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 IPR2016-00554
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 2, 5, AND 10
`
`ASML 1106
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.(cid:3)
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1(cid:3)
`I.(cid:3)
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 6(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3) OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT ............................................................ 8(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10(cid:3)
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`“Light source” ..................................................................................... 11(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`“Blocker” ............................................................................................. 13(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3) THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 14(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources With Blockers Were
`Known Long Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent .................. 14(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 18(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Ground 1: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner ........................ 18(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)
`Ground 2: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner in view of
`Hiura .................................................................................................... 27(cid:3)
`Ground 3: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner in view of
`Ikeuchi ................................................................................................. 39(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3) Ground 4: Claim 5 is obvious over Gärtner in view of Blondia ......... 48(cid:3)
`E.(cid:3)
`Ground 5: Claim 5 is obvious over Gärtner in view of Hiura
`and Blondia .......................................................................................... 53(cid:3)
`Ground 6: Claim 5 is obvious over Gärtner in view of Ikeuchi
`and Blondia .......................................................................................... 55(cid:3)
`VIII.(cid:3) RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 58(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 58(cid:3)
`IX.(cid:3) AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 59(cid:3)
`X.(cid:3)
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 60(cid:3)
`XI.(cid:3)
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 61(cid:3)
`
`C.(cid:3)
`
`F.(cid:3)
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`I, J. Gary Eden, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is J. Gary Eden.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`2.
`
`I am the Gilmore Family Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering and Director of the Laboratory for Optical Physics and Engineering at
`
`the University of Illinois in Urbana, Illinois.
`
`3.
`
`I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering (High Honors) from the
`
`University of Maryland, College Park in 1972 and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Illinois in 1973 and 1976, respectively.
`
`4.
`
`After receiving my doctorate, I served as a National Research Council
`
`Postdoctoral Research Associate at the United States Naval Research Laboratory
`
`(“NRL”), Optical Sciences Division, in Washington, DC from 1975 to 1976. As a
`
`research physicist in the Laser Physics Branch (Optical Sciences Division) from
`
`1976 to 1979, I made several contributions to the visible and ultraviolet lasers and
`
`laser spectroscopy field, including the co-discovery of the KrCl rare gas-halide
`
`excimer laser and the proton beam pumped laser (Ar-N2, XeF). In 1979, I received
`
`a Research Publication Award for this work at the NRL.
`
`5.
`
`In 1979, I was appointed assistant professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Illinois. In 1981, I
`
`became associate professor in this same department, and in 1983, I became
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`professor in this department. In 1985, I was named the Director of the Laboratory
`
`for Optical Physics and Engineering, and in 2007, I was named the Gilmore Family
`
`Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I continue to hold both
`
`positions today. In addition, I am also Research Professor in the Coordinated
`
`Science Laboratory and the Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory, and I hold
`
`academic appointments at the University of Illinois in the Departments of
`
`Materials Science and Engineering, Bioengineering, and Nuclear, Plasma, and
`
`Radiological Engineering.
`
`6.
`
`Since joining the faculty of the University of Illinois in 1979, I have
`
`been engaged in research in atomic, molecular and ultrafast laser spectroscopy, the
`
`discovery and development of visible and ultraviolet lasers, and the science and
`
`technology of microcavity plasma devices. My research has been featured in Laser
`
`Focus, Photonics Spectra, Electronics Weekly (UK), the Bulletin of the Materials
`
`Research Society, Microwaves, Optical Spectra, Electro-Optical Systems Design,
`
`Optics and Laser Technology, Electronics, Optics News, Lasers and Optronics,
`
`IEEE Potentials, IEEE Spectrum, and IEEE Circuits and Devices. My work was
`
`also highlighted in the National Academy of Sciences report Plasma 2010,
`
`published in 2007.
`
`7.
`
`I have made several major contributions to the field of laser physics,
`
`plasma physics, and atomic and molecular physics. I co-invented a new form of
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`lighting, “light tiles”, that are thin and flat. This culminated in the formation of a
`
`company known as Eden Park Illumination. I discovered numerous ultraviolet,
`
`visible and near-infrared atomic and molecular lasers, including the KrCl
`
`ultraviolet (excimer) laser, the optically-pumped XeF, HgCl, and rare gas lasers
`
`and the CdI, CdBr, ZnI, Li, Fe, and Cd visible and near-infrared lasers. I
`
`demonstrated the first long pulse (> 1 μs) excimer laser and the first lasers (Ar –
`
`N2, XeF) pumped by a proton beam. The excimer lasers are now used worldwide
`
`in photolithography, surgical procedures (such as corneal refractive correction) and
`
`micromachining of materials. I discovered the laser excitation spectroscopy of
`
`photoassociation (the absorption of optical radiation by free atomic pairs) of
`
`thermal atoms as a probe of the structure of transient molecules. I demonstrated
`
`with my graduate students the first ultraviolet and violet glass fiber lasers. I
`
`discovered the excimer-pumped atomic lasers (lasing on the D1 and D2 lines of
`
`Na, Cs, and Rb) for laser guide stars and mesosphere probing by LIDAR. I
`
`conducted the first observation (by laser spectroscopy) of Rydberg series for the
`
`rare gas diatomics (Ne2, Ar2, Kr2, Xe2) and the first measurement of the rotational
`
`constants for Ne2 and Ar2, as well as the vibrational constants for Ne2+. I
`
`pioneered the development of microcavity plasma devices and arrays in silicon,
`
`Al/Al2O3, glass, ceramics, and multilayer metal/polymer structures. For this, I was
`
`the recipient of the C.E.K. Mees Award from the Optical Society of America, the
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`Aaron Kressel Award from the Photonics Society of the IEEE, and the Harold E.
`
`Edgerton Award from the International Society for Optical Engineering. I was the
`
`Fulbright-Israel Distinguished Chair in the Physical Sciences and Engineering
`
`from 2007 to 2008. I am a Fellow of the American Physical Society, the Optical
`
`Society of America, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the
`
`American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the SPIE
`
`(International Society for Optical Engineering).
`
`8.
`
`I taught/teach courses in laser physics, electromagnetics (including
`
`optics, optical waveguides, antennas), plasma physics, semiconductor electronic
`
`devices, electromagnetics, and analog signal processing, among others. I have
`
`directed the dissertations of 47 individuals who received the Ph.D. degree in
`
`Physics, Electrical and Computer Engineering, or Materials Science and
`
`Engineering.
`
`9.
`
`I have also served as Assistant Dean in the College of Engineering,
`
`Associate Dean of the Graduate College, and Associate Vice-Chancellor for
`
`Research.
`
`10.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 290 peer-reviewed academic
`
`publications in the fields of laser physics, plasma physics, atomic and molecular
`
`physics, and quantum electronics. I have served as Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE
`
`Journal of Quantum Electronics, and Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Quantum
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`Electronics. I am currently serving as an Associate Editor of Applied Physics
`
`Reviews.
`
`11.
`
`I am currently a member of four honorary organizations. In 1998, I
`
`served as President of the IEEE Lasers and Electro-Optics Society (LEOS – now
`
`known as the IEEE Photonics Society), following earlier service as a member of
`
`the LEOS Board of Governors, and as the Vice-President for Technical Affairs.
`
`12. From 1996 through 1999, I was the James F. Towey University
`
`Scholar at the University of Illinois. I received the LEOS Distinguished Service
`
`Award, was awarded the IEEE Third Millennium Medal in 2000 and was named a
`
`LEOS Distinguished Lecturer for 2003-2005. In 2005, I received the IEEE/LEOS
`
`Aron Kressel Award. I was awarded the C.E.K. Mees Medal of the Optical
`
`Society of America in 2007, and was the recipient of the Fulbright-Israel
`
`Distinguished Chair in the Natural Sciences and Engineering for 2007-2008.
`
`13.
`
`I am a co-founder of Eden Park Illumination (2007) and EP
`
`Purification (2010).
`
`14.
`
`In 2014, I was elected into the National Academy of Engineering, and
`
`the National Academy of Inventors.
`
`15.
`
`I am a named inventor on over ninety (90) United States and
`
`international patents and have patent applications pending both in the United States
`
`and abroad.
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`16. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix A.
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed the specification and claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,309,943 (“the ’943 patent,” Ex. 1101). I have been informed that the ’943 patent
`
`claims priority to U.S. Application No. 11/395,523, filed on March 31, 2006, now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 (the “’982 patent”).
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’943 patent:
`
`(cid:120) French Patent Pub. No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`(“Gärtner,” Ex. 1103).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent Publication No. US2005/0225739, filed April 11, 2003,
`published October 13, 2005 (“Hiura,” Ex. 1104).
`
`(cid:120) Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP2003-317675, published Nov. 7, 2003
`(“Ikeuchi,” Ex. 1105).
`
`(cid:120) U.S. Patent No. 7,679,276, filed Dec. 1, 2005, published Aug. 10,
`2006, and issued Mar. 16, 2010 (“Blondia,” Ex. 1117).
`
`19.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`20. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`21.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioners. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’943 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`22.
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” I have also been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if
`
`“the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
`
`foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior
`
`to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” Further I have been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if
`
`“the invention was described in … an application for patent, published under
`
`section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`
`applicant for patent ….” It is my understanding that for a claim to be anticipated,
`
`all of the limitations must be present in a single prior art reference, either expressly
`
`or inherently.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under Pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention would have been obvious, and
`
`therefore not patentable, if the subject matter claimed would have been considered
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`made. I understand that when there are known elements that perform in known
`
`ways and produce predictable results, the combination of those elements is likely
`
`obvious. Further, I understand that when there is a predictable variation and a
`
`person would see the benefit of making that variation, implementing that
`
`predictable variation is likely not patentable. I have also been informed that
`
`obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success, but that what does
`
`matter is whether the prior art gives direction as to what parameters are critical and
`
`which of many possible choices may be successful.
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`25. A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
`
`’943 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.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT
`26. The ’943 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for
`
`use in testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As depicted in Fig.
`
`15A below, the light source includes a chamber (green), an ignition source 1529a
`
`and 1529b (blue) for igniting a plasma, a laser 1524 (purple) for providing energy
`
`to the plasma (yellow) to produce a high brightness light, and a suspended blocker
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`1550 (red) to prevent laser energy from escaping. (’943 patent, 28:14-30, 58-67;
`
`29:1-9; claim 1(Ex. 1101).)
`
`
`
`27. According to the ’943 patent, the prior art relied upon the electrodes
`
`used for ignition to also sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and
`
`contamination. (’943 patent, 1:31-46 (Ex. 1101).) Thus, a need arose for a way to
`
`sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge. (Id.) The alleged
`
`invention involves using a laser to provide energy to sustain the plasma for a light
`
`source and a suspended blocker to absorb or reflect laser energy not absorbed by
`
`the plasma. (’943 patent, 9:17-30 (Ex. 1101).)
`
`28. As discussed below, there was nothing new or inventive about
`
`sustaining a plasma with a laser to produce light and using a blocker to absorb or
`
`deflect laser energy. Multiple prior art references, including Gärtner, Hiura, and
`
`Ikeuchi, disclosed light sources with the same elements as the ’943 patent.
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`A.
`
`29. The ’943 patent (Ex. 1101) issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`13/099,823, which was filed on May 3, 2011. The ’943 patent application is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Patent No. 7,989,786 (“the’9786 patent”), which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of the ’455 patent, which is a continuation-in-part of the ’982
`
`patent, filed March 31, 2006. On August 3, 2013, the claims were allowed after an
`
`Examiner-initiated interview. The interview summary notes that independent
`
`claim 1 was amended, claim 2 was canceled, and claim 6 was rewritten in
`
`independent form. (Examiner Initiated Interview Summary dated Aug. 6, 2012
`
`(Ex. 1109).) The Notice of Allowance states that the “key element of the
`
`applicant’s invention, not disclosed in prior art but present in all of the independent
`
`claims, is that the blocker suspended along a path the energy travels blocks or
`
`reflects the energy provided to the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the
`
`ionized medium.” (Notice of Allowance at 3-4, dated Aug. 6, 2012 (Ex. 1110).)
`
`The ’943 patent issued on November 13, 2012. (’943 patent (Ex. 1101).)
`
`30. The independent claim features identified in the Notice of
`
`Allowability as missing from the prior art are present in the prior art used in the
`
`proposed grounds of unpatentability, as the Board recognized in its Decision on
`
`Institution in an IPR directed to the same patent. (Case No. IPR2015-01277 at 14
`
`(PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13) (instituting on claims including independent
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`claims 1 and 13).) The Examiner did not separately address the patentability of the
`
`challenged dependent claims, which recite limitations that are also present in the
`
`prior art.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`31.
`I have applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in
`
`proposing the claim constructions below. However, based on my reading of the
`
`’943 patent’s specification and the ordinary meanings of the claim terms, the prior
`
`art teaches each claim limitation under any reasonable interpretation of the claim
`
`terms. My analysis is not dependent on application of the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard.
`
`A.
` “Light source”
`32. The term “light source” is recited in claim 1 (from which the
`
`challenged claims depend) as well as claims 2, 5, and 10. “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 1,000 μm) regions of
`
`the spectrum,” as the Board found in the Decision on Institution for an IPR on this
`
`patent. (Case No. IPR2015-01277 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13 at 5).)
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`33. 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 (1μm)), middle infrared (1 μm to 10 μm),
`
`or far infrared (10 μm to 1,000 μm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., William T.
`
`Silfvast, Laser Fundamentals, at 4 (2d ed. 2004)(Ex. 1107)).) The Patent Owner
`
`publishes a data sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning in recognizing that “light source” includes EUV wavelengths. (See, e.g.,
`
`Energetiq EQ-10M Data Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10M product
`
`operating at 13.5 nm as an “EUV Light Source”) (Ex. 1108).)
`
`34. The ’943 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. Consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “light source,”
`
`the ’943 patent states that the parameters of a light source, such as the
`
`wavelength(s) of light it generates, vary depending upon the application. (’943
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’943 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’943 patent, 7:33-40; 11:48-62; 13:21-56; 15:9-53;
`
`16:29-31; 16:66-17:11; 17:61-63; 20:5-6; 22:37-41; 23:9-12; 29:7-9 (Ex. 1101).)
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`patent, 1:29-30 (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).” (’943 patent, 15:10-11 (Ex. 1101);
`
`see also id. at 13:54-56 (discussing the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the
`
`plasma 132 of the light source 100))
`
`35. 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 1,000 μm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`B.
`“Blocker”
`36. The term “blocker” is recited in claim 1 (from which the challenged
`
`claims depend), as well as claims 5 and 10. “Blocker” should be construed to mean
`
`“an element that deflects or absorbs energy,” and should encompass each of the
`
`examples described in the ’943 patent specification, as the Board found in the
`
`Decision on Institution for an IPR on this patent. (Case No. IPR2015-01277
`
`(PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13 at 6).)
`
`37. The ’943 patent’s specification states that “[i]n some embodiments,
`
`the blocker deflects energy,” whereas in other embodiments “the blocker absorbs
`
`the energy.” (’943 patent, 9:17-24; see also id. at 28:58-67 (“In this embodiment,
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`the blocker 1550 is a mirror that deflects the laser energy 1556. . . . [t]he housing
`
`1510 absorbs part of the reflected laser energy 1584.”) (Ex. 1101).) The ’943
`
`patent specification describes exemplary blockers as follows: “a mirror” (id. at
`
`9:21), “graphite” (id. at 9:24), “a coating on a portion of the chamber” (id. at 9:29-
`
`30), and “wall . . . of the housing” (id. at 28:67). In light of the specification, the
`
`term “blocker” should be construed to mean “an element that deflects or absorbs
`
`energy.” Additionally, the term “blocker” should encompass each of the examples
`
`described in the ’943 patent specification noted above. (Case No. IPR2015-01277
`
`(PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13 at 6).)
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources With Blockers Were
`Known Long Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent
`38. When the application that led to the ’943 patent was filed, there was
`
`nothing new or inventive about a light source using an ignition source to generate a
`
`plasma in a chamber, a laser to sustain the plasma to produce high brightness light
`
`from the plasma, and a blocker (also known as a “beam stop”, “beam block”, or
`
`“beam dump”) to absorb or deflect unused laser energy. This concept had been
`
`known and widely used since at least as early as the 1980s, more than two decades
`
`before the application date. For example, in 1983, Gärtner et al. filed a patent
`
`application entitled “Radiation source for optical devices, notably for
`
`photolithographic reproduction systems,” which published on May 3, 1985 as
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`French Patent Application No. 2554302. (Ex. 1103). Gärtner discloses a light
`
`source with the same features claimed in the ’943 patent: (1) a sealed chamber
`
`(green); (2) an ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (blue), which generates a plasma
`
`(within the yellow box); (3) a laser (purple), which provides energy to the plasma
`
`(yellow) to produce light; and (4) a blocker to absorb or reflect laser energy
`
`unabsorbed by the plasma (red). (See, e.g., Gärtner, 4-5; Fig. 1, 2 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1103)
`
`39.
`
`In addition, on April 11, 2003, Hiura filed U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 2005/0225739 entitled “Exposure Apparatus and Device Fabrication Method
`
`Using the Same.” Hiura describes an exposure apparatus containing a laser plasma
`
`light source. As shown below in Fig. 10, Hiura discloses a laser sustained plasma
`
`light source with features similar to the ’943 patent: (1) a chamber 180 (green); (2)
`
`an ignited plasma 104 (yellow); (3) laser 100 (purple) for providing energy in the
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`form of beam 101 to the plasma; and (4) a blocker 150 (red) to absorb and/or
`
`reflect laser energy unabsorbed by the plasma. (See, e.g., Hiura, ¶¶ 0012, 0017,
`
`0039, 0064-65, Fig. 10 (Ex. 1104).) Hiura states that stopper 150 includes a
`
`“triangle part 155” that “reflects laser, and absorbs it as a result of multiple
`
`reflection.” (Hiura, ¶ 0079 (Ex. 1104).)
`
`Hiura Fig. 10 (Ex. 1104)
`
`
`
`40. Further, on April 26, 2002, Ikeuchi filed a patent application entitled
`
`“Light radiation apparatus,” which published as Japanese Patent No. JP2003-
`
`317675 on November 7, 2003. (Ex. 1105.) As shown in Fig. 1, reproduced below,
`
`Ikeuchi discloses a light source with features similar to the ’943 patent: (1) a
`
`sealed chamber 10 (green); (2) an ignited plasma (yellow); (3) an external energy
`
`source (purple) to sustain the plasma to emit a high brightness light; and (4) an
`
`electromagnetic radiation absorber 11 and an absorbent window 7 (i.e., blockers)
`
`(red) to prevent unabsorbed electromagnetic energy from escaping the radiation
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`apparatus. (See, e.g., Ikeuchi, ¶¶ 0002, 0006, 0010, 0034, and 0046, Fig. 1 (Ex.
`
`1105).)
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1105)
`
`
`
`41. On December 1, 2005, Blondia filed a U.S. patent application entitled
`
`“Metal body arc lamp,” which published on August 10, 2006 and issued as US
`
`7,679,276 on March 16, 2010. Blondia describes a reflector cavity for use in a light
`
`source that can be coated with an appropriate reflecting material. (Blondia, 4:2-5
`
`(Ex. 1117).) Blondia specifically states that “[a]ppropriate coating materials . . .
`
`are known in the art, and can include reflecting materials such as silver and
`
`dichroic materials, including thin layers of metallic oxides, such as titanium oxide
`
`and silicon oxide. A dichroic coating can improve the performance of the reflector
`
`by absorbing unwanted or unutilized radiation . . . .” (Blondia, 4:7-14 (Ex. 1117).)
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`42. Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’943 patent are nothing
`
`more than the standard features of laser sustained plasma light sources across
`
`several generations of technology from the 1980’s to the early 2000’s.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`43. Challenged claims 2, 5, and 10 recite and claim features that were
`
`known in the art prior to the earliest priority date, and are obvious in view of the
`
`prior art.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner
`44. As illustrated below, Gärtner discloses each limitation of claims 2 and
`
`10 and renders these claims obvious. Gärtner is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`
`because it was published more than a year before the earliest claimed priority date
`
`for the ’943 patent, which is March 31, 2006. Gärtner was not considered by the
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ’943 patent.
`
`Claim Element
`[1p] A light source, comprising:
`[1a] a chamber;
`
`[1b] an ignition source for ionizing a
`medium within the chamber;
`[1c] a laser for providing energy to the
`ionized medium within the chamber to
`produce a light; and
`[1d] a blocker suspended along a path
`the energy travels and blocking the
`energy provided to the ionized medium
`that is not absorbed by the ionized
`medium.
`
`Disclosure in the Prior Art
`Gärtner, 1:1, 1:4; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1103)
`Gärtner, 3:20, 4:32, 5:3, 5:27-28, 6:9;
`Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1103)
`Gärtner, 1:22, 3:29-32, 4:32, 5:5-7,
`5:15-16; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1103)
`Gärtner, 3:22-24, 3:29-32, 5:3-4, 5:7-9,
`5:11-12; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1103)
`
`Gärtner, 4:5-12, 5:3-5, 5:27, 6:9-16;
`Figs. 1, 3, 4 (Ex. 1103)
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`1. Claim 2 is obvious over Gärtner
`
`45. Claim 2 of the ’943 patent, which depends from claim 1, is rendered
`
`obvious by Gärtner.
`
`a)
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - Preamble
`
`46. The preamble of claim 1 recites a “light source.” (’943 patent, 30:35
`
`(Ex. 1101).) Gärtner discloses a light source. For example, Gärtner discloses a
`
`“radiation source for optical devices,” which is a light source. (Gärtner, 1:1, Figs.
`
`1-4 (Ex. 1103).) Gärtner’s light source can be used for “illuminating a
`
`photoresist.” (Id. at 1:4 (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`b)
`
`Claim 1 - elements [1a], [1b]
`
`47. Claim 1 recites “a chamber.” (’943 patent, 30:36 (Ex. 1101).)
`
`Gärtner discloses a chamber. For example, Gärtner discloses a “gas-tight
`
`chamber.” (Gärtner, 3:20; 4:32; 5:3, Fig. 1; see also 5:27-28, Fig. 2 (“A casing 16,
`
`the concave mirror 17 and the quartz window 18 constitute the gas-tight chamber
`
`containing the discharge medium 19.”); 6:9, Figs. 3-4 (“discharge chambers 35 and
`
`36”) (Ex. 1103); see also ’943 patent at 1:31-35 (recognizing light source
`
`chambers were known in the art) (Ex. 1101).)
`
`48. Claim 1 further recites “an ignition source for ionizing a medium
`
`within the chamber.” (’943 patent, 30:37-38 (Ex. 1101).) Gärtner’s gas-tight
`
`chamber contains a “discharge medium” such as “argon or xenon,” and Gärtner’s
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`“laser 10” is an ignition source for ionizing the medium. (Gärtner, 4:32, 5:5-7,
`
`5:15-16 (Ex. 1103).) In particular, laser 10 is “a nitrogen pulse laser” that
`
`“produces an electrical discharge” in the medium to create “absorbent plasma 14.”
`
`(Gärtner, 5:5-7 (Ex. 1103).) Gärtner also discloses electrodes as an ignition
`
`source. (Gärtner, 1:22 (“the electrodes of the discharge cavity”) (Ex. 1103).)
`
`Thus, Gärtner discloses both electrode and pulsed laser ignition sources for
`
`ionizing a medium within the chamber.
`
`c)
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - element [1c]
`
`49. Claim 1 recites “a laser for providing energy to the ionized medium
`
`within the chamber to produce a light.” (’943 patent, 30:39-40 (Ex. 1101).)
`
`Gärtner discloses this limitation. For example, Gärtner teaches “the production
`
`and maintenance of a radiation-emitting plasma in the discharge medium are
`
`ensured, in a known manner, by at least one laser situated outside the chamber.”
`
`(Gärtner, 3:22-24 (Ex. 1103).) Gärtner shows “continuous laser 9,” which is a
`
`“stationary CO2 gas laser,” as an example of such a laser. (Id. at 5:3-14
`
`(“absorbent plasma 14 which is heated to high temperatures under the influence of
`
`the radiation 11 [from laser 9]. The radiation 15 from the plasma can be fed into
`
`the downstream optical system through the window 8.”) (Ex. 1103).)
`
`
`d)
`
`Claim 1 - element [1d]
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`50. Claim 1 recites “a blocker suspended along a path the energy travels
`
`and blocking the energy provided to the ionized medium that is not absorbed by
`
`the ionized medium.” (’943 patent, 30:41-43 (Ex. 1101).) Gärtner discloses this
`
`limitation. For example,