UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF RUSSELL CHIPMAN, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,844,990
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 1 of 21
`
`
`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IMMERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF RUSSELL CHIPMAN, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,844,990
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Background And Qualifications ........................................................................ 1
`II. Tada Renders Claims 5 and 21 Obvious ............................................................ 3
`III. Tada in View of Baker Renders Claims 5 And 21 Obvious ............................ 13
`IV. Tada in View of Nagaoka Renders Claims 5 And 21 Obvious ....................... 16
`V. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`i
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`I, Russell Chipman, hereby declare the following:
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`1. My name is Russell Chipman and I am over 21 years of age and
`
`otherwise competent to make this Declaration. I make this Declaration based on
`
`facts and matters within my own knowledge and on information provided to me by
`
`others, and, if called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the
`
`matters set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained as a technical expert witness in this matter by
`
`Counsel for Petitioner LG Electronics Inc. to provide my independent opinions on
`
`certain issues requested by Counsel for Petitioner relating to the petitions for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990 (“the ’990 Patent”). My compensation
`
`in this matter is not based on the substance of my opinions or the outcome of this
`
`matter. I have no financial interest in Petitioner. I have been informed that
`
`ImmerVision, Inc. (“ImmerVision”) is the purported owner of the ’990 Patent, and
`
`I note that I have no financial interest in ImmerVision.
`
`3.
`
`I previously provided a declaration dated November 27, 2019, in
`
`support of the petitions for inter partes review of claims 5 and 21 of the ’990
`
`Patent (Ex. 1008). I summarized my educational background, career history, and
`
`other qualifications relevant to this matter in my prior declaration. I also
`
`previously provided my curriculum vitae as Appendix A to my prior declaration
`
`1
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`(Ex. 1009). Finally, I provided a declaration (Ex. 1017) regarding certain Code V
`
`exhibits (Exs. 1014-1016).
`
`4.
`
`Since submitting my November 27, 2019, declaration, I have
`
`reviewed the following documents in this proceeding:
`
` Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper No. 5)
`
` Decision Granting Institution (Paper No. 6)
`
` Exhibits 1014-1016
`
` Patent Owner’s Response (Paper No. 12)
`
` Exhibits 2001-2022, which includes the Declaration of Mr. Aikens
`
`(Exhibit 2009)
`
` October 1, 2020, Transcript of the Deposition of Mr. David Aikens
`
`(Exhibit 1018)
`
` K-10 Glass Data Sheet, Schott North America, Inc. (Exhibit 1020)
`
` Definition of “embodiment,” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019)
`
`(Exhibit 1021)
`
` Optikos® LensCheckTM VIS Lens Measurement System Datasheet
`
`(Exhibit 1022)
`
`2
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`II. TADA RENDERS CLAIMS 5 AND 21 OBVIOUS
`5.
`I disagree with Mr. Aikens that the purported error in Table 5 was
`
`“readily apparent.” Ex. 2009, ¶¶53-77, 132-136, 144-148. I also disagree with Mr.
`
`Aikens’s premise that a POSA would only be interested in recreating Tada’s exact
`
`lens models, rather than the explanations that Tada provides for wide-angle lenses
`
`and everything else it discloses. Ex. 2009, ¶43. There is nothing in Table 5 that
`
`would lead a POSA to believe there is an error because it includes all of the
`
`information necessary to enable a complete lens. I also disagree with Mr. Aikens
`
`that a POSA would always check the Table 5 data using the sag information in
`
`Table 6. Ex. 2009, ¶61. There would have been no reason to do so since the Table
`
`5 information is complete and stands on its own. Moreover, contrary to Mr.
`
`Aikens’s suggestion, sag information would not have been used for this purpose.
`
`As I previously testified, a sag table is typically only used in the fabrication
`
`process, not to check modeled lenses. See Ex. 2002 at 44:12-45:9.
`
`6.
`
`Even if a POSA were to check Table 5 with other parts of Tada, it
`
`would have taken many hours to conclude there was an error, as it did for Mr.
`
`Aikens himself. Ex. 1018 at 132:1-15, 136:5-137:12 (“I had figured out that
`
`something was wrong probably within two to three hours. Then modeling the
`
`other embodiments, that took time. And then continuing to try to understand how
`
`to recreate the surface, that took more time.”). In other words, the purported error
`
`3
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`that Mr. Aikens alleges is not obvious on its face and detectable with little effort.
`
`In order to point out the alleged error, Mr. Aikens had to spend many hours, going
`
`through a convoluted process that not only relied upon numerous uncalled for
`
`assumptions, but, in any event was unnecessary. As such, in my opinion any
`
`purported “error” in Table 5 of Tada would not have been an error obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`7.
`
`In my opinion, Table 5 describes the claimed invention to a POSA,
`
`and a POSA would have been able to make the Table 5 lens as of that time based
`
`on his own knowledge and the teachings of Tada. I previously explained in my
`
`prior declaration how Tada’s Table 5 provides a lens that describes the claimed
`
`invention. Ex. 1008, ¶¶43-72. I also explained how Tada’s Table 5 teaches those
`
`skilled in the art to reconstruct a lens without undue experimentation (see, e.g., Ex.
`
`1008, ¶¶46, 50-53); thus, meeting the enablement requirement on its own.
`
`8.
`
`For example, a POSA could have reduced the Tada “Table 5” lens to
`
`practice without referring to any other tables, which Mr. Aikens admits are only
`
`used in manufacturing or to double check Table 5. As I explained in my
`
`deposition, Tada’s Table 5 included all of the information needed for my Code V
`
`analysis to reconstruct the lens and calculate the image point distribution function.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 16:21-19:10. The information from the other Tables of embodiment 3
`
`were simply unnecessary. In my prior declaration, I explained how I entered the
`
`4
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`information from Table 5 into Code V in order to perform my analysis. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1008, ¶46.
`
`9.
`
`In my opinion, the lens described in Table 5 of Tada meets all of the
`
`conditions that Tada discloses are desirable. For example, the Table 5 lens meets
`
`conditions 2-4 at the top of column 2, which Patent Owner concedes are the
`
`requirements set out by Tada. See PO Resp. at 10. Moreover, Tada discloses in
`
`Table 5 a lens that meets all of the elements of claims 5 and 21. As such, the Table
`
`5 lens is its own embodiment. My understanding is that an “embodiment” is
`
`simply “a specific physical form of the invention.” Embodiment, Black’s Law
`
`Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (Ex. 1021). In my opinion, Table 5 of Tada alone
`
`meets that definition, and is therefore its own embodiment of Tada.
`
`10. Mr. Aikens criticizes my analysis of Tada over the full spectrum of
`
`visible light and argues that I should have focused only on the d-, g-, and c-lines,
`
`given as examples in Tada, rather than the full spectrum of visible light. Ex. 2009,
`
`¶¶78-101. I disagree. There is nothing in the ’990 Patent or Tada that limits the
`
`lens to be used only with light having those wavelengths, nor would it even make
`
`sense. Instead, Tada states the lens is used for a monitoring camera (CCTV). Ex.
`
`1007 at 1:7-9. Cameras used for monitoring need to capture most, if not all, of the
`
`full spectrum of visible light to be effective.
`
`5
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`11. As such, a POSA would have evaluated the lens at a full range of
`
`
`
`wavelengths of visible light. Indeed, it would have been negligent for a POSA
`
`designing a lens for use in the visible light spectrum not to analyze the lens across
`
`the full spectrum. In the corresponding district court litigation, Patent Owner
`
`appears to have analyzed infringement of claims 5 and 21 using light throughout
`
`the visible spectrum, rather than at one or two wavelengths, when it relied on real
`
`images in the full visible spectrum. See generally Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011. It is also
`
`worth noting that Patent Owner stated that its infringement analysis was performed
`
`using an Optikos® LensCheckTM VIS machine (Ex. 1010 at 2; Ex. 1011 at 2),
`
`which uses a light source of 400-700nm (i.e., the majority of the visible spectrum)
`
`and has spectral sensitivity of 400-1000nm (Ex. 1022 at 3). Accordingly, Patent
`
`Owner appears to agree that the full spectrum of visible light should be used when
`
`evaluating whether the elements of claims 5 and 21 are met.
`
`12.
`
`I strongly disagree with Mr. Aikens’s assertion that “it is suspect for
`
`Dr. Chipman to conduct his analysis at any wavelength other than the Helium d-
`
`line, which has been identified by Tada in Table 5 as the reference wavelength of
`
`the spectrum.” Ex. 2009, ¶87. Tada discloses sufficient information for an
`
`analysis of visible light wavelengths across the spectrum. Table 5 specifies the
`
`Abbe number and the refractive index of the lens system. These numbers are all
`
`6
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`the information needed for a lens modeling program, such as Code V or Zemax, to
`
`model the performance of the lens at multiple wavelengths.
`
`13. Even assuming it is necessary to analyze Tada’s teachings with
`
`respect to real-world lens materials, which I believe is not necessary, Tada’s Table
`
`5 lens still meets the claims. Mr. Aikens opines that the material of the lens in
`
`Tada is likely PMMA and that “[a]t 380 nm, a 2 mm thick sample transmits only
`
`50%” of the received radiation. Ex. 2009, ¶¶80, 82. First, I note that Tada does
`
`not specify the specific material of the lens and Mr. Aikens does not allege
`
`otherwise. Second, Aikens’ analysis ignores that there were other types of well-
`
`known materials with similar Abbe and index numbers, such as K-10 glass (Schott
`
`North America, Inc.), that are better transmitters at 380nm (over 90%, rather than
`
`50%). Ex. 1020. More importantly, Mr. Aikens acknowledges that even PMMA
`
`allows at least some transmission of light across the full spectrum, which is all that
`
`is required to meet all of the elements of claims 5 and 21, since a particular level of
`
`transmission is not specified in the claims.
`
`14. Although Mr. Aikens criticizes my analysis as being focused on the
`
`use of light at 380 nm, I previously analyzed the full visible spectrum of light, and
`
`at most, there was less than 2% difference between Tada’s maximum divergence
`
`and the claim’s ±10%, a difference that I have previously explained would have
`
`been well within the skill of a POSA to increase to 10%. Ex. 1008, ¶52 (noting
`
`7
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`analysis at six different wavelengths across the visible spectrum); id., ¶¶57 n.2, 61.
`
`Moreover, at the d-line (587.56 nm), which Mr. Aikens (incorrectly) argues is the
`
`only wavelength that should be used, the maximum divergence is 8.43%, which is
`
`only 1.57% less than the claimed ±10%. See Ex. 1013 at 18 (green highlighted
`
`row). This amount is sufficient to meet the claims ±10% limitation and Mr.
`
`Aikens has not argued otherwise.
`
`15. Mr. Aikens states that “[n]owhere in Tada is there any mention of an
`
`image distribution function, by that or any other name.” Ex. 2009, ¶103. First,
`
`Mr. Aikens admits that the term “image point distribution function” is not a term of
`
`art (Ex. 1018 at 70:22-71:2), so it is no surprise that these words are not mentioned
`
`in Tada. Instead, Tada contains distortion plots (e.g., Figs. 4, 9, 14, 19), which
`
`convey information to a POSA about the compression and expansion
`
`characteristics of a lens, i.e., the same information that the “image point
`
`distribution function” provides. Additionally, as the Board has already noted,
`
`Tada’s lens contains the same characteristics as the claimed lens, no matter what
`
`new terms the inventors made-up to describe the inherent characteristics of a lens.
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 6) at 21 (IPR2020-00179) and 21-22 (IPR2020-00195)
`
`(noting with respect to the ±10% limitation that “there is no need for the
`
`calculation if the limitation simply follows as a consequence of a lens system that
`
`is otherwise rendered obvious by Tada’s third embodiment such that the limitation
`
`8
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`is met.”). In other words, by plugging the inherent properties of the lens in Tada’s
`
`Table 5 into the disclosed equation for the image point distribution function,
`
`Tada’s Table 5 embodiment meets the claimed characteristics of claims 5 and 21
`
`(compressionexpansioncompression of the image and a 10% maximum
`
`divergence).
`
`16. Next, Dr. Aikens argues that the image point distribution function
`
`should have been calculated using a centroid analysis rather than using the chief
`
`ray heights. Ex. 2009, ¶¶107-120. I disagree. Neither the claims nor the
`
`specification of the ’990 Patent require a centroid analysis. Moreover, to a POSA,
`
`use of chief rays would have been a standard form of analysis and a common way
`
`to analyze the performance of a lens. Indeed, chief rays are used to plot distortion
`
`curves typically used by a POSA to convey information about the compression and
`
`expansion of a lens.
`
`17. Further, calculating the centroids requires a POSA to make additional
`
`assumptions about the lens, e.g., with respect to lens apertures and vignetting. The
`
`necessary information is not included in Tada (or the ’990 Patent) because it varies
`
`depending on the actual real-world construction of the lens, and it can only be
`
`partially estimated from the figures, which in any event are not drawn to scale.
`
`Mr. Aikens testified that he could not “exactly recreate[] [Tada’s] vignetting,” so
`
`9
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`he just tweaked his model in Zemax and “eyeballed” the output until it appeared to
`
`match Figure 11 of Tada. Ex. 1018 at 223:22-226:19, 229:16-230:5. Moreover,
`
`the ’990 Patent does not mention a centroid analysis. Therefore, performing a
`
`centroid analysis, as compared to a chief-ray analysis, neither is supported by the
`
`’990 Patent nor makes sense since the information needed to account for vignetting
`
`was not provided by the reference and instead added by Mr. Aikens. In addition,
`
`the result of the centroid analysis can vary depending on how it is performed, for
`
`example, depending on how many rays a person uses to perform the analysis.
`
`18.
`
`In addition, even if the claims require a maximum divergence of
`
`exactly 10.0% or greater, Mr. Aikens’s calculated maximum divergence of 7.6% is
`
`well within routine optimization of ±10%. Adding a few percentage points of
`
`divergence to the maximum divergence of the lens system of Tada’s third
`
`embodiment would have been well within the skill of a POSA and would have
`
`been undertaken as part of routine engineering optimization techniques with a
`
`reasonable expectation that it would have led to further improved definition in the
`
`intermediate zone while maintaining acceptable image quality. A POSA would
`
`have used a software program such as Code V to assist with this routine
`
`optimization, as explained below. Mr. Aikens confirmed as much when he
`
`testified that “[o]nce you know what you’re trying to do, it’s actually not that hard
`
`to manipulate the lens to get it to do what you want.” Ex. 1018 at 192:15-195:14.
`
`10
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`19. Accordingly, in my opinion, Tada still renders claims 5 and 21
`
`
`
`obvious under PO’s “corrected” analysis.
`
`20. Mr. Aikens argues that “a POSA would turn to Tada specifically to
`
`reduce [distortion].” Ex. 2009, ¶125; see also PO Resp. at 57. While that may be
`
`one aspect of Tada, it is not the only improvement that Tada teaches to a POSA,
`
`especially since that aspect was focused on the surface of just one particular lens
`
`element, namely the second one. Ex. 1007 at 1:39-44. As such, Tada was focused
`
`on constraining certain characteristics of the surface of the second lens element
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 2:7-28), but there are many other lens elements that could have been
`
`modified to increase the maximum divergence and still be in line with Tada’s
`
`goals.
`
`21.
`
`It is undisputed that Tada’s Table 5 embodiment teaches a lens that
`
`has the claimed characteristics of compressing the center and edges of the image
`
`and expanding an intermediate zone of the image. Regardless of whether the Table
`
`5 embodiment was what Mr. Aikens calls a “mistake,” it still satisfies all of the
`
`goals and conditions specified in Tada. A POSA would have undertaken as part of
`
`routine engineering optimization techniques with a reasonable expectation that it
`
`would have led to further improved definition in the intermediate zone while still
`
`meeting all of Tada’s requirements, as I explained in my prior declaration. Ex.
`
`1008, ¶¶60-61. For example, a POSA would have indicated the desired chief ray
`
`11
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`height distributions (or centroid height distributions) in Code V that would lead to
`
`a further expansion of the intermediate zone and would have indicated which lens
`
`element’s surfaces could be changed to allow for the changes in the chief ray
`
`height distributions. Ex. 1008, ¶61. I previously described the analysis with
`
`respect to the chief ray height distributions, but the analysis would be very similar
`
`if one were to use, as Mr. Aikens proposes, the centroid height distributions instead
`
`of chief ray heights. Code V could be set up to calculate the centroid height
`
`distributions as Mr. Aikens proposes, then a POSA could indicate the desired
`
`centroid height distributions, rather than the desired chief ray height distributions,
`
`and the analysis I previously described would be virtually the same.
`
`22. As noted in my prior declaration, a POSA would have indicated which
`
`lens’s surfaces could be changed to allow for the changes in the chief ray (or
`
`centroid) height distributions. Ex. 1008, ¶61. Therefore, a POSA would have set
`
`the surfaces of the second lens element constant in Code V so as to align with
`
`Tada’s goals. The program would then calculate the changes to the lenses to
`
`provide for the requested chief ray (or centroid) height distribution while
`
`maximizing image quality. Ex. 1008, ¶61. Again, as Mr. Aikens testified, “it’s
`
`actually not that hard to manipulate the lens to get it to do what you want.” Ex.
`
`1018 at 192:15-195:14.
`
`12
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`23. The ’990 Patent itself provides far less detail about the lens elements
`
`
`
`than Tada, so a POSA would have had a better starting point with Tada than with
`
`the disclosure of the ’990 Patent. For example, the ’990 Patent, unlike Tada,
`
`provides no aspherical coefficients or any detail about the structure of the lens.
`
`Instead, the ’990 Patent leaves the determination of the design of the lens to the
`
`POSA by using “classical computer-aided lens design tools,” such as Code V:
`
`The determination of the parameters defining the
`aspherical sides mentioned above, the formula of the
`diffraction grating of the lens L6, the calculation of the
`diameters of the lenses and of the distances between the
`lenses, are within the understanding of those skilled in
`the art using the classical computer-aided lens design
`tools.
`
`’990 Patent at 17:29-34.
`
`24. Accordingly, as the ’990 Patent itself acknowledges, designing a lens
`
`to have the claimed characteristics is nothing more than routine optimization using
`
`computer-aided lens design tools.
`
`III. TADA IN VIEW OF BAKER RENDERS CLAIMS 5 AND 21
`OBVIOUS
`25.
`In general, Baker teaches enhancing a portion of the image of interest
`
`at the expense of decreasing the image quality in areas of less interest.
`
`Specifically, Baker describes a lens for a teleconference imaging system where
`
`13
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`there is a hemispheric imaging system placed at a central point on a conference
`
`table with the camera pointed upward. Ex. 1005 at 1:52-58, 5:37-44; Ex. 1018 at
`
`120:10-123:4. In such a system, the image at the center, i.e., of the ceiling, is of
`
`little importance, while the image at the periphery, i.e., of the participants around
`
`the table, is the useful information. Although Baker was primarily concerned with
`
`video conferencing, it noted its teachings could be used in other systems that
`
`would employ hemispherical visual data, such as in security and surveillance, the
`
`same application in Tada. Ex. 1005 at 2:10-16.
`
`26. Mr. Aikens alleges that I made a “mistake by not considering all of
`
`Baker and ignor[ing] Baker’s express criticisms of lenses that do not expand the
`
`image at its edges.” Ex. 2009, ¶149. I strongly disagree and believe it is Mr.
`
`Aikens who is the one ignoring Baker’s explicit teachings.
`
`27. While true that Baker is generally concerned with enhancing the
`
`“periphery” of the lens, Baker also teaches enhancing an intermediate zone.
`
`Recognizing that the area of most interest is slightly above the horizon where
`
`people’s faces will be, Baker notes that the enhancement (i.e., expansion) can start
`
`at 10° above the horizon and go up to 30° or 45° above the horizon (i.e., either 60°
`
`or 45° to 80° from the center). See Ex. 1005 at 13:60-65; see also id. at 19:9-13
`
`(“The method as in claim 8, wherein said periphery-enhancing optical system
`
`selectively magnifies visual content within an arc of between 10 and 45 degrees
`
`14
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`up from the horizon in a hemispheric field of view onto the imager device.”)
`
`(emphasis added). When using the convention of the center of the lens being zero
`
`degrees (facing upward here), rather than the horizon, Baker teaches expanding
`
`between 60 and 80 degrees or 45 to 80 degrees in a lens with a 90-degree field
`
`angle. Mr. Aikens confirmed Baker’s embodiment where the lens pointing at the
`
`ceiling (zero degrees) enhances the area from 60-80 degrees, i.e., expands an
`
`intermediate zone. Ex. 1018 at 268:14-269:4. Because enhancing an image
`
`received by a finite image sensor is a zero-sum game, i.e., if the lens is expanded in
`
`one zone, it has to be compressed elsewhere, the center and edge of the lens must
`
`see less quality and be compressed. See, e.g., Ex. 1018 at 94:9-22 (Aikens
`
`confirming that for purposes of this case, the height of the image point distribution
`
`always starts at zero degrees at the center of the lens (0,0°) and end at the image
`
`height, normalized to 1 and the maximum field angle of the lens (1, 90°)).
`
`Therefore, a POSA would have understood that in order to enhance the area
`
`between 60° and 80° (from the center of the lens pointing at the ceiling), this
`
`intermediate zone is expanded, and the other zones (i.e., the center and edge) of the
`
`image are necessarily compressed. In other words, Baker’s teachings squarely
`
`align with Tada’s Table 5 and claim 5’s and claim 21’s limitation that “the
`
`[objective] lens compresses the center of the image [e.g., 0° to 60°] and the edges
`
`15
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`of the image [e.g., 80° to 90°] and expands an intermediate zone of the image [e.g.,
`
`60° to 80°] located between the center and the edges of the image.”
`
`28. Accordingly, Baker clearly would have motivated a POSA to further
`
`expand the intermediate zone of the Table 5 embodiment of Tada, and certainly
`
`does not teach away as PO contends. Also, as I mentioned in my prior declaration,
`
`Baker teaches a maximum divergence of 15.1%, well above the claimed ±10%.
`
`Ex. 1008 at ¶95.
`
`IV. TADA IN VIEW OF NAGAOKA RENDERS CLAIMS 5 AND 21
`OBVIOUS
`29. Mr. Aikens and Patent Owner argues that Nagaoka teaches away from
`
`enhancing an intermediate zone and Petitioner is “[m]otivated by hindsight” in
`
`selecting Tada’s intermediate zone for enhancement. Ex. 2009, ¶¶137-142; PO
`
`Resp. at 65. In its preliminary response, Patent Owner argued that Petitioner
`
`provided no evidence that a POSA would have found the importance of Tada’s
`
`intermediate zone. Prelim. Resp. at 33; see also Institution Decision at 31-32
`
`(IPR2020-00179) and 32 (IPR2020-00195) (noting PO’s argument). This is
`
`incorrect. A POSA would have recognized the importance of the expanded
`
`intermediate zone in Tada, including based on the teachings of Nagaoka. Nagaoka
`
`teaches that having a slope greater than that of a linear curve provides for
`
`additional data/enhancement and that having enhancement zones is useful. Ex.
`
`16
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`1004 at 2:43-53, 6:60-65. Therefore, a POSA would have recognized that the
`
`intermediate zone of Tada, which has a slope greater than that of a linear curve,
`
`would likewise provide enhancement of this intermediate region. In addition,
`
`Nagaoka further teaches: the greater the slope, the greater the benefit. For
`
`example, Nagaoka provides a number of non-linear curves as examples and notes
`
`that the curves with the greater slopes are more beneficial than those with less of
`
`an increase in slope. Id. at 5:61-6:15. In other words, Nagaoka teaches a POSA to
`
`attempt to maximize the slope of the curve, which would result in a greater
`
`maximum divergence.
`
`30. Mr. Aikens incorrectly alleges that Nagaoka teaches away from a
`
`combination with Tada. Ex. 2009, ¶142. Mr. Aikens’s opinion appears to be
`
`based on the belief that because Nagaoka explicitly discusses enhancing the
`
`periphery of the lens, a POSA would never compress the edges. See generally Ex.
`
`2009, ¶¶137-142. I believe this to be an oversimplification of Nagaoka and that it
`
`ignores the reality of the characteristics of the lenses disclosed in Nagaoka.
`
`31. A POSA seeking to improve on Tada’s lens design would have looked
`
`to other lens systems for CCTV cameras. Specifically, a POSA would look to
`
`other lens systems for CCTV cameras to see how much maximum divergence is
`
`possible for such lenses. Nagaoka teaches that it is desirable to have a lens system
`
`for CCTV cameras with a maximum divergence much larger than what Tada
`
`17
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`discloses. Nagaoka teaches the tradeoff of expanding the portion of the lens in the
`
`area of interest at the expense of compressing the portion of the image (the center
`
`here) that is less important. The fact that Nagaoka teaches two zones (compression
`
`and expansion) while Tada teaches three zones like claims 5 and 21 (compression,
`
`expansion, compression) is immaterial for a POSA looking for guidance on
`
`possible maximum divergence for lenses for CCTV cameras. As Mr. Aikens
`
`testified, a POSA could easily start from a lens design having compression at the
`
`center and expansion at the edge like the lens of Figure 15 of the ’990 Patent (and
`
`Nagaoka) and modify it to have the characteristics of the claimed invention (and
`
`Tada) (compression, expansion, and compression). Ex. 1018 at 192:16-195:14.
`
`Mr Aikens went further to state that the two lenses would not look much different
`
`from each other. Id. at 196:18-197:7.
`
`32. Accordingly, in my opinion, Nagaoka would have motivated a POSA
`
`to try to further expand the intermediate zone of the Table 5 embodiment of Tada.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`33. For the reasons set forth above and in my prior declaration, in my
`
`opinion, claims 5 and 21 of the ’990 Patent are obvious in light of the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 20 of 21
`
`
`
`Reply Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00179, -00195
`US. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`34.
`
`I declare thatall statements made herein of my knowledgeare true,
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`that these statements were made with the knowledgethatwillful false statements
`
`and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under
`
`Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Executed on October 26, 2020 in Tucson, Arizona.
`
`Craodl
`
`Russell Chipmas, Ph.D.
`
`\9
`
`
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 21 of 21
`
`LGE Exhibit 1019
`LGE v. ImmerVision - IPR2020-00179
`Page 21 of 21
`
`
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
