Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: December 6, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, September 8, 2021
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 32
`Entered: December 6, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: Wednesday, September 8, 2021
`____________
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`MICHAEL PARSONS, ESQUIRE
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`6000 Headquarters Drive
`Suite 200
`Plano, TX 75024
`(972) 739-6900
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`MARC FENSTER, ESQUIRE
`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 10:01 a.m. EST, by video/by
`telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Good morning. We are here today
`for oral arguments in Inter Partes Review Matter number 2020-
`00896, a case in which Apple is the petitioner and
`Corephotonics is the patent owner. At issue is U.S. Patent
`number 10,317,647. Your panel for the hearing today includes
`Judges Moore, Dougal, and Ullagaddi. I would like to start by
`getting the appearances of counsel. Who do we have on behalf
`of petitioner?
` MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Your Honors. This is
`Michael Parsons with Haynes & Boone representing petitioner
`Apple.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you. And who do we have on
`behalf of patent owner?
` MR. FENSTER: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`Marc Fenster with Russ August & Kabat on behalf of patent
`owner. I have additional counsel with me on the line: Neil
`Rubin, Jonathan Link, and James Tsuei.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Thank you. As you are aware,
`this hearing is being held remotely through video conference.
`Our primary concern is everyone's right to be heard. If at
`any time during the hearing you do encounter technical or
`other difficulties that you feel may undermine your ability
`to adequately represent your client please let us know
`immediately by contacting the team member who provided you
`with the connection information. We will try to address any
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`issues that may arise and, if necessary, we can also adjust
`your time to account for any technical issues.
` The judges have the parties' demonstratives.
`Please remember when referring to the demonstrative to
`identify what slide number you're on so that we can all
`follow along and make sure that the record is clear. And
`also for the record, please identify yourselves when speaking
`and mute yourselves when not speaking. Also, I would like to
`remind everyone that recording of this proceeding either by
`audio or video is prohibited.
` As set forth in our oral hearing order, each party
`will have 60 minutes to argue. Petitioner, who bears the
`burden to show unpatentability of the challenged claims by a
`preponderance of the evidence, will begin by presenting its
`case-in-chief. Patent owner will then respond to
`petitioner's arguments, and thereafter petitioner may use any
`time that it has reserved for rebuttal to respond to patent
`owner's argument. Petitioner's rebuttal may not be more than
`half of the allotted time. Thereafter, patent owner may use
`any time that it has reserved for surrebuttal to respond to
`petitioner's rebuttal.
` Mr. Parsons, would you like to reserve any time for
`rebuttal today?
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor. I would like to
`reserve 20 minutes. Also, we would like to request a
`consolidated oral hearing transcript between the three
`hearings that we're having today given the overlap of the
`4
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`issues and the slight change between the panels. We believe
`that each panel would be best served by hearing the arguments
`entered for each case with regard to the issues that overlap
`between each of these cases.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Your request is noted. The panel
`will talk about that and see if we can accommodate that
`request. I know there might be some confidential information
`discussed in one of the cases so we'll have to figure out how
`we can handle that.
` MR. FENSTER: Yes, Your Honor. Excuse me, Your
`Honor. This is Marc Fenster. I do want to respond to the
`consolidated transcript request. Patent owner would object
`to that in the following sense. Apple, the petitioner, has
`introduced some evidence in some hearings and not in others
`and we think it's improper for arguments to be made that
`weren't made properly in the petition or the reply to then
`pull in evidence that was made in the later other IPR
`hearing. So because of that, notwithstanding the
`convenience, we think it's unfair to do so.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Patent owner's objection is noted
`and the panel will consider both sides' requests and rule on
`that in due course.
` Mr. Parsons, you will have 40 minutes for your
`primary case and when you are ready you may present your
`remarks.
` MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Your Honor. Again, I'm
`Michael Parsons of Haynes & Boone representing petitioner
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`Apple. The subject of this IPR is in regards to the
`unpatentability of the 647 patent. The 647 patent recites
`that major telephoto lens assembly with five lens elements.
` Now flipping to slide 2 in our demonstratives, we
`challenge each and every claim of the 647 patent in our
`petition in six grounds. Now patent owner does not dispute
`that ground 1 -- that in ground 1 the Iwasaki reference does
`in fact render claims 1 through 3 and 5 obvious so we will
`not be discussing that today.
` Now instead we'll be discussing grounds 2 through 6
`and in each of these grounds we present the same primary
`types of arguments. Each of these grounds presents a major
`telephoto lens assembly having five lens elements from the
`prior art either Ogino's Example 5, Hsieh's Example 1, or
`Chen's Example 1, and the petition shows how a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have applied beneficial
`teachings from the prior art to these designs in such a way
`that a POSITA would have using lens design software as what a
`POSITA would have used, and using the lens design process
`spelled out in Fisher in Exhibit 1017 which recited for every
`single one of the combination arguments in our petition.
` And the petition also shows that when Dr. Sasián
`made these modifications based on what a POSITA would have
`done it shows it produced lens design examples that meet each
`and every limitation of the challenged claim. Now there's no
`dispute here that Dr. Sasián's example that he derived based
`on the teachings in the prior art teach each and every
`6
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`element of the challenged claims.
` Now patent owner raises a number of arguments here
`not related to these specific limitations but related to
`other aspects of the petition and Dr. Sasián's arguments, but
`these fail for at least one of three reasons. They either
`misapply the law, misapply the facts, or mischaracterize Dr.
`Sasián's testimony.
` Now moving on to slide 3, we feel like the best way
`to start here is to focus in on what the law requires. In
`order to show obviousness we're required to show in the
`petition that there was a motivation to combine the teachings
`of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention
`and that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success in doing so. And that's what the case
`law says according to Federal Circuit that's cited in this
`slide.
` Now moving on to slide 4, the reason to
`combine -- the motivation to combine part of this test is
`important here because what the Federal Circuit has defined
`this as is the question is to determine whether there is an
`apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion
`claimed by the patent at issue.
` Patent owner has raised a number of arguments
`throughout their papers, first arguing that it was Apple's
`responsibility to show why a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would have selected a particular embodiment for
`modification in the first place or that it was incumbent upon
`7
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`us to show that a POSITA -- to show why a POSITA would have
`ended up with one of Dr. Sasián's examples that we presented
`in the petition. And neither of these are required by the
`law. All the law requires is that we provide a reason to
`combine the prior elements in a way fashioned in the claims
`and that's what the petition shows.
` Now moving on to slide 5. When it comes to the
`reasonable expectation of success prong of this test, what
`the Federal Circuit explains is that it says the case law is
`clear that obviousness cannot be avoided simply by a showing
`of some degree of unpredictability in the art so long as
`there is a reasonable probability of success. So the test
`for a reasonable expectation of success is a reasonable
`probability and the patent owner cannot rely on the
`unpredictability of the art in order to avoid obviousness.
` Now patent owner has made a number of arguments
`throughout their surreply and throughout their response that
`a POSITA would have performed other modifications that would
`have achieved a different result or would have provided the
`same benefit by doing something else. Now all of these
`arguments fail because these are irrelevant to the question
`at hand. The question at hand is what did the petition
`present and would a POSITA have modified the examples
`presented in the petition in a way described in the petition?
`Other things a POSITA would have done are frankly irrelevant
`to this inquiry.
` Now flipping to slide 6. There's one thing that we
`8
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`would like to address before we get into patent owner's
`substantive arguments. One argument that they make
`throughout their papers is that Dr. Milster's lens design
`process, which is patent owner's expert, that he stated that
`a POSITA would have preferred to vary lots of variables in
`the lens design software program to achieve one result and
`Dr. Sasián's opinion relies on changing a few of these
`parameters which arrived at a different result.
` Now, Dr. Milster's opinion is not based on any fact
`from the record and ignores the teachings in the prior art
`that we cited in the petition and the Fisher reference which
`describes the lens design process that a POSITA would have
`followed. Now on page 172 of Exhibit 1017, this is the
`portion that we cited to in the petition. It shows a chart
`outlining each step in the lens design process that Dr.
`Sasián followed and that Dr. Sasián testified that a POSITA
`would have followed.
` Step number 3 is to establish variables and
`constraints. Now if you go on page 173 and you look at the
`description of step 3 it specifically says that it is
`important to note that it is not imperative nor is it
`advisable to vary each -- to vary every conceivable variable
`in a lens especially early in the design phase. So to the
`extent that Dr. Milster relies on an idea that a POSITA would
`want to vary lots of variables in a lens design software for
`the lens design software to find the best result for a given
`modification, that's incorrect and it's not supported by the
`9
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`evidence.
` What is is what we presented in the petition and
`what Dr. Sasián did. In each of Dr. Sasián's designs where
`he applied the prior art teachings to the prior art lens
`designs, he did exactly what Fisher says. He varied a few of
`the parameters in the beginning in order to see if it would
`work and then as the need arose he would have varied more
`variables in order to find a better result which is a process
`that Fisher lays out and that was relied on in the petition.
` Now moving to slide 7. The next topic that we
`would like to discuss today is arguments that patent owner
`made in their surreply where they allege that Dr. Sasián
`improperly relies on the challenged claims and uses that as a
`roadmap for each of his examples, and this is not the case.
`Patent owner mischaracterizes Dr. Sasián's testimony and
`accuses him falsely of doing something wrong.
` On slide 8, the portion of Dr. Sasián's deposition
`that we point to proves our point. In this portion of his
`deposition Dr. Sasián explained how he arrived at one of the
`particular lens designs of the subject of this IPR and in
`that testimony he says that he applied the teachings of the
`prior art to the example design -- to the design in the prior
`art and he arrived at three different examples and one of
`those examples met the challenged claims.
` If Dr. Sasián was going to apply the claims at
`issue as a roadmap he wouldn't have derived three different
`examples. He would have derived one that met the claims. So
`10
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`Dr. Sasián's process right here shows exactly our point that
`he did not use the claims as a roadmap. What he did is he
`applied the prior art as opposed to using what he had done
`and he arrived at one or more examples and the ones that met
`the challenged claims are the ones that we've presented in
`the petition here.
` Now to further prove our point and to further
`prove -- show that patent owner mischaracterizes Dr. Sasián's
`testimony, on slide 9 this includes a portion of Dr. Sasián's
`declaration from the 897 IPR which is the case that we'll be
`discussing next. Patent owner specifically cites that this
`paragraph of the 897 IPR so to the extent that they want to
`argue that it's improper to import portions from one case to
`another, they're doing that themselves right here.
` Now in paragraph 5 of Dr. Sasián's declaration in
`that case patent owner cites to the very last line where it
`says that a POSITA would have first made many changes to a
`lens to maintain the lens within the scope of a patent.
`Patent owner is trying to mischaracterize this statement as
`saying that Dr. Sasián relied on the patent at issue and
`that's not the case. If you look at the top portion of this
`paragraph, which patent owner completely leaves out of their
`slides, it shows that Dr. Sasián is actually talking about
`Ogino Example 4 and Ogino is a patent.
` And so what Dr. Sasián says is that a person of
`skill in the art would have looked to first modify Ogino
`based on the teachings in Ogino and to maintain the example 4
`11
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`with the indications that Ogino provides before varying
`parameters that go outside the scope of Ogino, which again
`isn't the patent that Dr. Sasián was talking about in this
`particular portion of the paragraph.
` So to the extent that Dr. -- to the extent that the
`patent owner wants to argue about the process that Dr. Sasián
`followed or whether -- or how many parameters Dr. Sasián
`allowed to vary or whether -- or anything that
`mischaracterizes Dr. Sasián's testimony as using the patent
`as a roadmap, all of those arguments are incorrect and it
`mischaracterizes Dr. Sasián's testimony or they ignore the
`evidence of record that Dr. Sasián relied on.
` Now moving to slide 10. The next topic that we'd
`like to discuss is ground 2 of our petition which is where we
`provided an explanation of how a POSITA would modify Ogino's
`Example 5 based on the teachings of Chen II to make the
`second lens have a meniscus shape. Now the second lens of
`Ogino Example 5 has a shape that has a concave surface on the
`object side and all we're doing is changing it to a convex
`surface on the object side of the second lens.
` Now flipping to slide 11. To answer patent owner's
`question about why a POSITA would select example 5 which is
`not relevant, the reason is because example 5, as shown on
`slide 11, has the lowest telephoto ratio which is defined by
`TTL over EFL. To the extent that patent owner wants to argue
`that a POSITA would have looked to Ogino's other embodiments,
`they wouldn't have because the subject at issue here today is
`12
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`a telephoto lens, not a non-telephoto lens. And since Ogino
`only provides two telephoto examples, those are the only two
`embodiments that a POSITA would have looked to modify to
`achieve its result.
` Now as stated in the 647 patent, it was desirable
`at this time to have a lens -- to have a major lens with a
`small TTL over EFL ratio. Well, Ogino provides that. In
`fact, example 5 has the lowest telephoto ratio of all of
`these designs.
` Now moving to slide 12. What we showed in the
`petition is how a POSITA would have been able to use lens
`design software and the lens design technique described in
`Fisher to modify the second lens to have a meniscus shape.
`Now this is the exact same argument that we made in IPR 2018-
`1140 where we proposed combining Ogino's Example 6 embodiment
`with Chen II for the exact same reasons. All of
`Ogino's -- all of the second lenses in Ogino's examples have
`the same shape and so the board has already decided with
`regards to that second lens shape that it would have been
`obvious to modify that based on the teachings of Chen II in
`order to make it meniscus like Chen II is.
` Now moving to slide 13. On this issue the board
`has already said that we are persuaded that the person having
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
`Ogino to include a second lens element constituting a
`meniscus lens having a convex object sight surface in order
`to increase the number of light rays that make it through the
`13
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`lens assembly to the image plane, and to mitigate ray
`aberration. Now what the board found in the 1140 IPR is
`exactly the same thing that we've relied on here. The reason
`that a POSITA would have looked to modify Ogino's Example 5
`second lens to be meniscus is to reduce vignetting and to
`reduce ray aberration. And so the reasons to combine that
`the board has already determined on this apply here equally
`the same.
` Now moving on to slide 14. The board also stated
`in that opinion that the person of ordinary skill would have
`understood that the undesirable vignetting of Ogino would be
`mitigated by modifying the shape of the second lens and would
`have been motivated to change the shape of the second lens to
`a meniscus shape as taught by Chen II. Again, we're applying
`the exact same combination to example 5 as we did in example
`6.
` Finally, on slide 15 the board further said in the
`highlighted portion here that we are persuaded by
`petitioner's reply that the skilled artisan would have had
`the requisite knowledge to improve Ogino in view of the
`teachings of Chen II. So Your Honor, the board has already
`decided this issue. There's no reason to delve into patent
`owner's arguments because they've already argued this issue
`with regards to Ogino's other example that has the same shape
`of the lens.
` Now to the extent that we will address patent
`owner's arguments anyway, flipping to slide 16, one of the
`14
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`arguments that patent owner has made is that vignetting can
`be reduced in Ogino's Example 5 on the second lens by just
`changing the aspherics. But other things that a POSITA would
`have done are irrelevant to this inquiry.
` What Dr. Sasián showed in response to that argument
`in his reply is that by just changing the sign of the lens
`which changed it from being biconcave to meniscus it reduces
`vignetting, and while it's a very small -- while it's a very
`small -- while it's a very small amount given the difference
`in the number in here, it still proves our point that
`changing the shape to be meniscus does in fact produce the
`result of reducing vignetting at the second lens.
` Now one of the side effects of reducing vignetting
`is that it improves overall -- it improves relative
`illumination and that's what we show in slide 17. And again,
`this is the same thing that we argued in the 1140 IPR. So
`there's no dispute here, and the board has already decided
`this issue, and there's no reason for the board to decide
`this differently with regards to this case as they previously
`had in the other case.
` Now moving on to slide 18. The next thing that
`we'd like to discuss is ground 3 which actually includes two
`embodiments and so we'll discuss those separately even though
`we present them together in the petition.
` Now moving on to slide 19. The first thing that we
`presented -- I'm sorry. The first modification that we
`presented is Ogino's Example 5 with a meniscus lens according
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`to Chen II and then lowering example 5 to having that number
`of 2.8. In the second modification what we did is we then
`apply the teachings of Ogino to that embodiment and increase
`the gap between the third and fourth lens elements based on
`the teachings of Ogino.
` Now flipping to slide 20. What we showed in the
`petition about lowering the F number in example 5 to 2.8 is
`we showed that a POSITA following the lens design process as
`laid out in Fisher would have been able to use lens design
`software to apply the meniscus shape of the second lens from
`Chen II and then to apply a lower F number taught in Bareau
`of 2.8 and then a POSITA would have been able to make those
`modifications using lens design software and the lens design
`process laid out in Fisher and would have arrived at a result
`that has the performance and meets both of these limitations.
` Now moving to slide 21. The reason that a person
`of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
`lower the F number is based on the teachings of Bareau. And
`now what Bareau is is it's a -- it describes typical cell
`phone specifications that were in the art in about 2006. Now
`while this describes a number of typical specifications for a
`cell phone, Ogino describes these as merely being typical.
`None of these are required especially if one doesn’t depend
`on the other. For example, an F number is a good example of
`this. F number is simply the ratio of the focal length
`divided by the opening of the entrance diameter that allows
`light to pass through the lens.
`
`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
`27
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
` So to the extent that patent owner wants to argue
`that a POSITA would have been required to implement other
`aspects of Ogino's typical specifications, that's not the
`case. A POSITA looking to just increase the brightness of a
`lens to support an F number of 2.8 would have been able to do
`so without learning about the other parameters that are
`listed in the typical specification.
` Now moving to slide 22. To the extent that there's
`any doubt about this, the Kingslake reference, which we also
`cited in this ground, talks about the need to have extremely
`high relative apertures on lens which means apertures that
`are open more than -- that are open fairly wide and that the
`need exists -- that that will provide brighter, faster
`lenses.
` Now a brighter lens (indiscernible) determines the
`amount of light that passes through the system. It's the
`lower the F number the wider the aperture is so more light
`will pass through the system. A brighter lens will have more
`light that passes through the lens design and hits the image
`sensor and which also makes it faster. What they mean by
`faster is that it requires a lower exposure time to get more
`light into the sensor.
` Now moving to slide 23. The second embodiment that
`we -- the second modification that we describe in this ground
`applies the teachings of Ogino itself to example 5 and we
`rely on conditional expression 10 which teaches that the D7
`gap, which is the space between the third and fourth lens
`17
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`elements, can exist within a range.
` Now when Dr. Sasián put this example -- calculated
`this ratio in relation to original example 5 he found that
`the range -- that the D7 gap was at the lower end of this
`range. When he applied various values to the D7 gap he found
`that there were different performances that would happen
`because of it. And when he extended the gap to be on the
`larger end of this range he discovered that it does in fact
`produce the benefits that Ogino describes here where it
`appropriately suppresses distortion which tends to occur when
`it's whole length is reduced and that it satisfactorily
`corrected for astigmatism. So in the second modification all
`we're doing is applying the teachings of Ogino to itself to
`increase the spacing between the third and fourth lens
`elements because Ogino says to do so.
` Now in slide 24 we showed in the petition that a
`POSITA implementing this modification to Ogino's Example 5
`having a second meniscus lens based on Chen II and a lower F
`number of 2.8 would have been able to extend the D7 gap using
`lens design software and the process design in Fisher and
`would have arrived at this embodiment if they would have done
`so. This embodiment meets all the limitations of these
`challenged claims.
` Now moving to slide 25. One of the benefits also
`of increasing the D7 gap is that relative illumination
`increases ever so slightly. So again that's another benefit
`why a POSITA would have looked to make this modification.
`18
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
` Now moving on to slide 26. The fourth ground that
`we discussed in our petition was a further modification of
`Ogino's example with a second meniscus lens and the F number
`at 2.8 and we showed that it would have been -- that a POSITA
`would have been motivated to lower the F number of that
`particular design down to 2.45 which is the lowest F number
`provided by Ogino's examples.
` Now if you flip to slide 27. We relied on two
`things here for this motivation. We relied on Kingslake to
`explain that there was a need in the art for brighter, faster
`lenses. So a POSITA would have been motivated to lower the F
`number of a lens in order to have a brighter, faster lens.
`And example 3, as you can see here on the chart on slide 27,
`it shows that the lowest F number of Ogino's examples is an F
`number of 2.45 and what we argued here is that a POSITA would
`have been motivated to try to lower the F number to the
`lowest that Ogino provides. Now Ogino --
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Counsel, can I pause you for a
`second and ask a question here? If you lower the F number to
`2.45, am I understanding petitioner's position correctly that
`nothing else needs to be changed?
` MR. PARSONS: Yes, Your Honor. If you flip to
`slide 28, the way that Dr. Sasián was able to implement this
`design is by opening the aperture on the back side of the
`lens and minimal changes are needed for this in order to
`support this modification. In fact, all Dr. Sasián had to
`really do was to just optimize the lens to reduce aberrations
`19
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`which was a matter of varying some of the aspherical
`parameters in order to achieve this. So minimal changes are
`needed to lower this F number from 2.8 to 2.45.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay. So I think I heard vary
`the aspheric parameters and open the aperture. Is that
`correct?
` MR. PARSONS: Opening -- yes. Opening the aperture
`is something that needs to be done in order to support a
`higher F number because the F number is defined by the size
`of the aperture. Larger apertures need lower F numbers.
` JUDGE ULLAGADDI: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. PARSONS: Okay. Thank you.
` Now moving on to slide 29. One of the arguments
`that patent owner makes about this particular modification of
`lowering the F number of 2.45 is that the relative
`illumination when the F number is at 2.45 drops below 50
`percent, patent owner argues that this goes against the
`teachings of Bareau.
` Now what patent owner doesn't under -- doesn't seem
`to understand about this situation is that illumination is
`different than relative illumination. Illumination is
`defined by the F number which controls the amount of light
`that goes through the lens. Relative illumination describes
`how that light falls across the field of view. So if you
`were to open the aperture to have a lower F number and more
`light was coming into the system, the relative illumination
`may change but that's not the same thing as the relative
`20
`
`
`
`
`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
`27
`
`IPR2020-00896
`Patent 10,317,647 B2
`illumination that would be at a lower F number.
` The best way to explain this is that if we're in a
`room and we have a window of a certain size, there would be a
`certain amount of light that comes through the window. Now
`if I'm standing in the middle of the room, I will receive 100
`percent of the light but somebody in the corner might receive
`less light. The difference between the light that I have and
`the light that the person has in the corner is what relative
`illumination describes. It's 100 percent on me and it may be
`50 percent on them if this window is a size equivalent to a
`2.8 as discussed in -- as discussed in the previous
`combination.
` Now if we were to open that window to be larger to
`say, for example, to a 2.45 as what's in this embodiment then
`more light would come into the room and I would be receiving
`100 percent of that light and the person in the corner would
`likely -- would also be receiving more light, would be more
`illuminated, but the amount -- but the percentage of light
`that I receive versus what they receive may be slightly
`different.
` Now patent owner relies on this to try to say that
`a POSITA wouldn't have lowered the F number because the
`relative illumination dropped below 50 percent, but that's
`incorrect and we can show this. If we look at example - if
`we look at Exhibit 2006
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
