized
`chamber.” Ex. 1101, 49:6–17 (emphases added). Claim 7 also recites “a
`laser for providing at least substantially continuous energy through the
`sapphire window.” Id. (emphasis added).
`Petitioner asserts that the combination of Gärtner and Arp renders the
`aforementioned limitations obvious. Pet. 41–58; see also id. at 23–25, 27–
`33, 40–41. For purposes of this Decision, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`explanations and supporting evidence in this present record.
`As discussed above, Gärtner discloses a laser light source having a
`sealed pressurized plasma chamber (shown as gas-tight chamber 1 in
`Figure 1 of Gärtner reproduced above), which contains a xenon gas for
`generating a plasma inside the chamber to produce an ultraviolet light.
`Ex. 1104, 2:28–30, 3:1–18, 4:34–5:1, 5:15–16 (“for example in an argon or
`xenon atmosphere as active medium with a working pressure of 106 Pa”).
`Gärtner further discloses using a pulse laser (shown as pulse laser 10 in
`Figure 1 of Gärtner reproduced above) as an ignition source for ionizing a
`gas within the chamber, and a continuous laser (shown as continuous laser 9
`in Figure 1 of Gärtner reproduced above) for providing a continuous energy
`through a window to sustain the plasma. Id. at 3:20–31, 4:31–5:12.
`Gärtner’s plasma chamber has a plurality of windows for maintaining
`a pressure therein (shown as windows 7, 6, and 8 in Figure 1 of Gärtner
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`reproduced above). Id. at 4:31–5–9. Gärtner’s window 8 allows the
`plasma-generated light to exit the chamber. Id. at 4:31–5:9 (“The
`radiation 15 from the plasma can be fed into the downstream optical system
`through the window 8.”). Gärtner also indicates that the continuous laser
`provides continuous energy through window 6 to sustain the plasma. Id. at
`4:32–5:9.
`Although Gärtner does not disclose a sapphire window, Petitioner
`notes that such a feature nevertheless was known in the art, as evidenced by
`Arp. Pet. 43, 46–56. Indeed, Arp discloses a laser light source having a
`plasma chamber with a sapphire window. Ex. 1106, 987–89. Arp describes
`the use of sapphire windows in a light source application that requires a high
`pressure. Id. at 989. Arp further teaches a light source with a plasma
`chamber having a single sapphire window that allows laser energy to enter
`and plasma-generated light to exit the chamber. Id. at 987–89, Fig. 1.
`More importantly, as Petitioner notes, it was well-known at the time
`of the invention that using sapphire had several advantages, including its
`tensile strength which allows it to withstand high pressures, excellent
`thermal properties for plasma lamps, and physical properties superior to
`those of quartz. Pet. 48–51; Ex. 1106, 998; Ex. 1114, 3:24–34, 7:10–28,
`Tables 1–3; Ex. 1122, 10.9; Ex. 1123, 4; Ex. 1125, 6:46–48; Ex. 1126, 4:25–
`28; Ex. 1115 ¶¶ 11, 24–25, 44; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 122–25. Sapphire also has
`several advantages as a laser window, including its low bulk absorption
`coefficient, high mechanical strength, chemical inertness, high resistance,
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`and high electrical resistivity. Pet. 51–52; Ex. 1116, 146, 151; Ex. 1103
`¶¶ 126–27.
`Dr. Eden testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`implemented Gärtner’s light source with Arp’s sapphire window in view of
`the advantages of sapphire, allowing Gärtner’s plasma chamber to operate at
`higher pressures. Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 122–31. Dr. Eden also testifies that such an
`artisan would have combined Gärtner with Arp’s teaching of a single
`sapphire window to allow the laser energy to enter and plasma-generated
`light to exit the chamber through the same window, so that the number of
`windows would be minimized, maintaining the pressure within the chamber
`more efficiently. Id. at ¶¶ 132–34. On this record, we credit Dr. Eden’s
`testimony in that regard as it is consistent with the prior art disclosures and
`what the disclosures would have conveyed to one with ordinary skill in the
`art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1106, 987–88; Ex. 1114, 3:24–
`34, 7:24–28 (“By allowing operation at higher fill pressures, the stronger
`single crystal (SC) sapphire tubing allows higher power density and thus
`higher efficacy.”); Ex. 1122, 10.9. Based on the evidence currently before
`us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has articulated reasoning with rational
`underpinning to explain why a relevant skilled artisan would have combined
`Arp’s teaching of a single sapphire window with Gärtner. See KSR, 550
`U.S. at 417.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that the combination
`of Gärtner and Arp teaches or suggests a laser driven light source
`
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`comprising a sealed pressurized plasma chamber that has a sapphire window
`for maintaining a pressure therein, and for allowing the laser energy to enter
`and plasma-generated light to exit the chamber through the same window, as
`required by claim 7.
`
`Conclusion for Obviousness over Gärtner and Arp
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`claims 7–10 are unpatentable over the combination of Gärtner and Arp.
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, we determine that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 7–
`10. We, however, have not made a final determination as to the patentability
`of the challenged claims, nor with respect to claim construction.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`7–10
`
`7–10
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`References
`Sato in view of Gärtner
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Gärtner in view of Arp
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2016-00126
`Patent 9,048,000 B2
`
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Donald R. Steinberg
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Michael H. Smith
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`Gerald Worth
`Safraz Ishmael
`Jinnie Reed
`Proskauer Rose LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`JCapraro@proskauer.com
`gworth@proskauer.com
`sishmael@proskauer.com
`jreed@proskauer.com
`
`21

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