DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US13
`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 IPR2016-00555
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 14, 15, 17, AND 18
`
`

`
`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 ............................................................ 4 
`A. 
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 6 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7 
`A. 
`“Light” ................................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`“Blocker” ............................................................................................. 11 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 12 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources With Blockers Were
`Known Long Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent .................. 12 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 16 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner ......... 17 
`B. 
`Ground 2: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner
`in view of Hiura ................................................................................... 28 
`Ground 3: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner
`in view of Ikeuchi ................................................................................ 39 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 48 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 48 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 49 
`
`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. 1301) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and divisional applications. Exhibit 1302 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
`
`9,048,000
`
`
`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
`
`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)
`
`1 The 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 14, 15, 17, and 18 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. 1306),
`
`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.
`
`1303), 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. 1304), 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. 1305), and is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`C. Relief Requested
`Petitioners request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel the
`
`challenged claims because they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`
`
`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 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
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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)) (Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 27 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`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.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`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 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
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`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. 1306).)
`
`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 and 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,
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to
`
`expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,764, 48,766-767 (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. 1306).) 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”
`
`A.
`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
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” (See also 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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light”2 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 (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) (Eden Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`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; 16:65-17:11; 17:61-63; 20:5-6; 22:37-41; 23:9-12; 29:7-9 (Ex. 1301).)
`
`(See Eden Decl. ¶ 33 n. 1 (Ex. 1306).).
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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
`
`parameters such as the wavelength of the light from a light source 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.)) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`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 nm), near-infrared
`
`(700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm), or far infrared (10
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” 3 (Eden Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`“Blocker”
`
`B.
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`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
`
`3 The particular construction for the claim term “light source” was adopted by the
`
`Board in the Decision granting Institution of Inter Partes Review for claims 1-5.
`
`(Case No. IPR2015-01277 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13 at 5).) This
`
`construction is equivalent to the Petitioner’s prior proposed construction for the
`
`term “light source” in the prior Petition for inter partes review of the ’943 patent
`
`and Petitions for inter partes review of the other patents in the patent family of
`
`continuation, continuation-in-part, and divisional applications.
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 1306).)
`
`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
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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); Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1306).)
`
`
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1301)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1303)
`
`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
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex.
`
`1306).)
`
`Hiura Fig. 10 (Ex. 1304)
`
`
`
`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] 4 is made of materials having high reflectance
`
`
`4 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.
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(e.g., 99% or higher), such as Au, Ag and Cu….” (Hiura, ¶ 0081 (Ex. 1304)) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`Hiura, Fig. 11 (excerpt and annotated)
`
`
`
`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)
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(red) to prevent unabsorbed electromagnetic energy from escaping the radiation
`
`apparatus. (See, e.g., Ikeuchi, ¶¶ 0002, 0006, 0010, 0022-0026, 0034, and 0046;
`
`Fig. 1 (Ex. 1305).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1305)
`
`
`
`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. 1306).)
`
`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. 1306). These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 14, 15, 17,
`
`and 18 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Ground 1: Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 are obvious over Gärtner
`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 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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 44 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`1. Claim 14
`
`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
`
`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)
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`deflecting the energy away from an
`output of the light source.
`
`
`a)
`
`
`
`Claim 13 – Preamble [13p]
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 46
`
`(Ex. 1306).)
`
`
`b)
`
`Claim 13 - element [13a]
`
`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
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`“discharge medium” such as “argon or xenon” (medium). (Gärtner, 4:32, 5:15-16
`
`(Ex. 1303).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`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 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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`Claim 13 - element [13b]
`
`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
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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
`
`the plasma can be fed into the downstream optical system through the window 8.”)
`
`(Ex. 1303).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`
`d)
`
`Claim 13 - element [13c]
`
`Claim 13 recites “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.” (’943 patent, 31:13-15 (Ex. 1301).) Gärtner discloses this
`
`limitation. For example, Gärtner discloses “concave mirror 12” in Fig. 1 that
`
`serves to block 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 the path travelled by radiation 11 from laser 9. (Gärtner, 5:4-5
`
`(Ex. 1303).) 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. 1303).) (Cf. ’943
`
`patent, 29:33-36 (“In some embodiments, the blocker 1550 is configured to reflect
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the laser energy 1556 back toward the ionized medium in the chamber 1528.”) (Ex.
`
`1301).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`Gärtner also discloses blocking energy with a blocker positioned between
`
`the laser and an output of the light source as depicted in Figure 15A of the ’943
`
`patent. For example, Figure 3 discloses blocking energy provided to the ionized
`
`medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium with concave mirror 39
`
`suspended along a path the energy travels. 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,
`
`6:9-16 (“The radiation 37 from the carbon dioxide (CO2) laser 38 is focussed by …
`
`a concave mirror 39 … onto focal point[] 41. …”) (Ex. 1303).) (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.
`
`1301).) 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. 1303).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1306).)
`
`Similarly, in Figure 4, Gärtner discloses blocking energy provided to the
`
`ionize