`____________________________________________
`
`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 IPR2016-00584
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 7,435,982
`CLAIMS 38, 44-48, 51, 53, 54, 59, 65, 66, AND 73
`
`ASML 1403
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................1
`I.
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES.....................................................................................6
`II.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ..........................................8
`III.
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT ............................................................8
`A.
`Summary Of The Prosecution History................................................10
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................11
`A.
`“Light source” .....................................................................................11
`B.
`“High brightness light”........................................................................13
`VI. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before the
`Priority Date of the ’982 Patent.....................................................................16
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID...17
`A.
`Claims From Which The Challenged Claims Depend........................17
`1. Claim 37 is Anticipated by Gärtner .............................................18
`2. Claim 42 is Anticipated by Gärtner .............................................22
`3. Claim 43 is Anticipated by Gärtner .............................................22
`4. Claim 63 is Obvious over Gärtner ...............................................23
`5. Claim 67 is Anticipated by Gärtner .............................................26
`Ground 1: Claims 38, 47, and 73 Are Anticipated By Gärtner...........27
`1. Claim 38 - “wherein the at least one laser is selected from the
`group consisting of a continuous wave laser and a high pulse rate
`laser”............................................................................................27
`2. Claim 47 - “wherein the chamber comprises an ultraviolet
`transparent region”......................................................................29
`3. Claim 73 - “delivering the high brightness light emitted by the
`ionized medium to a tool” ............................................................30
`Ground 2: Claims 44, 48, 51, 53, 54, 65, And 66 Are Obvious
`Over Gärtner........................................................................................31
`1. Claim 44 - “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”.......................................31
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`2. Claim 48 - “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”...............32
`3. Claim 51 - “wherein the chamber comprises a dielectric
`material” ......................................................................................33
`4. Claim 53 - “wherein the dielectric material is quartz”...............34
`5. Claim 54 - “wherein the chamber is an ultraviolet transparent
`dielectric chamber”......................................................................35
`6. Claim 65 - “wherein the optical element is configured to deliver
`the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the ionized medium to a
`tool”..............................................................................................36
`7. Claim 66 - “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”...................................37
`D. Ground 3: Claim 45 Is Obvious Over Gärtner In View Of Ito ...........37
`1. Claim 45 - “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”...........................................................38
`Ground 4: Claims 46 And 59 Are Obvious Over Gärtner In
`View Of Mourou .................................................................................46
`1. Claims 46 and 59..........................................................................46
`VIII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION..................................................51
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding “High Brightness Light”.......52
`B.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................56
`IX. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ......................................57
`X.
`RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT..........................................................................58
`XI.
`JURAT...........................................................................................................59
`
`E.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`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 7,435,982
`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 7,435,982
`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 7,435,982
`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 7,435,982
`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 7,435,982
`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.
`
`7,435,982 (the “’982 patent,” Ex. 1401). I have been informed that the ’982 patent
`
`claims priority to March 31, 2006.
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’982 patent:
`
`(cid:120) French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985,
`with English Translation (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1404).
`
`(cid:120) JPH04-144053A, published May 18, 1992, with English Translation
`(“Ito,” Ex. 1411).
`
`(cid:120) International Publication WO-2004097520, published November 11,
`2004 (“Mourou,” Ex. 1412).
`
`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.
`
`21. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`22.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioners. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’982 patent.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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 made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`25.
`
`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
`
`7
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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
`
`26. 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.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT
`
`27.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`132 to produce a high brightness light 136. (’982 patent at 1:46-50 (Ex. 1401).)
`
`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.
`
`1401).)
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1401) (Annotated)
`
`28. 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. 1401).) 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. 1401).) 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. 1401).)
`
`29. As discussed below, there was nothing new or inventive about
`
`sustaining a plasma with a laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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.
`
`A.
`
`30.
`
`Summary Of The Prosecution History
`
`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. 1401).)
`
`31.
`
`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. 1405).) Thus, the Examiner recognized
`
`that using a laser to generate a plasma light source was not inventive.
`
`32.
`
`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. 1405).)
`
`33.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`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.
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`34.
`
`I have applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in
`
`proposing the claim constructions below. However, based on my reading of the
`
`’982 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
`
`terms. My analysis is not dependent on application of the “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard.
`
`A.
`
`35.
`
`“Light source”
`
`The term “light source” appears in challenged claims 38, 44-48, 51,
`
`53, 54, 59, 65, and 66. “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.” (See Case No.
`
`IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15 at 6).)
`
`11
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”1 is a source of
`
`36.
`
`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 (cid:541)m (1 mm)) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g.,
`
`William T. Silfvast, “Laser Fundamentals” at 4 (“Silfvast”) (Ex. 1407).) 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. 1406).)
`
`37.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`1401).)
`
`12
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`at 1:18-20 (Ex. 1401).) 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. 1401);
`
`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. 1401).)
`
`38.
`
`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 1000 μm) regions of the spectrum.” (See Case
`
`No. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15 at 6).)
`
`B.
`
`“High brightness light”
`
`39. All of the challenged claims recite the term “high brightness light.”
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness light” 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
`
`system, or an endoscopic tool.” (See Case No. IPR2015-01303 (Paper 15 at 6).)
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`The ’982 patent defines “brightness”2 as “the power radiated by a
`
`40.
`
`source of light per unit surface area onto a unit solid angle.” (’982 patent at 4:46-
`
`47 (Ex. 1401).) 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. 1401).) Accordingly, the brightness of a
`
`light source is associated with the ability to see a surface, or measure its properties.
`
`41.
`
`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. 1401).) It also identifies light sources that can be used
`
`“as a source of illumination in a lithography system used in the fabrication of
`
`wafers, a microscopy system[], or a photoresist curing system” as further examples
`
`of high brightness light sources. (’982 patent at 1:15-17 (Ex. 1401).) 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
`
`2 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.
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`light is produced. (’982 patent at 2:33-38, 10:11-14 (Ex. 1401).) 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. 1401).)
`
`42.
`
`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. 1408).)
`
`43.
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness
`
`light” 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).)
`
`15
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`VI. LASER SUSTAINED PLASMA LIGHT SOURCES WERE KNOWN
`LONG BEFORE THE PRIORITY DATE OF THE ’982 PATENT
`
`44. 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. 1404). 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
`
`the plasma 14 and produces light 15.
`
`16
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1401)
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1404)
`
`(Annotated)
`
`(Annotated)
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`
`46.
`
`Specific grounds for finding the challenged claims invalid are
`
`identified below. These grounds demonstrate in detail that each of the challenged
`
`claims 38, 44-48, 51, 53, 54, 59, 65, 66, and 73 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A.
`
`47.
`
`Claims From Which The Challenged Claims Depend
`
`Petitioners previously filed a petition challenging claims 37, 42, 43,
`
`63, and 67. (See Case No. IPR2015-01300 (Paper 4).) On November 30, 2015, the
`
`17
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`Board instituted inter partes review on all claims challenged in that petition. (See
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01300 (Paper 13).) The challenged claims depend from claims
`
`37, 42, 43, 63, and 67. Accordingly, I describe in detail below why each of claims
`
`37, 42, 43, 63, and 67 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`1.
`
`Claim 37 is Anticipated by Gärtner
`
`48. An overview of Gärtner is provided in Section VI, supra. As further
`
`explained on a limitation-by-limitation basis below, claim 37 (cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:1932)(cid:28)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:3)
`
`anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`a)
`
`Claim 37 - Preamble - “[a] light source”
`
`49. Gärtner discloses “[a] light source” as recited in claim 37. For
`
`example, Gärtner discloses a “radiation source for optical devices,” which is a light
`
`source. (Gärtner at 1:1-4, Figs. 1-4 (Ex. 1404).) Gärtner’s light source can be used
`
`for applications such as “illuminating a photoresist.” (Id. at 1:4 (Ex. 1404); see
`
`also ’982 patent at 1:20-24 (admitting light sources were known in the art) (Ex.
`
`1401).)
`
`b)
`
`Claim 37 - Limitation (1a) - “a chamber”
`
`50. Claim 37 recites “a chamber.” (’982 patent, claim 37 (Ex. 1401).)
`
`Gärtner discloses this limitation.
`
`51.
`
`For example, Gärtner discloses a “gas-tight chamber.” (Gärtner at
`
`3:20, 4:32, Figs. 1-4 (disclosing “gas-tight chamber 1”) (Ex. 1404); see also id. at
`
`5:27-28, Fig. 2 (disclosing “[a] casing 16, the concave mirror 17 and the quartz
`
`18
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`window 18 constitute the gas-tight chamber containing the discharge medium 19”),
`
`6:9, Figs. 3-4 (disclosing “discharge chambers 35 and 36”) (Ex. 1404); ’982 patent
`
`at 1:20-24 (admitting light source chambers were known in the art) (Ex. 1401).)
`
`c)
`
`Claim 37 - Limitation (1b) - “an ignition source for
`ionizing an ionizable medium within the chamber”
`
`52. Claim 37 recites “an ignition source for ionizing an ionizable medium
`
`within the chamber.” (’982 patent, claim 37 (Ex. 1401).) Gärtner discloses this
`
`limitation.
`
`53. Gärtner’s “laser 10” is an ignition source. (Gärtner at 5:5-8 (Ex.
`
`1404).) 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. 1404).) Gärtner also discloses electrodes as an ignition source.
`
`(Gärtner at 1:22 (describing “the electrodes of the discharge cavity”) (Ex. 1404).)
`
`Gärtner’s gas-tight chamber contains as an ionizable medium a “discharge
`
`medium” such as “a