UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-01140
`Patent 9,402,032 B2
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,402,032
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 1 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND 3
`
`A. Overview of the ’032 Patent (Ex. 1001)..................................................................................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Complexity of the Design of Multiple Lens Assemblies, Like the Patented Invention .................................. 7
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD FOR PETITION REVIEW
`
`11
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA)
`
`12
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`13
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard ...................................................................................................................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Total Track Length (TTL) ......................................................................................................................... 14
`
`“Effective Focal Length (EFL)”................................................................................................................. 20
`
`VI.
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT OGINO ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 1 AND 13
`
`20
`
`A.
`
`Apple Fails to Show that Ogino Discloses a Lens Assembly with TTL / EFL < 1 ........................................... 21
`
`B.
`Apple also Fails to Show that Ogino’s Disclosure of “Telephoto” Lens Assemblies Implicitly Discloses TTL /
`EFL < 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 27
`
`VII.
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT CLAIMS 14 AND 15 ARE OBVIOUS OVER OGINO IN
`VIEW OF CHEN II
`29
`
`A.
`Apple Fails to Show that it Would be Obvious for a POSITA to Modify Ogino Example 6 with the CG
`Element Removed .......................................................................................................................................... 29
`
`B.
`Apple Fails to Show that there is Any Reason Other than Hindsight for a POSITA to Modify Ogino Based on
`Chen II ........................................................................................................................................................... 31
`1.
`The Petition fails to show sufficient factual support for purported motivation to combine nor its
`applicability to the ’032 patent. .............................................................................................................................. 32
`2.
`The Petition fails to show that a POSITA would have understood that replacing the second lens of Ogino
`with a meniscus lens from Chen II would yield a predictable result. ..................................................................... 34
`3.
`The Petition further errs by relying on further modifications to the Ogino-Chen II combination to obtain an
`operable design, but not providing a rationale for those further modifications besides hindsight. ..................... 41
`
`VIII.
`
`CONCLUSION 47
`
`
`
`i
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 2 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 30
`Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.,
`754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................. 24, 26
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 29
`Apple Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.,
`IPR2018-00420, Paper 7 (PTAB, Aug. 6, 2018) ...................................................................... 19
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 11
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB, Aug. 29, 2014) .................................................................. 12
`Cont'l Can Co. USA, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`948 F.2d 1264 (Fed.Cir.1991)................................................................................................... 27
`Edmund Optics, Inc. v. Semrock, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00583, Paper 50 (PTAB, Sep. 9, 2015) ..................................................................... 11
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed.Cir.2016)................................................................................................... 10
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.,
`493 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................. 14
`In re Kubin,
`561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 35
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 11
`In re Nuvasive, Inc.,
`842 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 30
`In re Smith Int'l, Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................... 13, 26
`Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.,
`579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc.,
`878 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................... 20, 23
`Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH,
`139 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................... 46
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................. 20
`Otsuka Pharm. Co., v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 45
`Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`848 F.3d 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................... 31
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................... 13, 14
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S.Ct. 1348 (2018) ............................................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 3 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)................................................................................................... 29
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................. 27
`Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Servs., Inc.,
`290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................. 27
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 17
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................... 14
`Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Systems,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 11
`Zoltek Corp. v. United States,
`815 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 39
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) .................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) .................................................................................................................... 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.65(a)....................................................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 4 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List for IPR2018-01140
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(e), Patent Owner Corephotonics Ltd., hereby
`
`submits its exhibit list associated with the above-captioned inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032 B2.
`
`2014
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`Exhibit No. Description
`2013
`Declaration of Duncan Moore, Ph.D.
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Duncan Moore, Ph.D.
`
`Excerpts from “Optical System Design”
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,395,851, “Optical Lens System”
`
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2011/0249346, “Imaging Lens Display”
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2011/0279910, “Photographing Optical
`Lens Assembly”
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2011/0261470, “Photographing Optical
`Lens Assembly”
`190215 Deposition Transcript of Jose Sasian, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 11 to 190215 Deposition Transcript of Jose Sasian, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 12 to 190215 Deposition Transcript of Jose Sasian, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 13 to 190215 Deposition Transcript of Jose Sasian, Ph.D.
`Exhibit 1015 to Apple’s Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`2005
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 5 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Corephotonics’ ’032 patent provides an innovative solution to an innovative
`
`problem: providing a lens system for a miniature telephoto camera that can be
`
`integrated next to a conventional wide-angle camera, and still fit into a cell phone
`
`and provide the image quality demanded by consumers. The ’032 patent’s claims
`
`specifically provide, among other advantages, a “total track length (TTL)” less than
`
`the effective focal length (EFL). But the Petition’s primary ground, Ogino’s
`
`Example 6, literally discloses a lens assembly with a TTL greater than EFL. Apple’s
`
`attempts to overcome this fundamental contradiction are unavailing.
`
`Apple first proposes to construe TTL in reference to the distance from the first
`
`lens element to the “image plane.” But the ’032 patent defines TTL in its
`
`specification, in plain language: “the total track length on an optical axis between
`
`the object-side surface of the first lens element and the electronic sensor is marked
`
`‘TTL’.” Ex. 1001, 1:60-63 (emphasis added).
`
`Apple then relies on Ogino’s general suggestion that the cover glass – an
`
`essential component of an electronic sensor, necessary to filter out IR light and
`
`protect the sensor – can be replaced. Apple fails to show that Ogino discloses that
`
`the cover glass in Example 6, which appears in all the descriptions of Example 6,
`
`can be replaced. And, Apple fails to show that, even if the cover glass in Example 6
`
`could be replaced, the modification would not entail further changes that would
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 6 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`result in a lens system that no longer meets all elements of the challenged claims.
`
`Apple thus fails to show that Ogino either expressly or by necessity – not
`
`speculatively – anticipates claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 patent.
`
`Apple stretches even farther in its second ground. Claims 14 and 15 of the
`
`’032 patent require that the second lens be meniscus-shaped. Ogino teaches that the
`
`second lens should be biconcave, not meniscus, in order to reduce aberrations and
`
`improve image quality. Despite Ogino’s teaching away, Apple contends that a
`
`POSITA would still seek to change the second lens to the meniscus shape disclosed
`
`in Chen II.
`
`Hindsight reasoning permeates the Petition. As an initial matter, the
`
`motivation that Apple asserts to combine Ogino with Chen II is unsupported.
`
`Apple’s expert also did not merely combine features from Ogino with Chen II. Dr.
`
`Sasian made substantial additional modifications throughout the lens assembly.
`
`Apple does not explain why Dr. Sasian made those particular changes. Moreover,
`
`Dr. Sasian’s modified system still has deficient quality. Even by Apple’s own logic,
`
`a POSITA would need to make further changes to the design to address these
`
`additional deficiencies. Yet Apple also fails to explain why its expert made some
`
`changes to the Ogino-Chen II, but then stopped. The only explanation is that Apple’s
`
`true motivation was to simply arrive at a combination of elements that met the claim
`
`
`
`2
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 7 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`limitations. Hindsight reasoning cannot support a finding of obviousness. The
`
`Petition should be denied on both grounds.
`
`
`
`II. Background
`
`A. Overview of the ’032 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`Patent Owner Corephotonics developed an innovative camera technology for
`
`optical zoom that that can fit in a mobile device and provide superior performance
`
`to the prior art. Corephotonics’ dual-camera technology combines the fixed-focal
`
`length wide-angle camera that smartphones typically use with a second miniature
`
`telephoto lens. The telephoto lens offers a larger fixed focal length that provides
`
`higher resolution in a narrower field of view. The dual-camera system thereby
`
`enables optical zoom. 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 newest iPhone Xs and Xs Max models in September 2018. The
`
`technology is also now used by others, such as Samsung and Huawei.
`
`At the heart of Corephotonics’ patented innovations are solutions to the
`
`practical obstacles to making the dual-camera zoom approach work.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,402,032 (“the ’032 patent”) (Ex. 1001) is directed to fixed-
`
`focal length telephoto lens assembly technology with a small thickness and good
`
`quality imaging characteristics. Ex. 1001, 1:23-29; Ex. 2013, ¶ 33. The ’032 patent
`
`
`
`3
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 8 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`provides a compact lens assembly with a small total track length (TTL). Ex. 1001,
`
`1:23-38, 1:43-46; Ex. 2013, ¶ 33. The total track length (TTL) determines the
`
`physical width, or thickness of the camera. Ex. 2013, ¶ 34. A small TTL results in a
`
`thinner, more compact camera. Id. The ’032 patent also provides a small ratio of
`
`TTL to the effective focal length (EFL). Increasing the effective focal length (EFL)
`
`reduces the field of view (FOV), which allows the camera with a fixed sensor size
`
`to capture higher resolution images of small or distant objects. Id. A lens with a
`
`greater EFL is able to capture images of such objects with greater detail. Id. Thus, a
`
`dual-camera system with two sub-camera stages that have different EFL can offer
`
`two different optical zoom levels.
`
`The ’032 patent’s claims are directed to an arrangement of lenses of particular
`
`types and materials, which provide a TTL less than the EFL, i.e., satisfy the ratio
`
`TTL/EFL less than 1. Ex. 1001, cl. 1, 20. The ’032 patent explains that conventional
`
`designs for lens assemblies were not suitable for mobile devices, did not deliver good
`
`image quality, and did not have the property where the TTL is less than EFL. Id.,
`
`1:30-35. The ’032 patent further provides a telephoto lens assembly has a TTL that
`
`can fit in a cell phone, e.g., having a TTL < 6.5 mm. Ex. 1001, cl. 1.
`
`Claim 15 of the ’032 patents is also directed to a lens assembly with a low F-
`
`number (F#). The F# in a single lens element is the ratio of the focal length of a lens
`
`to the aperture diameter of the lens. Ex. 2013, ¶ 36. It measures the exposure time of
`
`
`
`4
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 9 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`a lens assembly. Id. The lower the F#, the more light enters the lens assembly. The
`
`F# is also related to lens resolution and depth of field. Id. All of the exemplary
`
`embodiments in the ’032 patent disclose an arrangement of lenses that have
`
`TTL/EFL < 1.0 and F# < 2.9. Ex. 1001, 4:35-37, 5:50-52, 6:15-16.
`
`To achieve lens assemblies suitable for use in real-world applications in
`
`mobile devices with the characteristic of TTL<EFL, the ’032 patent advantageously
`
`provides lens assemblies that follow certain design rules for shape, thicknesses,
`
`individual lens focal length, and material properties. Ex. 2013, ¶ 37. The ’032
`
`patent’s claims are directed to ranges and relationships between the properties of the
`
`various lens in an assembly.
`
`By way of example, Fig. 3A of the ‘032 patent, shown above, illustrates
`
`embodiment 300. See id. at 6:65-8:19 (describing embodiment 300). The rays
`
`
`
`5
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 10 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`through the diagram show the passage of light rays from different incident angles
`
`through the system to the front of the electronic sensor. Ex. 2013, ¶ 38. The
`
`specification discloses that embodiment 300 provides an EFL of 6.84 mm and TTL
`
`of 5.904 mm. Ex. 1001, 5:15-17. The specification discloses that the lens assembly
`
`has a FOV (field of view) of 44 degrees. Id. In Fig. 3A, the “object-side” of the lens
`
`assembly (i.e., where the side facing out of the camera) is on the left, and the “image-
`
`side” of the lens assembly (i.e., where the image of the object is projected onto the
`
`surface of a sensor) is on the right. Ex. 2013, ¶ 38.
`
`Fig. 3A shows a rectangular element, labeled 312, after the fifth lens (going
`
`left to right). Element 312 is a cover glass (also known as cover glass window or
`
`cover plate). Ex. 2013, ¶ 39. The cover glass window serves two functions in a lens
`
`system: (i) it protects the sensitive surface of the electronic sensor from damage or
`
`contamination, and (ii) it cuts off infrared light before reaching the electronic sensor.
`
`Id.; Ex. 2008, 113:19-114:15. The protection of the electronic sensor is particularly
`
`important, because, without the protection of the cover glass, the sensor would be
`
`irrevocably damaged or contaminated in the manufacturing process. See Ex. 2013, ¶
`
`39; see also, e.g., Ex. 1012, 2-3.
`
`The Petition challenges independent claim 1 and claims 13-15, all of which
`
`depend on claim 1. All challenged claims therefore require the ratio TTL to EFL of
`
`less than 1.0 as provided for in claim 1. Ex. 1001, 7:48-49. Claims 14 and 15 (which
`
`
`
`6
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 11 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`depends on claim 14) require further, inter alia, that the second lens element be a
`
`meniscus lens having a convex object-side surface. Id., 8:47-49.
`
`B. Complexity of the Design of Multiple Lens Assemblies, Like the
`Patented Invention
`
`The embodiments of the ’032 patent describe an arrangement of at least five
`
`lenses. Multiple lens assemblies, like the ’032 patented invention, are defined by
`
`many different interdependent parameters. Ex. 2013, ¶ 40. As a result, the design of
`
`such multiple lens assemblies is highly complex. Design parameters include, among
`
`many others: 1) The properties of lens materials (index of refraction, as well as the
`
`Abbe number, which describes the color dispersion of refraction in the lens); 2) The
`
`shape of the optical surfaces of the lenses; 3) The thickness of lenses; 4) The
`
`distances between lens elements; 5) The precise contours of the front (object-facing)
`
`and back (image-facing) surfaces of the lenses; and 6) The size and location of the
`
`aperture stop. Id.
`
`The optical surfaces of the lenses are determined by radii of curvature, the
`
`conic constant, and “aspheric coefficients.” Ex. 2013, ¶ 41. The ’032 patent seeks to
`
`achieve high quality optical properties in a small space. This requires employing
`
`complex geometries in the lens design, i.e., “aspheric” lenses. Id. For instance, the
`
`exemplary embodiments in the ’032 patent include five aspheric lens elements
`
`within the lens system. (Claim 1 also requires at least one aspheric lens element.)
`
`The shape of each surface of an aspheric lens is defined by a mathematical equation.
`
`
`
`7
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 12 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Id. Plotting this equation in space provides the shape of the surface of the aspheric
`
`lens. The equation that the ’032 patent uses takes the following form (Ex. 1001, 3:17-
`
`54):
`
`
`
`In the above equation, r is distance from (and perpendicular to) the optical
`
`axis, k is the conic coefficient, c = 1/R where R is the radius of curvature, and αn are
`
`aspheric coefficients. Ex. 2013, ¶ 41.
`
`These parameters, along with the thicknesses of lenses, gaps between lenses,
`
`and lens material properties all together are sometimes called a “lens prescription.”
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 2013, ¶ 42. The pathway of light through the lenses is defined by the
`
`incidence of rays on the surface of each lens, and then how the material properties
`
`and shape of the lenses bend the rays that pass through them. Id. Therefore, the
`
`information in the “lens prescription” is necessary to allow a POSITA to reconstruct
`
`the lens design. Id.
`
`As a result, there are at least the following parameters that can be varied: the
`
`gaps between the five lenses, the sensor, the stop, and window covering the sensor,
`
`and thicknesses of these elements (13 parameters as shown in the tables describing
`
`embodiments of the ’032 and ’712 patents); the aspheric coefficients and a conic
`
`
`
`8
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 13 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`coefficient, k, and radius of curvature, r, for each lens (8 parameters per lens surface
`
`or 80 total), and Abbe numbers and refractive indices for each lens (or 10 total for 5
`
`lenses). Therefore, there are 98 parameters that can be independently varied. This
`
`leads to a nearly infinite variety of possible lens designs. For example, considering
`
`just ten possible values for each of these parameters would require evaluating 1098
`
`combinations of parameter values. This is greater than the number of elementary
`
`particles in the observable universe,1 and vastly more designs than could ever be
`
`feasibly evaluated. As a result, there are a nearly infinite number of parameter
`
`combination choices to design an arrangement of five lenses like the ’032 patent.
`
`Ex. 2013, ¶ 43; Ex. 2003, 178 (“[E]ven a simple lens has a near infinite number of
`
`possible solutions in a multidimensional space.”)
`
`The interrelationships between these parameters creates further complexity.
`
`The relationships between the variables can be nonlinear and unpredictable. Ex.
`
`2013, ¶ 44. The result is a huge design space for a POSITA to explore. Computer
`
`simulation and optimization techniques can help in aspects of the process. But
`
`optimization in such a huge space is limited. Id. Computational optimization
`
`techniques may lead to an apparently improved design but then get trapped in
`
`suboptimal solutions. Id.; Ex. 2003, 167-70. An analogy would be to imagine the
`
`skilled artisan looking up while in a valley surrounded by mountains. The skilled
`
`
`1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle
`
`
`
`9
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 14 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`artisan may not know whether there is a valley at a lower altitude on the side of one
`
`of the mountains. Ultimately a significant degree of manual and hand-driven
`
`modification is required to arrive at an effective design. Ex. 2013, ¶ 44. A POSITA
`
`would have understood that, especially, systems with more than three lenses are too
`
`complex for purely computer-aided design. Id.; Ex. 2003, 173.
`
`As a consequence of the complexity of the multi-lens design space, it is
`
`particularly challenging to develop a multiple lens design to meet demanding
`
`requirements – such as fitting in a small package and providing excellent image
`
`quality for mobile device cameras. Ex. 2013, ¶ 45 Moreover, a POSITA must
`
`consider more than just optical properties in a real-world lens system. A POSITA
`
`also must consider include, for example, sensitivity of the lens design to small
`
`changes in shape due to manufacturing defects (tolerance sensitivity), the need to fit
`
`lens assemblies in a container (packaging), the viability and cost of materials used
`
`in lenses. Id.; Ex. 2003, 171. Considering these factors makes the multiple lens
`
`design problem even more complex. As a result, a tremendous amount of effort is
`
`expended in the development of novel lens designs, many of which are patented.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 2003, 172 (referring to a CD-ROM from 2008 that contained over
`
`“20,000 lens designs from patents”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 15 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`III. Legal Standard for Petition Review
`
`The petitioner has the burden to clearly set forth the basis for its challenges in
`
`the petition. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2016)
`
`(citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring IPR petitions to identify ‘with
`
`particularity ... the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each
`
`claim’”). A petitioner may not rely on the Board to substitute its own reasoning to
`
`remedy the deficiencies in a petition. SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1355 (“Congress chose to
`
`structure a process in which it’s the petitioner, not the Director, who gets to define
`
`the contours of the proceeding.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting the Board’s reliance on obviousness arguments that
`
`“could have been included” in the petition but were not, and holding that the Board
`
`may not “raise, address, and decide unpatentability theories never presented by the
`
`petitioner and not supported by the record evidence”); Ariosa Diagnostics v.
`
`Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “a
`
`challenge can fail even if different evidence and arguments might have led to
`
`success”); Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Systems, 853 F.3d 1272,
`
`1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that new arguments in a reply brief are “foreclosed
`
`by statute, our precedent, and Board guidelines”).
`
`To the extent that the petition relies on an expert declaration, it must be more
`
`than conclusory and disclose the facts underlying the opinion. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`11
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 16 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`§42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
`
`which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Edmund Optics, Inc.
`
`v. Semrock, Inc., IPR2014-00583, Paper 50 at 8 (PTAB, Sep. 9, 2015) (affording
`
`little or no weight to “experts’ testimony that does little more than repeat, without
`
`citation to additional evidence, the conclusory arguments of their respective
`
`counsel.”). Nor may the petition rely on the expert declaration to remedy any gaps
`
`in the petition itself. 37 C.F.R. §42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated
`
`by reference from one document into another document”); see also Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB, Aug. 29, 2014)
`
`(“This practice of citing the Declaration to support conclusory statements that are
`
`not otherwise supported in the Petition also amounts to incorporation by
`
`reference.”).
`
`IV. Level of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have possessed an
`
`undergraduate degree in optical engineering, electrical engineering, or physics, with
`
`the equivalent of three years of experience in optical design at the time of the
`
`effective filing date of the ’032 patent, July 4, 2013. Ex. 2013, ¶ 15. Apple vaguely,
`
`and inappositely, asserts that a POSITA would be “familiar with the specifications
`
`of lens systems.” Pet. at 7. Notably, Apple provides no evidence that a POSITA
`
`
`
`12
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 17 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`would be familiar with the specifications of lens systems for miniature cameras, let
`
`alone miniature telephoto cameras.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`The Petition asserts that it “presents claim analysis in a manner consistent with
`
`plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification,” i.e., the standard used in
`
`District Court, including the above-referenced litigation between the Petitioner and
`
`Patent Owner. Pet. at 8 (emphasis added) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The Board should thus interpret the claims under the Phillips
`
`standard, rather than the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, in accord with
`
`the Petition. See SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1357 (2018) (“[T]the
`
`petitioner’s contentions, not the Director’s discretion, define the scope of the
`
`litigation all the way from institution through to conclusion.”).
`
`Even if the Board were to apply the BRI standard, the Federal Circuit has
`
`cautioned that “[t]he protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation
`
`divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” In re Smith Int'l, Inc., 871
`
`F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and internal quotations omitted). The
`
`specification must be considered, to determine whether it “proscribes or precludes
`
`some broad reading of the claim term” and to ensure that the interpretation of the
`
`
`
`13
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 18 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`claims is “not inconsistent with the specification.” Id. at 1383. Rather, claims must
`
`be afforded an interpretation that “corresponds with what and how the inventor
`
`describes his invention in the specification.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Total Track Length (TTL)
`
`The ’032 patent expressly defines how a POSITA should measure the “total
`
`track length (TTL)” in the context of the patented invention: “The effective focal
`
`length of the lens assembly is marked ‘EFL’ and the total track length on an optical
`
`axis between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the electronic
`
`sensor is marked ‘TTL’.” Ex. 1001, 1:60-63 (emphasis added). This is an instance
`
`where the specification “acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in
`
`the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); see also Martek Biosciences Corp. v.
`
`Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“When a patentee explicitly
`
`defines a claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.”);
`
`Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 493 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (“When a patentee defines a claim term, the patentee’s definition governs,
`
`even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term.”).
`
`
`
`14
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 19 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`Accordingly, the correct construction of the term “TTL,” following the
`
`patent’s definition, is “the length on an optical axis between the object-side surface
`
`of the first lens element and the electronic sensor.”
`
`The ’032 patent thus prescribes a measurement of TTL that takes into account
`
`all of the elements of the lens system. Ex. 2013, ¶ 51. The ’032 patent expressly
`
`instructs that if a lens system includes the lens elements as well as, for example, a
`
`glass window element, each of these elements should be included in the
`
`measurement of TTL when comparing the system to the ’032 patent’s claims. See
`
`id., 1:55-59 (“An optical lens system incorporating the lens assembly may further
`
`include a stop positioned before the first lens element, a glass window disposed
`
`between the image-side surface of the fifth lens element and an image sensor with
`
`an image plane on which an image of the object is formed.”) (emphasis added); Ex.
`
`2013, ¶ 51. The quantity “TTL” thus measures the total physical length of a lens
`
`system in the context of the ’032 patent. Ex. 2013, ¶¶ 51, 56.
`
`
`
`15
`
`APPL-1033 / Page 20 of 54
`APPLE INC v. COREPHOTONICS LTD.
`
`

`

`The f