`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`“to find translations between matching points in the images to
`calculate depth information and to create a fused image suited for
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................ 1
`II.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA) ....... 4
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................... 5
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’479 PATENT ...................................... 6
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..................................................... 9
`A.
`portrait photos” (claim 19) .............................................................. 9
`VII. OVERVIEW OF SELECTED PRIOR ART ........................... 12
`A.
`Parulski .......................................................................................... 12
`Kawamura ..................................................................................... 15
`B.
`C.
`Ogata ............................................................................................. 29
`VIII. OBVIOUSNESS ................................................................... 36
`A.
`Parulski, Ogata, Kawamura, and Soga (Ground 1) ....................... 36
`1.
`and Kawamura Lens Designs with Parulski ............................ 36
`2.
`Parulski ..................................................................................... 39
`3.
`A POSITA Would Not Have Scaled Ogata to Use in Parulski 57
`
`Claims 19 and 20 Are Not Obvious Over the Combination of
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Been Motivated to Use the Ogata
`
`A POSITA Would Not Have Scaled Kawamura to Use in
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`4.
`
`Apple Has Not Shown that the Limitation “to find translations
`between matching points in the images to calculate depth
`information and to create a fused image suited for portrait
`
`Claims 21 and 22 Are Not Obvious Over the Combination of
`
`photos” Is Satisfied Under Its Proper Construction ................. 59
`B.
`Parulski, Ogata, Kawamura, Soga, and Morgan-Mar (Ground 2) 66
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS / OBJECTIVE INDICIA
`OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS .................................................... 68
`A.
`Industry Praise / Licensing ............................................................ 70
`B.
`Commercial Success ..................................................................... 77
`Failure of Others / Copying ........................................................... 78
`C.
`X. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 80
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 5
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966). ................................................................................... 69
`
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.2016) .................................................................. 5
`
`Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Hantscho Commercial Products, Inc.,
`21 F.3d 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ................................................................. 79
`
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................. 5
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 69
`
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) .............................................................................. 5
`
`Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto. Systems,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`Exhibit No Description
`2001
`Declaration of John C. Hart, Ph.D.
`2002
`Fredo Durand, Presentation Titled “Photography 101”
`2003
`Curriculum Vitae of John C. Hart, Ph.D.
`2004
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Dkt. No. 1, Case No.
`19-cv-4809 (United States District Court, Northern District
`of California)
`Answer to Complaint for Patent Infringement, Dkt. No. 17,
`Case No. 19-cv-4809 (United States District Court, Northern
`District of California)
`Corephotonics Proposal: “Dual Aperture Image Fusion
`Technology, Proposed Engagement Framework” (June 22,
`2014)
`Email chain with emails dating from July and August 2014
`Email chain with emails dating from March 2015
`Email dated December 21, 2015
`Email chain with emails dating from August 2016
`Email dated May 23, 2013
`Email dated May 23, 2013
`Declaration of Eran Kali
`Transcript of January 21, 2021 Video-Recorded Deposition
`of Fredo Durand, Ph.D.
`Declaration of Duncan Moore, Ph.D.
`Rudolf Kingslake, “Optics in Photography” (1992)
`Curriculum Vitae of Duncan Moore, Ph.D.
`Email chain with emails dating from June and July 2013
`Email chain with emails dating from June and July 2013
`Email chain with emails dating from October 2013
`Technology Evaluation Agreement dated August 8, 2013
`Email chain with emails dating from September 18, 2013
`Email dated May 21, 2014
`Reserved
`Reserved
`Deposition transcript of José Sasián, November 9, 2020
`José Sasián, Introduction to Lens Design (2019), hardcopy
`
`2007
`2008
`2009
`2010
`2011
`2012
`2013
`2014
`
`2015
`2016
`2017
`2018
`2019
`2020
`2021
`2022
`2023
`2024
`2025
`2026
`2027
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`Tigran V. Galstian, Smart Mini-Cameras (2014)
`Dmitry Reshidko and Jose Sasián, “Optical analysis of min-
`iature lenses with curved imaging surfaces,” Applied Optics,
`Vol. 54, No. 28, E216-E223 (October 1, 2015)
`José Sasián, Introduction to Aberrations in Optical Imaging
`Systems (2013), hardcopy
`Yufeng Yan and Jose Sasián, “Miniature Camera Lens De-
`sign with a Freeform Surface,” Design and Fabrication Con-
`gress (2017)
`Peter Clark, “Mobile platform optical design,” Proc. SPIE
`9293, International Optical Design Conference 2017,
`92931M (17 December 2014)
`Jane Bareau and Peter P. Clark, “The Optics of Miniature
`Digital Camera Modules,” SPIE Vol. 6352, International Op-
`tical Design Conference 2006, 63421F.
`Yufeng Yan, “Selected Topics in Novel Optical Design,”
`Ph.D. Dissertation (2019)
`Declaration of Jose Sasián, Ph.D. from IPR2020-00489
`Transcript of January 26, 2021 Video-Recorded Deposition
`of Fredo Durand, Ph.D.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,989,517 (“Morgan-Mar”)
`Forsyth and Ponce, “Computer Vision: A Modern Ap-
`proach” (1st ed.) (2003)
`
`2028
`2029
`
`2030
`
`2031
`
`2032
`
`2033
`
`2034
`
`2035
`2036
`
`2037
`2038
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Corephotonics, Ltd. submits this response to the Petition
`
`filed by Apple Inc., requesting inter partes review of claims 19–22 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,225,479 (Ex. 1001, ’479 patent). The Board granted institution
`
`on two grounds of obviousness, each involving a combination of Parulski (Ex.
`
`1005) with Ogata (Ex. 1026), Kawamura (Ex. 1012), Soga (Ex. 1006) and for
`
`claims 21–22 Morgan-Mar (Ex. 1009). Corephotonics submits that the argu-
`
`ments presented herein and the additional evidence submitted, such as the tes-
`
`timony from Patent Owner’s expert witnesses John Hart (Ex. 2001) and
`
`Duncan Moore (Ex. 2015), demonstrate that Apple has failed to establish ob-
`
`viousness of the challenged claims and that Apple’s grounds should be re-
`
`jected.
`
`II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`As explained below, the key premise of Apple’s petition that a POSITA
`
`would have been motivated to combine the dual-camera system of Parulski
`
`with the lenses from Kawamura and Ogata is wildly off the mark. Parulski
`
`dates from 2007 and calls for the use of miniature digital sensors, which Apple
`
`acknowledges would be 1/2.5 inches in size or smaller. It does so to achieve
`
`its stated goals of light weight and low cost.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`Kawamura dates from 1981 and describes massive lenses for film for-
`
`mats larger than even the standard formats of the day. A camera using such a
`
`lens would have been 7 inches long and weighed multiple pounds. Ogata is
`
`likewise a film camera lens, albeit from 1993 and for use with 35 mm film.
`
`Even Apple does not suggest that a POSITA would use lenses this large in
`
`combination with Parulski.
`
`Rather, Apple’s petition suggests that Kawamura’s and Ogata’s lenses
`
`could be “scaled down,” made smaller in length by factors of 12 and of 6,
`
`respectively.
`
`While Apple’s expert declaration from Dr. Sasián suggests such a scal-
`
`ing down is possible, that expert’s own professional work states that “a tradi-
`
`tional objective lens can not be simply scaled down as a lens solution due to
`
`fabrication constraints, materials properties, manufacturing process, light dif-
`
`fraction and geometrical aberrations.” As explained further below, Apple’s
`
`expert is not alone in this view, which is shared by many other papers in the
`
`field.
`
`Moreover, Apple does not persuasively argue why a POSITA would
`
`have looked to lens designs from decades prior to Parulski, intended for a very
`
`different purpose, and designed and manufactured with more limited
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`technology, or why a POSITA would have expected that scaling them down
`
`would have been successful. Rather, the evidence shows that a POSITA would
`
`have looked to one of the hundreds of known miniature lens designs when
`
`looking for lenses to use in Parulski. Further, the evidence shows that a
`
`POSITA would have used a lens with modern miniature lens features, includ-
`
`ing aspheric lens surfaces, plastic molding, a forward aperture stop, and a
`
`small f-number in order to achieve acceptable performance in the Parulski
`
`system. None of these features is offered by Kawamura’s 1981 lenses and
`
`most are also lacking from Ogata’s 1993 lenses, either in their original sizes
`
`or scaled down.
`
`Even assuming a POSITA would have been motivated to make these
`
`modifications and combine the resulting designs, Apple’s obviousness theory
`
`rests on an incorrect construction of the claims. Specifically, Apple seeks to
`
`eliminate any requirement that translations between matching points in the
`
`images from the two cameras be part of the process of creating the fused im-
`
`ages, as the plain meaning of the claims requires and as the ’479 patent spec-
`
`ification describes. Apple has not presented any prior art combination that
`
`satisfies the claims as property construed.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`These and other flaws in Apple’s obviousness grounds are explained
`
`further below.
`
`In addition, there exist considerable objective evidence confirming the
`
`non-obviousness of the challenged claims. Corephotonics has, in a non-litiga-
`
`tion context, licensed the technology claimed in the ’479 patent to numerous
`
`companies, including some of the largest smartphone makers in the world. In
`
`2019, Samsung acquired Corephotonics and its camera technologies for
`
`$155m. And, critically, Apple itself asked Corephotonics for its patented tech-
`
`nology, evaluated and studied it for years, and then asked for a portfolio li-
`
`cense from Corephotonics.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (POSITA)
`
`For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s def-
`
`inition of the level of ordinary skill, namely that a POSITA “would include
`
`someone who had, as of the claimed priority date of the ’479 Patent, a bache-
`
`lor’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,” and that “that someone with less formal educa-
`
`tion but more experience, or more formal education but less experience could
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 13. See also
`
`Declaration of John C. Hart, Ph.D. (“Hart Declaration”) (Ex. 2001), ¶¶ 14-18.
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The petitioner has the burden to clearly set forth the basis for its chal-
`
`lenges in the petition. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363
`
`(Fed. Cir.2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring IPR petitions to
`
`identify ‘with particularity ... the evidence that supports the grounds for the
`
`challenge to each claim’”). A petitioner may not rely on the Board to substi-
`
`tute its own reasoning to remedy the deficiencies in a petition. SAS Inst., Inc.
`
`v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (“Congress chose to structure a process
`
`in which it’s the petitioner, not the Director, who gets to define the contours
`
`of the proceeding.”); In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (rejecting the Board’s reliance on obviousness arguments that
`
`“could have been included” in the petition but were not, and holding that the
`
`Board may not “raise, address, and decide unpatentability theories never pre-
`
`sented by the petitioner and not supported by the record evidence”); Ariosa
`
`Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`(holding that “a challenge can fail even if different evidence and arguments
`
`might have led to success”); Wasica Finance GMBH v. Continental Auto.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`Systems, 853 F.3d 1272, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that new arguments
`
`in a reply brief are “foreclosed by statute, our precedent, and Board guide-
`
`lines”).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’479 PATENT1
`
`The ’479 patent describes and claims techniques for making “thin dig-
`
`ital cameras with optical zoom operating in both video and still mode.” (Ex.
`
`1001, ’479 patent at 3:27–28.) As the patent explains, zoom is “commonly
`
`understood as a capability to provide different magnifications of the same
`
`scene and/or object by changing the focal length of an optical system.” (Ex.
`
`1001, ’479 patent at 1:44–49.) Traditionally, this was accomplished by me-
`
`chanically moving lens elements relative to one another. (Ex. 1001, ’479 pa-
`
`tent at 1:49–51.) Another approach is “digital zooming,” where the focal
`
`length of the lens is kept unchanged, but the image is cropped and digitally
`
`manipulated to produce an image that is magnified but has a lower resolution.
`
`(Ex. 1001, ’479 patent at 1:55–38.)
`
`The ’479 patent describes an approach to approximating the effect of a
`
`zoom lens (which varies its focal length) by using two lens systems (a “wide”
`
`and a “tele” lens system) with different fixed focal lengths. (Ex. 1001, ’479
`
`
`1 See Hart Decl., ¶¶ 31-35.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`patent at 3:34–54.) Various computational means are used to take the images
`
`from these two lenses to produce an output that approximate a system with
`
`mechanical zoom. This approach can produce a device that is smaller, lower
`
`cost, and more reliable than devices that use mechanical zoom. (Ex.
`
`1001, ’479 patent at 1:51–53.)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, ’479 patent, Fig. 1B)
`
`Relevant to the claims of the ’479 patent, the specification describes
`
`combining still images using the technique of “fusion.” (Ex. 1001, ’479 patent
`
`at 3:48–54.) A “fused” image includes information from both the wide and
`
`tele images. (Id.) One approach to performing fusion is shown in Figure 5:
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1001, ’479 patent, Fig. 5.)
`
`Making a compact, high-quality dual-aperture zoom system requires
`
`lenses with particular characteristics. The ’479 patent teaches lens designs for
`
`the tele lens which provide a small “total track length” relative to their focal
`
`length, which means that they have a compact size in light of the degree of
`
`magnification that they provide. (Ex. 1001, ’479 patent at 12:38–53.) One of
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`the lens designs taught by the ’479 patent and covered by several of the chal-
`
`lenged claims is shown in Figure 9:
`
`(Ex. 1001, ’479 patent, Fig. 9.)
`
`
`
`The lens aspects of the ’479 patent are described further in Dr. Moore’s
`
`declaration. (E.g., Ex. 2015, Moore Decl., ¶¶ 31–34.)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“to find translations between matching points in the images to
`calculate depth information and to create a fused image suited
`for portrait photos” (claim 19)
`
`Petitioner argues that this term, appearing in claim 19, should be con-
`
`strued “as requiring the claimed camera controller to (1) ‘find translations
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`between matching points in the images to calculate depth information’ and (2)
`
`‘creating a fused image suited for portrait photos.’” (Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 31–35.) This
`
`construction repeats the words from the claim term verbatim, so it is not seek-
`
`ing to construe particular words with technical meaning to a POSITA. See
`
`Hart Decl., ¶ 47. Rather, the construction offers a particular way of parsing
`
`the grammar, arguing that the two parts of the term on either side of the word
`
`“and” are independent steps, and that nothing prior to the word “and” modifies
`
`anything after the word “and.” In particular, Apple and Dr. Durand appear in
`
`this construction to be avoiding having to demonstrate that the “translations
`
`between matching points in the images” are used as part of the “create a fused
`
`image” process. Id.
`
`This construction fails to capture the plain meaning of the phrase, in
`
`view of the ’479 patent specification. First, focusing just on the phrase Dr.
`
`Durand construes, the phrase has three verbs in the infinitive “to” form: “to
`
`find . . . to calculate . . . and to create . . . .” It appears in a larger phrase
`
`(surrounded by commas) with four infinitive verbs: “to process . . . to find . . .
`
`to calculate . . . and to create . . . .” (Ex. 1001, ’479 patent at 15:28–32.) The
`
`“and” joins “to create” with one of the other “to” verbs. The most natural “to”
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`verb to connect it with is the closest one, “to calculate,” not one of the earlier
`
`ones as suggested by Dr. Durand. See Hart Decl., ¶ 48.
`
`Looking at the broader phrase, a POSITA would recognize that the
`
`“creat[ing] a fused image” is part of the broader “to process the Wide Tele
`
`images” step. Each of the other independent claims (1 and 23) contain the
`
`phrase “[to process/processing] the Wide and Tele images to create a fused
`
`image.” (Ex. 1001, ’479 patent at 13:43–44, 15:61–62.) Likewise, in the spec-
`
`ification, the output of the fused image is described as part of “processing”
`
`the images. (Ex. 1001, ’479 patent at 3:64–65 (“Processing is applied on the
`
`two images to fuse and output one fused image in still mode.”), 7:57–58 (“im-
`
`age processing that fuses the Wide and the Tele images to achieve optical
`
`zoom”)). In the context of the ’479 patent, “creat[ing] a fused image” is un-
`
`derstood as part of “process[ing] the Wide and Tele images,” meaning that the
`
`whole larger phrase “to process the Wide and Tele images to find translations
`
`between matching points in the images to calculate depth information and to
`
`create a fused image suited for portrait photos” describes a single process, not
`
`distinct and unrelated processes as suggested by Dr. Durand’s construction.
`
`See Hart Decl., ¶ 49.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF SELECTED PRIOR ART
`
`A.
`
`Parulski2
`
`The Parulski patent was published as U.S. Patent No. 7,859,588 and
`
`issued on December 28, 2010. (Ex. 1005.) It was filed on March 9, 2007. (Ex.
`
`1005, Parulski, at 1.)
`
`Parulski at the Summary of the Invention includes an overview of the
`
`preferred embodiments and their motivations at 7:54 – 8:19. These embodi-
`
`ments include the use of the secondary image from the additional lens “to
`
`sharpen portions of the primary image … where the secondary output image
`
`is captured … at a different focus position … ; to modify the dynamic range
`
`of the primary image … ; to provide scene analysis data for setting the capture
`
`parameters for the primary image; or to replace portions of the primary image
`
`… with corresponding portions of [a longer exposure] secondary image.” Id.
`
`at 7:56-8:5. As this list suggests, these various preferred embodiments are de-
`
`signed to achieve different results, and they take different approaches to doing
`
`so. A POSITA would not understand all of Parulski’s specification (or all of
`
`the portions cited by Apple and Dr. Durand) to be part of the same embodi-
`
`ment or even to be compatible with one another. See Hart Decl., ¶ 52.
`
`
`2 See Hart Decl., ¶¶ 51-71.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`Parulski discloses a camera system comprising “the use of two (or
`
`more) image capture stages, wherein an image capture stage is composed of a
`
`sensor, a lens and a lens focus adjuster, in a multi-lens digital camera in which
`
`the two (or more) image capture stages can be used to separately capture im-
`
`ages of the same scene so that one image capture stage can be used for auto-
`
`focus and other purposes while the other(s) is used for capturing an image.”
`
`Id. at 8:6-13. “More specifically, the non-capturing image stage may advan-
`
`tageously be used to provide a secondary image that can be used to modify or
`
`otherwise augment, e.g., the focus or dynamic range of the primary image.”
`
`Id. at 8:16-19. See Hart Decl., ¶ 53.
`
`Parulski uses Figure 1 reproduced below to illustrate an “image capture
`
`assembly” including “two imaging stages 1 and 2.” Id. at 12:42-43. The image
`
`capture stages 1 and 2 comprise the zoom lenses 3 and 4 and the image sensors
`
`12 and 14… .” Id. at 12:66-67. Lenses 3 and 4 “have different focal lengths to
`
`provide and extended optical zoom range for the image capture assembly.” Id.
`
`at 10:15-17. See Hart Decl., ¶ 54.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`
`
`Parulski discloses that this design can facilitate autofocusing. “The con-
`
`trol processor and timing generator 40 controls the digital multiplexers 34 and
`
`36 in order to select one of the sensor outputs (12e or 14e) as the captured
`
`image signal, and to select the other sensor output (14e or 12e) as the autofo-
`
`cus image signal.” Id. at 14:1-5. “Briefly summarized, the image processor 50
`
`produces the focus detection signals that drive the first and second focus ad-
`
`justers, that is, the zoom and focus motors 5a and 5b.” See Hart Decl., ¶ 55.
`
`Dr. Hart describes Parulski’s methods in greater detail in his declaration. E.g.,
`
`Hart Decl., ¶¶ 56–71.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`B. Kawamura3
`
`Kawamura was published in 1983 as Japanese Patent Application Pub-
`
`lication S58-62609. (Ex. 1012, Kawamura at 1.) It was filed in 1981. (Ex.
`
`1012, Kawamura at 1.) The applicant was Asahi Optical Co., a Japanese cam-
`
`era manufacturer that sold cameras under the Pentax brand. (Ex. 1012, Kawa-
`
`mura at 1.) See Moore Decl., ¶ 40.
`
`Kawamura describes “a lens of a focal length of about 200 mm for a
`
`screen size of 6x7” and provides four examples of such 200 mm focal length
`
`lenses. (Ex. 1012, Kawamura at 1, 3–5.) It also refers to the possibility of “a
`
`focal length of about 150 mm for a screen size of 4.5x6,” but it does not pro-
`
`vide any examples of such a lens. (Ex. 1012, Kawamura at 1.) See Moore
`
`Decl., ¶ 41.
`
`The Pentax 6x7 was a medium format SLR camera utilizing 120 or 220
`
`roll film.4 The term “medium format” refers to film sizes smaller than the
`
`“large format” film used in early studio cameras, but larger than the 35 mm
`
`and smaller films that were once ubiquitous. The 120 film format is over a
`
`century old, having been introduced for use in the Eastman Kodak “Brownie”
`
`
`3 See Declaration of Duncan Moore (Ex. 2015) (“Moore Decl.”), at ¶¶ 40-58.
`4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_6%C3%977
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`camera in 1901.5 The nominal width of images on 120 (and 220) film is 56
`
`mm, substantially larger than the 24 mm width of images on “35 mm” 135
`
`format film.6 A 6x7 image has a nominal size on the film of 56 mm x 67 mm,
`
`and a 4.5x6 image has a nominal size on the film of 56 mm x 41.5 mm.7
`
`Therefore, the numbers in “6x7” and “4.5x6” correspond to the approximate
`
`film dimensions in centimeters. (Ex. 2026, Sasián Deposition at 42:20–43:20.)
`
`See Moore Decl., ¶ 42.
`
`The Kawamura lens has “a brightness of about 1:4.” (Ex. 1012, Kawa-
`
`mura at 1.) Each of the examples in Kawamura actually have a brightness ratio
`
`of 1:4.1. (Ex. 1012, Kawamura at 3–5.) This brightness ratio is another way
`
`of expressing what is commonly called the “f-number.”8 So, the Kawamura
`
`lenses have a f-number of about f/4.1. For a single lens, the f-number is de-
`
`fined as the effective focal length of the lens divided by the diameter of the
`
`entrance pupil. For a single lens with the aperture stop at the lens, the entrance
`
`
`5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera)
`6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/135_
`film
`7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_film
`8 https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-specifications.htm (“f/numbers are
`usually expressed as fractions with a slash, like f/5.6, when writing them
`and reading EXIF data. Lenses themselves are often marked with a colon,
`like 1:2.8. It means the same thing.”)
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`pupil diameter is simply the diameter of the lens, which determines how much
`
`light enters the lens. For multi-element lenses, the calculation is more compli-
`
`cated, but it remains true that the entrance pupil diameter determines how
`
`much light travels through the lens system to the sensor. The f number, in turn,
`
`determines how much light reaches each unit of area on the sensor per unit of
`
`time. Smaller f-number lenses form a brighter image at the sensor. As a result,
`
`the f-number affects how long an exposure must be under given light condi-
`
`tions, i.e., how “fast” the lens is. The f-number also affects the depth of field
`
`of an image and the degree of image aberrations. See Moore Decl., ¶ 43.
`
`A larger film size means a larger camera and larger lenses. The Pentax
`
`6x7 camera is shown in the following photo9:
`
`
`9 http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_67
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`
`
`
`
`The Pentax 6x7 camera body (without lens) was 184 mm (about 7.25
`
`inches) wide and weighed 1.29 kg (almost 3 pounds).10 A lens added further
`
`weight. As this photo shows, the manufacturer made a hand grip to assist the
`
`user in holding and controlling the heavy camera. See Moore Decl., ¶ 45.
`
`
`10 http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_67
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`The following photo shows the Pentax 6x7 camera, together with an
`
`Asahi 200 mm, 1:4 brightness lens of the general type described in Kawa-
`
`mura11:
`
`See Moore Decl., ¶ 46.
`
`The following photos from an eBay listing shows the same Asahi
`
`1:4/200 6x7 lens and better illustrate its shape and dimensions12:
`
`
`
`
`11 http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_67
`12 https://www.ebay.com/p/126837639
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`See Moore Decl., ¶ 47.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`
`
`According to this eBay listing, the lens has a weight of 8.88 oz.13 This
`
`is not surprising given the multiple large glass elements and the need for a
`
`large barrel to hold them. While the Asahi lens shown in these photos may not
`
`have exactly the same design as described in the Kawamura patent, it is of the
`
`same general class of lenses. This further confirms that a camera using a lens
`
`of the type described in Kawamura would weigh multiple pounds. See Moore
`
`Decl., ¶ 48.
`
`The following photo shows a Pentax 4.5x6 camera.14 Note that the lens
`
`in this photo is a 45 mm focal length lens, much shorter than the 150 mm lens
`
`mentioned by Kawamura. While the 4.5x6 camera is narrower than its 6x7
`
`counterpart, it is still a much larger and heavier camera than more typical
`
`35 mm cameras. See Moore Decl., ¶ 49.
`
`
`13 https://www.ebay.com/p/126837639
`14 http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pentax_645
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Sasián’s Zemax analysis allows us to confirm how long the lenses
`
`disclosed in Kawamura are. The lens that he scaled using Zemax was Kawa-
`
`mura’s Example 1 lens. Ex. 1021, ¶ 45; Ex. 1012 at 3. The focal length of the
`
`unmodified lens is given in Kawamura as 200.079 mm. Ex. 1012 at 3. After
`
`scaling in Zemax, the lens had a focal length of 16.330 mm and a total axial
`
`length of 15.343 mm. Ex. 1021 at 26. This shows that Dr. Sasián scaled the
`
`Kawamura lens by a factor of 200.08 mm / 16.330 mm = 12.25. The original
`
`lens thus had a total axial length of 12.25 × 15.34309 mm = 188 mm, or
`
`roughly 7.4 inches, meaning that any camera with the original Kawamura
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`example 1 lens attached would be at least 7.4 inches long. See Moore Decl., ¶
`
`50.
`
`Unsurprisingly for a lens of this size in that era, the lens elements are
`
`made of glass. (Ex. 1012, Kawamura at 2–3.) Also to be expected for a lens
`
`from 1981, the lens elements are all spheric, meaning that the front and rear
`
`surfaces of each lens element forms a portion of a sphere, and the shape of
`
`each surface is defined by a single parameter, r, the radius of curvature. (Ex.
`
`1012, Kawamura at 3–9.) The spherical lens shapes are apparent from the cir-
`
`cular arc shapes of the surfaces in the cross section drawings, Figures 1, 3, 5,
`
`and 7:
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`(Ex. 1012, Kawamura, Figure 1.) See Moore Decl., ¶ 51.
`
`The Kawamura lens is described as an “Ernostar type” lens. (Ex. 1012,
`
`Kawamura at 1.) The first “Ernostar” lens was developed the Ernemann com-
`
`pany in the 1920s.15 In the 1920s, simulation and optimization of lens designs
`
`was a laborious, manual process. In 1981, computers existed, but they were
`
`limited (relative to 2009 or 2013 computers) in their ability to perform the
`
`intensive calculations required to ray-trace and optimize a lens design with
`
`many parameters. While in 1981, the computers available to a lens designer
`
`may have been able to perform millions of calculations per second, the com-
`
`puters available in 2009 or in 2013 could perform trillions per second.16 See
`
`Moore Decl., ¶ 52.
`
`Lens fabrication technology in 1981 was also more limited than today.
`
`Commonly used lens grinding techniques produced spherical shapes. Even if
`
`aspheric shapes could be manufactured, limitations in computing power made
`
`it difficult to achieve highly optimized aspheric designs. See Moore Decl., ¶
`
`53.
`
`
`15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photographic_lens_design;
`https://www.pencilofrays.com/lens-design-forms/
`16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_performance_by_orders_of_mag-
`nitude
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2020-00906
`U.S. Patent No. 10,225,479
`
`One tool that was available, however, was appropriate placement of the
`
`aperture stop. In a lens design that is symmetric about the stop, the aberrations
`
`that correspond to odd powers of the field of view—such as coma, distortion,
`
`and chromatic change of magnification—will tend to cancel out. (Ex. 2030,
`
`Sasián Introduction to Aberrations at 73–74.) While useful lens designs are
`
`not perfectly symmetric about the aperture stop, placing the aperture stop near
`
`the center of the lens assembly was a common way of reducing aberrations
`
`and improving lens performance. (Ex. 2028, Reshidko and Sasián at E218
`
`(“Many classical objectives are designed symmetrically around the aperture
`
`sto