PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN HART, PH.D
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`____________
`
`DECLARATION OF JOHN HART, PH.D
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
`I.
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS ............................ 1
`II.
`III. MATERIAL CONSIDERED ................................................... 5
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’898 PATENT ....................................... 5
`V.
`UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW ...................................... 10
`A.
`Burden of Proof ............................................................................. 10
`B.
`Claim Construction ....................................................................... 11
`Anticipation ................................................................................... 11
`C.
`D. Obviousness .................................................................................. 12
`E.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ................................................................. 14
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART .................... 16
`A. Golan (APPL-1005) ...................................................................... 16
`B. Martin (APPL-1006) ..................................................................... 21
`C.
`Togo (APPL-1010) ........................................................................ 22
`D.
`Levey (APPL-1015) ...................................................................... 23
`E.
`Border (APPL-1009) ..................................................................... 24
`F.
`Parulski (APPL-1008) ................................................................... 24
`VII. PATENTABILITY OF CHALLENGED CLAIMS .................. 28
`
`i
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine Golan
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine Togo
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 8, 12 and 15 remain patentable,
`withstanding 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of Martin and
`
`A. All Grounds ................................................................................... 28
`1.
`and Martin ................................................................................ 28
`2.
`with Golan and Martin ............................................................. 33
`Togo ............................................................................................... 37
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 37
`1.
`Dependent claims 4 and 8-11. .................................................. 43
`1.
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 44
`2.
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 46
`3.
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 47
`4.
`Dependent claims 15, 19, and 20. ............................................ 47
`5.
`Claim 15 ................................................................................... 47
`6.
`103 over Golan in view of Martin, Togo and Levey ..................... 48
`1.
`with Golan, Martin and Togo ................................................... 48
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 52
`2.
`D. Ground 3: Claims 11 and 19 remain patentable withstanding 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of Martin, Togo and Border ..... 54
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 2: Claim 9 remains patentable, withstanding 35 U.S.C. §
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine Levey
`
`ii
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 3
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 10 and 20 remain patentable, withstanding 35
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`The Petition Fails to Establish a Motivation to Combine Border
`
`1.
`with Golan, Martin and Togo ................................................... 54
`2.
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 57
`3.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 60
`U.S.C. § 103 over Golan in view of Martin, Togo and Parulski ... 60
`1.
`Parulski with Golan, Martin and Togo ..................................... 60
`2.
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 61
`3.
`Claims 20 ................................................................................. 62
`VIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS/OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF
`NON-OBVIOUSNESS ......................................................... 65
`Industry Praise / Licensing ............................................................ 68
`A.
`B.
`Commercial Success ..................................................................... 73
`Failure of Others / Copying ........................................................... 74
`C.
`IX. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 77
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert witness on behalf of
`
`Corephotonics Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or “Corephotonics”) for the above-
`
`captioned Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898 (the “’898 pa-
`
`tent”). I am being compensated at my usual and customary rate for the time
`
`that I spent in connection with this IPR. My compensation is not affected by
`
`the outcome of this IPR.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1,
`
`4, 8-12, 15, 19, and 20, (“Challenged Claims”) of the ‘898 patent are invalid
`
`as they would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) as of the earliest claimed priority date, specifically with reference
`
`to the arguments made by Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) in
`
`its Petition for Inter Partes Review (“Petition” or “Pet.”) .
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3. My qualifications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which
`
`is attached as Exhibit 2002. As set forth in my curriculum vitae, I am a tenured
`
`full Professor of Computer Science in the Department of Computer Science
`
`at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. As an educator for the past
`
`three decades, I have taught courses in computer graphics and related areas to
`
`1
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`thousands of students. I also strive to provide opportunities for the general
`
`public to learn more about computing. For example, in 1999 I oversaw the
`
`production of the documentary “The Story of Computer Graphics.” I also
`
`teach an open course on data visualization on Coursera that has reached over
`
`360,000 learners worldwide since 2016.
`
`4.
`
`I serve as the Director of Online Programs for the Department of
`
`Computer Science at the University of Illinois, and oversee its Master of
`
`Computer Science (“MCS”) degree program. In 2016, I redesigned the online
`
`offering of the MCS degree program to make it more flexible and affordable
`
`for students that could not afford to leave their job to pursue a degree fulltime.
`
`Under my leadership, this degree program quickly grew to the second largest
`
`graduate program offered by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
`
`and contributed
`
`significantly
`
`to
`
`the campus-wide proportion of
`
`underrepresented minorities enrolled in the institution. The tech company
`
`C3.ai found this online degree so desirable, it pays its employee’s tuition and
`
`upon completion, gives them a bonus, a raise and stock options.
`
`5.
`
`I am also the Executive Associate Dean of the Graduate College of the
`
`University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where I oversee the education of
`
`over 17,800 graduate students in hundreds of graduate degree programs across
`
`2
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`the entire university. I recently developed a new post-baccalaureate certificate
`
`credential at Illinois to provide the recently unemployed with a rapid
`
`educational opportunity to transition their skills to areas of greater prosperity.
`
`6.
`
`I have been researching computer graphics since 1987, with over a
`
`hundred papers, videos, patents and other contributions to computer graphics
`
`including photographic imaging systems. My work in computer graphics has
`
`been funded by Adobe, Intel, Microsoft, Nokia and Nvidia as well as the
`
`National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Defense Advanced Research
`
`Projects Agency (DARPA). One of my most recent contribution is on the topic
`
`of displaying text on the video screen of a VR headset, in collaboration with
`
`Oculus. This paper, “Real-Time Analytic Antialiased Text for 3-D
`
`Environments,” was selected as one of the best papers at the 2019 High-
`
`Performance Graphics Conference in Strasbourg France in July.
`
`7.
`
`I am an internationally recognized leader in the field of computer
`
`graphics. From 2002-08 I was the Editor-in-Chief of the top journal in
`
`computer graphics, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
`
`Transactions on Computer Graphics. From 1994-1999 I served on the
`
`executive committee of the main organization of computer graphics
`
`practitioners, the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and
`
`3
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH). I continue to oversee the peer review
`
`of major papers in the field through service as chair and member of various
`
`paper review committees. I am also a founding member of the editorial board
`
`of ACM Books, and the area editor for computer graphics.
`
`8.
`
`This report is on the subject of photographic imaging systems. I have
`
`worked on a variety of methods and systems for the processing of
`
`photographs. For example, in 2008 I was granted patent #7,365,744 “Method
`
`and Systems for Image Modification” on techniques for learning a surface
`
`appearance from one photograph and realistically applying it to a different
`
`surface in another photograph.
`
`9.
`
`Around the time of the priority date of
`
`the ’898 patent, I was funded by the National
`
`Science Foundation’s Advanced Digitization
`
`of Biodiversity Collections to design and
`
`deliver an imaging infrastructure to scan the
`
`nation’s entomological collections of insect
`
`drawers.
`
`This
`
`project,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`invertnet.org, required the fusion of 51,791
`
`photographic images of small portions of
`
`4
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`insect drawers, vials and slides to make the collections available via the
`
`Internet as high-resolution zoomable composite images. This effort included
`
`the design and deployment of a custom robotic photographic imaging system,
`
`designed specifically to capture and integrate numerous photographs of each
`
`specimen drawer.
`
`III. MATERIAL CONSIDERED
`
`10. Each and every opinion expressed in this declaration is my own. In the
`
`preparation of this declaration, These opinions have been informed by the
`
`patent, the petition and other related materials, as listed below.
`
`• Patent 10,230,898 (Ex. 1001).
`
`• The “Petition” and its accompanying exhibits.
`
`• The declaration of Eli Saberi for the Inter Partes Review
`
`(IPR2020-00487) of U.S. Patent No. 9,661,233.
`
`• The Deposition Transcript of Dr. Fredo Durand.
`
`• The Declaration of Eran Kali (Ex. 2013).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’898 PATENT
`
`11. The ’898 patent is generally directed to “thin digital cameras with
`
`optical zoom operating in both video and still mode.” Ex. 1001 at 3:18–22. It
`
`was issued on March 12, 2019 and claims priority to a provisional patent
`
`5
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`application filed on August 13, 2015. As the patent describes, in the prior art,
`
`optical zooming required mechanically moving lens elements together, which
`
`were “typically more expensive, larger and less reliable than fixed focal length
`
`lenses.” Id. at 1:44–46. This is a particular problem for cameras that can go in
`
`mobile devices, like smartphones. Another prior art alternative was digital
`
`zoom, i.e., cropping the image and using computational methods to create the
`
`appearance of zoom, but at the cost of resolution. Id. at 1:46–51.
`
`12. The prior art discloses multi-aperture imaging systems attempting to
`
`simulate the effect of a zoom lens. Id. at 1:52–53. One such system created
`
`composite images but the solution requires “very large processing resources
`
`in addition to high frame rate requirements and high power consumption.” Id.
`
`at 2:6–33. Another solution used a combination of lens with particular FOV
`
`characteristics to allow simulated zooming, but the solution “leads to parallax
`
`artifacts when moving to the Tele camera in video mode.” Id. at 2:34–50.
`
`Other prior art solutions failed to resolve registration error or were only
`
`applicable to “fused still images.” Id. at 2:51–3:10.
`
`13. The patent owner, Corephotonics, developed an innovative dual-
`
`aperture camera technology that uses two fixed-focal length lenses, a wide-
`
`angle lens as typically found in smartphones with single-aperture cameras,
`
`6
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`and a miniature telephoto lens with higher resolution in a narrower field of
`
`view. The petitioner, Apple, adopted this technology in its iPhone models with
`
`dual rear cameras, starting with the iPhone 7 Plus in September 2016 and
`
`continuing with its successive generations of new iPhone models. The
`
`technology is also now used in smartphones made by other manufacturers,
`
`such as Samsung and Huawei.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1B.
`
`
`
`14. To make this technology a reality, Corephotonics developed solutions
`
`to practical issues, some of which are the subject matter of the ’898 patent.
`
`For example, Corephotonics developed technology that transitions between
`
`wide-angle (“Wide”) images and telephoto (“Tele”) images while taking
`
`video. These transitions occur when adjusting the zoom factor in video mode,
`
`7
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`which includes the preview mode used for framing in still mode. See id. at
`
`3:47-51.
`
`15. The ’898 discloses a zooming behavior organized into three zoom
`
`factor intervals. “Zoom from 1 to Zswitch is performed using the Wide sensor
`
`only.” “From Zswitch + ΔZoom to Zmax only the Tele sensor is operational … .”
`
`“From Zswitch to Zswitch + ΔZoom both sensors are operational.” Furthermore,
`
`the ΔZoom term can be set to different values depending on whether the
`
`“continuous and smooth zoom experience” is a “zoom-in” (increasing ZF) or
`
`a “zoom-out” (decreasing ZF). Id. at 7:57-8:17.
`
`16. The ’898 later refers to an “up-transfer ZF” and a “down-transfer ZF.”
`
`Id. at 8:30, 9:60-67, 10:37-46. The up-transfer ZF refers to a zoom factor
`
`between Zswitch and ΔZoomin during a zoom-in. The down-transfer ZF refers
`
`to a zoom factor between Zswitch and ΔZoomout during a zoom-out.
`
`17. The ’898 defines a threshold zoom factor “ZFT” defined as
`
`“ZFT = Tan(FOVWide)/Tan(FOVTele)”
`
`where “the FOV is measured from the center axis to the corner of the sensor
`
`(i.e. half the nagle of the normal definition.” The ’898 states that “[s]witching
`
`cannot take place below ZFT and it can above it” because at zoom factors
`
`below ZFT the portion of the image available from the Tele sensor alone would
`
`8
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`not be sufficient to span the entire FOV required by that zoom setting.
`
`Furthermore, the ’898 teaches that Zswitch should be set to “slightly above ZFT”
`
`meaning that Zswitch should be set to a slightly higher zoom factor than ZFT.
`
`Id. at 8:18-29.
`
`18. The ’898 discloses the use of a global registration (GR) algorithm used
`
`alter the appearance of the Tele image to match the appearance of the Wide
`
`image at the current zoom factor during a zoom-in. Id. at 8:30-9:49.
`
`19. The ’898 discloses the determination of an object distance using a
`
`calibrated disparity between corresponding pixels in registered Wide and Tele
`
`images. See id. at 9:49-59.
`
`20. The ’898 discloses an innovative and careful analysis of situations
`
`where only a digitally zoomed Wide image would be shown during a zoom-
`
`in even when the zoom factor ZF exceeded Zoomswitch.This is done by using a
`
`“no-switching criterion” that is “determined by inputs from both Wide and
`
`Tele image data.” Id. at 4:37–42 (emphasis added); see also id. at 6:54–57,
`
`10:2–5. The preferred embodiment in the specification includes six exemplary
`
`methods for determining the “no-switching criterion”:
`
`1. if the shift calculated by GR is greater than a first threshold,
`for example 50 pixels.
`2. if the disparity range calculated by GR is greater than a second
`threshold, for example 20 pixels, because in this case there is no
`
`9
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`global shift correction that will suppress movement/jump for all
`objects distances (smooth transition is impossible for all objects).
`3. if the effective resolution score of the Tele image is lower than
`that of the Wide image. In this case, there is no point in
`performing the transition because no value (i.e. resolution) is
`gained. Smooth transition is possible but undesirable.
`4. if the GR fails, i.e. if the number of matching pairs found is
`less than a third threshold, for example 20 matching pairs.
`5. if, for example, that are imaged onto the overlap area are
`calculated to be closer than a first threshold distance, for example
`30 cm, because this can result in a large image shift to obtain ST.
`6. if some objects (for example two objects) that are imaged in
`the overlap area are calculated to be closer than a second
`threshold distance, for example 50 cm, while other objects (for
`example two objects) are calculated to be farther than a third
`threshold distance for example 10 m. The reason is that the shift
`between an object position in the Wide and Tele cameras is object
`distance dependent, where the closer the objects the larger the
`shift, so an image containing significantly close and far objects
`cannot be matched by simple transformation (shift scale) to be
`similar and thus provide ST between cameras.
`Id. at 10:5–36.
`
`V. UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the disclosure of a patent is to be viewed from the
`
`perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the
`
`filing date of the application that became the patent.
`
`A. Burden of Proof
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the burden
`
`of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence.
`
`10
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 14
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`23.
`
` I understand that “claim construction” is the process of determining a
`
`patent claim’s meaning. I also have been informed and understand that the
`
`proper construction of a claim term is the plain and ordinary meaning that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have given to that term in light of the
`
`specification. In performing my analyses set forth in this declaration, I have
`
`interpreted the claims of the ‘898 patent to have their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning except where otherwise noted.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the Board does not construe claim terms unnecessary
`
`to resolving the controversy.
`
`C. Anticipation
`
`25.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as anticipated if each
`
`element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in a single prior
`
`art reference. I have also been informed that, to be an inherent disclosure, the
`
`prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the fact that
`
`the reference might possibly practice or contain the claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`11
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 15
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`D. Obviousness
`
`26.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable as obvious if the subject
`
`matter of the claim as a whole would have been obvious to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art as of the time of the invention at issue. I understand
`
`the following factors must be evaluated to determine whether the claimed
`
`subject matter is obvious: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`difference or differences, if any, between the scope of the claim of the patent
`
`under consideration and the scope of the prior art; and (3) the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the patent was filed.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that prior art references can be combined to find a claim
`
`unpatentable as obvious when there was an apparent reason for one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to combine the references,
`
`which includes, but is not limited to: (A) identifying a teaching, suggestion,
`
`or motivation to combine prior art references; (B) combining prior art methods
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results; (C) substituting one
`
`known element for another to obtain predictable results; (D) using a known
`
`technique to improve a similar device in the same way; (E) applying a known
`
`technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable
`
`results; F) trying a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions,
`
`12
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 16
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`with a reasonable expectation of success; or (G) 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.
`
`28. Moreover, I have been informed and I understand that, when available,
`
`so-called objective indicia of non-obviousness (also known as “secondary
`
`considerations” and or the real world factors) like the following are also to be
`
`considered when assessing obviousness: (1) widespread acclaim; (2)
`
`commercial success; (3) long-felt but unresolved needs; (4) copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; (5) initial expressions of disbelief by experts
`
`in the field; (6) failure of others to solve the problem that the inventor solved;
`
`and (7) unexpected results, among others. I also understand that evidence of
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the
`
`claimed subject matter. I understand this is commonly referred to as a “nexus.”
`
`29.
`
`I understand that, to demonstrate obviousness, a petition must
`
`accurately identify and analyze the differences between the claimed invention
`
`and the prior art.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that obviousness cannot be shown by conclusory
`
`statements, and that the petition must provide articulated reasoning with some
`
`13
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 17
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`rational underpinning to support its conclusion of obviousness. I understand
`
`that arguments for obviousness based on combinations of alleged prior art ref-
`
`erences cannot be based on hindsight. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2006), (“Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the
`
`patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining
`
`the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in
`
`suit.”).
`
`E.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`31. Dr. Durand believes a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)
`
`“would include someone who had, as of the claimed priority date of the ’898
`
`Patent, a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree in electrical and/or computer
`
`engineering or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in imaging systems
`
`including optics and image processing” and recognizes “that someone with
`
`less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less
`
`experience could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” I agree
`
`with Dr. Durand’s definition of a POSITA.
`
`32. Dr. Durand’s definition of a POSITA does not require knowledge, skills
`
`or experience in the specific field of photography. The field of photography
`
`would represent knowledge, skills and experience that include e.g. the choice
`
`14
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 18
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`of lens, exposure, aperture and other settings appropriate for the aesthetics of
`
`a given shot. Neither an engineering education nor experience in imaging
`
`systems, even focusing on optics and image processing, require any
`
`knowledge, skills or experience in the field of photography.
`
`33. For example, the NSF project I described in my Background and
`
`Qualifications section required the design and implementation of an imaging
`
`system, but did not require knowledge, skills or experience in the field of
`
`photography.
`
`34.
`
`I am at least a POSITA and that I have taught students and worked with
`
`colleagues who are POSITAs. Thus, I am well qualified to give technical
`
`opinions from the perspective of a POSITA.
`
`35. Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the present
`
`tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a POSITA would
`
`have known at the time of the invention, which is August 13, 2015.
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Fredo Durand, appears to have applied the date of
`
`August 13, 2015 in his analysis of the level of ordinary skill as well.
`
`15
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 19
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`
`A. Golan (APPL-1005)
`
`36. The Golan reference was published as U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2012/0026366. (Ex. 1005.) It was filed on April 6, 2010 and
`
`claims priority to a provisional application filed on April 7, 2009. Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶ 1.) Golan explains that typically, “a camera with a large dynamic zoom range
`
`requires heavy and expensive lenses, as well as complex design.” Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶ 7. The goal motivating Golan was “light weight electronic zoom and a large
`
`lossless zooming range” by providing “multiple imaging devices each with a
`
`different fixed field of view (FOV). Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 8–9. Figure 1 of Golan is
`
`shown below:
`
`16
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 20
`
`
`
`large lossless zooming range” by providing “multiple imaging devices each
`
`with a different fixed field of view (FOV). Golan, ¶¶ 8–9. Figure 1 of Golan
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`is shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Golan, Fig. 1.
`Golan, Fig. 1.
`The “spatial offsets” between the sensors are “fixed.” Golan, ¶ 38. As a
`37. The “spatial offsets” between the sensors are “fixed.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 38.
`result, Golan teaches determining the alignment offset between the sensors
`As a result, Golan teaches determining the alignment offset between the
`
`sensors using a “one time” electronic calibration step. Ex. 1005 at ¶ 38. This
`9
`calibration is performed “after the manufacturing of the image acquisition
`
`system and before the first use.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 38. This electronic calibration
`
`“yields an X-coordinate offset, a Y-coordinate offset and optionally, a Z-
`
`coordinate rotational offset of the correlation between wide image sensor
`
`array 110 and tele image sensor array 112.” Id. The “calibration” is claimed
`
`17
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 21
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`to “facilitate[] continuous electronic zoom with uninterrupted imaging.” Id. at
`
`cl. 1.
`
`38. Golan summarizes the invention with a paragraph that a POSITA would
`
`understand was erroneous, misleading and outside of the normal conventions
`
`and terminology of imaging and photography. “For example, a first image
`
`sensor has a 60° angle of view and a second image sensor has a 60° angle of
`
`view. Therefore, Wide_FOY=Narrow_FOY*6.” Ex. 1005 at ¶ 9. A POSITA,
`
`which under Dr. Durand’s definition has “a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree
`
`in electrical and/or computer engineering or a related field” would understand
`
`the asterisk “*” in this context to indicate multiplication. Golan’s statement
`
`that “Wide_FOY=Narrow_FOY*6” is mathematically inconsist with Golan’s
`
`statement immediately preceding it that “a first image sensor has a 60° angle
`
`of view and a second image sensor has a 60° angle of view.” A POSITA would
`
`understand in the context of Golan ¶ 9 that “angle of view” is identical to
`
`“field of view” and the latter is abbreviated “FOV.”Dr. Durand relies on Golan
`
`¶ 9 multiple times in his declaration. Dr. Durand does not resolve this
`
`mathematical inconsistency on the field (angle) of view of the two cameras
`
`premising Golan’s invention. Hence Dr. Durand’s opinions are premised on a
`
`mathematically inconsistent basis in Golan.
`
`18
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 22
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`39. Golan also erroneously refers to the “zoom” of this example as “62 =
`
`36” also referring to this quantity as the “lossless electronic zoom..” Ex. 1005
`
`at ¶ 9. Golan correctly computes the zoom in a preceding example for a video
`
`stream. “In video streams (such as PAL, NTSC, SECAM, 656, etc.) the image
`
`resolution is known, and by using image sensors having substantially higher
`
`resolution, one can perform lossless electronic zoom. The ratio between the
`
`image sensor resolution and the output resolution dictates the lossless
`
`electronic zoom range. For example, having a 5 Megapixel, 2592x1944,
`
`image sensor array and an output resolution frame of 400x300 yields maximal
`
`lossless electronic zoom of 6.48:
`
`2592/400=6.48,
`
`1944/300=6.48.”
`
`Ex. 1005 at ¶¶ 4-6 (emphasis added). In this example, Golan properly
`
`computes the lossless zoom as the lesser of the horizontal sensor resolution
`
`divided by the horizontal output resolution, and the vertical sensor resolution
`
`divided by the vertical output resolution.
`
`40. Using Golan’s preceding definition of zoom (which a POSITA would
`
`understand as
`
`the correct definition),
`
`then
`
`if
`
`the “Wide_FOV =
`
`Narrow_FOV*6,” then switching from the wide sensor to the narrow sensor
`
`19
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`IPR2020-00861
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 23
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00861
`U.S. Patent No. 10,230,898
`
`would have provided a “lossless electronic zoom” of 6, not “6^2 = 36.” Id. at
`
`¶ 9. Golan further uses this erroneous “lossless electronic zoom” to justify the
`
`proposed invention. “It should be noted
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
