throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket