DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US9
`Filed By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
` David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`
` MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`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 IPR2016-00126
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,048,000
`CLAIMS 7-10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1 
`C. 
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 1 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2 
`A.  Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 2 
`C. 
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 3 
`IV.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 3 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT ............................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 5 
`B. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 6 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`“Light source” ....................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`Ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber ........................ 11 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 12 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’000 Patent ......................................... 13 
`Implementing a sapphire window to transmit laser energy and
`emitted light was well known in the art .............................................. 16 
`High pressure plasma light sources were well-known in the art ........ 18 
`C. 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 19 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 7-10 Are Unpatentable Over Sato in View of
`Gärtner ................................................................................................. 19 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 7 .................................................................... 19 
`2.  Dependent Claims ........................................................................ 39 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`B. 
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground 2: Claims 7-10 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner in View
`of Arp................................................................................................... 41 
`1. 
`Independent Claim 7 .................................................................... 42 
`2.  Dependent Claims ........................................................................ 56 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 58 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 58 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`X. 
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq
`
`Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000 (“the ’000 patent,” Ex. 1101) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and continuation in part applications. Exhibit 1102
`
`shows the members of this patent family and the relationships among them.
`
`Petitioners have already filed a petition seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 15,
`
`and 18 of the ’000 patent, and are also seeking inter partes review of related U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,435,982 (“the ’982 patent”); 7,786,455 (“the ’455 patent”);
`
`8,309,943 (“the ’943 patent”); 8,525,138 (“the ’138 patent”); and 8,969,841 (“the
`
`’841 patent”). Petitioners request that the reviews of the ’000, ’982, ’455, ’943,
`
`’138, and ’841 patents be assigned to the same Panel for administrative efficiency.
`
`The following litigation matter would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`this proceeding: Energetiq Tech., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., Civil Action No.
`
`1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass.).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Donald R. Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`Second Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Email: Donald R. Steinberg, don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: WilmerHale, 60 State St., Boston MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6453
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104 (b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`claims 7-10 of the ’000 patent (“the challenged claims”) and request that each
`
`challenged claim be cancelled.
`
`A. Grounds for Challenge
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering at the University of Illinois (“Eden Decl.,” Ex. 1103),
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims and that each of the challenged
`
`claims is unpatentable for the reasons cited in this petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`B.
`Petitioners rely upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1. French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`
`(“Gärtner,” Ex. 1104), with English Translation, and is prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`2. Japanese Patent Publication No. JPS61-193358, published August 27, 1986
`
`(“Sato,” Ex. 1105), with English Translation, and is prior art to the ʼ000 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`3. Arp et al., Feasibility of generating a useful laser-induced breakdown
`
`spectroscopy plasma on rocks at high pressure: preliminary study for a Venus
`
`mission, published July 30, 2004 (“Arp,” Ex. 1106), and is prior art to the ’000
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`C. Relief Requested
`Petitioners request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel the
`
`challenged claims because they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’000
`
`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 master’s degree
`
`in physics, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field and 4-5 years of work
`
`experience with lasers and plasma. (Eden Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT
`The ’000 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for use in,
`
`for example, testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As depicted
`
`in Fig. 1 below, the claimed light source includes a pressurized chamber containing
`
`gas (green), an ignition source for ionizing the gas (blue), a laser for providing
`
`energy to the plasma (red), and a plasma-generated light. (’000 patent, claim 1
`
`(Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`ʼ000 Patent, Figure 1 (Ex. 1101)
`
`According to the ’000 patent, prior art light sources relied upon electrodes to
`
`both generate and sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and contamination.
`
`(’000 patent, 1:45-51 (Ex. 1101).) Thus, a need arose for a way to sustain plasma
`
`without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes. (’000 patent, 1:55-59
`
`(Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`The alleged invention of the patent family involves using a laser to sustain
`
`the plasma for a light source. The ’000 continuation includes claims that require a
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`pressurized chamber, the plasma-generated light having a wavelength greater than
`
`50 nm, and a sapphire window in the chamber. (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`As discussed below, there was nothing new or inventive about sustaining a
`
`plasma with a laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art references,
`
`including Gärtner, Sato, and Arp, disclosed supplying laser energy to plasma light
`
`sources that included pressurized chambers. Additionally, Gärtner, Sato, and Arp
`
`disclosed the plasma-generated light having a wavelength greater than 50 nm.
`
`Producing and/or sustaining plasmas with pulsed or continuous lasers was well
`
`known decades prior to 2005. (Eden Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Moreover, there was nothing new about using a sapphire window to transmit
`
`laser energy and emitted light. Both Sato and Arp disclosed a plasma light source
`
`with a chamber that implemented a sapphire window to transmit electromagnetic
`
`energy. In addition, Sato and Arp disclosed a laser-sustained plasma light source
`
`configured such that the laser energy enters and the emitted light exits through the
`
`sapphire window. It would have been obvious to combine Sato and Arp with
`
`Gärtner to arrive at the claimed invention. (Eden Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Petitioner challenges claims 7-10 of the ’000 patent. Independent claim 7 is
`
`reproduced below with added letters and numerals in brackets for ease of
`
`reference:
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`[7p] A laser driven light source comprising:
`
`[7a] 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;
`
`[7b] 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
`
`[7c] wherein the sapphire window allows the plasma-generated light
`to exit the pressurized chamber.
`
`(’000 patent, claim 7 (Ex. 1101).)
`B.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`The ’000 patent (Ex. 1101) issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/964,938,
`
`filed on August 12, 2013. The ’000 patent is a continuation of the ’138 patent,
`
`which is a CIP of the ’786 patent, which is a CIP of the ’455 patent, which is a CIP
`
`of the ’982 patent, filed March 31, 2006. (See Ex. 1102.) During prosecution, the
`
`Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims and applicant’s arguments that
`
`features such as a “pressurized chamber” distinguished the prior art. (See, e.g.,
`
`Office Action dated July 17, 2014 at 2-3 (Ex. 1108).)
`
`On January 6, 2015, the applicant further amended some, but not all, of the
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`claims to require a laser having a wavelength “of up to about 2000 nm.”
`
`(Amendment and Response dated Jan. 6, 2015 at 2-6 (Ex. 1109).) Notably,
`
`applicant did not amend claim 7 (then pending claim 13) to recite this limitation.
`
`(Amendment and Response dated Jan. 6, 2015 at 3 (Ex. 1109).)
`
`On February 27, 2015, the Examiner indicated that claims reciting “at least
`
`one substantially continuous laser for providing energy within a wavelength range
`
`of about 700 nm to 2000 nm to an ionized gas to sustain a plasma within a chamber
`
`having greater than atmospheric pressure to produce a plasma-generated light
`
`having wavelengths greater than 50 nm” contained allowable subject matter.
`
`(Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2015 at 7 (Ex. 1110).)
`
`On March 25, 2015, the amended claims were allowed after the applicants
`
`filed a terminal disclaimer and amended the claims to overcome a section 112
`
`rejection. (Notice of Allowability dated Mar. 25, 2015 (Ex. 1118); Amendment
`
`and Response dated Mar. 5, 2015 (Ex. 1120).) With respect to challenged claim 7
`
`(then pending claim 13), the Examiner noted in the reason for allowance that the
`
`“prior art fails to disclose at least one substantially continuous laser for providing
`
`energy within a wavelength range of about 700 nm to 2000 nm to the ionized gas
`
`to sustain a plasma within the chamber to produce a plasma generated light having
`
`a wavelength greater than 50 nm, as claimed in independent claim 1, with similar
`
`limitations in independent claims 13 [now challenged claim 7], 26 and 32.”
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Notice of Allowability dated Mar. 25, 2015 at 4 (Ex. 1118).)
`
`Challenged claim 7, however, does not in fact recite “providing energy
`
`within a wavelength range of about 700 nm to 2000 nm.” (’000 patent, claim 7
`
`(Ex. 1101).) Instead, claim 7 merely recites providing laser energy to “produce
`
`plasma-generated light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm,” without
`
`specifying the wavelength of the laser. (’000 patent, claim 7 (Ex. 1101).) The
`
`applicants took no steps to alert the Examiner to this error.
`
`The prosecution history of the ’000 patent provides no indication that the
`
`examiner appreciated the significance of Gärtner (submitted on March 11, 2015,
`
`several weeks after the Examiner had indicated the claims recite allowable subject
`
`matter) and Sato (submitted months earlier in an IDS along with more than twenty
`
`other references), which disclose providing laser energy to produce plasma-
`
`generated light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm, along with the other
`
`features of claim 7. Nor did the Examiner have the opportunity to consider Arp,
`
`which in combination with Gärtner, discloses each of the limitations of claim 7.
`
`As discussed below, Sato in view of Gärtner, and Gärtner in view of Arp
`
`each render the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Claims in an IPR are given the “broadest reasonable construction in light of
`
`the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766. Claim
`
`terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of
`
`the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification sets forth an alternate definition of a term
`
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the patentee’s lexicography
`
`governs. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`Should the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, contend that the
`
`claims have a construction different from their broadest reasonable construction,
`
`the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to
`
`expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,764; 48,766-67 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Consistent with this standard, this section proposes, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, constructions of terms and provides support for
`
`these proposed constructions. Terms not included in this section have their
`
`broadest reasonable meaning in light of the specification as commonly understood
`
`by those of ordinary skill.
`
` “Light source”
`
`A.
`The term “light source” is recited in challenged claim 7. “Light source”
`
`should be construed to mean “a source of electromagnetic radiation in the extreme
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`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. 1109).) The Patent Owner
`
`publishes a data sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning in referring to EUV wavelengths as within the meaning of “light source.”
`
`(See, e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’000 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet radiation has a wavelength shorter
`
`than that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’000 patent, 1:51-54, 7:49-51, 12:25-29, 15:6-
`
`9, 16:46-52, 16:65-67, 17:12-14, 18:34-36, 18:42-44, 19:8-10, 19:51-55, 20:26-35,
`
`21:15-20, 22:5-8, 23:28-29, 25:60-64, 26:32-36, 27:21-24, 31:41-46, 32:32-34,
`
`33:17-19, 45:20-35 (Ex. 1101).) (See Eden Decl. ¶ 38 n.1 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`product operating at 13.5 nm as an “EUV [Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”)
`
`(Ex. 1107); (Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`The ’000 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
`
`’000 patent states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light from a light
`
`source will vary depending upon the application. (’000 patent, 1:35-37 (Ex.
`
`1101).) 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).” (’000 patent, 18:34-36 (Ex. 1101); see also id.
`
`at 17:12-14, 18:42-44. 20:24-26, 21:18-20, 23:28-29, 25:60-64, 26:32-36, 27:21-
`
`24, 33:17-19.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 40
`
`(Ex. 1103).)
`
`Ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber
`
`B.
`The term “ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber” is recited in
`
`challenged claim 7. Dependent claim 9 additionally recites “the ignition source
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`comprises or includes 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.”
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of the term “ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber” as recited in
`
`claim 7, in view of claim 9, includes “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.”2 (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`Challenged claims 7-10 of the ’000 patent claim features that were known in
`
`the art prior to the earliest priority date, and are obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`2 Claim 7 separately recites “an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the
`
`chamber” and “a laser for providing at least substantially continuous energy.”
`
`Claim 9 further recites “the ignition source comprises or includes … the laser.”
`
`Petitioners reserve the right to assert in district court proceedings that claim 9 is
`
`invalid for lack of written description, and that claim 7 and other claims reciting an
`
`ignition source require a separate “ignition source” and “laser.”
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’000 Patent
`
`When the application that led to the ’000 patent was filed, there was nothing
`
`new or inventive about a light source using an ignition source to generate a plasma
`
`in a pressurized chamber and a laser to sustain the plasma to produce plasma
`
`generated light with a wavelength over 50 nm. 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, on February 22, 1985, Sato filed Japanese Patent No. JPS61-
`
`193358 entitled “Light Source Device.” Sato describes a laser sustained plasma
`
`light source apparatus producing plasma generated light. Sato is also directed to
`
`the same problem as the ’000 patent, namely, providing a light source that does not
`
`require electrodes to generate and sustain a plasma, as is the case in traditional arc
`
`lamps. (Compare Sato at 2 (“In the light source device according to the present
`
`invention, there are no electrodes within the tube bulb, so there is no change in the
`
`intensity of light production nor in the spectrum due to the effects of evaporation
`
`or sputtering thereof, making it possible to produce a long service life[.]”) (Ex.
`
`1105) with ’000 patent, 1:38-56 (“A need [] exists for improved high brightness
`
`light sources that do not rely on an electrical discharge to maintain a plasma that
`
`generates a high brightness light.”) (Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Sato proposes the same basic solution as the ’000 patent: (1) a sealed
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`pressurized chamber and (2) a laser that generates a plasma and provides energy
`
`that sustains a plasma providing plasma-generated light. (Compare Sato at 2-3,
`
`Fig. 1 (Ex. 1105) with ’000 patent, 2:5-22, Fig. 1; 17:58-62 (“In one embodiment,
`
`no ignition source 140 is required and instead the laser source 104 is used to ignite
`
`the ionizable medium and to generate the plasma 132 and to sustain the plasma and
`
`the high brightness light 136 emitted by the plasma 132.”) (Ex. 1101).) For
`
`example, as shown below, Figure 1 of Sato depicts a “tube bulb 5” that is filled
`
`with “a noble gas such as Xe” (green); “laser oscillator 1” (red) which generates
`
`the plasma (yellow) and sustains the plasma, producing a plasma-generated light.
`
`(Sato at 2, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1105).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`’000 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`Sato, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1104)
`
`
`
`Even earlier, in 1983, Gärtner 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. 1104). (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Gärtner is directed to the same problem as the ’000 patent, namely,
`
`producing light that is brighter than that produced by conventional arc lamps for
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`applications such as illuminating features of a semiconductor wafer. (Compare
`
`Gärtner at 1:2-4 (“It is preferably applied in cases where a radiated power is
`
`required which is greater than that from pressurised mercury vapour lamps, such as
`
`in photolithographic appliances for illuminating a photoresist layer on a
`
`semiconductor wafer.”) (Ex. 1104) with ’000 patent, 1:38-56 (“[A]rc lamps do not
`
`provide sufficient brightness . . . . [A] need therefore exists for improved high
`
`brightness light sources.”) (Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Gärtner proposes the same basic solution as the ’000 patent: (1) a sealed
`
`chamber 1 (green); (2) an ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (blue), which generates
`
`a plasma 14 (yellow); and (3) a continuous (CW) or pulsed laser to produce light –
`
`laser 9 (red), which provides energy to the plasma 14 (yellow) and produces light
`
`15 having a wavelength greater than 50 nm. (Gärtner at 4-5, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1104).)
`
`’000 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1104)
`
`Gärtner also teaches embodiments where the laser 9 both generates and sustains
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the plasma. (Compare Gärtner at 5:12-14 (Ex. 1104) with ’000 patent, 17:58-62
`
`(Ex. 1101).) Gärtner teaches the light source can be used “in photolithographic
`
`appliances for illuminating a photoresist layer on a semiconductor wafer.”
`
`(Gärtner at 1:1-4 (Ex. 1104).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Implementing a sapphire window to transmit laser energy and
`emitted light was well known in the art
`
`Light sources using chambers with sapphire windows were known to have
`
`several advantages relative to quartz windows, such as higher tensile strength,
`
`broader emission spectrum, and the ability to more effectively transmit light. (See
`
`infra at VIII.A.1.e); Wei (Ex. 1129); Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Gärtner’s chamber includes transparent windows to allow laser energy and
`
`emitted light to pass. (Gärtner at 4:34-5:2, 5:28-30, 6:9-16; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1104).)
`
`Gärtner notes that the windows could be made out of quartz (id. at 5:27-28, 5:34-
`
`6:2, 6:6-7), as the material was commonly used during the 1970s and 1980s due to
`
`its performance and cost-effectiveness. Although sapphire windows had several
`
`known advantages, sapphire windows at the time were generally smaller in size
`
`(because of challenges growing large crystals), had a lower quality of finish, and
`
`were more expensive than quartz, which made them less commonly used in light
`
`systems in the early 1980’s. Nevertheless, even by 1986, Sato used a sapphire
`
`window for a laser sustained plasma light source apparatus to transmit laser and
`
`plasma light. (Sato at 2-3 (Ex. 1105).) Sato discloses the use of a sapphire
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`window in tube bulb 5, as recited in challenged claim 7 of the ’000 patent, that
`
`allows laser energy to enter and plasma light to exit the light source. (Compare
`
`Sato at 2-3 with ’000 Patent, Claim 7 (Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`By the 1990s and early 2000s, materials manufacturing processes had
`
`improved significantly and materials such as sapphire became more commonly
`
`used in light sources. For example, the Cermax Lamp Engineering guide,
`
`published at least as early as 1998, describes the advantages of high-pressure lamps
`
`with sapphire windows. (E.g., Cermax Guide at 4 (Ex. 1123); see also discussion
`
`infra at VIII.A.1.e).) As a result, sapphire became increasingly popular at this time
`
`as a window material, particularly in those situations in which the gas pressure in
`
`the chamber (sealed by the window(s)) is more than several atmospheres. For
`
`example, Patel describes (at 146) the “outstanding merits” of sapphire laser
`
`windows and notes that “sapphire is most likely to replace the existing optical
`
`materials” for high power continuous lasers.” (Ex. 1116); see also discussion infra
`
`at VIII.A.1.e). Using a sapphire window both to transmit laser energy and emit
`
`light was also described in the light source literature. (See, e.g., Arp at 988 (Ex.
`
`1106); see also discussion infra at VIII.A.1.e).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`As a result, by the 1990s and early-2000’s, there was nothing new about
`
`light sources using a sapphire window to transmit laser energy and plasma light, as
`
`disclosed, for example, in both Sato and Arp. (Eden Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`C. High pressure plasma light sources were well-known in the art
`Plasma light sources with operating pressures over 10 atm were also well-
`
`known in the art. For example, in a 1989 textbook, Keefer notes that “Laser-
`
`sustained plasmas have been operated in a variety of molecular and rare gases at
`
`pressures from 1 to more than 200 atm.” (E.g., D. Keefer, “Laser Sustained
`
`Plasmas,” Chapter 4, in Radziemski et al., “Laser-Induced Plasmas and
`
`Applications,” CRC Press (1989) (“Keefer”) at 177 (Ex. 1117); Arp at 998
`
`(disclosing a light source of with a pressure of “9.1 MPa (90 atm)”) (Ex. 1106).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 54 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`The advantages of higher fill pressures were also well understood. (See,
`
`e.g., Eastlund at 7:24-34 (“By allowing operation at higher fill pressures, the
`
`stronger single crystal (SC) sapphire tubing allows higher power density and thus
`
`higher efficacy”) (Ex. 1114).) Eastlund states that lamps for optical projection
`
`systems, for example, which require the highest efficiencies and output light
`
`intensities obtainable, have internal pressures 20-50 atmospheres and above. (Id.
`
`at 3:51-54; 7:24-34.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’000 patent are nothing more
`
`than the standard features of laser sustained plasma light sources from the 1980’s
`
`to the early 2000’s. (Eden Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), specific grounds for finding the
`
`challenged claims invalid are identified below and discussed in the Eden
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1103). These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 7-10 are
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.3
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 7-10 Are Unpatentable Over Sato in View of
`Gärtner
`
`Claims 7-10 relate to a laser sustained plasma light source operating at high
`
`pressures and incorporating a sapphire window. These claims are obvious over
`
`Sato in view of Gärtner. Sato, which published on published on August 27, 1986,
`
`and Gärtner, which published on May 3, 1985, are each prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a) and 102(b) because they each published more than a year before the earliest
`
`claimed priority date for a parent of the ’000 patent, which is March 31, 2006.
`
`1. Independent Claim 7
`
`As illustrated below, Sato in view of Gärtner renders claim 7 of the ’000
`
`
`3 Grounds 1 and 2 present non-redundant grounds. For example, Ground 1
`
`involves the combination of Gärtner’s teachings of pressure over 10 atm with
`
`Sato’s light source. By cont