`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent No. 9,857,568
`
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSÉ SASIÁN, PH.D.,
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER REPLY
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 3
`The ’568 patent does not distinguish between an “ideal image plane”
`and an “actual image plane.” ........................................................................... 3
`III. The total lens length (TL) in Ogino’s Example 6 embodiment
`specifies the location of the image plane when the optional cover glass
`is removed, and is consistent with Zemax calculations. .................................. 8
`IV. Dr. Moore misapplies Beich’s (Ex. 1020) rules of thumb for lens
`manufacturability. .......................................................................................... 10
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 12
`V.
`VI. Appendix ........................................................................................................ 13
`A. Ogino’s Example 6 embodiment with the cover glass removed. ........ 13
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`
`
`I, José Sasián, Ph.D., declare as follows:
`Introduction
`I.
`
`1.
`
`I am the José Sasián who has previously submitted a declaration as
`
`Ex. 1003 in this proceeding. The terms of my engagement, my background,
`
`qualifications and prior testimony, and the legal standards and claim constructions
`
`I am applying are set forth in my previous CV and declaration. See Ex. 1003; Ex.
`
`1004. I offer this declaration in reply to Dr. Moore’s declaration filed in this
`
`proceeding as Exhibit 2013. In forming my opinion, I have considered the
`
`materials noted in my previous declaration, as well as the following additional
`
`materials:
`
`• Ex. 1025 – Deposition transcript of Duncan Moore, Ph.D.;
`
`• Ex. 2003 – Excerpts from “Optical System Design”;
`
`• Ex. 2005 – Declaration of Duncan Moore, Ph.D.; and
`
`• Ex. 2024 – Kingslake & Johnson, LENS DESIGN FUNDAMENTALS, 2d ed.,
`Ch. 4, (2010)
`
`II. The ’568 patent does not distinguish between an “ideal image plane”
`and an “actual image plane.”
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Moore, in his declaration, states that the term “image plane” “can be
`
`used to refer to different concepts, and the differences between those concepts
`
`would vary the meaning of the claim language.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 66. Dr. Moore offers
`
`the following text from Kingslake (Ex. 2024) in support:
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Moore then states that: “Kingslake provides that ‘image plane’ may mean at
`
`least two different concepts: the ‘ideal image plane,’ also known as the Gaussian
`
`image or paraxial image plane; and the actual ‘image plane’ comprising the surface
`
`at which an image may be formed (i.e., captured).” Ex. 2005 ¶ 66. Dr. Moore cites
`
`several other references explaining similar concepts. See id. ¶¶ 67-74.
`
`3.
`
`Based on this, Dr. Moore believes that the term “image plane” would
`
`have been ambiguous to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) reading
`
`the ’568 patent. See id. ¶ 74. I disagree for the following reasons. First, Dr. Moore
`
`acknowledges in his declaration (by citing to my book) that the ideal image plane
`
`and the actual image plane may be in the same location in a lens system. Ex. 2005
`
`¶¶ 70 (“the calculation by design arrives at a theoretical ‘ideal’ plane representing
`
`where the physical image plane could potentially be located.”), 72 (“In an actual
`
`lens system, the image may be ‘observed’ somewhere other than the ideal image
`
`plane.”). This alone contradicts Dr. Moore’s conclusion that the “ideal image
`
`plane” and the “actual” or “physical image plane” are mutually exclusive concepts.
`
`See Ex. 2005 ¶ 74.
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`4.
`
`Second, the ’568 patent provides lens prescription tables that specify
`
`the structure of lens assemblies. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:33-49. Lens prescription
`
`tables are a well-established and a standard way in lens design to specify the
`
`structure of lenses and their imaging, and not the structure of sensors (noting that
`
`no sensor structure or location data is shown in the lens prescription table). Id. A
`
`POSITA would have understood that the prescription tables of the ’568 patent
`
`specify the location of the image plane through the last thickness/distance in the
`
`prescription table. For example, as shown in Table 1 of the ’568 patent below, the
`
`first embodiment specifies the image plane at a distance of 0.200 mm from the last
`
`lens element and spaced from the object side surface of the first lens element by a
`
`distance of 5.904 mm (see Ex. 1001, 4:33-48, Fig. 1 (by correlating the Distances
`
`shown with Fig. 1 of the ’568 patent, a POSITA would have understood this
`
`spacing to apply to the image plane 114 and in view of the TTL)).
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`Defined Position of Image Plane
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:33-48 (Table 1) (annotated). The positions of the image planes in the
`
`other embodiments are similarly specified. See id., 6:5-25 (Table 3), 7:30-45 (Table
`
`5). The locations of these image planes are unambiguous. Prescription tables are
`
`produced by lens design software that optimizes the lens structure to provide image
`
`quality at the image plane. Instead of providing the location of a sensor, the lens
`
`design software provides the location of the image plane where the image quality
`
`has been optimized.
`
`5.
`
`Additionally, the specification of the ’568 patent teaches that 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. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, p.20; Ex.1001, Table 1,
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`Table 3, Table 5; Ex.1003, p.19. The ‘568 also teaches that “an image sensor (not
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`shown) is disposed at image plane 114 for the image formation.” Ex. 1001, 3:40-
`
`42. Therefore, the image plane and the sensor are taught by the ’568 patent to be
`
`coincident. Thus, there is no ambiguity in the ’568 patent about where is the image
`
`plane, and what is the TTL. See Ex. 1003, pp.33-35.
`
`6.
`
`Third, the ’568 patent teaches against focus shifts, for example, Figs.
`
`1B and 2B show how the image contrast (Modulus of the OTF) will be degraded
`
`when there is focus shift.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B
`
`7.
`
`As shown above, tiny focus shift of +/- 0.01 mm would lower
`
`significantly the image contrast. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 1B. Therefore, a POSITA
`
`would have understood that to avoid this degradation of image contrast, the image
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`plane location and the sensor position are set and unambiguous. See, e.g., Ex.
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`1003, p.20; Ex.1001, Table 1, Table 3, Table 5; Ex.1003, p.19 (showing
`
`determined locations of image planes as discussed above).
`
`8.
`
`Fourth, the ’568 patent only uses the term “image plane.” Ex. 1001,
`
`3:41, 5:64, 7:21. It does not distinguish between or even mention an “ideal image
`
`plane,” an “actual image plane,” or any similar concept. And, nowhere does the
`
`’568 patent describe using a defocus distance that offsets the actual image plane
`
`from the ideal image plane. As discussed above, the ’568 patent teaches against
`
`focus shifts. Rather, “image plane” in light of the ’568 patent is just the plane “for
`
`image formation of an object.” See id., 3:41, 5:64, 7:21. Based on this, it is my
`
`opinion that a POSITA would not have found any ambiguity in the meaning of
`
`“image plane” in relation to the ’568 patent.
`
`III. The total lens length (TL) in Ogino’s Example 6 embodiment specifies
`the location of the image plane when the optional cover glass is
`removed, and is consistent with Zemax calculations.
`
`9.
`
`As explained in detail in my original declaration (Ex. 1003), Ogino’s
`
`Example 6 lens assembly is a five lens structure with or without an optional cover
`
`glass. See Ex. 1003, pp.33-34, Ex. 1005, 2:19-34, 5:42-44, 5:66-6:2, 8:8-18. The
`
`total length of Ogino’s Example 6 embodiment is 4.387 mm (TL in Table 11)
`
`when the optional cover glass element is removed. Ex. 1003, p.34; see Ex. 1005,
`
`2:19-34, 5:42-44, 5:66-6:2, 8:8-18. This embodiment is reproduced in the diagram
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`below where the Total Axial Length (i.e., total length) is calculated by Zemax to be
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`4.38671 mm, entirely consistent with Ogino’s disclosure.
`
`
`
`See Appendix; Ex. 1005, Fig. 6, Table 11. According to Ogino, the image sensor is
`
`placed at the image plane. See Ex. 1005, 5:42-44 (“imaging device 100 is disposed
`
`at the image formation surface (image plane R14)”). Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`understood that when the cover glass is removed, thereby shifting the location of the
`
`image plane, that the image sensor would then also be shifted to the image plane.
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`
`
`IV. Dr. Moore misapplies Beich’s (Ex. 1020) rules of thumb for lens
`manufacturability.
`
`10. Dr. Moore opines that “Apple’s arguments regarding the combination
`
`of Beich’s ‘rules of thumb’ and Ogino require a selective and inconsistent
`
`application of those rules.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 123. Dr. Moore then attempts to show this
`
`supposed inconsistency by applying a single rule— “Diameter to Center Thickness
`
`Ratio” of less than 4:1—to Ogino’s L5 lens, not the L1 lens as shown in my
`
`original declaration. See id.
`
`11.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA would not have applied Beich’s “rules
`
`of thumb” to the L5 lens because the L5 lens is not of a type that Beich describes
`
`as difficult to manufacture. Beich’s “rules of thumb” apply generally to injection
`
`molding and may not apply to lenses that do not pose manufacturing problems,
`
`such as the L5 lens. Ex. 1020, p.7. Lenses that pose manufacturing problems are
`
`discussed by Beich. See Ex. 1020, p.7 (“Optics with extremely thick centers and
`
`thin edges are very challenging to mold. Negative optics (thin centers with heavy
`
`edges) are difficult to mold.”). The L5 negative lens in Ogino’s Example 6
`
`embodiment is not a strongly negative lens with thick edges and a thin center.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would not have applied Beich’s rule to Ogino’s L5 lens.
`
`12. However, as shown in my original declaration, a POSITA would have
`
`applied Beich’s “rules of thumb” to Ogino’s Example 6 L1 lens because L1 is a
`
`positive lens with a thick center and thin edges that get thinner as the diameter
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`increases. See Ex. 1005, Fig. 6; Ex. 1020, p.7; Ex. 1003, p.63. A POSITA seeking
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`to manufacture Ogino Example 6 embodiment would have thus recognized the
`
`applicability of Beich rules in setting Ogino’s L1 lens diameter to maintain a
`
`center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than 3:1 for ease of manufacturing. See Ex.
`
`1005; Ex. 1020, p.7.
`
`13. Thus, my opinion that a POSITA looking to manufacture Ogino’s
`
`Example 6 embodiment would have relied on Beich’s rules of thumb for
`
`maintaining a center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than 3:1 for ease of
`
`manufacturing remains unchanged.
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`11
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`
`
`V. Conclusion
`14.
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
`
`States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that all statements
`
`made of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
`
`and belief are believed to be true. I understand that willful false statements are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
`
`
`
`Date: August 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/José Sasián, Ph.D./
`José Sasián, Ph.D.
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`12
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`
`
`VI. Appendix
`A. Ogino’s Example 6 embodiment with the cover glass removed.
`
`Total lens length is 4.38671 mm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`13
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D. in support of Petitioner Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`14
`
`Ex. 1026 / IPR2019-00030
`
`