Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: October 25, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: September 8, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 28
`Entered: October 25, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: September 8, 2021
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL PARSONS, ESQ.
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`6000 Headquarters Drive
`Suite 200
`Plano, TX 75024
`(972) 739-6900
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`NEIL RUBIN, ESQ.
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard
`12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`(310) 826-7474
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`September 8, 2021, commencing at 3:10 p.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` JUDGE MOORE: So this is the hearing in IPR2020-
`00878 I believe. I have with me today -- I'm Judge Moore.
`With me today are Judge Ullagaddi and Judge Kenny. I guess
`I'll get appearances first and then I'll give you a few ground
`rules for today starting with petitioner.
` MR. PARSONS: Your Honor, I'm Michael Parsons, lead
`counsel for petitioner. With me today is Mr. Jordan Maucotel
`who is backup counsel, as well as Mr. Aaron Wang who is
`in-house counsel for Apple.
` JUDGE MOORE: And patent owner?
` MR. RUBIN: Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. This is Neil Rubin, counsel for the patent owner,
`Corephotonics, and with me are my co-counsel, Marc Fenster,
`James Tsuei, and Jonathan Link.
` JUDGE MOORE: Thank you. I'm having some issues
`here but -- if it's all right with the parties I'll do this
`initial without the video for a moment here. So the parties
`have been given one hour each for their presentations. They
`can -- we'll start with petitioner who's got the burden and
`both parties can request a rebuttal time, no more than half of
`your time to be reserved to rebuttal.
` The parties are reminded that in this video format
`that we have, if you refer to slides or you refer to anything
`in the evidence you should tell us what it is by page number
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`or by what part of the evidence and be aware that it may take
`a few moments for the judges to get a hold of whatever that
`evidence is.
` Parties should hold any objection that they may
`have to what's going on to their own presentation so there's
`no interruption of the other side's presentations. And the
`parties should identify themselves when they speak and when
`they are not speaking try to stay on mute. It helps per the
`overall audio production today.
` The other thing I wanted to mention is that -- I've
`lost the one thing I wanted to say but we'll start with
`petitioner and maybe petitioner can let me know how much time
`they would like to reserve.
` MR. PARSONS: I would like to reserve 20 minutes,
`Your Honor, for rebuttal.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. All right. I will keep the
`time and unless there's something from the other two judges
`you can begin whenever you're ready.
` MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Your Honor. Now turning
`to slide 2, what we're discussing in this hearing is the 897
`patent and the 897 patent recites a miniature telephoto lens
`design, just like the other two cases that we have already
`discussed today, and that miniature telephoto lens design has
`five lens elements. But the important aspect here is that it
`is telephoto, not a wide-angle lens.
` As you can see in slide 2, we have presented four
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`grounds in the petition. The first ground which showed how
`the claims were rendered were anticipated by Ogino Example 5
`has not been challenged by patent owner. There's no dispute
`that Ogino Example 5 renders these challenged claims obvious
`in ground 1. All we're discussing today are grounds 2 through
`4. And specifically in ground 2, whether a POSITA would have
`found it obvious to modify the F number of Ogino Example 5 to
`reduce it to 2.8. And then ground 3, whether a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`further reduce the F number from 2.8 to 2.45 based on the
`teachings of Bareau and Kingslake. And then the final ground,
`this addresses the combination of Chen, Iwasaki, and Beich,
`and this ground is based on a combination of Chen replacing
`the cover glass to make it thinner based on the teachings of
`Iwasaki.
` Now in slide 3, we just want to go through this one
`more time to apprise the board of what the relevant case law
`is here. In slide 3 the Federal Circuit said that the
`question for obviousness rests on whether a POSITA would have
`been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior
`references to achieve the claimed invention and that the
`skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of
`success in doing so. And that's what we presented in our
`petition was a showing that a POSITA would have been motivated
`to combine the teachings of the prior art in each ground and
`that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`of success in achieving those -- in achieving that
`modification to those lens designs.
` Moving to slide 4. The motivation to combine is
`the question of whether there was an apparent reason to
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the
`patent at issue. So what we're looking at here is were there
`specific motivations in the art to modify the prior art and it
`doesn't indicate what type of prior art or why this prior art
`was looked at in the first place. The question is whether or
`not there was -- whether or not there was an apparent reason
`to combine the known elements in the fashioned claim of the
`patent at issue.
` So what are the things a POSITA would have done in
`relation to any of these embodiments is irrelevant to what we
`presented in the petition. What the petition presented were
`distinct five lens miniature telephoto assemblies taught in
`the prior art in Ogino Example 5 and Chen I and we showed
`based on Dr. Milster's testimony how a person of ordinary
`skill would have been motivated to modify those designs in a
`way that meets the challenged claims. Now we've relied on
`teaching for the prior art, not the challenged claims, as
`patent owner has alleged in other cases.
` Flipping to slide 5. With regards to the
`reasonable expectation of success, the Federal Circuit says
`that the case law is clear that obviousness cannot be avoided
`simply by a showing of some degree of unpredictability in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`art so long as there is a reasonable probability of success.
`Again, we're not talking about absolute certainty that Dr.
`Sasián's designs could have been achieved. We're talking
`about a reasonable expectation of success which is represented
`by the lens designs presented in the petition.
` Now patent owner is going to argue throughout today
`about manufacturability and tolerancing and other issues
`without any evidence showing that those factors would actually
`make Dr. Sasián's designs fail for some reason. But those are
`all based on unpredictability in the art and there's no
`analysis showing that Dr. Sasián's designs are problematic at
`all using any of those manufacturing considerations that
`patent owner alleges would be considered by a POSITA.
` Now one other issue that I'd like --
` JUDGE MOORE: Counsel --
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor?
` JUDGE MOORE: I just want to say I know
`and I give you an award for patience today because you're
`going through much of the same material three times in a row
`for a total of six hours so I totally understand, but I think
`for the reporter and for the new judge here, if you can try
`and pace it down and slow it down a little. I understand
`going through the same stuff can tend to speed you up. But,
`yeah, if we can try and pace it down just a little it would be
`appreciated.
` MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Your Honor. I will take
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`note of that. Thank you. Okay. Now to the extent that the
`patent owner's arguments in this case have attacked the
`process that Dr. Sasián followed in modifying his designs, I
`would like to point the board to Exhibit 1017 on page 172.
`This reference is from Fisher and we cited to this reference
`in every ground where we raised a combination of the prior
`art. What this reference teaches or shows is a lens design
`process that would be implemented by a person of ordinary
`skill going through the process of making a change to a lens,
`and then wanting to modify a lens by making a change, allowing
`the software to find the best result of that change, and then
`following that process over and over and over again until they
`have a design that they're happy with.
` Now step 3 in this process talks about the
`idea -- now let me step back for one second. Step 2 first
`says to select a starting point. The starting point that Dr.
`Sasián selected for the grounds in this case are either Ogino
`Example 5 or Chen I. Those are distinct lens designs that are
`telephoto lens designs and the only parameter that they don't
`meet in the challenged claims are either the -- are mostly due
`to the F number. And Dr. Sasián showed that using this
`process a POSITA would be able to lower the F number to
`something that was more desirable because the F number is
`currently in example 5, in Ogino, for example, at 3.94 is not
`as desirable as it could be based on Ogino's other
`embodiments.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
` Now step 3 in this process is very important. What
`it says is that a POSITA once they've loaded the lens design
`in is supposed to make an adjustment manually and then let the
`software resolve the other variables to produce the best
`change based on that modification. Now a POSITA has a number
`of opportunities here to go through and select which variables
`they want to vary, but a POSITA is counseled in step 3 here on
`page 173 to not vary all of the variables or many of the
`variables at once.
` Down here in the last -- in the second to last
`sentence on page 173 it says, It is important to note that it
`is not imperative nor is it advisable to vary every
`conceivable variable in a lens, especially early in the design
`phase. And so what Dr. Sasián did is he decided to vary a few
`number of variables after introducing a change and allowing
`parameters around the change to vary which allows the software
`to provide the best result based on the change that he
`provided. Now that's what Dr. Sasián did in the petition and
`in his declaration.
` To the extent that patent owner argues for a
`different process or that more parameters should have been
`varied, that's not what the evidence of record says, and
`patent owner hasn't pointed to any evidence describing a
`different lens design process where a POSITA would have
`allowed all of the variables to vary right at the beginning,
`right up front, and so there's no evidence on the record to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`contradict the process that Dr. Sasián used to go from
`selecting a starting point, modifying that based on a teaching
`in the prior art, and then allowing the software to find the
`best solution based on the modifications that were provided by
`the prior art. And this is the same lens design process that
`a POSITA follows.
` Now moving to slide 6. Our first substantive
`ground that we'd like to discuss is ground 2 because patent
`owner has again not disputed ground 1 in any way, shape, or
`form. In ground 2 the combination here that was presented in
`the petition is to modify Ogino's Example 5 which has an F
`number of 3.94, which is fairly high. A POSITA based on
`Ogino's other examples and the teachings in Bareau would have
`been motivated to lower the F number to something that was
`more in line with Ogino's other teachings and the
`specifications provided in Bareau.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Counsel, can I ask a quick
`question? I know you've been over this several times but
`maybe for Judge Kenny. Why should we look to Bareau to lower
`a telephoto lens F number when Bareau is directed to wide-
`angle lenses?
` MR. PARSONS: Well, that's an important -- that's a
`great question, Your Honor, and the reason is because the F
`number has nothing to do with the field of view of a lens.
`The F number is a ratio that's defined by the focal length
`divided by the diameter of the entrance aperture and the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`entrance aperture is the part of the lens that controls how
`much light goes through the lens system. So if you're -- so
`the fact that the F number is only based on the focal length
`and the entrance diameter means that those other
`portions -- specifications of Bareau may be able to be met but
`they are not mutually exclusive of one another.
` Implementing the teaching of Bareau to modify the F
`number would be equally applicable regardless of what the
`field of view is because it defines how much light reaches the
`sensor and it's a way to calculate how much light can reach
`the sensor regardless of the focal length because it is a
`measurement of the -- it is a ratio of the focal length
`divided by the entrance diameter. What that means is that
`the focal length gets higher or is extended more. It means
`that the F number is going to increase if the aperture stays
`the same. If the F number moves closer in then the F
`number -- then the focal length will go down and so light will
`be able to get to the focal length easier for a shorter focal
`length versus a longer focal length.
` So the F number is simply measuring -- is a
`representation of the amount of the light that can pass
`through the lens and hit the sensor. It doesn't depend on
`field of view, or relative illumination, or the other
`parameters specified in Bareau.
` And in addition to that, the board in IPR2018-1140
`has already determined that a POSITA -- on page 31 has already
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art wouldn't
`disregard Bareau's teachings just because -- in regards to a
`telephoto lens just because the field of view is represented
`in the specification for between 60 and 66 degrees.
` So based on those two things that's why a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have in fact looked at the F
`number of Bareau because it's an independent variable that
`shows how much light is able to reach the sensor. And how
`much light reaches the sensor is important regardless of the
`field of view, or the focal length, or the other parameters of
`the lens.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you.
` MR. PARSONS: Thank you. Now moving onto slide 7.
`Again, our modification for ground 2 was the example 5 from
`Ogino and we've proposed -- and the modification is to lower
`it to an F number of 2.8. Now here in the table we've
`provided in slide 7, Ogino Example 5 has the lowest telephoto
`ratio of all of Ogino's examples and that's important here.
`The lower the telephoto ratio the more telephoto the lens
`design is which means the more it can zoom in relative to a
`wide-angle lens.
` Now the reason that a POSITA would have looked to
`modify example 5 versus these other embodiments is because of
`this telephoto ratio. Because, again, what we're talking
`about in the 897 patent is a telephoto lens assembly. Ogino
`is part of the prior art and the test for obviousness is that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`a POSITA would have been motivated to modify the prior
`art -- would be motivated to combine the teachings of the
`prior art to arrive at what's fashioned in the claims. And
`that's what we showed in the petition, that a POSITA would
`have been motivated to take example 5, which is telephoto like
`what the claim says, and would have modified it to a lower F
`number based on the teachings of Bareau to achieve a brighter,
`faster lens that had better performance than the F number
`being at 3.94.
` Now 3.94 is much darker than 2.8. So a lens with
`an F number of 2.8 would have more light that reaches the
`sensor. The sensor would be able to have a lower exposure
`time which would help in, for example, capturing motion. You
`know, we've all been in a situation where we've taken a
`picture with a camera and we've moved it and there's blur.
`Well, that's because the exposure time on the sensor is fairly
`low. If you can speed up the sensor based on getting more
`light, that's an improvement, and that's why they call these
`lenses with lower F numbers brighter, faster lenses. So a
`POSITA would have been motivated to modify Ogino Example 5 to
`have a lower F number for its telephoto lens based on the
`teachings of Bareau.
` Now moving on to slide 8. Dr. Sasián showed that a
`POSITA applying this teaching to example 5 and using the
`standard lens design process explained in Fisher would have
`been successful at arriving at a design of Ogino Example 5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`that in fact supports an F number of 2.8.
` Now in slide 9 patent owner has admitted that Dr.
`Sasián didn't have to modify very much in order to achieve
`this. They say that Dr. Sasián kept a number of lens
`elements, the power of the lens elements, their thicknesses,
`and there's basically no change except for a small change to
`the thickness of the first lens element. So in addition to
`opening the aperture to support the F number, Dr. Sasián
`didn't change very much which means that Ogino Example 5 on
`its face was possible to support lower F numbers even though
`it's designated in its example of having an F number of 3.94.
` Now moving on to slide 11. The motivation to do
`this, as we've said before, is because there was a need that
`existed in the art for brighter, faster lenses, and that's
`what the Kingslake reference says that's cited in our petition
`for this ground at page 42. Kingslake says -- Kingslake was
`published in the 90s and even back then it says that the need
`exists for brighter images and faster lenses. Now brighter
`images and faster lenses again means a wider aperture which
`means a lower F number. So this teaching in the art for lower
`F numbers was well known and POSITAs were always desiring to
`have lenses with lower F numbers because they provided
`brighter images and lower exposure times. And patent owner
`has admitted here also on slide 11 that Bareau suggests a
`favorable F number that a POSITA would have looked to.
` Now moving to slide 12. Patent owner's primary
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`argument about this example is that the first lens has
`edges -- that the first lens at the edges are too narrow. In
`other words, patent owner argues that because these edges are
`so narrow that this lens is unmanufacturable. And what
`they've argued in the surreply, they've argued that it's
`unmanufacturable using any method. Now we disagree with that
`and we think that it's wrong and it's based on Dr. Milster's
`flawed analysis of this design.
` Moving to slide 13. What we referenced in the
`reply were other similar lens designs that had a similar shape
`to the first lens here in Dr. Sasián's example with Ogino
`Example 5 lowered to 2.8. And the first box on the left is
`the first lens -- is the top of the first lens in Ogino, in a
`modified version of Ogino Example 5, and the second box is the
`top of the lens from the Mercado reference that we cited in
`the reply, and the last box shows the top of the lens in the
`Konno reference that was also cited in the reply.
` Now the one thing that's common among these is that
`in the lens design software they're all represented with a
`sharp corner at the edge. Now patent owner argues that a lens
`design in reality or when manufactured wouldn't have the sharp
`corner but it would have a -- but it would be rounded due to
`the flow of material or other reasons and because this edge
`here would be rounded Dr. Milster, patent owner's expert,
`argues that there wouldn't be sufficient material for the rays
`to pass through the edge of the lens meaning that Dr. Milster
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`believes that the light passes through the corner and that
`corner with a rounded corner wouldn't provide enough material
`for the ray to pass through like it's supposed to.
` Now Dr. Milster's analysis is flawed for a couple
`of primary reasons. First off, Dr. Milster hasn't provided
`any evidence in the record to show how much of a rounded
`corner actually matters or how much of a rounded corner would
`actually affect the lens design. And as you can see here,
`even at the top of the lens that we proposed in the top of the
`right box, the blue ray that comes in to the front of the lens
`at the very top, it cuts down fairly quickly so it doesn't go
`through the sharp corner of the lens like Dr. Milster assumes
`it does.
` Now Dr. Milster didn't do any independent analysis
`on this lens to blow it up or to figure out how much distance
`that is. He just complains that because the ray passes
`through the edge and it has a sharp corner that it would
`automatically fail. But again, there's no evidence to show
`that a rounded corner here would actually cause this lens to
`fail.
` Now in slide 14 patent owner made a statement in
`their surreply that also proves our point here too. Patent
`owner stated that with regards to Mercado and Konno, which are
`the other two lenses that we've provided in the previous
`slide, they said that a POSITA would understand that plastic
`injected molded lenses taught by Konno would actually have a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`flange for mounting rather than the sharp edge depicted. Then
`they also said that the Mercado lens would likely have a
`flange and have a different shape from that shown outside the
`clear aperture.
` Now Dr. Milster's analysis didn't apply this
`knowledge of a POSITA. Patent owner has admitted that a
`POSITA would have put flanges on these lenses and in that case
`the flanges would be the same material that would extend
`beyond the useable aperture of the lens. If Dr. Milster would
`have correctly applied this teaching and knowledge of a
`POSITA, which he didn't, then he would have recognized that
`this lens can support flanges and if the flanges are there
`then there's plenty of material for this to go through -- the
`rounded corner would not be there when a flange is used. Dr.
`Milster did not address this issue despite the fact that a
`POSITA would have recognized that these lenses have flanges.
`For that reason Dr. Milster's analysis in this regard is
`entirely flawed and is incomplete and can't be relied upon.
` Now to the extent that thickness is even an issue,
`in slide 15 this references an example that we provided in our
`reply where Dr. Sasián simply increased the size -- increased
`the thickness of the first lens in order to meet Dr. Milster's
`manufacturability requirements. And Dr. Sasián testified that
`this was a simple change. Now this is backed up by the
`teachings of Smith which specifically says on page 25 that in
`many designs element thickness is an insignificant and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`ineffective variable and one whose effects are easily
`duplicated by an adjacent air space. In this circumstance one
`can arbitrarily select a thickness on the basis of economy or
`ease of fabrication. The elements in such designs are
`typically quite thin. And then he cites the example of a
`(indiscernible).
` Now based on that teaching from Smith, that's what
`Dr. Sasián did here. Now Dr. Sasián doesn't cite to Smith in
`that but Smith is part of the knowledge of a POSITA.
`Increasing the size of a lens does not affect the other
`parameters or if they do they are insignificant. And patent
`owner has not argued that Dr. Sasián's lens to make the first
`lens thicker. There's no argument that this lens does in fact
`meet all the same claims that it did before even with the lens
`being thicker.
` Again, thickness is an inconsequential modification
`made to a lens. But to the extent that Dr. Milster's
`manufacturability requirements are even required of Dr.
`Sasián's lens, which we don't agree they are, it would have
`been an easy modification for somebody to thicken the first
`lens based on the teaching in the art that thickness is an
`inconsequential factor when it comes to designing a lens.
` Now moving onto slide 16. The third ground in the
`petition that we propose was lowering the F number of Ogino's
`Example 5 from 2.8 that we provided in the previous example to
`2.45. Now the reason and the motivation to modify Ogino
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`Example 5 further is based on the teachings of Bareau. Bareau
`provides five -- Bareau provides six examples and four of them
`have a much lower F number. There's no reason why a POSITA
`wouldn't have looked at this and thought to themselves, wow,
`that telephoto F number is pretty high. Maybe I should try
`for a lower one because four of the five examples are
`remarkably similar and rely on the same equation that Ogino
`teaches and the lowest one is 2.45. Also, because Kingslake
`discusses the fact that there was a need in the art for
`brighter, faster lenses, a POSITA would have been motivated to
`try to modify from 3.94 down to 2.45 based on the lowest F
`number that Ogino provides.
` Now in slide 18, when Dr. Sasián applied this
`modification to lower the F number from F equals 2.8 to F
`equals 2.45 he opened the aperture and then he let the rays of
`the first lens -- of both sides of the first lens vary and the
`result of that was the example that you see here which is
`Ogino Example 5 that supports an F number of 2.45. Those are
`the only changes besides optimizing for quality and making the
`L1 edge slightly thicker that he had to make in order to make
`this design work.
` Now in slide 19 one of the arguments that patent
`owner makes is about a typo that was in our petition where it
`showed that the F number that was manually typed in by Dr.
`Sasián was 2.12. Now patent owner is trying to make a
`mountain out of a mole hill here because if they actually
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`would have taken the lens design data that was provided in the
`petition and not the handwritten notes that Dr. Sasián
`provided they would have taken the lens design data and put it
`into a lens design program which Dr. Milster had access to.
`They would have recognized that in fact the design that Dr.
`Sasián was relying on in the petition and the declaration did
`in fact have an F number of 2.45.
` Now to the extent that patent owner in regards to
`this ground wants to argue about the fact that the first lens
`element on this ends up with a convex shape and not a concave
`shape as Ogino's other examples, the board has already
`determined in IPR 1140, page 35 that Ogino is not limited to
`the above embodiments because it discloses modifying the
`values of the radius of curvature and the aspheric
`coefficients of the lens elements.
` In other words, a POSITA would not have thought to
`limit Ogino's Example 5 first lens element to be a certain
`shape based on the teachings of Ogino because Ogino says that
`it itself is not limited to the shapes of those lenses and
`that's defined by the radius of the lens. So Ogino talks
`about the fact that it's not limited to -- that the radius of
`the lens are not limited in any way. That means that you
`could have either convex or concave shapes on each of these
`lens elements and those would still be within the scope of
`Ogino's teachings.
` JUDGE MOORE: Counsel, can you explain to me -- it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`appears but you could correct me on this that in the prior
`cases there was sort of a specific reference to, and I guess
`redundant, to another prior art reference in order to make the
`change in shape. So in this case can you tell me if in fact
`he's using just knowledge of the art to change the shape or is
`there a particular reference that you're referring to to
`motivate one to change the shape of Ogino in this case?
` MR. PARSONS: Well, the change in the shape of
`the -- the change in the shape of the first lens is due to
`applying -- is due to the lens design software choosing that
`as the best solution for the lens being modified as part of an
`F number of 2.8. It's a natural result of applying the
`teaching of the prior art.
` JUDGE MOORE: Okay. So maybe I need to break it
`down a little bit more. You said a natural choice. I think
`there are -- you know, there are a lot of variables when
`you're dealing with putting it into this Zemax. So maybe if
`you could explain a little more how this becomes a natural
`choice to change the shape of the lens. I'm just pointing
`this out because it feels to me like there's a difference
`between the previous cases and this case when it comes to why
`this shape changed.
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor. Give me just a
`minute and I will pull up the expert declaration to show you
`what we're talking about. Yeah, in Exhibit 1003. All right.
`In Exhibit 1003 on page 108. This is Dr. Sasián's analysis
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`for this particular embodiment. Now when he talks about the
`process of optimize, what that means is that it means a
`software optimization. So this is a step further in Exhibit
`1017, the Fisher reference. And step 5 -- that's on page 174.
`Now step 5 in the chart that we cited to said optimize. Just
`to make it clear, we're talking about the optimization step
`that happens after you have introduced a change to the lens
`design. This is the step that takes place where the software
`solves the other lens parameters that are allowed to vary to
`provide the
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
