UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`IMMERVISION, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2020-00195
`
`Patent No. 6,844,990
`
`_________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`page
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`THE INVENTION OF CLAIM 21 OF THE ‘990 PATENT .......................... 4 
`II. 
`III.  THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ...................................................................... 8 
`A.  Tada .................................................................................................................. 8 
`B.  Nagaoka .......................................................................................................... 14 
`C.  Baker ............................................................................................................... 18 
`IV.  PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 20 
`V. 
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 20 
`VI.  PETITIONER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE BY A
`PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT CLAIM 21 OF
`THE ‘990 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................. 21 
`A.  Legal Standards .............................................................................................. 21 
`B.  Use of Zemax Optical Design Program ......................................................... 23 
`C.  Obviousness Over Tada Alone ....................................................................... 24 
`1.  Petitioner Relied Exclusively on One Tada Embodiment
`Containing a Readily Apparent Error Which Cannot Form the
`Basis of Any Obviousness Ground ............................................................. 24 
`2.  Even Ignoring Embodiment 3’s Clear Error, Dr. Chipman’s
`Approach is Flawed in Concept and Execution, Leading Away
`from Obviousness ....................................................................................... 40 
`a.  A POSA Does Not Routinely or Ordinarily Perform the
`Analysis Dr. Chipman Suggests ............................................................... 41 
`b.  Dr. Chipman’s Data is Exaggerated by Relying on Chief Rays
`when More Precision is Required ............................................................ 44 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`c.  Dr. Chipman’s Data is Exaggerated by Inexplicably and
`Incompletely Analyzing the 380 nm Wavelength .................................... 47 
`d.  A Proper Analysis of Tada’s Image Point Distribution
`Function Shows its Maximum Divergence is NOT as Close to
`10% as Dr. Chipman’s Flawed Data Suggests ......................................... 51 
`3.  A POSA Would Not, as a Matter of Routine Experimentation,
`Increase Distortion to Enhance Tada’s Alleged “Intermediate
`Zone” ........................................................................................................... 56 
`D.  Petitioner Failed to Show by a Preponderance of Evidence that
`Claim 21 is Obvious Over Tada and Nagaoka .............................................. 62 
`1.  Because Petitioner Relied on Tada’s Readily Apparent Error,
`Its Asserted Ground 2 is Deficient .............................................................. 62 
`2.  Nagaoka Teaches Away from Image Point Distribution
`Functions Having Compressed Image Heights at the Periphery ................ 63 
`E.  Petitioner Failed to Show by a Preponderance of Evidence that
`Claim 21 is Obvious Over Tada and Baker ................................................... 66 
`1.  Because Petitioner Relied on Tada’s Readily Apparent Error,
`Its Asserted Ground 3 is Deficient .............................................................. 67 
`2.  Petitioner Grossly Mischaracterized Baker’s Teachings to
`Detract from Baker’s Clear Focus on Peripheral Content
`Enhancement ............................................................................................... 68 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Ex parte Burger,
`No. 2009-004196 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 27, 2009) ........................................................ 39
`Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus.,
`807 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ............................................................................ 30
`Ex parte Darr,
`Appeal 2011-011436 (P.T.A.B. October 21, 2013) ............................................ 39
`Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 23
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .......................................................................... 21
`In re Fulton,
`391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................. 23, 65, 69
`Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................ 23, 65, 69
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 21
`In re Hedges,
`783 F.2d 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 60
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 22
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 22
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`Ex parte Nutalapati,
`Appeal 2018-004192 (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2019) .................................................. 39
`Ex parte Okuda,
`Appeal 2009-015032 (B.P.A.I. May 27, 2010) .................................................. 39
`Panduit Corp. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns LLC,
`IPR2017-00528, Paper 7 (May 30, 2017) ........................................................... 21
`Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co.,
`810 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................. 61, 63, 68
`Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 22
`In re Royka,
`490 F.2d 981 (CCPA 1974) ................................................................................ 21
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 43
`In re Wesslau,
`353 F.2d 238 (CCPA 1965) ................................................................................ 61
`In re Yale,
`434 F.2d 666 (CCPA 1970) .................................................................... 38, 63, 67
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 21
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2001 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0050758
`2002
`July 2, 2020 Deposition Transcript of Russell A. Chipman, Ph. D.
`2003 Copy of Decision in Ex parte Nutalapati, Appeal 2018-004192
`Decision (P.T.A.B. July 29, 2019)
`2004 Copy of Decision in Ex parte Darr, Appeal 2011-011436 Decision
`(P.T.A.B. October 21, 2013)
`2005 Copy of Decision in Ex parte Okuda, Appeal 2009-015032 Decision
`(B.P.A.I. May 27, 2010)
`2006 Copy of Decision in Ex parte Burger, No. 2009-004196 (B.P.A.I. Oct.
`27, 2009) Decision
`Japanese Pat. Pub. No. H10-115778 (Tada-JP)
`2007
`2008 Certified Translation of Japanese Pat. Pub. No. H10-115778
`2009 Declaration of David Aikens
`2010 Data from Zemax Analysis of Tada performed by David Aikens
`2011
`Excerpts from “Zemax Optical Design Program User’s Guide Version
`10.0,” from Focus Software, Inc. (April, 2001)
`Excerpt from Frank L. Pedrotti, S.J. & Leno S. Pedrotti, Introduction
`to Optics (2nd ed. 1993)
`Excerpt from Handbook of Optics, Volume II Devices, Measurements,
`and Properties (Michael Bass ed., 2nd ed. 1995)
`2014 C. Joram, Transmission curves of plexiglass (PMMA) and optical
`grease, CERN publication PH-EP-Tech-Note-2009-003 (2009)
`International Standard ISO 7944, Optics and optical instruments –
`Reference wavelengths (2nd ed. 1998)
`Excerpts from Daniel Malacara & Zacarias Malacara, Handbook of
`Lens Design (1994)
`Excerpt from Max Born & Emil Wolf, Principles of Optics –
`Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction
`of Light (6th ed. 1980)
`2018 Ohara S-TIH53 Data Sheet
`2019
`Schott Technical Information, TIE-29: Refractive Index and
`Dispersion (April 2005)
`Excerpt from Warren J. Smith & Genesee Optics Software, Inc.,
`Modern Lens Design: A Resource Manual (1992)
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2020
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2021
`
`2022
`
`Description
`Excerpt from Handbook of Optics, Volume I Fundamentals,
`Techniques, and Design (Michael Bass ed., 2nd ed. 1995)
`Francis A. Jenkins & Harvey E. White, Fundamentals of Optics (4th
`ed. 1976)
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show unpatentability of claim 21 of the
`
`‘990 Patent for at least the following reasons:
`
`First, the embodiment Petitioner relied upon in Tada has a readily apparent
`
`error that significantly affected the results of Petitioner’s analysis and cannot
`
`legally support an obviousness finding;
`
`Second, even using the incorrect embodiment, Petitioner’s analysis and
`
`based on pure impermissible hindsight reconstruction by exaggerating the
`
`maximum divergence magnitude and proceeding contrary to Tada’s teachings
`
`regarding distortion; and
`
`Third, Nagaoka and Baker both explicitly teach away from the proposed
`
`combinations in Grounds 2 and 3 by criticizing the lack of good data at image
`
`edges and teaching to expand the peripheral zone, not compress it.
`
`Petitioner and its expert, Dr. Chipman, were so intent on invalidating claim
`
`21 of the ‘990 Patent that they neglected to perform the basic steps a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would undertake – to check whether the model
`
`lens system Dr. Chipman created, accurately reflects Tada’s teachings and operates
`
`as expected. Dr. Chipman would have discovered the readily apparent error in
`
`Tada’s Table 5 if he compared the structure and performance of the modeled lens
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`system with Tada’s schematic views, diagrams, and measurement tables for the
`
`third embodiment, which is a routine step for a POSA.
`
`Tada incorrectly recites the coefficients in Table 5’s “Aspherical Data”
`
`section (A4, A6, etc.). A POSA would have easily detected this error during routine
`
`evaluation at least because:
`
` The object side surface of the second lens element constructed using
`
`the Table 5 aspherical coefficients does not match the corresponding
`
`surface figure data in Table 6 or the shape shown in Fig. 11;
`
` The Table 5 aspherical coefficients do not match the related ratios for
`
`conditions (1)-(8) in Table 9 for the third embodiment;
`
` The modeled lens system provides poor image quality; and
`
` Aberration diagrams for the modeled lens system do not match Tada’s
`
`Figs. 12-15.
`
`Since Tada’s error would be obvious to a POSA, controlling case law is
`
`clear that Tada cannot be deemed to teach or suggest the lens system that Dr.
`
`Chipman created for his invalidity opinions. Under such circumstances, a POSA
`
`would either disregard the erroneous features or substitute in the correct ones. As
`
`it turns out, Tada’s Japanese priority application includes the correct aspherical
`
`data for the third embodiment, the use of which cures all of the defects described
`
`above. Had Dr. Chipman conducted his same analysis on a lens system using the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`corrected data, he would have found one of the claim elements missing, and the
`
`maximum divergence value far lower than the values reported in his declaration.
`
`On the basis that all three of its obviousness grounds rely on a faulty lens system
`
`model derived from erroneous data that is readily apparent to a POSA, Petitioner
`
`has failed to meet its burden.
`
`Even if it were proper for Petitioner and Dr. Chipman to rely on Tada’s
`
`plainly erroneous Table 5 data, their analysis is flawed and improperly exaggerates
`
`the results. First, despite Petitioner’s suggestion to the contrary, a POSA does not
`
`routinely determine an image point distribution function for a lens system. As Dr.
`
`Chipman admits, it is not one of the many standard functions in common optical
`
`design software, and it would take “hours of work” to customize an appropriate
`
`program. Second, Dr. Chipman’s method relies on an inferior method for
`
`accurately mapping real image point locations, particularly when the lens system
`
`contains aberrations or truncates lens element heights (which Dr. Chipman
`
`ignored). Third, Dr. Chipman focuses on results found for 380 nanometer
`
`wavelength light, which a POSA would not find useful given Tada’s stated
`
`application or construction.
`
`When analyzing Tada as a POSA would have, the maximum divergence
`
`value is less than Dr. Chipman reports and requires a roughly 30% increase to
`
`reach the claimed value of ±10%. A POSA would not only find this level of
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`increase to be nontrivial, but Tada, as a whole, suggests that the intentional
`
`increase in distortion required to make Petitioner’s proposed modification would
`
`be unacceptable. For at least this additional reason, claim 21 is not unpatentable
`
`over Tada.
`
`Claim 21 is also not unpatentable over Grounds 2 and 3, because (in addition
`
`to the reasons cited above) both Nagaoka and Baker explicitly teach away from the
`
`proposed modification to Tada and from the claimed invention. Nagaoka criticizes
`
`lenses that do not adequately capture image data at the edges, but claim 21 of the
`
`‘990 Patent, and Petitioner’s proposed change to Tada, result in the very problem
`
`of limited edge data. Baker similarly seeks to address disadvantages in image
`
`capture at the periphery or edges, but Petitioner mischaracterizes a portion of the
`
`reference to suggest that Baker teaches a broader concept. Petitioner cannot satisfy
`
`its burden in this proceeding by taking positions contrary to the teachings of the
`
`cited references.
`
`II. THE INVENTION OF CLAIM 21 OF THE ‘990 PATENT
`The ‘990 Patent is directed to improvements in panoramic image capture and
`
`display. Ex. 1001 at 1:13-15; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 25. To avoid unpleasant distortions
`
`when displaying a portion of the panoramic image to an observer, a camera’s
`
`objective lens typically utilized an image point distribution function that was as
`
`linear as possible. Ex. 1001 at 2:4-8; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 25. That is, an image point’s
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`(e.g., b' in Fig. 5) relative distance (dr) from the image center should equal a field
`
`angle (e.g., α2 in Fig. 5) of the corresponding object point (e.g., b in Fig. 5)
`
`multiplied by a constant (e.g., dr=Fdc(α)=K⸱α). Ex. 1001 at 2:30-42; Ex. 2009 at
`
`¶ 29. Figs. 4A and 4B of the ‘990 patent, reproduced below, neatly illustrate the
`
`concept:
`
`
`The concentric circles in Fig. 4A represent image points that correspond to object
`
`points sharing a common field angle (in increments of 10°). Ex. 1001 at 2:14-29;
`
`Ex. 2009 at ¶¶ 26-27. 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`corresponding image points from the image center.1 Ex. 1001 at 2:9-13; Ex. 2009
`
`at ¶¶ 26-27.
`
`The inventors of the ‘990 patent recognized that this arrangement presents
`
`disadvantages when enlarging digital image portions for display. Ex. 1001 at 3:1-
`
`9; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 28. The ‘990 Patent’s solution includes providing 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. Ex. 1001 at 4:11-21; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 28. The “maximum
`
`divergence” refers to the point on the image point distribution function plot that is
`
`farthest away from a corresponding point on the linear distribution function. Ex.
`
`1001 at 8:44-67; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 28. This can be seen, for example, in Fig. 8, where
`
`the greatest relative distance between the image point distribution function Fd2 and
`
`the linear distribution function Fdc is found at points Pd and Pdl. Ex. 1001 at 9:36-
`
`52; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 28.
`
`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, meaning conversely
`
`
`1 For example, an object point at twice the field angle of another object point
`
`would have a corresponding image point located twice as far from center.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`that a “compressed” zone occupies fewer image sensor pixels. Ex. 1001 at 3:66-
`
`4:10; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 29. This can be graphically represented in the image point
`
`distribution plot – a slope of the distribution function that is greater than the slope
`
`of the linear distribution function indicates an expanded zone, while a lesser slope
`
`indicates a compressed zone. Ex. 1001 at 9:13-35; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 30.
`
`The only claim at issue in this proceeding, claim 21, is directed to a very
`
`specific embodiment of the objective lens. Claim 21 recites2 that 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.” Ex. 1001 at
`
`cl. 21; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 30. An example is illustrated by the image point distribution
`
`plot in Fig. 9 (reproduced at right). 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). Ex. 1001 at 9:53-10:5; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 30. Conversely,
`
`
`2 Claim 21 depends on claim 17, which calls for the non-linear image point
`
`distribution function with a maximum divergence of ±10%, as discussed above.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`between α=30° and α=70°, a steep slope compared to the linear distribution
`
`function Fdc indicates the presence of an expanded zone. Ex. 1001 at 9:53-10:5;
`
`Ex. 2009 at ¶ 31. The result is a high definition intermediate zone, which lends
`
`itself well to digital enlargements because it occupies more pixels. Ex. 1001 at
`
`9:53-10:5; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 31.
`
`III. THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`A. Tada
`Tada “relates to a super wide angle lens system which can be used for a
`
`monitoring system (CCTV) etc.” Ex. 1007 at 1:7-9. Tada explains that a first lens
`
`element of this type of retrofocus lens system 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.” Id. at 1:11-27
`
`(emphasis added); Ex. 2009 at ¶ 36. Tada complains that when the super wide
`
`angle lens system has a negative second lens element, the first meniscus lens
`
`element becomes difficult to produce because the radius of curvature on the image
`
`side surface must be reduced. Ex. 1007 at 1:28-35; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 37.
`
`Compensating by making the second lens element biconcave to increase negative
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`power can, however, cause under curvature of field.3 Ex. 1007 at 1:35-41; Ex.
`
`2009 at ¶ 37.
`
`Tada’s object is therefore to provide a super wide angle lens system without
`
`increasing the radius of curvature on the image side of the negative meniscus first
`
`lens element. Ex. 1007 at 1:48-53; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 38. Tada’s solution is to
`
`manufacture the second lens element as aspherical, having a biconcave shape near
`
`the optical axis (for ray bundles at a small angle of view), and to have a negative
`
`meniscus lens shape at a peripheral portion thereof “for a bundle of rays at a large
`
`angle of view.” Ex. 1007 at 1:54-67, 4:9-30; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 38. With this
`
`aspherical configuration, Tada seeks to suppress distortion, under curvature of
`
`field, and other negative effects on light incoming from large angles with a lens
`
`system that is easier to manufacture than conventional lenses. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 38.
`
`
`3 “Curvature of field” is a known aberration where portions of an image come into
`
`focus in front of or behind the desired image plane. See e.g., Ex. 2001 at
`
`¶¶ [0269]-[0272], [0292]-[0294]. The result is blurry or “out-of-focus” regions on
`
`a planar sensor or display. Id. at ¶ [0269]. “Under curvature” occurs when the
`
`projected image surface is curved with its concavity toward the projecting system,
`
`blurring the image at the periphery. Id. at ¶¶ [0290]-[0294]; Figs. 19(a)-19(b) (see
`
`element 52).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`Thus, the first surface of the second lens element is critically important. Id. at
`
`¶ 53.
`
`element, has a surface profile described by the following equation:
`
`𝑥(cid:4666)ℎ(cid:4667)(cid:3404)
`
`A rotationally symmetric aspherical lens, such as Tada’s second lens
`
`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. Ex. 1007 at 5:43-67; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 39. Tada also sets four
`
`further conditions for the second lens element’s object side surface. Ex. 1007 at
`
`2:7-28, 4:48-50; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 40. Failure to satisfy these conditions creates
`
`undesirable characteristics in the lens system and problems in the resulting image.
`
`Ex. 1007 at 4:48-5:7; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 40. Conditions (2)-(4) represent ratios of
`
`specific aspherical coefficients from the second element’s object surface to the lens
`
`system’s overall focal length raised to a specific power. Ex. 1007 at 2:7-28; Ex.
`
`2009 at ¶ 40.
`
`Tada discloses four example lens system embodiments where the second
`
`lens element satisfies the aforementioned conditions. Ex. 1007 at 10:53-11:12; Ex.
`
`2009 at ¶ 1. The first of the four example embodiments includes a front lens group
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`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 a diaphragm S and a glass cover C leading
`
`to an image pickup surface 15 of a charge-coupled device (“CCD”). Ex. 1007 at
`
`Fig. 1; 6:1-25; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 41. The other three example embodiments of Tada
`
`have the same basic lens system structure as the first embodiment, with differences
`
`in, e.g., lens element thicknesses, separation distances, and shapes. Ex. 1007 at
`
`Figs. 6, 11, 15; 7:38-8:25, 8:60-9:28, 9:60-10:28; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 41.
`
`Each embodiment is described by a “prescription” in the form of a table
`
`listing data for each lens element in the system, including, inter alia:
`
` overall focal length f (set to 1.00 for each embodiment);
`
` half angle of view W;
`
` radius of curvature R for each lens element surface;
`
` distances D between adjacent surfaces;
`
` index of refraction nd at the d-line4 for each lens element;
`
`
`4 According to international standard ISO 7944 (1998), this should refer to the
`
`“Helium d-line,” a spectral absorption line representing light having a 587.56 nm
`
`wavelength and one of two main reference wavelengths to be used “for
`
`characterization of optical materials, optical systems and instruments.” Ex. 2015 at
`
`1-2; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 86.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
` Abbe number νd of the d-line for each lens element; and
`
` aspherical coefficients for the object and image surfaces of the second
`
`lens element.
`
`Ex. 1007 at 5:43-54, Tables 1, 3, 5, 7; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 42. The second lens element
`
`object surface shape for each embodiment is also given in the form of “sag” tables
`
`– listings of x(h) values for different heights from the optical axis. Id. at 6:64-7:4,
`
`Tables 2, 4, 6, 8; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 42; Ex. 2002 at 43:23-44:3; 46:14-19. Ideally,
`
`solving the above aspherical equation for x(h) for any embodiment will match the
`
`data from the corresponding sag table. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 42. Tada also gives the ratios
`
`for conditions (2)-(4) for each embodiment. Ex. 1007 at 10:53-54, Table 9.
`
`In the present proceeding, Petitioner relies exclusively on Tada’s third
`
`embodiment (“Embodiment 3”), and specifically the prescription in Table 5 in
`
`isolation. However, Table 5 contains an error in the aspherical data that is readily
`
`apparent to a POSA. Solving the aspherical equation using the A4-A10 values from
`
`Table 5, as a POSA would do as an ordinary test of the design, does not give the
`
`results listed in Table 6. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 60. Instead, the calculated surface figure
`
`differs drastically from Table 6’s data at increased distance from the optical axis as
`
`shown in the below surface sag plots, thereby indicating a clear error in this
`
`Embodiment 3 to a POSA.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 62.
`
`Moreover, since the system focal length in Embodiment 3 is 1.00, ratios (2)-
`
`(4) in Table 9 should respectively match Table 5’s A4, A6, and A8, but do not. Ex.
`
`2002 at 47:22-50:24; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 69. The coefficients for Embodiment 3 were
`
`likely copied over from the previous embodiment in a transcription error.
`
`Compare Table 3 with Table 5. This error is confirmed upon examining Tada’s
`
`Japanese priority application (“Tada-JP,” Ex. 2007),5 which gives significantly
`
`different aspherical coefficients for Embodiment 3 (Ex. 2007 at Table 5) that
`
`match the ratios in Tada’s Table 9, and which substantially reproduce the sag data
`
`
`5 A certified translation is submitted as Exhibit 2008.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`found in Table 6. A POSA would recognize this error when performing the typical
`
`and basis check of the design of Embodiment 3.
`
`
`
`Ex. 2009 at ¶¶ 74-75.
`
`Notably, Tada contains no data or discussion regarding an image point
`
`distribution function (or the relationship of image height and field angle) for any of
`
`its lens systems, nor does Tada mention expanded or compressed zones. Tada’s
`
`explicit teachings have almost nothing in common with the ‘990 Patent’s
`
`invention, other than both involve wide-angle lenses. Id. at ¶ 44.
`
`B. Nagaoka
`Nagaoka, similar to Tada, is directed to a monitoring system using a camera.
`
`Ex. 1004 at 1:11-17; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 45. Nagaoka’s monitoring system prefers a
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`fisheye lens that can capture a field angle of at least 90° from the optical axis. Ex.
`
`1004 at 1:17-21; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 45. Nagaoka discusses a prior art fisheye lens that
`
`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 distance of the lens, and θ is the field angle). Ex. 1004 at 1:33-
`
`50; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 45.
`
`Nagaoka recognized the drawbacks of such a lens and its object was to
`
`design an image pick-up device that solved these issues:
`
`Since an image picked up by a fisheye lens having the above
`characteristics has a small volume of image data on its
`peripheral portion (field angle of around 90° with respect to the
`optical axis of the fisheye lens), when the image is converted
`into a plane image, there are many missing portions of image
`data on the peripheral portion of the image and the missing
`portions must be interpolated. In addition, the image picked
`up by the fisheye lens having the above characteristics involves
`such a problem that the peripheral portion of the image is
`distorted.
`An object of the present invention is to provide an image pick-
`up device comprising a fisheye lens, an image display device
`and an information recording medium, which minimize missing
`portions of image data by extracting a large volume of image
`data at a field angle of around 90° with respect to the optical
`axis of the fisheye lens to reduce interpolating of the missing
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`portions and can obtain a natural plane image when images of
`all the directions of the field of view around the optical axis are
`picked up at a field angle of at least 90° with respect to the
`optical axis and are converted into plane images.
`
`Ex. 1004 at 1:50-2:4 (emphasis added); Ex. 2009 at ¶ 46. Nagaoka’s solution uses
`
`a fisheye lens having a relationship of h=nf⸱tan(θ/m), with 1.6 ≤ m ≤3 and m-0.4 ≤
`
`n ≤ m+0.4. Ex. 1004 at 2:12-21; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 46.
`
`Nagaoka compares one example embodiment (h=2f⸱tan(θ/2)) to the linear
`
`function and two other possible functions (h=2f⸱sin(θ/2) and h=f⸱sin(θ)) in Figs. 4A
`
`to 4D, reproduced below. Ex. 1004 at 6:14-29; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 47. These figures
`
`represent image heights using concentric circles at 10° intervals in field angle,
`
`much like Fig. 4A of the ‘990 Patent shown above. Ex. 1004 at 6:14-29; Ex. 2009
`
`at ¶ 47.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`
`Nagaoka criticizes the image height he of an image Me at peripheral
`
`portions of the lenses in Figs. 4C and 4D as being too small, and even the
`
`conventional linear lens (Fig. 4B) provides a peripheral image height that “is not
`
`satisfactory.” Ex. 1004 at 6:30-45; Ex. 1004 at 6:14-29; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 48. 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.
`
`Ex. 1004 at 6:46-52; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 48. Thus, “since an image at the peripheral
`
`portion is enlarged and a large volume of data on the peripheral portion can be
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case No. IPR2020-00195
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 688266-72IPR
`
`extracted, the volume of image data to be interpolated can be greatly reduced,
`
`when compared with the conventional system.” Ex. 1004 at 6:60-65; Ex. 2009 at
`
`¶ 48. This contrasts with the arrangement in claim 21 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. Ex. 2009 at ¶ 48.
`
`C. Baker
`Baker relates to a video conferencing system with automatic, voice-
`
`directional image steering through electronic selection from a panoramic video
`
`scene. Ex. 1005 at 1:10-14; Ex. 2009 at ¶ 49. Baker references othe