`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 15
`
`
`
` Entered: April 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V., EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
`and QIOPTIQ PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and
`BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq
`Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 10, 13, and 14 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,969,841 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’841 patent”). Paper 4 (“Pet.”). Energetiq
`Technology, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, we institute an inter partes review as
`to claims 10, 13, and 14 of the ’841 patent.
`
`A. Related Matter
`The parties indicate that the ’841 patent is asserted in Energetiq
`Techn., Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., No. 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass.),
`and identify related proceedings. Pet. 1; Paper 12, 2–3.
`
`B. The ’841 Patent
`
`The ’841 patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 120, through a series of
`continuation and continuation-in-part applications, the benefit of the filing
`date of an application filed March 31, 2006. Ex. 1101, at [63]; Ex. 1002.
`The ’841 patent discloses a light source comprising a laser that ionizes a gas
`within a chamber to produce a plasma-generated light. Id. at Abs.
`According to the ’841 patent, such a light source can be used as a source of
`illumination in a semiconductor photolithographic system. Id. at 1:31–39.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of the ’841 patent illustrates a block diagram of a light
`source, and is reproduced below with annotations added.
`
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1, light source 100 includes laser 104,
`chamber 128, and ignition source 140. Id. at 14:40–16:5. Laser 104 outputs
`laser beam 116 via fiber optic element 108. Id. Collimator 112 directs the
`laser beam to beam expander 118, which produces laser beam 122 and
`directs it to optical lens 120. Id. Optical lens 120 focuses the beam to
`produce smaller diameter laser beam 124 and directs it to region 130. Id.
`Plasma 132 is generated within the chamber to produce light 136. Id.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claims 13 and 14 each, directly or indirectly, depend from claim 10,
`which is reproduced below.
`10. A laser driven light source comprising:
`a light bulb defining a sealed pressurized chamber containing a
`gas at an operating pressure of greater than 10 atmospheres;
`an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the light bulb,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`at least one at least substantially continuous laser for providing
`energy within a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm to the
`ionized gas to sustain a plasma within the light bulb to produce a
`plasma-generated light having output wavelengths greater than
`50 nm,
`the sealed pressurized chamber further comprising a region of
`material which is transparent to at least a portion of the
`plasma-generated light, the region of material allowing said
`portion of the plasma-generated light to exit the light bulb and
`illuminate a surface.
`Ex. 1101, 49:21–37 (emphases added).
`
`D. Prior Art of Record
`
`In support of its Petition, Petitioner proffers the following prior art
`
`references1:
`(Ex. 1104)
`May 3, 1985
` FR 2554302 A1
`Gärtner
`(Ex. 1105)
`Jan. 12, 2006
` JP 2006010675 A
`Kensuke
`(Ex. 1114)
` WO 2004/097520 A2 Nov. 11, 2004
`Mourou
`(Ex. 1115)
` US 4,780,608
`
`Oct. 25, 1988
`Cross
`(Ex. 1118)
` US 6,541,924 B1
`Apr. 1, 2003
`Kane
`(Ex. 1127)
` US 6,414,436 B1
`Jul. 2, 2002
`Eastlund
`(Ex. 1128)
` US 2008/0055712 A1 Mar. 6, 2008
`Noelscher
`WILLIAM T. SILFVAST, LASER FUNDAMENTALS 1–6, 199–222, 565–68
`(2d ed. 2004). Ex. 1106 (“Silfvast”).
`HANDBOOK OF LASER TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICATIONS, Volume III:
`Applications 1,587–611 (Colin E. Webb & Julian D.C. Jones 2004).
`Ex. 1116 (“Laser Handbook”).
`
`
`1 The citations to Gärtner and Kensuke are to their certified
`English-language translations in Exhibits 1004 and 1005, respectively.
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`KEEFER, LASER SUSTAINED PLASMA, in RADZIEMSKI ET AL.,
`LASER-INDUCED PLASMA AND APPLICATIONS (CRC Press 1989).
`Ex. 1117 (“Keefer”).
`RARE-EARTH-DOPED FIBER LASERS AND AMPLIFIERS 144–70 (Michel
`J. F. Digonnet 2d ed. 2001). Ex. 1122 (“Digonnet”).
`KELIN KUHN, LASER ENGINEERING, Chapters 11 and 12 at 365–77
`(Prentice Hall 1998). Ex. 1123 (“Kuhn”).
`I. M. Beterov et al., Resonance Radiation Plasma (Photoresonance
`Plasma), 31 (6) SOV. PHYS. USP. 535–54 (1988). Ex. 1124
`(“Beterov”).
`R. Bussiahn et al., Experimental and Theoretical Investigations of a
`Low-Pressure He-Xe Discharge for Lighting Purpose, 95 JOURNAL OF
`APPLIED PHYSICS 4,627–34 (May 1, 2004). Ex. 1125 (“Bussiahn”).
`CHRISTOPHER C. DAVIS, LASER AND ELECTRO-OPTICS:
`FUNDAMENTALS AND ENGINEERING (reprint 2000) (Cambridge Univ.
`Press 1996). Ex. 1126 (“Davis”).
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds (Pet. 22, 44):
`
`Claims
`10, 13, and 14
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`
`References
`Gärtner in view of Mourou and Silfvast2
`
`10, 13, and 14
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Gärtner in view of Kensuke and Silfvast
`
`
`2 Silfvast is omitted inadvertently from each statement of the asserted
`grounds, although discussed in the Petitioner’s analysis. Pet. 31–32, 49–50.
`Therefore, we treat the statements of the asserted grounds as mere harmless
`error and presume that Petitioner intended to assert that the challenged
`claims are unpatentable based, in part, on Silfvast.
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Here, Petitioner
`proposes constructions for “light source,” “laser driven light source,” and
`“light bulb,” which are recited in independent claim 10. Pet. 10–14.
`Upon review of the present record, we determine that Petitioner’s
`constructions are consistent with the broadest reasonable construction.
`For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the following claim constructions:
`
`Claim Term
`
`light source
`
`laser driven light
`source
`
`Construction
`a source of 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
`a light source having a laser applying energy to
`generate light
`
`light bulb
`
`a light emitting portion of a light source
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`“substantially continuous laser”
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we find it necessary to construe the
`claim term “substantially continuous laser” expressly. Claim 10 recites “an
`at least substantially continuous laser for providing energy within a
`wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm.” Ex. 1101, 48:49–51. The
`Specification of the ’841 patent indicates that a light source can include a
`pulse laser or a continuous wave laser. Id. at 15:60–62. For instance, a high
`pulse rate laser that provides substantially continuous laser energy can be
`used. Id. at 16:15–18. A continuous wave laser emits radiation
`continuously or substantially continuously rather than in short bursts, as in a
`pulsed laser. Id. at 4:53–55. The Specification also discloses:
`Efficient, cost effective, high power lasers (e.g., fiber lasers and
`direct diode lasers) are recently available in the NIR (near
`infrared) wavelength range from about 700 nm to about 2000 nm.
`Energy in this wavelength range is more easily transmitted
`through certain materials (e.g., glass, quartz and sapphire) that
`are more commonly used to manufacture bulbs, windows and
`chambers.
`Id. at 16:6–12.
`In light of the Specification, we construe the claim term a
`“substantially continuous laser” broadly, but reasonably, to encompass a
`continuous wave laser, a high pulse rate laser, and a laser that provides
`substantially continuous laser energy.
`
`B. Principles of Law
`
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`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 said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of
`nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`It is well-settled that the level of ordinary skill in the art may be
`reflected by the prior art of record, as here. See Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
`(Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in accordance
`with the above-stated principles.
`
`C. Obviousness
`Petitioner asserts that claims 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable under
`§ 103(a) 3 as obvious over Gärtner in view of Mourou and Silfvast, and as
`obvious over Gärtner in view of Kensuke and Silfvast. Pet. 22–57. As
`support, Petitioner proffers a Declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, who has been
`retained as an expert witness for the instant proceeding. Ex. 1103.
`
`
`3 Because, on this record, the effective filing date for the ’841 patent is
`before March 16, 2013, the pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
`No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), version of § 103 applies.
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`Upon review of Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence, we
`determine that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently for purposes of this
`Decision that each of the asserted prior art combinations teaches or suggests
`all of the limitations of claims 10, 13, and 14, and renders the claimed
`subject matter as a whole obvious. In our discussion below, we provide a
`brief summary of Gärtner, Mourou, Kensuke, and Silfvast, and then we
`address certain claim limitations in detail as examples.
`
`1. Brief Summary of the Cited Prior Art
`
`Gärtner
`Gärtner discloses a radiation light source for a photolithographic
`system, illuminating a photoresist layer on a semiconductor wafer.
`Ex. 1104, 1:1–4. Figure 1 of Gärtner is reproduced below with annotations
`added.
`
`As shown in annotated Figure 1 of Gärtner, Gärtner’s light source
`includes continuous CO2 laser 9, laser 10 (an ignition source), and
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`chamber 1. Id. at 4:31–5:12. Plasma 14 is generated inside chamber 1 and
`emits light 15 into the downstream optical system through window 8. Id.
`
`Mourou
`Mourou discloses a light source for semiconductor photolithography.
`Ex. 1114 ¶ 1. Mourou’s light source includes a titanium sapphire laser for
`providing energy with a wavelength of 800 nm. Id. ¶ 22.
`
`Kensuke
`Kensuke discloses a light source that provides a continuous spectrum
`in the UV range. Ex. 1105, Abs. Kensuke’s light source includes a titanium
`sapphire laser that generates energy having a wavelength range of about 500
`to 1,100 nm. Id. ¶ 14.
`
`Silfvast
`Silfvast is a book on laser fundamentals. Ex. 1106, 1. Silfvast states
`that titanium sapphire lasers “can be operated over a wavelength range of
`660–1,180 nm and thus has the broadest gain bandwidth of any laser.” Id. at
`565. According to Silfvast, “[c]ommercial titanium sapphire lasers are . . .
`typically pumped with either argon ion lasers (for [continuous wave]
`operation) or frequency-doubled Nd:YAG or Nd:YLF lasers (for pulsed
`operation).” Id.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`2. Discussion
`Pressure greater than 10 atmospheres
`Claim 10 recites “a light bulb defining a sealed pressurized chamber
`containing a gas at an operating pressure of greater than 10 atmospheres.”
`Ex. 1101, 49:22–24. Petitioner asserts that Gärtner discloses this limitation.
`Pet. 24–27. On this record, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s analysis.
`As Petitioner notes, Gärtner discloses a sealed pressurized chamber
`containing a gas (shown as gas-tight chamber 1 in Figure 1 of Gärtner
`reproduced above), and, specifically, an example of using a xenon gas as the
`“active medium with a working pressure of 106 Pa,” which is equivalent to
`approximately 9.9 atmospheres. Id. at 24; Ex. 1104, 4:32–5:16. Gärtner
`also describes using a pulse laser (shown as pulse laser 10 in Figure 1 of
`Gärtner reproduced above) as an ignition source to ionize the gas within the
`plasma chamber, and a continuous laser (shown as continuous laser 9 in
`Figure 1 of Gärtner reproduced above) for sustaining the plasma to produce
`an ultraviolet light. Ex. 1104, 3:20–31, 4:31–5:12. Gärtner further explains
`that the plasma-generated light exits the chamber through a quartz window,
`and is fed into a downstream optical system. Id. at 2:28–30, 3:1–18, 4:34–
`5:28. Based on the evidence in this record, we are persuaded that Gärtner’s
`plasma chamber is a “light bulb defining a sealed-pressurized chamber.”
`Additionally, Gärtner discloses that “[t]he optical depth . . . can be
`varied with a vast range by altering the pressure,” and “[a]s the pressure
`increases, . . . the spectral distribution approaches Planck’s function.”
`Ex. 1104, 5:15–19 (emphases added). Dr. Eden testifies that any light
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`source emitting light having a spectrum that obeys Planck’s function is
`known as a “blackbody” source—“an optical source that loses (emits) as
`much energy as it absorbs.” Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 65–67. Dr. Eden further explains
`that, in such a light source, “[i]ncreasing the pressure in a lamp (light source)
`results in the light source absorbing more power, and emitting more power.”
`Id. According to Dr. Eden, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`recognized that increasing the pressure inside the plasma chamber of a light
`source will increase the brightness of the plasma-generated light. Id.
`Moreover, Dr. Eden testifies that it “would have been obvious to use
`Gärtner’s teaching as well as the knowledge of a person of skill in the art to
`increase the pressure to above 10 atmospheres,” because sustaining plasmas
`in chambers with such a pressure was a matter of routine skill. Id. We
`credit Dr. Eden’s testimony as it is supported by the prior art disclosures in
`this record and what the disclosures would have conveyed to one with
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1104,
`5:15–19; Ex. 1117, 177; Ex. 1127. At this juncture, the evidence in this
`record does not show that the claimed range is critical or produces “a new
`and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree
`from the results of the prior art.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA
`1955).
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated sufficiently that Gärtner discloses “a light bulb defining a
`sealed pressurized chamber containing a gas at an operating pressure of
`greater than 10 atmospheres,” as recited in claim 10.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`Substantially continuous laser
`Claim 10 recites “at least one at least substantially continuous laser
`for providing energy within a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm to
`the ionized gas to sustain a plasma within the light bulb to produce a
`plasma-generated light having output wavelengths greater than 50 nm.”
`Ex. 1101, 49:26–30. By virtue of their dependency, each of claims 13 and
`14 also requires this limitation. Id. at 49:44–48.
`Petitioner asserts that Gärtner discloses a light source comprising a
`continuous CO2 laser for sustaining a plasma within a plasma chamber to
`produce a UV light having wavelengths greater than 50 nm. Pet. 28–29, 45–
`46; Ex. 1104, 4:31–5:12. Gärtner does not disclose a laser that provides
`“energy within a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm,” as recited in
`claim 10. See Pet. 29, 33–42. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends that such a
`laser was well-known in the art at the time of the invention because Mourou,
`Kensuke, and Silfvast each disclose a titanium sapphire laser that generates
`energy having a wavelength, or a range, falling squarely within the claimed
`range. Id. at 29–42, 46–56; Ex. 1105 ¶ 14 (500 to 1,100 nm); Ex. 1106,
`565–66 (660–1,180 nm); Ex. 1114 ¶ 22 (800 nm). Petitioner further
`maintains that it would have been obvious to substitute a titanium sapphire
`laser for Gärtner’s continuous CO2 laser, in view of Mourou and Silfvast, or
`in view of Kensuke and Silfvast. Pet. 29–42, 49–56. For purposes of this
`Decision, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s explanations and supporting
`evidence in the present record.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`Notably, it was known in the art at the time of the invention that
`“[c]ommercial titanium sapphire lasers are . . . typically pumped with either
`argon ion laser (for [continuous wave] operation) or frequency-doubled
`Nd:YAG or ND:YLF lasers (for pulsed operation),” as described by Silfvast.
`Ex. 1106, 565–66 (emphasis added). Therefore, one with ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood that a titanium sapphire laser having a
`continuous wave operation (“continuous titanium sapphire laser”) was
`commercially available at the time of the invention. Dr. Eden testifies that
`such an artisan would have utilized a continuous titanium sapphire laser in
`Gärtner’s light source “to achieve a 100% duty cycle which, in turn,
`provides uninterrupted power to the plasma light source,” so that “the
`plasma would provide a continuous output of light,” which is desirable for
`semiconductor photolithography. Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 75, 107. On this record, we
`credit Dr. Eden’s testimony as it is consistent with the prior art disclosures.
`Further, Mourou illustrates that it was already known in the art to
`utilize a titanium sapphire laser in a light source to produce a
`plasma-generated light for semiconductor photolithography. Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 1,
`9, 22. Gärtner teaches that a desired wavelength range for such a light is in
`the UV region—wavelengths greater than 50 nm. Ex. 1104, 2:28–30, 3:1–
`18, 4:31–5:12. Moreover, Dr. Eden testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan
`would have understood that “laser sustained plasma produces light with a
`broad spectrum of wavelengths, with the peak of the spectrum depending on
`the power of the laser,” and such an artisan would have adjusted the power
`to maintain Gärtner’s desired UV wavelength. Ex. 1103 ¶ 76. In fact,
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`Silfvast states that titanium sapphire lasers are the most widely used tunable
`solid-state lasers. Ex. 1106, 565. And Kensuke discloses a light source
`having a titanium sapphire laser to ionize a gas for generating a UV light
`(Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 2–3, 14), showing that it is not beyond the skill of an artisan to
`utilize a titanium sapphire laser in a light source to produce a UV
`plasma-generated light. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has
`been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way,
`using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or
`her skill.”).
`As Petitioner points out, laser technology for shorter wavelengths
`improved significantly during the 1990s and early 2000s because of the
`development of the titanium-doped sapphire and rare earth-doped glass fiber
`lasers, making it easier and more desirable to sustain plasmas with shorter
`wavelength lasers. Pet. 17–22; Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 48–57; Ex. 1106, 567; Ex. 1122,
`148. More importantly, by 2004, short wavelength lasers had several known
`advantages—e.g., producing energy that can be carried by quartz optical
`fibers for long distances and can travel through glass, so that “high-quality
`glass lenses can be used to focus the beam down to a minimum spot size.”
`Ex. 1116, 1601. Dr. Eden testifies that shorter wavelength lasers also were
`considerably smaller and more efficient than CO2 lasers. Ex. 1103 ¶ 52.
`Dr. Eden further testifies that substituting Gärtner’s continuous CO2 laser
`with a shorter wavelength laser would have required nothing more than
`routine skill, and a person with ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`reasonable expectation of success. Id. ¶ 86–88, 115–18. Indeed, as
`indicated in Silfvast (which was published in 2004), titanium sapphire lasers
`were commercially available and the most widely used tunable solid-state
`lasers. Ex. 1106, 565. On this record, we give Dr. Eden’s testimony
`substantial weight in that regard as it is supported by the prior art
`disclosures.
`Upon consideration of the evidence in the present record, we are
`persuaded by Petitioner’s explanations and supporting evidence that merely
`substituting Gärtner’s continuous CO2 laser with a continuous titanium
`sapphire laser that generates energy having shorter wavelengths, in view of
`Mourou and Silfvast, or in view of Kensuke and Silfvast, for sustaining a
`plasma to produce a UV light is no more than a predictable use of prior art
`elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
`See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. On this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`articulated sufficient reasons to combine Gärtner with Mourou and Silfvast,
`and to combine Gärtner with Kensuke and Silfvast. We also determine that
`Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently, for purposes of this Decision, that
`Gärtner in view of Mourou and Silfvast, or in view of Kensuke and Silfvast,
`discloses “at least one at least substantially continuous laser for providing
`energy within a wavelength range of up to about 2000 nm to the ionized gas
`to sustain a plasma within the light bulb to produce a plasma-generated light
`having output wavelengths greater than 50 nm,” as recited in claim 10.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that
`claims 10, 13, and 14 are unpatentable over Gärtner in view of Mourou and
`Silfvast, and over Gärtner in view of Kensuke and Silfvast.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, we determine that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 10,
`13, and 14. We, however, have not made a final determination as to the
`patentability of the challenged claims, nor with respect to claim
`construction.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted for the following grounds of unpatentability:
`
`Claims
`
`Basis
`
`References
`
`10, 13, and 14
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Gärtner in view of Mourou and Silfvast
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`Gärtner in view of Kensuke and Silfvast
`
`10, 13, and 14
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other ground of unpatentability
`asserted in the Petition is authorized for this inter partes review; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00127
`Patent 8,969,841 B2
`
`
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; the trial
`will commence on the entry date of this decision.
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Donald R. Steinberg
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Michael H. Smith
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
`Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Steven M. Bauer
`Joseph A. Capraro Jr.
`Gerald Worth
`Safraz Ishmael
`Jinnie Reed
`Proskauer Rose LLP
`PTABMattersBoston@proskauer.com
`JCapraro@proskauer.com
`gworth@proskauer.com
`sishmael@proskauer.com
`jreed@proskauer.com
`
`18