DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US12
`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 IPR2016-00556
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,309,943
`CLAIMS 11 AND 12
`
`

`
`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 source” ....................................................................................... 8 
`B. 
`“Blocker” ............................................................................................. 10 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .......................... 11 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources With Blockers Were
`Known Long Before the Priority Date of the ’943 Patent .................. 11 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 13 
`A.  Ground 1: Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner ...................... 14 
`B. 
`Ground 2: Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner in view
`of Ikeuchi ............................................................................................. 21 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 31 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 31 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 33 
`
`X. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`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. 1201) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and divisional applications. Exhibit 1202 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:
`
`Patent No.
`7,435,982
`
`7,435,982
`
`IPR No.
`IPR2015-01300
`IPR2015-01303
`
`Challenged Claims
`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
`IPR2015-01377 23 and 60
`
`7,786,455
`
`IPR2015-01279 19, 39-41
`
`8,309,943
`
`IPR2015-01277 1, 3, 13, and 16
`
`Status
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`
`1
`
`

`
`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 10, 13, 14
`IPR2015-01375 1, 15, and 18
`
`9,048,000
`
`
`IPR2016-00126 7-10
`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 11 and 12 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. 1206),
`
`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.
`
`1203), which is prior art to the ʼ943 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).
`
`2. Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP2003-317675, published Nov. 7, 2003 (“Ikeuchi,”
`
`Ex. 1205), which 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. 1206).)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’943 PATENT
`The ’943 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for use in
`
`testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As depicted in Fig. 15A
`
`below, the light source includes a chamber (green), an ignition source 1529a and
`
`1529b (blue) for igniting a plasma, a laser 1524 (purple) for providing energy to
`
`the plasma (yellow) to produce a high brightness light, and a suspended blocker
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1550 (red) to prevent laser energy from escaping. (’943 patent, 28:14-30, 58-67;
`
`29:1-9; claim 1 (Ex. 1201).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`
`
`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, 1:31-52 (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).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`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 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
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`November 13, 2012. (’943 Patent (Ex. 1201).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 29 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`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. 1206).)
`
`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,
`
`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, 48,766-48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 1206).) Applying the claim construction
`
`standard of Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) would not
`
`change the analysis or conclusions covered in this petition. The prior art teaches
`
`each claim limitation under any reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, and
`
`the analysis is not dependent on application of the "broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation" standard. (See Eden Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1106).)
`
`“Light source”
`
`A.
`The term “light source” is recited in 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.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1206).) (See also Institution
`
`Decision for Case No. IPR2015-01277 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13 at 5).)
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”2 is a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., Silfvast,
`
`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) (Eden Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex.
`
`1206).)
`
`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
`
`2 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’943 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’943 patent, 7:33-40; 11:48-62; 13:21-56; 15:9-53;
`
`16:29-31; 16:66-17:11; 17:61-63; 20:5-6; 22:37-41; 23:9-12; 29:7-9 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`(See Eden Decl. ¶ 33 n. 1 (Ex. 1206).).
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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. 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.)) (Eden Decl. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`Therefore, the term “light source” should be construed to mean “a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 35
`
`(Ex. 1206).)
`
`“Blocker”
`
`B.
`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).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 36 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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); Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex.
`
`1206).)
`
`
`
`’943 patent, Fig. 15A (Ex. 1201)
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1203)
`
`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
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex.
`
`1206).)
`
`Ikeuchi, Fig. 2 (Ex. 1205)
`
`
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 40
`
`(Ex. 1206).)
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), specific grounds for finding the
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`challenged claims invalid are identified below and discussed in the Eden
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1206). These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 11 and 12
`
`are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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 the view of the prior art. (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`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;
`
`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)
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Disclosure in the Prior Art
`Gärtner, 4:5-12, 5:3-5, 6:9-16; Figs. 1, 3
`(Ex. 1203)
`
`Gärtner, 5:3-8, 6:10-14; Figs. 1, 3 (Ex.
`1203)
`
`Claim Element
`[11d] wherein the blocker reflects
`energy provided to the ionized medium
`that is not absorbed by the ionized
`medium.
`[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
`
`Claim 11 of the ’943 patent is rendered obvious by Gärtner. (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`43 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`a)
`
`
`
`Claim 11 - Preamble
`
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 44
`
`(Ex. 1206).)
`
`
`b)
`
`Claim 11 - elements [11a], [11b]
`
`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
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(“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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 45 (Ex.
`
`1206).)
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`c)
`
`
`
`Claim 11 - element [11c]
`
`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,
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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
`
`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).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 47 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`
`d)
`
`Claim 11 - element [11d]
`
`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
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`Gärtner also discloses a blocker positioned between the laser and an output
`
`of the light source as depicted in Figure 15A of the ’943 patent. For example, in
`
`Figure 3 of Gärtner, concave mirror 39 is a blocker suspended along a path the
`
`energy travels and serves to block the energy provided to the ionized medium that
`
`is not absorbed by the ionized medium. Like the arrangement in Figure 15A of the
`
`’943 patent, concave mirror 39 is positioned between the laser 38 and the output of
`
`the light source. Additionally, like an embodiment of the ’943 patent, concave
`
`mirror 39 blocks the beam 37 by reflecting it toward plasma 41. (Gärtner, 6:9-16
`
`(“The radiation 37 from the carbon dioxide (CO2) laser 38 is focussed [sic] by … a
`
`concave mirror 39 … onto focal point[] 41 …”) (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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1203)
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 3 (Ex. 1203)
`
`
`
`2. Claim 12 is obvious over Gärtner
`
`Claim 12, which depends from claim 11, recites “wherein the reflected
`
`energy is reflected toward the ionized medium within the chamber.” (’943 patent,
`
`31:5-7 (Ex. 1201).) Gärtner discloses this limitation. For example, Gärtner’s
`
`“concave mirror 12” in Fig. 1 reflects the laser energy from laser 9 back toward the
`
`plasma 14. (See Gärtner, 5:3-8 (Ex. 1203).) Furthermore, Gärtner’s “concave
`
`mirror 39” in Fig. 3 reflects the laser energy from laser 38 back toward the plasma
`
`at focal point 41. (See Gärtner, 6:10-14 (Ex. 1203).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`3. Reasons to combine
`
`Gärtner discloses its system by way of non-limiting examples. (Gärtner,
`
`4:20-21 (“Embodiments of the subject of the invention are shown, by way of non-
`
`limiting examples.”); see also 4:17-18 (“Various other characteristics of the
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`invention further emerge from the following detailed description.”) (Ex. 1203).)
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`Gärtner expressly describes how features from the various non-limiting
`
`examples can be combined and why it would be advantageous to do so. For
`
`example, Gärtner illustrates a pulsed laser 10 (ignition source) shown in Fig. 1.
`
`(Supra §§ VII.A, VIII.A.1.d).) Gärtner also describes advantages of utilizing a
`
`pulsed laser (ignition source) such as laser 10. Gärtner states, “When the radiated
`
`power of a laser as supplied is not sufficient for a discharge in the discharge
`
`medium, it is advantageous that the device includes, to ignite the discharge
`
`medium, outside the chamber, at least one further pulse-operated laser which is
`
`directed by optical means to ensure focussing of the same volume at an entry
`
`aperture.” (Gärtner, 3:29-32 (Ex. 1203).) Therefore, a person of skill in the art
`
`would have been motivated to utilize a pulsed laser (ignition source) such as laser
`
`10 illustrated in Fig. 1 in conjunction with features shown in Figs. 2-4 in order to
`
`ensure that the system had sufficient power to generate the plasma. (Eden Decl. ¶
`
`52 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`Gärtner also illustrates examples of chambers with reflective surfaces in
`
`Figures 2-4. Gärtner explains advantages of including such reflectors: “It is
`
`possible to advantageously simplify the realisation of the radiation source by
`
`placing optical means which ensure the focussing of the laser radiation inside
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 8,309,943
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`and/or on the surface of the chamber. In these conditions, the inner wall of the
`
`chamber constitutes an optical means for focussing the radiation coming from
`
`outside.” (Gärtner, 4:5-12 (Ex. 1203).) This further illustrates that the features
`
`disclosed in Gärtner’s exemplary figures are intended to be used in combination.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 53 (Ex. 1206).)
`
`B. Ground 2: Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner in view of
`Ikeuchi
`
`Claims 11 and 12 are obvious over Gärtner in view of Ikeuchi. Ikeuchi is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published on November 7, 2003.
`
`(Ex. 1205