`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`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 9,857,568 B2
`
`__________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 12, 2019
`__________
`
`Before MARCS. HOFF, BRYAN MOORE, and
`MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL S. PARSONS, ESQ
`Haynes and Boone, LLP
`2505 N. Plano Road
`Suite 4000
`Richardson, Texas 75082-4101
`972-739-8621
`michael.parsons@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NEIL A. RUBIN, ESQ.
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`310-826-7474
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Tuesday, November
`
`12, 2019, commencing at 10:08 a.m. at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`
`(10:08 a.m.)
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Good morning. Welcome to the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board. We are here today for oral arguments in inter
`partes review matter Number 2019-00030, a case in which Apple is a
`Petitioner and Corephotonics is the Patent Owner.
`Your panel for today includes myself, Judge Moore, and Judge Hoff.
`I would like to start by getting the appearances of counsel. Who do we
`have on behalf of Petitioner?
`MR. PARSONS: Your Honor, my name is Michael Parsons on
`behalf of Petitioner, Apple. With me is my colleague, Jordan Maucotel,
`and behind me is our colleague from Apple, Mr. Aaron Wong (phonetic).
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you. And who do we have on
`behalf of Patent Owner?
`MR. RUBIN: Good morning, Your Honor. Neil Rubin of Russ
`August & Kabat on behalf of the Patent Owner, Corephotonics.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you. Thank you all for joining us.
`I've got a few administrative details I'd like to go over, and then we can
`begin. Each party will have 60 minutes to argue their case. We're going to
`hear first from Petitioner.
`Petitioner, you will present your arguments in chief. Patent Owner,
`you will then be permitted time to present your arguments. And we would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`also like to mention that we are going to make the transcript from the oral
`arguments in inter partes review matter Numbers 2018-01133, 2018-01140,
`and 2018-01146 of record in the present proceeding.
`Irrespective of that, you're welcome to make any arguments you
`wish today. These 60 minutes are yours, and you can use them how you
`wish. So let's begin with Petitioner. Would you like to reserve any
`rebuttal time?
`MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor. I would like 20 minutes for
`rebuttal.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay, when you're ready you may begin.
`MR. PARSONS: Thank you. I have got copies of our
`demonstratives if you would like them.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Yes, please.
`MR. PARSONS: Okay, thank you. Good morning, Your Honors.
`Again, I'm Michael Parsons, lead counsel for Petitioner, Apple. In our
`discussion today there are four primary issues that we would like to discuss
`with you today.
`The first one that we'll jump right into is the proper construction of
`TTL. And we believe, and we still maintain throughout the proceedings
`that the proper construction of TTL, as you can see on Slide 4, is the length
`on an optical axis between the object site surface of the first lens element
`and the image plane.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`We believe that this is the proper construction in light of both the
`specification and the claims. And I know that there are some various
`constructions going about right now.
`We have briefed it continually in this way because of the record in
`this case. The Patent Owner is still maintaining that their construction is to
`an electronic sensor. But to the extent that we would like to discuss the
`other constructions that have been proposed, we're more than happy to
`address those today.
`But as to our specific construction and the reason that we believe that
`this is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification is
`because if you turn to Slide 5, the specification itself, in the first paragraph
`of the summary section, it describes embodiments disclosed herein that refer
`to an optical lens assembly.
`So this is what the claim -- this is what Claim 1 is directed to. And
`you can see that in Slide 4 where we've provided a copy of Claim 1. The
`claims are directed to a lens assembly. And according to the specification,
`that lens assembly just includes five lens elements.
`Then in the next paragraph in the summary section it describes an
`optical lens system that incorporates a number of other optional components,
`including the lens assembly from the prior paragraph as well as elements
`including a stop which is the aperture opening, a glass window as well as a
`sensor that can be placed at the image plane for image formation.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`Now Patent Owner has relied in their papers on what they call an
`expressed definition. But given the briefing that's occurred in the other
`cases it seems as though that Patent Owner is no longer advocating for a
`construction that is limited to just an electronic sensor but is allowing for a
`broader construction that still incorporates a sensor but that sensor can be
`placed at the image plane.
`Now if we look at the embodiments in Slide 6 that we've provided,
`in Slide 6 we show the embodiment in 2A of the '568 patent as well as the
`embodiment in 3A. Both of these embodiments are specifically described
`as optical lens systems.
`And even here it shows the optional nature of the sensor element as
`well as the cover glass because it shows that image plane 214 is placed in the
`embodiment and that's what's used for image formation of an object. The
`same with the third embodiment in 3A. That again shows an embodiment
`where 314 is an image plane that is where image formation occurs.
`Now the only embodiment in the '568 patent, as we've consistently
`argued, is image plane 114, as you can see on Slide 7. Now at Slide 7 for
`the embodiment in Figure 1 it shows an image plane 114 for image
`formation of an object and then an image sensor is disposed at that location
`for image formation.
`So our construction that's drawing TTL to the image plane is what
`the specification actually supports. It does not support the importation of a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`sensor into the claim limitation especially because there is no clear
`instruction that's throughout the specification where a sensor is a required
`and necessary element of the claim.
`And so our argument and our position is that it is improper to import
`a sensor limitation in any way, shape, or form. Now --
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Counsel, how do you reconcile that
`position with the extrinsic evidence that appears to show a sensor as part of
`the definition for TTL?
`MR. PARSONS: Well first off, we believe that the intrinsic
`evidence alone is sufficient to resolve this issue to the point where extrinsic
`evidence doesn't need to be relied on. Second, the image plane is
`consistently taught throughout the specification and the prior art as the
`location where image formation occurs.
`And that's where a POSITA would place a sensor in order to capture
`that image formation. But all that needs to be defined in terms of the claims
`in order to resolve the case is that TTL is defined to the place where image
`formation occurs and that's consistently described in the specification as
`being the image plane.
`That's where a POSITA would place a sensor in order to capture an
`image. But it is not an express required element of a lens assembly, and
`that's what the intrinsic evidence consistently shows. So to the extent
`that there's extrinsic evidence that might show something different, it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`directly contradicts the intrinsic evidence that's provided in the express claim
`language and in the description of each of the embodiments. So to the
`extent that extrinsic evidence is relied on, all that needs to be relied on is
`where the sensor is placed not the fact that a sensor is actually placed at that
`location.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Given that there is an image plane
`disclosed in the patent, wouldn't it necessarily require some sort of sensor,
`film or digital, for there to be an image plane?
`MR. PARSONS: No. The image plane is merely the place where
`the image formation occurs according to the design of the lens assembly.
`Now I don't know why they drafted the claims this way. I imagine it has
`something to do with capturing a broader infringement profile.
`But the claims are limited to five lens elements. And those five lens
`elements basically mathematically perform and capture light and pass it
`through the system to the point where they converge at a point in space, and
`that is defined as the image plane.
`What is placed there at that image plane to capture the image is
`irrelevant to the inquiry here today because the claim limitation is directed to
`a lens assembly which is just the order of the five lens elements and that they
`recognize that there's a point in space where all of the light converges in
`order to form the image.
`That's where a sensor would be placed, and that is the image plane.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Can that lens assembly absent an
`electronic sensor or any other type of capturing device, is that useful for
`anything? Does that do anything on its own?
`MR. PARSONS: And I think that would come down to how you
`market and sell a lens assembly. I mean, I'm sure that there are providers
`out that there that have lens assemblies that they sell and they tell a, like a
`camera manufacturer or somebody that's providing the sensor component
`where that lens assembly needs to be positioned in relation to the sensor.
`A lens assembly can be sold and marketed independent of the image
`plane -- or sorry, independent of a sensor that's used. And so these claims
`aren't limited to a sensor, any kind of sensor. But we recognize the need to
`define where the image convergence would take place which is defined as
`the image plane.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you.
`MR. PARSONS: Thank you. Now continuing on with that, you
`know, we have discussed with Dr. Moore as we have talked about before
`and in Slide 8 we've included some excerpts from Dr. Moore's deposition
`transcript.
`And to the extent that this is an issue Dr. Moore agrees if you look at
`Line 18 on Slide 8 we asked Dr. Moore, would Dr. Sasian's construction of
`TTL be included in the broadest reasonable construction? Dr. Moore
`agrees.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`So to the extent that there is any difference in the parties
`constructions both experts agree that all that's important here is we know
`where the sensor would be placed but not that a sensor is actually physically
`required to be there in the system.
`On Slide 9, continuing with this we asked Dr. Moore if total track
`length existed before electronic sensors, and he agrees that in fact they did.
`On the right hand portion of the excerpt from the transcript that we've
`included at about Line 22, we asked a -- we asked, a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would understand that film is an image plane.
`Dr. Moore agreed that, yes, in the old days the image plane is where
`film was placed. So again the specification, Dr. Moore, and our expert all
`agree that the image plane is where something is placed to capture the
`image. That's where image formation occurs and that's where TTL should
`probably be construed to is that point in space where image formation takes
`place.
`
`Now in Slide 10 we've included an excerpt from Dr. Sasian's
`declaration that accompanied the reply. And this is to address Patent
`Owner's argument that they are trying to make some ambiguity out of the
`term image plane.
`Now they're relying on extrinsic evidence, specifically a Kingslake
`reference. And what that talks about, it talks about a focus shift that can be
`defined for a lens assembly that would move the image sensor from the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`paraxial or ideal image plane to some other distance which they're calling an
`actual image plane.
`Now to the extent that they're trying to make an argument that these
`are mutually exclusive concepts, they actually aren't because Dr. Moore has
`actually admitted, as Dr. Sasian shows here, you know, Dr. Sasian says well
`first Dr. Moore acknowledges in his declaration that the ideal image plane
`and the actual image plane may be in the same location in a lens system.
`And that's the case that we have here is in the '568 patent as well as
`in the Ogino reference they all teach the same thing that the image sensor,
`which is what Patent Owner is calling the actual image plane, is at the
`paraxial image plane. And there is no difference between those two image
`planes. It's just a matter of terminology difference, but they're actually in
`the same location.
`Now to support this if you turn to Slide 11, the portion of Dr.
`Sasian's declaration from Paragraph 6, Dr. Sasian says the '568 patent
`teaches against focus shift, for example, in Figures 1B and 2B show how the
`image contrast will be degraded when the focus shift is used.
`Now again, the Kingslake reference talks about the actual image
`plane being subject to a focus shift. But the '568 patent doesn't teach
`anything about using a focus shift or putting the image sensor or the image
`plane being anywhere other than the paraxial image plane. And you can
`see that from Figure 1B here that the line on the bottom shows the amount of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`focus shift in millimeters. And at the point zero is where the best image
`would be obtained. And you if you shift the sensor one way or the other off
`of that zero point that the image quality degrades.
`Now Dr. Sasian goes on to say in Paragraph 7, as shown above, a
`tiny focus shift of plus or minus .01 millimeters would lower significantly
`the image contrast. Therefore, a POSITA would have understood to avoid
`this degradation of image contrast, the image plane location and the sensor
`position are set and unambiguous. In other words, in the '568 patent there is
`no concept that's being taught of using anything other than the paraxial
`image plane in order to define where a sensor is going to be placed.
`So, to the extent that there's any ambiguity in the terms of image
`plane in light of the '568 patent, there really isn't any. The image plane is
`the paraxial image plane, and that's what the reference teaches that's being
`used.
`
`It doesn't show a focus shift. It doesn't show any benefit for using a
`focus shift. And so the most logical definition of TTL is defining it to the
`point where image formation occurs which the patent describes as being the
`paraxial image plane.
`Now if there's no questions about that I'd be happy to entertain any
`questions about the proposed construction that we've been briefing in the
`other cases if there is any questions that you would like to ask.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: No questions from me.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`MR. PARSONS: Okay. All right, then I'll continue on to Slide 12.
`This is our, the second topic that we'd like to discuss. And Patent Owner
`has raised some arguments about the level of ordinary skill in the art in this
`case and the fact that it's different than the two cases that are also pending in
`1146 and 1140.
`Now in Slide 13, as we've provided in the Petition, Dr. Sasian
`believes that the level of ordinary skill is approximately three years of
`experience in designing and/or manufacturing multi lens systems. Now this
`more goes to the idea of manufacturability of lens designs and that a
`POSITA would have experience both in designing and manufacturing lenses
`and would go about designing a lens in a way that they can be manufactured.
`Now this is different slightly than the level of ordinary skill that we
`have presented in the prior cases because this includes a manufacturing
`component. But that's because the '568 patent is a continuation in part and
`includes language specifically to the manufacturability of a lens design.
`In Slide 14, for example, an excerpt from the '568 patent, the first
`portion that we've highlighted, it says a large L11 over L1e ratio which we're
`going to shorthand that for today and just call it the center to edge thickness
`ratio, that that impacts negatively the manufacturability of the lens and its
`quality.
`It goes on to say that the significant reduction in the ratio improves
`the manufacturability and increases the quality of lens assemblies disclosed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`herein. So essentially what the Patent Owner is trying to claim in the '568
`patent is a small center to edge thickness ratio because that makes lenses
`easier to manufacture.
`The more -- the bigger difference you have between the thickness at
`the center versus the thickness at the edge affects the ability to manufacture
`them easily. So that's essentially what Patent Owner is trying to claim in
`this '568 patent.
`Now to the extent that there's any argument still existing that Patent
`Owner wants to make about whether or not manufacturability considerations
`would be within the level of ordinary skill, we asked Dr. Moore this in
`deposition. On Slide 15, Line 2 from the page that we're citing, we asked is
`it important to consider manufacturing issues when developing a lens design.
`Dr. Moore responded. He said if you're actually going into production, yes.
`Then he goes on to say in the second highlighted portion that those
`people who make lenses for commercial purposes care a lot about
`manufacturing issues. On Slide 16, Patent Owner's own exhibit that they
`have provided at 2014, it says the optical design process includes a myriad
`of tasks that the designer must perform and consider in the process of
`optimizing the performance of an imaging optical system.
`It goes on to say this means that he or she needs to be fully confident
`that all of the following are understood and under control. Now the fourth
`bullet point that we've highlighted, it says assure that the design is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`manufacturable at a reasonable cost based on fabrication, assembly, and
`alignment of tolerance analysis and performance error budget.
`So in other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art designing
`lenses for commercial purposes which both Corephotonics and the Ogino
`reference, they're both concerned with manufacturing considerations. So
`the manufacturability of a lens design is a consideration that a POSITA
`would think about and would gear their lens designs towards because that's
`the whole purpose of designing lenses to sell it and to manufacture it for
`commercial purposes.
`Now this is important to the last two so -- that we'll discuss today.
`But in the meantime, we'll continue on to our third issue which is that the
`Ogino lens assembly meets the TTL over EFL ratio. And as shown in Slide
`18, there's two limitations that are impacted by the TTL construction today.
`The first one is the total track length of 6.5 millimeters or less. And
`there's no dispute that Ogino meets that limitation. The second limitation is
`a ratio of TTL over EFL of less than 1, and there's a dispute amongst the
`parties as to whether Ogino meets that limitation.
`Now on Slide 18 we've summarized the parties' positions. It's
`Petitioner's belief that the TTL of Ogino's lens assembly in Example 6 is 4.3
`at 7 millimeters when the cover glass is removed. Patent Owner argues
`consistently that the cover glass element cannot be removed and therefore it
`has a TTL of 4.489 millimeters.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`And based on the difference in TTL between the parties you arrive at
`a ratio of either greater than or less than one. Now flipping to Slide 19, the
`heart of this debate seems to be over whether or not the cover glass in Ogino
`is a required component or whether Ogino teaches that it can be removed.
`As you can see here in the Example 6 embodiment, the cover glass is
`noted as CG. And it's our position that we've maintained throughout the
`petition and today that that's an optional component that can be removed and
`a POSITA would know what to do when that is removed.
`Specifically, our petition showed that when you add up the data in
`the column, in column marked DI, that we've highlighted here from what's
`D2 to D10 which is the object side surface of the first lens element to the
`image site surface of the fifth lens element.
`And then you use the air converted value provided by BF that you
`arrive at 4.387 millimeters which is what Ogino explicitly provides as the
`track length for an embodiment when the cover glass is removed. So we're
`not relying on a theoretical embodiment of Ogino.
`We're not relying on anything that's theoretical about this. We're
`relying on express teachings from Ogino of what happens when a cover
`glass element is taken out of the lens system. Now the reason that we can
`do this is because Ogino explicitly tells us this.
`On Slide 20, if you look at the bullet point on the right hand side, the
`second bullet point the BF value in Ogino indicates an air converted value,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`which means no cover glass, between the fifth lens element and the image
`plane.
`
`Specifically, the portion that we've highlighted it says the back focal
`length BF and the total lens length, TL, are respectively shown. In addition,
`the back focal length BF indicates an air converted value and likewise in the
`total lens of TL the back focal length uses -- back focal length portion uses
`an air converted value.
`So in other words, Ogino explicitly tells you that you can take out
`the cover glass. And when you do the image then shifts towards the object
`side so the total track length without the cover glass is 4.387 millimeters.
`Now on Slide 21 we've provided a model of Ogino with the cover
`glass removed. The Patent Owner is arguing that this is somehow improper
`for us to include this in our reply. But again, we did not rely on the
`modeling of Ogino to make our case in the petition.
`Our case in the petition relied on express teachings from Ogino, and
`that's what we still rely on today. The modeling is simply provided to make
`sure that Ogino actually performs as described so there's no question as to
`whether or not Ogino actually works as described in the patent.
`Now what Dr. Sasian shows here in the model of Ogino with the
`cover glass removed is that the total track length of this with the cover glass
`taken out is 4.3671 millimeters which if you round to the third place it's the
`same as what Ogino explicitly provides in Table 11 for this embodiment.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`Now in Slide 22 to the extent the Patent Owner wants to complain
`that they didn't have a model without the cover glass from us in order to
`analyze, in Slide 22 Patent Owner actually provided their own modeling of
`Ogino without the cover glass element.
`They just conveniently left out any information about what the track
`length of that would be. But since they are silent on that point, we can only
`assume that their modeling met the same thing as what Ogino teaches, is that
`the track length is 4.37 millimeters. Otherwise I'm sure Patent Owner
`would have told us if that differed in any way, shape, or form that was
`meaningful.
`Now the reason that we can remove the cover glass in Ogino is, if
`you flip to Slide 23, is because Ogino explicitly tells us that. We're not
`relying on anything other than the express teachings of Ogino that tell us that
`there's an alternative embodiment where the cover glass can be taken out.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Can I ask for clarification --
`MR. PARSONS: Yes.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: -- on the, these are Zemax figures, correct?
`MR. PARSONS: In Slide 21 it's a Zemax figure. On Slide 25, I
`believe, it's a Code V figure.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay. It's a different program that's
`produced these two drawings?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`MR. PARSONS: Yes, different programs. But there's no dispute
`amongst the parties that both of them perform, you know, perform equally
`for that purpose of modeling a lens design.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay. Are the two numbers that we're
`comparing here, 4.38671 and then in the bottom figure the only thing I see
`with millimeters is .89?
`MR. PARSONS: Apologies, can you point me to --
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: I'm comparing the figure on Slide 21 with
`the figure on Slide 22.
`MR. PARSONS: Yes. So .89 millimeters is the scaling factor that
`Code V provides.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay.
`MR. PARSONS: That just shows that if you were -- that this model
`is done to scale with a factor of .89 millimeters because if you actually
`represented this truthfully in millimeters it would be so small that we
`wouldn't be able to see it. So that's just the scaling factor that's provided by
`Code V.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay. So there's no corresponding total
`axial length number on Slide 22?
`MR. PARSONS: Correct. Patent Owner did not provide any data
`with their modeling for Slide 22.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay, thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`MR. PARSONS: Okay, all right. Now, on Slide 23 when we look
`at the Ogino reference in Column 5 it tells us some things that help us to
`understand why you can take the cover glass out.
`The first one is that, the first part that we've called out, Ogino
`describes, it provides its disclosure in terms of Figure 1. And then it says
`and the configuration examples shown in Figures 2 through 6 will also be
`described as necessary.
`So all of these teaching in Ogino apply to all of the embodiments
`unless specifically called out for that specific embodiment. Now going
`down further in Figure -- in Column 5 the second part that we've called out
`is that Ogino teaches that there is an imaging device disposed at the image
`formation surface.
`And this is noted in each of the embodiments as image plane R14 of
`the imaging lens. So Ogino says we're going to put the sensor at the point
`where image formation occurs. And then we -- and we call that the image
`plane.
`
`Further on down, the third part that we've called out, Ogino says the
`various optical member CG may be disposed between the fifth lens element
`and the imaging device based on the configuration of the camera on which
`the imaging lens is mounted.
`And finally, in the fourth portion the next paragraph after that it says
`alternatively, in other words, Ogino is calling out an alternative
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`implementation of its embodiments and effects similar to the optical member
`CG may be given to the fifth lens or the like by applying a coating to the
`fifth lens or the like without using the optical member CG.
`Thereby, it is possible to reduce the number of components and to
`reduce the total lens length. Now, Patent Owner seems to be entering and
`making an argument here that when you take out the cover glass from Ogino
`that there is no teaching that the sensor would move to a new image plane to
`account for the refractive properties of the cover glass being taken out.
`But this just isn't supported by Ogino. Ogino says the benefit
`realized from removing the cover glass is a reduced total lens length. If the
`image sensor didn't move when the cover glass is taken out, then no
`reduction of the lens length would be realized because the sensor would
`basically be in the same location.
`Now Dr. Sasian agrees that this is an incorrect interpretation.
`Instead, on Slide 24 as provided -- sorry.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Could you repeat that point one more
`
`time?
`
`MR. PARSONS: Okay. Ogino says that the purpose of removing
`the cover glass in that last called out portion in Column 5 and it spans into
`Column 6, that thereby it is possible to reduce the number of components
`and to reduce the total lens length.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`
`The benefit gained by removing the cover glass is to reduce the total
`lens length. If you leave the sensor in the same location when the cover
`glass is removed, as Patent Owner argues, there is no benefit gained by
`removing the cover glass.
`They're arguing that when you take out the cover glass that the track
`length doesn't change because the sensor stays in the same place. That
`directly contradicts the purpose that Ogino teaches of taking out the cover
`glass.
`
`When you take out the cover glass the lens system has a reduced lens
`length. That is achieved because of the optical properties of the cover glass
`are taken out of the lens system. That means that the image plane and
`thereby the sensor would shift to make a reduced lens length.
`So Patent Owner's argument that the sensor wouldn't move
`completely ignores this teaching of Ogino.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: So the position is -- let me make sure I
`understand. The position is if you remove the cover glass you also have to
`remove the sensor otherwise the length won't change.
`MR. PARSONS: You have to move the sensor.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Move the sensor.
`MR. PARSONS: To the new -- to the location of the image plane.
`That would be to the point of mage formation which would then be shifted
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent 9,857,568 B2
`
`
`towards the object side because of the optical properties of the cover glass
`are removed.
`JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay, thank you.
`MR. PARSONS: Okay. Now Dr. Sasian's opinion is consistent
`with this. In Slide 24, as we've included in his declaration that
`accompanied the reply in Paragraph 9, he says according to Ogino the image
`sensor is placed at the image plane.
`And he notes the portion that we've just discussed in Column 5
`where Ogino says imaging device 100 is disposed at the image formation
`surface, image plane R14. Dr. Sasian then goes on to say that 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.
`That's because Ogino says we're going to put the image sensor at th
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
