PTAB

IPR2016-00127

ASML Netherlands BV v. Energetiq Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Laser Driven Light Source
  • Brief Description: The ’841 patent discloses a laser-sustained plasma light source, particularly for semiconductor manufacturing inspection. The technology aims to overcome the wear and contamination issues of prior art electrode-based systems by using a laser to sustain plasma within a sealed, pressurized chamber.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 10, 13, and 14 are obvious over Gärtner in view of Mourou.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gärtner (French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1) and Mourou (International Publication No. WO 2004/097520).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gärtner, a 1985 publication, disclosed the core elements of independent claim 10: a laser-driven light source with a "gas-tight chamber" for containing a plasma, an ignition source (disclosing both laser and electrode types), a continuous laser for sustaining the plasma, and a transparent window for light to exit. While Gärtner disclosed an exemplary pressure of 9.9 atmospheres, it taught that increasing pressure improves brightness, making it obvious to exceed 10 atmospheres. The only element Gärtner did not explicitly disclose was a sustaining laser operating in the claimed wavelength range of "up to about 2000 nm." Mourou remedied this by teaching a plasma light source for lithography that uses lasers operating at 800 nm and 1,000 nm, squarely within the claimed range.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Mourou with Gärtner because both references were directed to solving the same problem: providing a high-power light source for photolithography. A POSITA would have recognized the known advantages of Mourou’s shorter-wavelength lasers—including smaller size, lower cost, fiber optic compatibility, and the ability to be focused to smaller spot sizes—and would have been motivated to substitute Mourou's modern laser into Gärtner's foundational system to create a more efficient and powerful device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success. The use of shorter-wavelength lasers to sustain plasma was a well-established principle. The significant advancements in the power and availability of lasers in Mourou's wavelength range by the early 2000s, combined with improved optics, made the substitution a routine design choice with predictable, beneficial results.

Ground 2: Claims 10, 13, and 14 are obvious over Gärtner in view of Kensuke.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gärtner (French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1) and Kensuke (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2006010675A).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: The argument leveraged Gärtner for the same foundational elements as in Ground 1. Kensuke was introduced to supply the laser wavelength limitation. Kensuke disclosed a laser-sustained plasma light source using a laser with a wavelength between 500-1100 nm to generate UV light. This range falls within the ’841 patent’s claimed range of "up to about 2000 nm." Kensuke’s use of a titanium-sapphire laser, which can be operated continuously or in a high-pulse-rate mode, was argued to meet the "at least substantially continuous" limitation of claim 10. Dependent claims 13 and 14, reciting a transparent quartz or sapphire window, were met by Gärtner's disclosure of a quartz window, which a POSITA would know is transparent to the laser wavelengths taught by Kensuke.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kensuke's teachings with Gärtner's system for reasons similar to the Mourou combination. Both references disclosed laser-plasma light sources intended to provide bright light. Kensuke specifically highlighted the "good light-converging properties" of its shorter-wavelength laser, which allows for focusing to much smaller spot sizes than the CO2 laser in Gärtner. This known advantage would motivate a POSITA to incorporate Kensuke's more efficient laser into Gärtner's system to achieve a brighter, more effective light source for applications like lithography.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was reasonably expected because the combination involved substituting one known component (Gärtner's laser) with another, more advanced known component (Kensuke's laser) to achieve predictable benefits. The principles of sustaining plasma with shorter-wavelength lasers were well understood, and the modification would have been a matter of routine engineering.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Light source": Petitioner proposed construing this term broadly as "a source of electromagnetic radiation" across the spectrum from extreme ultraviolet to far infrared. This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent's specification and was important for establishing the relevance of prior art that generated light in various non-visible spectra.
  • "Light Bulb": As this term appeared only in the claims, Petitioner proposed it be construed based on its context as "a light emitting portion of a light source." This construction equated the "light bulb" with the sealed, pressurized chamber where the plasma is generated and contained.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Pre-buttal of Objective Indicia: In the petition, Petitioner preemptively addressed arguments regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness that the Patent Owner had raised in a related district court litigation. Petitioner contended that the Patent Owner had failed to establish a nexus between the purported long-felt need, unexpected results, or industry praise and the specific limitations of the challenged claims. The arguments were directed generally at the Patent Owner's "Laser Driven Light Source Technology" rather than the novel features claimed in the ’841 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 10, 13, and 14 of the ’841 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.