`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`IPR2020-00878
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,330,897
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ........................................................................... 1
`
`Related Matters ..................................................................................... 1
`
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information .......................... 1
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 2
`
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS ...................... 2
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’897 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Patent ......................................................................... 3
`
`Priority Date of the ’897 Patent............................................................ 5
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 6
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 6
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 7
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 8
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ...... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................... 8
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge.......................................................... 9
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 9-15, 17, 20, and 25-29 are anticipated
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) by Ogino. .............................................. 10
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Ogino ................................................................... 11
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 13
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 28
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 28
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 29
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 29
`
`Claim 12 ................................................................................... 30
`
`Claim 13 ................................................................................... 31
`
`Claim 14 ................................................................................... 33
`
`10. Claim 15 ................................................................................... 34
`
`11. Claim 17 ................................................................................... 36
`
`12. Claim 20 ................................................................................... 39
`
`13. Claim 25 ................................................................................... 39
`
`14. Claim 26 ................................................................................... 39
`
`15. Claim 27 ................................................................................... 39
`
`16. Claim 28 ................................................................................... 39
`
`17. Claim 29 ................................................................................... 40
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 2, 5, 6, 18, and 21-23 are obvious under 35
`U.S.C. § 103 over Ogino in view of Bareau. ..................................... 40
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Summary of Bareau ................................................................. 40
`
`Reasons to combine Ogino and Bareau ................................... 41
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 47
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 49
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 50
`
`Claim 18 ................................................................................... 50
`
`Claim 21 ................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 22 ................................................................................... 51
`
`Claim 23 ................................................................................... 51
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 3, 8, 19, and 24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 over Ogino in view of Bareau, further in view of Kingslake. ..... 51
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Summary of Kingslake ............................................................ 52
`
`Reasons to combine Ogino, Bareau, and Kingslake ................ 52
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 57
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 59
`
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 61
`
`Claim 24 ................................................................................... 61
`
`F.
`
`Ground 4: Claims 16 and 30 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`over Chen in view of Iwasaki, further in view of Beich. ................... 61
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Summary of Chen .................................................................... 61
`
`Summary of Iwasaki ................................................................ 63
`
`Reasons to combine Chen and Iwasaki .................................... 64
`
`Summary of Beich ................................................................... 66
`
`Reasons to combine Chen and Beich ....................................... 67
`
`Claim 16 ................................................................................... 70
`
`Claim 30 ................................................................................... 82
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................85
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................86
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................87
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`May 1, 2020
`
`APPL-1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`APPL-1002 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`APPL-1003 Declaration of José Sasián, Ph.D, under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`APPL-1004 Curriculum Vitae of José Sasián
`APPL-1005 U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino et al. (“Ogino”)
`
`APPL-1006 Warren J. Smith, MODERN LENS DESIGN (1992) (“Smith”)
`
`APPL-1007 William S. Beich et al., “Polymer Optics: A manufacturer’s
`perspective on the factors that contribute to successful programs,”
`SPIE Proceedings Volume 7788, Polymer Optics Design,
`Fabrication, and Materials (August 12, 2010),
`https://doi.org/10.1117/12.861364 (“Beich”)
`
`APPL-1008 U.S. Patent No. 7,777,972 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`APPL-1009 U.S. Patent No. 9,678,310 to Iwasaki et al. (“Iwasaki”)
`APPL-1010 Max Born et al., PRINCIPLES OF OPTICS, 6th Ed. (1980) (“Born”)
`
`APPL-1011 Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino
`
`APPL-1012 Jane Bareau et al., “The optics of miniature digital camera
`modules,” SPIE Proceedings Volume 6342, International Optical
`Design Conference 2006; 63421F (2006)
`https://doi.org/10.1117/12.692291 (“Bareau”)
`
`APPL-1013 Rudolf Kingslake, OPTICS IN PHOTOGRAPHY (1992) (“Kingslake”)
`APPL-1014 U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski et al. (“Parulski”)
`
`APPL-1015 Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP2013106289 to Konno et al. and
`certified English translation
`
`APPL-1016 Bruce J. Walker, OPTICAL ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS (1995)
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`(“Walker”)
`
`APPL-1017 Robert E. Fischer, Optical System Design (2008) (“Fischer”)
`
`APPL-1018 Michael P. Schaub, THE DESIGN OF PLASTIC OPTICAL
`SYSTEMS (2009) (“Schaub”)
`APPL-1019 Optical Society of America, HANDBOOK OF OPTICS, vol. II 2nd
`ed. (1995) (“Handbook of Optics”)
`APPL-1020 U.S. Patent No. 10,324,273 to Chen et al. (“Chen”)
`
`APPL-1021 U.S. Patent No. 9,857,568
`
`APPL-1022 U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712
`APPL-1023 Deposition Transcript of Duncan Moore, Ph.D. in IPR2018-01140
`
`APPL-1024 U.S. Patent No. 7,321,475 to Wang et al.
`
`APPL-1025 Greg Hollows et al., “Matching lenses and sensors”, Vision
`Systems design (March 2009)
`APPL-1026 Prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 9,678,310 to Iwasaki et al.
`
`APPL-1027 Email from Patent Owner’s counsel authorizing electronic service
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897 (“the ’897 Patent,” APPL-1001) is generally
`
`directed to “[a]n optical lens assembly [that] includes five lens elements and
`
`provides a TTL/EFL<1.0.” APPL-1001, Abstract. This Petition, along with the
`
`cited evidence, demonstrates that claims 1-6 and 8-30 of the ’897 Patent (“the
`
`challenged claims”) are either anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) therefore respectfully requests that these claims be found
`
`unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest is Apple Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`As of the filing date of this Petition and to the best knowledge of the
`
`Petitioner, the ’897 Patent has been asserted in Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`Case No. 5-19-cv-04809 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 14, 2019).
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`
`Lead Counsel
`Michael S. Parsons
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8611
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,767
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Jordan Maucotel
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`
`Phone: (214) 651-5116
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`
`Phone: (972) 739-8621
`Fax: (214) 200-0853
`jordan.maucotel.ipr@haynesboone.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 69,438
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service via email.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that the ’897 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner
`
`was served with a complaint asserting infringement of the ’897 Patent on August
`
`19, 2019 and has not filed a civil action challenging the validity of any claim.
`
`IV. NOTE REGARDING PAGE CITATIONS AND EMPHASIS
`
`Petitioner’s citations to APPL-1002, -1011, -1025, and -1026 use the page
`
`numbers added for compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)(ii). Petitioner’s
`
`citations to the remaining exhibits use reference numbering in their original
`
`publication. All bold underline emphasis in any quoted material has been added.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’897 PATENT
`Summary of the Patent
`A.
`
`The ’897 Patent is directed to “[a]n optical lens assembly [that] includes five
`
`lens elements and provides a TTL/EFL<1.0.” APPL-1001, Abstract. The ratio of
`
`TTL (“total track length”) over EFL (“effective focal length”) being less than one
`
`indicates a telephoto lens system. See APPL-1006, p.169. According to the
`
`Applicant, the lens system in the ’897 Patent is allegedly the answer to the need for
`
`good quality imaging and a small total track length. See APPL-1001, 1:43-50. An
`
`example of the claimed lens system is provided below:
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 1A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`For each embodiment, the ’897 Patent includes optical data for each lens
`
`element, such as radius of curvature (“R”) and aspheric coefficients that describe
`
`the surface of each aspheric lens element. See id., Tables 1-6. The ’897 Patent also
`
`includes the so-called surface “sag” equation, which is the standardized equation
`
`used for mathematically representing the surfaces of aspheric lens elements. Id.,
`
`4:1-14. The ’897 Patent’s explanation of the sag equation is as follows:
`
`Detailed optical data is given in Table 1, and the aspheric surface data
`is given in Table 2, wherein the units of the radius of curvature (R), lens
`element thickness and/or distances between elements along the optical
`axis and diameter are expressed in mm, “Nd” is the refraction index.
`The equation of the aspheric surface profiles is expressed by:
`
`
`where r is distance from (and perpendicular to) the optical axis, k is the
`conic coefficient, c=l/R where R is the radius of curvature, and αi are
`coefficients given in Table 2.
`
`Id.
`
`As discussed below, none of these characteristics were new. Prior to July 4,
`
`2013, multi-lens assemblies for cell phones were well known, including telephoto
`
`lens assemblies. See APPL-1006, pp.169-182; APPL-1005, Fig. 5; APPL-1003,
`
`¶32. For example, Ogino (APPL-1005) and Chen (APPL-1020) both teach multi-
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`lens systems for cell phones with a TTL to EFL ratio of less than one. APPL-1003,
`
`¶32. Accordingly, the disclosures provided herein either anticipate or render
`
`obvious the claims challenged in this Petition.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date of the ’897 Patent
`
`The ’897 Patent is a continuation of a string of patent applications claiming
`
`priority to Provisional Application No. 61/842,987 filed on July 4, 2013. See
`
`APPL-1001. The subject matter of claims 16 and 30, though, was not included in
`
`this provisional application, but instead was first added in U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,857,568 filed on January 30, 2017 as a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,568,712. Compare APPL-1021 with APPL-1022. This is clearly the case since all
`
`of the continuation applications filed prior to the ’568 Patent make no mention of a
`
`center thickness L11, an edge thickness L1e, or the need to maintain a center-to-
`
`edge thickness ratio (L11/L1e) of less than 3.0. APPL-1003, ¶33. Also, a POSITA
`
`would not have concluded, based on the embodiments included in the original
`
`application, that the Applicant was in possession of any “alleged” invention, in
`
`having a center-to-edge thickness ratio of less than three, prior to the specification
`
`filed with the ’568 Patent. Id.
`
`Consequently, the priority date of claims 16 and 30 is January 30, 2017, the
`
`filing date of the ’568 Patent. See also LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource
`
`Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1343-47 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (finding a claim
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`unsupported due to a lack of written description needed to show that the applicant
`
`was in possession of the invention).
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’897 Patent issued on June 25, 2019 from U.S Patent Application No.
`
`15/976,391 (“the ’391 application”) filed on May 10, 2018. See APPL-1001. The
`
`’391 application was filed with the 30 claims issued in the ’897 Patent with one
`
`substantive amendment added during prosecution to require a glass plate between
`
`the fifth lens element and the image plane. See APPL-1002, p.254. The ’391
`
`application was allowed on March 4, 2019 with no statement from the Examiner as
`
`to patentability. See id., pp.34-35. The prior art presented in this Petition was not
`
`applied by the Examiner and was not used as a basis for allowing the claims.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected by the prior art of
`
`record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSITA”) would include someone who had, at the priority date of the
`
`‘897 Patent (i) a Bachelor’s degree in Physics, Optical Sciences, or equivalent
`
`training, as well as (ii) approximately three years of experience in designing multi-
`
`lens optical systems. APPL-1003, ¶19. Such a person would have had experience
`
`in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing multi-lens systems for
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`manufacturing, and would have been familiar with the specifications of lens
`
`systems. In addition, a POSITA would have known how to use lens design
`
`software such as Code V, Oslo, or Zemax, and would have taken a lens design
`
`course. Id. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and
`
`vice versa. Id., ¶20.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The challenged claims of the ’897 Patent are construed herein “using the
`
`same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a
`
`civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) (Nov. 13, 2018). For
`
`terms not addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific construction is
`
`necessary for this proceeding.1
`
`In IPR2018-011402, the Board construed the following terms as indicated
`
`below:
`
`
`1 Petitioner does not concede that any term not construed herein meets the statutory
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`2 IPR2018-01140 is directed to U.S. Pat. No. 9,402,032. The Board entered the
`
`same constructions in IPR2018-01146 directed to U.S. Pat. No. 9,568,712. Both
`
`patents belong to the same family as the ’897 Patent and are currently appealed on
`
`other grounds.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`• Effective Focal Length (EFL): “the focal length of a lens assembly.”
`
`• Total Track Length (TTL): “the length of the optical axis spacing
`between the object-side surface of the first lens element and one of: an
`electronic sensor, a film sensor, and an image plane corresponding to
`either the electronic sensor or a film sensor.”
`
`See IPR2018-01140, Paper 37, pp.10-18. The analysis below relies on these
`
`constructions which are sufficient here for showing how the challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable by prior art.
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board review the accompanying prior art and
`
`analysis, institute a trial for inter partes review of claims 1-6 and 8-30 of the ’897
`
`Patent and cancel these claims. As explained below and in the declaration of
`
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. José Sasián, the concepts described and claimed in the ’897
`
`Patent were not new. This Petition explains where each element of the challenged
`
`claims is found in the prior art and why the claims would have been either
`
`anticipated or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) before
`
`the earliest claimed priority date of each claim of the ’897 Patent.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-6 and 8-30 of the ’897 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge
`
`B.
`Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 9-15, 17, 20, and 25-29 are anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C § 102(a)(2) by U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino (APPL-1005, “Ogino”).
`
`Ogino was filed on March 26, 2014 and issued on September 8, 2015. Ogino
`
`claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2013-072282 that was filed on March
`
`29, 2013. As observed in Ogino’s file history (APPL-1011), the application was
`
`filed in English (see id., pp.209-87) and a certified copy of the Japanese
`
`application was received by the Patent Office (see id., pp.146-85). Accordingly,
`
`Ogino’s effective filing date under § 102(a)(2) is the filing date of the Japanese
`
`application filed on March 29, 2013. Thus, Ogino is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a)(2).
`
`Ground 2: Claims 2, 5, 6, 18, and 21-23 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`over Ogino in view of Jane Bareau et al., “The optics of miniature digital camera
`
`modules” (2006) (APPL-1012, “Bareau”). Bareau was both presented publicly and
`
`published in 2006 (see APPL-1003, ¶47) and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a)(1).
`
`Ground 3: Claims 3, 8, 19, and 24 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
`
`Ogino in view of Bareau, further in view of Kingslake (APPL-1013, “Kingslake”).
`
`Kinglake published in 1992 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Ground 4: Claims 16 and 30 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,324,273 to Chen et. al (APPL-1020, “Chen”) in view of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,678,310 to Iwasaki et al. (APPL-1009, “Iwasaki”), further in view of
`
`William S. Beich et al., “Polymer Optics: A manufacturer’s perspective on the
`
`factors that contribute to successful programs” (“Beich,” APPL-1007). Chen was
`
`filed on October 16, 2016 and Iwasaki was filed on September 17, 2015. Both
`
`references are thus prior art to claims 16 and 30 under at least 35 U.S.C. §
`
`102(a)(2).
`
`Iwasaki also claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2013-061647 that
`
`was filed on March 25, 2013. As observed in Iwasaki’s file history (APPL-1026),
`
`the application was filed in English (see id., pp.323-63) and a certified copy of the
`
`Japanese application was received by the Patent Office (id., pp.127-57).
`
`Accordingly, Iwasaki’s effective filing date under § 102(a)(2) is the filing date of
`
`the Japanese application filed on March 25, 2013, before the earliest claimed
`
`priority of the ’897 Patent.
`
`Beich was published in 2010 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`See APPL-1007, p.1. Beich was presented as prior art against the related ’568
`
`Patent (see IPR2019-00030, Paper 32 (Final Written Decision)) where Beich’s
`
`availability as prior art was undisputed.
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1, 4, 9-15, 17, 20, and 25-29 are anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) by Ogino.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Ogino
`
`Similar to the lens system described in the ’897 Patent, Ogino discloses a
`
`five-lens system designed “to enhance the resolution and performance of the
`
`imaging lens” for portable devices such as “a smartphone, a tablet terminal, and a
`
`mobile game machine” among other devices. APPL-1005, 1:11-16, 1:30-31.
`
`Ogino’s Example 5 embodiment is particularly relevant to the claims in the ’897
`
`Patent, and is provided below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Id., Fig. 5. In Example 5, lens elements L1-L5 are arranged in order along the
`
`optical axis. Id., 13:4-5. Optical member CG “may be disposed between the fifth
`
`lens L5 and the imaging device 100 ….” Id., 5:55-57. The CG member is optional
`
`and serves to “protect an imaging surface and an infrared ray cut filter ….” Id.,
`
`5:58-60.
`
`The Example 5 lens system is described in detail by the prescription data in
`
`Table 9, provided below:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Id., 22:10-35. Table 9 includes column ‘Di’ corresponding to the on-axis thickness
`
`of and spacing between each lens element; column ‘ndj’ providing the refractive
`
`index of each lens element L1-L5 and the optional member CG; and column ‘vdj’
`
`providing the Abbe number of each lens element L1-L5 and the optional member
`
`CG. See, e.g., id., 14:31-53. Also included in Table 9 is “the focal length f of the
`
`whole system (mm)” designated as “f=5.956,” “the back focal length Bf (mm)”
`
`designated as “BF=2.438,” and “the total lens length TL (mm)” designated as
`
`5.171 mm, which is the total track length of the lens system without the cover glass
`
`element. Id., 14:47-50, 21:10-15.
`
`Ogino provides the back focal length Bf and the total lens length TL as if the
`
`optional optical member CG was removed and only air existed between the fifth
`
`lens element L5 and the image plane. APPL-1003, ¶45. The total track length with
`
`the optical member CG can be calculated, though, by summing the widths D1 to
`
`D13 and is 5.273 mm. Id. As shown below, Example 5 with the cover glass
`
`member anticipates claims 1, 4, 9-15, 17, 20, and 25-29 of the ’897 Patent. A claim
`
`chart corresponding to the analysis below is contained in Dr. Sasián’s expert
`
`declaration. See APPL-1003, pp.27-55.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
` [1.0] A lens assembly, comprising a plurality of lens elements arranged along an
`optical axis and spaced apart by respective spaces,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Ogino discloses this limitation because it teaches “an imaging lens
`
`substantially consisting of, in order from an object side, five lenses.” APPL-1005,
`
`2:1-3. A POSITA would have considered an imaging lens consisting of five lenses
`
`to be a “lens assembly.” APPL-1003, p.27. Ogino’s Example 5 lens assembly from
`
`Fig. 5 is reproduced below:
`
`Plurality of Refractive Lens Elements L1-L5
`
`Optical Axis Z1
`
`
`
`APPL-1005, Fig.5 (annotated). As can be observed from Example 5, lens elements
`
`L1-L5 are spaced apart “on an optical axis Z1.” Id., 5:13-15.
`
`Thus, Ogino’s Example 5 teaches this limitation. APPL-1003, p.28.
`
`[1.1] wherein the lens assembly has an effective focal length (EFL),
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`As discussed above, the term “effective focal length (EFL)” is construed to
`
`mean “the focal length of a lens assembly.” In that regard, Ogino states “f is a focal
`
`length of a whole system” (APPL-1005, 3:16) and the focal length f of the
`
`Example 5 lens assembly is represented in Table 9 as f = 5.956 mm (see id., 14:47-
`
`53 (units in mm)):
`
`Effective Focal Length (EFL)
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.29; APPL-1005, Table 9 (annotated).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Thus, Ogino’s Example 5 lens assembly with an EFL of 5.956 mm teaches
`
`this limitation. APPL-1003, p.29.
`
`[1.2] a total track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less
`
`Ogino discloses this limitation because Example 5 has a total track length
`
`(TTL) including the cover glass of 5.273 mm which is less than 6.5 mm. Id. As
`
`discussed above, the term “total track length (TTL)”is construed to mean “the
`
`length of the optical axis spacing between the object-side surface of the first lens
`
`element and one of: an electronic sensor, a film sensor, and an image plane
`
`corresponding to either the electronic sensor or a film sensor.” As shown below in
`
`Fig. 5, a POSITA would have identified the total track length of Example 5 to be
`
`the distance between the object-side surface of the first lens L1 and the image
`
`plane 100 (R14). APPL-1003, p.30.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`
`
`
`Object-side
`
`Total Track Length (TTL)
`
`Image plane
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.30; APPL-1005, Fig. 5 (annotated).
`
`Using the lens data for Example 5 from Table 9, the TTL with the cover
`
`glass element can be calculated by summing the widths above labeled D1 to D13:
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`
`
`Widths of L1 to L13
`
`TTL = (sum of D1 to D13)
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, pp.30-31; APPL-1005, Table 9 (annotated). The sum of the distances
`
`D1 to D13 is thus 5.273 mm. APPL-1003, p.31; id., Appendix, Fig. 1A.
`
`Thus, Ogino’s Example 5 with a TTL of 5.273 mm this limitation. APPL-
`
`1003, pp.31-32.
`
`[1.3] and a ratio TTL/EFL<1.0,
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Ogino discloses this limitation because, as established above in [1.1] and
`
`[1.2], the total track length of Example 5 is less than its effective focal length. Id.,
`
`p.32. Specifically, as established in [1.1], the EFL of Example 5 is 5.956 mm. See
`
`APPL-1005, Table 9. As established in [1.2], the TTL of Example 5 with the cover
`
`glass element is 5.273 mm. See APPL-1003, p.32; APPL-1005, Table 9 (summing
`
`D1-D13). Accordingly, the ratio of TTL/EFL for Example 5 is:
`
`5.273 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
`5.956 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚=0.8853<1.0
`
`See APPL-1003, p.32. Thus, Ogino’s Example 5 with a TTL/EFL ratio of 0.8853
`
`teaches this limitation. Id., p.32.
`
`[1.4] wherein the plurality of lens elements includes, in order from an object side
`to an image side, a first group comprising lens elements L1_1, L1_2 and L1_3 with
`respective focal lengths f1_1, f1_2 and f1_3 and a second group comprising lens
`elements L2_1 and L2_2,
`
`Ogino discloses this limitation because the Example 5 lens assembly
`
`includes a first lens group with three lens elements L1-L3 in order (i.e., L1_1, L1_2,
`
`and L1_3) and a second lens group with two lens elements L4-L5 in order (i.e., L2_1
`
`and L2_2) as shown in Fig. 5:
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`Object Side
`
`Image Side
`
`First Group
`
`Second Group
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.33; APPL-1005, Fig. 5 (annotated).
`
`Each lens element L1_1, L1_2, and L1_3 in Example 5 has a respective focal
`
`length that can be calculated using the focal length of the whole system and the
`
`data provided in Table 13 for Example 5, which shows f/f1=2.88, f/f2=-1.88, and
`
`f/f3=-0.86:
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`f/f1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, pp.33-34; APPL-1005, Table 13 (annotated).
`
`Using this information, the focal lengths for L1_1, L1_2, and L1_3 can be
`
`f/f2
`
`f/f3
`
`
`
`calculated as follows:
`
`2.88=𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓1 →𝑓𝑓1= 𝑓𝑓2.88=5.956 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2.88
`
`=𝟐𝟐.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
`
`−1.88=𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓2→𝑓𝑓2= 𝑓𝑓−1.88=5.956 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚−1.88 =−𝟑𝟑.𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
`−0.86=𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓3→𝑓𝑓3= 𝑓𝑓−0.86=5.956 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
`−0.86 =−𝟎𝟎.𝟗𝟗𝟐𝟐𝟎𝟎 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
`
`APPL-1003, p.34.
`
`Thus, Ogino’s Example 5 that includes lenses L1-L3, each with respective
`
`focal lengths, in a first group and lenses L4-L5 in a second group teaches this
`
`limitation. Id.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`[1.5] wherein the first and second groups of lens elements are separated by a gap
`that is larger than twice any other gap between lens elements,
`
`Ogino discloses this limitation because the Example 5 lens assembly
`
`includes a gap D7 between the first group (L1-L3) and the second group (L4-L5)
`
`that is twice larger than any other gap between lens elements. APPL-1003, pp.34-
`
`35. As established in [1.3], the Example 5 lens assembly has first and second
`
`groups of lenses separated by a gap labeled D7:
`
`Object Side
`
`Gap D7
`
`Image Side
`
`First Group
`
`Second Group
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.35; APPL-1005, Fig. 5 (annotated).
`
`The gap between the other lens elements are identified as D2+D3 (between
`
`L1 and L2), D5 (between L2 and L3), and D9 (between L4 and L5). The widths of
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`each gap D2+D3 (with the aperture stop in the middle, which is not a lens
`
`element), D5, D7, and D9 are provided in Table 9:
`
`D2+D3
`
`D5
`
`D7
`
`D9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.36; APPL-1005, Table 9 (annotated). Based on this data, the
`
`following calculations show that D7 is twice larger than the other gaps between
`
`lens elements: 𝐷𝐷7>2×(𝐷𝐷2+𝐷𝐷3)→𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎>𝟎𝟎.𝟏𝟏𝟗𝟗𝟎𝟎 (2×0.099)
`𝐷𝐷7>2×𝐷𝐷5→𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎>𝟎𝟎.𝟒𝟒𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 (2×0.243)
`
`23
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897
`
`𝐷𝐷7>2×𝐷𝐷9→𝟎𝟎.𝟓𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎>𝟎𝟎.𝟐𝟐𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎 (2×0.100)
`
`APPL-1003, p.36.
`
`Thus, since Ogino’s Example 5 has a gap D7 between the first and second
`
`lens groups that is twice larger than gaps D2+D3, D5, and D9, Example 5 teaches
`
`this limitation. Id., pp.36-37.
`
`[1.6] wherein lens element L1_1 has positive