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
`
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S
`ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`
`Case IPR2019-00030
`Patent No. 9,857,568
`
`_____________________
`
`
`PETITIONER APPLE INC.’S
`ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Oral Hearing Demonstrative Exhibits
`IPR2019-00030 (Patent No. 9,857,568)
`
`
`
`
`In accordance with the Scheduling Order (Paper 27), Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`hereby files its oral hearing demonstrative exhibits.
`
`Dated: November 11, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael S. Parsons/
`Michael S. Parsons
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 58,767
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc.’s Oral Hearing Demonstrative Exhibits
`IPR2019-00030 (Patent No. 9,857,568)
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, that service
`was made on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`Date of service November 11, 2019
`
`Manner of service Electronic Service by E-Mail
`
`Documents served PETITIONER’S ORAL HEARING DEMONSTRATIVE
`EXHIBITS
`
`Persons served Neil A. Rubin (nrubin@raklaw.com)
`C. Jay Chung (jchung@raklaw.com)
`Reza Mirzaie (rmirzaie@raklaw.com)
`Marc A. Fenster (mfenster@raklaw.com)
`
`/Michael S. Parsons/
`Michael S. Parsons
`Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 58,767
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of
`Patent No. 9,857,568
`
`Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., Case No. IPR2019-00030
`
`Michael S. Parsons, Haynes and Boone, LLP
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`The proper construction of “TTL” is to the image plane
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`Ogino’s lens assembly meets the TTL/EFL < 1.0 limitation
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to set the
`diameter of Ogino’s first lens element to maintain a
`center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than 3.0
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`The proper construction of “TTL” is to the image plane
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`Ogino’s lens assembly meets the TTL/EFL < 1.0 limitation
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to set the
`diameter of Ogino’s first lens element to maintain a
`center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than 3.0
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`3
`
`
`
`Construction of “TTL” (Total Track Length)
`
`’568 Patent, Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`
`Response at 18 (emphasis added)
`
`Petition at 11 (emphasis added)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`The specification does not require a sensor in a lens assembly
`
`A lens assembly only
`requires five lens
`elements:
`
`A lens system includes
`a sensor and other
`components:
`
`Patent Owner’s
`alleged “express”
`definition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:49-2:6 cited in Petition at 3-4, 7
`
`
`
`A sensor is not required for all of the embodiments
`
`• Fig 2A:
`
`• Fig 3A:
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:61-65 cited in Reply at 9
`
`Image Plane 214 (no sensor mentioned)
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:18-22 cited in Reply at 9
`
`Image Plane 314 (no sensor mentioned)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Only one embodiment mentions a sensor
`
`• Fig 1A:
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:37-42 cited in Reply at 9
`
`Image Plane 114 (no sensor shown)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert supports Petitioner’s construction
`
`• Dr. Moore agrees that Petitioner’s construction is included
`in the broadest reasonable construction:
`
`Ex. 1025, 69:8-21 cited in Reply at 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s expert supports Petitioner’s construction
`
`• Dr. Moore agrees that the term “TTL” applied to lens systems prior to the existence of
`electronic sensors because they had an image plane where film would be placed:
`
`Ex. 1025, 66:21-67:3 cited in Reply at 7
`
`Ex. 1025, 68:9-25 cited in Reply at 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`9
`
`
`
`Construing TTL to the image plane is not ambiguous
`
`• The ideal image plane and the actual image plane are not mutually
`exclusive in the ’568 Patent:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1026 ¶ 3 cited in Reply at 10-11
`
`
`
`Construing TTL to the image plane is not ambiguous
`
`• The ’568 patent teaches against moving the sensor away from the ideal image plane:
`
`Ex. 1026 ¶ 7 cited in Reply at 13-14
`
`Ex. 1026 ¶ 6 cited in Reply at 13-14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`The proper construction of “TTL” is to the image plane
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`Ogino’s lens assembly meets the TTL/EFL < 1.0 limitation
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to set the
`diameter of Ogino’s first lens element to maintain a
`center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than 3.0
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`12
`
`
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`• A POSITA would have had experience in designing lenses for
`manufacturability:
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 19 cited in Petition at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`13
`
`
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`• The specification indicates that lens manufacturability is an
`important consideration when designing lenses:
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:30-45 cited in Reply at 1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`14
`
`
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`• Dr. Moore agrees that a POSITA would consider lens manufacturability
`when designing lens assemblies:
`
`Ex. 1025, 60:2-11 cited in Reply at 2-3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`15
`
`
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`• Patent Owner’s evidence shows that a POSITA would have had experience
`with the manufacturability of lens designs:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`16
`
`Ex. 2014, p.167 cited in Reply at 4-5
`
`
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`The proper construction of “TTL” is to the image plane
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`Ogino’s lens assembly meets the TTL/EFL < 1.0 limitation
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to set the
`diameter of Ogino’s first lens element to maintain a
`center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than 3.0
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Ogino anticipates both “TTL” limitations in the ’568 Patent
`
`’568 Patent, Claim 1
`
`TTL/EFL < 1.0
`
`TTL ≤ 6.5 mm
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`Summary of the parties’ positions regarding Ogino
`Petitioner
`Patent Owner
`4.387 mm
`4.489 mm
`4.428 mm
`4.428 mm
`0.9907
`1.0138
`Petition at 25-29
`Response at 34-35
`
`TTL
`EFL
`TTL/EFL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Ogino’s Example 6 discloses that the TTL is 4.387 mm
`when the optional cover glass is excluded
`
`• Ogino Example 6:
`
`Cover Glass Optional
`
`• Table 11 explaining Example 6:
`
`Ex. 1005, Fig. 6 cited in Petition at 15;
`see also Petition at 17, 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1005, Table 11 (annotated) cited in Petition at 27;
`Ex. 1003, p.34
`
`19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Ogino’s Example 6 discloses a TTL of 4.387 mm
`
`• Table 11 describing Ogino Example 6:
`
`• Summing the distances to L5 and adding Bf
`(back focal length) is distance to the image
`plane when the cover glass is removed, and
`this is “TL” in Ogino:
`
`Petition at 27-28; Ex. 1003 at 33-35
`• Bf indicates air (i.e., no cover glass) between
`L5 and the image plane:
`
`Ex. 1005, Table 11 (annotated) cited in Petition at 27;
`Ex. 1003, p.34
`
`Ex. 1005, 14:47-53 cited in Petition at 26-27; Ex. 1003 at 33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ogino’s Example 6 discloses a TTL of 4.387 mm
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1026 ¶ 9 cited in Reply at 17
`
`21
`
`21
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s expert modeled Ogino without the cover glass
`but left out the TTL measurement and all other data
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2005, p.60 cited in Response at 57
`
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`Ogino teaches removing the cover glass to shorten the length
`
`Ex. 1005, 5:15-20
`
`5:42-44 cited in Reply at 14-15; Ex. 1026 ¶ 9
`
`5:55-60 cited in Petition at 15-16; Ex. 1003 at 21-22;
`Reply at 14-15; Ex. 1026 ¶ 9
`
`z
`
`5:65-6:2 cited in Petition at 15-16; Ex. 1003 at 21-22;
`Reply at 14-15; Ex. 1026 ¶ 9
`
`zz
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`23
`
`
`
`A POSITA knows that the sensor in Ogino shifts to the new
`location of the image plane when the cover glass is removed
`• Dr. Sasián states that a POSITA would know to move the sensor to the
`shifted image plane when the cover glass is removed:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1026 ¶ 9 cited in Reply at 17-18
`
`24
`
`24
`
`
`
`Dr. Moore agrees that the sensor will shift to the location of
`the new image plane when the cover glass is removed
`
`• Dr. Moore agrees that the TTL is shorter
`when the cover glass is removed because
`the image plane shifts to the left:
`
`• Dr. Moore maintained the same position
`when asked by counsel:
`
`Ex. 1025, 72:14-22 cited in Reply at 18
`
`Ex. 1025, 130:13-25 cited in Reply at 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`25
`
`
`
`Cover glass is not included in calculation of TTL
`if excluded from the lens assembly
`
`• Dr. Moore agrees that cover glass is only
`counted in TTL if included in the system:
`
`• Dr. Moore also agrees with Dr. Sasián’s
`calculation of TTL from the Petition:
`
`Ex. 1025, 135:18-24 cited in Reply at 18
`
`Ex. 1025, 70:6-22 cited in Reply at 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`26
`
`
`
`Cover glass is not a required element in a lens assembly
`
`• Patent Owner argues that the cover glass is necessary when using an electronic sensor:
`
`• But the cover glass (i.e., “glass window”) is optional for all three embodiments of the ’568
`Patent, including embodiment 1, which includes an image sensor:
`
`Response at 44
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:37-42 cited in Reply at 20
`
`Ex. 1001, 5:61-65 cited in Reply at 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:18-22 cited in Reply at 20
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`Cover glass and a sensor in the ’568 Patent are optional
`elements of a lens system, not a lens assembly
`
`A lens assembly is just
`five lens elements:
`
`Cover glass and sensor
`are optional components
`of a lens system:
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:49-67 cited in Petition at 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`28
`
`
`
`Discussion Summary
`
`The proper construction of “TTL” is to the image plane
`
`The level of ordinary skill includes lens manufacturability
`
`Ogino’s lens assembly meets the TTL/EFL < 1.0 limitation
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to set the
`diameter of Ogino’s first lens element to maintain a
`center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than 3.0
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`29
`
`
`
`The center-to-edge thickness limitation in the ’568 patent
`
`’568 Patent, Claims 1 and 5:
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 1
`
`Ex. 1001, Claim 5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`30
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to manufacture Ogino’s
`first lens element to maximize the center-to-edge thickness
`
`• Ogino’s first lens element would be manufactured to maximize the
`edge thickness:
`
`Ex. 1003, p.70 cited in Petition at 66
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`31
`
`
`
`Lens elements with lower center-to-edge thickness
`ratios are easier to manufacture
`
`• The Handbook of Optics teaches the benefits of designing a lens to support a
`center-to-edge thickness of less than 3.0 for easier manufacturing:
`
`Ex. 1019, p.81 cited in Petition at 41; Reply at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`32
`
`
`
`The Handbook of Optics does not teach away from Ogino’s
`first lens having a diameter 4.8% larger than the aperture
`
`• The Handbook of Optics teaches a desire for the diameter to be “considerably
`beyond” the aperture but Patent Owner does not show what “considerably
`beyond” means:
`
`Response at 51
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`33
`
`
`
`Ogino’s first lens element supports the claimed center-to-edge
`thickness ratios at a diameter considerably beyond the aperture
`
`• Ogino’s first lens element supports the lowest claimed center-to-edge thickness
`ratio at a diameter of up to 4.8% larger than the entrance aperture, well beyond
`the diameters supported by the embodiments of the ’568 patent:
`
`Ex. 1003, pp. 49, 71 cited in Petition at 43-44, 66
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`34
`
`
`
`Lens manufacturing best practices support limiting the center-to-
`edge thickness ratio to be less than 3 to 1
`
`• Beich teaches that a best practice when working with polymer optics is to
`maintain a center-to-edge thickness of less than 3 to 1:
`
`Ex. 1020, p.7 cited in Petition at 51; Reply at 26
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`35
`
`
`
`Beich does not teach away from applying its
`“rules of thumb” to Ogino’s lens assembly
`Patent Owner’s application of
`• A POSITA would not apply Beich’s rules to Ogino’s fifth
`Beich to Ogino’s fifth lens:
`lens element:
`
`Response at 57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1026 ¶ 11 cited in Reply at 25
`
`36
`
`36
`
`
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to manufacture Ogino’s
`first lens element to maximize the center-to-edge thickness
`
`• Thicker edges are also more desirable because they allow for more stable lens mounting:
`
`Ex. 1003, p.73 cited in Petition at 69
`
`Ex. 1003, p.72 cited in Petition at 69
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`37
`
`
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
