`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`COREPHOTONICS LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`IPR2020-00905
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`_______________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 312 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ..................................................................... IV
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................ 1
`A.
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information ........................... 2
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................................................. 2
`IV. THE ’479 PATENT ................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Summary of the Patent .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Prosecution History and Priority Date .................................................. 5
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ......................................... 6
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 6
`A.
`“fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide camera”
`(claims 1 and 23). .................................................................................. 7
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF ............................................................................. 8
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES ............................................................. 8
`A.
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 8
`B.
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges ......................................................... 9
`C.
`Page Citations and Emphasis ................................................................ 9
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .. 10
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 10-14, 16, 18, 23, 32-26, 38, and 40 are
`obvious under § 103 over Parulski and Konno. ..................................10
`1.
`Summary of Parulski .................................................................10
`2.
`Summary of Konno ...................................................................12
`3.
`Reasons to Combine Parulski and Konno.................................16
`4.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................19
`5.
`Claim 10 ....................................................................................30
`
`IX.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`6.
`Claim 11 ....................................................................................31
`Claim 12 ....................................................................................33
`7.
`Claim 13 ....................................................................................35
`8.
`Claim 14 ....................................................................................36
`9.
`10. Claim 16 ....................................................................................37
`11. Claim 18 ....................................................................................38
`12. Claim 23 ....................................................................................38
`13. Claim 32 ....................................................................................40
`14. Claim 33 ....................................................................................40
`15. Claim 34 ....................................................................................40
`16. Claim 35 ....................................................................................40
`17. Claim 36 ....................................................................................41
`18. Claim 38 ....................................................................................41
`19. Claim 40 ....................................................................................41
`Ground 2: Claims 2-4 and 24-26 are obvious under § 103 over
`Parulski, Konno, and Szeliski. ............................................................42
`1.
`Summary of Szeliski .................................................................42
`2.
`Reasons to combine Parulski, Konno, and Soga ......................42
`3.
`Claim 2 ......................................................................................44
`4.
`Claim 3 ......................................................................................47
`5.
`Claim 4 ......................................................................................48
`6.
`Claim 24 ....................................................................................50
`7.
`Claim 25 ....................................................................................50
`8.
`Claim 26 ....................................................................................50
`Ground 3: Claims 5-9 and 27-31 are obvious under § 103 over
`Parulski, Konno, Szeliski, and Segall. ................................................51
`1.
`Summary of Segall ....................................................................51
`2.
`Reasons to combine Parulski, Konno, Szeliski, and Segall. .....52
`
`- ii -
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`3.
`Claim 5 ......................................................................................54
`Claim 6 ......................................................................................56
`4.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................57
`5.
`Claim 8 ......................................................................................57
`6.
`Claim 9 ......................................................................................58
`7.
`Claim 27 ....................................................................................58
`8.
`Claim 28 ....................................................................................59
`9.
`10. Claim 29 ....................................................................................59
`11. Claim 30 ....................................................................................59
`12. Claim 31 ....................................................................................60
`D. Ground 4: Claims 15 and 37 are obvious under § 103 over
`Parulski, Konno, and Stein. .................................................................60
`1.
`Summary of Stein......................................................................60
`2.
`Stein is entitled to its February 7, 2013 priority date ...............62
`3.
`Reasons to combine Parulski, Konno, and Stein. .....................65
`4.
`Claim 15 ....................................................................................67
`5.
`Claim 37 ....................................................................................70
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 71
`X.
`XI. CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...................................................... 72
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................... 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`May 6, 2020
`
`APPL-1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 to Shabtay et al. (the “’479 Patent”)
`
`APPL-1002 Prosecution File History of the ’479 Patent (the “’242 App”)
`
`APPL-1003 Declaration of Dr. Fredo Durand Ph.D.
`
`APPL-1004 CV of Dr. Fredo Durand
`
`APPL-1005 U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 to Parulski et al. (“Parulski”)
`
`APPL-1006 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1007 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1008 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1009 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1010 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1011 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1012 Used in co-filed Petition
`APPL-1013 Richard Szeliski, COMPUTER VISION – ALGORITHMS AND
`APPLICATIONS (2011) (“Szeliski”)
`
`APPL-1014 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1015
`
`JP Pub. No. 2013-106289 to Konno et al. (“Konno”), Certified
`English translation and Original
`
`APPL-1016 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1017 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1018 U.S. Patent No. 7,206,136 to Labaziewicz et al. (“Labaziewicz”)
`
`APPL-1019 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`APPL-1020 Warren J. Smith, MODERN LENS DESIGN (1992) (“Smith”)
`
`APPL-1021 Declaration of Dr. Jose Sasián, Ph.D.
`
`APPL-1022
`
`ZEMAX Development Corporation, ZEMAX Optical Design
`Program User’s Manual, February 14, 2011 (“ZEMAX User’s
`Manual”)
`
`APPL-1023 U.S. Patent No. 8,908,041 to Stein et al. (“Stein”)
`
`APPL-1024 U.S. Patent No. 8,406,569 to Segall et al. (“Segall”)
`
`APPL-1025 U.S. Patent No. 8,824,833 to Dagher et al. (“Dagher”)
`
`APPL-1026 Used in co-filed Petition
`APPL-1027 File History for Provisional No. 61/752,515 to Stein (“Stein
`provisional”)
`
`APPL-1028 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1029 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1030 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1031 Product announcement for Sony ICX612 12 MP image sensor
`
`APPL-1032 Product announcement for Sony ICX652 13.5 MP image sensor
`
`APPL-1033 Used in co-filed Petition
`
`APPL-1034 U.S. Patent No. 7,112,774 to Baer
`
`APPL-1035 Robert E. Fischer et al., OPTICAL SYSTEM DESIGN (2008)
`
`APPL-1036 Email from Patent Owner’s counsel authorizing electronic service
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`INTRODUCTION
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479 (the “’479 Patent,” APPL-1001) is generally
`
`directed to a “dual aperture” digital camera. See APPL-1001, Title. The claims
`
`challenged in this Petition recite two types of limitations— (1) a camera with wide
`
`and telephoto lenses having overlapping fields of view (FOVs) and (2) a camera
`
`controller that outputs an image with a broader depth of field by fusing only in-
`
`focus portions of the telephoto image with the wide image.
`
`This Petition, along with the cited evidence, demonstrates that claims 1-16,
`
`18, 23-38, and 40 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`requests that these claims be held 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 Petitioner,
`
`the ’479 Patent has been asserted in the following matters:
`
`• Corephotonics Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5-19-cv-04809 (N.D. Cal.
`filed August 14, 2019).
`
`• Petitioner is concurrently filing IPR2020-00906 directed to claims 19-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`C. Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service Information
`Lead Counsel
`
`Michael S. Parsons
`972-739-8611
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax:
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 58,767
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`214-651-5116
`Phone:
`214-200-0853
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax:
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 50,271
`Jordan Maucotel
`Phone:
`(972) 739-8621
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`Fax:
`(214) 200-0853
`2323 Victory Ave. Suite 700
`jordan.maucotel.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dallas, TX 75219
`USPTO Reg. No. 69,438
`
`Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`consents to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’479 Patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review challenging the claims on the grounds identified
`
`in this Petition.
`
`IV. THE ’479 PATENT
`Summary of the Patent
`A.
`The ’479 Patent describes a “dual-aperture zoom digital camera operable in
`
`both still and video modes.” APPL-1001, Abstract. Figure 1A diagrams the
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`patent’s camera as a dual-aperture Zoom imaging system 100 including a first
`
`Wide imaging section and a second Telephoto imaging section, with each section
`
`having respective lenses and image sensors:
`
`Wide
`Camera
`
`Camera
`Controller
`
`Telephoto
`Camera
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 1A (annotated).
`
`Figure 2 of the ’479 Patent illustrates the respective fields of view (FOVs) of
`
`the Wide and Telephoto image sensors:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`Wide FOV
`
`Narrow FOV
`
`
`
`
`APPL-1001, Fig. 2 (annotated). The larger FOV for the Wide image is provided by
`
`Wide sensor 202 and the corresponding smaller FOV for the Telephoto image is
`
`provided by Telephoto sensor 204. See id., 6:1-2.
`
`With Wide and Telephoto images captured from the respective cameras, the
`
`‘479 Patent describes several processing methods that can be achieved. In the
`
`method that forms the subject of the challenged claims, the image processing first
`
`rectifies the Wide and Telephoto images to be aligned on an epipolar line. See id.,
`
`9:46-47. Next, the process performs “mapping between the Wide and the
`
`Telephoto aligned images” to “produce a registration map.” Id., 9:48-49. The
`
`Telephoto image is then “resampled according to the registration map” or in other
`
`words, resized to correspond to the field of view (“FOV”) of the Wide image. See
`
`id., 9:50-60. The process finally then fuses or combines portions of the resampled
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`Telephoto image with corresponding portions of the Wide image to produce an
`
`output image. See id., 9:52-67. As part of this fusion step, any errors between the
`
`images are detected and if an error exists, “Wide pixel values are chosen to be used
`
`in the output image.” Id., 9:54-60.
`
`As set forth in this Petition and the accompanying evidence, a dual-aperture
`
`camera system having 1) Wide and Telephoto lens systems with overlapping fields
`
`of view, and 2) a camera controller that processes images from both systems to
`
`outputs an image were known to POSITAs prior to the ’479 Patent. See APPL-
`
`1003, ¶25.
`
`Prosecution History and Priority Date
`B.
`U.S. Patent Application No. 16/048,242 (“the ’242 App”) that issued as the
`
`’479 Patent was filed on July 28, 2018 and claims priority through a chain of
`
`applications to a provisional filed on June 13, 2013. APPL-1001, 1:5-20. The ’242
`
`application was filed with 40 claims that ultimately issued as claims 1-40 in the
`
`’479 Patent. See APPL-1002, p.334-66. The ’479 Patent issued on March 5, 2019.
`
`In the Notice of Allowance, the Examiner’s reasoning simply copied the
`
`limitations that were found to be patentable including “the Telephoto lens has a
`
`respective effective focal length EFLT and total track length TTLT fulfilling the
`
`condition EFLT / TTLT > 1. This limitation was known in the prior art.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`V. 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). Here, a
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed
`
`invention would have a bachelor’s or the equivalent degree in electrical and/or
`
`computer engineering or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in imaging
`
`systems including image processing and lens design. APPL-1003, ¶13.
`
`Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more
`
`formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for
`
`a POSITA. Id. However, Petitioner does not imply that a person having an
`
`extraordinary level of skill should be regarded as a POSITA.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`The challenged claims of the ’479 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). The
`
`claim terms construed below are thus construed “in accordance with the ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. For terms not
`
`addressed below, Petitioner submits that no specific construction is necessary for
`
`this proceeding.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`A.
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`“fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide camera”
`(claims 1 and 23).
`This term is used in claims 1 and 23 which both recite: “to output the fused
`
`image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide camera by mapping Telephoto
`
`image pixels to matching pixels within the Wide image.”
`
`The Summary section of the ’479 Patent describes the concept of POV in
`
`regard to the Wide and Telephoto cameras in this way: “In a dual-aperture camera
`
`image plane, as seen by each sub-camera (and respective image sensor), a given
`
`object will be shifted and have different perspective (shape). This is referred to as
`
`point-of-view (POV).” APPL-1001, 5:10-12. Because Wide and Telephoto
`
`cameras have different perspectives, the ’479 Patent indicates that a fused image
`
`(i.e., output image) “can have the shape and position of either sub-camera image or
`
`the shape or position of a combination thereof.” Id., 5:12-15. “If the output image
`
`retains the Wide image shape then it has the Wide perspective POV. If it retains
`
`the Wide camera position, then it has the Wide position POV.” Id., 5:15-19. The
`
`same applies to the images from the Telephoto camera. Id., 5:19-20.
`
`In other words, according to the specification, “a point of view of the Wide
`
`camera” in the claims can mean one of two things—either “Wide perspective
`
`POV” (i.e., wide camera FOV) or “Wide position POV” (i.e., wide camera
`
`position). APPL-1003, ¶ 31. When discussing the fusion step, the ’479 Patent does
`
`not specifically indicate whether position or perspective POV is maintained: “it is
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`possible to register Telephoto image pixels to a matching pixel set within the Wide
`
`image pixels, in which case the output image will retain the Wide POV (“Wide
`
`fusion”).” Id., 5:23-26. Because the specification describes Wide POV in two ways
`
`and does not specify which type is maintained by image fusion, a POSITA would
`
`have understood that a fused image that maintains a Wide POV either fuses images
`
`to maintain just the Wide field of view or fuses images to maintain both the Wide
`
`camera’s position. APPL-1003, ¶31.
`
`Based on this description from the ’479 Patent, a POSITA therefore would
`
`have understood a “fused image with a point of view (POV) of the Wide camera”
`
`to mean “a fused image that maintains the Wide camera’s field of view or the Wide
`
`camera’s position.” APPL-1003, ¶¶32-33.
`
`VII. REQUESTED RELIEF
`Petitioner requests that the Board institute inter partes review of claims 1-
`
`16, 18, 23-38, and 40 of the ’479 Patent and cancel each of those claims as
`
`unpatentable.
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES
`A. Challenged Claims
`Claims 1-16, 18, 23-38, and 40 of the ’479 Patent are challenged.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ground
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenges
`
`Claims
`1, 10-14, 16, 18,
`23, 32-36, 38, 40
`
`Basis
`Obvious under § 103 over the combination of
`Parulski and Konno
`
`2-4, 24-26
`
`5-9, 27-31
`
`Obvious under § 103 over the combination of
`Parulski, Konno, and Szeliski
`
`Obvious under § 103 over the combination of
`Parulski, Konno, Szeliski, and Segall
`
`15, 37
`
`Obvious under § 103 over the combination
`Parulski, Konno, and Stein
`
`
`Parulski (APPL-1005) issued on December 28, 2010, Konno (APPL-1015)
`
`published on May 30, 2013, Szeliski (APPL-1013) published in 2011, and Segall
`
`(APPL-1024) issued on March 26, 2013. Consequently, Parulski, Konno, Szeliski,
`
`and Segall are prior art to under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
`
`Stein issued on December 9, 2014 from an application filed on January 15,
`
`2014. Stein claims priority to two provisional applications filed on January 15,
`
`2013 and February 7, 2013. Since the provisional application filed on February 7,
`
`2013 support both one claim of Stein and the subject matter relied on in this
`
`Petition, Stein is prior art to under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
`
`Page Citations and Emphasis
`C.
`For exhibits that include suitable page, column, or paragraph numbers in
`
`their original publication, Petitioner’s citations are to those original numbers and
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`not to the page numbers added for compliance with 37 CFR 42.63(d)(2)(ii). The
`
`Petition may bold or italicize quotations and add color or colored annotations to
`
`figures from exhibits for emphasis.
`
`IX.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF HOW THE CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 10-14, 16, 18, 23, 32-26, 38, and 40 are
`obvious under § 103 over Parulski and Konno.
`Summary of Parulski
`1.
`Parulski is titled “Method and Apparatus for Operating a Dual Lens Camera to
`
`Augment an Image,” and discloses “a digital camera that uses multiple lenses and
`
`image sensors to provide an improved imaging capability.” APPL-1005, Title, 1:8-10.
`
`In Parulski, “digital zooming between the wide angle and the telephoto focal lengths”
`
`is used to provide an extended zoom range. APPL-1005, 23:54-58; APPL-1003, ¶34.
`
`Parulski teaches that its dual lens image capture assembly may operate in still and
`
`video modes to produce “still images and motion video images.” APPL-1003, ¶35;
`
`APPL-1005, 12:36-41. The images can then be “processed by the image processor 50
`
`to produce a processed digital image file, which may contain a still digital image or a
`
`video image.” APPL-1001, 14:5-9.
`
`More specifically, Parulski describes a cell phone camera with a dual image
`
`capture system that “utilize both images to provide an improved output image.”
`
`APPL-1005, 7:21-24; APPL-1003, ¶36. The output image is generated via an
`
`augmentation process that “utilizes one of the images from a dual-lens camera as a
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`secondary image that can be used to modify the other, primary image and thereby
`
`generate an enhanced primary image.” APPL-1005, 7:32-35. Parulski describes that
`
`its image augmentation process may be applied to “a still image or a video image.”
`
`APPL-1005, 29:8-20. As shown relative to annotated FIG. 16B below, Parulski goes
`
`on to describe its technique using images from fixed focal length wide-angle and
`
`telephoto lenses and image sensors. APPL-1005, 23:28-43; APPL-1003, ¶36.
`
`
`
`APPL-1005, Fig. 16B (annotated).
`
`Parulski teaches using its image capture assembly in a method to enhance the
`
`depth of field in Figure 14, which shows “a method for enhancing the depth of field of
`
`an image by using images from both image capture stages … ” APPL-1003, ¶37; id.,
`
`22:14-16; 23:4-7 (explaining that “the integrated image capture assembly [previously
`
`described], may be adapted for use in a cell phone.” This process is also discussed in
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`relation to Figure 26 where the primary image is sharpened by fusing focused portions
`
`of the secondary image with corresponding portions of the primary image to broaden
`
`the primary image’s depth of field. Id., 28:47-51 (“Then, the two images are
`
`combined into a modified image with a broadened depth of field.”).
`
`In sum, Parulski teaches a cell phone camera with dual-lens systems for
`
`capturing primary and secondary images with overlapping fields of view (FOVs)
`
`and then processing the images to enhance the Wide image by fusing it with
`
`focused portions of the Tele image. APPL-1003, ¶46.
`
`2.
`
`Summary of Konno
`a) Konno’s disclosure
`Similar to the dual-lens system described in the ’479 Patent, Konno also
`
`discloses a dual-lens system for use in digital equipment including cell phones. See
`
`APPL-1015, Abstract, ¶¶ 12, 25 (“digital equipment such as digital cameras,
`
`mobile phones, and personal digital assistants.”). Konno’s dual-lens system is
`
`designed to “realize a high-performance slim and small-sized imaging apparatus.”
`
`APPL-1015, ¶25. One dual-lens embodiment in Konno is Example 2 which has a
`
`wide-angle lens LN1 and a telephoto lens LN2 with an EFL / TTL > 1.0. APPL-
`
`1015, ¶¶ 7, 14, 40, Table 1. An example of Konno’s dual-lens system is provided
`
`below:
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`Wide Lens (LN1)
`with Image Sensor
`
`Tele Lens (LN2)
`with Image Sensor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1015, Fig. 21.
`
`In the example above, the wide (LN1) and telephoto (LN2) lens systems
`
`have fixed-focal-length lens assemblies that project images on to respective image
`
`sensors. See id., ¶¶49, 52-53. Each lens system also includes a focus drive element
`
`to provide focusing across a range of options. See id., ¶50 (“the first and second
`
`imaging optical systems LN1 and LN2 have different focus movements in the case
`
`of whole feeding”). Konno’s dual-lens system is therefore configured to achieve
`
`stereoscopic vision that uses parallax (i.e., spacing between the two sensors) to
`
`provide “three-dimensional vision [that] can be displayed at the focal length fm of
`
`the second imaging optical system LN2.” Id., ¶52; see also APPL-1003, ¶47.
`
`Optical data for Example 2 is provided in Table 1 below:
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`
`APPL-1015, Table 1.
`
`As shown in Table 1, the “Focal Length of [the] Entire System (mm)” (f or
`
`EFL), the “Lens Entire Length (at infinite) (mm)” (TTL), “Entire Viewing Angle”
`
`(i.e., field of view or FOV), F number, and 35 mm equivalent focal length is
`
`provided for each lens system in Example 2. Specific to Example 2, the field of
`
`view of LN1 is wider than LN2, LN1 and LN2 have different F numbers, and the
`
`EFL/TTL ratio for LN2 of 5.51/4.91 is greater than one thus making LN2 a
`
`telephoto type lens. See APPL-1020, p.57; APPL-1003, ¶49.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`b) Correcting Konno’s LN2 lens in the Example 2
`embodiment
`According to Dr. Sasián (APPL-1021), the LN2 lens in Konno’s Example 2
`
`has a small overlap between the fourth and fifth lens elements, which would be
`
`recognized by a POSITA upon modelling the LN2 lens. See APPL-1021, ¶29. A
`
`POSITA would have been able to easily correct this overlap by simply adjusting
`
`the fifth lens. Id., ¶30. In fact, by adjusting the fifth lens element position by 0.5
`
`microns (to abut the image-side surface of the fourth lens element), a POSITA
`
`would have recognized that the overlap could be resolved and still produce a lens
`
`with comparable performance using Konno’s data. Id.
`
`A POSITA would have understood that performing such an adjustment of
`
`the fifth lens by 0.5 microns would have been the natural result of manufacturing
`
`the fourth and fifth elements as indicated in Konno and placing the fifth lens as
`
`close to the fourth lens as possible. This would have been understood by a POSITA
`
`to be the natural result of assembling Konno’s Example 2 since two lens elements
`
`cannot physically overlap. Id., ¶34. Thus, a POSITA would not have been
`
`discouraged to manufacture and use Konno’s dual-lens system in cell phone
`
`camera since the lens overlap could have been readily resolved in a logical way by
`
`simply putting the lens assembly together to the extent possible minus the
`
`overlapping elements. Id.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`Reasons to Combine Parulski and Konno
`3.
`A POSITA would have combined Konno’s dual-lens system with Parulski’s
`
`cell phone camera embodiment because such a combination would have merely
`
`been incorporating Konno dual-lens system (with single-focus wide and telephoto
`
`lenses) into Parulski’s cell phone 600 to obtain the same predictable result of a
`
`fixed-focal length, dual-lens camera capable of producing stereo images for
`
`processing in Parulski’s cell phone. See APPL-1003, ¶52. A POSITA would have
`
`been motivated to incorporate Konno into Parulski’s cell phone for several reasons.
`
`First, Parulski does not provide lens prescription data for either the first or
`
`second fixed-focus lenses in its cell phone embodiment 600. Instead, Parulski
`
`simply refers to image assembly 610 as having a “first lens 612, preferably a fixed
`
`focal length wide angle lens (such as a 40 mm equiv. lens)” and “the second lens
`
`616, preferably fixed focal length telephoto lens (such as 100 mm equiv. lens) ….”
`
`APPL-1005, 23:36-41. Since Parulski provides no specific lens description or
`
`design parameters, a POSITA looking to implement the wide and telephoto dual-
`
`lens image assembly 610 in a cell phone embodiment would have needed to either
`
`find or design a suitable dual-lens system capable of producing stereo images in
`
`cell phone embodiment. APPL-1003, ¶57. For this reason alone, a POSITA would
`
`have looked to Konno which provides a fixed-focal length, dual-lens system
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`designed for digital equipment like cell phones, as indicated in Parulski’s
`
`disclosure. Id.
`
`While Parulski suggests 40 mm and 100 mm equivalent 35 mm focal length
`
`lenses as an option, a POSITA would have recognized that the preceding language
`
`“such as” that sets forth this suggestion would have meant that these 35 mm
`
`equivalent focal lengths are examples and not requirements for a dual-lens system
`
`that could be incorporated in Parulski’s cell phone embodiment. Id., ¶54.
`
`Moreover, a POSITA would have recognized that Konno’s dual-lens
`
`assembly is compatible with Parulski since Konno’s system offers fixed-focal
`
`length wide and telephoto lenses in a thin format for incorporation in a mobile
`
`device. See APPL-1015, ¶46 (“The first and second imaging optical systems … are
`
`suitable for digital equipment having an image input function (for example,
`
`imaging apparatuses such as mobile phones with camera, and digital cameras), and
`
`can be combined with the imaging device ….”).
`
`Second, Parulski teaches the importance of keeping the “z” dimension (i.e.,
`
`thickness) of its cell phone embodiment small, and notes the importance of
`
`selecting Wide and Telephoto lenses that reduces thickness. APPL-1005, 24:20-27
`
`(“An important constraint in this embodiment is the "z" dimension 630, which
`
`must be held to a very small figure consistent with a cell phone layout and
`
`architecture.”). Based on this, a POSITA looking to implement Parulski’s
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`IPR2020-00905 Petition
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of 10,225,479
`
`
`teachings would have been motivated to utilize Konno’s dual-lens system because
`
`a POSITA would have recognized the benefits of Konno’s thin profile at a reduced
`
`cost. See APPL-1015, ¶46 (“a thin and small-sized imaging optical units having
`
`high variable power and high performance, and digital equipment equipped with
`
`the imaging optical units can be realized at low costs.”); see also APPL-1003, ¶56.
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Konno’s dual-
`
`lens system in Parulski’s cell phone embodiment and would have reasonably
`
`expected success in doing so since both Parulski and Konno specify fixed-focus
`
`wide and telephoto lenses and Konno meets Parulski’s need for lenses with
`
`reduced thickness suitable for processing to derive 3-dimensional data like a range
`
`map. See APPL-1003, ¶61; see also APPL-1005, Fig. 11, 19:49-20:15. Such a
`
`combination would have beneficially met Parulski’s