`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`———————
`
`IPR2020-00896
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 10,317,647
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`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 ’647 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of the Patent ......................................................................... 3
`
`Priority Date of the ’647 Patent............................................................ 5
`
`Prosecution History .............................................................................. 6
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 7
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 8
`
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED AND THE REASONS FOR THE
`REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................................... 9
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ...... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................... 9
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge.......................................................... 9
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 5 are obvious over Iwasaki. ..................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Iwasaki ................................................................ 12
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 14
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 21
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 21
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 22
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over the combination of
`Ogino and Chen II. ............................................................................. 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Summary of Ogino ................................................................... 23
`
`Summary of Chen II ................................................................. 24
`
`Reasons to Combine Ogino and Chen II ................................. 26
`
`Claim 1 ..................................................................................... 36
`
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 45
`
`E.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 2, 3, 5, and 8-11 are rendered obvious over the
`combination of Ogino, Chen II, and Bareau. ..................................... 46
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Summary of Bareau ................................................................. 46
`
`Reasons to combine Ogino and Bareau ................................... 47
`
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 52
`
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 53
`
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim 8 ..................................................................................... 54
`
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 62
`
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 63
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 63
`
`F.
`
`Ground 4: Claim 6 is obvious over the combination of Ogino,
`Chen II, Bareau, and Kingslake ......................................................... 64
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of Kingslake ............................................................ 64
`
`Reasons to combine Ogino, Chen II, Bareau, and
`Kingslake ................................................................................. 64
`
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 69
`
`G. Grounds 5 and 6: ................................................................................ 71
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Summary of Hsieh ................................................................... 71
`
`Summary of Chen .................................................................... 72
`
`Summary of Iwasaki ................................................................ 74
`
`Reasons to combine Chen and Iwasaki .................................... 75
`
`Summary of Beich ................................................................... 76
`
`Reasons to combine either Hsieh or Chen with Beich ............ 78
`
`Ground 5: Claim 7 is obvious over the combination of
`Hsieh and Beich. ...................................................................... 81
`
`Ground 6: Claim 12 is obvious over the combination of
`Chen, Iwasaki, and of Beich. ................................................... 90
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................97
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................98
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................99
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`May 5, 2020
`
`APPL-1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`APPL-1002 Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`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. 8,233,224 to Chen (“Chen II”)
`
`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)
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`(“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 U.S. Patent No. 9,864,171 to Hsieh et al.
`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
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647 (“the ’647 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 1-12 of the ’647 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 ’647 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. 10,317,647
`
`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 ’647 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 ’647 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, 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. 10,317,647
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’647 PATENT
`Summary of the Patent
`A.
`
`The ’647 Patent is directed to “[a]n optical lens assembly [that] includes five
`
`lens elements and provides a TTL/EFL<1.0” and is allegedly the answer to the
`
`need for good quality imaging and a small total track length. See APPL-1001,
`
`Abstract, 1:38-50. 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. An example of the claimed lens system is provided below:
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 1A.
`
`For each embodiment, the ’647 Patent includes optical data for each lens
`
`element, such as radius of curvature (“R”) and aspheric coefficients that describe
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`the surface of each aspheric lens element. See id., Tables 1-6. The ’647 Patent also
`
`includes the so-called surface “sag” equation, the standardized equation used for
`
`mathematically representing the surfaces of aspheric lens elements using
`
`prescription data and aspheric coefficients:
`
`
`
`Id., 3:49-4:13.
`
`As discussed below, none of the claimed characteristics were new. Prior to
`
`July 4, 2013, five element lens assemblies for mobile phones were well known,
`
`including telephoto lenses. See, e.g., APPL-1006, pp.169-82; APPL-1009; APPL-
`
`1020. For example, Iwasaki (APPL-1009), Ogino (APPL-1005), Hsieh (APPL-
`
`1025), and Chen (APPL-1020) teach prior art similar multi-lens system with a TTL
`
`to EFL ratio of less than one. APPL-1003, ¶32. A POSITA also would have
`
`understood that Ogino renders the ’647 Patent obvious because it discloses similar
`
`telephoto assemblies that satisfy the relationships of f1<TTL/2, and
`
`1.2×|f3|>|f2|>1.5×f1. Id. While the ’647 Patent emphasize the “features” of a
`
`“relatively large distance between” L3 and L4 and the “combined design” of L4
`
`and L5 having “different dispersions” and respective positive and negative powers
`
`that “help in minimizing chromatic aberration” (see APPL-1001, 2:51-57), these
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`“features” were already known and used in existing systems for obtaining sharp
`
`images. APPL-1003, ¶32.
`
`Specifically, Ogino discloses these features in its examples, including L4
`
`and L5 combined (and similarly separated by small gap) having opposite refractive
`
`powers, and specifically emphasizes the importance of a large gap between L3 and
`
`L4. See APPL-1005, Table 7, Table 9, 3:16, 12:45-63. Based on these teaching
`
`from Ogino, a POSITA would have understood that the ’647 Patent is not novelty
`
`and would have been within the knowledge and skill of a POSITA implementing
`
`and experimenting with Ogino’s disclosures, as provided in the analysis and
`
`modeling below. APPL-1003, ¶33. Any difference that Patent Owner may argue in
`
`the sign difference and Abbe number between L4 and L5 in Ogino, POSITAs have
`
`been long aware of these various ways of implementing this aspect of telephoto
`
`lenses. Id.; see APPL-1006, pp.170-82.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date of the ’647 Patent
`
`The ’647 Patent is a continuation of a string of applications claiming priority
`
`to Provisional Application No. 61/842,987 filed on July 4, 2013. See APPL-1001.
`
`The subject matter of claims 7 and 12, 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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`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, ¶35. 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 7 and 12 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
`
`unsupported due to a lack of written description needed to show that the applicant
`
`was in possession of the invention).
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The ’647 Patent issued on June 11, 2019 from U.S Patent Application No.
`
`15/996,422 (“the ’422 application”) filed on May 10, 2018. See APPL-1001. The
`
`’422 application was filed with the 12 claims issued in the ’647 Patent with two
`
`amendments to the independent claims entered on August 3, 2018—“a second lens
`
`element … having a meniscus shape with convex object-side surface” and
`
`“wherein a lens system that includes the lens assembly plus a window positioned
`
`between the fifth lens element and an image plane has a total track length (TTL) of
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`6.5 millimeters or less ….” APPL-1002, pp.255-56. The sole Office Action issued
`
`on October 18, 2018 where the Examiner entered a non-statutory double patenting
`
`rejection. Id., p.83. This was overcome by a terminal disclaimer filed on October
`
`27, 2018. Id., p.80. The ’422 application was allowed on February 27, 2019. See
`
`id., pp.28-29. 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
`
`’647 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
`
`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.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The challenged claims of the ’647 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:
`
`• 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.”
`
`
`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 ’647 Patent and are currently appealed on
`
`other grounds.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`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 1-12 of the ’647 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 ’647 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 ’647 Patent.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`
`A. Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 1-12 of the ’647 Patent are challenged in this petition.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge
`
`Ground
`1
`
`Claims
`1-3, 5
`
`Reason
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iwasaki
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`1, 4
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
`Ogino and Chen II
`2, 3, 5, 8-11 Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
`Ogino, Chen II, and Bareau
`
`6
`
`7
`
`12
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
`Ogino, Chen II, Bareau, and Kingslake
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
`Hsieh and Beich
`
`Obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
`Chen, Iwasaki, and Beich
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,678,310 to Iwasaki et al. (APPL-1009, “Iwasaki”) was
`
`filed on September 17, 2015 and claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2013-
`
`061647 filed on March 25, 2013. Iwasaki’s file history (APPL-1026) shows that its
`
`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 is prior art under §102(a)(2) as of its Japanese filing date.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino (APPL-1005, “Ogino”) was filed on
`
`March 26, 2014 and claims priority to Japanese Application No. 2013-072282 filed
`
`on March 29, 2013. Ogino’s file history (APPL-1011) shows that its 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 is prior art under §102(a)(2) as of its Japanese filing date.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,233,224 to Chen (APPL-1008, “Chen II”) issued on July
`
`31, 2012 and is prior art under §102(a)(1).
`
`Jane Bareau et al., “The optics of miniature digital camera modules” (2006)
`
`(APPL-1012, “Bareau”) was both presented publicly and published in 2006 (see
`
`APPL-1003, ¶70) and is prior art under §102(a)(1).
`
`Rudolf Kingslake, OPTICS IN PHOTOGRAPHY (1992) (“Kingslake”) published
`
`in 1992 and is prior art under §102(a)(1).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,864,171 to Hsieh et al. (APPL-1025, “Hsieh”) was filed on
`
`August 25, 2015 and is prior art to claim 7 under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,324,273 to Chen et. al (APPL-1020, “Chen”) was filed
`
`on October 16, 2016 and is prior art to claims 12 under at least §102(a)(2).
`
`William S. Beich et al., “Polymer Optics: A manufacturer’s perspective on
`
`the factors that contribute to successful programs” (APPL-1007, “Beich”)
`
`published in 2010 and is prior art under §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 its availability as prior art was
`
`undisputed.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1-3 and 5 are obvious over Iwasaki.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Iwasaki
`
`Iwasaki discloses “a fixed focus imaging lens for forming optical images of
`
`subjects” designed for use in portable devices including smart phones and mobile
`
`devices to meet a “demand for miniaturization of the entirety of the photography
`
`devices” and “high resolution and high performance.” Id., 1:18-26, 36-41.
`
`All of Iwasaki’s embodiments are telephoto lenses. See id., 8:7-13; APPL-
`
`1006, p.169 (defining “telephoto ratio” as the focal length being longer than the
`
`overall lens length). Example 4 is reproduced below:
`
`APPL-1009, Fig. 4.
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`Example 4 is further described by the prescription data in Table 7, below:
`
`Id., 17:4-22 (Table 7).
`
`The data in Table 7 includes “[t]he radii of curvature (mm)” in column Ri,
`
`“the distances (mm) between” surfaces “along the optical axis” in column Di,
`
`“[t]he refractive indices” in the column Ndj, and “[t]he Abbe’s numbers” in the
`
`column vdj. Id., 10:52-61. Example 4 has a focal length f=4.00 mm and a TL/f
`
`(TTL/EFL)=0.97. See APPL-1009, 17:54-62 (Table 9).
`
`As shown below, Iwasaki’s Example 4 renders claims 1-3 and 5 obvious.
`
`See also APPL-1003, pp.28-43.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`2.
`
`Claim 1
`
` [1.0] An optical lens assembly comprising, in order from an object side to an
`image side:
`
`Iwasaki renders [1.0] obvious because it teaches an “imaging lens L”
`
`including lens elements arranged “in order from the object side to the image side
`
`….” APPL-1009, 5:60-6:3. Iwasaki’s Example 4 lens assembly is below:
`
`Object
`Side
`
`Image
`Side
`
`Optical Lens Assembly
`
`
`
`APPL-1009, Fig. 4 (annotated). Thus, Iwasaki renders [1.0] obvious.
`
`[1.1] a) a first lens element L1 with positive refractive power, a focal length f1;
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`[1.2] b) a second lens element L2 with negative refractive power and a focal
`length f2 and having a meniscus shape with convex object-side surface;
`
`[1.3] c) a third lens element L3 with negative refractive power and a focal length
`f3;
`
`Iwasaki renders [1.1-1.3] obvious because Example 4 includes “a first lens
`
`L1 having a positive refractive power, a second lens L2 having a negative
`
`refractive power, a third lens L3 having a negative refractive power ….” See
`
`APPL-1009, 5:62-65.
`
`Lens L1 in Example 4 has a focal length (f1) of about 2.50 mm, as shown
`
`below in Table 9:
`
`Focal Length f1 of First Lens L1
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.30; APPL-1009, 17:54-62 (Table 9) (annotated).
`
`While not expressly given in Iwasaki, the focal lengths of L2 and L3 can be
`
`calculated by using the optical data for each lens and the commonly known “lens
`
`maker’s equation,” provided in Born (Ex.1010):
`
`15
`
`

`

`𝑓𝑓=−
`
`APPL-1010, p.162. In the above equation, f is the focal length, n is the index of
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`𝑛𝑛 𝑟𝑟1 𝑟𝑟2
`(𝑛𝑛−1)[𝑛𝑛(𝑟𝑟1−𝑟𝑟2)−(𝑛𝑛−1)𝑡𝑡]
`
`refraction, r1 and r2 are the curvature of the two surfaces of the lens, and t is the
`
`axial thickness of the lens. Id.
`
`These values for each surface of L2 and L3 are provided in Table 7:
`
`Axial Thickness of
`Second Lens L2
`
`Index of Refraction
`of Second Lens L2
`
`L2 r1
`
`L2 r2
`
`L3 r1
`L3 r2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Axial Thickness of
`Second Lens L3
`
`Index of Refraction
`of Second Lens L3
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, pp.31-33; APPL-1009, 17:4-22 (Table 7) (annotated). Using these
`
`values in the above equation yields:
`
`16
`
`

`

`𝒇𝒇𝟐𝟐=-
`𝒇𝒇𝟑𝟑=
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`1.65∙6.219245∙2.353031
`(1.65−1)[1.65(6.219245−2.353031)−(1.65−1)∙0.104330]
`=-24.146226
`4.102435=-𝟓𝟓.𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
`1.63∙-8.266512∙-9.8932
`(1.63−1)[1.63(-8.266512−-9.8932)−(1.63−1)∙0.123829]
`=-133.30507
`1.621298=-𝟖𝟖𝟐𝟐.𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
`
`APPL-1003, pp.31-33. This f2=-5.886 mm and f3=-82.221 mm.
`
`A POSITA would have understood, as observed in Fig. 4, that L2 has a
`
`meniscus shape that is convex toward the object-side because the radii of curvature
`
`for L2’s surfaces (surfaces 4 and 5) are both positive, meaning that the object-side
`
`is convex and the image-side is concave. APPL-1003, pp.31-32; see APPL-1010,
`
`Fig. 4.15 (showing lenses of meniscus shape). Thus, Iwasaki renders [1.1-1.3]
`
`obvious.
`
`[1.4] d) a fourth lens element L4; and
`
`[1.5] e) a fifth lens element L5,
`
`Iwasaki renders [1.4-1.5] obvious because Example 4 includes “a fourth
`
`lens L4 having a positive refractive power” and “a fifth lens L5 having a positive
`
`refractive power ….” APPL-1009, 5:63-66; see APPL-1003, pp.35-36.
`
` [1.6] wherein 1.2×|f3|>|f2|>1.5×f1,
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`As shown in [1.1-1.3] f1 is about 2.50 mm, f2 is -5.886 mm, and f3 is -82.221
`
`mm, thus meeting the claimed expression 1.2×|f3|>|f2|>1.5×f1:
`
`1.2×|-82.221𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚|>|-5.886𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚|>1.5×2.5𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
`=𝟗𝟗𝟖𝟖.𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟓𝟓 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎> 𝟓𝟓.𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖𝟖 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎>𝟑𝟑.𝟕𝟕𝟓𝟓 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎
`
`APPL-1003, p.36. Thus, Iwasaki renders [1.6] obvious.
`
` [1.7] wherein the lens assembly has an effective focal length (EFL),
`
`Iwasaki’s Example 4 renders [1.7] obvious because Table 9 shows that it has
`
`a focal length (f) of 4.00 mm:
`
`EFL
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, pp.36-37; APPL-1009, Table 9 (annotated).
`
`[1.8] wherein a lens system that includes the lens assembly plus a window
`positioned between the fifth lens element and an image plane
`
`Iwasaki renders [1.8] obvious because Example 4 includes a cover glass
`
`(“CG”) element (i.e., window) positioned between the lens assembly, including the
`
`L5 lens element, and the image plane:
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`Cover Glass (i.e., Window)
`
`L5 Lens Element
`
`Image Plane
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, pp.37-38; APPL-1009, Fig. 4 (annotated). Iwasaki confirms that “CG
`
`may be provided between the lens provided most toward the image side and
`
`the imaging element 100” and that it is used “for protecting the imaging surface
`
`and an infrared cutoff filter may be provided.” APPL-1009, 6:4-14.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`While the claim language indicates that a window is “positioned between the
`
`fifth lens element and an image plane,” a POSITA would have understood this
`
`language to be broad enough to be rendered obvious by lens systems like Iwasaki’s
`
`where other lens elements are positioned “between” the fifth lens element and the
`
`image plane. APPL-1003, p.39. Thus, Iwasaki rendered [1.8] obvious.
`
`[1.9] has a total track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less and
`
`Iwasaki renders [1.9] obvious because Example 4 has a TTL of 3.89 mm as
`
`given in Table 7:
`
`Total Track Length (TTL)
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1009, Table 7 (in part, annotated). While given in Table 7, the TTL of
`
`Example 4 can also be calculated by adding the “Di” column from surface 2
`
`(object-side of L1) through surface 16 (image plane). APPL-1003, p.40. Thus,
`
`Iwasaki renders [1.9] obvious.
`
`[1.10] wherein the lens assembly has a ratio TTL/EFL<1.0.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`Iwasaki renders [1.10] obvious because Example 4 has an EFL of 4.00 mm
`
`(see [1.7]) and a TTL of 3.89 mm (see [1.9]). APPL-1009, Table 7. Iwasaki thus
`
`meets the claimed ratio of TTL/EFL<1.0:
`
`𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑇𝑇<1.0→3.894.00=0.9725<1.0
`
`APPL-1003, pp.40-41.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2
`
`[2.0] The optical lens assembly of claim 1, wherein the lens assembly has a f-
`number F#< 2.9.
`
`Iwasaki renders [2.0] obvious because Example 4 is shown to have Fno.=2.8
`
`in Table 7:
`
`f-number
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1009, Table 7 (in part, annotated).
`
`4.
`
`Claim 3
`
`[3.0] The lens assembly of claim 2, wherein the TTL is equal or smaller than 6.0
`mm.
`
`Iwasaki renders [3.0] obvious because Example 4 has a TTL of 3.89 mm
`
`(see [1.9]), which is less than 6.0 mm. APPL-1003, p.42.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`5.
`
`Claim 5
`
`[5.0] The lens assembly of claim 1, wherein lens element L1 has a concave
`image-side surface.
`
`Iwasaki renders [5.0] obvious because Example 4 shows the L1 lens having
`
`a meniscus shape:
`
`L1 Lens Element
`with meniscus
`shape
`
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1003, p.42; APPL-1009, Fig. 4 (annotated).
`
`A POSITA would have understood, that L1 is meniscus, convex toward the
`
`object-side because the radii of curvature for L1’s surfaces (Ri columns for
`
`surfaces 2 and 3 in Table 7) are both positive, meaning that the object-side is
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647
`
`convex and the image-side is concave. APPL-1003, pp.42-43; see APPL-1010, Fig.
`
`4.15. Thus, Iwasaki renders [5.0] obvious.
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over the combination of
`Ogino and Chen II.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of Ogino
`
`Similar to the lens system described in the ’647 Patent, Ogino discloses a
`
`five-lens system designed “to enhance the resolution and performance of the
`
`imaging lens” for portable devices. APPL-1005, 1:11-16, 1:30-31. Ogino’s
`
`Example 5 is below:
`
`
`
`Id., Fig. 5. In Example 5, lens elements L1-L5 are arranged in order along the
`
`optical axis which includes a cover glass (CG) “disposed between the fifth lens L