DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US16
`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 IPR2016-00583
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,435,982
`CLAIMS 2, 5-9, 12-15, 20, 22, 28, 29, 35, AND 36
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I. 
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`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 
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 5 
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT ............................................................ 5 
`A. 
`Summary Of The Prosecution History .................................................. 7 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8 
`A. 
`“Light source” ....................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`“High brightness light” ........................................................................ 11 
`VII.  THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ......................................... 14 
`A. 
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent ......................................... 14 
`VIII.  GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 15 
`A. 
`Claims From Which The Challenged Claims Depend ........................ 15 
`1.  Claim 1 is Anticipated by Gärtner ............................................... 16 
`2.  Claim 3 is Anticipated by Gärtner ............................................... 19 
`3.  Claim 4 is Anticipated by Gärtner ............................................... 20 
`4.  Claim 26 is Obvious over Gärtner ............................................... 20 
`5.  Claim 30 is Anticipated by Gärtner ............................................. 23 
`Ground 1: Claims 8, 22, 35, And 36 Are Anticipated By
`Gärtner ................................................................................................. 25 
`
`B. 
`
`i
`
`

`
`C. 
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`1.  Claim 8 – “wherein the chamber comprises an ultraviolet
`transparent region” ...................................................................... 25 
`2.  Claim 22 - “wherein the at least one laser is selected from the
`group consisting of an IR laser, a diode laser, a fiber laser, an
`ytterbium laser, a CO2 laser, a YAG laser, and a gas discharge
`laser” ............................................................................................ 26 
`3.  Claim 35 – “delivering the high brightness light emitted by the
`ionized medium to a tool” ............................................................ 27 
`4.  Claim 36 – “wherein the tool is selected from the group
`consisting of a wafer inspection tool, a microscope, a metrology
`tool, a lithography tool, and an endoscopic tool” ....................... 28 
`Ground 2: Claims 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 28, And 29 Are Obvious
`Over Gärtner ........................................................................................ 28 
`1.  Claim 5 - “wherein the optical element is a lens selected from the
`group consisting of an aplanatic lens, an achromatic lens, a
`single element lens, and a fresnel lens” ....................................... 29 
`2.  Claim 9 - “wherein the chamber or a window in the chamber
`comprises a material selected from the group consisting of quartz,
`Suprasil quartz, sapphire, MgF2, diamond, and CaF2” .............. 30 
`3.  Claim 12 - “wherein the chamber comprises a dielectric
`material” ...................................................................................... 31 
`4.  Claim 14 - “wherein the dielectric material is quartz” ............... 32 
`5.  Claim 15 - “wherein the chamber is an ultraviolet transparent
`dielectric chamber” ...................................................................... 32 
`6.  Claim 28 - “wherein the optical element is configured to deliver
`the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the ionized gas to a
`tool” .............................................................................................. 33 
`7.  Claim 29 - “wherein the tool is selected from the group consisting
`of a wafer inspection tool, a microscope, a metrology tool, a
`lithography tool, and an endoscopic tool”................................... 34 
`D.  Ground 3: Claim 6 Is Obvious Over Gärtner In View Of Ito ............. 35 
`1.  Claim 6 - “wherein the optical element is a mirror selected from
`the group consisting of a coated mirror, a dielectric coated
`mirror, a narrow band mirror, and an ultraviolet transparent
`infrared reflecting mirror” ........................................................... 35 
`
`ii
`
`

`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground 4: Claims 2, 7, And 20 Are Obvious Over Gärtner In
`View Of Mourou ................................................................................. 43 
`1.  Claims 2, 7, 20 .............................................................................. 43 
`Ground 5: Claim 13 Is Obvious Over Gärtner In View of Sato ......... 49 
`1.  Claim 13 – “wherein the chamber is a glass bulb” ..................... 50 
`IX.  RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 55 
`A. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding “High Brightness Light” ....... 55 
`B. 
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 58 
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`X. 
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`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. 7,435,982 (the “’982 patent,” Ex. 1301) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation and continuation-in-part applications. Exhibit 1302
`
`shows the members of this patent family and the relationships among them.
`
`Petitioners have already filed petitions seeking inter partes review of claims
`
`1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 23-27, 30, 31, 34, 37, 42, 43, 49, 55, 60-64, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74,
`
`and 78 of the ’982 patent (see Case Nos. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 2); IPR2015-
`
`01300 (Paper 4); IPR2015-01377 (Paper 4)). On November 30, 2015, the Board
`
`consolidated Case Numbers IPR2015-01303 and IPR2015-01300, and instituted
`
`inter partes review on all claims challenged in the three petitions. (See Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15); see also Case No. IPR2015-01300 (Paper 13); Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01377 (Paper 11).)
`
`Petitioners are also seeking inter partes review of related U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,786,455 (“the ’455 patent”); 8,309,943 (“the ’943 patent”); 8,525,138 (“the ’138
`
`patent”); 8,969,841 (“the ’841 patent”); and 9,048,000 (“the ’000 patent”), as
`
`summarized below:
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Challenged Claims
`Status
`
`IPR No.
`
`Patent
`No.
`7,786,455
`
`IPR2015-01279
`
`19, 39-41
`
`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
`
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Pending
`Instituted on all
`challenged claims
`Pending
`
`IPR2016-00126
`
`7-10
`
`9,048,000
`
`Petitioners are also filing additional petitions on the ’982, ’455, ’943, ’138,
`
`’841, and ’000 patents, as well as on related U.S. Patent No. 9,185,786 (“the ’786
`
`patent”). Petitioners request that the inter partes review proceedings of the ’982,
`
`’455, ’943, ’138, ’841, ’000, and ’786 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)
`
`First Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Second Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Email: Donald R. Steinberg, don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: WilmerHale, 60 State St., Boston MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6453
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`claims 2, 5-9, 12-15, 20, 22, 28, 29, 35, and 36 of the ’982 patent (the “challenged
`
`claims”) and request that the challenged claims be cancelled. Each of the
`
`challenged claims depends from one or more of claims 1, 3, 4, 26, and 30, which
`
`Petitioners separately challenged in IPR No. 2015-01303.
`
`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. 1303),
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims and that the challenged claims are
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`unpatentable for the reasons cited in this petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). As
`
`detailed in the grounds of unpatentability below, each of the challenged claims is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`B.
`Petitioners rely upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`1. French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1304), published
`
`May 3, 1985, with Certified English Translation, which is prior art to the ʼ982
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2. JPH04-144053A (“Ito,” Ex. 1311), published May 18, 1992, with Certified
`
`English Translation, which is prior art to the ’982 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`3. International Publication WO-2004097520 (“Mourou,” Ex. 1312), published
`
`November 11, 2004, which is prior art to the ʼ982 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`4. S61-193358 (“Sato,” Ex. 1317), published August 27, 1986, with Certified
`
`English Translation, which is prior art to the ’982 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(b).
`
`C. Relief Requested
`Petitioners request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel claims 2, 5-
`
`9, 12-15, 20, 22, 28, 29, 35, and 36, because each of the challenged claims are
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 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 ’982
`
`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. at ¶ 26 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`V.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT
`
`The ’982 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for use in,
`
`for example, testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As shown in
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, the light source includes: (1) a chamber 128 (outlined
`
`in green), (2) an ignition source 140 (outlined in blue) for generating a plasma 132,
`
`and (3) a laser 104 (outlined in red) for providing energy to the plasma 132 to
`
`produce a high brightness light 136. (’982 patent at 1:46-50 (Ex. 1301).) (Eden
`
`Decl. at ¶ 27 (Ex. 1303).) The ’982 patent identifies several types of “ignition
`
`sources,” such as “electrodes” (shown below) and “pulsed lasers” (not shown).
`
`(’982 patent at 7:7-24 (Ex. 1301).) (Eden Decl. at ¶ 27 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1301) (Annotated)
`
`According to the ’982 patent, prior art light sources relied upon electrodes to
`
`both generate and sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and contamination.
`
`(’982 patent at 1:20-40 (Ex. 1301).) Thus, a need allegedly arose for a way to
`
`sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes. (’982
`
`patent at 1:20-40 (Ex. 1301).) The alleged invention involves using a laser to
`
`provide energy to sustain the plasma to produce a “high brightness” light. (See,
`
`e.g., ’982 patent at 1:46-50 (Ex. 1301).) (Eden Decl. at ¶ 28 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`As discussed below, there was nothing new or inventive about sustaining a
`
`plasma with a laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art references,
`
`including Gärtner, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light sources with the same
`
`elements as the ’982 patent: a chamber, an ignition source, and a laser. (Eden
`
`Decl. at ¶ 29 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Summary Of The Prosecution History
`
`A.
`
`The ’982 patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/395,523, filed on
`
`March 31, 2006. On August 25, 2008, all the claims were allowed without
`
`rejection. The ’982 patent issued on October 14, 2008. (’982 patent (Ex. 1301).)
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner explained that prior art to
`
`Hoshino disclosed “a light source which has a laser that generates a plasma,” and
`
`prior art to Sato disclosed a “light source where a laser beam excites gas (for
`
`emitting UV and [EUV] light) that is sealed in a bulb tube.” (Notice of
`
`Allowability dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 3 (Ex. 1305).) Thus, the Examiner recognized
`
`that using a laser to generate a plasma light source was not inventive.
`
`The Examiner nonetheless allowed the claims because the Examiner was not
`
`aware of prior art that disclosed the combination of an ignition source that
`
`generates the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma. (Notice of
`
`Allowability dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 2-3 (Ex. 1305).)
`
`The Examiner did not consider Gärtner, which was not of record during the
`
`prosecution of the ’982 patent. Gärtner discloses an ignition source that generates
`
`the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma to produce a high brightness
`
`light. In fact, as further discussed below, high brightness light sources with
`
`ignition sources that generate the plasma and laser beams that sustain the plasma
`
`were well-known long before the priority date of the ’982 patent. (Eden Decl. at
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`¶ 33 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`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). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning
`
`as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
`
`Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification sets forth an
`
`alternate definition of a term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,
`
`the patentee’s lexicography governs. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`Should the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, contend that the
`
`claim terms 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, 48,766-767 (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
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`specification as commonly understood by those of ordinary skill. 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. ¶ 34 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`“Light source”
`
`A.
`The term “light source” appears in challenged claims 2, 5-9, 12-15, 20, 22,
`
`28, and 29. “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 (1 µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” (Eden Decl. at ¶ 35
`
`(Ex. 1303).) (See also Case No. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15 at 6).)
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”1 is a source of
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’982 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’982 patent at 6:47-49, 7:65-67, 8:6-9, 8:37-39 (Ex.
`
`1301).) (See Eden Decl. at ¶ 36 n.1 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 (1 µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm (1 mm)) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g.,
`
`William T. Silfvast, “Laser Fundamentals” at 4 (“Silfvast”) (Ex. 1307).) The
`
`Patent Owner publishes a data sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning in referring to EUV wavelength as within the meaning of
`
`“light source.” (See, e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data Sheet at 2 (describing
`
`Energetiq’s EQ-10 product operating at 13.5 nm as an “EUV [Extreme Ultraviolet]
`
`Light Source”) (Ex. 1306).) (Eden Decl. at ¶ 36 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`The ’982 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. The
`
`’982 patent states that parameters of a light source, such as the wavelength(s) of
`
`the light, will vary depending upon the application. (’982 patent at 1:18-19 (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).” (’982 patent at 7:65-67 (Ex. 1301); see also id.
`
`at 6:47-49 (discussing “the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the plasma 132 of the
`
`light source 100,” 8:6-9, 8:37-39) (Ex. 1301).) (Eden Decl. at ¶ 37 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`Therefore, the term “light source” should be construed to mean “a source of
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” (Eden Decl. at ¶ 38
`
`(Ex. 1303).) (See also Case No. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15 at 6).)
`
` “High brightness light”
`
`B.
`All of the challenged claims recite the term “high brightness light.” For
`
`purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness light”2 should be construed
`
`to include “light sufficiently bright to be useful for: inspection, testing or
`
`measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials used in
`
`the fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a lithography system
`
`used in the fabrication of wafers, a microscopy system, a photoresist curing
`
`2 For purposes of this proceeding, it is sufficient to interpret “high brightness light”
`
`as Petitioners explain above, and each prior art reference used in the grounds of
`
`unpatentability is directed to providing light with sufficient brightness for purposes
`
`identified in the challenged patent. Petitioners note that in an infringement
`
`proceeding in which the required brightness of the light were at issue, claims
`
`reciting “high brightness light” could be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`
`paragraph for indefiniteness because the patent does not specify how bright the
`
`light must be.
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`system, or an endoscopic tool.” (See Case No. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15 at 6).)
`
`(Eden Decl. at ¶ 39 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`The ’982 patent defines “brightness”3 as “the power radiated by a source of
`
`light per unit surface area onto a unit solid angle.” (’982 patent at 4:46-47 (Ex.
`
`1301).) The brightness of the light produced by a light source “determines” the
`
`ability of a system or operator to “see or measure things [] with adequate
`
`resolution.” (Id. at 4:47-51 (Ex. 1301).) Accordingly, the brightness of a light
`
`source is associated with the ability to see a surface or measure its properties.
`
`(Eden Decl. at ¶ 40 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`The ’982 patent recognizes that various uses for high brightness light existed
`
`before the ’982 patent was filed. The patent recognizes in the Background of the
`
`Invention that, “[f]or example, a high brightness light source can be used for
`
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers (e.g., reticles and photomasks).”
`
`(’982 patent at 1:11-14 (Ex. 1301).) It also identifies light sources that can be used
`
`“as a source of illumination in a lithography system used in the fabrication of
`
`3 Although the ’982 patent uses the term “brightness,” “spectral brightness” is the
`
`more common term in optics and lasers. “Spectral brightness” refers to the optical
`
`power radiated per unit of wavelength (nm) into a steradian, the unit of solid angle.
`
`(See Eden Decl. at ¶ 40 n.2 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`wafers, a microscopy system[], or a photoresist curing system” as further examples
`
`of high brightness light sources. (’982 patent at 1:11-17 (Ex. 1301).) Additionally,
`
`it describes and claims “a wafer inspection tool, a microscope, a metrology tool, a
`
`lithography tool, [and] an endoscopic tool” as tools for which the high brightness
`
`light is produced. (’982 patent at 2:33-38, 10:11-14 (Ex. 1301).) More generally,
`
`the patent acknowledges that the brightness and other parameters of the light “vary
`
`depending upon the application.” (’982 patent at 1:18-20 (Ex. 1301).) (Eden Decl.
`
`at ¶ 41 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`The Patent Owner has argued that the term “high brightness light” should be
`
`understood as “bright enough to be used for inspection, testing, or measuring
`
`properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials used in the
`
`fabrication of wafers, or in lithography systems used in the fabrication of wafers,
`
`microscopy systems, or photoresist curing systems—i.e., at least as bright as xenon
`
`or mercury arc lamps,” which is similar to the construction proposed below but
`
`omits some of the applications for high brightness light specifically described in
`
`the ’982 patent. (See Second Declaration of Donald K. Smith, Ph.D. in Support of
`
`Energetiq’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated
`
`Mar. 17, 2015 (“Second Smith Decl.”) at 6 (Ex. 1308).) (Eden Decl. at ¶ 42 (Ex.
`
`1303).)
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness light”
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`should be interpreted to include “light sufficiently bright to be useful for:
`
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a
`
`lithography system used in the fabrication of wafers, a microscopy system, a
`
`photoresist curing system, or an endoscopic tool.” (See Case No. IPR2015-01303
`
`(Paper 15 at 6).) (Eden Decl. at ¶ 43 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent
`
`When the application that led to the ’982 patent was filed, there was nothing
`
`new or inventive about a light source using an ignition source to generate a plasma
`
`in a chamber and a laser to sustain the plasma to produce high brightness light
`
`from the plasma. 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
`
`(“Gärtner,” Ex. 1304). Gärtner discloses a light source with the same features
`
`claimed in the ’982 patent: (1) a sealed chamber 1 (outlined in green); (2) an
`
`ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (outlined in blue), which generates a plasma 14;
`
`and (3) a laser to produce light – laser 9 (outlined in red), which provides energy to
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`the plasma 14 and produces light 15. (Eden Decl. at ¶ 44 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`
`
`
`
`’982 patent at Fig. 1 (Ex. 1301)
`
`
`
`Gärtner at Fig. 1 (Ex. 1304)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Annotated)
`
`Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’982 patent are nothing more
`
`than standard features of laser sustained plasma light sources that were known as
`
`early as the 1980s. (Eden Decl. at ¶ 45 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`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. 1303). These grounds demonstrate in detail that each of the
`
`challenged claims 2, 5-9, 12-15, 20, 22, 28, 29, 35, and 36 is invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Claims From Which The Challenged Claims Depend
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Petitioners previously filed a petition challenging claims 1, 3, 4, 26, and 30.
`
`
`
`(See Case No. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 2).) On November 30, 2015, the Board
`
`instituted inter partes review on all claims challenged in that petition. (See Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15).) Although claims 1, 3, 4, 26, and 30 are not
`
`challenged herein, the challenged claims depend from these claims. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioners describe in detail below why each of claims 1, 3, 4, 26, and 30 is
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Claim 1 is Anticipated by Gärtner
`
`1.
`An overview of Gärtner is provided in Section VII.A, supra. As further
`
`explained on a limitation-by-limitation basis below, claim 1 of the ʼ982 patent is
`
`anticipated by Gärtner. (Eden Decl. at ¶ 48 (Ex. 1303).
`
`a)
`Gärtner discloses “[a] light source” as recited in claim 1. (Eden Decl. at
`
`Claim 1 - Preamble - “[a] light source”
`
`¶ 49 (Ex. 1303). For example, Gärtner discloses a “radiation source for optical
`
`devices,” which is a light source. (Gärtner at 1:1-4, Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1304).)
`
`Gärtner’s light source can be used for applications such as “illuminating a
`
`photoresist.” (Id. at 1:4 (Ex. 1301); see also ’982 patent at 1:20-24 (admitting light
`
`sources were known in the art) (Ex. 1301).) (Eden Decl. at ¶ 49 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`b)
`Claim 1 recites “a chamber.” (’982 patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1301).) Gärtner
`
`Claim 1 - Limitation (1a) - “a chamber”
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`discloses this limitation. (Eden Decl. at ¶ 50 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`For example, Gärtner discloses a “gas-tight chamber.” (Gärtner at 3:20,
`
`4:32, Figs. 1-4 (disclosing “gas-tight chamber 1”) (Ex. 1304); see also id. at 5:27-
`
`28, Fig. 2 (disclosing “[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 (disclosing “discharge chambers 35 and 36”) (Ex. 1304); ’982 patent at
`
`1:20-24 (admitting light source chambers were known in the art) (Ex. 1301).)
`
`(Eden Decl. at ¶ 51 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`c)
`
`Claim 1 - Limitation (1b) - “an ignition source for
`ionizing a gas within the chamber”
`
`Claim 1 recites “an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber.”
`
`(’982 patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1301).) Gärtner discloses this limitation. (Eden Decl. at
`
`¶ 52 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`Gärtner’s “laser 10” is an ignition source. (Gärtner at 5:5-8 (Ex. 1304).) In
`
`particular, laser 10 is “a nitrogen pulse laser” that “produces an electrical
`
`discharge” in the medium to create an “absorbent plasma 14.” (Gärtner at 5:5-8
`
`(Ex. 1304).) Gärtner also discloses electrodes as an ignition source. (Gärtner at
`
`1:22 (describing “the electrodes of the discharge cavity”) (Ex. 1304).) Gärtner’s
`
`gas-tight chamber contains as an ionizable medium a “discharge medium” such as
`
`“argon or xenon.” (Gärtner at 4:31-32, 5:5-8, 5:14-16 (Ex. 1304).) (Eden Decl. at
`
`¶ 53 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`17
`
`

`
`d)
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claim 1 – Limitation (1c) – “at least one laser for
`providing energy to the ionized gas within the chamber to
`produce a high brightness light”
`
`Claim 1 recites “at least one laser for providing energy to the ionized gas
`
`within the chamber to produce a high brightness light.” (’982 patent, claim 1 (Ex.
`
`1301).) Gärtner discloses this limitation. (Eden Decl. at ¶ 54 (Ex. 1303).)
`
`For example, Gärtner discloses that “the production and maintenance of a
`
`radiation-emitting plasma in the discharge medium are ensu