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 IPR2016-00556
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 11 AND 12
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML 1206
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`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 IPR2016-00556
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 11 AND 12
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML 1206
`
`
`
`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 source” ..................................................................................... 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 ... 18
`A. Ground 1: Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner ...................... 18
`B.
`Ground 2: Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner in view
`of Ikeuchi ............................................................................................. 24
`VIII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 34
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 34
`IX. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ...................................... 36
`X.
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT .......................................................................... 36
`XI.
`JURAT ........................................................................................................... 37
`
`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. 1201). 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, both of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’943 patent:
`
` French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3,
`
`1985 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1203), with English Translation
`
` Japanese Patent Publication JP2003-317675, published Nov. 7,
`
`2003 (“Ikeuchi,” Ex. 1205), 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
`22.
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this
`
`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. 1201).)
`
`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, 1:31-52 (Ex. 1201).) 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.
`
`1201).)
`
`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 that was not absorbed by the plasma.
`
`Multiple prior art references, including Gärtner 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. 1201) 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
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`independent form. (Examiner Initiated Interview Summary dated Aug. 6, 2012
`
`(Ex. 1209).) 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. 1210).)
`
`The ’943 patent issued on November 13, 2012. (’943 patent (Ex. 1201).)
`
`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
`31.
`I have applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in
`
`proposing the claim constructions below. However, based on my reading of the
`
`’943 patent’s specification and the ordinary meanings of the claim terms, the prior
`
`art teaches each claim limitation under any reasonable interpretation of the claim
`
`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.
`
`A.
` “Light source”
`32. The term “light source” is recited in claims 11 and 12. “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.” (See also Institution Decision for Case No. IPR2015-
`
`01277 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13 at 5).)
`
`33. The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”1 is a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., Silfvast,
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’943 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’943 patent, 7:33-40; 11:48-62; 13:21-56; 15:9-53;
`
`16:29-31; 16:66-17:11; 17:61-63; 20:5-6; 22:37-41; 23:9-12; 29:7-9 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`LASER FUNDAMENTALS, at 4 (Ex. 1207).) 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 [Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”) (Ex. 1208).)
`
`34. The ’943 patent does not provide a definition of the term “light
`
`source” and uses the term consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`the term. Consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of “light source,”
`
`the ’943 patent states that the parameters of a light source, such as the
`
`wavelength(s) of light it generates, vary depending upon the application. (’943
`
`patent, 1:29-30 (Ex. 1201).) 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. 1201);
`
`see also id. at 13:54-56 (discussing the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the
`
`plasma 132 of the light source 100).)
`
`35. Therefore, the term “light source” should be construed to mean “a
`
`source of electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm),
`
`vacuum ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible
`
`(400 to 700 nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm
`
`to 10 µm), or far infrared (10 µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum.”
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`B.
`“Blocker”
`36. The term “blocker” is recited in claim 11 (from which challenged
`
`claim 12 depends). “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. 1201).) 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).)
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`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. 1203). 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. 1203).)
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1201)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1203)
`
`39. 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. 1205.) Ikeuchi discloses a continuous high-
`
`power light source using ignited plasma. As shown in Fig. 2, 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 reflector 12 (i.e., a blocker) (red) to prevent unabsorbed
`
`electromagnetic energy from escaping the radiation apparatus. (See, e.g., Ikeuchi,
`
`¶¶ 0002, 0006, 0010, and 0028-0030, Figs. 2, 7 (Ex. 1205).)
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 2 (Ex. 1205)
`
`
`
`40. 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 1980s to the early 2000s. Particularly
`
`with regard to the “blocker” in the ’943 patent, it must be emphasized that few
`
`components of optics and laser engineering are more conventional. Its origin
`
`extends back until at least the early 20th century when Robert Wood of the Johns
`
`Hopkins University invented the “Wood’s horn”, a simple device designed to trap
`
`and absorb unwanted optical radiation (light). After the invention of the laser, the
`
`beam block became of greater importance because of the intensity of optical
`
`radiation afforded by lasers, and the potential damage produced by a laser should
`
`its radiation escape into portions of an optical system for which it was not
`
`intended. Consequently, the “blocker” discussed in the ’943 patent is in no way
`
`new or inventive.
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`41. Challenged claims 11 and 12 of the ’943 patent 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 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner
`42. As illustrated below, Gärtner discloses each limitation of claims 11
`
`and 12 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.
`
`Claim Element
`[11p] A light source, comprising:
`[11a] a chamber
`
`[11b] an ignition source for ionizing a
`medium within the chamber;
`[11c] a laser for providing energy to the
`ionized medium within the chamber to
`produce a light;
`[11d] wherein the blocker reflects
`energy provided to the ionized medium
`that is not absorbed by the ionized
`medium.
`
`Disclosure in the Prior Art
`Gärtner, 1:1, 1:4; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1203)
`Gärtner, 3:20, 4:32, 5:3, 5:27-28, 6:9;
`Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1203)
`Gärtner, 1:22, 3:29-32, 4:32, 5:5-7,
`5:15-16; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1203)
`Gärtner, 3:22-24, 3:29-32, 5:3-4, 5:7-9,
`5:11-12; Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1203)
`
`Gärtner, 4:5-12, 5:3-5, 6:9-16; Figs. 1, 3
`(Ex. 1203)
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`Disclosure in the Prior Art
`Gärtner, 5:3-8, 6:10-14; Figs. 1, 3 (Ex.
`1203)
`
`Claim Element
`[12] The light source of claim 11,
`wherein the reflected energy is reflected
`toward the ionized medium within the
`chamber.
`
`
`1. Claim 11 is obvious over Gärtner
`
`43. Claim 11 of the ’943 patent is rendered obvious by Gärtner.
`
`a)
`
`
`
`Claim 11 - Preamble
`
`44. The preamble of claim 11 recites a “light source.” (’943 patent, 30:65
`
`(Ex. 1201).) Gärtner discloses a light source. Particularly, the reference discloses
`
`a “radiation source for optical devices,” which is a light source. (Gärtner, 1:1,
`
`Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1203).) Gärtner’s light source can be used for applications such as
`
`“illuminating a photoresist.” (Gärtner, 1:4 (Ex. 1203); see also ’943 patent at 1:31-
`
`33 (recognizing light sources were known in the art) (Ex. 1201).)
`
`
`b)
`
`Claim 11 - elements [11a], [11b]
`
`45. Claim 11 recites “a chamber.” (’943 patent, 30:65 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`Gärtner discloses a chamber. 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. 1203); see also ’943 patent at 1:31-35
`
`(recognizing light source chambers were known in the art) (Ex. 1201).)
`
`19
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`46. Claim 11 further recites “an ignition source for ionizing a medium
`
`within the chamber.” (’943 patent, 30:66-67 (Ex. 1201).) 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. 1203).) 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. 1203).) Gärtner also discloses electrodes as an ignition
`
`source. (Gärtner, 1:22 (“the electrodes of the discharge cavity”) (Ex. 1203).)
`
`Thus, Gärtner discloses both electrode and pulsed laser ignition sources for
`
`ionizing a medium within the chamber.
`
`c)
`
`
`
`Claim 11 - element [11c]
`
`47. Claim 11 recites “a laser for providing energy to the ionized medium
`
`within the chamber to produce a light.” (’943 patent, 31:1-2 (Ex. 1201).) Gärtner
`
`discloses this limitation. For example, Gärtner teaches “the production and
`
`maintenance of a radiation-emitting plasma in the discharge medium are ensured,
`
`in a known manner, by at least one laser situated outside the chamber. . .”
`
`(Gärtner, 3:22-24 (Ex. 1203).) 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 (“absorbent plasma 14 which is heated to high temperatures under the
`
`20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`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. 1203).)
`
`
`d)
`
`Claim 11 - element [11d]
`
`48. Claim 11 recites “wherein the [sic, a] blocker reflects energy provided
`
`to the ionized medium that is not absorbed by the ionized medium.” (’943 patent,
`
`31:2-4 (Ex. 1201).) Gärtner discloses this limitation. For example, Gärtner’s
`
`“concave mirror 12” in Fig. 1 is a blocker that reflects 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. 1203).) Concave mirror 12 serves
`
`to block 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 [sic] by the concave mirror 12 mounted on
`
`the wall of the chamber.”) (Ex. 1203).) (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. 1201).)
`
`49. 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
`
`21
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D
`example, in F
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
