Carl Zeiss SMT GmbHv.NIKON CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 5, 2014

11266288 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 34
571-272-7822 Entered: November 4, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

CARL ZEISS SMT GMBH,
Petitioner,

v.

NIKON CORPORATION,
Patent Owner.

Case IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH (“Carl Zeiss”) filed a Petition requesting inter
partes review of claims 55–67 of U.S. Patent No. 7,348,575 B2 (Ex. 1101,
“the ’575 patent”). Paper 3 (“Pet.”). The Patent Owner, Nikon Corporation
(“Nikon”), did not file a Preliminary Response. On December 16, 2013, we
granted an inter partes review for all challenged claims on certain grounds
of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec. to Inst.”).
After institution of trial, Nikon filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper
21, “PO Resp.”) to which Carl Zeiss filed a Reply (Paper 26, “Reply”).
Oral hearing was held on July 17, 2014.
1

The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written
Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
Carl Zeiss has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims
55–67 of the ’575 patent are unpatentable.
A. The ’575 Patent
The subject matter of the ’575 patent “relates to a catadioptric
projection optical system, exposure apparatus, and exposure method and,
more particularly, to a high-resolution catadioptric projection optical system
suitable for . . . [use] in production of semiconductor devices [and] liquid-
crystal display devices . . . by photolithography.” Ex. 1101, 1:18–23. In the
production of semiconductor devices, photolithography uses a projection
exposure apparatus to project an “image of a mask (or a reticle) through a
projection optical system onto a wafer (or a glass plate or the like) coated

1
A transcript of the oral hearing is included in the record as Paper 33
(“Tr.”).
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

3
with a photoresist or the like.” Id. at 1:27–32. As the dimensions of
semiconductor devices shrink, the projection optical system of the projection
exposure apparatus requires greater resolving power (resolution). Id. at
1:32–36. In order to satisfy the requirements for the resolving power of the
projection optical system, it is necessary to shorten the wavelength of
illumination light (exposure light) and to increase the image-side numerical
aperture of the projection optical system. Id. at 1:37–41. It was known to
increase the numerical aperture by putting a medium with a high refractive
index, like a liquid, in the optical path between the projection optical system
and the image plane. Id. at 1:55–58. However, there were known
disadvantages to this approach. Id. at 1:59–67.
The ’575 patent discloses systems and methods to provide a relatively
compact projection optical system that is “corrected for various aberrations,
such as chromatic aberration and curvature of field, and being capable of
securing a large effective image-side numerical aperture while well
suppressing the reflection loss on optical surfaces.” Id. at 2:3–9. An object
of the embodiment is to achieve a large numerical aperture, without increase
in the scale of optical members forming a catadioptric projection optical
system. Id. at 2:30–32. In order to achieve that object, a projection optical
system according to a third embodiment is a catadioptric projection optical
system for forming an image of a first surface on a second surface, the
projection optical system comprising four units. Id. at 3:8–27; see also id. at
11:48–13:22. Figure 9 of the ’575 patent is reproduced below:
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

4

Figure 9 of the ’575 patent depicts an embodiment of the catadioptric
projection optical system with four lens units. Id. at 4:31–33, 3:8–27. The
lens unit G11 constitutes the first unit. Id. at 29:39–41. Negative meniscus
lens L5, concave reflecting mirror M1, convex reflecting mirror M2,
concave reflecting mirror M3, and convex reflecting mirror M4 constitute a
second unit. Id. at 30:28–31. Lens unit G21 constitutes the third unit. Id. at
29:45–46. Lens unit G22, aperture stop AS1, and lens unit G23 constitute a
fourth unit. Id. at 30:59–60.
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

5
B. Illustrative Claim
Claim 55 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
55. A catadioptric projection optical system, which forms an
image of a first surface on a second surface, comprising:
a first unit disposed in an optical path between the first
surface and the second surface and having a positive refractive
power;
a second unit disposed in an optical path between the first
unit and the second surface and comprising at least four
mirrors;
a third unit disposed in an optical path between the
second unit and the second surface, comprising at least two
negative lenses, and having a negative refractive power; and
a fourth unit disposed in an optical path between the third
unit and the second surface, comprising at least three positive
lenses, and having a positive refractive power,
wherein an intermediate image is formed in the second
unit and wherein an aperture stop is provided in the fourth unit.
C. Prior Art Supporting the Instituted Challenges
Carl Zeiss relies on the following prior art references, as well as the
Declaration of Richard C. Juergens (Ex. 1116):
Mann US 2005/0036213 A1 Feb. 17, 2005 Ex. 1110
Asai Satoru Asai et al., Resolution
Limit for Optical Lithography
Using Polarized Light
Illumination, 32 JAPAN J.
APPL. PHYS. 5863-5866 (1993)
Dec. 1993 Ex. 1115
D. The Instituted Challenges of Unpatentability
We instituted trial based upon the following grounds:
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

6
Reference[s] Basis Claim[s] challenged
Mann § 102 55–63 and 65–67
Mann and Asai § 103 64
E. Effective Filing Date
Carl Zeiss contends that the earliest possible filing date to which
claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent can claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 is
October 9, 2003. Pet. 17–19. The ’575 patent claims priority to three
earlier-filed Japanese applications. Ex. 1101. Independent claim 55 recites
“a second unit . . . comprising at least four mirrors.” Carl Zeiss contends
that the earliest-filed Japanese application, JP 2003-128154, does not
disclose any embodiments of a catadioptric projection optical system having
“at least four mirrors,” as required by claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent. Pet.
18–19, citing Ex. 1107 (Translation of JP 2003-128154); Ex. 1116 ¶ 81.
Patent Owner does not dispute this contention. Based on our review of
Exhibit 1107, we agree with Carl Zeiss that claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent
should not be accorded § 119 benefit of the JP 2003-128154 application. In
contrast, the second-filed Japanese application, JP 2003-350647, discloses “a
second unit . . . comprising at least four mirrors.” See, e.g., Ex. 1108
(Translation of JP 2003-350647), claim 8, ¶¶ 22, 24, 26, 27. On this record,
we determine that the earliest effective filing date to which claims 55–67 of
the ’575 patent are entitled is October 9, 2003, the filing date of JP 2003-
350647. Thus, based on the record before us, all of the patents and
publications that Petitioner relies upon are prior art.
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

7
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
2012). Also, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
Carl Zeiss contends that the words in the challenged claims generally
should have their plain meaning. Pet. 13. However, Carl Zeiss provides its
own interpretations of four terms—“unit,” “the fourth reflecting mirror of a
double pass fens,” “the third reflecting mirror,” and “wherein an optical axis
of every optical element with a predetermined refractive power in the
catadioptric projection optical system is arranged substantially on a single
straight line, and wherein a region of an image formed on the second surface
by the catadioptric projection optical system is an off-axis region not
including the optical axis.” Pet. 13–15. For this decision, we construe each
of these claim terms in turn.
1. “unit”(claims 55–57, 60)
Carl Zeiss contends that the term “unit” should be interpreted to mean
“a single, distinct part or object.” Pet. 13, citing Ex. 1121 (NEW WORLD
DICTIONARY OF THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE). The ’575 patent does not
define the term “unit.” Although the ’575 patent uses “unit” primarily in the
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

8
context of a “lens unit,” it also refers to “unit area” (8:21–22), “unit pulse”
(8:22), “unit magnification” (17:44), and “unit time” (19:52, 55, 60, and 62–
63). Accordingly, in our Decision to Institute, we construed “unit” to
encompass not only “a single, distinct part or object,” but also “a
determinate quantity adopted as a standard of measurement for other
quantities of the same kind.” Dec. to Inst. 10. See also, e.g., WEBSTER’S
THIRD NEW INT’L DICTIONARY, UNABRIDGED (1993) (“unit. c: a determinate
quantity (as of length, time, heat, value, or housing) adopted as a standard of
measurement for other quantities of the same kind”).
According to Nikon, both Carl Zeiss’s proposed construction and the
Board’s preliminary construction are overly broad because they do not limit
“units” to optical elements. PO Resp. 14–15, 16–17. Nikon contends that
“unit” should be construed as “a group of optical elements that cooperate
together to perform a specific purpose or common function.” PO Resp. 1–4,
9–22. Nikon argues that “units” are limited to units of optical elements
because the language of claim 55 expressly recites how each “unit”
comprises optical elements, such as lenses and/or mirrors, and because the
Specification (1) uses the term “units” to refer to optical elements, such as
lenses or mirrors; (2) distinguishes a “unit” from a “lens unit” by describing
a “unit” consisting of two lens units; and (3) describes each of the four
“units” of the embodiments shown in Figures 9 and 10 as performing a
function. PO Resp. 12–17. Nikon also argues that the dictionary definition
cited by Carl Zeiss supports its contentions that units are “used for a specific
purpose.” PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1121) (emphasis omitted).
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

9
Carl Zeiss counters that the ’575 patent does not limit a “unit” to
optical elements because (1) the claim language itself prefaces the
description of each claimed “unit” with the open-ended term “comprising”
(Reply 4–5); and (2) the Specification uses the term “units” interchangeably
with “lens units” by identifying element groups G11 and G21 as both “lens
units” and as numbered “units” (id. at 6–7).
We are not persuaded by Nikon’s argument that “unit” is limited to
optical elements. As Carl Zeiss points out, the use of “comprising” in the
description of each numbered “unit” recited in claim 55 indicates that the
“unit” has at least the optical elements recited (none in the case of the “first
unit”), but does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See, e.g., Mars
Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover,
nothing in the Specification defines “unit” as excluding elements other than
lenses and mirrors, and Nikon’s expert, Dr. Jose Sasian, conceded that
optical elements could include things other than lenses and mirrors, such as
aperture stops, filters, polarizers, windows, and prisms. Ex. 1136, 19:19–
20:15, 23:3–11. Similarly, nothing in the Specification defines “unit” as
performing a specific purpose or a common function. We recognize that the
Specification describes the numbered units of the embodiments illustrated in
Figures 9 and 10 as each having a function. We decline, however, to import
the details of those embodiments into the recited numbered “units” of claim
55. Claim 55 explicitly recites that the “first unit . . . ha[s] a positive
refractive power,” that “an intermediate image is formed in the second unit,”
that the “third unit . . . ha[s] a negative refractive power,” and that the
“fourth unit . . . ha[s] a positive refractive power.” Importing functions into
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

10
the construction of the term “unit” itself would render superfluous the
functions explicitly attributed to each of the numbered “units” in the claim
language.
Finally, Carl Zeiss also argues that our construction is overly broad
and urges us to adopt its construction. Reply 3, n.1. Although the term
“unit” in isolation is used in the Specification to mean both “a single,
distinct part or object,” and “a determinate quantity adopted as a standard of
measurement for other quantities of the same kind,” after reviewing the
testimony of both Mr. Juergens (Ex. 1116) and Dr. Sasian (Ex. 2002), we are
persuaded that in the context of claim 55, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not understand the term “unit” to refer to a determinate quantity.
Accordingly, we construe “unit” as “a single, distinct part or object.”
2. “the fourth reflecting mirror of [sic] a double pass fens [sic]”
(claim 57)
Carl Zeiss contends that “the fourth reflecting mirror of [sic] a double
pass fens [sic]” includes two typographical errors, and should be interpreted
as “the fourth reflecting mirror or a double pass lens.” Pet. 14. Carl Zeiss’s
proposal is consistent with the Specification of the ’575 patent. Ex. 1101,
12:37–42 (“. . . the fourth reflecting mirror or a double pass lens”). On this
record, we determine that “the fourth reflecting mirror of [sic] a double pass
fens [sic]” means “the fourth reflecting mirror or a double pass lens.”
3. “the third reflecting mirror” (claims 58 and 59)
Carl Zeiss contends that “the third reflecting mirror” in claims 58 and
59 lacks antecedent basis, and should be interpreted as referring to the third
of the “at least four mirrors” in the “second unit” recited in claim 55. Pet.
14. Claim 56 recites a “third reflecting mirror” as a component of the
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

11
“second unit” recited in claim 55. It appears that claims 58 and 59
mistakenly depend from claim 55 instead of from claim 56. On this record,
we agree with Carl Zeiss that “the third reflecting mirror” in claims 58 and
59 refers to a third of “the at least four mirrors” in the “second unit” recited
in claim 55.
4. “wherein an optical axis of every optical element with a
predetermined refractive power in the catadioptric projection optical
system is arranged substantially on a single straight line, and wherein
a region of an image formed on the second surface by the catadioptric
projection optical system is an off-axis region not including the
optical axis” (claim 62)
Carl Zeiss contends that this phrase should be interpreted to mean that
the region of an image formed on the second surface does not include the
optical axis of any of the optical elements because the claims require that
they are all “arranged substantially on a single straight line.” Pet. 15
(quoting claim 62). Carl Zeiss further interprets “wherein a region of an
image formed on the second surface by the catadioptric projection optical
system is an off-axis region not including the optical axis” to require that the
portion of the reticle imaged on the wafer is offset from the single straight
line. Id. Carl Zeiss’s proposal is consistent with the Specification of the
’575 patent. As depicted in Figure 2, “the entire effective imaging area ER
of the projection optical system PL exists in the region off the optical axis
AX.” Ex. 1101, Fig. 2, 20:14–16. Figure 9 depicts “[t]he optical axis AX1
of every optical element included in the catadioptric projection optical
system PL1 . . . placed substantially on [a] single straight line, and the
region of the image formed on the wafer by the catadioptric projection
optical system PL1 is the off-axis region not including the optical axis
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

12
AX1.” Id. at Fig. 9, 31:19–25 (emphasis added). Figure 10 of the ’575
patent depicts “[t]he optical axis AX2 of every optical element included in
the catadioptric projection optical system PL2 . . . placed substantially on
[a] single straight line, and the region of the image formed on the wafer by
the catadioptric projection optical system PL2 is the off-axis region not
including the optical axis AX2.” Id. at Fig. 10, 33: 44–50 (emphasis added).
On this record, we agree that “wherein an optical axis of every optical
element with a predetermined refractive power in the catadioptric projection
optical system is arranged substantially on a single straight line, and wherein
a region of an image formed on the second surface by the catadioptric
projection optical system is an off-axis region not including the optical axis”
requires that the region of the image formed on the second surface be offset
from the optical axis along which every optical element is arranged.
B. Whether Mr. Juergens is an Expert
Nikon contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
had at least two years of experience in the lithography optics industry and
experience in the specification of projection optical systems, and that Mr.
Juergens is not an expert in the relevant field because he does not have the
experience required to be a person of even ordinary skill in the art. PO
Resp. 25–27.
Carl Zeiss counters that Dr. Sasian invites Mr. Juergens to guest
lecture Dr. Sasian’s class on lens design, and that Dr. Sasian conceded that
Mr. Juergens is an expert on many aspects of optical design. Reply 9-10,
n.2.
Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are not
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

13
persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art required at least two years
of experience in the lithography optics industry and experience in the
specification of projection optical systems. The claims are not limited to the
field of lithography. Rather, based on the art of record, we find that the
relevant field is projection optical systems. Mr. Juergens holds an M.A. in
Physics and has more than 40 years of experience in the field of optical
system design, including catoptric, dioptric, and catadioptric systems. Ex.
1116 ¶¶ 3–9. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Mr. Juergens is a person
of at least ordinary skill in the art of projection optical systems.
C. Claims 55–63 and 65–67 – Anticipated by Mann
Carl Zeiss alleges that claims 55–63 and 65–67 are unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Mann. Pet. 19–30.
Nikon counters that Mann’s lenses E7–E20 are not divided into the
recited numbered “units,” as construed by Nikon. Nikon argues that
dependent claims 56–63 and 65–67, which depend from claim 55, are
patentable for the same reasons. PO Resp. 38.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Carl Zeiss has demonstrated by a preponderance
of the evidence that claims 55–63 and 65–67 are unpatentable as anticipated
by Mann.
Mann (Ex. 1110)
Mann describes a projection objective including a plurality of mirrors
with lenses ahead of mirror M3. Ex. 1110, Abstract, ¶ 1. Figure 2 of Mann
is reproduced below:
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

14

Figure 2 of Mann depicts catadioptric projection optical system 200. Id.
¶ 21. System 200 includes reticle 210 and wafer 220 on which a reduced
image is formed based on reticle 210. Id. ¶ 43. System 100 has twenty lens
elements, E1 to E20, and four mirrors, M1 to M4. Id. ¶¶ 43–50.
Carl Zeiss’s contentions
Carl Zeiss contends that:
[T]he “first unit” disposed in an optical path between reticle 210 and
wafer 220 is formed from lens element E1 and lens element E2.
(ZEISS 1110, [0043]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 53, 85, 95, 96, 102.) Mann
states that “[t]he first and second lens elements E1 and E2 are positive
lenses.” (ZEISS 1110, [0043].) Because the only two elements
forming the first unit are positive lenses, it follows that the unit as a
whole has a positive refractive power. (ZEISS 1110, [0043], Table 2;
ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 49, 52, 75-79, 96; ZEISS 1130.)
. . . .
[T]he “second unit” disposed in an optical path between the first unit
and the wafer 220 is formed from the three lens elements E3-E5 and
the four mirrors M1-M4. (ZEISS 1110, [0044]–[0048], Table 2;
ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 53, 85, 97, 102.)
. . . .
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

15
[T]he “third unit” disposed in an optical path between the second unit
and wafer 220 is formed from lens elements E6-E10. (ZEISS 1110,
[0050]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 53, 85, 98, 102.) Mann states that of the
elements E6-E10. “[l]ens element E7 is a negative lens … lens
element E10 is a negative lens element.” (ZEISS 1110, [0050].)
Furthermore, based on the lens prescription for system 200, the
combined refracting power of lens elements E6-E10 is negative, so
the unit as a whole has a negative refracting power. (ZEISS 1110,
[0050], Table 2; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 49, 52, 75-79, 98; ZEISS 1130.)
. . . .
[T]he “fourth unit” an optical path between the third unit and wafer
220 is formed from lens elements E11 through E20. (ZEISS 1116,
¶¶ 53, 85, 99, 102.) The fourth unit includes at least three positive
lenses. (ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 49, 52, 99.) Specifically, Mann states that
“lens element E11 is a positive lens, lens element E12 is a negative
lens, lens elements E13-E16 are positive lenses, lens element E17 is a
negative lens, lens elements E18-E20 are positive lenses.” (ZEISS
1110, [0050].) Furthermore, based on the lens prescription for system
200, the fourth unit as a whole has a positive refractive power.
(ZEISS 1110, [0050], Table 2; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 75-79, ZEISS 1130.)
. . . .
[A]n intermediate image is formed between mirrors M2 and M3.
(ZEISS 1110, Table 2, see also, [0035]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 34-38, 101,
102.) This means that an intermediate image is provided in the
second unit. (ZEISS 1110, [0051], Table 2; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 34-38,
97, 101.) Furthermore, Mann states that “the aperture stop in system
200 is indicated by marker 201 in Fig. 2.” (ZEISS 1110, [0051].)
This corresponds with the location of lens element E13, which means
that the aperture stop is provided in the fourth unit. (ZEISS 1110,
[0051]; ZEISS 1116, ¶¶ 99, 100, 102.)
Pet. 21–22. We agree with Petitioner’s contentions.
“First unit,” “second unit,” “third unit,” “fourth unit”
Nikon contends that Mann’s lenses E7–E20 are not divided into the
recited numbered “units,” as that term is construed by Nikon, because Carl
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

16
Zeiss and Mr. Juergens group lenses without consideration to the function of
the group. PO Resp. 27–34, 38. We decline to adopt Nikon’s proposed
construction of “unit” for the reasons discussed above. Even assuming,
however, that we adopted Nikon’s proposed construction, we would not be
persuaded that the groups of lenses identified in Mann by Carl Zeiss are not
“units” because Dr. Sasian conceded that any two adjacent lenses whose
optical properties did not cancel each other out would be an example of two
lenses cooperating “to perform a specific purpose,” as required by Nikon’s
construction. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1136, 23:18–26:10).
Accuracy of Mr. Juergens’ CODE V Sequence Data
Nikon contends that Mr. Juergens’ testimony should be given little
weight because the CODE V Sequence data (Ex. 1130) he relied upon is
inaccurate. PO Resp. 34–37.
Carl Zeiss counters, and we agree, that neither of the two
discrepancies identified by Nikon constitutes an error because (1) the first
was introduced by the Patent Office in the publication of the Mann
application, and the CODE V Sequence data used by Mr. Juergens is
identical to the data in the Mann application as-filed; and (2) the second
concerns a “dummy surface” which Dr. Sasian confirmed has no effect on
ray trace and is fairly modeled by the CODE V Sequence data used by Mr.
Juergens. Reply 11–13.
Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are not
persuaded that Mr. Juergens’ testimony should be given any less weight due
to the issues in the CODE V Sequence data.
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

17
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Carl Zeiss has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 55–63 and 65–
67 are unpatentable as anticipated by Mann.
D. Claim 64 – Obvious over Mann and Asai
Carl Zeiss alleges that claim 64 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Mann and Asai. Pet. 54–56.
Claim 64 depends from claim 63. Claim 63 is directed to “[a]n
exposure apparatus” comprising “the projection optical system according to
claim 55” (emphasis removed). As discussed above, Carl Zeiss has
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mann anticipates the
subject matter of claim 55.
Carl Zeiss acknowledges that Mann does not disclose expressly
“illumination light which is s-polarized with respect to the second surface,”
as recited in claim 64, but contends that:
[I]t would have been obvious for a POSITA at the time of the
alleged invention to provide s-polarized illumination at the
wafer in the lithography exposure apparatus of Mann to
improve the contrast of the image at the wafer. (ZEISS 1116,
¶¶ 21-24, 72-77, 123-126, 218-224.)
Pet. 55–56. Carl Zeiss cites to paragraph 219 of Dr. Juergens’ Declaration
for the following:
But s-polarized illumination was well-known long before
the effective filing date of the Omura Patent. For example,
back in 1993, Asai explained that: “[l]ight polarized parallel to
the plane of incidence, or P polarization, gives lower contrast
images than light polarized perpendicular to the plane of
incidence, or S polarization, because destructive interference
between diffracted waves does not occur when the electric-field
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

18
vectors are perpendicular,” and then reported demonstrating
“superior resolution of S-polarized illumination” in optical
lithography projection systems. (ZEISS 1115, p. 5863, abstract
and intro.) Thus, it was well-known that an illumination optical
system can be designed to provide polarized light in order to
improve contrast of the image projected onto the wafer,
especially for high numerical aperture optical systems.
Ex. 1116, ¶ 219.
Nikon counters that claim 64 is not obvious over Mann and Asai
because Mann does not disclose the limitation of claim 55, from which claim
64 depends, and Asai fails to cure the deficiencies in Mann with respect to
claim 55. PO Resp. 39.
Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and supporting
evidence, we determine that Carl Zeiss has demonstrated by a preponderance
of the evidence that claim 64 is unpatentable as obvious over Mann and
Asai. We are not persuaded by Nikon’s argument that Mann does not
disclose all limitations of claim 55 for the reasons discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Carl Zeiss has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 64 is
unpatentable as obvious over Mann and Asai.
III. CONCLUSION
Carl Zeiss has met its burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence in showing that claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent are unpatentable
based upon the following grounds of unpatentability:
Reference[s] Basis Claim[s] challenged
Mann § 102 55-63, 65-67
Mann and Asai § 103 64
IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

19
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that claims 55–67 of the ’575 patent are held
unpatentable; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

IPR2013-00363
Patent 7,348,575 B2

20
For PETITIONER:

Marc M. Wefers, Esq.
Chris C. Bowley, Esq.
Lawrence Kolodney
Kurt Glitzenstein
Fish & Richardson, P.C.
wefers@fr.com
bowley@fr.com
kolodney@fr.com
glitzenstein@fr.com

For PATENT OWNER:

John S. Kern, Esq.
Robert C. Mattson, Esq.
Oblon Spivak
CPdocketKern@oblon.com
CPdocketMattson@oblon.com