`
`Document: 37
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 07/11/2022
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC.,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`IMMERVISION,INC.,
`Appellee
`
`2021-2037, 2021-2038
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
`00179, IPR2020-00195.
`
`Decided: July 11, 2022
`
`JULIE S. GOLDEMBERG, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
`Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellant. Also represented
`by DION MICHAEL BREGMAN, ALEXANDERSTEIN, Palo Alto,
`CA; ANDREW V. DEVKAR, Los Angeles, CA; WILLIAM R.
`PETERSON, Houston, TX.
`
`JOHN DAVID SIMMONS, Panitch Schwarze Belisario &
`Nadel, LLP, Wilmington, DE, argued for appellee. Also
`represented by DENNIS JAMES BUTLER; KEITH AARON
`JONES, STEPHEN EMERSON MuRRAY,Philadelphia, PA.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:2_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`2
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`Before NEWMAN, STOLL, and CUNNINGHAM,Circuit
`Judges.
`
`Opinionfor the court filed by Circuit Judge STOLL.
`
`Opinion dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge
`NEWMAN.
`
`STOLL, Circuit Judge.
`
`This appeal requires us to consider howto treat a prior
`art reference in which the alleged teaching of a claim ele-
`ment would be understood by a skilled artisan not to be an
`actual teaching, but rather to be an obviouserrorof a typo-
`graphical or similar nature. LG Electronics Inc. appeals
`from the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board’sfi-
`nal written decisions in a pair of inter partes review pro-
`ceedings challenging claims 5 and 21 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,844,990. In both proceedings, the Board found that
`LG had not shown the challenged claims were unpatenta-
`ble. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s
`finding that prior art disclosurecritical to both of LG’s pe-
`titions for inter partes review was an apparent error that
`would have been disregarded or corrected by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art, we affirm.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`I
`
`The ’990 patent relates to capturing anddisplayingdig-
`ital panoramic images. Panoramic(e.g., super-wide angle)
`objective lenses typically have linear imagepoint distribu-
`tion functions. This meansthere is a linear relationship
`between the distance of an image point from the image’s
`center and the corresponding relative angle of the object
`point to the image’s center. While this linearity allowsdig-
`ital panoramic imagesto be easily rotated, shifted, and en-
`larged or shrunk, it also limits image quality to “the
`resolution of the image sensor used when takingthe initial
`image.” ’990 patentcol. 3 ll. 1-9. This limitation on image
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:3_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`3
`
`quality is most noticeable when enlarging sectors of the im-
`age. The ’990 patent purports to improve theresolution of
`particular sectors of a digital panoramic image “without
`the need to increase the numberof pixels per unit of area
`of an imagesensoror to provide an overlookingoptical en-
`largement system.” Jd. at col. 3 ll. 35-42.
`
`Specifically, the ’990 patent specification describes cap-
`turing an initial digital panoramic image using an objective
`lens having a non-linear imagepoint distribution function
`that “expands certain zones of the image and compresses
`other zones of the image.” Id. at col. 31. 62-col. 41. 38. The
`“non-linearity of the initial image”can thenbecorrected to
`produce a final panoramic imagefor display. Jd. at col. 4
`ll. 47-53.
`“[T]he expanded zones of the image cover” a
`higher “numberof pixels of the image sensor” than they
`would with a lens having linear image point distribution.
`Id. at col. 31. 62—col. 41. 10.
`
`The challenged claims specify that the lens “com-
`presses the center of the image and the edgesof the image
`and expands an intermediate zone of the imagelocated be-
`tween the center and the edges of the image.” Jd. at col. 19
`ll. 48-51. Dependent claim 5, which depends from can-
`celled claim 1, is representative:
`
`1. (Cancelled) A method for capturing a digital
`panoramic image, by projecting a panorama onto
`an image sensor by meansof a panoramic objective
`lens, the panoramic objective lens having an image
`point distribution function that is not linear rela-
`tive to the field angle of object points of the pano-
`rama,the distribution function having a maximum
`divergence of at least +10% compared to a linear
`distribution function, such that the panoramic im-
`age obtained has at least one substantially ex-
`panded zone and at
`least one substantially
`compressed zone.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:4_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`4
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the
`objective lens compresses the center of the image
`and the edges of the image and expandsan interme-
`diate zone of the image located between the center
`and the edgesof the image.
`
`Id. at col. 19 ll. 26-51 (claim 5) (emphasis added); see also
`id. at col. 20 1. 51-col. 211. 11 (claim 21).!
`
`II
`
`On November 27, 2019, LG filed two petitions for inter
`partes review, each challenging a dependent claim of the
`990 patent.
`J.A. 322-66 (IPR2020-00179 challenging
`claim 5); J.A. 3838-87 (IPR2020-00195 challenging claim
`21). Fundamental to LG’s obviousness argumentsis U.S.
`Patent No. 5,861,999 (“Tada”), directed to a “Super Wide
`Angle Lens System Using an Aspherical Lens.”?2 Tada de-
`scribes four embodiments that share a general system
`structure and differ in aspects such as lens element thick-
`ness, separation distance, and lens shape. Each embodi-
`ment satisfies a set of eight conditions relating to the
`aspheric characteristics of various lens elements. Tada
`col. 2 ll. 7-67. The embodiment relevant to this appeal,
`Embodiment3, is depicted in Figure 11 and described by a
`prescription—crsetof optical parameters—setforth in Ta-
`ble 5. Id. Fig. 11, Tbl. 5.
`
`Tada claimspriority from Japanese Patent Application
`No. 09-201903, which was published as JP H10-115778
`(“Japanese Priority Application”).
`Tada
`“expressly
`
`Independent claims 1 and 17 were cancelled in ex
`1
`parte reexamination. The claims at issue here were not
`subject to reexamination.
`2
`Tada was published withthetitle “Super Wide An-
`gel Lens System Using an Aspherical Lens”; a Certificate
`of Correction dated December 28, 1999, updated thetitle to
`its present form.
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037
`
`Document: 37
`
`Page:5_
`
`Filed: 07/11/2022
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`5
`
`incorporated” these priority applications “by reference in
`their entireties.” Id. at col. 3 Il. 9-13.
`
`LG argued that Tada discloses, as recited in the chal-
`lenged claims, a panoramicobjective lens having a non-lin-
`ear image point distribution that compresses the center
`and edges of an image and expands an intermediate zone
`of the image between the center andthe edgesof the image.
`Tada, however, does not explicitly discuss the image point
`distribution functionsof its lenses.
`Instead, LG relied on
`its expert Dr. Russell Chipman’s declaration for the propo-
`sition that Tada’s third embodiment has a distribution
`function producing “a compressed center and edges of the
`image and an expandedintermediate zone of the imagebe-
`tween the center and the edges of the image”asrecited in
`challenged claims 5 and 21.
`
`Dr. Chipman “reconstruct[ed] the lens of Figure 11 [of
`Tada] using the information in Table 5 of Tada”by input-
`ting certain “information from Table 5 [as published] ...
`into an optical design program.” J.A. 1486-87 (Chipman
`Decl. { 46). Dr. Chipmanthen plotted the image point dis-
`tribution function for the lens system at six wavelengths
`andtestified that the “functionis not linear” in any of them.
`J.A. 1490-93 (Chipman Decl. 4] 52-53). More specifically,
`Dr. Chipman explained that this embodiment of Tada’s
`lens system “compresses the center of the image and the
`edges of the image and expandsan intermediate zoneof the
`image located between the center and the edges of the im-
`age.” J.A. 1503 (Chipman Decl. { 68). LG relied exclu-
`sively on Dr. Chipman’s calculations and plots using the
`prescription in Table 5 to show that Tada’s third embodi-
`ment meets the compression and expansion zonelimitation
`of the challenged claims. LG did not rely on any other prior
`art reference or any other portion of Tada’s disclosure for
`this limitation.
`
`The Board instituted inter partes review in both pro-
`ceedings. The parties engaged in expert discovery, with
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:6_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`6
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`ImmerVision deposing Dr. Chipman and LG deposing Im-
`merVision’s expert, Mr. David Aikens. In its patent owner
`response, ImmerVision,relying on Mr. Aikens’ declaration,
`argued that Tada’s Table 5 includes a readily apparent er-
`ror that cannot form the basis of any obviousness ground.
`
`Mr. Aikens, who wasspecifically tasked with verifying
`Dr. Chipman’s work, began by following Dr. Chipman’s
`process, creating a lens model from the prescription, in-
`cluding the aspheric coefficients—values defining the sur-
`face shape of an aspherical lens—in Tada’s Table 5 using
`an optical design program.
`J.A. 3031-32 (Aikens Decl.
`{ 58). From the outset, Mr. Aikens noticed that something
`was wrong: the physical surface of his lens model based on
`Tada’s Table 5 and the examplelens depicted in Tada’s Fig-
`ure 11 did not match.
`J.A. 3031-32 (Aikens Decl.
`{{ 57-59). Because of this discrepancy, Mr. Aikens com-
`pared the sag table—a table of heights of a lens surface
`with respect to the optical axis—generated for his lens
`model with the sag table provided in Tada’s Table 6 corre-
`sponding to Embodiment 3.
`J.A. 3082-83 (Aikens Decl.
`{ 60) (“[T]he sag table can be used as a check to make sure
`the equation and its coefficients are correctly understood
`. .. this is so commonly required that a sag table is a stand-
`ard output of optical design codes.”). They also did not
`match.
`J.A. 3034-85 (Aikens Decl. {{ 61-62). Next,
`Mr. Aikens reviewed the imageplanefor his lens model to
`evaluate the magnitude of the error and discovered that
`the output image wasdistorted with “precisely the kind of
`uncorrected field curvature that Tada wasexplicitly trying
`to prevent.” J.A. 3035-36 (Aikens Decl. 4 63—64); see also
`J.A. 2423 (Aikens Dep. 132:1—-10) (explaining that the
`model “couldn’t make a usable image ... it was so clearly
`wrong, there was no point in spending more time onit”).
`
`Having established that the image was severely dis-
`torted, Mr. Aikens began comparing other aspects of his
`lens model with the “diagramsof the aberrations, astigma-
`tism, and distortion” provided in Tada for
`its third
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:7_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`7
`
`embodimentusing “standard output features”of optical de-
`sign code. J.A. 3086-88 (Aikens Decl. 4] 65-66). For ex-
`ample, Mr. Aikens compared the comatic aberration plot
`generated for his lens model to Tada’s Figures 15A—D (co-
`matic aberration plots for the model lens system using Ta-
`ble 5 data). J.A. 3036—88 (Aikens Decl. {| 65-67). These,
`too, did not match. Mr. Aikens explained that “at this
`point, [a person of ordinaryskill in the art] would be con-
`vinced that there was an error in [the] model and that the
`error was significant.” J.A. 3039 (Aikens Decl. { 68); see
`also J.A. 2423 (Aikens Dep. 132:18-21) (“I recognized that
`there had to be something wrong with the asphericcoeffi-
`cients. This is almost always where problemsoccur.”).
`
`Mr. Aikens then noticed that, as depicted in the repro-
`duced tables below, the aspheric coefficients from Table 8,
`which corresponds to Tada’s Embodiment2, “were exactly
`the same as in Table 5,” which corresponds to Embodiment
`3. J.A. 2425 (Aikens Dep. 134:16—21).
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037
`
`Document: 37
`
`Page:8
`
`Filed: 07/11/2022
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`TABLE 3-continued
`
`FNO = 1:1.3
`f= 1.00
`W = 58.4
`
`fB = 2.75 (=0.432/1.51633 + 2.467)
`
`Surface
`No.
`
`Nd
`
`vd
`
`R
`
`D
`
`tT
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`2.479
`-10.343
`*
`oo
`om
`
`1.691
`0.000
`0.432
`2.467
`—
`
`1.77250
`—
`1.51633
`—
`—
`
`49.6
`—_
`64.1
`a
`os
`
`*designates an aspherical surface with rotation symmetry around the optical
`axis.
`
`Aspherical Data:
`No.3: K = 0.00, A4 = 0.30330 x 10, A6 = -0.43125 x 10, A8 = 0.46329
`x 10°°, Ai0 = -0.24092 x 1a+
`No.4: K = 0.00, A4 = 0.50708 x 10-', AG = -0.52255 x 10-7, AS = 0.34087
`
`x 10°, AlO = -0.73846 x 10%
`
`Tada Tbl. 3 (annotated).
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037
`
`Document: 37
`
`Page: 9
`
`Filed: 07/11/2022
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`TABLE 5
`
`FNO = 1:1.3
`f = 1,00
`W = 38.5
`
`fB = 2.79 (=0.437/1.51633 + 2.501)
`
`
`Surface
`No.
`
`R
`
`D
`
`Nd
`
`vd
`
`1.77250
`
`49.6
`
`%
`
`789
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`
`0.364
`11.660
`whee #
`1.637
`3.274
`2.485
`-8.060
`3.046
`3.032
`nn
`0.655
`—11.339
`-3.881
`6
`0.546
`i=3)
`2.417
`diaphragm
`28.148
`0.327
`1.84666
`3.022
`1.455
`1.51633
`-4.790
`0.036
`4.000
`0.327
`2.425
`1.637
`-11.318
`0.000
`oo
`0.437
`oO
`2.501
`oo
`
`1.49176
`
`1.84666
`
`1.84666
`1.77250
`
`1.51633
`
`64.1
`
`23.8
`49,6
`
`64.1
`
`“designates an aspherical surface with rotation symmetry around the optical
`axis.
`PAST)
`cL
`
`No.3: K = 0.00, A4 = 0.30330 x 107+, A6
` —0.43125 x 10-7, A8 = 0.46329
`x 10-3, A10 = -0.24092 x 10-4
`x 10~*, A10 = -0.73846 x 107
`No.4: K = 0.00, A4 = 0.50708 x 107+, A6 = -0.52255 x 10-7, A8 = 0.34087
`
`Id. Thl. 5 (annotated).
`
`Mr. Aikens turned next to Tada’s Table 9, which pro-
`vides ratios of the radius of curvature and aspherical fac-
`tors of Tada’s aspherical lens elementto the focal length of
`the entire lens system. J.A. 3039-40 (Aikens Decl. ¢ 69);
`Tada Tbl. 9. Because the focal length of the entire lens sys-
`tem was defined as 1 for each embodiment, the valuesfor
`conditions(2), (3), and (4) in Table 9 should have matched
`the asphericcoefficients A4, A6, and A8 in Table 5. But, as
`depicted below, they did not match:
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037
`
`Document: 37
`
`Page:10_
`
`Filed: 07/11/2022
`
`10
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`14
`15
`
`m
`a
`
`2.501
`—
`
`—
`—
`
`—
`—
`
`“designates an aspherical surface with rotation symmetry around the optical
`axis.
`
`
`3: K = 0.00, A4 = 0.30330 x 107+, A6 = -0.43125 x 10°77, A8 = 0.46329
`x 107, A10 = -0.24092 x i0-+
` x 10-7, A1l0 = -0.73846 x 107
`No.4: K = 0,00, A4 = 0.50708 x 10-', A6 = -0,52255 x 10-7, A& = 0.34087
`
`Tada Tbl. 5 (annotated).
`
`TABLE 9-continued
`
`Embodiment 3
`
`Embodiment 4
`
`4,543
`
`Condition (1)
`Condition (2)
`Condition (3)
`Condition (4)
`Condition (5)
`Condition (6)
`Condition (7)
`Condition (8)
`
`-8.060
`2.0485 x 107°
`-2.5925 x 10-7
`2.4634 x 104
`3.022
`2.425
`27.255
`4,229
`
`-10.108
`8.8810 x 10~°
`-2.7110 x 10
`7.9690 x 10-7
`2.691
`2.512
`25.229
`
`Id. Thl. 9 (annotated).
`
`Finally, Mr. Aikens reviewed Tada’s Japanese Priority
`Application and saw that the aspheric coefficients in its Ta-
`ble 5—which correspondedto the same lens embodimentas
`Tada’s Table 5—differed from those in Tada’s Table 5.
`J.A. 3041-42 (Aikens Decl. 9] 72-75). The relevant por-
`tions of these tables are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:11_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC.v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`11
`
`14
`15
`
`w
`~
`
`2.501
`—
`
`—
`—
`
`_
`—
`
`oeric.
`
`*designates an aspherical surface with rotation symmetry around the optical
`axis.
`A Sp
`
`tL
`
`= 0.00, A4 = 0.30330 x 10-4, A6 = -0.43125 x 10°77, A8 = 0.46329
`x 10-*, A10 = -0.24092 x 10-*
`:
` x 10°, A10 = -0.73846 » 107
`No.4: K = 0.00, A4 = 0.50708 x 107+, A6 = -0,52255 x 10°, AS = 0.34087
`
`Tada Tbl. 5 (annotated).
`
`4
`
`15
`
`00
`
`00
`
`2.501
`
`;
`
`-
`
`<
`
`-
`
`“
`
`* USEESR
`JPET— 7:
`
`No.3; k=0.00 A4= 0.20485 10°! A6=-0.25925 10-2
`AS=0. 24634 <10°% A10=-0.11117 x10
`
`No.4; K=0.00 Ad= 0.44252 10°! AG=-0.58852 10-°
`
`A8= 0.39420 x10-2 Al0=-0.79700 x10 ®
`
`Japanese Priority Application { [0032] (Tbl. 5) (annotated).
`
`It became clear to Mr. Aikens that, after “chang[ing]
`the aspheric coefficients [of his model] to match” those of
`the Japanese Priority Application, the aspheric coefficients
`in the Japanese Priority Application were the correct ones
`and that they yielded a lens surface that was “a perfect
`match to the surface described in Table 6.”
`J.A. 3042
`(Aikens Decl. {1 74-75). In other words, there was a tran-
`scription, or copy-and-paste, error in Tada. The disclosures
`in Tada’s Table 5, which were intended to correspondto its
`Embodiment 8, were actually identical to those in Table 8,
`which corresponded to Embodiment2.
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037
`
`Document: 37
`
`Page:12
`
`Filed: 07/11/2022
`
`12
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`In its final written decisions, the Board found that the
`“disclosure of aspheric[] coefficients in Table 5 of Tada is
`an obvious error” that a person of ordinaryskill in the art
`would have recognized and corrected. LG Elecs. Inc. v. Im-
`merVision, Inc., No. IPR2020-00179, 2021 WL 1904645, at
`*11 (P.T.A.B. 2021) (Final Written Decision).? Continuing,
`the Board found that because the correct aspheric coeffi-
`cients in Table 5 of the Japanese Priority Application do
`not satisfy the language of the challenged claims, LG had
`not met its burden to prove the challenged claims un-
`patentable as obvious. Jd. Although LG wasfree to rely on
`the rest of the reference, it had not done so. The Board
`concluded that LG did not meet its burden to prove the
`challenged claims would have been obvious by a preponder-
`ance of evidence. Id.
`
`LG appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Obviousness is a legal question based on underlying
`findings of fact. Univ. of Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu Lighting
`LLC, 17 F.4th 155, 160 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We review the
`Board’s ultimate obviousness determination de novo and
`underlying factual findings, including whether a prior art
`reference includes an obvious typographical or similar er-
`ror that would be apparent to persons of ordinary skill, for
`substantial evidence. “The substantial evidence standard
`asks ‘whether a reasonablefact finder could have arrived
`at the agency’s decision.” OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex
`
`The Board issued a nearly identical decision in the
`3
`proceeding concerningclaim 21. LG Elecs. v. ImmerVision,
`Inc., No. IPR2020-00195, 2021 WL 2486694,
`(P.T.A.B.
`2021). For brevity, we cite only the decision in IPR2020-
`00179, the proceeding concerningclaim 5.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:13_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`13
`
`Inc., 939 F.3d 1875, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re
`Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
`
`It is undisputed that the aspheric coefficients in Tada’s
`Table 5 were erroneous. Appellant’s Br. 15; see also
`J.A. 2903-04 (Chipman Dep. 49:2—50:24); J.A. 3039-40
`(Aiken Decl. {{ 68-69). And “[t]here is no dispute that if a
`lens were constructed using the (correct) aspherical data
`from Tada’s Japanese priority application, the lens would
`not satisfy the [compression and expansion zone] limitation
`of claims 5 and 21.” Appellant’s Br. 15. Therefore, the pri-
`mary question before us is whether substantial evidence
`supports the Board’s fact finding that the error would have
`been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art such
`that the person would have disregarded the disclosure or
`corrected the error.
`
`I
`
`Webegin with the legal standard. Overfifty years ago,
`our predecessorcourt reversed the decision of the Board of
`Patent Appeals and Interferences‘ affirming the rejection
`of certain claims directed to a specific compoundof inhala-
`tion anesthetic—CF3CF2CHC]Br—as obvious. Jn re Yale,
`434 F.2d 666 (C.C.P.A. 1970). The obviousness rejection
`relied on the errant disclosure of this compoundin anarti-
`cle published a few years prior.
`Id. at 667. That article
`included CF3CF2CHCIBras one of nine compoundsplotted
`on a graph with other inhalant anesthetic compounds. Id.
`This was the only instance of CF3CF2CHCIBr within the
`reference; the compound CF3CHCIBr appeared throughout
`the rest of the article. Jd. At the time, CF3CF2CHCIBr was
`not a known compound. Jd. Our predecessorcourt set forth
`the standard for evaluating these types of apparent or “ob-
`vious typographical error[s].” Jd. at 669.
`
`The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is
`4
`the predecessor of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:14_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`14
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`The Yale court explained that “any number” of several
`pieces of evidence “individually or cumulatively would...
`alert one of ordinary skill in the art to the existence”of the
`error. Yale, 434 F.2d at 669. First, the court noted the
`inconsistency
`between
`the
`reference’s
`figures:
`“CF3CFeCHClBr in Fig. 3 is the only compoundlisted in
`any figure which is not also listed in Fig. 1.” Id. at 667.
`Second, “[a]ll eight [compounds listed in Clements] have
`the identical [chemical property value] in Fig. 3 that was
`listed for them in Fig. 1,” with the exception of the
`CF3CFeCHCIBr compound, which “has the [chemical prop-
`erty value] which was assigned in Fig. 1 to CF3CHCIBr.”
`Id. at 669. Because CF3CF2CHCIBr and CF3CHCI1Br are
`two different compounds, the court explained that it would
`not be “likely to have the same [chemical property value].”
`Id. at 667. Finally, in response to a letter from a reader,
`one of the authors of the article stated that the reference to
`CF3CFeCHCIBr was “of course, an error as [the reader]
`suppose[d,] and CFsCF2CHCI1Br should read CF3CHCI1Br.”
`Id. Although the court gave less probative weight to this
`last piece of evidence because it “had not been sworn to,”
`the court found it supported the conclusion thatthe disclo-
`sure of CF3CF2CHCI]Br wasin error. Id. at 669.
`
`The court in Yale held that where a prior art reference
`includes an obvious error of a typographical or similar na-
`ture that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the
`art who would mentally disregard the errant information
`as a misprint or mentally substitute it for the correct infor-
`mation, the errant information cannot be said to disclose
`subject matter. Id. at 669. The remainder of the reference
`would remain pertinentprior art disclosure. This standard
`for reviewing errors in disclosures has been undisturbed
`for half a century and we are boundto apply it. Deckers
`Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 955-56 (Fed. Cir.
`2014) (discussing stare decisis). Moreover, we view Yale’s
`standard as sound law, ensuring that an obviously errant
`disclosure of a typographical or similar nature would not
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:15_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`15
`
`prevent a true inventor of the claimed subject matter from
`later obtaining patent protection.
`
`II
`
`Wenow address the Board’s fact finding in this case.
`Based on the record before it, the Board found thatthe as-
`pheric coefficients in Tada’s Table 5 were an obvious error
`of a typographical or similar nature that would have been
`apparent to a skilled artisan. Final Written Decision,
`2021 WL 1904645, at *11. As explained below, we conclude
`that the Board’s finding is supported by substantial evi-
`dence.
`
`The Board correctly identified several aspects of the
`disclosure in Table 5 that would alert the ordinarily skilled
`artisan that the disclosure was an obviouserrorof a typo-
`graphical or similar nature. First, Table 5 in Tada’s Japa-
`nese Priority Application has different values for the
`aspheric coefficients than Table 5 in Tada. J.A. 3041-42
`(Aikens Decl. {| 72-75). Citing Mr. Aiken’s declaration,
`the Board found that the discrepancy between the coeffi-
`cients in Tada’s Table 5 and the Japanese Priority Applica-
`tion’s Table 5 was “grounded [in] a transcription error in
`the values for A4, A6, and A8 in Tada’s Table 5, namely,
`inadvertent duplication of the values for the aspherical
`data in Table 3.”
`Final Written Decision, 2021 WL
`1904645, at *9. Indeed, Mr. Aikensidentified the “obvious
`typographical error in Table 5” as an error in which the
`“aspheric coefficients listed in Table 5 were inadvertently
`copied over from Table 3, which describes Embodiment2 of
`Tada.” J.A. 3030 (Aikens Decl. { 56). The Board explained
`that the “correspondence of the Tables 1, 3, 7, and 9 be-
`tween the [Japanese Priority Application] and Tada itself
`is apparent, even prior to translation, as is the incon-
`sistency as to the aspherical data for Table 5.” Final Writ-
`ten Decision, 2021 WL 1904645, at *9.
`
`Second, the Board foundthat an inconsistency between
`Tada’s Tables 5 and 9 “ma[de] it apparent that there is an
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:16_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`16
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`error in Table 5’s recitation of the aspheric[] coefficients.”
`Id. at *8. It was undisputed that Tada’s Tables 5 and 9 are
`inconsistent: the aspheric coefficients A4, A6, and A8 in
`Tada’s Table 5 should match the values for conditions
`(2)-(4) in Table 9 but do not. Jd. at *7—8; see Yale, 434 F.2d
`at 667 (describing the internal inconsistency within a ref-
`erence as a signal that a person of ordinary skill “would
`readily recognize” as portending error). As Mr. Aikensex-
`plained, and Dr. Chipmanagreed, becausethe focal length
`for the entire lens system is set to 1 in each of the embodi-
`ments, “Table 9 rather conveniently gives you the aspheric
`coefficients for each of the four embodiments, and it
`matches correctly for [Embodiments] 1, 2[,] and 4 and is
`totally wrong for [Embodiment] 3.” J.A. 2427 (Aikens Dep.
`136:11—15); J.A. 3039—40 (Aikens Decl. { 69) (The “values
`[in Table 9] do not match the values in Table 5 because Ta-
`ble 5 is in error.”); see also J.A. 2902-04 (Chipman Dep.
`48:9-50:24) (conceding that the aspheric coefficients in Ta-
`ble 5 match the values in Table 9 for each of the embodi-
`ments except for Embodiment 3).
`
`Third, the Board found that having identical aspheric
`coefficients in Tada’s Tables 3 and 5 “is incongruous with
`the differences in the values of other data for the lens sys-
`tems.” Final Written Decision, 2021 WL 1904645, at *8. In
`other words, given the other significant differences be-
`tween the embodiments,it was unusual for Tables 3 and 5
`to list the same aspheric coefficients. Id.; J.A. 2425 (Aikens
`Dep. 134:4—21) (“I noticed that when I was typing in Em-
`bodiment 2 from Table 3, the aspheric coefficients were ex-
`actly the same as in Table 5, and that’s never true. That
`could not be right.”); see also Yale, 434 F.2d at 667 (noting
`the improbability of two different compounds having the
`same chemical property value).
`
`Considering all the evidence before it, the Board rea-
`sonably found that Tada’s Table 5 includes an obviouserror
`of a typographical or similar nature that would have been
`apparent to oneof ordinaryskill in the art, who would have
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037
`
`Document: 37
`
`Page:17
`
`Filed: 07/11/2022
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`17
`
`substituted it with the correct information and, thus, that
`Table 5 cannot be said to disclose a lens that compresses
`the center of the image and the edges of the image and ex-
`pands an intermediate zone of the image located between
`the center and the edges of the image. Final Written Deci-
`sion, 2021 WL 1904645,at *11.
`
`III
`
`LG presents two additional arguments. First, LG con-
`tends that Yale sets forth an “Immediately Disregard or
`Correct” standard that imposes a temporal urgency on the
`discovery of the error before the error can be considered
`“obvious”to a skilled artisan. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 4—5,
`15, 23, 25, 28. Applying this reading of Yale, LG argues
`that Mr. Aikens’ “convoluted process” that took “ten to
`twelve hours” to complete clearly weighed against the ob-
`viousnessof the error. Id. at 27-28. LG reasons that be-
`cause Tada has remained uncorrected in the public domain
`for over 20 years, LG should have been able to rely on the
`aspheric coefficients in Tada’s Table 5 as published.
`
`LG’s suggestion that Yale requires a person of ordinary
`skill in the art to immediately recognize the apparent error
`is incorrect. As the Board correctly explained, the length
`of time and the “particular manner” in which the error was
`actually discovered “does not diminish that there is an ob-
`vious error in Tada within the meaning of Yale.” Final
`Written Decision, 2021 WL 1904645, at *10. Contrary to
`LG’s assertions, Yale does not impose a temporal require-
`ment. Nor does LG cite any other authority requiring that
`the error be discovered within a specified amountof time.
`Certainly, the amountof time it takes a skilled artisan to
`detect an error may be relevant to whether an erroris, in
`fact, an apparent error under Yale. Butthis is just one fac-
`tor for the fact finder to consideras part of the overall anal-
`ysis.
`Here,
`the Board considered the totality of
`circumstances and found that Tada’s disclosure of aspheric
`coefficients in Table 5 is an obviouserror of a typographical
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:18_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`18
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`or similar nature, notwithstanding the amountof timethat
`preceded detection of the obvious error. For the reasons
`explained above, this finding is supported by substantial
`evidence.
`
`Second, LG suggests that Yale is limited to instances
`in which the error is a typographical error. Appellant’s
`Br. 22-23. For example, LG argues that Yale should be
`narrowly limited to errors such as the spelling mistake in
`Tada’s title upon original publication (“Super Wide Angel
`Lens”), which wascorrected soon after (“Super Wide Angle
`Lens”), or in Tada’s cancelled claim 1 (“arrangedin thisor-
`der form an object side”), which was also corrected (“ar-
`ranged in this order from an object side”). Appellant’s
`Br. 30. According to LG, any other interpretation of the
`Yale standard would “grant[] a monopoly over a resource
`that waspreviously freely available to all, destabilizing the
`patent system.” Id. at 24. We disagree.
`
`While our predecessor court described the error in Yale
`as typographical, the error at issue here is not so far afield
`as to warranta different outcome. As the Board found and
`Mr. Aikens, testified, the error in Tada’s Table 5 was “a
`transcription error ... namely, inadvertent duplication of
`the values for the aspherical data in Table 3.” Final Writ-
`ten Decision, 2021 WL 1904645, at *9; see also J.A. 3030
`(Aikens Decl. § 56). The distinction between the typo-
`graphical error in Yale and the copy-and-paste error here
`is a distinction without a difference.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Wehaveconsidered the parties’ remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
`affirm the Board’s final written decisions.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page:19_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC.,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`IMMERVISION,INC.,
`Appellee
`
`2021-2037, 2021-2038
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
`00179, IPR2020-00195.
`
`NEWMAN,Circuit Judge, dissenting in part.
`
`The court today finds an “error of a typographical or
`similar nature” in the specification of the Tada reference
`andrules that becausethe error is “obvious” the erroneous
`portion of the Tada reference! is eliminated asprior art.
`Maj. Op. at 16-17.
`I cannot agree that this error is typo-
`graphical or similar in nature, for its existence wasnot dis-
`covered until an expert witness conducted a dozen hours of
`experimentation and calculation. Appx2428 (LG Elecs. Inc.
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,861,999 (“Tada”or “the 999 Pa-
`tent”).
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 21-2037 Page: 20_Filed: 07/11/2022Document: 37
`
`
`
`2
`
`LG ELECTRONICSINC. v. IMMERVISION,INC.
`
`v. ImmerVision, Inc., No. IPR2020-00179, (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1,
`2020), Aikens Dep. 137:3—-138:3, Ex. 1018).
`
`The appearance of a few of the same numbers in two
`different tables in the Tada reference provides no infor-
`mation as to which numbers and tables are correct and
`which maybe in error. In contrast, a typographical or sim-
`ilar error is apparent to the reader and may conveniently
`be ignored without impeaching the content of the infor-
`mation. The error in the Tada reference cannot properly
`be deemed typographical or similar.
`
`The events that preceded the expert’s discovery of the
`error in the Tada reference cannot be ignored. The possibly
`erroneous numbersin the Tada tables were not noticed by
`any of the patent attorneys throughout the prosecution of
`Tada’s U.S. application. The now “obvious” error was not
`noticed by the patent examiner during a complex prosecu-
`tion in which claims were amended andprior art distin-
`guished.
`
`The purportedly “typographical or similar” error was
`not included in the Certificate of Correction that was ob-
`tained for typographical errors in the issued Tada patent.
`This error was not noticed by two distinct Patent Trial and
`Appeal Boardsin instituting these two inter partes review
`(“IPR”) petitions, despite the technological expertise of the
`Board.
`
`The error in Tada Table 5 wasnot corrected anywhere,
`even after 20 years of publicati