Paper No. 25
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
` (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Monday, February 8, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTINA M. KALAN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
`KIMBERLY MCGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`571-272-7822
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
` (Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Monday, February 8, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before KRISTINA M. KALAN, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
`KIMBERLY MCGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`DION BREGMAN, ESQUIRE
`ALEXANDER B. STEIN, ESQUIRE
`MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1400 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 843-7519
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`STEPHEN MURRAY, ESQUIRE
`JOHN SIMMONS, ESQUIRE
`PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL
`Two Commerce Square
`2001 Market Street
`Suite 2800
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`(215) 965-1307
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, February 8,
`2021, commencing at 1:00 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE DERRICK: Good morning or good afternoon as
`it is wherever you are. This is Judge Derrick. Also here on
`the line is Judge Kalan and Judge McGraw. Today we will hear
`argument in two cases, Case IPR2020-179 and 195. Both concern
`U.S. Patent 6,844,990. Counsel for the parties, I know that
`you introduced yourselves for the reporter. Could you go
`ahead and introduce yourself again for the record starting
`with counsel for petitioner?
` MR. BREGMAN: Sure. Good afternoon, Your Honors.
`My name is Dion Bregman. With me is Alex Stein for
`petitioner, LG Electronics.
` JUDGE DERRICK: Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone
`else present associated with the petitioner?
` MR. BREGMAN: No, just myself and Mr. Stein. I
`think there might be some other people on the phone line.
` JUDGE DERRICK: Okay. Thank you.
` And for patent owner?
` MR. MURRAY: Good day, Your Honor. This is Stephen
`Murray for patent owner, and my partner John Simmons is on
`the public -- on the line.
` JUDGE DERRICK: Okay. Thank you. As set forth in
`the hearing order, each side will have one hour in total for
`argument. We will begin with the petitioner. Petitioner may
`reserve time for rebuttal. How much time does petitioner
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`wish to reserve?
` MR. BREGMAN: Fifteen minutes thereabout. Thank
`you, Your Honor.
` JUDGE DERRICK: Okay. Thank you.
` And patent owner, you can reserve time for a
`sur-rebuttal. Do you wish to reserve some time?
` MR. MURRAY: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve about ten minutes please.
` JUDGE DERRICK: Okay. Thank you.
` Further, I will remind the parties that in this
`proceeding petitioner bears the burden of proving any
`proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`evidence. I also remind parties, as we all know, that the
`hearing is open to the public and that a full transcript of
`this hearing will become part of the record.
` Also, during this proceeding we will not entertain
`any speaking objections during an argument, but if a party
`does have an objection the party can discuss that objection
`during their own allotted time.
` Finally, I would like to remind the parties that
`they should identify any portion of the record or any
`demonstrative that they rely on so that the record is clear.
`Keep in mind that the demonstratives are not evidence and
`that this hearing is not the time to make any new argument or
`to rely on any evidence that's not already been relied on in
`this proceeding.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
` Unless there are any questions I think we're ready
`to begin, but before we do, I did have one item, sort of more
`of a housekeeping item, to discuss with petitioner's counsel.
`We noticed that there was notice provided in Paper 20 that a
`Mr. Bradley Cangro and Mr. Jeremy Peterson no longer
`represent petitioner and should no longer be listed -- or
`listed as backup counsel, and the notice was provided
`pursuant to 37 CFR Section 42.8(a)(3) which requires filing
`within 21 days of a change of information. Is that correct?
` MR. BREGMAN: Yes, Mr. Cangro has left our firm.
` JUDGE DERRICK: And Mr. Peterson as well?
` MR. BREGMAN: I'm not quite sure why Mr. Peterson
`resigned. He's our appellate counsel so I'm not quite sure
`what was going on there.
` Maybe, Alex, do you have any idea?
` MR. STEIN: Yeah, it's Jeremy Peterson and he also
`left the firm with Mr. Cangro. So both of them are no longer
`with our firm.
` JUDGE DERRICK: Okay. I guess I would remind
`counsel that Section 42.10(e) states that counsel may not
`withdraw from a proceeding before the Board unless the Board
`authorizes such a withdrawal. And so perhaps that's
`something you should consider and determine what the best way
`of addressing that is rather than simply notifying us that
`they no longer represent petitioner.
` But with that, please go ahead and begin.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`Petitioner's counsel should go ahead and begin their argument
`whenever they're ready.
` MR. BREGMAN: All right. Thank you, Your Honor.
`I'm going to start my stopwatch. So thank you again, Your
`Honors, for taking the time. My name again is Dion Bregman,
`with me is Alex Stein, and we represent LGE. Hopefully,
`you've got our demonstratives. I'm going to be mostly
`sticking to the demonstratives and we can jump right in if
`you've got them in front of you.
` So if you look at Slide 2 of the demonstratives you
`will see generally an outline of what I plan on discussing
`today. We're going to start off talking a little bit about
`the '990 patent, just an overview. Of course I'm here really
`just to answer your questions, so if you have any questions
`for me just interrupt me, or if you already know what I'm
`talking about with the background, et cetera, we can just
`skip over it.
` Secondly, we'll be discussing Table 5 of Tada.
`That's the primary reference and our expert's analysis
`thereof. Thirdly, we'll be discussing the prima facie case
`based on Tada if you turn to Slide 3. Then we'll get into
`the disputes and the main dispute between the parties is
`whether there is an obvious error in Tada and we'll talk
`about that. We'll then talk about our expert's analysis of
`Table 5. Patent owners have disagreed with his analysis.
`And then time permitting we'll get into Grounds 2 and 3 after
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`that.
` So with that why don't I just jump into the
`overview. So if you look at Slide 5, this is a figure from
`the patent, from the '990 patent, that lays out
`general -- what a general, classical, panoramic, objective
`lens looks like, and this is the prior art. And generally
`objective lenses have more than one lens. They're depicted
`with one lens here for simplicity, but you can see the lens
`in blue, you can see the optical axis in orange, you can see
`a number of object points in pink, A, B, C, and D, and they
`enter the lens at various different field angles from the
`optical axis. Those are shown as Alpha 1, Alpha 2, minus
`Alpha 1, and minus Alpha 2. The light exits the lens and
`hits a digital image sensor, 17, and those same object points
`are now the image points on the sensor shown with prime. So
`A Prime, B Prime, C Prime, and D Prime. And in a classical
`lens the angle, the field angle, Alpha 1, Alpha 2, is
`proportional to these distances that you see, D1 and D2.
`They're the other way around because the image is flipped
`upside down when it goes through the lens.
` And if you look at Slide 6, 4A from the patent
`again shows you what they call an image disk and this is the
`image that you would see on the image sensor, and each one of
`those concentric circles are the object points having the
`same field angle. So everything at ten degrees up to 90
`degrees, and each one of those field angles around the lens
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`you'll get these concentric circles, and the concentric
`circles are evenly spaced in a classical lens.
` And the patent introduces a concept called the
`image point distribution function and what that really is is
`just to show is there any distortion in the lens? So are you
`zooming in on any area of the lens? Is there a higher
`resolution at some point in the lens compared to somewhere
`else?
` And the X axis is the field angle. This is 180-
`degree wide-angle lens so it's got 90 degrees up, 90 degrees
`down. It's just showing you 90 degrees. And that's on the X
`axis is the field angle. And on the Y axis is the distance
`from the center that's being normalized. So the center is
`zero and the very edge is one where you can think of it in
`percentages as well. You know, the first bottom ten percent
`up to 100 percent of the image. And what's important here is
`that for a classical lens you have a linear relationship
`between the old angle and this normalized distance of the
`image points.
` If you turn to Slide 7, the '990 patent describes
`only one actual lens system which it shows in detail in
`Figure 15 where it's assembled, and Figure 16 getting rid of
`all of the assembly parts, just showing the lenses. And what
`you see in Figure 7A is an image disk but you can see the
`concentric circles are no longer evenly spaced. They're
`wider spaced in the middle and then they are more closely
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`spaced as you go to the outside. And that you can see in the
`image point distribution function 7B shown on the right,
`and you can show -- you can see that there is a steeper curve
`up until about 20 degrees and then a shallower curve from 20
`degrees to the remainder of the lens. And what that's saying
`is that you have an expanded lens in the middle. You're
`getting more detail. You're getting about 50 percent of the
`image sensor contains just the data -- just the image points
`from the first 20 degrees and then the rest of the 50 percent
`contains all of the image points from 20 degrees up until 90.
`So that is compressed and the middle of the lens is expanded.
` And as patent owner's expert and our experts have
`explained, it's a zero sum game. So if you're going to
`expand some part of the lens, you have to contract the other
`part of the lens. You're always going to end up at the end.
`That's the field angle, the maximum field angle of the lens
`and at one. And so if you align the --
` JUDGE DERRICK: Counsel --
` MR. BREGMAN: Sorry. Go ahead.
` JUDGE DERRICK: Yeah. So just as a point of
`clarification, so you say there's no (indiscernible). So if
`you expand one portion you must compress another portion.
` MR. BREGMAN: Yeah.
` JUDGE DERRICK: So for instance if you
`have -- but it's not necessarily the case that every portion
`that is not expanded is then compressed, correct? You could
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`have a portion that remained linear, a portion that was
`expanded, and then a portion that was compressed, correct?
` MR. BREGMAN: Yeah, absolutely correct. As long as
`you ended up --
` JUDGE DERRICK: Okay.
` MR. BREGMAN: -- back at the 190 if you've got a 90
`field angle, 180-degree field angle lens, as long as you end
`up back at the top point. And you can see on this line the
`linear relationship is the dashed line, and then it goes up,
`there's some expansion, and then there's some compression.
`So what they're trying to do with this lens is to just zoom
`in on the middle part. The middle part is more interesting
`to the lens designer than the outside. So if I've got a lens
`that I really want to focus on somewhere in the middle, this
`is the kind of lens I would use. And it's very standard lens
`design that you would introduce some distortion into a lens
`if you wanted to focus on some areas.
` Now, if we turn to Slide 8, this is the invention.
`So they mention -- the '990 patent doesn't actually show you
`what a lens would look like for the claimed invention, but it
`shows you what the image point distribution line would look
`like, what chart could look like. And as you can see on the
`right-hand side Figure 9, you'll see that there's a lower
`slope than the linear slope, a higher angle of an attack
`slope, and then again a shallower slope, and what that tells
`us is if we plot that onto that image disk is that you will
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`get -- up until 30 degrees you'll get compression so you've
`got less resolution there. Then you've got a middle zone
`where it's blue and there's expansion so you've got higher
`resolution. And then at the end of the or the edge of the
`image disk you have compression again. You can see it ends
`up back at 90 and one at the top right, and that's what this
`lens is doing. That's what the lens of the claims are doing
`that are being challenged that you've got the center or
`intermediate zone where you've got expansion. And if you've
`got three zones and you've got expansion in the middle you
`have to have compression elsewhere, and that's what this
`patent is about.
` Now, the patent also introduces something called
`the maximum divergence and that's the distance from that
`linear line where you see the pink dot or the yellow dot, and
`the claims require that that needs to be plus or minus ten
`percent or above, and we'll spend quite a bit of time talking
`about that a little bit later.
` If you turn to Slide 9, this is directly out of the
`patent and the patent talks about why does it not tell you
`all the dimensions of the lens, the spacing of the lenses,
`what kind of lenses you would use for this embodiment? Well,
`it says it doesn't need to do that because all of that -- and
`I'll read from that first citation here. It says that the
`formula of diffraction grading of the lens, L6, the
`calculation of the diameters of the lenses and the distances
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`between the lenses are all within the understanding of those
`skilled in the art using classical computer-aided design
`tools. And it says the same thing basically in the next
`quotation as well.
` So in other words, the patent leaves all of this,
`all of the actual lens design open to a person of ordinary
`skill in the art because this is known. Once you know what
`you want to do you just use software and you tweak it to get
`the lens system that you want. And why this is important,
`you'll see compared to Tada, our primary reference, Tada
`gives you a lot of information. Lots of tables and formulas
`and all sorts of things which goes way beyond what the '990
`patent gives you with respect to its claimed lens.
` If we turn to Slide 10, this is for the method
`claims, and you'll see that the two claims that are being
`challenged in the two IPRs are dependent claims. And why
`we're challenging only the dependent claims, well the
`independent claims have been cancelled in re-exam. So the
`patent owner put their own patent into re-exam and admits
`that the two secondary references, Baker and Nagaoka,
`disclose all of the elements of the independent claims. So
`all that's left is the Dependent Claim 5 and 21, which you'll
`see on the next slide. Five is a method claim. Slide 11
`shows the apparatus claim. And what the dependent claim adds
`is you basically have this intermediate zone. The ten
`percent (indiscernible) was known. The linear -- the image
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`point distribution function they admitted was known, and the
`maximum divergence they admitted was known in the prior art.
` If we turn to Slide 12, this is very important. So
`the patent -- trying to understand whether that ten percent
`is a critical number. Is it critical? Did they have some
`unexpected results about it having to be exactly ten percent
`maximum divergence or higher? Well, the patent tells us no.
`That number is not -- there's nothing critical about that
`value. How do we know that? Well, we've got some quotations
`here that says the value of maximum divergence according to
`the present invention -- so it's saying the present invention
`is this -- is clearly higher than that due to the possible
`design errors or manufacturing errors of a classical
`panoramic objective lens which is of a few percent.
` So they're saying you typically get design errors
`or manufacturing errors of a few percent. So that's sort of
`the general range. Those aren't to say generally speaking a
`non-linear objective lens according to the present
`invention -- there we're talking about the present
`invention -- has a maximum divergence on the order of ten
`percent at least. On the order to me just means about.
`About ten percent at least is what it says. So the patent
`doesn't describe that this value of ten percent is critical.
`The patent really just introduces the concept of non-
`linearity in a lens. It leaves the lens prescription up to a
`person of skill in the art and there's nothing critical about
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`this ten percent. In the patent it's merely an
`approximation.
` Slide 13 just shows there was a re-exam. That's
`the re-exam certificate where independent claims were
`cancelled. Slide 14 and 15, I won't spend much time on it,
`but if you look at the chart that we repeated, if you look at
`the bottom right-hand corner of both Slides 14 and 15 you'll
`see patent owner admitting that Nagaoka or Baker disclose a
`panoramic objective lens that meets all the limitations of
`the independent claim. So that was all admitted during the
`re-exam.
` Okay. So let's go to Slide 16 which is Dr.
`Chipman's analysis of our single reference obviousness Ground
`1 Tada reference and in particular the embodiment that he
`relied on, which you can see in Slide 17, which is Embodiment
`3 from Tada. And Embodiment 3 talks about using Table 5.
`Table 5, as you can see we've repeated on the right, has a
`ton of information in it which a designer can use to model
`what a lens would look like. And that's exactly what our
`expert did and we'll go into that in a minute.
` If you'll turn to Slide 18, this is Figure 11 from
`Tada which shows the sort of patent drawing of the layout of
`the lenses. It never says that this was drawn to scale. The
`only reason I mention that is because patent owner's expert
`treats this drawing as if it's drawn to scale. He zooms in
`on it and he tries to find problems with it. But the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`reference, as we know, patent drawings are not drawn to scale
`unless otherwise noted in the patent and Tada never talks
`about the drawings being drawn to scale.
` If we turn to Slide 19, this is our expert Dr.
`Chipman saying what he did is he used a program called Code V
`or Code 5 depending on who you speak to. This is probably
`the most common software that people use to do lens design.
`It's been around since at least the 1960s and the
`functionality that Dr. Chipman used as he described was
`around since about 1980. In the patent owner preliminary
`response patent owners complained that he shouldn't be using
`software that's current, but then he seemed to have dropped
`that because their own expert used current software in his
`tedious analysis to try and find that there was some sort of
`error in Tada.
` Turning to Slide 20, the summary of what Dr.
`Chipman did. He took the data from Tada's Table 5, he put it
`all into some modeling software, and he got a lens model out
`of that. And you can see the lens in Slide 21 that he
`got -- this a printout directly from this Code 5 software
`that shows all the lenses and shows some of the rays, the
`light rays going through the lens system. He then took that
`data on Slide 22, he put it into a spreadsheet, and he
`plotted this image point distribution function so that he
`could determine what the maximum deviation is -- sorry,
`maximum divergence is -- and he did it for a number of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`different wavelengths of light and we'll talk about that in a
`minute. And on Slide 22 is his analysis at 380 nanometer
`wavelength, the white, and you can see that the maximum
`divergence that was calculated was minus 9.88 percent. If
`you look at Slide --
` JUDGE KALAN: Counsel, if I can interrupt.
` MR. BREGMAN: Yes.
` JUDGE KALAN: You are presenting figures here of
`9.88 percent and thereabouts previously on your Slide 12 you
`cited the language -- I'm trying to get there -- "on the order
`of ten percent at least" --
` MR. BREGMAN: Right.
` JUDGE KALAN: -- which you said you interpreted to
`be about ten percent. But why shouldn't we read "ten percent
`at least" as making ten percent the floor?
` MR. BREGMAN: Because the patent never says that
`it's a critical value and we can go into the case law. We
`will go into the case law. If you want to jump to that,
`let's do that right now. Let me see if I can find it. So if
`you go to Slide 26 of ours this is what the case law says.
`So the cases say -- and this is In re Peterson
`(indiscernible) case. It says a prima facie case of
`obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art
`range do not overlap but are close enough such that one
`skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
`properties.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
` Well, 9.88 we argue is close enough to ten degrees
`and they do have the same properties and patent owner has
`never argued that they don't have the same properties. And
`in fact they can't argue that they don't have the same
`properties because their own patent says on the order of ten
`percent or above and says that you will get design and
`manufacturing errors of a couple of percent.
` If you go to the last quote on that same slide,
`also from In re Peterson, it says a finding of prima facie
`obviousness may be rebutted by establishing that the claimed
`range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed
`range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art.
` So if you put a range and you don't -- and it's not
`critical in the patent that a person can get there through
`routine optimization then close enough is good enough. If
`they wanted to say that it was critical they would have had
`to have done that. They haven't done that, patent owners,
`and in any event they couldn’t do that because their own
`patent says on the order.
` So, to sort of summarize in response to your
`question, the floor can't be exactly ten percent or above
`because that number is not critical. It's close enough. As
`long as it has the same properties it's good enough unless
`the patent owners show that there is something magical about
`that ten percent number, which they haven't done.
` And if you look at that middle case we quote, this
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`is from In re Aller from the Federal Circuit or from the CCPA
`says, Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed
`in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum
`or workable ranges by routine optimization.
` If you remember, if you go back to the patent, the
`patent itself didn't provide any information about the
`lenses. It said go -- go optical lens designer, go use some
`software. We're going to just tell you that you've got this
`intermediate zone or the middle zone and we've got a maximum
`divergence of plus or minus ten percent or above and you go
`do routine experimentation. Use the software and design the
`lens to get the actual lens that you want.
` So the '990 patent clearly doesn't say that the ten
`percent is critical. Of course patent owners would love it
`to be critical. But in any event, we've got an obviousness
`ground where we are 0.12 percent off from ten percent and we
`believe that a person of skill in the art when they
`were -- if they were performing routine optimization would
`easily have got to ten percent just with the manufacturing
`and design errors that the '990 patent admits are commonplace.
` JUDGE KALAN: Correct.
` JUDGE DERRICK: So counsel --
` JUDGE KALAN: As a step of this -- sorry. As a
`step of the analysis, going back to the language and just
`looking at the "ten percent at least," in separating that out
`from the "on the order of", the "ten percent at least" seems to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`be an amount stated in the patent that doesn't necessarily
`based on this language say less than ten percent. Looking at
`the "on the order of" which you have interpreted to be "about,"
`I'm still not seeing the support for the interpretation of
`your "on the order of" as "about." "On the order of" seems
`to me to have a different mathematical property.
` MR. BREGMAN: I beg to disagree there a little bit.
`I mean at least to me "on the order of" means about and when
`read in connection with the previous sentence that says when
`you're going to do designing of lenses or manufacturing of
`lenses, these lenses are going to differ the maximum
`divergence of a few percent it says. I mean that is not
`showing that it's critical.
` Remember, what they need to do here is they need to
`show that there is criticality. That if it isn't at ten
`percent or above exactly then you're going to -- the lens is
`going to be awful. They have to show that you -- there is
`something special, there is something magical per the case
`law that if you -- that that range from ten percent or above
`provides some criticality and they just haven't shown that.
`They've never showed that exactly ten percent or above gives
`you some unexpected result. And we submit that they couldn't
`do that because the patent would contradict that statement if
`they tried to make it. In any event, they haven't shown that
`so it's kind of a moot point.
` Okay. So returning to Slide 23 just momentarily
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`you can see -- and this is another dispute which we'll get
`into later. Tada talks about using a CCT -- using its lens
`in a CCTV camera which is for generally closed circuit TV for
`surveillance. And of course that kind of a lens would have
`lens in the visible spectrum that it's looking at. Sorry.
`Light in the visible spectrum that it would be looking at and
`light in the visible spectrum is all the way from just above
`ultraviolet to just under infrared. So from about 380
`nanometers to about 740 nanometers.
` And you can see Dr. Chipman has run his analysis to
`figure out the maximum divergence and he gets a range of
`maximum divergence depending on wavelength of anywhere from
`8.1 to 9.88, which we submit is well within a few percent of
`ten degrees. And if it wasn't -- and even if that range was
`critical, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to
`modify the lens as described in our petition and in Dr.
`Chipman's declarations.
` Okay. So let's jump forward a little bit to that
`criticality you're talking about in a little bit. I mean we
`pointed that out in Slide 27 that the maximum deviation of
`9.88 -- actually anywhere from 8.1 to 9.88 is close enough to
`the claimed maximum deviation such that one skilled in the
`art would have expected to have the same properties, quoting
`In re Peterson, and you can find that in the petition on page
`40.
` So just summarizing, if we go to Slide 28, our
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`expert Dr. Chipman took Table 5, put it into this Code V or
`Code 5 software, and got out the maximum divergence values
`that we just looked at. Very straightforward. What any
`person of skill in the art would do and in fact is what both
`experts did in this proceeding.
` Not to harp on this, but if you go to Slide 30 I
`believe Your Honors already sort of appreciated what we were
`talking about here with the criticality in your institution
`decision. I don't need to repeat your institution decision
`back to you, but you did also note that there's no meaningful
`distinction between the maximum divergence values of Tada and
`the claimed ten percent value.
` Okay. Let's get to the main argument here which is
`is there an error in Tada and is that error obvious, and
`that's starting on Slide 31. So patent owner's position is
`that there is an error in Tada and that the Board should
`correct that error. Right. They say that there's an error
`in the aspherical data underneath Table 5 and you should
`really take the aspherical data from a different embodiment
`and substitute it into Table 5 and that would have been
`obvious to a person of skill in the art and we just simply
`disagree with that.
` So if you look at Slide 32, why don't we just start
`with what the law says. And the law, the controlling case
`here is In re Yale. I apologize on Slide 32 I notice that I
`said BPAI 1970 as the citation. That is of course wrong.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00179 and IPR2020-00195
`(Patent 6,844,990 B2)
`
`That's the CCPA 1970 is what it should say. And I think it's
`worthwhile looking at this case a little bit, talking through
`this case because it is the controlling case.
` So what happened in this case is there was a
`compound that was using being used for -- an inhalation
`compound to help with anesthesia and there were multiple
`different compounds mentioned in this article. One of the
`compounds clearly was not mentioned anywhere else and was a
`clear typographical error. And the CCPA, the Federal
`Circuit, I'll just shorthand and call them recognized there.
`They recognized that there was a
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
