UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and
`Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Energetiq Technology, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00774
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF J. GARY EDEN, PH.D.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,048,000
`CLAIMS 2-6
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML 1203
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`Page
`
`I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 1
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................ 7
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................ 9
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT ............................................................ 10
`A. Summary of the Prosecution History ..................................................... 12
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 15
`A. “Light” .................................................................................................... 15
`B. “Substantially continuous laser energy” ................................................. 17
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID .......................................... 18
`A. Laser-Sustained Light Sources Were Known Long Before the
`Priority Date of the ’000 Patent........................................................... 18
`B. High pressure plasma light sources were well-known in the art. ........... 19
`C. Sustaining a plasma with a laser having a wavelength range of up
`to about 2000 nm, was well known in the art ..................................... 19
`VII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 33
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2-6 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner in View of
`Mourou and Silfvast ............................................................................ 33
`(a) Claim 1 ......................................................................................... 34
`(b) Claim 1 - Motivation to Combine ................................................ 49
`(c) Claim 2 ......................................................................................... 54
`(d) Claim 3 ......................................................................................... 56
`(e) Claim 4 ......................................................................................... 57
`(f) Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 60
`(g) Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 61
`(h) Claims 2-6 – Motivation to Combine ........................................... 61
`B. Ground 2: Claims 2-6 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner in View of
`Kensuke and Silfvast ........................................................................... 61
`(a) Claim 1 ......................................................................................... 63
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`(b) Claim 1 – Motivation to Combine ................................................ 69
`(c) Claim 2 ......................................................................................... 72
`(d) Claim 3 ......................................................................................... 72
`(e) Claim 4 ......................................................................................... 73
`(f) Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 74
`(g) Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 75
`(h) Claims 2-6 – Motivation to Combine ........................................... 75
`VIII. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER
`REGARDING OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............ 75
`IX. AVAILABILITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ........................................ 77
`X. RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENT ............................................................................. 77
`XI. JURAT ............................................................................................................. 78
`
`ii
`
`

`
`I, J. Gary Eden, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`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
`
`1
`
`

`
`became associate professor in this same department, and in 1983, I became
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`professor in this department. In 1995, 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.
`
`2
`
`

`
`I have made several major contributions to the field of laser physics,
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`7.
`
`plasma physics, and atomic and molecular physics. I co-invented a new form of
`
`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,
`
`3
`
`

`
`glass, ceramics, and multilayer metal/polymer structures. For this, I was the
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`recipient of the C.E.K. Mees Award from the Optical Society of America, the
`
`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.
`
`4
`
`

`
`I have authored or co-authored over 290 peer-reviewed academic
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`10.
`
`publications in the fields of laser physics, plasma physics, atomic and molecular
`
`physics, quantum electronics. I have served as Editor-in-Chief of the IEEE Journal
`
`of Quantum Electronics, and Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Quantum 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).
`
`5
`
`

`
`In 2014, I was elected into the National Academy of Engineering, and
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`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.
`
`9,048,000 (the “’000 patent”; Ex. 1201). I have been informed that the ’000 patent
`
`claims priority to U.S. Application No. 11/395,523, filed on March 31, 2006, now
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 (the “’982 patent”; Ex. 1223).
`
`18.
`
`I have also reviewed the following references, all of which I
`
`understand to be prior art to the ’000 patent:
`
`• French Patent Pub. No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985, with
`English Translation (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1204), which is prior art under 35
`U.S.C. § 102(b).
`• International Publication WO-2004097520, published November 11,
`2004 (“Mourou,” Ex. 1205), which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`102(b).
`• Japanese Patent Pub. No. 2006010675A, filed on February 24, 2005
`and published January 12, 2006 (“Kensuke,” Ex. 1206), which is prior
`art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b).
`• William T. Silfvast, Laser Fundamentals, (2d ed. 2003) (“Silfvast”),
`which is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`6
`
`

`
`I am being compensated at my normal consulting rate for my work.
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`19.
`
`20. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way affects the
`
`substance of my statements in this Declaration.
`
`21.
`
`I have no financial interest in Petitioners. I similarly have no financial
`
`interest in the ’000 patent.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-
`22.
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) if “the invention was known or used by others in this
`
`country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
`
`country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.” I have also been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) if
`
`“the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
`
`foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior
`
`to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” Further I have been
`
`informed that a claim is invalid as anticipated under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) if
`
`“the invention was described in … an application for patent, published under
`
`section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`
`applicant for patent ….” It is my understanding that for a claim to be anticipated,
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`all of the limitations must be present in a single prior art reference, either expressly
`
`or inherently.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed that a claim is invalid as obvious under Pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
`
`
`
`if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
`ordinary skill in the art to which [the] subject matter pertains.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claimed invention would have been obvious, and
`
`therefore not patentable, if the subject matter claimed would have been considered
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the invention was
`
`made. I understand that when there are known elements that perform in known
`
`ways and produce predictable results, the combination of those elements is likely
`
`obvious. Further, I understand that when there is a predictable variation and a
`
`person would see the benefit of making that variation, implementing that
`
`predictable variation is likely not patentable. I have also been informed that
`
`obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success, but that what does
`
`matter is whether the prior art gives direction as to what parameters are critical and
`
`which of many possible choices may be successful.
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`III. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`25. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the ’000 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 plasmas, or a master’s degree in physics, electrical engineering, or an
`
`equivalent field and 4-5 years of work experience with lasers and plasmas.
`
`26. The ’000 patent is entitled “High Brightness Laser-Driven Light
`
`Source.” The patent states that the alleged “invention relates to methods and
`
`apparatus for providing a laser-driven light source.” (’000 patent, 1:23-24 (Ex.
`
`1201).) Since, in all laser-driven light sources (and the light source in the ’000
`
`patent, specifically), a laser is fundamental to maintaining the plasma, it is
`
`reasonable to expect that a person skilled in the art would have experience with,
`
`and an understanding of, both plasmas and lasers.
`
`27.
`
`In accord with the definition of the skilled artisan suggested above,
`
`my graduate students in 2005 (as well as before that time and since) normally took
`
`graduate level courses in both lasers and plasma physics, and routinely worked
`
`with (and were instructed in the laboratory about the properties of) plasmas, many
`
`of which were produced with lasers. Lasers sufficiently powerful to generate
`
`and/or sustain a plasma are a potential safety hazard and must be approached with
`
`9
`
`

`
`skill. Fundamental safety concerns require those in the field of systems
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`incorporating plasmas and lasers to understand both from a fundamental
`
`perspective and to acquire experience in working with both. Furthermore, because
`
`the properties of individual lasers determine if they are suitable for driving an
`
`efficient plasma light source, one skilled in the art must have an understanding of
`
`the state of the art in laser physics and technology, as well as the parameters and
`
`characteristics of the most efficient and powerful systems. By the time my graduate
`
`students obtained their Ph.D. degrees, therefore, they would have had at least 4-5
`
`years of experience with both plasmas and lasers. Thus, the problem and solution
`
`to which the ’000 patent is directed, and the experience of those who typically
`
`would work on developing laser-generated plasmas, demonstrate that a person of
`
`ordinary skill would have experience with both lasers and plasmas.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT
`28. The ’000 patent family is directed to a laser sustained plasma light
`
`source for use in, for example, testing and inspection for semiconductor
`
`manufacturing. As depicted in Fig. 1, shown below, the light source includes a
`
`pressurized chamber (green) containing gas, electrodes (blue) for ionizing the gas,
`
`and a laser (red) for providing energy to the ionized gas (yellow) to produce light.
`
`(’000 patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`’000 Patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201)
`
`29. According to the ’000 patent, prior products relied upon the electrodes
`
`used for ignition to also sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and
`
`contamination. (’000 patent, 1:45-51 (Ex. 1201).) Thus, a need allegedly arose for
`
`a way to sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes.
`
`(Id. 1:55-59.)
`
`30. The alleged invention of the patent family involves using a laser to
`
`provide energy to sustain the plasma for a light source. The ’000 continuation
`
`includes claims that require a pressurized chamber, the plasma-generated light
`
`having a wavelength greater than 50 nm, and using a substantially continuous laser
`
`having a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm.
`
`31. 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, Mourou, and Kensuke disclosed supplying laser
`
`11
`
`

`
`energy to plasma light sources that included pressurized chambers. Gärtner and
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`Kensuke disclosed the plasma-generated light having a wavelength greater than 50
`
`nm. Moreover, there was nothing new in 2006 about sustaining a plasma with a
`
`laser having a wavelength in the range of up to about 2000 nm. Multiple prior art
`
`references, including Mourou and Kensuke, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light
`
`sources with lasers operating within this range. As the patent admits, such lasers
`
`had become “recently available.” (’000 patent, 16:6-7 (Ex. 1201).) Silfvast shows
`
`that the use of Mourou or Kensuke’s laser as a substantially continuous laser was
`
`well known. It would have been obvious to combine Mourou or Kensuke’s
`
`teachings with Gärtner and Silfvast to arrive at the claimed invention. Furthermore,
`
`one skilled in the art in 2005 would have been well aware of other continuous
`
`wave (CW) or high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) lasers that were available
`
`commercially and were capable of igniting or sustaining a plasma in a high
`
`pressure gas.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`A.
`32. The ’000 patent (Ex. 1201) issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`
`13/964,938, which was filed on August 12, 2013. The ’000 patent is a continuation
`
`of the ’138 patent, which is a CIP of the ’786 patent, which is a CIP of the ’455
`
`patent, which is a CIP of the ’982 patent, filed March 31, 2006. (See Ex. 1202.)
`
`During prosecution, the Examiner repeatedly rejected the pending claims and
`
`12
`
`

`
`applicant’s arguments that features such as a “pressurized chamber” distinguished
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`the prior art. (See, e.g., Office Action dated July 17, 2014 at 2-3 (Ex. 1210).)
`
`33. On January 6, 2015, the applicant further amended some, but not all,
`
`of the claims to require a laser having a wavelength “of up to about 2000 nm.”
`
`(Applicant’s Amendment and Response dated Jan. 6, 2015 at 2-6 (Ex. 1211).)
`
`34. On February 27, 2015, the Examiner indicated that claims reciting “at
`
`least one substantially continuous laser for providing energy within a wavelength
`
`range from about 700 nm to 2000 nm to an ionized gas to sustain a plasma within a
`
`chamber having greater than atmospheric pressure to produce a plasma-generated
`
`light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm” contained allowable subject matter.
`
`(Office Action dated Feb. 27, 2015 at 7 (Ex. 1212).)
`
`35. On March 25, 2015, the amended claims were allowed after the
`
`applicant filed a terminal disclaimer and amended the claims to overcome a section
`
`112 rejection. (Notice of Allowability dated Mar. 25, 2015 (Ex. 1216); Applicant’s
`
`Amendment and Response dated Mar. 5, 2015 (Ex. 1218).) The Examiner noted
`
`that, “Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 8, 9, 14-20, 27-28, and 31, 33-39; these
`
`claims are allowable at least for their dependence, either directly or indirectly upon
`
`independent claims 1, 13, 26, and 32.” (see Notice of Allowability dated Mar. 25,
`
`2015 Ex. 1216).
`
`13
`
`

`
`36. The prosecution history of the ’000 patent provides no indication that
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`the examiner appreciated the significance of Gärtner (submitted on March 11,
`
`2015, several weeks after the Examiner had indicated the claims recite allowable
`
`subject matter). (See Information Disclosure Statement dated March 11, 2015 (Ex.
`
`1219).) The Examiner also failed to consider Mourou and Silfvast. Nor was the
`
`Examiner provided a complete English translation of Kensuke.1
`
`37. As discussed below, Gärtner in view of Mourou and Silfvast, and
`
`Gärtner in view of Kensuke and Silfvast each render the challenged claims
`
`unpatentable as obvious. The claimed features 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. IPR2015-01375 at 20-
`
`
`1 Kensuke (JP 2006-10675) was included in an Information Disclosure Statement
`
`filed by applicant on August 12, 2013. (See Information Disclosure Statement
`
`dated August 12, 2013 (Ex. 1222).) However, applicant only submitted an English
`
`translation for the abstract and Kensuke was not used in any of the Examiner’s
`
`rejections. Notably, as described further below, Kensuke discloses the use of a
`
`laser with a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm to create a plasma that
`
`produced a light with a wavelength greater than 50 nm, but the abstract does not
`
`provide this disclosure.
`
`14
`
`

`
`21 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13) (instituting on claims including independent
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`claim 1).)
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`I have applied the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard in
`38.
`
`proposing the claim constructions below. However, based on my reading of the
`
`’786 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, therefore, not dependent on application of the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation” standard.
`
`“Light”
`
`A.
`39. The term “light” is recited in claim 1 (from which challenged claims
`
`2-6 depend). “Light” should be construed to mean “electromagnetic radiation in
`
`the ultraviolet (“UV”), extreme UV, vacuum UV, visible, near-infrared, middle-
`
`infrared, or far infrared regions of the spectrum, having wavelengths within the
`
`range of 10 nm to 1,000 um.”2 The ordinary and customary meaning of “light”3 is
`
`
`2 The Board adopted this construction for similar terms in related IPR Petitions.
`
`(See IPR Nos. IPR2015-01277, IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01300, IPR2015-01303,
`
`IPR2015-01362, IPR2015-01368, IPR2015-01375, IPR2015-01377.)
`
`15
`
`

`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV: 10 nm to 100 nm),
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`vacuum ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible
`
`(400 to 700 nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm
`
`to 10 µm), or far infrared (10 µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g.,
`
`William T. Silfvast, Laser Fundamentals at 4 (2d Ed., 2004) (Ex. 1209).) The
`
`Patent Owner publishes a data sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning in considering EUV to be within the meaning of “light.” (See,
`
`e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10 product
`
`operating at 13.5 nm as an “EUV Light Source”) (Ex. 1208).
`
`40. The ’000 patent does not provide a definition of the term “light” and
`
`uses the term consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term. The
`
`’000 patent states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light vary
`
`
`3 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’000 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’000 patent, 1:51-54, 7:49-51, 12:25-29, 15:6-9,
`
`16:46-52, 16:65-67, 17:12-14, 18:34-36, 18:42-44, 19:8-10, 19:51-55, 20:26-35,
`
`21:15-20, 22:5-8, 23:28-29, 25:60-64, 26:32-36, 27:21-24, 31:41-46, 32:32-34,
`
`33:17-19, 45:20-35 (Ex. 1201).)
`
`16
`
`

`
`depending upon the application. (’000 patent, 1:35-37 (Ex. 1201).) The
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`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).” (’000 patent, 18:34-36 (Ex. 1201); see also id. at 17:12-14
`
`(discussing the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the plasma 132 of the light source
`
`100)).
`
` “Substantially continuous laser energy”
`
`B.
`41. The term “substantially continuous laser energy” is recited in claim 1
`
`(from which challenged claims 2-6 depend). This term should be construed to
`
`encompass a continuous wave laser, a high pulse rate laser, and a laser that
`
`provides substantially continuous laser energy, as the Board found in its Decision
`
`on Institution in an IPR directed to the related ’841 patent. (Case No. IPR2015-
`
`01362 at 6-7 (PTAB Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 12).)
`
`42. The specification of the ’000 patent indicates that a substantially
`
`continuous laser can be a continuous wave laser, a high pulse rate laser, or a laser
`
`that provides substantially continuous laser energy. (’000 patent, 15:60-62 (high
`
`pulse rate laser or continuous wave laser); 16:15-18 (“high pulse rate laser source
`
`that provides substantially continuous laser energy”); 4:50-52 (a “continuous-wave
`
`17
`
`

`
`laser emits radiation continuously or substantially continuously rather than in short
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`bursts, as in a pulsed laser”) (Ex. 1201).)
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`43. Challenged claims 2-6 recite and claim features that were known in
`
`the art prior to the earliest priority date, and are obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`A. Laser-Sustained Light Sources Were Known Long Before the
`Priority Date of the ’000 Patent
`
`44. When the application that led to the ’000 patent was filed, there was
`
`nothing new about a light source ionizing a gas in a pressurized chamber and a
`
`laser operating at certain wavelengths to sustain the plasma to produce light at
`
`certain wavelengths. This concept had been known and widely used since at least
`
`as early as the 1980s, more than two decades before the application date.
`
`45. For example, Gärtner, which published in 1985, discloses a light
`
`source with the same features claimed in the ’000 patent: (1) a sealed chamber 1
`
`(green); (2) ionizing a gas – using pulsed laser 10 (blue); (3) a laser 9 (red), which
`
`provides energy to the plasma 14 (yellow) and produces light 15 having a
`
`wavelength greater than 50 nm; and (4) a chamber which allows the produced light
`
`to exit and illuminate a wafer. (Gärtner at 1:1-4 (the light source can be used “in
`
`photolithographic appliances for illuminating a photoresist layer on a
`
`semiconductor wafer”), 4:31-5:9, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1204).)
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’000 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201)
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1204)
`
`B. High pressure plasma light sources were well-known in the art.
`46. Plasma light sources with operating pressures of at least 10 atm (as
`
`recited in claim 1 from which claims 2-6 depend) were also well-known in the art.
`
`As discussed below, Gärtner teaches pressures of at least 10 atm. Also, a 1989
`
`textbook notes that “Laser-sustained plasmas have been operated in a variety of
`
`molecular and rare gases at pressures from 1 to more than 200 atm.” (D. Keefer,
`
`“Laser Sustained Plasmas,” Chapter 4, in Radziemski et al., “Laser-Induced
`
`Plasmas and Applications,” CRC Press (1989) (“Keefer”) at 177 (Ex. 1215).)
`
`C.
`
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser having a wavelength range of up
`to about 2000 nm, was well known in the art
`
`47. Gärtner’s laser 9 is a CO2 laser. (Gärtner at 5:3-5 (Ex. 1204).) CO2
`
`lasers, which generally operate at a wavelength of 10.6 µm, were commonly used
`
`19
`
`

`
`during the 1970s and 1980s because they provided high power and were cost-
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Declaration of J. Gary Eden, Ph.D.
`
`
`effective at the time. (See, e.g., Cross at 5:44-47 (“Carbon dioxide lasers have been
`
`used since the output therefrom is readily absorbed by plasmas and they are
`
`available with very high power in both pulsed and cw operating modes.”) (Ex.
`
`1213).) It was recognized around the time of Gärtner that shorter wavelength lasers
`
`could also be used. (See, e.g., id. at 5:40-53 (“[L]asers other than carbon dioxide
`
`may be used for the initiation and the sustaining of the continuous optical
`
`discharge plasma. For example, a Nd-YAG laser has been used for the initiation
`
`step. . . . Moreover, laser heating of plasma via the inverse Bremsstrahlung process
`
`varies as λ2, so that cw-laser sources having shorter wavelengths such as Nd:Yag,
`
`for example, are absorbed less effectively, and would require substantially greater
`
`cw-laser output power levels to sustain the plasma.”).)