throbber
DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US11
`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 IPR2016-00554
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 2, 5, AND 10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`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 .................................................................................................. 2 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3 
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 3 
`II. 
`III.  OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 3 
`A.  Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 4 
`C. 
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 4 
`IV.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 4 
`V.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT ............................................................ 5 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 6 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7 
`A. 
`“Light source” ....................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`“Blocker” ............................................................................................. 10 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 11 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources With Blockers Were
`Known Long Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent .................. 11 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 15 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner ........................ 15 
`B. 
`Ground 2: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner in view of
`Hiura .................................................................................................... 25 
`Ground 3: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner in view of
`Ikeuchi ................................................................................................. 38 
`D.  Ground 4: Claim 5 is obvious over Gärtner in view of Blondia ......... 46 
`E. 
`Ground 5: Claim 5 is obvious over Gärtner in view of Hiura
`and Blondia .......................................................................................... 51 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`F. 
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground 6: Claim 5 is obvious over Gärtner in view of Ikeuchi
`and Blondia .......................................................................................... 53 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 56 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 56 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 58 
`
`X. 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`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. 8,309,943 (“the ’943 patent,” Ex. 1101) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and divisional applications. Exhibit 1102 shows the
`
`U.S. members of this patent family and the relationships among them. Petitioners
`
`have already filed a petition seeking inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 13, and 16
`
`of the ’943 patent, which the Board instituted on November 30, 2015 on all
`
`challenged claims. (See Case No. IPR2015-01277 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper
`
`13).) Petitioners are also seeking inter partes review of related U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,435,982 (“the ’982 patent”); 7,786,455 (“the ’455 patent”); 8,525,138 (“the ’138
`
`patent”); 8,969,841 (“the ’841 patent”); and 9,048,000 (“the ’000 patent”), as
`
`summarized below:
`
`IPR No.
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Status
`
`Patent
`No.
`7,435,982
`
`IPR2015-01300
`IPR2015-01303
`
`1, 3-4, 10, 16, 21, 24-
`27, 30, 31, 34, 37, 42-
`43, 49, 55, 61-64, 67,
`68, 71, 72, 74, and 78
`23 and 60
`
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`
`7,435,982
`
`IPR2015-01377
`
`7,786,455
`
`IPR2015-01279
`
`19, 39-41
`
`1
`
`

`
`8,309,943
`
`IPR2015-01277
`
`1, 3, 13, and 16
`
`8,525,138
`
`IPR2015-01368
`
`1-5
`
`8,969,841
`
`IPR2015-01362
`
`1, 2, 3, and 7
`
`8,969,841
`9,048,000
`
`IPR2016-00127
`IPR2015-01375
`
`10, 13, 14
`1, 15, and 18
`
`IPR2016-00126
`
`7-10
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Pending
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Pending
`
`9,048,000
`
`Petitioners are also filing additional petitions on the ʼ138, ’982, ’455, ’943,
`
`’841, and ’000 patents, as well as on the related U.S. Patent No. 9,185,786 (“the
`
`’5786 patent”)1. Petitioners request that the inter partes reviews of the ʼ943, ’982,
`
`’455, ’138, ’841, ’000, and ’5786 patents be assigned to the same Panel for
`
`administrative efficiency.
`
`The following litigation matters would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`this proceeding: Energetiq Tech., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V. et al., Civil
`
`Action No.: 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass.) and In the Matter of Certain Laser-
`
`Driven Light Sources, Subsystems Containing Laser-Driven Light Sources, and
`
`Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-983.
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Donald R. Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`
`1The use of the ’5786 shortened form is to distinguish this patent from another
`
`Energetiq patent in the family, U.S. Patent No. 7,989,786 (“the ’9786 patent”).
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`Second Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`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 2, 5, and 10 of the ’943 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. 1106),
`
`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).
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`B.
`Petitioners rely upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`1. French Patent Pub. No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985 (“Gärtner,” Ex.
`
`1103), and is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`2. U.S. Patent Publication No. US2005/0225739, filed April 11, 2003, published
`
`October 13, 2005 (“Hiura,” Ex. 1104), and is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 102(b), and/or 102(e).
`
`3. Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP2003-317675, published Nov. 7, 2003 (“Ikeuchi,”
`
`Ex. 1105), and is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 7,679,276, filed Dec. 1, 2005, published Aug. 10, 2006, and
`
`issued Mar. 16, 2010 (“Blondia” (Ex. 1117)), and is prior art to the ’943 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), 102(b), and/or 102(e).
`
`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 ’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
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`experience with lasers and plasma. (Eden Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT
`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
`
`1550 (red) to prevent laser energy from escaping. (’943 patent, 28:14-30, 58-67;
`
`29:1-9; claim 1(Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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)) (Eden Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`28 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`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 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.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 30 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim term in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term which lacks a definition in the specification is
`
`also given a broad interpretation. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
`
`1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`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
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,764, 48,766-48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Consistent with this standard, this section proposes, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, constructions of terms that lack a definition in
`
`the specification 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. (See Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 25 (defining level of ordinary skill) (Ex. 1106).) Applying the claim construction
`
`standard of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) would not
`
`change the analysis or conclusions covered in this petition. The prior art teaches
`
`each claim limitation under any reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, and
`
`the analysis is not dependent on application of the "broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation" standard. (See Eden Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`“Light source”
`
`A.
`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
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”2 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) (Eden Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex.
`
`1106).)
`
`2 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).)
`
`(See Eden Decl. ¶ 33 n. 1 (Ex. 1106).).
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 parameters such as the wavelength of the light from a light source
`
`vary depending upon the application. (’943 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)) (Eden Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 35
`
`(Ex. 1106).)
`
`“Blocker”
`
`B.
`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
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`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, 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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources With Blockers Were
`Known Long Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 French Patent Appl.
`
`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); Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1101)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1103)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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
`
`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); Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`Hiura Fig. 10 (Ex. 1104)
`
`
`
`Further, on April 26, 2002, Ikeuchi filed a patent application entitled “Light
`
`radiation apparatus,” which published as Japanese Patent No. JP2003-317675 on
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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
`
`apparatus. (See, e.g., Ikeuchi, ¶¶ 0002, 0006, 0010, 0034, and 0046, Fig. 1 (Ex.
`
`1105).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1105)
`
`
`
`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 . . .
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1406).)
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 42
`
`(Ex. 1106).)
`
`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. 1106). These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 2, 5, and
`
`10 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2 and 10 are obvious over Gärtner
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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)
`
`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.
`
`1. Claim 2 is obvious over Gärtner
`
`Claim 2 of the ’943 patent, which depends from claim 1, is rendered obvious
`
`by Gärtner. (Eden Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`a)
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - Preamble
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`
`b)
`
`Claim 1 - elements [1a], [1b]
`
`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
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`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 “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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`Claim 1 - element [1c]
`
`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,
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`
`d)
`
`Claim 1 - element [1d]
`
`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, Gärtner’s “concave mirror 12” in Fig. 1 is a blocker
`
`suspended along a path the energy travels and blocks the energy provided to the
`
`ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium. In particular, concave
`
`mirror 12 is “mounted on the wall of the chamber” along a path traveled by
`
`radiation 11 from laser 9. (Gärtner, 5:4-5 (Ex. 1103).) Concave mirror 12 blocks
`
`the laser energy provided to the plasma 14 that is not absorbed by the plasma 14.
`
`Indeed, like an embodiment of the ’943 patent, concave mirror 12 blocks this laser
`
`energy by reflecting it back toward the plasma 14. (Gärtner, 5:3-5 (“The coherent
`
`radiation 11 from the laser 9 … penetrates into the chamber 1 through the window
`
`6 and is focussed by the concave mirror 12 mounted on the wall of the chamber.”)
`
`(Ex. 1103).) (Cf. ’943 patent, 29:33-36 (“In some embodiments, the blocker 1550
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`is configured to reflect the laser energy 1556 back toward the ionized medium in
`
`the chamber 1528.”) (Ex. 1101).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`Gärtner also discloses a blocker positioned between the laser and an output
`
`of the light source as depicted in Figure 15A of the ’943 patent. For example, in
`
`Figure 3 of Gärtner, concave mirror 39 is a blocker suspended along a path the
`
`energy travels and serves to block the energy provided to the ionized medium that
`
`is not absorbed by the ionized medium. Like the arrangement in Figure 15A of the
`
`’943 patent, concave mirror 39 is positioned between the laser 38 and the output of
`
`the light source. Additionally, like an embodiment of the ’943 patent, concave
`
`mirror 39 blocks the beam 37 by reflecting it toward plasma 41. (Gärtner, 6:10-16
`
`(“The radiation 37 from the carbon dioxide (CO2) laser 38 is focussed by … a
`
`concave mirror 39 … onto focal point[] 41 …”) (Ex. 1103).) (Cf. ’943 patent,
`
`29:33-36 (“In some embodiments, the blocker 1550 is configured to reflect the
`
`laser energy 1556 back toward the ionized medium in the chamber 1528.”) (Ex.
`
`1101).) Additionally, concave mirror 39 is suspended along a path the energy
`
`travels because it is attached to the output window in the path the laser energy
`
`travels. (Gärtner, 6:9-16; Fig. 3 (Ex. 1103).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`Similarly, in Figure 4, Gärtner discloses blocking the energy provided to the
`
`ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium with an output
`
`window suspended along a path the energy travels. In particular, lens 40 focuses
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the beam 37 onto the plasma 42. (Gärtner, 6:10-12 (Ex. 1103).) The output
`
`window absorbs the laser energy provided to the plasma that is not absorbed by the
`
`plasma. A person of skill in the art would appreciate that the output window in
`
`Fig. 4 is likely to be quartz. First, Gärtner discloses that the output window 18 in
`
`Fig. 2 is quartz. (See, e.g., Gärtner, 5:22-24, 27 (Ex. 1103).) Thus, a person of
`
`skill in the art would understand that the output windows in the other figures are
`
`also likely to be quartz. Additionally, quartz has several advantages relative to
`
`other materials. For example, quartz is transparent to the ultraviolet light produced
`
`by the plasma and absorbs infrared

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