EXHIBIT 1071
`
`Rebuttal Declaration of Lester J. Kozlowski dated Jan. 19, 2016
`
`TRW Automotive U.S. LLC: EXHIBIT 1071
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NUMBER 8,599,001
`IPR2015-00436
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`
`TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-004361
`
`Patent 8,599,001 B2
`
`____________
`
`
`
`REBUTTAL DECLARATION OF TRW’S EXPERT
`
`LESTER J. KOZLOWSKI
`
`
`
`
`
`1Cases IPR2015-00437, IPR2015-00438, and IPR2015-00439 have been
`
`consolidated with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`1071-001
`
`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………1
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................... . . 1
`
` QUALIFICATIONS…………………………………………………12
`QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................... . . 12
`
` DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ……………………………………….22
`DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ............................................ ..22
`
` LAW GOVERNING OBVIOUSNESS…………………………….29
`LAW GOVERNING OBVIOUSNESS ................................ ..29
`
`0
`I.
`!—l
`
`II.
`
`III.
`III.
`
`IV.
`IV.
`
`V.
` GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE IMAGE
`GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED TO DESCRIBE IMAGE
` SENSORS……………………………………………………………31
`SENSORS ................................................................... ..31
`
`VI.
`VI.
`
` MOS-BASED IMAGE SENSING AND MOORE’S LAW.……...37
`MOS-BASED IMAGE SENSING AND MOORE’S LAW..........37
`
`VI.A.
`VI.A.
`
`VI.B.
`VI.B.
`
`THE WORKINGS OF MOS-BASED IMAGE
`THE WORKINGS OF MOS-BASED IMAGE
`SENSORS…………………………………………………....37
`SENSORS ........................................................... ..37
`
`THE EVOLUTION OF MOS-BASED SENSORS FROM
`THE EVOLUTION OF MOS-BASED SENSORS FROM
`1960’S TO THE TIME OF THE ‘001 PATENT AND
`1960’S TO THE TIME OF THE ‘001 PATENT AND
`BEYOND…………………………………………………….51
`BEYOND ........................................................... ..51
`
`VI.C.
`VI.C.
`
`THE PASSIVE PIXEL TECHNOLOGY………………….63
`THE PASSIVE PIXEL TECHNOLOGY .................... ..63
`
`VI.C.1.
`VI.C.1.
`
`VI.C.2.
`VI.C.2.
`
`THE EVOLUTION OF PASSIVE PIXEL SENSORS
`THE EVOLUTION OF PASSIVE PIXEL SENSORS
`LEADING UP THE FOUNDING OF VLSI VISION
`LEADING UP THE FOUNDING OF VLSI VISION
`LIMITED……………………………………………..63
`LIMITED ................................................... ..63
`
`LEVERAGING OF THE WORK OF THE PRIOR
`LEVERAGING OF THE WORK OF THE PRIOR
`ARTISANS BY DENYER AND RENSHAW TO
`ARTISANS BY DENYER AND RENSHAW TO
`FORMVVL AND EXPLOIT THE PASSIVE PIXEL
`FORMVVL AND EXPLOIT THE PASSIVE PIXEL
`TECHNOLOGY……………………………………..81
`TECHNOLOGY .......................................... ..81
`
`VI.C.3.
`VI.C.3.
`
`THE PASSIVE PIXEL SENSORS DEVELOPED BY
`THE PASSIVE PIXEL SENSORS DEVELOPED BY
`DR. DENYER’S TEAM MATCHED THE
`DR. DENYER’S TEAM MATCHED THE
`PERFORMANCE OF TYPICAL CCD’S………....90
`PERFORMANCE OF TYPICAL CCD’S.............90
`
`VII.
`VII.
`
`
`
`REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS……………………………………..95
`REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS .......................................... ..95
`
`VII.A.
`VII.A.
`
`VISION SYSTEMS…………………………………...……95
`VISION SYSTEMS .............................................. ..95
`
`VII.A.1. THE IMPUTER WAS A COMPLETELY GENERIC
`VII.A.1.
`THE IMPUTER WAS A COMPLETELY GENERIC
`DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM FOR VISION
`DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM FOR VISION
`SYSTEMS…………………………………………… 95
`SYSTEMS ................................................. .. 95
`
`ETIENNE-CUMMINGS’ REPEATED RELIANCE
`ETIENNE-CUMMINGS’ REPEATED RELIANCE
`
`VII.A.2.
`VII.A.2.
`
`
`
`
`
`1071-002
`
`1071-002
`
`

`
`ON MOINI (EX. 2005) IS IN INAPT……………..101
`
`VEHICULAR VISION SYSTEMS……………………...108
`
`VII.B.
`
`VII.B.1. THE GOAL OF THE SKILLED ARTISAN AT THE
`TIME OF THE ALLEGED INNOVATION, AND
`ALSO TODAY, WAS TO BOLSTER—AND NOT
`DIMINISH—THE VERSATILITY OF
`VEHICULAR VISION SYSTEMS……………...108
`
`VII.B.2.
`
`THE FACT THAT AN “IDEAL SENSOR WAS NOT
`YET DISCOVERED” HAS LITTLE
`APPLICABILITY TO THE ISSUES AT
`HAND……………………………………………...112
`
`VII.C.
`
`IMAGE SENSORS………………………………………113
`
`VII.C.1.
`
`THE ACHILLES HEEL OF CCD WAS NOT THE
`CHARGE TRANSFER EFFICIENCY…………..113
`
`VII.C.2. CMOS SENSORS………………………………….115
`
`VII.C.2.i AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED
`INNOVATION, THE ARTISAN HAD MANY
`GOOD REASONS TO SELECT CMOS
`TECHNOLOGY—INCLUDING PASSIVE
`PIXEL CMOS TECHNOLOGY—FOR
`AUTOMOTIVE VISION SYSTEMS………115
`
`VII.C.2.ii THE ‘001 PATENT, LIKE VELLACOTT,
`CLEARLY SPECIFIES VVL PASSIVE PIXEL
`SENSOR TECHNOLOGY…………………125
`
`
`
`
`
`1071-003
`
`

`
`VII.D.
`
`ATTRIBUTES CHARACTERIZING IMAGE
`SENSORS………………………………………………..130
`
`VII.E.
`
`IMAGE INTENSIFIERS ………………………………133
`
`VII.F.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ASSERTED REFERENCES….134
`
`VII.F.1. VELLACOTT…………………………………….134
`
`VII.F.2
`
`KENUE……………………………………………140
`
`VII.F.3 VENTURELLO…………………………………...142
`
`VIIF.4.
`
`SCHOFIELD……………………………………...145
`
`VII.G.
`
`THE APPLIED PRIOR ART RENDERS THE INSTITUTED
`CLAIMS INVALID……………………………………………..147
`
`VII.G.1.
`
`VII.G.2.
`
`THE SKILLED ARTISAN WOULD HAVE FOUND IT
`OBVIOUS TO COMBINE VELLACOTT AND KENUE,
`AND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION WOULD NOT
`RENDER VELLACOTT UNSUITABLE FOR ITS
`INTENDED PURPOSE …………………………………147
`
`THE ARTISAN WOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT
`THE IMPUTER WAS CAPABLE OF DETECTING
`HEADLIGHTS IN THE FORWARD FIELD OF VIEW
`AND HE COULD AND WOULD HAVE USED THE
`IMPUTER IN THIS FASHION………………………..156
`
`VII.G.2.i ETIENNE-CUMMINGS MISCALCULATES
`THE DYNAMIC RANGE OF THE
`IMPUTER…………………………………..159
`
`VII.G.2.ii THE IMPUTER SENSOR HAS A GREATER
`NUMBER OF PIXELS THAN THE ‘001
`PATENT SENSOR, AND THE IMPUTER
`CAN BE PROGRAMMED SO AS TO USE
`ONLY A SUBSET OF THE 256 X 256
`ARRAY……………………………………….162
`
`VII.G.2.iii THE FIELD OF VIEW OF THE IMPUTER IS
`NOT LIMITED TO “90° (DIRECTION NOT
`SPECIFIED)”…………………………….…..164
`
`
`
`
`
`1071-004
`
`

`
`VII.G.2.iv THE OPERATING FREQUENCY OF THE
`IMPUTER IS SUFFICIENT AND ETIENNE-
`CUMMINGS MAKES NO ARGUMENT TO
`THE CONTRARY…………………………165
`
`VII.G.2v. THE IMPUTER HAD SUFFICIENT
`PROCESSING POWER TO DETECT
`HEADLIGHTS IN THE FIELD OF
`VIEW….……………………………………166
`
`VII.G.3
`
`IMPLEMENTATION OF THE KENUE ALGORITHMS
`USING THE IMPUTER WAS OBVIOUS..……………168
`
`VII.G.3.i THE ARTISAN COULD AND WOULD HAVE
`PROGRAMMED THE KENUE
`ALGORITHMS IN THE IMPUTER………168
`
`VII.G.3.ii
`
`IMPLEMENTATION OF THE KENUE
`ALGORITHMS USING THE IMPUTER WAS
`OBVIOUS.........................................................173
`
`VII.G.4. VELLACOTT, IN COMBINATION WITH THE
`SECONDARY REFERENCES, RENDERS ALL
`INSTITUTED CLAIMS OBVIOUS……………………187
`
`VII.G.4.i VELLACOTT ALONE, AND VELLACOTT AND
`KENUE, TEACH A MODULE ATTACHED AT A
`WINDSHIELD (CLAIMS 1-14, 24, 28, 32, 34-40, 42-
`50, 53-55)……………………………………………187
`
`VII.G.4.ii. VELLACOTT TEACHES AN ARRAY WITH
`MORE COLUMNS THAN ROWS (CLAIMS 3, 4, 96-
`100, 102-109)………………………………………191
`
`VII.G.4.iii VELLACOTT SHOWS AN ARRAY HAVING AT
`LEAST 40 ROWS (CLAIMS 4, 59, 81, 93-100, 102-
`109)………………………………………………...194
`
`VII.G.4.iv. VELLACOTT AND KENUE TEACH THAT THE
`IMAGE DATA PROCESSING BY THE IMAGE
`PROCESSOR COMPRISES PATTERN
`RECOGNITION (CLAIM 28)………………..…195
`
`
`
`
`
`1071-005
`
`

`
`VII.G.v
`
`VELLACOTT AND KENUE TEACH A CONTROL
`THAT DETERMINES A PEAK LIGHT LEVEL ON
`SUB-ARRAY (CLAIMS 35, 36)………………..…198
`
`VII.G.vi VELLACOTT RENDERS OBVIOUS A
`CONNECTOR FOR ELECTRICALLY
`CONNECTING TO A POWER SOURCE OF THE
`EQUIPPED VEHICLE (CLAIMS 52, 56-66, 69, 71,
`73-78)………………………………………………..202
`
`VII.G.vii KENUE, LIKE VELLACOTT, RENDERS
`OBVIOUS AN IMAGER WITH MORE ROWS
`THAN COLUMNS…………………………………203
`
`VII.G.viii VELLACOTT COMBINED WITH VENTURELLO
`TEACHES A VEHICULAR VISION SYSTEM
`DETERMINING PRESENCE OF FOG OR
`RECOGNIZING VEILING GLARE (CLAIMS 11-14,
`64, 65, 79, 80-85, 87- 95, 98, 99)……………………205
`
` VII.G.ix THE COMBINATION WITH SCHOFIELD
`TEACHES A RELEASABLY MOUNTED MOUDLE
`(CLAIMS 56-66, 69-71, 73-79, 81-85, 87-100, 102-
`108)…………………………………………………..216
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1071-006
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`
`I, Lester J. Kozlowski, am an adult resident of the state of California
`
`and make this declaration based on personal knowledge of image sensor
`
`technology, experience in supporting the development of automotive camera
`
`technology, and my clear understanding of what is known by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`I have been retained as an expert technical consultant by Lathrop and
`
`Gage LLP, counsel to TRW Automotive US LLC (“TRW”), in support of the inter
`
`partes review concerning U.S. Patent 8,599,001 (the ‘001 Patent) to Magna.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`I agreed to provide my expert opinion regarding the invalidity of the
`
`‘001 Patent due to its technical obsolescence and obviousness and can competently
`
`testify in support of this action. It is also clear to me that the CMOS image sensor
`
`of the preferred embodiment of the ‘001 Patent is of a passive pixel technology
`
`that was supplied in the mid-1990s by VLSI Vision Limited (VVL).
`
`4.
`
`
`
`The Board instituted trial (herein “the instituted claims” or “the
`
`claims”) on the following claims for obviousness over the prior art references
`
`listed below. Institution Decision. pp. 43-44.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`1071-007
`
`

`
`Instituted claims
`
`Prior art references
`
`1-5,15, 28, 35-40, 42-
`50, 53, and 55
`6-10, 32, and 34
`
`Vellacott and Kenue
`
`Vellacott, Kenue, and Yanagawa
`
`54
`
`Vellacott, Kenue, and Denyer
`
`Vellacott, Kenue, and Schofield
`
`24, 56-60, 66, 73-76,
`96, 97, 100, and 102-
`06
`61-63, 69, 71, and 77 Vellacott, Kenue, Schofield, and
`Yanagawa
`
`64, 65, 79, 81-85, 88-
`93, 98, and 99
`78
`
`Vellacott, Kenue, Schofield, and
`Venturello
`Vellacott, Kenue, Schofield, and
`Denyer
`Vellacott, Kenue, Schofield,
`Venturello, and Yanagawa
`94, 95, 107, and 108 Vellacott, Kenue, Schofield,
`Venturello, and Denyer
`Vellacott, Kenue and Venturello
`
`87
`
`11-14
`
`
`
`5.
`
`
`
`I have reviewed the declaration of Dr. Ralph Etienne-Cummings (Ex.
`
`2003). I find that Dr. Etienne-Cummings’ review of the prior art is incomplete,
`
`selective, and replete with factual inaccuracies, and that he does not properly
`
`interpret the prior art on which trial was instituted from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (herein, the “artisan”, or the
`
`“skilled artisan”). Indeed, it appears that Etienne-Cummings is simply trying to
`
`obfuscate the issues through a series of irrelevant arguments and hand-waving in
`
`the hope that the Board will somehow agree with his unsupportable overarching
`
`
`
`2
`
`1071-008
`
`

`
`contention that the skilled artisan would not and could not use the passive pixel
`
`CMOS sensor for automotive vision systems, even when the Vellacott prior art
`
`shows that this is precisely what the patent owner’s predecessor corporation was
`
`doing itself. I disagree with Etienne-Cummings’s opinions. I herein rebut his
`
`declaration and assert, in agreement with the Miller declaration (Ex. 1011), that the
`
`‘001 Patent claims are obvious in view of the prior art cited by TRW. The ‘001
`
`Patent is clearly invalid to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`alleged invention.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`In preparation for writing this declaration, I formulated my review of
`
`the ‘001 Patent; my opinions based on my personal knowledge of many types of
`
`image sensors, semiconductors and solid state physics; my direct hands-on
`
`experience designing and evaluating charge coupled devices for about ten years;
`
`and my direct hands-on experience designing, evaluating and offering for
`
`commercial, military and scientific sale many PMOS, NMOS and CMOS-based
`
`image sensors for nearly three decades. My conclusions are the direct result of my
`
`era-specific analysis of the technical facts and relevant documents.
`
`7.
`
`
`
`I have considered the time before, during and after the prosecution of
`
`the ‘001 Patent in preparing my expert opinion. The era prior to the mid-1990s is
`
`especially critical because of the evolutionary improvements in image sensors
`
`occurring prior to the filing of the ‘001 Patent. I actually was a design engineer of
`
`
`
`3
`
`1071-009
`
`

`
`ordinary skill in the art throughout the time relevant to the ‘001 Patent. I have at
`
`hand the technical documents, personal recollections and appropriate mind-set to
`
`accurately revisit the skill-set and knowledge of a practitioner of ordinary skill in
`
`the art including the time before, during and after the ‘001 Patent. I submit that I
`
`am qualified to provide expert opinions in this case.
`
`8.
`
`
`
`In order to reproduce for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board what was
`
`known by a person of ordinary skill in the art, I will herein discuss the well
`
`understood engineering principles of imaging sensors and the prior art image
`
`sensor technology that a skilled artisan in the field would have known based on his
`
`formal education and subsequent work experience.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`I agree with Dr. Miller’s contentions about the level of ordinary skill
`
`(Ex. 1011, at ¶ 8), as also adopted by the Board in the Institution Decision at pp.
`
`12-13. I apply this level of ordinary skill throughout the declaration. Dr. Etienne-
`
`Cummings’s definition of one of skill in the art is set forth in Ex. 2003 at ¶ 24, and
`
`I submit that my analysis does not change and that the claims are also obvious to
`
`the skilled artisan as defined by Dr. Etienne-Cummings.
`
`10.
`
`
`
`The expert declaration provided by Dr. Etienne-Cummings of the
`
`Johns-Hopkins University ignores the image sensor design details prior to
`
`Vellacott in 1994 that would have been learned by a skilled artisan to best perform
`
`
`
`4
`
`1071-010
`
`

`
`his job. The additional technical details are not extraordinary, would have been
`
`practiced by a skilled artisan and further refute Etienne-Cummings’ conclusions.
`
`11.
`
`
`
`I will follow the logical evolutionary path globally practiced over the
`
`thirty year span by the skilled artisans of numerous semiconductor companies. I
`
`will sometimes refer to the successive image sensors by their specific fabrication
`
`technologies. I will describe that the era-specific monikers may change, but the
`
`circuit elements and operating principles of the sensors largely remain unchanged.
`
`While the size of the resulting amplifiers in the 1960s used relatively enormous
`
`areas spanning thousands of square microns, similar designs in 1995 used tens of
`
`square microns and today may use only a few square microns.
`
`12.
`
`
`
`I will incontrovertibly show that MOS technology benefitted from
`
`numerous evolutionary advances starting in 1965, continuing through 1995 (the
`
`alleged effective filing date of the ‘001 Patent is June 7, 1995) and even today.
`
`Relative to the ‘001 Patent, MOS image sensors designs benefitted and gradually
`
`evolved over the prior three decades due to the relentless micro-miniaturization
`
`reported by Gordon Moore and documented as “Moore’s Law” in 19652. At the
`
`time of the ‘001 Patent the imaging community’s transition from NMOS to CMOS
`
`in order to develop the latest “MOS-based” sensors was already underway by
`
`
`
`2 G. Moore, “Cramming more components onto integrated circuits,”
`
`Electronics, Vol. 38, No. 8, April 19, 1965, Ex. 1013.
`
`
`
`5
`
`1071-011
`
`

`
`about a decade with the prior two decades of intellectual property already in the
`
`tool chest.
`
`13.
`
`
`
`It is important to note that image sensors, which first detect various
`
`wavelengths of light, subsequently process the electronic signal, and eventually
`
`deliver a video signal in various forms, have been referred to by many era-
`
`appropriate names over their fifty years of development from about 1965 to 2015.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`The first such devices introduced in the mid-1960s were successively
`
`described as: “monolithic mosaic of photon sensors” and “self-scanned integrated
`
`photodiode arrays” in 1965; “integrated arrays for image detection” and “thin film
`
`solid-state image sensor” in 1966; “integrated arrays of silicon photodetectors for
`
`image sensing” in 1967; “monolithic phototransistor mosaic” in 1968; and, “high-
`
`speed, word-organized, photodetecting array” and “monolithic imaging array” in
`
`1969. The key to the underlying technical element enabling this explosion of
`
`technical and descriptive creativity was articulated by Peter Noble in the opening
`
`paragraph of one of his seminal papers on metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS)
`
`imaging:
`
`With the advent of the integrated circuit and the inherent
`light sensitivity of the p-n junction, it was only a matter
`of time before solid-state image detection would be
`realized. However, not until the metal oxide silicon
`transistor
`(MOST) was developed could
`the
`full
`
`
`
`6
`
`1071-012
`
`

`
`possibilities
`determined.3
`
`of
`
`solid-state
`
`image
`
`detection
`
`be
`
`
`
`Mr. Noble was recently acknowledged by the International Image Sensor Society
`
`(IISS). On March 17th 2015, he was awarded the 2015 IISS Pioneering
`
`Achievement Award for "seminal contributions to early years of MOS image
`
`sensors" and gave the Keynote Speech at the IISS’ world conference on image
`
`sensors in early June. Passive pixel CMOS sensors and Active pixel CMOS
`
`sensors at the time of the ‘001 Patent were both the logical evolution of the
`
`contributions Peter Noble and others made to MOS devices several decades prior
`
`to the ‘001 Patent.
`
`15.
`
` Nevertheless, contrary to Noble’s unbridled enthusiasm at the time,
`
`the path to the nascent MOS technology’s eventual dominance of image sensors
`
`proved to be a long, winding and hard fought road for all succeeding image sensor
`
`designers after Noble to this day. MOS-based image sensors lost the initial battles
`
`through the mid-1980s and then began to dominate starting in the late-1980s
`
`when CMOS process technology hit the 1.5µm to 1µ m lithography nodes.
`
`16.
`
`
`
`It is not a coincidence that Noble’s observations and seminal work
`
`occurred at about the same time as Gordon Moore, a founder of Intel, identified
`
`
`
`3 P. Noble, “Self-Scanned Silicon Image Detector Arrays,” IEEE Trans. ED,
`
`Vol. ED-15, No. 4, April 1968, attached here as Ex. 1018.
`
`
`
`7
`
`1071-013
`
`

`
`and reported the MOS technology evolution later coined as “Moore’s Law.” The
`
`common theme shared by Noble and Moore is the leveraging of the full possibility
`
`of MOS technology. Moore understood the bigger picture that the integration
`
`would be incremental along with integrated circuit evolution. Noble’s sensor-
`
`oriented vision would not be fully realized until at least twenty years later, but lots
`
`of products and revenues were generated along the way.
`
`17.
`
`
`
`Early along on the path to the ‘001 Patent and beyond, a competing
`
`technology, the charge coupled device (CCD), was invented. The CCD began to
`
`dominate in the early 1980s, after a decade of development. CCD technology
`
`remains competitive even today
`
`18.
`
`
`
`The CCD’s strongest solid-state competitor in the early- to mid-
`
`1980s was the “MOS Imaging Device” or “MOS Area Sensor” best
`
`commercialized by Hitachi. The work of Hitachi’s engineers evolved Noble’s
`
`seminal work by leveraging the available micro-miniaturization at that time, from
`
`the late 1970s through the mid-1980s. Hitachi gradually integrated onto the image
`
`sensor substrate a few of the peripheral components, such as charge amplifiers and
`
`current buffering amplifiers in the column buffer. However, with the onslaught at
`
`the time of CCDs from several different manufacturers, Hitachi abandoned its
`
`image sensor segment in favor of other components of its much broader business
`
`menu.
`
`
`
`8
`
`1071-014
`
`

`
`19.
`
` However, the research labs of that era did undertake the migration to
`
`CMOS, including my believing that I had to further my career by moving from
`
`CCDs at Hughes Aircraft to CMOS-based image sensors at Rockwell Science
`
`Center in 1987. Despite the enthusiasm of a Hughes Student Fellow I was
`
`mentoring at the time (Eric Fossum, who also later saw the “light” and abandoned
`
`CCDs sometime after completing his Ph.D. studies at Columbia University), I left
`
`for Rockwell Science Center. Soon after my joining and leading a nascent CMOS
`
`team, we won our first contract in 1988 on the way to crafting the CMOS-based
`
`256x256 infrared-sensing image sensor now orbiting Earth since 1992. I was not
`
`alone in seeing the near future. At the same time University of Edinburgh staff
`
`began forming their fabless company, VLSI Vision Limited, also using a CMOS
`
`foundry to fabricate their CMOS visible light sensors and eventually capture
`
`Donnelly as an automotive customer.
`
`20.
`
`
`
`In the late 1980s through the 1990s, the relentless micro-
`
`miniaturization reported by Moore’s Law hence enabled this next evolutionary
`
`step: imaging sensors designed using even smaller complementary MOS
`
`transistors. At a global level, the technology was described by many names and
`
`acronyms, including focal plane arrays (FPAs) with CMOS readout, MOS single-
`
`chip imager, passive pixel sensor, active pixel sensor, CMOS image sensor, CCD-
`
`MOS, CCD/CMOS sensor, Base-Stored Image Sensor (BASIS), Direct Readout
`
`
`
`9
`
`1071-015
`
`

`
`(DRO) Image Sensor, Processor A/D Converter Sensor Integrated Circuit (PASIC)
`
`Sensor, and Amplified MOS Imager, among others.
`
`21.
`
`
`
` The incontrovertible fact that MOS-based image sensors gradually
`
`evolved over the last fifty years, and continue to evolve today, is critical to the
`
`understanding of the prior art, including Vellacott. All along, while the evolution
`
`of microprocessors and image sensors continued over the years, commitments were
`
`made, products developed, specific inventions patented and revenue generated.
`
`The skilled artisan s made choices, such as those made in the specification and
`
`claims of the ‘001 Patent. Those choices have expiration dates. As discussed
`
`below, the development team responsible for crafting the ‘001 Patent knowingly
`
`approved the passive pixel image sensor technology of the era because it had not
`
`only sufficiently evolved after nearly 30 years of development, but readily met the
`
`known requirements at that time. Today, 20 years after that commitment was
`
`made, the specification is being ignored in attempt to further post-date the patent to
`
`leverage additional sensor improvements.
`
`22.
`
`
`
`I will therefore briefly describe key pieces of the prior art while
`
`simultaneously describing the recurring techniques for reading the video output
`
`from the various types of MOS, PMOS, NMOS and CMOS image sensors. Some
`
`of the sensors were passive and others active. In doing so, I will explain how
`
`photo-generated signals are read from each picture element, or pixel, of a two-
`
`
`
`10
`
`1071-016
`
`

`
`dimensional image sensor array, and how the data stream from all the pixels is
`
`serially multiplexed to form each line of video.
`
`23.
`
` My objective is to aid the interested parties in understanding how
`
`imaging sensors were used to read each pixel at the time of the ‘001 Patent. I will
`
`hence contextually support Miller’s correct assertions regarding the invalidity of
`
`the various claims. Consequently, I will also rebut the erroneous assertions
`
`proffered by Etienne-Cummings in his declaration.
`
`24.
`
`
`
`I have not previously testified in court as an expert witness in any
`
`other case, but have been deposed and supplied expert declarations multiple times.
`
`My company does not compete with either TRW or Magna. My hourly rate for my
`
`research, analysis and testimony in connection with this matter is $500 per hour.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`1071-017
`
`

`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`
`25.
`
`
`
`In this section, I will establish that I was familiar with the state of the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention and am qualified to opine as an expert
`
`thereon. Attached to this report as Exhibit 1014 is a true and correct copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae.
`
`26.
`
`
`
`I am currently employed as President, Chief Executive Officer and
`
`Chief Technology Officer of AltaSens, Inc., a Delaware corporation. I was the
`
`founder of AltaSens upon its inception in February of 2004 when the startup
`
`company was jointly venture funded by Rockwell International and ITX, a venture
`
`capital company now owned by Olympus. AltaSens has proven to be a successful
`
`startup under my technical and executive leadership and will soon celebrate its 12th
`
`year of operation.
`
`27.
`
` AltaSens is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of JVC Kenwood of
`
`Yokohama, Japan. We develop and offer for sale imaging sensors and prototype
`
`high-definition camera development kits for commercial products including
`
`broadcast and consumer cameras spanning high-definition through ultra-high
`
`definition (UHD) formats, UHD camcorders, security cameras and
`
`videoconferencing systems. Our imaging sensors are electro-optical sensors
`
`configured as two-dimensional arrays with integrated electronics in a single
`
`integrated circuit that we refer to as an imaging System-on-Chip.
`
`
`
`12
`
`1071-018
`
`

`
`28.
`
` Our customers and camera development partners are leading
`
`commercial companies including Hitachi, Panasonic Ikegami, JVC, Kenwood,
`
`Johnson & Johnson and Cisco-Tandberg, among others.
`
`29.
`
`
`
`Prior to founding and successfully leading AltaSens, I was employed
`
`for seventeen years at the Imaging division of Rockwell Scientific and its
`
`predecessor corporate entity, Rockwell Science Center, where I led or was a major
`
`contributor in the development of over sixty infrared FPAs and a dozen visible
`
`imaging sensors, including both passive pixel and active pixel CMOS image
`
`sensors. Successively in my career at Rockwell, I was Chief Technologist of the
`
`Imaging Division of Rockwell Scientific, Principal Scientist of the Imaging
`
`Function within Rockwell Science Center, Principal Scientist of the Electronic
`
`Devices Laboratory, Manager of the Mixed-Signal VSLI Department and Member
`
`of the Technical Staff.
`
`30.
`
`
`
`I led the development of numerous focal plane arrays and imaging
`
`sensors in both the infrared and visible spectral bands for Rockwell Scientific,
`
`Rockwell Science Center, Conexant Systems, Inc., and Rockwell Semiconductor
`
`Systems, Rockwell Automation, Rockwell Collins, Meritor Automotive Systems
`
`and various Rockwell Defense & Aerospace Groups. Our external customers
`
`included the United States Air Force, United States Navy, United States Army,
`
`DARPA, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory,
`
`
`
`13
`
`1071-019
`
`

`
`Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, University of Arizona, University of California at
`
`Los Angeles, and European Southern Observatory, among others.
`
`31.
`
`
`
`The various image sensors were also successfully developed for
`
`commercial cameras, strategic and tactical infrared focal planes and systems,
`
`surveillance cameras, ground- and space-based infrared observatories, and orbiting
`
`instruments.
`
`32.
`
` At Rockwell, I led the
`
`development of the world’s largest infrared
`
`image sensors. My publication and oral
`
`presentation describing my 1024 x 1024 pixel
`
`sensor for ground-based astronomy4 was
`
`“Best Paper” of the 1994 IRIS Conference on
`
`Infrared Detectors.
`
`33.
`
`
`
`Throughout my career, I have
`
`developed imaging sensors having ever
`
`Figure 1: 1994 IRIS Best Paper
`Award for one of my 1024 x
`1024 imaging sensors
`
`larger resolution and higher performance, leading to my giving many invited talks
`
`throughout the imaging community at conferences throughout the United States,
`
`Poland and Ukraine. The majority of the image sensors were called by various
`
`
`
`4L. Kozlowski et al., “2.5µm PACE-I HgCdTe 1024x1024 FPA,” Proc. IRIS
`
`Detector Specialty, August 1994, attached here as Ex. 1015.
`
`
`
`14
`
`1071-020
`
`

`
`technical names, but most of them could today be called either Passive or Active
`
`Pixel Image Sensors with CMOS readout.
`
`34.
`
` My first employer after leaving graduate school (when my advisor
`
`told me he was leaving for Bell Labs) was Hughes Aircraft Company, at the
`
`Missile Systems Division in Canoga Park, CA. There, I quickly became an
`
`integral part of a multi-divisional team directing the CCD R&D center in Carlsbad,
`
`CA and the infrared detector R&D center in Santa Barbara, CA. The team
`
`demonstrated the world’s first high-performance infrared sensors at resolutions of
`
`64 x 64 and 128 x 128 pixels. Both major projects culminated in my presenting the
`
`team’s progress at the leading symposium for infrared sensor research at that time,
`
`the Infrared Imaging Symposium (IRIS). I was awarded Outstanding Paper of the
`
`Year Awards for 1984 and 1985 for two of my papers at Hughes Aircraft’s Missile
`
`Systems Group.
`
`35.
`
`
`
`I continued much of the trail setting work in the infrared sensor
`
`community after moving to Rockwell where I led the development of the world’s
`
`largest infrared sensors at 256 x 256, 640 x 480, 1024 x 1024, 2048 x 2048 and
`
`4096 x 4096 resolution.
`
`36.
`
` While much of my work was either often classified by the US
`
`government or is esoteric to most people, my 1024 x 1024 and 2048 x 2048
`
`infrared sensors for infrared astronomy are today the most widely used imaging
`
`
`
`15
`
`1071-021
`
`

`
`infrared sensors in observatories all over the world; they have been instrumental in
`
`greatly enhancing man’s understanding of the universe. Another important focal
`
`plane array I developed, whose scientific impact is readily familiar all over the
`
`world, is the infrared sensor that became the infrared imaging work-horse of the
`
`Hubble Space Telescope starting in February 1997 when it was installed during the
`
`2nd Space Shuttle Servicing Mission (STS-82).
`
`37.
`
` Originally designed for Hubble’s Near Infrared Camera Multi-Object
`
`Spectrometer (NICMOS) instrument, the so-called NICMOS sensor enabled
`
`NASA and astronomers to more accurately date the age of the universe at 13.7
`
`billion years. After spending over 10 years to date orbiting Earth, tirelessly
`
`acquiring images, and benefiting from a cooling system replacement performed by
`
`Space Shuttle Servicing Mission 3B (STS-109) in 1999, Hubble’s infrared sensors
`
`continue to operate today. Hubble’s various instruments were deemed so critical to
`
`man’s understanding of the universe that Shuttle Servicing Mission 4 was
`
`commissioned and launched as STS-125 late 2008 to extend Hubble’s life and
`
`capabilities through today. The new infrared camera with higher resolution, the
`
`Hubble Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3), uses a 1024 x 1024 imaging sensor that was
`
`built using an updated version of the Rockwell 1024 x 1024 pixel infrared focal
`
`plane array (FPA) that I first developed in 1994.
`
`
`
`16
`
`1071-022
`
`

`
`38.
`
`
`
`The last astronomical work I was involved in at Rockwell led to both
`
`a 4096 x 4096 mosaic sensor and a
`
`supporting application specific integrated
`
`circuit (ASIC) that will be launched in the
`
`James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in
`
`2018 to further improve on Hubble’s
`
`capability by about an order of magnitude.
`
`In launching this project and striving to
`
`maximize the probability of delivering the
`
`next-in-line of world’s largest infrared
`
`sensors, I convinced UMC, the 2nd largest
`
`CMOS foundry in the world, to support our
`
`sensor development by producing these
`
`extremely large devices using a specialized
`
`Figure 2: Cover of October
`2007 issue of Laser Focus
`World magazine with “my”
`4096 x 4096 IR imaging
`sensor for the James
`Webb Space Telescope
`
`photo-composition technique that UMC would develop at its own cost.5 At that
`
`time the JWST was called the Next Generation Space Telescope. Figure 2 shows
`
`this sensor highlighted on a magazine cover of a periodical reporting the
`
`
`
`5Business Wire, “Rockwell Scientific and UMC Develop Ultra Large
`
`Readout IC for Infrared Astronomy,” Aug. 22, 2002, attached here as Ex. 1016.
`
`
`
`17
`
`1071-023
`
`

`
`significant advances in the imaging community.6 The cover picture shows the
`
`4096x4096 pixel FPA assembled in a large mosaic spanning over 3 inches per side
`
`with a picture one of the observatories located on Mauna Kea in the background.
`
`39.
`
` Many of my accomplishments were achieved as a member of the
`
`infrared community for numerous scientific and defense applications; some remain
`
`classified. The size of my teams ranged from several scientists to, at most, less than
`
`a dozen colleagues per project;
`
`occasionally