UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERVISION, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`IPR2020-00179
`IPR2020-00195
`Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`_________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DAVID AIKENS
`
`1/94
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 2 
`II.
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 4 
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................... 5 
`V.
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................... 9 
`VI.
`‘990 PATENT AND CLAIM SUMMARY .................................................. 10 
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 10 
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND ASSERTED
`REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 14 
`A. Asserted References ....................................................................................... 15 
`1. Overview of Tada ........................................................................................ 15 
`2. Overview of Nagaoka .................................................................................. 18 
`3. Overview of Baker ...................................................................................... 21 
`B. Claims 5 and 21 Over Tada Alone ................................................................. 23 
`1. Dr. Chipman’s Entire Opinion is Predicated on a Flawed Analysis of
`Tada’s Embodiment 3 ................................................................................. 23 
`2. Dr. Chipman’s Flawed Analysis is Provided at Wavelengths Never
`Mentioned in Tada ...................................................................................... 39 
`3. A POSA Would Not Have Plotted an Image Point Distribution Function
`because it is Not a Standard Output ............................................................ 57 
`4. A More Correct Analysis Would Use Centroids Instead of Chief Ray
`Heights to Define Image Points .................................................................. 59 
`5. Dr. Chipman Chose Embodiment 3 Exactly Because it is Described
`Incorrectly in Table 5 .................................................................................. 68 
`
`i
`
`2/94
`
`

`

`6. A POSA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Add Distortion to Tada ..... 72 
`C. Claims 5 and 21 Over Tada and Nagaoka ...................................................... 75 
`1. Dr. Chipman’s Analysis of Tada is Based on a Readily Apparent Error ... 75
`2. Nagaoka Actually Teaches Away from Image Point Distribution Functions
`having Compressed Image Heights at the Periphery .................................. 76 
`D. Claims 5 and 21 Over Tada and Baker ........................................................... 79 
`1. Dr. Chipman’s Analysis of Tada is Based on a Readily Apparent Error ... 79
`2. Dr. Chipman Misinterprets Baker’s Teachings to Detract from Baker’s
`Focus on Peripheral Content Enhancement ................................................ 81 
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 84
`
`ii
`
`3/94
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I, David Aikens, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner ImmerVision, Inc.
`
`(“ImmerVision”) for the above-captioned inter partes reviews to provide expert
`
`opinion and testimony. I understand that these proceedings involve U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,844,990 (“the ‘990 Patent”) titled “Method for Capturing and Displaying a
`
`Variable Resolution Digital Panoramic Image.” I understand that the ‘990 Patent
`
`is currently assigned to ImmerVision.
`
`2.
`
`I was retained in this matter by ImmerVision through IMS Expert
`
`Services and ImmerVision’s counsel, Panitch Schwarze, as an expert witness in the
`
`field of optics and lens design. IMS Expert Services charges a rate of $600 per
`
`hour for my services in connection with these proceedings, of which I receive a
`
`fixed percentage. My compensation in these matters is in no way dependent upon
`
`or contingent upon the opinions and testimony that I render during these
`
`proceedings, nor on the ultimate outcomes of these proceedings.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I have reviewed and am familiar with all
`
`of the references cited herein, and in the Petition. I have also reviewed and am
`
`familiar with the ‘990 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`In this declaration, I set forth the independent opinions that I have
`
`reached and the basis for those opinions using the information currently available
`
`1
`
`4/94
`
`

`

`
`
`to me. Such opinions are based on my education, career, and relevant experience
`
`in optics and lens design unless otherwise noted. A list of documents I have
`
`reviewed and, in some cases, relied upon in forming my opinions are presented
`
`below. I reserve the right to supplement or revise my opinions should additional
`
`documents or other information be provided to me.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`5. My curriculum vitae (“CV”), a copy of which is provided attached
`
`hereto, provides details on my education, experience, publications, and other
`
`qualifications.
`
`6.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Optical Engineering in
`
`1983, and a Master of Science degree in Optical Engineering in 1984, both from
`
`the University of Rochester.
`
`7.
`
`From 1983 to 1987, I worked as an Optical Engineer for the Hughes
`
`Aircraft Company in El Segundo, California. From 1987 to 1989, I worked as an
`
`Optical Engineer for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore,
`
`California. I then worked as the President and Founder of the Dema Bekz
`
`Corporation in Portland, Oregon from 1989 to 1991, as a freelance optical designer
`
`and engineer. From 1991 to 1994, I worked as a Senior Optical Engineer at KLA
`
`Instruments in San Jose, California. I then returned to the Lawrence Livermore
`
`National Laboratory as an NIF Optical Engineering Manager from 1994 to 2000.
`
`2
`
`5/94
`
`

`

`From 2000 to 2002, I worked as an Engineering Manager, Optics for Therma-
`
`Wave, Inc. in Milpitas, California. I then worked as the Director of Engineering
`
`for Zygo Corporation in Middlefield, Connecticut from 2002 to 2007. In 2007, I
`
`founded Savvy Optics Corp., where I have been the President for the past 13 years.
`
`In these roles, I have over 35 years’ experience in optics, optical engineering, and
`
`optical systems development, including lens design and optics specifications.
`
`8.
`
`I have authored dozens of papers and given dozens of presentations
`
`regarding lens design and other aspects of optics. I am also a named inventor on at
`
`least eleven issued U.S. Patents regarding inventions in the field of optics.
`
`9.
`
`Beginning in 2005, I have been teaching a series of courses at
`
`customer’s sites and at conferences on various optical engineering subjects. I also
`
`offer a 48-week optical design tutoring program for mid-level optical designers to
`
`hone the skills of optical design using a formal mentoring program I have
`
`developed.
`
`10.
`
`I am a Fellow of the optics and photonics engineering society SPIE,
`
`serve on the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for ISO technical committee
`
`TC172 for optics and photonics standards, lead the TAG for Subcommittee 1
`
`“Fundamental Standards”, chair the task force for drawing standards for the
`
`American Standards Committee for Optics (ASC OP), and serve on the program
`
`3
`
`6/94
`
`

`

`committees for both the International Optical Design Conference and OSA’s
`
`Optical Fabrication and Testing Conference.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`11.
`In forming my opinions expressed in this declaration, I have
`
`considered and relied upon my education, background, and experience. In
`
`addition, I have reviewed and, in some cases, relied upon the following list of
`
`materials in the preparation of this declaration.
`
`Materials Considered
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 Challenging Claim
`5
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 Challenging Claim
`21
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review on Claim 5
`Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review on Claim 21
`EX1001 – U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`EX1002 – Prosecution History of ‘990 Patent
`EX1003 – Prosecution History of Reexamination No. 90/013,410
`EX1004 – U.S. Patent No. 6,128,145 (Nagaoka)
`EX1005 – U.S. Patent No. 5,686,957 (Baker)
`EX1006 – U.S. Patent No. 3,953,111 (Fisher)
`EX1007 – U.S. Patent No. 5,861,999 (Tada)
`EX1008 – Declaration of Russell Chipman, Ph.D.
`EX1010 – Patent Owner’s Initial Infringement Contentions in Case No. 1:18-cv-
`01631-MN-CJB (D. Del.) (Claim 5)
`EX1011 – Patent Owner’s Initial Infringement Contentions in Case No. 1:18-cv-
`01630-MN-CJB (D. Del.) (Claim 21)
`EX1012 – Excerpt from The American Heritage Dictionary of Science (1986)
`EX1013 – Dave from Code V analysis of Tada’s third embodiment performed by
`Dr. Russell Chipman
`EX1014 – 1978 Code V Manual
`EX1015A, EX1015B – Excerpts of 1994 Code V Manual
`EX1016 – A technical overview of Code V version 7
`
`4
`
`7/94
`
`

`

`
`
`Materials Considered
`EX1017 – Declaration of Russell Chipman, Ph.D. Regarding Code V
`EX2001 – U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0050758
`EX2002 – July 2, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Russell A. Chipman, Ph. D.
`EX2007 – Japanese Pat. Pub. No. H10-115778 (Tada-JP)
`EX2008 – Certified Translation of Japanese Pat. Pub. No. H10-115778
`EX2011 – Excerpts from “Zemax Optical Design Program User’s Guide Version
`10.0,” from Focus Software, Inc. (April, 2001)
`EX2012 – Excerpt from Frank L. Pedrotti, S.J. & Leno S. Pedrotti, Introduction
`to Optics (2nd ed. 1993)
`EX2013 – Excerpt from Handbook of Optics, Volume II Devices,
`Measurements, and Properties (Michael Bass ed., 2nd ed. 1995)
`EX2014 – C. Joram, Transmission curves of plexiglass (PMMA) and optical
`grease, CERN publication PH-EP-Tech-Note-2009-003 (2009)
`EX2015 – International Standard ISO 7944, Optics and optical instruments –
`Reference wavelengths (2nd ed. 1998)
`EX2016 – Excerpts from Daniel Malacara & Zacarias Malacara, Handbook of
`Lens Design (1994)
`EX2017 – Excerpt from Max Born & Emil Wolf, Principles of Optics –
`Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light
`(6th ed. 1980)
`EX2018 – Ohara S-TIH53 Data Sheet
`EX2019 – Schott Technical Information, TIE-29: Refractive Index and
`Dispersion (April 2005)
`EX2020 – Excerpt from Warren J. Smith & Genesee Optics Software, Inc.,
`Modern Lens Design: A Resource Manual (1992)
`EX2021 – Excerpt from Handbook of Optics, Volume I Fundamentals,
`Techniques, and Design (Michael Bass ed., 2nd ed. 1995)
`EX2022 - Francis A. Jenkins & Harvey E. White, Fundamentals of Optics (4th
`ed. 1976)
`
`
`12. To the best of my knowledge, each of the above papers and exhibits is
`
`a true and accurate copy of what they purport to be. An expert in the field would
`
`reasonably rely on them to formulate opinions such as those set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`5
`
`8/94
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`13.
`I am not an attorney, and I am not offering any legal opinions in this
`
`declaration nor am I qualified to do so. However, I have been informed by counsel
`
`regarding several legal standards that I am to apply in framing my technical
`
`opinions and conclusions.
`
`14.
`
`I understand from counsel that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed
`
`invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`“POSA”) at the time of the invention. This means that even if all of the
`
`requirements of the claim cannot be found in a single prior art reference that would
`
`anticipate the claim, the claim can still be invalid.
`
`15.
`
`I understand from counsel that an obviousness analysis involves
`
`comparing a claim to the prior art to determine whether the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the invention in view of the
`
`prior art and in light of the general knowledge in the art as a whole.
`
`16.
`
`I also understand from counsel that obviousness is ultimately a legal
`
`conclusion based on underlying facts of four general types, all of which must be
`
`considered: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of the POSA; (3)
`
`the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) any
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`6
`
`9/94
`
`

`

`
`
`17.
`
`I also understand from counsel that obviousness may be established
`
`by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art. Specific teachings,
`
`suggestions, or motivations to combine any first prior art reference with a second
`
`prior art reference can be explicit or implicit, but must have existed before the date
`
`of invention. I further understand from counsel that in some circumstances
`
`obviousness may be established by a single prior art reference.
`
`18.
`
`I understand from counsel that prior art references themselves may be
`
`one source of a specific teaching or suggestion to combine features of the prior art,
`
`but that such suggestions or motivations to combine art may come from the
`
`knowledge of a POSA. Specifically, a rationale to combine the teachings of
`
`references may include logic or common sense available to a POSA.
`
`19.
`
`I understand from counsel that a prior art reference may be relied
`
`upon for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose. I
`
`understand that teaching away, e.g., discouragement from making the proposed
`
`modification, is strong evidence that the prior art references are not combinable. I
`
`also understand from counsel that a disclosure of more than one alternative does
`
`not necessarily constitute a teaching away.
`
`20.
`
`I understand from counsel that to support a combination of multiple
`
`prior art references, there must be a rationale explaining why a skilled artisan
`
`7
`
`10/94
`
`

`

`
`
`would combine the references in the manner claimed and how the proposed
`
`combination meets each and every claim element.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand from counsel that whether there is a reasonable
`
`expectation of success from combining prior art references in a particular way is
`
`also relevant to the analysis. I understand there may be a number of rationales that
`
`may support a conclusion of obviousness, including:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`• Substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`results;
`• Use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`• “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified,
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to
`one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`combine prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`I understand that it is not proper to use hindsight to combine prior art
`
`22.
`
`references or elements of prior art references to reconstruct the invention using the
`
`claims as a guide. For example, an obviousness reconstruction should only take
`
`8
`
`11/94
`
`

`

`
`
`into account knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`claimed invention was made, and not utilize knowledge gleaned only from the
`
`patent’s disclosure. When it appears hindsight bias is being used, I understand the
`
`modification or combination is not considered obvious.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that so-called objective indicia may be relevant to the
`
`determination of whether a claim is obvious should the Patent Owner allege such
`
`evidence. Such objective indicia can include evidence of commercial success
`
`caused by an invention, evidence of a long-felt need that was solved by an
`
`invention, evidence that others copied an invention, or evidence that an invention
`
`achieved a surprising result. I understand that such evidence must have a nexus, or
`
`causal relationship to the elements of a claim, in order to be relevant to the
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the claim.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`24.
`In his declaration Dr. Chipman proposes that a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention would have had at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in Physics, Optical Engineering, and/or Electrical Engineering and at least
`
`five years’ experience in developing and designing optical products or systems and
`
`have familiarity with image processing algorithms and optical design software.
`
`EX1008, ¶ 41. While I do not necessarily agree with Dr. Chipman’s opinion, it
`
`does not materially affect my analysis, and for purposes of this document only, I
`
`9
`
`12/94
`
`

`

`
`
`have assumed the same level of skill in the art as Dr. Chipman has proposed.
`
`Additionally, based on my education, training, and professional experience, I met
`
`at least these minimum qualifications to be a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`as of the relevant time-frame of the invention of the ‘990 Patent, which I have
`
`taken to be May 11, 2001 for the purposes of this declaration.
`
`VI.
`
`‘990 PATENT AND CLAIM SUMMARY
`25. The ‘990 Patent relates to panoramic image capture and display.
`
`EX1001, 1:13-15. Typical panoramic objective lenses have a linear relationship
`
`between object field angles and image points. EX1001, 2:4-8. That is, an image
`
`point’s relative distance (dr) from the image center should equal a field angle (e.g.,
`
`α2 in Fig. 5 shown below) of the corresponding object point (e.g., b in Fig. 5)
`
`multiplied by a constant (e.g., dr=K⸱α). EX1001, 2:35-42 and Fig 5.
`
`
`26. Figs. 4A and 4B of the ‘990 patent, below illustrate the concept:
`
`10
`
`13/94
`
`

`

`
`
`
`27. The concentric circles in Fig. 4A represent image points that
`
`correspond to object points sharing a common field angle (in increments of 10°).
`
`EX1001, 2:14-29. The plot in Fig. 4B shows the linearity of the function (Fdc),
`
`demonstrating that a ratio between field angles (α) of two object points in the
`
`panorama should be the same as a ratio of relative distances (dr) of the
`
`corresponding image points from the image center. EX1001, 2:9-13.
`
`28. This arrangement presents disadvantages when enlarging image
`
`portions for display. EX1001, 3:1-9. The ‘990 Patent’s solution offers an
`
`objective lens that has a non-linear image point distribution function with a
`
`maximum divergence of at least ±10% compared to the linear function, such that
`
`the image has at least one substantially expanded zone and at least one
`
`substantially compressed zone. EX1001, 4:11-21. The “maximum divergence”
`
`refers to the point on the image point distribution function plot that is farthest away
`
`11
`
`14/94
`
`

`

`
`
`from a corresponding point on the linear distribution function. For example, in
`
`Fig. 8 below the greatest relative distance between the image point distribution
`
`function Fd2 and the linear distribution function Fdc is found at 70 degrees and is
`
`the distance between the points Pd on the image point distribution function Fd2
`
`and Pd1 on the linear distribution function Fdc. EX1001, 8:44-67 and Fig 8.
`
`
`29. An image zone is “expanded” when it covers a greater number of
`
`pixels on an image sensor than it would with a linear distribution lens, and it is
`
`“compressed” when it covers fewer image sensor pixels. EX1001, 3:66-4:10.
`
`30. The only claims at issue in this proceeding, Claim 5 and 21, recite1
`
`that the “lens compresses the center of the image and the edges of the image and
`
`
`1 Claims 5 and 21 respectively depend on Claims 1 and 17, which call for the non-
`
`linear image point distribution function with a maximum divergence of ±10%, as
`
`discussed above.
`
`12
`
`15/94
`
`

`

`
`
`expands an intermediate zone of the image located between the center and the
`
`edges of the image.” EX1001, Claims 5, 21. An example of this is shown with the
`
`image point distribution plot in Fig. 9 (reproduced below). A compressed zone is
`
`located between α=0° and α=30° and another is located between α=70° and α=90°,
`
`based on the shallow slopes in these regions when compared to the linear
`
`distribution function (Fdc, shown in dashed lines).
`
`
`31. Conversely, between α=30° and α=70°, a steep slope compared to the
`
`linear distribution function Fdc indicates the presence of an expanded zone. The
`
`result is a high definition intermediate zone, which lends itself well to digital
`
`enlargements because it occupies more pixels. EX1001, 9:53-10:5.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`32.
`I understand that Petitioner proposed constructions for a number of
`
`terms from claims 5 and 21 of the ‘990 Patent. While I do not agree with the
`
`interpretations set forth by the Petitioner, it does not materially affect my analysis
`
`13
`
`16/94
`
`

`

`
`
`based on the prior art submitted. Accordingly, for purposes of my declaration
`
`only, I have adopted Petitioner’s constructions for claims 5 and 21.
`
`VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS AND ASSERTED
`REFERENCES
`33. As an initial matter, I note that for my analysis, I used the program
`
`Zemax, which is an optical design software program that is similar to the Code V
`
`program used by Dr. Chipman in his declaration. Zemax was originally developed
`
`by Ken Moore of Focus Software, and has been commercially available since at
`
`least 1990. I first used Code V in about 1987 and Zemax in about 2000. I have
`
`used both Zemax and Code V at different times during my career and consider the
`
`programs to be roughly equivalent with similar features and analysis capabilities.
`
`34.
`
`I have been provided with a copy of excerpts from the April 2001
`
`User’s Guide for Zemax Version 10.0. I have reviewed those excerpts and their
`
`description of Zemax is consistent with my recollection of how Zemax operated at
`
`that time. Accordingly, the excerpts appear to be true and correct copies from the
`
`April 2001 User’s Guide.
`
`35. All of the functions used in my analysis below were features available
`
`in Zemax at least as early as April 2001. The data from my analyses is contained
`
`in Exhibit 2010.
`
`14
`
`17/94
`
`

`

`
`
`A. Asserted References
`1. Overview of Tada
`36. Tada addresses a retrofocus type of lens with a front group with
`
`negative power and a rear lens group of positive power, wherein the first element is
`
`a negative meniscus and the second element has an aspherical second lens which
`
`functions as a biconcave lens near the optical axis and a negative meniscus at the
`
`periphery EX1007, Abstract. Tada explains that, in a retrofocus type of lens with a
`
`wide field, the front group has multiple negative lenses, usually a front negative
`
`meniscus with a convex surface towards the object, and a second negative lens
`
`behind it. EX1007, 1:16-23. The first lens element is typically a negative meniscus
`
`lens because it “can advantageously reduce, due to the shape thereof, the
`
`astigmatism and distortion of a bundle of light chiefly at a large angle of view.”
`
`EX1007, 1:23-27.
`
`37. Tada observes that in a super wide angle lens with a field of view of
`
`120 to 140 degrees, as the negative power of the front group increases the first
`
`meniscus lens element becomes difficult to produce because the radius of curvature
`
`on the image side surface must be reduced EX1007, 1:28-35. However,
`
`compensating by making the second lens element biconcave to increase negative
`
`results in field curvature. EX1007, 1:35-41.
`
`15
`
`18/94
`
`

`

`
`
`38. Tada’s object is therefore to provide a retrofocus lens system with a
`
`wide field without increasing the radius of curvature on the image side of the
`
`negative meniscus first lens element. EX1007, 1:48-53. This is accomplished by
`
`making the surfaces of the second lens element aspheric, having a biconcave shape
`
`in the vicinity of the optical axis (for ray bundles at a small angle of view), and to
`
`have a negative meniscus lens shape at the edge “for a bundle of rays at a large
`
`angle of view.” EX1007, 1:54-67. With this configuration, Tada seeks to suppress
`
`distortion, field curvature, and other negative effects on light incoming from large
`
`angles with a lens system that is easier to manufacture than conventional lenses.
`
`39. A rotationally symmetric aspheric lens, such as Tada’s second lens
`
`element, is described in Tada in the conventional way, where the surface is of the
`
`form: 𝑥(cid:4666)ℎ(cid:4667)(cid:3404)
`
`𝐶ℎ(cid:2870)
`(cid:4672)1(cid:3397)(cid:3493)1(cid:3398)(cid:4666)1(cid:3397)𝐾(cid:4667)𝐶(cid:2870)ℎ(cid:2870)(cid:4673)(cid:3397) 𝐴(cid:2872)ℎ(cid:2872)(cid:3397)𝐴(cid:2874)ℎ(cid:2874)(cid:3397)𝐴(cid:2876)ℎ(cid:2876)(cid:3397)𝐴(cid:2869)(cid:2868)ℎ(cid:2869)(cid:2868)(cid:3397)⋯
`
`where x represents the distance from a tangent plane of an aspherical vertex, h is a
`
`height above the optical axis, C is the curvature of the aspherical surface (equal to
`
`the reciprocal of the radius of curvature R), K is the conic constant, and A4-A10
`
`are aspheric coefficients of higher order. EX1007, 5:43-67.
`
`40. Tada also constrains the design of the second lens elements aspheric
`
`first surface with four conditions. EX1007, 2:7-28. Failure to satisfy these
`
`16
`
`19/94
`
`

`

`
`
`conditions creates undesirable characteristics in the lens system and problems in
`
`the resulting image. EX1007, 4:48-5:7. Conditions (1)-(4) represent ratios of the
`
`vertex radius of curvature and the specific aspheric coefficients from the second
`
`element’s first surface to the lens system’s overall focal length raised to a specific
`
`power. EX1007, 2:7-28. Tada additionally constrains the rear lens group with
`
`similar conditions (5)-(8). EX1007, 2:46-67.
`
`41. Tada provides four example lens system embodiments where the
`
`embodiment satisfies the aforementioned conditions. EX1007, Table 9. The first
`
`of the four example embodiments includes a front lens group 10 made of two lens
`
`elements 11, 12 and a rear lens group 20 made from five lens elements 21, 22, 23,
`
`24, 25, along with an aperture stop S and a sensor cover glass C leading to an
`
`image surface or CCD. EX1007, 6:1-25 and Fig 1. The other three example
`
`embodiments have the same basic lens system structure as the first embodiment,
`
`but with different lens radii, thicknesses and spacings. EX1007, Figs. 6, 11, 15;
`
`7:38-8:25, 8:60-9:28, 9:60-10:28.
`
`42. Each embodiment is described by a “prescription” in the form of a
`
`table including the focal length f (set to 1 in all cases), a half field of view W,
`
`radius of curvatures R for all surfaces and the distance to the next surface, index of
`
`refraction and dispersion at the Helium d line (which I will explain further, below)
`
`for each element, and the aspheric coefficients for the two surfaces of the second
`
`17
`
`20/94
`
`

`

`
`
`lens. EX1007, 5:43-54, Tables 1, 3, 5, 7. The shape for the object surface of the
`
`second lens element for each embodiment is also given in the form of “sag” tables
`
`– listings of x(h) values for different heights from the optical axis. EX1007, 6:64-
`
`7:4, Tables 2, 4, 6, 8. Ideally, solving the above aspherical equation for x(h) for an
`
`embodiment will match the data from the corresponding sag table. Tada also gives
`
`the ratios for conditions (2)-(4) for each embodiment. EX1007, 10:53-54 and
`
`Table 9.
`
`43. As I will explain in further detail below, Table 5, which Dr.
`
`Chipman’s expert testimony relies upon exclusively, contains an error in the listed
`
`aspheric coefficients that is readily apparent to a POSA who uses Tada’s entire
`
`disclosure to verify that a recreated model is accurate.
`
`44. Tada is silent regarding image point distribution functions (or even the
`
`relationship of image height to field angle) for any of its embodiments. Tada’s
`
`explicit teachings have almost nothing in common with the ‘990 Patent’s
`
`invention, other than both involve wide-angle lenses.
`
`2. Overview of Nagaoka
`45. Nagaoka, similar to Tada, is directed to a monitoring system using a
`
`camera. EX1004, 1:11-17. For Nagaoka’s monitoring system, the preferred lens is
`
`a fisheye lens that can capture a field of view at a field angle of at least 90° from
`
`the optical axis. EX1004, 1:17-21. Nagaoka discusses a prior art fisheye lens that
`
`18
`
`21/94
`
`

`

`
`
`provides “equidistant projection,” meaning the lens has a linear distribution
`
`function, with a relationship of h=f⸱θ (where h is the image height at a certain
`
`point, f is the focal length of the lens, and θ is the field angle). EX1004, 1:36-50.
`
`46. Nagaoka recognized that such an image projection was unsatisfactory
`
`because the information was too compressed at the periphery, and “missing
`
`portions must be interpolated,” while “the peripheral portion of the image is
`
`distorted.” EX1004, 1:50-60. Nagaoka’s invention, therefore, addresses this
`
`compression and distortion by changing the image projection to be something other
`
`than linear to “minimize missing portions of image data by extracting a large
`
`volume of image data at the field angle of around 90d with respect to the optical
`
`axis of the fisheye lens to reduce interpolating of the missing portions” and “obtain
`
`a natural plane image.” EX1004, 1:61-2:4. Nagaoka accomplishes this using a
`
`fisheye lens with an image mapping of h=nf⸱tan(θ/m), with 1.6 ≤ m ≤3 and m-0.4 ≤
`
`n ≤ m+0.4. EX1004, 2:12-21.
`
`47. Nagaoka compares one example embodiment (h=2f⸱tan(θ/2) to the
`
`linear function and two other conventional functions (h=2f⸱sin(θ/2) and h=f⸱sin(θ))
`
`in Figs. 4A to 4D, reproduced below. EX1004, Figures 4A-D. These figures
`
`represent image heights using concentric circles at 10° intervals in field angle;
`
`notice that Fig 4B in Nagaoka is analogous to Fig. 4A of the ‘990 Patent shown in
`
`the previous section. EX1004, 6:13-29.
`
`19
`
`22/94
`
`

`

`
`
`
`48. Nagaoka says that the functions h=2f⸱sin(θ/2) and h=f⸱sin(θ) are not
`
`preferred because the image height he of an image Me at a peripheral portion of the
`
`lenses in Figs. 4C and 4D are too small, and even the conventional linear lens (Fig.
`
`4B) provides a peripheral image height that “is not satisfactory.” EX1004, 6:30-
`
`45. In contrast, the lens in Fig. 4A provides a peripheral image height he that “is
`
`enlarged and larger than the image height ho of the image Mo near the optical
`
`axis,” resulting in the capture of “a larger volume of image data” and a lack of
`
`distortion. EX1004, 6:46-52. Thus, “since an image at the peripheral portion is
`
`enlarged and a large volume of data on the peripheral portion can be extracted, the
`
`20
`
`23/94
`
`

`

`
`
`volume of image data to be interpolated can be greatly reduced, when compared
`
`with the conventional system.” EX1004, 6:60-65. This contrasts with the
`
`arrangement in claim 5 of the ‘990 Patent described above, wherein the edges (and
`
`center) are compressed, and enhancement occurs in an intermediate zone between
`
`the center and the edges. EX1001, 19:49-52.
`
`3. Overview of Baker
`49. Baker relates to an automatic, voice-directional video camera image
`
`steering system, using a panoramic display that can electronically select portions of
`
`the image and with warping techniques, remove any distortion from the most
`
`significant portions of the image which like “from the horizon up to approximately
`
`30 degrees” from the hemispheric edge.” EX1005, Abstract. Baker references
`
`other types of non-multimedia applications (e.g., security, surveillance, unmanned
`
`exploration, etc.) which have “certain limitations in capturing and manipulating
`
`valuable information and hemispheric scenes in a rapid (i.e., real-time) and cost-
`
`effective manner.” EX1005, 2:11-20.
`
`50. Like Nagaoka, Baker laments that, “the valuable content from the
`
`peripheral areas lacks in potential image quality (resolution) mapping because the
`
`imaging device and system does not differentiate between these areas