`____________________________________________
`
`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 IPR2016-00555
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 14, 15, 17, AND 18
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML 1306
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................... 7
`II.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 8
`III.
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT ............................................................ 9
`A.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................. 10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 11
`A.
`“Light” ................................................................................................. 12
`B.
`“Blocker” ............................................................................................. 14
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 15
`A.
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources With Blockers Were
`Known Long Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent .................. 15
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 19
`A. Ground 1: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner ......... 19
`B.
`Ground 2: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner
`in view of Hiura ................................................................................... 30
`Ground 3: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner
`in view of Ikeuchi ................................................................................ 41
`VIII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 50
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 50
`IX. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 51
`X.
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 52
`XI.
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 52
`
`C.
`
`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. 1301). 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:
`
`• French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`
`(“Gärtner” Ex. 1303), with English Translation.
`
`• U.S. Patent Publication No. US2005/0225739, filed April 11, 2003,
`
`published October 13, 2005 (“Hiura” Ex. 1304).
`
`• Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP2003-317675, published Nov. 7, 2003
`
`(“Ikeuchi” Ex. 1305), with English Translation.
`
`19.
`
`I have also reviewed the exhibits cited and appended to the petition
`
`and my Declaration.
`
`20.
`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-
`22.
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`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
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`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
`
`1550 (red) to prevent laser energy from escaping. (’943 patent, 28:14-30, 58-67;
`
`29:1-9; claim 1(Ex. 1301).)
`
`27. The alleged invention involves using a laser to provide energy to
`
`sustain the plasma for a light source. According to the ’943 patent, the prior art
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`relied upon the electrodes used for ignition to also sustain the plasma, which
`
`resulted in wear and contamination. (’943 patent, 1:31-47 (Ex. 1301).) Thus, a
`
`need arose for a way to sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge.
`
`(Id.) The alleged invention also involves the use of a suspended blocker to absorb
`
`or reflect laser energy not absorbed by the plasma. (’943 patent, 9:17-30 (Ex.
`
`1301).)
`
`28. As discussed below, there was nothing new or inventive about
`
`sustaining a plasma with a laser to produce high brightness light and using a
`
`blocker to absorb or deflect laser energy. Multiple prior art references, including
`
`Gärtner, Hiura and Ikeuchi, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light sources with the
`
`same elements as the ’943 patent: a chamber, an ignited plasma, a laser, and
`
`suspended blocker.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`29. The ’943 patent (Ex. 1301) issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`13/099,823, 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`Initiated Interview Summary at 1, dated Aug. 6, 2012 (Ex. 1309).) 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. 1310).) The ’943 patent issued on
`
`November 13, 2012. (’943 patent (Ex. 1301).)
`
`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
`
`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
`I have applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in
`31.
`
`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
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`terms. My analysis is not dependent on application of the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard.
`
` “Light”
`
`A.
`32. The term “light” is recited in claim 13 (from which the challenged
`
`claims depend) and claim 14. “Light” should be construed to mean
`
`“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 Institution
`
`Decision for Case No. IPR2015-01277 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13 at 5)
`
`(adopting a similar construction in the ’943 patent for the term “light source,” and
`
`also instituting as to claim 13).)
`
`33. The ordinary and customary meaning of “light”1 is 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
`
`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; 16:65-17:11; 17:61-63; 20:5-6; 22:37-41; 23:9-13; 29:7-9 (Ex. 1301).)
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`(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. 1307)).) The Patent Owner publishes a data
`
`sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning in recognizing
`
`that “light” 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
`
`[Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”) (Ex. 1308).)
`
`34. The ’943 patent does not provide a definition of the term “light” and
`
`uses the term consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term.
`
`Consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “light,” 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 patent, 1:29-30 (Ex. 1301).)
`
`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. 1301); 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” should be construed to mean
`
`“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
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`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.”
`
`“Blocker”
`
`B.
`36. The term “blocker” is recited in claim 13 (from which the challenged
`
`claims depend), as well as claim 15. “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,
`
`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. 1301).) 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
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`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 (commonly known as a “beam block” or a “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
`
`Application No. 2554302. (Ex. 1303). 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. 1303).)
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1301)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1303)
`
`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 in Fig. 10, reproduced below, 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. 1304).)
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`Hiura Fig. 10 (Ex. 1304)
`
`
`
`40. Similarly, in Fig. 11, reproduced below, Hiura discloses a similar laser
`
`sustained plasma light source with a reflective member 153 that reflects energy
`
`from the laser beam 101 to a stopper 150. Hiura specifically states that “[t]he
`
`reflective member 157 [sic, 153] 2 is made of materials having high reflectance
`
`(e.g., 99% or higher), such as Au, Ag and Cu. …” (Hiura, ¶ 0081 (Ex. 1304).)
`
`
`2 The reflective member 153 in Figure 11 of Hiura corresponds to the reflective
`
`member 157 described in paragraph 0081. (See Hiura ¶ 0081, Fig. 11 (Ex. 1304).)
`
`This paragraph describes the embodiment in Figure 11.
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`Hiura, Fig. 11 (excerpt and annotated)
`
`
`
`41. 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. 1305.) Ikeuchi discloses a continuous high-
`
`power light source using ignited plasma. 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
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`apparatus. (See, e.g., Ikeuchi, ¶¶ 0002, 0006, 0010, 0022-0026, 0034, 0046; Fig. 1
`
`(Ex. 1305).)
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1305)
`
`
`
`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 14, 15, 17, and 18 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 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner
`44. As illustrated below, Gärtner discloses each limitation of claims 14,
`
`15, 17, and 18 and renders these claims obvious. To the extent the Patent Owner
`
`asserts that these features are not disclosed in a single embodiment of Gärtner, it
`
`19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`would have been obvious to combine features discussed in connection with various
`
`exemplary figures in Gärtner. 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.
`
`1. Claim 14
`
`45. Claim 14 of the ’943 patent, which depends from claim 13, is
`
`rendered obvious by Gärtner.
`
`Claim Element
`[13p] A method for producing light,
`comprising:
`[13a] ionizing with an ignition source a
`medium within a chamber;
`
`[13b] providing laser energy to the
`ionized medium in the chamber to
`produce a light; and
`[13c] blocking energy provided to the
`ionized medium that is not absorbed by
`the ionized medium with a blocker
`suspended along a path the energy
`travels.
`[14] The method of claim 13, wherein
`blocking the energy comprises
`deflecting the energy away from an
`output of the light source.
`
`
`Disclosure in the Prior Art
`Gärtner, 1:1, 1:4; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1303)
`
`Gärtner, 1:22, 3:20, 3:29-32, 4:32, 5:3-
`7, 5:15-16, 5:27-28, 6:9; Figs. 1-4 (Ex.
`1303)
`Gärtner, 3:22-24, 3:29-32, 5:3-12; Figs.
`1-4 (Ex. 1303)
`
`Gärtner, 4:5-12, 5:3-5, 5:27, 6:9-16;
`Figs. 1, 3, 4 (Ex. 1303)
`
`Gärtner, 4:5-12, 5:3-5, 5:27, 6:9-16; Fig
`3 (Ex. 1303)
`
`a)
`
`
`
`Claim 13 – Preamble [13p]
`
`20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`46. The preamble of claim 13 recites a “a method for producing light.”
`
`(’943 patent, 31:8 (Ex. 1301).) Gärtner discloses a method for producing light.
`
`Particularly, Gärtner discloses a “radiation source for optical devices,” which is a
`
`light source that performs a method of producing light. (Gärtner, 1:1, Figs. 1-4
`
`(Ex. 1303).) Gärtner’s light source can be used for applications such as
`
`“illuminating a photoresist.” (Gärtner, 1:4 (Ex. 1303); see also ’943 patent at 1:31-
`
`33 (recognizing light sources were known in the art) (Ex. 1301).)
`
`b)
`
`
`Claim 13 - element [13a]
`
`47. Claim 13 recites “ionizing with an ignition source a medium within a
`
`chamber.” (’943 patent, 31:9-10 (Ex. 1301).) Gärtner discloses this limitation.
`
`For example, Gärtner discloses a “gas-tight chamber.” (Gärtner, 3:20; 4:32; 5:3,
`
`Fig. 1 (“gas-tight chamber 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.
`
`1303); ’943 patent at 1:31-34 (recognizing light source chambers were known in
`
`the art) (Ex. 1301).) Gärtner’s gas-tight chamber (sealed chamber) contains a
`
`“discharge medium” such as “argon or xenon” (medium). (Gärtner, 4:32, 5:15-16
`
`(Ex. 1303).)
`
`48. Gärtner’s “laser 10” is an ignition source for ionizing the medium
`
`within the chamber. (Gärtner, 5 (Ex. 1303).) In particular, laser 10 is “a nitrogen
`
`21
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`pulse laser” that “produces an electrical discharge” in the medium to create
`
`“absorbent plasma 14.” (Gärtner, 5:5-7 (Ex. 1303).) Gärtner also discloses
`
`electrodes as ignition sources for ionizing the medium within the chamber.
`
`(Gärtner, 1:22 (“the electrodes of the discharge cavity”) (Ex. 1303).) Thus,
`
`Gärtner discloses both electrode and pulsed laser ignition sources for ionizing a
`
`medium within the chamber.
`
`c)
`
`
`
`Claim 13 - element [13b]
`
`49. Claim 13 recites “providing laser energy to the ionized medium in the
`
`chamber to produce a light.” (’943 patent, 31:11-12 (Ex. 1301).) Gärtner discloses
`
`providing laser energy to the ionized medium in the chamber to produce a light.
`
`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. 1303).)
`
`Gärtner shows “continuous laser 9,” “which is a stationary CO2 gas laser,” in
`
`Figure 1 as an example of such a laser. (Gärtner, 5:3-14 (“The coherent radiation
`
`11 from the laser 9, which is a stationary CO2 gas laser, penetrates into the
`
`chamber 1 through the window 6 and is focussed by the concave mirror 12
`
`mounted on the wall of the chamber. … [A]n absorbent plasma 14 which is heated
`
`to high temperatures under the influence of the radiation 11. The radiation 15 from
`
`22
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`the plasma can be fed into the downstream optical