UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`Declaration of José Sasián, PhD
`under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`1
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 6
`I.
`QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ...................... 9
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................13
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS ...........................................................14
`A. Anticipation ............................................................................................15
`B. Obviousness ...........................................................................................15
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’647 PATENT ..........................................................17
`A. Summary of the Patent ...........................................................................17
`B. Priority Date of the ’647 Patent .............................................................21
`C. Prosecution History of the ’647 Patent ..................................................22
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................23
`VII.
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ....24
`A. Claims 1-3 and 5 are obvious over Iwasaki. ..........................................24
`1. Summary of Iwasaki ......................................................................24
`2. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................27
`B. Claims 1 and 4 are obvious over the combination of Ogino .................42
`1. Summary of Ogino .........................................................................42
`2. Summary of Chen II .......................................................................45
`3. Reasons to combine Ogino and Chen II ........................................48
`4. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................58
`C. Claims 2, 3, 5, and 8-11 are obvious over the combination of Ogino,
`Chen II, and Bareau. ..............................................................................72
`1. Summary of Bareau ........................................................................72
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`2
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`2. Reasons to combine Ogino, Chen II, and Bareau ..........................74
`3. Detailed Analysis ...........................................................................80
`D. Claim 6 is rendered obvious over the combination of Ogino, Chen II,
`Bareau, and Kingslake ...........................................................................95
`1. Summary of Kingslake ...................................................................95
`2. Reasons to combine Ogino, Bareau, and Kingslake ......................96
`3. Detailed Analysis .........................................................................100
`E. Claim 7 is rendered obvious over the combination of Hsieh and Beich.
` ..............................................................................................................102
`1. Summary of Hsieh ........................................................................102
`2. Summary of Beich ........................................................................104
`3. Reasons to combine Hsieh and Beich ..........................................106
`4. Detailed Analysis .........................................................................108
`F. Claim 12 is obvious over the combination of Chen, Iwasaki, and Beich.
` ..............................................................................................................119
`1. Summary of Chen ........................................................................120
`2. Summary of Iwasaki ....................................................................121
`3. Reasons to combine Chen and Iwasaki ........................................122
`4. Reasons to combine Chen and Beich ...........................................124
`5. Detailed Analysis .........................................................................127
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................142
`IX. APPENDIX ..................................................................................................143
`A. Fig. 1: Ogino Example 5 using Zemax (v. 02/14/2011) ......................143
`1. Fig. 1A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................143
`2. Fig. 1B – Relative Illumination ....................................................144
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`3
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`3. Fig. 1C – Analysis ........................................................................145
`1. Fig. 1D – Prescription Data ..........................................................146
`B. Fig. 2: Ogino Example 5 modified for L2 meniscus shape using Zemax
`(v. 02/14/2011) .....................................................................................147
`1. Fig. 2A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................147
`2. Fig. 2B – Relative Illumination at F/3.94 at CRA=31.8° ............148
`3. Fig. 2C – Analysis ........................................................................149
`4. Fig. 2D – Prescription Data ..........................................................150
`C. Fig. 3: Ogino Example 5 modified for meniscus L2 and F#=2.8 using
`Zemax (v. 02/14/2011) ........................................................................151
`1. Fig. 3A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................151
`2. Fig. 3B – Relative Illumination at F/2.8 and CRA=37.9° ...........152
`3. Fig. 3C – Analysis ........................................................................153
`4. Fig. 3D – Prescription Data ..........................................................154
`D. Fig. 4: Ogino Example 5 modified for second meniscus lens, F#=2.8,
`and D7 distance adjusted for D7/f<0.2 using Zemax (v. 02/14/2011) 155
`1. Fig. 4A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................155
`2. Fig. 4B – Relative Illumination at F/2.8 and CRA 30.1° .............156
`3. Fig. 4C – Analysis ........................................................................157
`4. Fig. 4D – Prescription Data ..........................................................158
`E. Fig. 5: Ogino Example 5 modified for meniscus L2 and F#=2.45 using
`Zemax (v. 02/14/2011) ........................................................................159
`1. Fig. 5A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................159
`2. Fig. 5B – Relative Illumination ....................................................160
`3. Fig. 5C – Analysis ........................................................................161
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`4
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`4. Fig. 5D – Prescription Data ..........................................................162
`F. Fig. 6: Hsieh Example 1 using Zemax (v. 02/14/2011) .......................163
`1. Fig. 6A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................163
`2. Fig. 6B – Relative Illumination ....................................................164
`3. Fig. 6C – Analysis ........................................................................165
`4. Fig. 6D – Prescription Data ..........................................................166
`5. Fig. 6E – Edge Data .....................................................................167
`G. Fig. 7: Chen Example 1 modified with 0.145 mm IR filter using Zemax
`(v. 02/14/2011) .....................................................................................168
`1. Fig. 7A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................168
`2. Fig. 7B – Relative Illumination ....................................................169
`3. Fig. 7C – Analysis ........................................................................170
`4. Fig. 7D – Prescription Data ..........................................................171
`5. Fig. 7E – Edge Data .....................................................................172
`H. Fig. 8: Iwasaki Example 1 using Zemax (v. 02/14/2011) ...................173
`1. Fig. 8A – Ray Trace Diagram ......................................................173
`2. Fig. 8B – Prescription Data ..........................................................174
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`5
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Apple Inc. in the matter
`
`of the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,317,647 (“the ’647 Patent”) to
`
`Dror, et al.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at the rate of
`
`$525/hour. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary expenses
`
`associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My compensation is
`
`not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my testimony.
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`claims of the ’647 Patent are unpatentable because they would have been either
`
`anticipated or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, in light of the prior art. After a careful analysis it is
`
`my opinion that all of the limitations of claims 1-12 would have been either
`
`anticipated or obvious to a POSITA.
`
`4.
`
`In the preparation of this declaration, I have reviewed:
`
`• The ’647 Patent, APPL-1001;
`
`• The prosecution history of the ’647 Patent, APPL-1002;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino et al. (“Ogino”), APPL-1005;
`
`• Warren J. Smith, MODERN LENS DESIGN (1992) (“Smith”), APPL-1006;
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`6
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`• 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-
`
`1007;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 8,233,224 to Chen (“Chen II”), APPL-1008;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,678,310 to Iwasaki et al. (“Iwasaki”), APPL-1009;
`
`• Max Born et al., Principles of Optics, 6th Ed. (1980) (“Born”), APPL-
`
`1010;
`
`• 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-1012;
`
`• Rudolf Kingslake, Optics in Photography (1992) (“Kingslake”), APPL-
`
`1013;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski et al. (“Parulski”), APPL-1014;
`
`• Bruce J. Walker, OPTICAL ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS (1995)
`
`(“Walker”), APPL-1016;
`
`• Robert E. Fischer, Optical System Design (2008) (“Fischer”), APPL-
`
`1017;
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`7
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`• Michael P. Schaub, THE DESIGN OF PLASTIC OPTICAL SYSTEMS
`
`(2009) (“Schaub”), APPL-1018; and
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski et al. (“Parulski”), APPL-1014;
`
`• Bruce J. Walker, OPTICAL ENGINEERING FUNDAMENTALS (1995)
`
`(“Walker”), APPL-1016;
`
`• Robert E. Fischer, Optical System Design (2008) (“Fischer”), APPL-
`
`1017;
`
`• Michael P. Schaub, THE DESIGN OF PLASTIC OPTICAL SYSTEMS
`
`(2009) (“Schaub”), APPL-1018;
`
`• Optical Society of America, HANDBOOK OF OPTICS, vol. II 2nd ed. (1995)
`
`(“Handbook of Optics”), APPL-1019;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 10,324,273 to Chen et al. (“Chen”), APPL-1020;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,857,568, APPL-1021;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712, APPL-1022;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 7,321,475 to Wang et al., APPL-1024;
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 9,864,171 to Hsieh et al., APPL-1025.
`
`5.
`
`a)
`
`In forming the opinions expressed below, I have considered:
`
`The documents listed above;
`
`b) My own knowledge and experience based upon my work in the fields
`
`of optics and lens designs, as described below; and
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`8
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`c) The level of skill of a POSITA at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’647 Patent.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
`6. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in APPL-1004. The
`
`following is a brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional
`
`experience.
`
`7.
`
`As shown in my curriculum vitae (APPL-1004), I have extensive
`
`academic and industry experience with optical engineering. Specifically, I have
`
`over thirty years of academic and industry experience in the field of optical
`
`sciences and optical engineering in general, including optical instrumentation,
`
`optical design, and optical fabrication and testing.
`
`8.
`
`I am currently a full-time, tenured Professor of Optical Sciences at the
`
`College of Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, a
`
`position I have held since 2002. As a professor, I teach and perform research in the
`
`field of optical design. For example, I teach my students how to design lenses and
`
`mirrors and how to think about light so that they can design useful optical systems.
`
`9.
`
`As part of my academic and research responsibilities I am frequently
`
`involved with the design, fabrication, and testing of optical devices. Prior to
`
`receiving tenure, I was an Associate Professor of Optical Sciences at the University
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`9
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`of Arizona from 1995 to 2001. Prior to joining the University of Arizona faculty, I
`
`was a member of the technical staff of AT&T Bell Laboratories from 1990 to
`
`1995. From 1984 to 1987, I was a Research Assistant, and from 1988 to 1990, I
`
`was a Research Associate, in the Optical Sciences Center at the University of
`
`Arizona. From 1976 to 1984, I was an optician at the Institute of Astronomy at the
`
`University of Mexico.
`
`10.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from the
`
`University of Mexico in 1982, a Master of Science degree in Optical Sciences from
`
`the University of Arizona in 1987, and a Ph.D. degree in Optical Sciences from the
`
`University of Arizona in 1988. My research areas include optical design,
`
`fabrication, and testing of optical instruments, astronomical optics, diffractive
`
`optics, opto-mechanical design, light in gemstones, lithography optics, and light
`
`propagation.
`
`11. At the University of Arizona, I have taught the courses Lens Design
`
`OPTI 517 (1997-present), Introduction to Aberrations OPTI 518 (2005-present),
`
`Advanced Lens Design OPTI 696A (2008, 2012, 2017), Illumination Optics
`
`Seminar (1997-2000), Introduction to Opto-mechanics OPTI 690 (1998, 2001,
`
`2003, 2004, 2005) and Optical Shop Practices OPTI 597A (1996-present). I teach
`
`students how to design lens systems, how to grind, polish, and test aspheric
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`10
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`surfaces, how to mount lenses properly so that their physical integrity is preserved,
`
`and how to align lens systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have directed several student reports, theses, and dissertations in the
`
`areas of lens and mirror design. I have lectured regarding my work, and have
`
`published, along with students and colleagues, over one hundred scientific papers
`
`in the area of optics. These include technical papers, student reports and theses
`
`done under my direction, related to miniature lenses. For example:
`
`• Yufeng Yan, Jose Sasian, “Miniature camera lens design with a freeform
`
`surface,” Proc. SPIE 10590, International Optical Design Conference
`
`2017, 1059012 (27 November 2017); doi: 10.1117/12.2292653
`
`• Dmitry Reshidko, Jose Sasian, “Optical analysis of miniature lenses with
`
`curved imaging surfaces,” Appl. Opt. Oct. 54(28):E216-23, 2015.
`
`• Sukmock Lee, Byongoh Kim, Jiyeon Lee, and Jose Sasian, “Accurate
`
`determination of distortion for smart phone cameras,” Applied Optics,
`
`Vol. 53, Issue 29, pp. H1-H6 (2014).
`
`• Ying Ting Liu, “Review and Design of a Mobile Phone Camera Lens for
`
`21.4 Mega-Pixels Image Sensor,” M. Sc. Report, University of Arizona,
`
`2017.
`
`• Luxin Nie, “Patent Review of Miniature Camera Lenses,” M. Sc. Report,
`
`University of Arizona, 2017.
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`11
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`• Cheng Kuei-Yeh, “Cell phone zoom lens design and patent research,” M.
`
`Sc. Report, University of Arizona, 2010.
`
`• Rob Bates, “Design for Fabrication: Miniature Camera Lens Case
`
`Study,” M. Sc. Report, University of Arizona, 2008.
`
`13. Since 1995, I have been a consultant and have provided to industry
`
`solutions to a variety of projects that include lenses for cell-phones, lenses for
`
`microscopes, and lenses for fast speed photography. I also have consulted in the
`
`area of plastic optics. I hold patents and patent applications related to lens systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have been a topical editor and reviewer for the peer-reviewed
`
`journals Applied Optics and Optical Engineering. I am a fellow of the International
`
`Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), a fellow of the Optical Society of
`
`America (OSA), and a lifetime member of the Optical Society of India.
`
`15.
`
`I have served as a co-chair for the conferences “Novel Optical
`
`Systems: Design and Optimization” (1997-2006), “Optical systems alignment,
`
`tolerancing, and verification” (2007-2020), and “International Optical Design
`
`Conference,” (2002). I have taught in Japan (2014, 2016, and 2017) the course:
`
`Advanced Lens Design: Art and Science.
`
`16.
`
`I have been a co-editor of approximately 21 published conference
`
`proceedings from SPIE. I am the author of the book, "Introduction to Aberrations
`
`in Optical Imaging Systems," by Cambridge University Press, 2013; and of the
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`12
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`book “Introduction to Lens Design.” By Cambridge University Press, 2019. I am
`
`named as an inventor on approximately 13 U.S. patents.
`
`17. My curriculum vitae (APPL-1004), includes a more detailed summary
`
`of my background, experience, and publications.
`
`III.
`
` LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`18.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`19.
`
`I am familiar with multi-lens optical systems (including those found in
`
`portable devices such as mobile phones). I am also aware of the state of the art at
`
`the time the application resulting in the ’647 Patent was filed. I have been informed
`
`by Apple’s counsel that the earliest alleged priority date for the ’647 Patent is July
`
`4, 2013. Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’647 Patent, I believe that a
`
`person having 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. Such a person
`
`would have had experience in analyzing, tolerancing, adjusting, and optimizing
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`13
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`multi-lens systems for manufacturing, and would have been familiar with the
`
`specifications of lens systems and their fabrication. In addition, a POSITA
`
`would have known how to use lens design software such as Codev, Oslo, or
`
`Zemax, and would have taken a lens design course or had equivalent training.
`
`20. Lack of work experience could have been remedied by additional
`
`education, and vice versa. Such academic and industry experience would be
`
`necessary to appreciate what was obvious and/or anticipated in the industry and
`
`what a POSITA would have thought and understood at the time. Based on these
`
`criteria, as of the relevant time frame for the ’647 Patent, I possessed at least
`
`such experience and knowledge of a POSITA. Some of my past students would
`
`have qualified as POSITAs, hence am qualified to opine on the ’647 Patent.
`
`21. For purposes of this Declaration, in general, and unless otherwise
`
`noted, my statements and opinions, such as those regarding my experience and the
`
`understanding of a POSITA generally (and specifically related to the references I
`
`consulted herein), reflect the knowledge that existed in the field as of July 4, 2013.
`
`Unless otherwise stated, my understanding and analysis below is consistent with
`
`the level of a POSITA prior to the priority date of the ’647 Patent.
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`22.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’647 Patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the alleged
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`14
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`invention recited in the ’647 Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, I have been
`
`asked to apply July 4, 2013, the earliest alleged priority date, as the priority date
`
`for claims 1-6 and 8-11 and to apply January 30, 2017 as the priority date for
`
`claims 7 and 12.
`
`23.
`
`I am not an attorney. In preparing and expressing my opinions and
`
`considering the subject matter of the ’647 Patent, I am relying on certain basic
`
`legal principles that counsel have explained to me. These principles are reviewed
`
`below.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim is unpatentable if it is anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a), or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`A. Anticipation
`25.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that a patent claim is unpatentable as
`
`anticipated if each element of that claim is present either explicitly or inherently in
`
`a single prior art reference. I have also been informed that, to be an inherent
`
`disclosure, the prior art reference must necessarily disclose the limitation, and the
`
`fact that the reference might possibly practice or contain a claimed limitation is
`
`insufficient to establish that the reference inherently teaches the limitation.
`
`B. Obviousness
`26.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`15
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject
`
`matter pertains. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed by counsel that the Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`16
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’647 PATENT
`Summary of the Patent
`A.
`28. The ’647 Patent is directed to “[a]n optical lens assembly [that]
`
`includes five lens elements and provides a TTL/EFL<1.0.” APPL-1001, Abstract.
`
`A ratio of total track length (“TTL”) over effective focal length (“EFL”) being less
`
`than one is indicative of a telephoto lens system. See APPL-1006, p.169. As
`
`indicated in the ’647 Patent, it was and still is common to incorporate digital
`
`cameras into a variety of devices including cellular telephones, personal digital
`
`assistants, and other portable electronic devices. See id., 1:34-41. The driving need
`
`for cameras in such devices is a growing consumer demand for portable cameras
`
`with “good quality imaging and … a small total track length.” See id.
`
`29. The’647 Patent purports to disclose a new invention that is the answer
`
`to the known need for good quality imaging and a small total track length. See id.,
`
`1:43-50. The lens system in the ’647 Patent includes “a first lens element with
`
`positive refractive power having a convex object-side surface, a second lens
`
`element with negative refractive power …, a third lens element with negative
`
`refractive power …, a fourth lens element having a positive refractive power …,
`
`and a fifth lens element having a negative refractive power ….” Id., 1:56-66. An
`
`example of the lens system in the ’647 Patent is provided below:
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`17
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`Id., Fig. 1A. In the ’647 Patent, all of the embodiments are telephoto (i.e., have a
`
`TTL to EFL ratio less than 1.0) and have an F-number (“F#”) of about 2.8. Id., 5:2,
`
`
`
`6:43, 7:61.
`
`30. The ’647 Patent includes optical data for each embodiment such as
`
`radius of curvature (“R”) and surface data (i.e., coefficients) that describes the each
`
`aspheric lens element. See id., Tables 1-6. The ’647 patent also includes the so-
`
`called surface “sag” equation, which is the standardized equation use for
`
`mathematically representing the surface of aspheric lens element. Id., 3:43-4:9.
`
`The ’647 Patent’s explanation of the sag equation is as follows:
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`18
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`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 a are
`coefficients given in Table 2.
`
`Id., 4:1-16.
`
`31. Because the sag equation is used to mathematically represent each
`
`aspheric surface of a lens element, it can be used to determine the lens element’s
`
`thickness for an r value (i.e., radial distance from the optical axis), including the
`
`circumferential edge thickness for a specified lens diameter. For the first lens
`
`element, this can be done by determining Z for the object-side and image-side
`
`surfaces at the lens’s overall radius, and then subtracting the Z values from the
`
`thickness of the lens at the optical axis. Thus, the ’647 Patent, notes that edge
`
`thickness can be determined using the optical data and aspheric coefficients. See
`
`id., 5:21-23 (stating that edge thickness of the first lens element, L1e, can be
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`19
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`determined using the optical data and aspheric coefficients for the first lens
`
`element).
`
`32. As discussed below, none of these 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-1005; 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. A POSITA also would have
`
`understood that at least 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. 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
`
`“features” were already known and used in existing systems for obtaining sharp
`
`images.
`
`33. 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, 3:16, 12:45-63. Based on these teaching from
`
`Apple v. Corephotonics
`
`20
`
`APPL-1003
`
`APPLE V. COREPHTONICS
`IPR2020-00897
`Exhibit 2005
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Sasián Decl.
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. 10,317,647
`
`Ogino, a POSITA would have understood that the ’647 Patent’s claims are not
`
`novel, but would have been within the knowledge and skill of a POSITA
`
`implementing and experimenting with Ogino’s disclosures. As for any difference
`
`that Patent Owner might 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. See APPL-1006, pp.170-82.
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, the disclosures provided in the prior art discussed
`
`below either anticipate or render obvious each and every element of the claims I
`
`have been asked to analyze in the ’647 Patent, as discussed below.
`
`B.
`35.
`
`Priority Date of the ’647 Patent
`
`I am informed that the ’647 Patent is a continuation of a string of
`
`patent applications claiming the benefit of Provisional Application No. 61/842,987
`
`filed on July 4, 2013. See APPL-1001. The subject matter of claims 7 and 12,
`
`though, appears to be 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 would have been apparent to a POSITA since the
`
`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 l