`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`HEIDI KEEFE (178960)
`(HKEEFE@COOLEY.COM)
`LOWELL MEAD (223989)
`(LMEAD@COOLEY.COM)
`PRIYA VISWANATH (238089)
`(PVISWANATH@COOLEY.COM)
`3175 HANOVER STREET
`PALO ALTO, CA 94304
`TELEPHONE:
`(650) 843-5000
`FACSIMILE:
`(650) 849-7400
`
`COOLEY LLP
`STEPHEN SMITH (PRO HAC VICE)
`STEPHEN.SMITH@COOLEY.COM
`PHILLIP MORTON (PRO HAC VICE)
`(PMORTON@COOLEY.COM)
`1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
`NW, SUITE 700
`WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2400
`TELEPHONE: (202) 842-7800
`FACSIMILE: (202) 842-7899
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Apple Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:17-cv-06457-LHK (lead case)
`Case No. 5:18-cv-02555-LHK
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Date: January 17, 2019
`Time: 1:30 P.M.
`Courtroom: 8
`Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`1.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 1 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 2 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 
`THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT APPLE’S PROPOSALS. .................................................. 1 
`A.
`“total track length (TTL)” / “total length (TTL)” (’032 patent, claim 1; ’712
`patent, claims 1, 15, 19; ’568 patent, claim 1; ’291 patent, claim 6) ........................... 1 
`1.
`“Total track length (TTL)” has an established customary meaning. ............... 2 
`2.
`The patents-in-suit use the same established customary meaning. .................. 4 
`3.
`The patents-in-suit do not clearly re-define “total track length (TTL).” ......... 6 
`4.
`Corephotonics’ remaining arguments are unavailing. ..................................... 8 
`“standard color filter array (CFA)” (’152 patent, claims 1, 3) ................................... 10 
`“to register the overlap area . . .” claim language (’152 patent, claims 1, 3) ............. 12 
`1.
`“to register the overlap area of the second image as non-primary image
`to the first image as primary image” .............................................................. 12 
`“. . . to obtain the output image” .................................................................... 13 
`2.
`“fused output image of the object or scene from a particular point of view”
`(’291 patent, claims 1, 12) ......................................................................................... 16 
`“sensor oversampling ratio” (’291 patent, claims 4, 5, 13) ....................................... 18 
`E.
`CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 19 
`
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`i.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 2 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 3 of 23
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`744 F.3d 732 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................................6
`
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.,
`IPR 2018-01140, Institution Decision (PTAB Dec. 4, 2018) ..................................................1, 5, 8
`
`Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.,
`528 F. Supp. 2d 967 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...........................................................................................14
`
`EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd.,
`766 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................................5
`
`GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F. 3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...................................................................................................1, 6
`
`Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
`527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................9, 15
`
`Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................7, 11
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................14, 18
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................................14
`
`Pause Tech., LLC v. TiVo, Inc.,
`419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................................11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ..................................................................................9, 15
`
`Starhome GmbH v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................................6, 9
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) .......................................................................................................................9
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................14, 15, 17
`
`ii.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 3 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is an unusual case where the plaintiff-patentee, Corephotonics, seeks unduly narrow claim
`constructions for most of the disputed terms. Corephotonics proclaims that its claimed inventions are
`allegedly innovative. (Dkt. No. 96 (“Open. Br.”) at 1-2.) Tellingly, however, Corephotonics asks the
`Court to improperly inject narrowing limitations in an apparent effort to avoid invalidating prior art.
`The Court should reject Corephotonics’ litigation-driven proposals. Apple’s proposed constructions
`faithfully reflect the meanings shown by the evidence, and should be adopted.
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD ADOPT APPLE’S PROPOSALS.
`A.
`“total track length (TTL)” / “total length (TTL)” (’032 patent, claim 1; ’712
`patent, claims 1, 15, 19; ’568 patent, claim 1; ’291 patent, claim 6)
`
`Corephotonics’ Proposal
`length on an optical axis between the object‐side
`surface of the first lens element and the
`electronic sensor
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`length on an optical axis between the object‐side
`surface of the first lens element and the image
`plane
`
`The parties’ sole dispute is whether “total track length (TTL)” is measured with reference to
`an image plane, as used consistently in the specification according to its customary meaning in the art,
`or necessarily requires an “electronic sensor,” as Corephotonics seeks to read into the claims.
`“Total track length (TTL)” is a well-known term of art in the field of optical lenses. The
`patents-in-suit use this term with its established customary meaning: the length on an optical axis
`between the object‐side surface of the first lens element and the image plane. Apple’s proposed
`construction captures that meaning. In instituting Apple’s IPR petition regarding the ’032 patent, the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) agreed with Apple’s
`construction: “we agree with Petitioner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would conclude
`the term ‘total track length (TTL)’ to be ‘the length of the optical axis spacing between the object-side
`surface of the first lens element and the image plane.’” Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., IPR 2018-
`01140, Institution Decision (Dkt. 97-2), at 11 (PTAB Dec. 4, 2018).
`Corephotonics’ construction erroneously relies on the specification’s discussion of one
`optional, exemplary embodiment that may include an electronic sensor. GE Lighting Sols., LLC v.
`AgiLight, Inc., 750 F. 3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[I]t is improper to read limitations from a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 4 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the
`claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so
`limited.”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). But that discussion regarding one of several
`embodiments does not change the term’s customary meaning as known in the field and used in the
`patents. In fact, Corephotonics’ construction would impermissibly exclude multiple preferred
`embodiments in the specification, which do not include any sensor and measure total track length
`(TTL) only with reference to the image plane. (’032, Figs. 2A, 3A, 5:10-11, 5:50-52, 6:27-28, 7:15-
`17.)1
`
`1.
`“Total track length (TTL)” has an established customary meaning.
`The concept of TTL is straightforward. An optical imaging assembly, such as in a telephoto
`camera, includes one or more lens elements. As light rays from an object at infinity pass through these
`lens elements, they become focused at a plane in space. This plane is known as the image plane (or
`“focal plane”). For example, Figure 3A from the patents-in-suit shows the light rays (diagonal lines)
`passing through the lens elements and focusing on the image plane.
`
`
`
`
`1 For convenience, this brief cites the ’032 patent to represent the shared specification of the ’032,
`’712, ’568, and ’291 patents.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 5 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`(’712, Figure 3A (partial; color annotations added).) By convention in the field, the “total track length”
`of the imaging system refers to the distance from the outermost lens surface to the image plane, as
`annotated in Figure 3A above. As its name indicates, TTL indicates the total length of the optical
`track: the distance between (1) the plane where incoming light first hits the outermost lens element
`(i.e., closest to the object of the image) and (2) the plane where the image is focused. Moreover, as
`shown above, TTL is a characteristic of the collection of optical lens elements, without regard to the
`location of other components that might exist in an overall imaging system, such as a sensor.
`Numerous third-party references dating prior to the patents-in-suit reflect the well-accepted
`meaning of TTL identified by Apple: the “length from the top of the lens barrel to the image plane,
`known in the industry as total track length, (TTL).” (Declaration of Lowell D. Mead (“Mead Decl.”),
`Ex. 1 (Bareau & Clark, “The Optics of Miniature Digital Camera Modules”) (emphasis added) at 1.)
`See also, e.g., Mead Decl. Ex. 2 at col. 2:6-14 (defining “total track length (TTL)” as “a distance from
`the position of the object-side surface of the first lens element on the optical axis to the image plane”)
`(emphasis added); Mead Decl. Ex. 3 at col. 2:11-12, 2:34-35 (“total track length (TTL) from the first
`surface to an image plane”) (emphasis added).)
`Corephotonics itself also uses this same meaning of TTL. For example, in the figure below
`from a Corephotonics patent application, the total track length (TTL) is labeled in an imaging assembly
`with five lens elements:
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 6 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`(Dkt. 96-1 at 13 (Fig. 1) (red box annotation added).) As indicated in the figure, “TTL” refers to the
`length between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the image plane. Corephotonics’
`proposed definition for this litigation ignores its own standard usage and should be rejected.
`The term TTL is used extensively in Corephotonics’ claims in comparison to the focal length
`of the lens assembly, called the “effective focal length (EFL).” (Cf. Open. Br. at 2, 9 (discussing that
`the ’032, ’568, and ’291 patents describe and claim lenses with TTL less than EFL, i.e., a ratio of
`TTL/EFL < 1.0).) This ratio of TTL/EFL is known as the “telephoto ratio.” The use of “TTL” in this
`ratio – the total length – is well-known in the field, consistent with Apple’s construction. See, e.g.,
`Mead Decl. Ex. 4 (Kingslake, “A History of the Photographic Lens”) (1989) at 132 (“A much more
`meaningful expression is the ratio of the total length from the front lens vertex to the focal plane to
`the [effective] focal length. This ratio is now universally employed; it is known as the telephoto ratio
`of the lens.”) (emphasis added); Mead Decl. Ex. 5 (Cox, “System of Optical Design”) (1964) at 455
`(“The ratio of this distance, from the front vertex to the focal plane, to the equivalent focal length, is
`known as the ‘telephoto ratio.’”) (emphasis added); Mead Decl. Ex. 6 (Malacara, “Handbook of Lens
`Design”) (1994) at 385 (“[In a telephoto lens, t]he effective focal length of the system is larger than
`the total length, from the front lens to the focal plane, of the system.”) (emphasis added).
`
`2.
`The patents-in-suit use the same established customary meaning.
`The patents-in-suit use the same customary meaning that was known in the industry, and used
`by Corephotonics. The Background section of the specification first introduces the term without any
`re-definition: “Cameras in cellphone devices in particular require a compact imaging lens system for
`good quality imaging and with a small total track length (TTL).” (’032, col. 1:27-30 (emphasis
`added).) The specification thereby uses this term according to its established, pre-existing meaning.
`The embodiments disclosed in the specification use the same meaning. Critically, two of the
`three detailed embodiments do not include any sensor, and they include TTL values to identify the
`total track length to the image plane. These two embodiments are illustrated in Figures 2A and 3A of
`the common specification. These embodiments include an “image plane” (items 214 and 314
`respectively) that is used to determine TTL. (’032, Figs. 2A (image plane 214), 3A (image plane 314),
`col. 5:10-11 (“image plane 214 for image formation of an object”), 6:27-28 (“image plane 314 for
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`4.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 7 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`image formation of an object”).) Figures 2A and 3A, reproduced below, both show the image planes,
`214 and 314 respectively, to the far right.
`
`
`
`(’032, Figs. 2A and 3A (excerpt) (red annotations identifying image planes 214 and 314 added).)
`These two embodiments also include a value for TTL. (’032, col. 5:50-52 (“Embodiment 200
`provides . . . TTL=5.90 mm”), 7:15-17 (“Embodiment 300 provides . . . TTL=5.904 mm”).) The TTL
`is determined with reference to the image plane (items 214 and 314) consistent with the customary
`meaning of TTL. These embodiments do not include any sensor. Rather, the values of TTL are a
`distance from the first lens element to the image plane, as the PTAB recognized. IPR 2018-01140,
`Institution Decision, at 11 (“In the specification of the ’032 Patent, the TTL of each lens system
`embodiment can be determined by summing the widths of lens elements and spacing between lens
`elements of the lens system from the object side of the first lens to the image plane.”) (citations
`omitted). Therefore, the term “total track length (TTL)” as used in these patents is not, and cannot be,
`limited to something that references a sensor, as it would exclude these embodiments.
`A “claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment . . . is rarely, if ever correct and
`would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” EPOS Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766
`F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation and citation omitted) (reversing district court’s
`ruling because the “the district court’s construction reads out preferred embodiments and it is not
`supported by ‘highly persuasive’ evidence”). There is no such “highly persuasive” evidence here.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 8 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Like the embodiments described above, most of the claims at issue are directed to the collection
`of lenses and do not recite a sensor. The claims of the ’032, ’712, and ’568 patents recite a “lens
`assembly,” that includes “a plurality of . . . lens elements” with a total track length (TTL), with no
`recitation of any sensor. (See ’032, claim 1, 1:42-54 (explaining that a “lens assembly” is made up of
`lens elements); ’712, claims 1, 15, 19; ’568 patent, claim 1.) These claims are not directed to a “lens
`system” that requires a sensor. (’032, 1:55-59.)
`Similarly, ’291 patent dependent claim 6 recites TTL as a characteristic of a Tele lens: “the
`Tele lens includes a ratio of total length (TTL)/effective focal length (EFL) . . ..” (’291, claim 6.) The
`TTL is a feature of the lens, not a characteristic of a sensor. (See ’291, independent claim 1 (claiming
`the Tele lens and Tele sensor separately), Figure 1, 6:5-7.) The claims thus use the term “total track
`length (TTL)” with its customary meaning: the length on an optical axis between the object-side
`surface of the first lens element and the image plane.
`
`3.
`The patents-in-suit do not clearly re-define “total track length (TTL).”
`Corephotonics contends that a single statement regarding “the electronic sensor” in the
`specification’s Summary section constitutes a re-definition of the term “total track length (TTL).”
`(Open. Br. at 9-10.) Corephotonics is incorrect.
`As Corephotonics itself emphasizes, “[t]he standards for finding lexicography and disavowal
`are exacting.” (Open Br. at 12, quoting GE Lighting, 750 F.3d at 1309 (emphasis by Corephotonics).)
`The Federal Circuit applies “a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`customary meaning.” Starhome GmbH v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 857 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(citation omitted). “A claim term should be given its ordinary meaning in the pertinent context, unless
`the patentee has made clear its adoption of a different definition or otherwise disclaimed that
`meaning.” Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 744 F.3d 732, 734 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed
`claim term,’ and ‘clearly express an intent to define the term.’” GE Lighting, 750 F.3d at 1309 (citation
`omitted). “The patentee’s lexicography must, of course, appear with reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
`and precision before it can affect the claim.” Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d
`1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 9 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`Corephotonics fails to overcome the heavy presumption that the term “total track length
`(TTL)” is used according to its customary meaning. The specification does not re-define the term,
`such as by stating “as used herein, the term ‘total track length (TTL)’ means . . .” or the like. On the
`contrary, as noted above, the specification introduces the term in its Background section without any
`re-definition. (’032, col. 1:27-30.) The patent thus simply uses the pre-existing, established meaning
`of “total track length (TTL).” The same meaning is used throughout the patent, including in the
`detailed preferred embodiments that do not include any sensors, as discussed previously.
`Corephotonics’ proposed construction would impermissibly read in a sensor limitation from a
`single sentence regarding a single embodiment (among many). In the sentence from the Summary
`section that Corephotonics relies upon, the broader context is describing an embodiment that “may”
`include (but does not require) a sensor that coincides with an image plane. (’032, col. 1:55-63.) That
`sentence does not require limiting the claims to that single embodiment in the manner that
`Corephotonics proposes. Rather, that sentence, when read in context (as it must be), is fully consistent
`with the customary meaning of “total track length (TTL)” in reference to the image plane. The
`Summary section starts by describing that “[e]mbodiments disclosed herein . . .” may have various
`features. (’032, col. 1:42-54.) For example, an embodiment “may” include various elements including
`“an image sensor with an image plane on which an image of the object is formed.” (Id., col. 1:55-59
`(emphasis added).) Thus, in an example embodiment, the image plane may coincide with the surface
`of an image sensor. The next sentence states: “The effective focal length of the lens assembly is
`marked ‘EFL’ and the total track length on an optical axis between the object-side surface of the first
`lens element and the electronic sensor is marked ‘TTL’.” (Id., col. 1:60-63.) Therefore, in this
`exemplary embodiment, a marking of “TTL” identifies the total track length from the object-side
`surface to “the” previously-referenced sensor. This statement does not redefine the term “total track
`length (TTL)” for purposes of the entire patent. This statement simply notes that, in an example
`embodiment where the image plane coincides with a sensor surface, the “total track length” is
`“marked” with the label “TTL.” Thus, the use of TTL in this embodiment is consistent with the
`customary meaning. In this embodiment, the image plane coincides with the surface of a sensor, as
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 10 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`noted previously. Thus, the “TTL” marking identifies the length on an optical axis between the object-
`side surface of the first lens element and the image plane.2
`Corephotonics’ construction also makes no sense in the context of the claim language. Most
`of the claims at issue do not recite a sensor, as noted previously. These claims are agnostic as to the
`existence or non-existence of a sensor to accompany the lens assembly and its image plane.
`Corephotonics’ construction, injecting a reference to “the electronic sensor” when the claims do not
`recite any sensor, would render these claims nonsensical.
`
`4.
`Corephotonics’ remaining arguments are unavailing.
`Corephotonics raises several other arguments, none of which change the result. (Open. Br. at
`10-11.) First, it argues that Apple’s construction “deviates from the plain text in the specification.”
`(Id. at 10.) Again, Corephotonics is incorrect. Before these patents were filed, “total track length”
`had a well-established meaning in the field, just like many other technical terms-of-art that have
`established meanings. When these patents were filed, the specification assumed that same meaning,
`starting with the Background section and continuing through the descriptions of the preferred
`embodiments. The only specification text that Corephotonics relies upon locates the sensor at the
`image plane, so is consistent with Apple’s proposal.
`Next, Corephotonics notes that the specification separately refers to the “image plane” and the
`“image sensor.” (Open. Br. at 10.) That, however, only supports Apple’s proposed construction. As
`discussed above, the specification consistently uses the term TTL to refer to the distance to the image
`plane. In one optional embodiment, an image sensor may be located at the image plane. Other
`embodiments, however, do not include a sensor, and neither the claims at issue nor the specification
`require an image sensor to be located at the image plane. It therefore would be improper to adopt a
`construction that would import a requirement into all of the claims for an “electronic sensor” which
`
`
`2 The same observations hold true for the first of the patents’ three detailed embodiments, shown in
`Figure 1A. That embodiment includes an “image plane 114 for image formation of an object.”
`(’032, col. 3:10-13.) In that embodiment, in addition to the image plane, “an image sensor (not
`shown) is disposed at image plane 114 for the image formation.” (Id., col. 3:13-15.) In addition, as
`the PTAB recognized, the TTL in the first embodiment can be computed as the sum of the distances
`from the first lens element to the image plane. IPR 2018-01140, Institution Decision, at 11.
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`8.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 11 of 23
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`appears in only one optional embodiment but not others.
`Corephotonics further argues that extrinsic evidence is “less significant” than the intrinsic
`record. (Id. at 10.) But the intrinsic evidence—the specification and claims—use the term-of-art “total
`track length (TTL)” according to its established meaning, as discussed previously, including in the
`embodiments that have TTL and an image plane but do not include any sensor. The Supreme Court
`and Federal Circuit have repeatedly affirmed that a district court may properly consult extrinsic
`sources to determine the customary meaning of a technical term-of-art. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v.
`Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (in some cases “the district court will need to look beyond
`the patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand . . . the meaning
`of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.”); Starhome, 743 F.3d at 856 (noting that
`extrinsic references “can often be useful in claim construction, particularly insofar as they help the
`court ‘to better understand the underlying technology and the way in which one of skill in the art might
`use the claim terms.’”) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`banc)); Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A
`court may look to extrinsic evidence so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the meaning
`otherwise apparent from the intrinsic record.”).
`In Starhome, for example, the Court cited extrinsic evidence to determine that “[t]he term
`‘gateway’ had a well-understood meaning in the art” and found that “[c]onsidering ‘gateway’ in the
`context of the claims and specification of the ’487 patent, one of ordinary skill would have understood
`that the inventors did not depart from the ordinary meaning of ‘gateway’ with their use of the term
`‘intelligent gateway.’” 743 F.3d at 856-57. Likewise here, the extrinsic evidence and the intrinsic
`evidence align with the same meaning of “total track length (TTL),” as discussed previously.
`Corephotonics next argues that the extrinsic evidence “presents a contradictory record.”
`(Open. Br. at 10.) That is incorrect. Corephotonics cites two prior art patents, both to the same
`assignee, with discussions that are notably similar to the statements in the later-filed Corephotonics
`specifications. (Id. at 10-11, citing U.S. 8,310,768 at 2:8-10, 3:48-51; U.S. 8,395,851 at 1:66-2:1,
`2:20-23.) Those specifications, like the derivative later-filed Corephotonics specification, describe
`embodiments where the image plane coincides with a sensor. (’851, col. 1:60-2:2 (describing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`Exhibit 2008
`IPR2018-01133
`
`Exhibit 2008 Page 12 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-06457-LHK Document 98 Filed 12/07/18 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`embodiment with “an electronic sensor disposed at an image plane for the image formation of the
`object” and then identifying TTL with reference to “the” sensor) (emphasis added); ’768, col. 7:37-39
`(“image plane” in first embodiment), 8:45-53 (TTL in first embodiment), 9:27-29 (“image plane” in
`second embodiment), 10:23-30 (TTL in second embodiment).) Their discussion that “TTL” indicates
`distance to “the” sensor in such embodiments therefore applies the customary meaning known in the
`field, just like the Corephotonics embodiment. Likewise, the Corephotonics patent application that
`discusses TTL refers to the “image sensor plane,” again reflecting that is the image plane—which may
`or may not coincide with a sensor—that defines TTL. (Open. Br. at 11, citing Ex. 1 at
`COREPH000961 (emphasis added).)
`Moreover, regardless of whether some third-party implementations might use the term “TTL”
`with reference to a sensor, the fact remains that defining “total track length” with reference to “the
`electronic sensor” for the Corephotonics patents-in-suit would impermissibly exclude preferred
`embodiments that do not include a sensor, and would also render nonsensical the claims that do not
`recite any sensor, as discussed previously. Only Apple’s proposed construction consistently reflects
`the customary usage of “total track length (TTL)” throughout the specification and the claims, and in
`the industry.
`
`B.
`
` “standard color filter array (CFA)” (’152 patent, claims 1, 3)
`
`Apple’s Proposal
`a color filter array (CFA) including a RGB
`(Bayer) pattern, RGBE, CYYM, CYGM,
`RGBW#1, RGBW#2, or RGBW#3
`
`Corephotonics’ Proposal
`a color filter array (CFA) that includes a RGB
`(Bayer) pattern or a non-Bayer pattern such as
`RGBE, CYYM, CYGM, RGBW#1, RGBW#2
`or RGBW#3
`The ’152 patent specification provides a list of patterns used by a “standard CFA” (color filter
`array) and defines that a CFA that uses any other pattern is a “non-standard CFA.” The sole issue in
`dispute is whether the claimed “standard” CFA is (1) limited to CFAs using the patterns the
`specification identifies for a “standard CFA” as opposed to patterns used by a “non-standard CFA,”
`as Apple proposes, or (2) encompasses CFAs using any possible pattern, including the CFA patterns
`the specification identifies for a “non-standard CFA,” as Corephotonics proposes.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10.
`
`APPLE’S RESPONSIVE
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Apple v. Corephoton