DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00246US30
`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., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and
`Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Energetiq Technology, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2016-00774
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,048,000
`CLAIMS 2-6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 2
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 3
`A. Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 3
`B.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 3
`C.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 4
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 4
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT ............................................................ 5
`A.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 7
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9
`A.
`“light” .................................................................................................. 10
`B.
`“substantially continuous laser energy” .............................................. 12
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ......................................... 13
`A.
`Laser-Sustained Light Sources Were Known Long Before the
`Priority Date of the ’000 Patent........................................................... 13
`High pressure plasma light sources were well-known in the art. ....... 14
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser having a wavelength range of
`up to about 2000 nm, was well known in the art ................................ 14
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 23
`A. Ground 1: Claims 2-6 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner in View
`of Mourou and Silfvast ........................................................................ 23
`1. Claim 1 ......................................................................................... 24
`2. Claim 2 ......................................................................................... 40
`3. Claim 3 ......................................................................................... 42
`
`B.
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`4. Claim 4 ......................................................................................... 43
`5. Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 45
`6. Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 46
`7. Claims 2-6 – Reasons to Combine ............................................... 47
`Ground 2: Claims 2-6 Are Unpatentable Over Gärtner in View
`of Kensuke and Silfvast ....................................................................... 47
`1. Claim 1 ......................................................................................... 48
`2. Claim 2 ......................................................................................... 55
`3. Claim 3 ......................................................................................... 56
`4. Claim 4 ......................................................................................... 57
`5. Claim 5 ......................................................................................... 57
`6. Claim 6 ......................................................................................... 58
`7. Claims 2-6 – Reasons to Combine ............................................... 58
`IX. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER
`REGARDING OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............ 58
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60
`
`X.
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`ASML Netherlands B.V., ASML U.S., Inc., Excelitas Technologies Corp.,
`
`and Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-
`
`interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 9,048,000 (“the ’000 patent,” Ex. 1201) is one member of a
`
`family of continuation and CIP applications. Exhibit 1202 shows the members of
`
`this patent family and the relationships among them. Petitioners are also seeking
`
`inter partes review of related U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,435,982 (“the ’982 patent”);
`
`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 9,185,786 (“the ’786 patent”) in Case
`
`Nos. IPR2015-01300, IPR2015-01303, IPR2015-01377, IPR2016-00583,
`
`IPR2016-00584, IPR2016-00585, IPR2015-01279, IPR2016-00570, IPR2016-
`
`00575, IPR2015-00576, IPR2016-00578, IPR2016-00579, IPR2015-01277,
`
`IPR2016-00554, IPR2016-00556, IPR2016-00555, IPR2015-01368, IPR2016-
`
`00565, IPR2016-00566, IPR2015-01362, IPR2016-00127, IPR2015-01375,
`
`IPR2016-00126, IPR2016-00771, and IPR2016-00776. The status of the other
`
`proceedings is summarized in Ex. 1226.
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Petitioners are also filing additional petitions on the ’841, ’000, and ’786
`
`patents. Petitioners request that all these inter partes reviews 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., 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. 337-TA-983 (U.S. Int’l Trade Commission).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Donald R. Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`First Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`Second Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`Third Backup Counsel: Brian M. Seeve (Registration No. 71,721)
`
`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
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 2-6 of the ’000 patent (“the challenged claims”) and request that each
`
`challenged claim be cancelled.
`
`A. Grounds for Challenge
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering at the University of Illinois (“Eden Decl.,” Ex. 1203),
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims and that each of the challenged
`
`claims is unpatentable for the reasons given in this petition. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a).
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`B.
`Petitioners rely upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`1. French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985
`
`(“Gärtner,” Ex. 1204), with English Translation, and is prior art to the ʼ000
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`2. International Publication WO-2004097520, published November 11, 2004
`
`(“Mourou,” Ex. 1205), and is prior art to the ʼ000 patent under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`102(b).
`
`3. Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006010675A, published January 12, 2006
`
`(“Kensuke,” Ex. 1206), with English Translation, and is prior art to the ʼ000
`
`patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(b).
`
`4. William T. Silfvast, Laser Fundamentals, 2d ed., published in 2004 (“Silfvast,”
`
`Ex. 1209) and is prior art to the ʼ000 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`C. Relief Requested
`Petitioners request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel the
`
`challenged claims because they are unpatentable under at least 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`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 plasma, or a
`
`master’s degree in physics, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field and 4-5
`
`years of work experience with lasers and plasma. (Eden Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`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, 1:20-24 (Ex. 1201).) That laser
`
`maintains a plasma. Accordingly, the problem and solution are directly tied to
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`lasers and plasmas and a person of ordinary skill would be expected to have
`
`experience in both of these areas. (Eden Decl. ¶ 26 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`Consistent with this, Dr. Eden’s 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 plasmas, many of which were produced with
`
`lasers. Lasers sufficiently powerful to generate and/or sustain a plasma are a
`
`potential safety hazard, and safety concerns require those working with laser-
`
`sustained plasmas to both understand and acquire experience working with such
`
`lasers. By the time Dr. Eden’s graduate students obtained their Ph.D. degrees, 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 the above
`
`experience with lasers and plasmas. (Eden Decl. ¶ 27 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’000 PATENT
`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 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
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(Ex. 1201).) The ’000 continuation adds 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.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 28-30 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`
`
`’000 Patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201)
`
`As discussed below, there was nothing new about sustaining a plasma with a
`
`laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art references, including
`
`Gärtner, Mourou, and Kensuke disclosed supplying laser energy to plasma light
`
`sources. Moreover, there was nothing new in 2006 about sustaining a plasma with
`
`a laser with a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm. As the patent admits,
`
`efficient, cost effective, and high power lasers in the claimed wavelength range
`
`were “recently available.” (’000 patent, 16:6-7 (Ex. 1201).) Mourou and Kensuke
`
`provide examples of systems that provide energy to a plasma with a laser operating
`
`within the claimed wavelength range, while Gärtner provides an example of a
`
`system that maintains a plasma in an elongated form. Silfvast shows that the laser
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`used by Mourou and Kensuke could be operated as a continuous wave laser. It
`
`would have been obvious to combine Mourou and Silfvast or Kensuke and Silfvast
`
`with Gärtner to arrive at the claimed invention (Eden Decl. ¶ 31 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`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 applicant’s
`
`arguments that features such as a “pressurized chamber” distinguished the prior art.
`
`(See, e.g., Office Action dated July 17, 2014 at 2-3 (Ex. 1210).)
`
`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).)
`
`On February 27, 2015, the Examiner indicated that claims reciting “at least
`
`one substantially continuous laser for providing energy within a wavelength range
`
`of 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).)
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.” (Id.)
`
`The prosecution history of the ’000 patent provides no indication that 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
`
`1 Kensuke was included in an Information Disclosure Statement filed by applicant
`
`on March 11, 2014. (See Information Disclosure Statement dated March 11, 2014
`
`(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.
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 20-21 (PTAB
`
`Nov. 30, 2015) (Paper 13) (instituting on claims including independent claim 1).)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Any claim term which lacks a
`
`definition in the specification is also given a broad interpretation. In re ICON
`
`Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Should the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, contend that the
`
`claims have a construction different from their broadest reasonable construction,
`
`the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to
`
`expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,756, 48,766-67 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`Consistent with this standard, this section proposes, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, constructions of terms and provides support for
`
`these proposed constructions. Terms not included in this section have their
`
`broadest reasonable meaning in light of the specification as commonly understood
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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. (Eden Decl. ¶ 38 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`“light”
`
`A.
`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 µm,” as the Board construed the term in its Decision on
`
`Institution in a pending IPR proceeding directed to the ’000 patent. (Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 39 (Ex. 1203).)2
`
`
`2 The Board adopted this construction for similar terms in related IPR proceedings,
`
`including proceedings involving the ’000 patent. (See IPR Nos. IPR2015-01277,
`
`IPR2015-01279, IPR2015-01300, IPR2015-01303, IPR2015-01362, IPR2015-
`
`01368, IPR2015-01375, IPR2015-01377.)
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light”3 is electromagnetic radiation
`
`in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum ultraviolet (100 nm
`
`to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700 nm), near-infrared
`
`(700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm), or far infrared (10
`
`µm to 1,000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., Silfvast, 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); (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`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 depending
`
`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).) (See Eden Decl. ¶ 39 n.3 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`upon the application. (’000 patent, 1:35-37 (Ex. 1201).) The specification describes
`
`“ultraviolet light” as an example of the type of light that can be generated: “emitted
`
`light 136 (e.g., at least one or more wavelengths of ultraviolet light).” (’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)) (Eden Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex.
`
`1203).)
`
` “substantially continuous laser energy”
`
`B.
`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).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`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”); 4:53-55 (a “continuous-wave laser emits
`
`radiation continuously or substantially continuously rather than in short bursts, as
`
`in a pulsed laser”) (Ex. 1201).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 42 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`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
`
`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 priority date. 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) the
`
`chamber 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).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 44, 45 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`’000 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1201)
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1204)
`
`B. High pressure plasma light sources were well-known in the art.
`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.” (Keefer at 177
`
`(Ex. 1215).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`C.
`
`Sustaining a plasma with a laser having a wavelength range of up
`to about 2000 nm, was well known in the art
`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 during
`
`the 1970s and 1980s because they provided high power and were cost-effective at
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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).) However,
`
`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.”) (Ex. 1213).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 47
`
`(Ex. 1203).)
`
`By the mid-2000s, laser technology for shorter wavelengths (i.e., those up to
`
`about 2000 nm) had improved significantly because of the development of the
`
`titanium-doped sapphire and rare earth-doped glass fiber lasers making it easier
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`and more desirable to sustain plasmas with lasers in this wavelength range. 4 For
`
`example, “[s]ince the mid-1990s, high power Yb-doped fiber lasers have
`
`progressed rapidly from 2 W in 1995, to 20 W and 35 W in 1997, and 110 W in
`
`1999, the published record at the time of this writing.” (Digonnet at 148 (citations
`
`omitted)) (Ex. 1220).) The ytterbium (Yb)-doped glass fiber laser typically
`
`operates at a wavelength of 1030 nm. (Eden Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`By 2004, titanium-doped lasers were available that produced at least 50
`
`watts of power over a broad range of wavelengths in the near-infrared and middle
`
`4 Patent Owner alleges that suitable commercial short wavelength lasers were
`
`available for more than 20 years before the invention. (Case No. IPR2015-01362 at
`
`3, 37, 50-52 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2016) (Paper 24).) However, the lasers that Patent
`
`Owner cites as examples (as well as other industrial, high-power, solid-state lasers
`
`available prior to the late 1990s) were inefficient, costly, heavy, bulky, and
`
`exhibited poor beam quality, rendering them unsuitable for use in commercial
`
`laser-driven light sources.. Indeed, Zimakov (cited by Patent Owner in IPR2015-
`
`01375, which is directed to the’841 patent), acknowledges that “plasma-based light
`
`source[s]” that are “used in microelectronics … became possible due to the
`
`appearance of high-efficiency near-IR lasers, in particular diode lasers and
`
`ytterbium fiber lasers.” (Zimakov, 68 (citing papers from 2006 and later) (Ex.
`
`1237).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`infrared regions (660-1180 nm). (Silfvast, 567 (Ex. 1209).) Also by 2004, 1,000W
`
`(1 kW) could be obtained from a ytterbium-doped fiber laser. (Jeong, 1 (disclosing
`
`a “[y]tterbium-doped large-core fibre laser with 1 kW of continuous-wave output
`
`power”) (Ex. 1227).) Furthermore, it was known by the 1990s that such high
`
`power fiber lasers could be tuned to wavelengths between 970 nm and 1200 nm
`
`(see Pask, 2, 12 (Ex. 1228).) As a result, several compact and efficient near
`
`infrared lasers became viable for sustaining plasma by the priority date for the ’000
`
`patent. (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`Lasers operating in the shorter wavelength range (up to about 2000 nm)
`
`were known to have several advantages relative to longer wavelength lasers. For
`
`example, “Nd:YAG light [at 1060 nm] can travel through glass (CO2 light cannot).
`
`This means that high-quality glass lenses can be used to focus the beam down to a
`
`minimum spot size.” (Handbook of Laser Tech., 1601 (Ex. 1214).) Shorter
`
`wavelength light can also be focused to a smaller spot size compared to longer
`
`wavelength light, which leads to increased absorption of laser energy into the
`
`plasma. (See Melnychuk, 15:21-31 (“In a laser-produce[d] plasma light source the
`
`laser energy is absorbed by the inverse Bremsstrahlung mechanism. Due to their
`
`shorter wavelength, excimer lasers can couple energy more efficiently to the target
`
`plasma than near infrared or visible laser radiation from…solid state lasers…. Due
`
`to their shorter wavelength, excimer lasers can (if desired) be focused more tightly
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`to a (diffraction-limited) spot size than longer wavelength (e.g., solid-state) lasers.
`
`This increases the power density of the source.”) (Ex. 1231).)5 Additionally,
`
`“quartz optical fibres can be employed to carry the beam [from Nd:YAG laser light
`
`at 1060 nm] relatively long distances (hundreds of metres) . . . .” (Handbook of
`
`Laser Tech., 1601 (Ex. 1214).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`Shorter wavelength lasers can also be considerably smaller and more
`
`efficient than CO2 lasers. For example, “[s]mall (2 to 3 feet long) CO2 lasers can
`
`produce hundreds of watts of average power at an efficiency of 10%.” (Kuhn, 385
`
`(Ex. 1221).) Therefore, in 1998 even a “small” CO2 laser was 2 to 3 feet in length
`
`and these numbers do not include the laser’s power supply. In contrast, fiber lasers
`
`5 Patent Owner alleges that it was commonly accepted at the time of the alleged
`
`invention that optical energy absorbed by the plasma by the “inverse
`
`bremsstrahlung” absorption mechanism decreased with wavelength, and so a
`
`person of skill in the art would not have been inclined to use a shorter wavelength
`
`laser. (See, e.g., Case No. IPR2015-01362 at 7-8 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2016) (Paper 24).)
`
`However, Patent Owner ignores the fact that shorter wavelength lasers can be
`
`focused into a smaller spot size, which leads to increased absorption. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have known to take into account all factors related to
`
`absorption of laser energy, instead of focusing on a single factor as Patent Owner
`
`has done. (Eden Decl. ¶ 52 n.5 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 9,048,000
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`also produced hundreds of watts by 2004, and did so in a much smaller package.
`
`(See, e.g., Jeong at 1 (Ex. 1227).) Furthermore, since the laser is a fiber, it is a
`
`simple matter to direct the beam to the chamber of the light source. It is also not
`
`unusual for the efficiency of a diode laser-pumped fiber laser to exceed 50%. In
`
`fact, the ’000 patent acknowledges that shorter wavelength lasers with these known
`
`advantages were “recently available.” (’000 patent, 16:6-7 (Ex. 1201).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1203).)
`
`Furthermore, it was known that “practically complete absorption of the laser
`
`radiation” could be achieved by tuning a laser to an atomic resonance transition,
`
`and that such resonance transitions (such as the 823 nm line for xenon) can
`
`correspond to wavelengths less than 2000 nm. (See, e.g., Beterov, 539 (“The laser
`
`was tuned…to the resonance transition…. [P]ractically complete absorption of the
`
`laser radiation was attained…. This arises from the high absorption power of gases
`
`for resonance radiation, and also the high efficiency of conversion of the energy of
`
`resonance excited atoms into ionization energy.”) (Ex. 1207); see also Bussiahn,
`
`4629 (disclosing “the laser is tuned to the optical transitions [of
`
`xenon]…[including] 1s5↔2p6 (823 nm).”) (Ex. 1224).) With tunable lasers
`
`available in the near infrared r