`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
