Paper No. 28
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00030
`U.S. Patent No. 9.857,568
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00030
`U.S. Patent No. 9.857,568
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVES
`
`
`
`In accordance with the Order - Oral Hearing (Paper 27), Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`U.S. Patent 9,857,568
`
`
`
`Corephotonics, Ltd. hereby files its oral hearing demonstrative exhibits.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 8, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` / Neil A. Rubin /
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Reg. No. 69,138
`Neil A. Rubin
`Reg. No. 67,030
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`corephotonics@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`U.S. Patent 9,857,568
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on
`
`November 8, 2019, by filing this document through the PTAB End 2 End System as
`
`well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following attorneys of record
`
`for the Petitioner:
`
`Michael S. Parsons
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Jordan Maucotel
`David W. O’Brien
`Jamie H. McDole
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jordan.maucotel.ipr@haynesboone.com
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jamie.mcdole@haynesboone.com
`
`Date: November 8, 2019
`
` / Neil A. Rubin /
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`
`
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Reg. No. 69,138
`Neil A. Rubin
`Reg. No. 67,030
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00030
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,857,568
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 1
`
`
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`• Ground 1: Claims 1-5:
`Obviousness by Ogino
`
`• Ground 2: Claims 1-5:
`Obviousness over Ogino in view of Beich
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 3
`
`
`
`“Total track length (TTL)”
`Corephotonics Construction
`“the length on an optical axis
`between the object-side surface of
`the first lens element and the
`electronic sensor”
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“the length of the optical axis spacing
`between the object-side surface of
`the first lens element and the image
`plane”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`4
`
`
`
`“Total track length (TTL)”
`Board’s Potential Construction
`“the length of the optical axis spacing between the object-side surface of
`the first lens element and one of: an electronic sensor, a film sensor, and an
`image plane corresponding to either the electronic sensor or a film sensor”
`
`Paper 30, IPR2018-01146 (October 28, 2019)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`5
`
`
`
`The Specification Expressly Defines TTL
`
`‘568 patent, Ex. 1001, 2:1-4
`
`“[A] ‘claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning
`if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and
`clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim
`term in either
`the specification or prosecution
`history.’”
`
`In re Schwemberger
`410 F. App’x 298, 303 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`6
`
`
`
`“Above all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in
`light of the claims and specification.”
`
`TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano, LLC,
`894 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted)
`
`“Claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a
`part.’ We have explained that the specification is ‘the single best guide
`to the meaning of a disputed term and that the specification acts as a
`dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when
`it defines terms by implication.’ Thus ‘a claim term may be clearly
`redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition.’”
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.
`809 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`7
`
`
`
`“… the specification ‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines
`terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.’”
`Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`8
`
`
`
`Apple’s Construction is Ambiguous
`
`• “Image plane” has no universal and unambiguous meaning.
`
`• Unclear if “image plane” means:
`(1) the theoretical, mathematically calculated “paraxial image plane,”
`known as the “ideal image plane”; or
`(2) the physical surface on which image data is captured, or “actual image
`plane” (equivalent to Corephotonics’ proposed construction)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 9
`
`See Patent Owner Sur-Reply, at 4-6
`
`
`
`Apple’s Construction is Ambiguous
`
`• Apple alternately uses “image plane” to refer to the:
`(1) theoretical “paraxial image plane,” also called the “ideal image
`plane”; or
`• (2) actual image plane
`
`Dr. Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2012, at 28:5-9 (cited at POR, at 25)
`
`Dr. Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2012, at 34:13-16 (cited at POR, at 27)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 10
`
`
`
`Apple’s Construction is Ambiguous
`
`Ex. 2024, at 6 (cited at POR, at 23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 11
`
`
`
`Apple’s Expert Supports Corephotonics’s Construction:
`Image Plane is “Actual Image Plane” (i.e., surface of the sensor)
`
`“Actual Image Plane”
`• Actual surface of the image sensor or other image
`forming device.
`TTL measured to Imaging Device 100 (actual
`sensor)
`
`•
`
`“The imaging device 100 is disposed at an image
`formation surface (image plane R14) of the imaging
`lens L.”
`
`Ogino, Ex. 1005, at 5:43-44
`
`Sasian Decl., Ex. 1003, at 33 (notations in original,
`highlighting by Patent Owner)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 12
`
`
`
`The Experts Agree On How to Measure TTL
`
`Dr. Duncan T. Moore
`Corephotonics Technical Expert
`
`Dr. Moore explained, “total track length” is
`measured to the actual, physical surface on
`which image data is captured, which may not
`coincide with the theoretical paraxial image
`plane.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 13
`
`Dr. Moore Deposition, Ex. 1025, at 68:9-21
`(cited in Apple Reply, at 7)
`
`
`
`The Experts Agree On How to Measure TTL
`
`Dr. Jose Sasian
`Expert for Petitioner
`
`Q. So looking at the lens assembly shown on -- in Figure 1A of the
`appendix to your '032 patent declaration, how would you compute
`the TTL of this lens assembly?
`
`THE WITNESS: . . . So the program . . . will tell you what the total
`length is. . . . And the program will add all those distances along the
`optical axis and will come up with the TTL distance.
`
`Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2011, at 102:4-24 (objection omitted)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 14
`
`
`
`The Experts Agree On How to Measure TTL
`
`Dr. Sasian explained that Zemax calculates
`TTL by summing the numbers in the column
`named “thickness.”
`
`Dr. Jose Sasian
`Expert for Petitioner
`
`I see. So the value towards the
`Q.
`bottom right of
`the screen labeled
`"TOTR" and equal to 4.489 is the TTL
`that Zemax calculated; is that right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And it did that by adding up the
`numbers -- all of the numbers in the
`column named "Thickness"; is that right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2011, at 103:18-104:1 (cited at POR, at 46)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 15
`
`
`
`The Experts Agree On How to Measure TTL
`
`I see. So the value towards the
`Q.
`bottom right of
`the screen labeled
`"TOTR" and equal to 4.489 is the TTL
`that Zemax calculated; is that right?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q. And it did that by adding up the
`numbers -- all of the numbers in the
`column named "Thickness"; is that right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2011, at 103:18-104:1 (cited at POR, at 46)
`
`Dr. Moore Deposition, Ex. 1025, at 68:9-21
`(cited in Apple Reply, at 7)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 16
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Corephotonics’ Construction
`
`‘568 patent, Ex. 1001, 2:1-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 17
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Corephotonics’ Construction
`
`• TTL refers to a physical
`distance that can be
`measured, not a theoretical
`property of a lens system
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 18
`
`‘568 patent, Ex. 1001, 1:29-42
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Corephotonics’ Construction
`
`• The ‘568 patent measures “TTL”
`to the electronic sensor (i.e., the
`actual image plane), not to the
`paraxial image plane.
`
`• TTL in the ‘568 patent is the sum
`of distances from the object-side
`of the first lens to the electronic
`sensor / actual image plane.
`
`First lens
`element
`
`Electronic
`sensor
`
`Sum D2:D13 = 5.904 mm
`‘568 patent, Ex. 1001, 7:30-46, 7:62-65,
`(regarding embodiment 300 in Fig. 3A) (annotations by Patent Owner)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 19
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Corephotonics’ Construction
`
`• The ‘568 patent defines “image
`plane” as the surface of the
`sensor “on which an image of the
`object is formed.”
`
`‘568 patent, Ex. 1001, 1:65-67
`
`‘568 patent, Ex. 1001, at 3:40-42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 20
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Corephotonics’ Construction
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,395,851 (“Tang”, Ex. 2007) is cited
`and discussed in the ‘568 patent specification. See
`Ex. 1001, at 32-35.
`
`• Tang defines TTL: “a distance on the optical axis
`between the object-side surface of the first lens
`element and the electronic sensor is TTL.”
`Tang, Ex. 2007, at 2:20-23 (cited in POR at 21-22)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 21
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence Supports Corephotonics’ Construction
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,918,398 (“Li”, Ex. 1007) was
`submitted by Apple as prior art in this IPR.
`
`•
`
`Li defines “image plane” as the surface of the
`electronic sensor: “the image plane, i.e., image
`sensor array 33 (the active surface of image
`sensor 32).”
`
`Li, Ex. 1007, at 1:58-59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 22
`
`
`
`Extrinsic Evidence Supports Corephotonics’ Construction
`
`• U.S. Patent Pub. 20110261471
`(“Taniyama”, Ex. 2018), is a patent
`assigned to Fujifilm, like Apple’s primary
`reference Ogino.
`• Taniyama provides that “image plane
`Simg includes an image sensor, such as
`a CCD or the like.”
`
`Taniyama, Ex. 2018, at ¶ 68
`(cited in POR, at 24-25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE 23
`
`
`
`“Total track length (TTL)”
`Corephotonics’ Construction
`“the length on an optical axis
`between the object-side surface of
`the first lens element and the
`electronic sensor”
`
`Apple’s Construction
`“the length of the optical axis spacing
`between the object-side surface of
`the first lens element and the image
`plane”
`
`•
`
`•
`
`If Apple’s proposal measures to the paraxial image plane, it is unsupported by the
`intrinsic or extrinsic evidence.
`If Apple’s proposal measures to the actual image plane (i.e., electronic sensor), there is
`no practical difference between the parties’ constructions.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`24
`
`
`
`“Total track length (TTL)”
`Board’s Potential Construction
`“the length of the optical axis spacing between the object-side surface of
`the first lens element and one of: an electronic sensor, a film sensor, and an
`image plane corresponding to either the electronic sensor or a film sensor”
`
`• The intrinsic and extrinsic evidence both support the Board’s potential construction.
`• The Board’s potential construction lacks the ambiguity posed by the term “image
`plane” in Apple’s proposed construction.
`
`Paper 30, IPR2018-01146 (October 28, 2019)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground 1:
`Obviousness of Claims 1-5
`by Ogino
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE26
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground 1:
`Obviousness of Claims 1-5 by Ogino
`U.S. Patent No. 9,128,276 (“Ogino”)
`(Ex. 1005)
`
`Date:
`Sept. 8, 2015
`
`Assignee:
`Fujifilm Corporation
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘568 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`28
`
`
`
`[1.6]: “a ratio of TTL/EFL of less than 1.0”
`
`• No obviousness or combination
`arguments made for [1.6], in either
`Instituted Ground.
`
`• For [1.6], the Petition argues only that
`Ogino anticipates those elements.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`29
`
`See Petition at 28-29, 53; and Saisian Decl., Ex. 1003, at 36, 57.
`
`
`
`Ogino Figure 6
`
`• Fig. 6 (the only figure for Example
`6) includes the Cover Glass and
`shows the location of Imaging
`Device 100
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`30
`
`Ogino, Ex. 1005, Fig. 6
`
`
`
`Apple’s Expert: TTL Is Measured to Imaging Device 100 (i.e., the sensor)
`
`Sasian Decl., Ex. 1003, at 33
`(notations in original) (cited in Petition at 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Ogino Example 6 Does Not Anticipate Claims 1 or 13
`• Fig. 1A of Dr. Sasian’s Declaration is Ogino Example 6
`
`• Fig. 1A includes the Cover Glass
`
`• The TTL of Fig. 1A (Ogino Example 6) is 4.489 mm,
`greater than EFL.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`32
`
`
`
`TTL of Ogino Example 6 is 4.489 mm, Greater Than EFL 4.428 mm
`
`Sasian Simulation of Ogino Example 6
`Ex. 1003, at 78 (annotations by Patent Owner) (cited at Sur-Reply, at 11)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`33
`
`
`
`TTL of Ogino Example 6 is 4.489 mm, Greater Than EFL 4.428 mm
`
`Dr. Jose Sasian
`Expert for Petitioner
`
`Q. I see. So the value towards the bottom right of the
`screen labeled "TOTR" and equal to 4.489 is the TTL
`that Zemax calculated; is that right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. And it did that by adding up the numbers -- all of the
`numbers in the column named "Thickness"; is that right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2011, at 103:18-104:1 (cited at POR, at 46)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Ogino Example 6 Does Not Disclose TTL/EFL < 1
`
`Dr. Jose Sasian
`Expert for Petitioner
`
`Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2011, at 67:11-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Sasian’sReport Shows No Disclosure of a TTL of 4.387 mm
`
`“The sum of the distances D2 to D10 is 2.963 mm
`and the back focal length Bf is 1.424 mm. Adding
`these values together results in a total track
`length of 4.387 mm which matches the total track
`length identified by Ogino as TL in Table 11. This
`total track of 4.387 mm was confirmed when the
`lens prescription of Ogino’s Example 6 was
`entered in the lens design program Zemax.”
`
`Saisan Decl., Ex. 1003, at 35 (emphasis added) (cited in Petition at 28)
`
`Sasian Simulation of Ogino Example 6
`Ex. 1003, at 78 (annotations by Patent Owner) (cited at Sur-Reply, at 11)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Ogino Example 6 Does Not Disclose TTL/EFL < 1
`
`First lens
`element
`
`Electronic
`sensor
`
`TTL = 4.489 mm
`
`EFL = 4.428 mm
`
`TTL/EFL = 1.0137
`
`Sum D2:D13 = 4.489
`
`Sasian Decl., Ex. 1003, at 33
`(notations in original) (cited in Petition at 25)
`
`Ogino, Ex. 1005, Table 11 (annotations and highlighting by patent owner)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Ogino Example 6 Does Not Disclose TTL/EFL < 1
`
`TTL = 4.489 mm
`
`EFL = 4.428 mm
`
`TTL/EFL = 1.0137
`
`Sasian Decl., Ex. 1003, at 33
`(notations in original) (cited in Petition at 25)
`
`Ex. 1003, at 78 (highlighting by Patent Owner) (cited at Sur-Reply, at 11)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`38
`
`
`
`Ogino Example 6 Does Not Disclose TTL/EFL < 1
`
`First lens
`element
`
`Electronic
`sensor
`
`TTL = 4.489 mm
`
`EFL = 4.428 mm
`
`TTL/EFL = 1.0137
`
`Ogino, Table 11
`
`Sum D2:D13 = 4.489
`
`Ex. 1003, at 78 (highlighting by Patent Owner) (cited at Sur-Reply, at 11)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Ogino Example 6 Does Not
`Expressly Disclose an Embodiment with TTL/EFL <1:
`
`“Ogino explicitly discloses that optical member CG depicted
`in Figure 6 may be omitted in order to “reduce the number
`of components, and to reduce the total length.” Id. at 26
`(citing Ex. 1005, 5:65–6:2). According to Petitioner,
`“[o]mitting optical member CG in this way, the total track
`length can be calculated by summing the widths of D2 to
`D10 and the air-converted value of back focal length Bf, as
`provided in Ogino Table 11.”
`
`Institution Decision, Paper 9, at 14
`(citing Ogino, Ex. 1005, at 5:65-6:2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Ogino Does Not Expressly Disclose an Embodiment With TTL of 4.387 mm
`
`Sasian Deposition, Ex. 2011, at 66:25-67:3
`
`This value does not
`equal the sum of D2
`through D13, which is
`4.489 mm
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`41
`
`Ogino, Ex. 1005, Table 11
`
`
`
`Ogino Does Not Expressly Disclose an Embodiment With TTL of 4.387 mm
`• The Petition fails to show that Ogino
`expressly discloses an embodiment with
`the imaging device (100) or image plane
`(R14) moved from the location shown in
`Figure 6 and Table 11.
`• Neither does the Petition show any
`disclosure by Ogino of moving the
`imaging device (100) or image plane
`(R14) to the air-converted value of the
`back focal length.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`42
`
`Sasian Decl., Ex. 1003, at 33
`(notations in original) (cited in Petition at 25)
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground 1:
`Anticipation of Claims 1 and 13 by Ogino
`No Express Disclosure of Lens Assemblies With CG Removed
`• The relevant language from
`Ogino is suggestive and not
`specific to Example 6.
`• All embodiments, including
`Example 6, are described and
`illustrated in the Figures as
`including a CG element.
`
`“Alternatively, an effect similar to the optical
`member CG may be given to the fifth lens L5 or
`the like by applying a coating to the fifth lens L5
`or the like without using the optical member CG.
`Thereby, it is possible to reduce the number of
`components, and to reduce the total length.”
`
`Ogino, Ex. 1005, at 5:65-6:2 (cited in Petition at 26)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`43
`
`
`
`TL is Not Equal to TTL
`
`“TL” is “total lens length” defined as a value using an “air-
`converted value.” (Ogino, Ex. 1005, at 14:50-53 (cited at
`POR, at 21))
`
`“TTL” is “total track length” defined as “total track length
`on an optical axis between the object-side surface of the
`first lens element and the electronic sensor”. (‘568 patent,
`Ex. 1001, at 2:1-4)
`
`4.387 ≠ Sum D2:D13 = 4.489
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`44
`
`
`
`TL is Not Equal to TTL
`
`• The “TL” of Example 6, 4.387 mm, is the
`measurement of distance from the first
`lens to a theoretical back focal length
`using an “air converted value.”
`• The actual physical measurement of
`distance from the first lens to the
`electronic sensor/actual image plane is
`4.489 mm.
`
`Sum D2:D13 = 4.489
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`45
`
`
`
`TL is Not Equal to TTL
`
`POR, at 32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`46
`
`
`
`Ogino Does Not Expressly Disclose an Embodiment With TTL of 4.387 mm
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The Petition fails to show express
`disclosure of an embodiment with an
`electronic sensor / image plane at
`4.387 mm from the object side of the
`first lens.
`The Petition only showed a simulation
`of Ogino Example 6 having a TTL of
`4.489 mm.
`The Petition included no simulation of
`any lens assembly with a TTL of 4.387
`mm.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`47
`
`Sasian Simulation of Ogino Example 6, Ex. 1003, at 78
`(annotations by Patent Owner) (cited at Sur-Reply, at 11)
`
`
`
`Ogino Does Not Expressly Disclose an Embodiment With TTL of 4.387 mm
`'568 Patent
`Ogino Table 11
`
`TTL = Sum D2:D13 = 5.904
`
`(consistent with
`the ‘568 patent)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sum D2:D13 = 4.489
`
`Sum D2:D10 + BF = 4.387
`(inconsistent with the ‘568 patent)
`
`BF = Air Converted Back Focal Length
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`48
`
`
`
`The Petition Failed to Show Motivation to Remove the Cover Glass
`
`The Petition fails to explain why a POSITA would
`remove the cover glass in view of:
`
`•
`
`Particle contamination leading to decreased
`manufacturability and image quality loss
`
`• Higher defect rates in production for camera
`modules
`
`• No appropriate substitute for infrared light
`filtration
`
`Sur-Reply, at 13; see also POR at 2-3, 40-47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`49
`
`
`
`The Petition Failed to Show Motivation to Remove the Cover Glass
`
`This structure has two principal drawbacks. The
`first is that the cost of assembly is incremental
`for each die packaged. A second limitation is
`that the imager die is totally unprotected until
`the final assembly operation when the lens
`turret is attached. It is therefore not surprising
`that more than 90% of defects in camera
`modules are related to contamination by
`particles.
`
`Humpston, Ex. 2019, at 3 (cited at POR at 2)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`50
`
`
`
`The Petition Failed to Show Motivation to Remove the Cover Glass
`
`“Packaging of image sensors at the wafer level is
`becoming essential as resolutions increase and pixel
`dimensions decrease. While this is technically
`tractable and economically favourable a packaged
`image sensor must have a cover glass as an
`additional component in the optical train.”
`
`Humpston, Ex. 2019, at 12 (cited at POR at 41)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Corephotonics Presented Unrebutted Evidence of No Motivation to Modify
`
`106. As a factual matter, a POSITA in 2013 would have been extremely unlikely to design a small camera
`module with a lens assembly and an electronic sensor that was unprotected by a cover glass. The same
`would be true today. I am not aware of any commercially available, small-form factor device (such as the
`smartphones and tablets referenced in both Ogino and the ’568 patent) that utilizes a camera module
`without a cover glass. ...
`
`108. The industry’s preferred reliance on electronic sensors with protective cover glass (in 2013 and today)
`is not merely a because it is easier to make, store, and sell sensors protected by cover glass layers—it is also
`because “glass-less” sensors would continue to be vulnerable even after they are installed into a camera
`module with a lens assembly. In the absence of a cover glass, tiny particles, like microscopic dust or human
`skin cells, that ingress and contaminate the surface of the electronic sensor would degrade image quality to
`unacceptable levels. See also Ex. 2019, at 3 ( “more than 90% of defects in camera modules are related to
`contamination by particles.”).
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`52
`
`Moore Decl., Ex. 2005 at ¶¶ 106, 108 (cited at POR at 43)
`
`
`
`Removing the CG Does Not Change TTL
`
`Sur-Reply, at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`53
`
`
`
`Apple Offers New Arguments on Reply To Cure the Petition on [1.6]
`
`Sur-Reply, at 16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Apple Offers New Argument on Reply To Cure the Petition on [1.6]
`
`New Zemax simulation
`showing modification to
`Ogino Example 6 with
`removed cover glass and
`moving of the image
`sensor to yield TTL of
`4.387mm
`
`Sasian Reply Decl., Ex. 1026, at 9 (cited at Reply, at 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`55
`
`
`
`New Arguments Are Not Permitted On Reply
`
`PTAB Trial Practice Guide (August 2018 revision), at 15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`56
`
`
`
`New Arguments Are Not Permitted On Reply
`
`“Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in
`reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out
`a prima facie case of unpatentability.”
`
`PTAB Revised Trial Practice Guide, at 14 (August 2018)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`57
`
`
`
`[1.8] ratio between a largest optical axis thickness L11 and a circumferential
`edge thickness L1e of the first lens element of L11/L1e<4
`•
`The Petition concedes that Ogino does
`not teach any specific center-to-edge
`thickness.
`The Petition’s only support for its
`obviousness argument [1.8] is the
`Handbook of Optics text, which Apple
`applies inconsistently and selectively to
`arrive at the challenged claims.
`The Handbook of Optics is not part of
`either Institution Ground.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`58
`
`See POR at 48-51
`
`
`
`The Handbook of Optics Limited To Polymer Injection Molding
`
`Ex. 1019, at 81 (consistent with argument made in POR, at 50) (cited in Petition at 41)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Apple’s Obviousness Argument Requires Lens Diameter No More than 4.8%
`Greater than Aperture Diameter
`
`“To maintain such a center-to-edge thickness ratio for
`ease of manufacturability, the first lens element could
`have a lens diameter of up to 1.75825 mm which is a
`4.8% increase over the diameter of the entrance pupil.
`Ex.1003, pp.47-48. In other words, adding up to 4.8% to
`the minimal diameter of Ogino’s Example 6 first lens
`element (as discussed above) would yield a diameter of
`1.7578 mm. Ex.1003, p.48. This diameter would yield an
`edge thickness of L1e=–0.04047–0.3307+0.557=0.1858
`mm and an L11/L1e ratio of 2.998. Ex.1003, p.48.”
`
`Petition, at 41-42 (discussed at POR at 48)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`60
`
`
`
`OginoDoesNotTeachApple’sModification
`
`Ex. 2012, at 82:13-20 (cited at POR at 48)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`61
`
`
`
`The Handbook of Optics Teaches Awayfrom Apple’s Argument
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`62
`
`Sur-Reply, at 22
`
`
`
`The Handbook of Optics Teaches Awayfrom Apple’s Argument
`
`“These phenomena provide motivation to oversize
`optical elements,
`if possible,
`to a dimension
`considerably beyond the clear apertures.”
`
`Ex. 1019, at 82 (cited at POR at 51)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`63
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground 2:
`Obviousness of Claims 1-5
`by Ogino and Beich
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE64
`
`
`
`Instituted Ground 2:
`Obviousness of Claims 1-5 by Ogino in view of Beich
`
`The Petition’s arguments for Instituted
`Ground 2 differ from those in Instituted
`Ground 1 as to:
`•
`Element [1.8]; and
`•
`and claims 2, 3, 4 and 5, based on
`[1.8]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`65
`
`
`
`[1.8] ratio between a largest optical axis thickness L11 and a circumferential
`edge thickness L1e of the first lens element of L11/L1e<4
`
`•
`
`The Petition argues that Beich’s
`teaches a “rule of thumb” that renders
`[1.8] obvious.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`66
`
`
`
`Beich’s“Rules of Thumb”
`
`Beich, Ex. 1020, at 7 (highlighting by Patent
`Owner) (cited in Petition at 47-48)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`67
`
`
`
`Beich’s“Rules of Thumb”
`
`Beich, Ex. 1020, at 8 (highlighting by Patent
`Owner) (cited at POR at 53-54)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`68
`
`
`
`Apple Applies Beich’s“Rules of Thumb” Selectively and Inconsistently
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`69
`
`POR, at 54-55
`
`
`
`Apple Applies Beich’s“Rules of Thumb” Selectively and Inconsistently
`
`POR, at 56
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`70
`
`
`
`Apple Applies Beich’s“Rules of Thumb” Selectively and Inconsistently
`
`POR, at 58
`
`POR, at 57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`71
`
`
`
`Apple Applies Beich’s“Rules of Thumb” Selectively and Inconsistently
`
`Ex. 2012, at 105:20-106:8 (cited at POR at 55)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`72
`
`
`
`Apple’s Selective Use of Beich’s“Rules of Thumb” is
`Evidence of Impermissible Hindsight
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`73
`
`Sur-Reply, at 24
`
`
`
`Corephotonics Presented Unrebutted Evidence of
`No Motivation to Combine
`
`128. …. If cost and manufacturability are requirements motivating use of the Beich
`rules of thumb, then that POSITA would not be motivated to remove the cover
`glass. Conversely, if the designer is willing to incur the costs and difficulties of using
`sensors without cover glass, then they are unlikely to be motivated to follow the
`Beich “rules of thumb.”
`
`Moore Decl., Ex. 2005 at ¶¶ 128 (consistent with argument made at 59-60 of POR)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`IPR2019-00030 | SLIDE
`
`74
`
`
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
