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.
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 1 of 66
`
`

`

`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.  Background And Qualifications ........................................................................ 1 
`II.  Legal Framework ............................................................................................... 3 
`A.  Anticipation ................................................................................................... 3 
`B.  Obviousness ................................................................................................... 4 
`III.  Background of The ’990 Patent ....................................................................... 11 
`IV.  Opinion ............................................................................................................. 21 
`A.  Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................... 21 
`B.  Tada Renders Claims 5 and 21 Obvious ..................................................... 22 
`1.  Limitations of Claims 1 and 17 from Which Claims 5 And 21,
`Respectively, Depend ...................................................................................... 23 
`2.  Claims 5 and 21: “[The method according to claim 1 / The panoramic
`objective lens according to claim 17], wherein the [objective] lens compresses
`the center of the image and the edges of the image[,] and expands an
`intermediate zone of the image located between the center and the edges of
`the image.” ....................................................................................................... 42 
`C.  Tada in View of Nagaoka Renders Claims 5 And 21 Obvious .................. 46 
`1. 
`“the distribution function having a maximum divergence of at least ±10%
`compared to a linear distribution function” ..................................................... 47 
`2. 
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Tada with the Teachings of
`Nagaoka ........................................................................................................... 51 
`D.  Tada in View of Baker Renders Claims 5 And 21 Obvious ....................... 55 
`1. 
`“the distribution function having a maximum divergence of at least ±10%
`compared to a linear distribution function” ..................................................... 56 
`2. 
`It Would Have Been Obvious to Combine Tada with the Teachings of
`Baker ................................................................................................................ 58 
`
`i
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 2 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`V. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 63
`
`ii
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 3 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of 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 accompanying
`
`petition 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 have summarized in this section my educational background, career
`
`history, and other qualifications relevant to this matter. I have also included a
`
`current version of my curriculum vitae as Appendix A (Ex. 1009).
`
`1
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 4 of 66
`
`

`

`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`4.
`
`I received a B.S. in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology in 1976, an M.S. in Optical Science from the University of Arizona in
`
`1984, and a Ph.D. in Optical Science from the University of Arizona in 1987.
`
`5.
`
`I have extensive professional experience in the fields of optics and
`
`engineering. I worked for Perkin Elmer Corporation from 1977-1978 where I was
`
`an Optical Engineer responsible for the construction and operation of
`
`interferometers and optical test setups as well as for testing of telescope mirrors for
`
`space-based telescopes.
`
`6.
`
`In 1978, as a Physicist for Beckman Instruments, Inc., I performed
`
`optical design for spectrophotometer products and developed one of the first
`
`commercial concave holographic grating spectrometers.
`
`7.
`
`From 1982-1986, I developed polarization aberration theory for
`
`calculating polarization effects in optical systems. I also wrote the first
`
`polarization ray tracing program.
`
`8.
`
`I was Director of Optics R & D at Innotech, Johnson & Johnson, Inc.
`
`from 1997 to 1998 where I managed an Optics Department leading research and
`
`development in the optical design and metrology of ophthalmic optics.
`
`9.
`
`From 2000-2002, I was a Senior Manager in the Network Appliances
`
`Department of JDS Uniphase, where I managed and developed the Polarization
`
`2
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 5 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`Mode Dispersion Compensator product, the Fiber Polarimeter product, the Endless
`
`Polarization Controller product, and the PMD Emulator product.
`
`10.
`
`I also have almost 20 years of academic experience in the field of
`
`optics.
`
`11.
`
`In 1987, I began teaching as an Assistant Physics Professor at the
`
`University of Alabama, eventually becoming a Full Physics Professor.
`
`12.
`
`In 2002, I became a Professor at the University Of Arizona College
`
`Of Optical Sciences and continue to be a professor at the University of Arizona
`
`today.
`
`13.
`
`I have authored or co-authored almost 180 publications in the field of
`
`Optics and am an author of several book chapters on optics. Additionally, I have
`
`been awarded numerous honors over the course of my career. In 2017, the optics
`
`textbook I authored with Wai-Sze Tiffany Lam and Garam Young, “Polarized
`
`Light and Optical Systems”, was published by CRC Press.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`A.
`Anticipation
`14.
`I have been instructed as to the definition of “anticipation” in the
`
`context of the patent laws. I understand that for a claim to be invalid as
`
`anticipated, all of the features of that claim must be present in a single previous
`
`device/system or method that was known of, used, or described in a single previous
`
`3
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 6 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`printed publication or patent. To anticipate the invention, the prior art does not
`
`have to use the same words as the claim, but all of the features of the claim must
`
`have been disclosed, either stated expressly or implied to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the technology of the invention, so that looking at that one
`
`reference, that person could make and use the claimed invention.
`
`B.
`15.
`
`Obviousness
`I am a technical expert and do not offer any legal opinions. However,
`
`counsel has informed me as to certain legal principles regarding patentability and
`
`related matters under United States patent law, which I have applied in performing
`
`my analysis and arriving at my technical opinions in this matter.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that a person cannot obtain a patent on an
`
`invention if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that a
`
`conclusion of obviousness may be founded upon more than a single item of prior
`
`art. I have been further informed that obviousness is determined by evaluating the
`
`following factors: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences
`
`between the prior art and the claim at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. In addition,
`
`the obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight. Instead, the obviousness
`
`4
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 7 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`inquiry should be done through the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`17.
`
`In considering whether certain prior art renders a particular patent
`
`claim obvious, counsel has informed me that I can consider the scope and content
`
`of the prior art, including the fact that one of skill in the art would regularly look to
`
`the disclosures in patents, trade publications, journal articles, conference papers,
`
`industry standards, product literature and documentation, texts describing
`
`competitive technologies, requests for comment published by standard setting
`
`organizations, and materials from industry conferences, as examples. I have been
`
`informed that for a prior art reference to be proper for use in an obviousness
`
`analysis, the reference must be “analogous art” to the claimed invention. I have
`
`been informed that a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the
`
`reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it
`
`addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the
`
`claimed invention). In order for a reference to be “reasonably pertinent” to the
`
`problem, it must logically have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in
`
`considering his problem. In determining whether a reference is reasonably
`
`pertinent, one should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected
`
`either explicitly or implicitly, in the specification. I believe that all of the
`
`5
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 8 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`references I considered in forming my opinions in this IPR are well within the
`
`range of references a POSA would have consulted to address the type of problems
`
`described in the challenged claims.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that, in order to establish that a claimed
`
`invention was obvious based on a combination of prior art elements, a clear
`
`articulation of the reason(s) why a claimed invention would have been obvious
`
`must be provided. Specifically, I am informed that, under the U.S. Supreme
`
`Court’s KSR decision, a combination of multiple items of prior art renders a patent
`
`claim obvious when there was an apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, at the time of the invention, to combine the prior art, which can include, but is
`
`not limited to, any of the following rationales: (A) combining prior art methods
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) substituting one
`
`known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) using a known
`
`technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (D) applying a known
`
`technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E) trying a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; (F) identifying that 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; or (G) identifying an explicit
`
`6
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 9 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`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 the prior art
`
`references to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`19.
`
`I am informed that the existence of an explicit teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine known elements of the prior art is a sufficient, but not a
`
`necessary, condition to a finding of obviousness. This so-called “teaching-
`
`suggestion-motivation” test is not the exclusive test and is not to be applied rigidly
`
`in an obviousness analysis. In determining whether the subject matter of a patent
`
`claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`patentee controls. Instead, the important consideration is the objective reach of the
`
`claim. In other words, if the claim extends to what is obvious, then the claim is
`
`invalid. I am further informed that the obviousness analysis often necessitates
`
`consideration of the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
`
`demands known to the technological community or present in the marketplace, and
`
`the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`All of these issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent
`
`reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent.
`
`20.
`
`I also am informed that in conducting an obviousness analysis, a
`
`precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim
`
`need not be sought out because it is appropriate to take account of the inferences
`
`7
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 10 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`and creative steps that a POSA would employ. The prior art considered can be
`
`directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and can provide a reason for combining the elements of the prior art in
`
`the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art need not be directed towards
`
`solving the same specific problem as the problem addressed by the patent. Further,
`
`the individual prior art references themselves need not all be directed towards
`
`solving the same problem. I am informed that, under the KSR obviousness
`
`standard, common sense is important and should be considered. Common sense
`
`teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.
`
`21.
`
`I also am informed that the fact that a particular combination of prior
`
`art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the combination was obvious
`
`even if no one attempted the combination. If the combination was obvious to try
`
`(regardless of whether it was actually tried) or leads to anticipated success, then it
`
`is likely the result of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation. I am
`
`further informed that in many fields it may be that there is little discussion of
`
`obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market
`
`demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive the design of an
`
`invention. I am informed that an invention that is a combination of prior art must
`
`do more than yield predictable results to be non-obvious.
`
`8
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 11 of 66
`
`

`

`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`22.
`
`I am informed that for a patent claim to be obvious, the claim must be
`
`obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. I am informed that the
`
`factors to consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1)
`
`the educational level and experience of people working in the field at the time the
`
`invention was made, (2) the types of problems faced in the art and the solutions
`
`found to those problems, and (3) the sophistication of the technology in the field.
`
`23.
`
`I am informed that it is improper to combine references where the
`
`references teach away from their combination. I am informed that a reference may
`
`be said to teach away when a POSA, upon reading the reference, would be
`
`discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
`
`direction divergent from the path that was taken by the patent applicant. In
`
`general, a reference will teach away if it suggests that the line of development
`
`flowing from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result
`
`sought by the patentee. I am informed that a reference teaches away, for example,
`
`if (1) the combination would produce a seemingly inoperative device, or (2) the
`
`references leave the impression that the product would not have the property
`
`sought by the patentee. I also am informed, however, that a reference does not
`
`teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention
`
`but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the
`
`invention claimed.
`
`9
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 12 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`24.
`
`I am informed that even if a prima facie case of obviousness is
`
`established, the final determination of obviousness must also consider “secondary
`
`considerations” if presented. In most instances, the patentee raises these secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. In that context, the patentee argues an
`
`invention would not have been obvious in view of these considerations, which
`
`include: (a) commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention; (b) a long-felt, but unsatisfied need for the invention; (c) failure of
`
`others to find the solution provided by the claimed invention; (d) deliberate
`
`copying of the invention by others; (e) unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; (f) praise of the invention by others skilled in the art; (g) lack of
`
`independent simultaneous invention within a comparatively short space of time;
`
`(h) teaching away from the invention in the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I am further informed that secondary-considerations evidence is only
`
`relevant if the offering party establishes a connection, or nexus, between the
`
`evidence and the claimed invention. The nexus cannot be based on prior art
`
`features. The establishment of a nexus is a question of fact. I understand that
`
`Patent Owner has alleged that there are secondary considerations of non-
`
`obviousness, but has yet to provide any specific arguments or evidence at this time.
`
`I will supplement my opinions in the event that the Patent Owner provides any
`
`specific raises secondary considerations during the course of this proceeding.
`
`10
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 13 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF THE ’990 PATENT
`26. The application that resulted in the ’990 Patent was filed on
`
`November 12, 2003, and purports to be a continuation of Application No.
`
`PCT/FR02/01588, filed on May 10, 2002. Ex. 1001. The ’990 Patent claims
`
`foreign priority to FR Application 0106261 filed on May 11, 2001. Ex. 1001.
`
`27. The ’990 Patent is directed towards a method for capturing a digital
`
`panoramic image by way of a panoramic objective lens. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`According to the ’990 Patent, Figure 5 schematically represents a classical system
`
`for taking panoramic shots, comprising a panoramic objective lens 15 (blue below)
`
`having an optical axis OZ (orange below) and a digital image sensor 17 (yellow
`
`below) arranged in the image plane of the objective lens 15. Ex. 1001, 6:66-7:2.
`
`
`The field angle of an object point (e.g., a, b, c, d – purple above) is the angle that
`
`
`
`an incident light ray passing through the object point considered and through the
`
`center of the panorama PM, marked by a point “P”, has relative to the optical axis
`
`11
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 14 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`OZ of the objective lens (e.g., α1, α2, -α2, -α1)1. Ex. 1001, 7:2-10. On the image
`
`sensor 17, image points a', b', c', d' (green above) correspond to the object points a,
`
`b, c, d (purple above) and are located at distances from the center of the image
`
`respectively equal to d1, d2, -d2, -d1. Ex. 1001, 7:11-14. According to the ’990
`
`Patent, because the distribution of the image points according to the field angle of
`
`the object points is linear with a classical panoramic objective lens, the distances
`
`d1 and d2 are linked by the following relation: d1/α1=d2/α2. Ex. 1001, 17:14-19.
`
`As the angle α1 is here equal to 2α2, it follows that: d1=2d2. Ex. 1001, 7:20-22.
`
`28.
`
`The ’990 Patent states, that notion of “linearity” in the field of
`
`panoramic objective lenses is different from that prevailing in the field of paraxial
`
`optics. Ex. 1001, 7:28-30. As used in the ’990 Patent, “linearity” refers to a ratio
`
`of proportionality between the distance of an image point measured relative to the
`
`center of the image and the field angle of the corresponding object point. Ex.
`
`1001, 7:24-28.
`
`1 In Figure 5, the angle of α1 is indicated as the angle between the points “a” and
`
`“b”. This is in error. The figure should have shown the angle as being between
`
`“a” and the axis OZ. Ex. 1001, 7:10-11 (“In this example, the angle α1 is equal to
`
`two times the angle α2.”). The same error exists for -α1. The figure has been
`
`annotated in red to correct this error.
`
`12
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 15 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`29. According to the ’990 Patent, due to the property of linearity of a
`
`classical panoramic objective lens and the axial symmetry of panoramic objective
`
`lenses, image points corresponding to object points having an identical field angle
`
`form equally spaced concentric circles C10, C20 through C90 on an image disk
`
`10, as shown in Figure 4A. Ex. 1001, 1:30-32, 2:14-18, 18:17-23.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 4A. The circle C10 is formed by the image points corresponding to
`
`object points having a field angle of 10 degrees from the center; the circle C20 is
`
`formed by image points corresponding to object points having a field angle of 20
`
`degrees; etc. Ex. 1001, 2:24-29. Again, because of the axial symmetry, the field
`
`angle of an object point is between 0 and 90 degrees for an objective lens having
`
`an aperture of 180 degrees, e.g., as shown by the yellow semicircle in Fig. 6 below.
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:30-32, 2:22-23, 18:17-23.
`
`13
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 16 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`30.
`
`The purported invention of the ’990 Patent is an panoramic objective
`
`lens having an image point distribution function that is not linear relative to the
`
`field angle of object points, thereby creating at least one zone of the image that is
`
`expanded while at least another zone of the image is compressed. Ex. 1001,
`
`Abstract. The ’990 Patent states that the technical effect of such a lens is that the
`
`expanded zones of the image cover more pixels of the image sensor than if they
`
`were not expanded, and thus benefit from better definition. Ex. 1001, 4:3-6.
`
`31.
`
`The ’990 Patent states that the parts to be expanded and compressed,
`
`respectively, can be chosen according to the intended application. Ex. 1001, 7:66-
`
`8:5. Figure 7A illustrates the distribution functions of a panoramic objective lens
`
`that expands the image in the center. Ex. 1001, 8:12-14.
`
`14
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 17 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 7A. As with Figure 4A, the circle C10 is formed by the image
`
`points corresponding to object points having a field angle of 10 degrees; the circle
`
`C20 is formed by the image points corresponding to the object points having a
`
`field angle of 20 degrees; etc. Ex. 1001, 8:18-21. As seen by comparing Fig. 7A
`
`with 4A, the circles C10 and C20 are further from the center of the image and
`
`further from each other than the circles C10 and C20 obtained with a classical
`
`objective lens, while the circles C30 to C90 are closer to each other. Ex. 1001,
`
`8:21-26. This panoramic image thus has an expanded zone in the center and a
`
`compressed zone towards the edge of the image disk. Ex. 1001, 8:26-28.
`
`32.
`
`The ’990 Patent states that, through image processing software, the
`
`expansion zone in the center (circles C10 and C20), shown as Img1 at the bottom
`
`15
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 18 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`of Figure 11 below, are transformed into a corrected image Img2 (top of Figure 11)
`
`comprising a linear image disk ID2. Ex. 1001, 10:61-67.
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 11 (annotated).
`
`33. Another way the ’990 Patent illustrates the expanded and compressed
`
`zones of a panoramic lens is by using the curve of a corresponding distribution
`
`function. Ex. 1001, 8:29-30. According to the ’990 Patent, the classical linear
`
`distribution function is expressed by Fdc=Kα in the form of a straight line of
`
`gradient K, which is equal to 1/90 for an objective lens having an angular aperture
`
`of 180 degrees. Ex. 1001, 8:30-34. The field angle α of the object points is
`
`16
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 19 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`represented on the X-axis and is between 0 and 90 degrees. Ex. 1001, 8:34-36.
`
`The relative distance dr of an image point in relation to the center of the image disk
`
`is represented on the Y-axis and is between 0 (at the center of the image) and 1 (at
`
`the periphery of the image). Ex. 1001, 8:36-38.
`
`Compression
`
`Expansion
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 7A (annotated), Fig. 7B (annotated). As shown in Figure 7B, the
`
`
`
`
`
`curve of the function Fd1 has a higher gradient than the straight or linear line Fdc
`
`for angles α of between 0 and 20 degrees, then a lesser gradient after 20 degrees
`
`and up to 90 degrees. Ex. 1001, 8:38-41. A higher gradient means an expansion
`
`of the image and a lower gradient means a compression of the image. Ex. 1001,
`
`8:41-43.
`
`34. The ’990 Patent describes using this curve to calculate a point of
`
`maximum divergence “Pd.” Ex. 1001, 8:44-45. The point of maximum
`
`17
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 20 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`divergence is the point at which the greatest gap in relative distance dr in relation
`
`to the corresponding point on the linear distribution straight line (Fdc) can be
`
`observed. Ex. 1001, 8:45-49. In Figure 7B, the point of maximum divergence is at
`
`α=20 degrees and has a relative distance dr equal to 0.5 from the center of the
`
`image (i.e., halfway between the center and the periphery of the image), while the
`
`corresponding point on the linear curve has a relative distance dr of 0.222. Ex.
`
`1001, 8:49-53. Per the ’990 Patent, the maximum divergence DIVmax of the
`
`distribution function Fd1 is calculated using the formula: DIVmax %=[[dr(Pd)-
`
`dr(Pdl)]/[dr(Pdl)]]*100, where dr(Pd) is the relative distance from the center of the
`
`image to the point of maximum divergence Pd, and dr(Pdl) is the relative distance
`
`from the center of the image to the linear distribution straight line, at the same field
`
`angle (here 20 degrees). Ex. 1001, 8:54-65. The DIVmax % for Figure 7B is
`
`+125% (i.e., [[0.5-0.222]/[0.222]]*100). Ex. 1001, 9:1-2.
`
`35. Figure 9 of the ’990 Patent (repeated below with annotation)
`
`purportedly provides a distribution function of another example of a panoramic
`
`objective lens. An image disk has been added to the left (shown with pink
`
`concentric circles) that corresponds to a linear distribution line (highlighted in
`
`pink) of a classical panoramic objective lens.
`
`18
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 21 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Figure 9 (annotated).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`36. Figure 9 (highlighted differently below) depicts a panoramic objective
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lens where there is a compressed image zone (highlighted in orange below)
`
`between the center of the image and C30 (α=30°), an expanded image zone
`
`(highlighted in blue below) between C30 (α=30°) and C70 (α=70°), and finally a
`
`compressed image zone (highlighted in green below) between C70 (α=70°) and
`
`C90 (α=90°). Ex. 1001, 9:58-64 and Fig. 9, shown below. An image disk has
`
`been added to the left that corresponds to the compressed image zone (orange
`
`circles) between the center of the image and C30 (α=30°), an expanded image zone
`
`19
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 22 of 66
`
`

`

`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`
`(blue circles) between C30 (α=30°) and C70 (α=70°), and finally a compressed
`
`image zone (green circles).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. Here, there are two maximum divergence points, Pd1 at α=30°
`
`(highlighted in pink above) and Pd2 at α=70° (highlighted in yellow above), at
`
`which the maximum divergence is equal to -70% (i.e., [[0.1-0.333]/[0.333]]*100)
`
`and +15.8% (i.e., [[0.9-0.777]/[0.777]]*100), respectively. Ex. 1001, 9:53-58. As
`
`is clear from Figure 9, the compressed image zones (highlighted in orange and
`
`green on the chart) have gradients lower than the gradient of the linear distribution
`
`function, while the expanded image zone (highlighted in blue) has a gradient
`
`higher than the gradient of the linear distribution function.
`
`20
`
`LGE Exhibit 1008
`LGE v. ImmerVision
`Page 23 of 66
`
`

`

`
`
`Expert Declaration of Dr. Russell Chipman in Support of
`Petitions for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`38. The ’990 Patent states that a panoramic objective lens of the alleged
`
`’990 Patent invention should have a maximum divergence of at least ±10%
`
`compared to a linear distribution function, such that the image obtained has at least
`
`one substantially expanded zone and at least one substantially compressed zone.
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:11-21, 9:6-12.
`
`IV. OPINION
`39. Having reviewed the ’990 Patent and the prior art references cited
`
`herein, I have formed the following opinions:
`
`
`
`
`
` Claims 5 and 21 are obvious in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,861,999 (“Tada”,
`Ex. 1007) issued Jan. 19, 1999;
`
` Claims 5 and 21 are obvious over Tada in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,145
`(“Nagaoka”, Ex. 1004) issued Oct. 3, 2000;
`
` Claims 5 and 21 are obvious over Tada in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,957
`(“Baker”, Ex. 1005) issued Nov. 11, 1997.
`
`
`The reasons for my opinions are discussed in further detail below.
`
`
`A. Level of Skill of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art
`40.
`I was asked to provide my opinion as to the level of skill of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) of the ’990 Patent at the time of the
`
`claimed invention, which counsel has informed me to assume is May 11, 2001,