`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`OPTIMUM IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2024-00925
`Patent No. 8,451,339
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LEONARD LAUB
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sony Exhibit 1003
`Sony v. Optimum
`
`
`

`

`CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ................................. 2
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED .......................................... 4
`IV. MY UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ................................................. 5
`A. Anticipation ................................................................................................. 6
`B. Obviousness ................................................................................................. 7
`V. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”) ..................... 13
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 17
`A. “uses system software to identify at least one optical aberration” ............ 17
`B. “vignetting” ............................................................................................... 19
`VII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ........................................................................... 20
`VIII. THE ’339 PATENT ......................................................................................... 21
`A. Background ................................................................................................ 21
`1. Aberration Correction ......................................................................... 21
`2. Fast Fourier Transforms ...................................................................... 29
`3. Camera Components ........................................................................... 33
`B. The Claims of the ’339 Patent ................................................................... 34
`IX. GROUND 1: WATANABE RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2,
`5, 14-15, AND 17 ............................................................................................ 34
`A. Watanabe ................................................................................................... 34
`B. Claim 1 ...................................................................................................... 40
`1. Limitation [1.PRE] .............................................................................. 41
`2. Limitation [1.a] .................................................................................... 42
`3. Limitation [1.b] ................................................................................... 56
`4. Limitations [1.c] and [1.d] ................................................................... 57
`5. Limitation [1.e] .................................................................................... 61
`6. Limitation [1.f] .................................................................................... 62
`7. Limitation [1.g] ................................................................................... 66
`
`i
`
`

`

`C. Claim 2 ...................................................................................................... 68
`D. Claim 5 ...................................................................................................... 69
`1. Limitations [5.PRE] and [5.a] ............................................................. 69
`2. Limitation [5.b] ................................................................................... 72
`3. Limitation [5.c] .................................................................................... 73
`4. Limitation [5.d] ................................................................................... 75
`5. Limitation [5.e] .................................................................................... 75
`E. Claim 14 .................................................................................................... 75
`1. Limitations [14.PRE] and [14.a] ......................................................... 76
`1. Limitation [14.b] ................................................................................. 77
`2. Limitation [14.c] .................................................................................. 77
`3. Limitation [14.d] ................................................................................. 79
`4. Limitation [14.e] .................................................................................. 82
`5. Limitation [14.f] .................................................................................. 83
`6. Limitation [14.g] ................................................................................. 84
`7. Limitation [14.h] ................................................................................. 85
`F. Claim 15 .................................................................................................... 85
`G. Claim 17 .................................................................................................... 86
`X. GROUND 2: WATANABE IN VIEW OF KISHIDA RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 3 AND 18 ...................................................................... 87
`A. Kishida ....................................................................................................... 87
`B. Watanabe in view of Kishida .................................................................... 89
`C. Claim 3 ...................................................................................................... 90
`1. Limitations [3.PRE] and [3.a] ............................................................. 90
`2. Limitation [3.b] ................................................................................... 91
`3. Limitation [3.c] .................................................................................... 92
`D. Claim 18 .................................................................................................... 93
`XI. GROUND 3: WATANABE IN VIEW OF KITA RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 4 AND 16 ...................................................................... 94
`A. Kita ............................................................................................................ 94
`
`ii
`
`

`

`B. Watanabe in view of Kita .......................................................................... 99
`C. Claim 4 and 16 .........................................................................................100
`1. Limitations [4.PRE] and [16.PRE] ....................................................100
`2. Limitations [4.a] and [16.a] ...............................................................101
`XII. GROUND 4: TAKANE IN VIEW OF WATANABE RENDERS
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 1-2, 5, 14-15, AND 17 ................................................103
`A. Takane .....................................................................................................103
`B. Takane in view of Watanabe ...................................................................106
`C. Claim 1 ....................................................................................................109
`1. Limitation [1.PRE] ............................................................................110
`2. Limitation [1.a] ..................................................................................110
`3. Limitation [1.b] .................................................................................119
`4. Limitations [1.c] and [1.d] .................................................................120
`5. Limitation [1.e] ..................................................................................125
`6. Limitation [1.f] ..................................................................................126
`7. Limitation [1.g] .................................................................................128
`D. Claim 2 ....................................................................................................128
`E. Claim 5 ....................................................................................................129
`1. Limitations [5.PRE] and [5.a] ...........................................................130
`2. Limitation [5.b] .................................................................................130
`3. Limitation [5.c] ..................................................................................131
`4. Limitation [5.d] .................................................................................131
`5. Limitation [5.e] ..................................................................................131
`F. Claim 14 ..................................................................................................132
`1. Limitations [14.PRE] and [14.a] .......................................................132
`2. Limitation [14.b] ...............................................................................133
`3. Limitation [14.c] ................................................................................133
`4. Limitation [14.d] ...............................................................................133
`5. Limitation [14.e] ................................................................................134
`
`iii
`
`

`

`6. Limitation [14.f] ................................................................................134
`7. Limitation [14.g] ...............................................................................135
`8. Limitation [14.h] ...............................................................................135
`G. Claim 15 ..................................................................................................136
`H. Claim 17 ..................................................................................................136
`XIII. GROUND 5: TAKANE IN VIEW OF WATANABE IN
`FURTHER VIEW OF KISHIDA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS
`3 AND 18 .......................................................................................................137
`A. Takane and Watanabe in Further View of Kishida .................................137
`B. Claim 3 ....................................................................................................138
`1. Limitations [3.PRE] and [3.a] ...........................................................138
`2. Limitation [3.b] .................................................................................139
`3. Limitation [3.c] ..................................................................................139
`C. Claim 18 ..................................................................................................140
`XIV. GROUND 6: TAKANE IN VIEW OF WATANABE IN
`FURTHER VIEW OF KITA RENDERS OBVIOUS CLAIMS 4
`AND 16 ..........................................................................................................141
`A. Takane in View of Watanabe in View of Kita ........................................141
`B. Claims 4 and 16. ......................................................................................142
`1. Limitations [4.a] and [16.a] ...............................................................142
`XV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................143
`APPENDIX A: U.S. PATENT NO. 8,451,339CLAIM LIST ...............................145
`APPENDIX B: MATERIALS CONSIDERED .....................................................149
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`I, Leonard Laub, declare:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I have been retained by Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., on behalf of
`1.
`
`Sony Corporation (“Sony” or the “Petitioner”) as an independent technical expert
`
`in the above-captioned IPR proceeding (“the IPR”). This document provides
`
`certain of my opinions concerning the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,451,339 (EX1001, “the ’339 patent”), specifically claims 1-5 and 14-18 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”). I make this Declaration in support of Sony’s petition in the
`
`IPR.
`
`2.
`
`For my work as an expert in this matter, I am being compensated for
`
`my services at my standard rate, plus actual expenses. My hourly compensation is
`
`based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity related to this case and
`
`is in no way contingent on the nature of my findings, the presentation of my
`
`findings in testimony, or the outcome of this or any other proceeding. I have no
`
`other personal or financial stake or interest in the outcome of the present
`
`proceeding. I do not have any expectation or promise of additional business with
`
`the Petitioner in exchange for the positions explained herein.
`
`3.
`
`I make this Declaration based on my personal knowledge, including
`
`my education, training, research, and professional experience.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`I am qualified to render expert opinion in this matter by virtue of my
`4.
`
`professional experience and education, which are summarized below. A copy of
`
`my CV detailing my educational background and professional experience is
`
`provided with this Declaration as EX1004.
`
`5.
`
`I have more than fifty-five years of experience working on optical
`
`systems design and analysis with industry as an employee and later as a consultant
`
`through my firm Keryston Associates, Inc. I have worked extensively in digital
`
`camera system design and image processing since 1965. Throughout this time, I
`
`have designed, implemented, and tested various optical imaging systems and
`
`products.
`
`6.
`
`Some prior work experience most relevant to the issues discussed in
`
`this Declaration are summarized below.
`
`7.
`
`At Zenith Radio Corp. (1965-1976), I performed work including (1)
`
`detailed mathematical and experimental study of lens aberrations and designs to
`
`minimize same while developing novel commercial imaging and projection
`
`systems for cameras and displays, (2) invention and development of novel
`
`electronic image processing systems, and (3) invention and development of real-
`
`time Fourier-transform techniques for image analysis and processing.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`8. While consulting to Infodetics (1984-1988), I performed work
`
`including development of advanced image sensors with embedded real time digital
`
`processing.
`
`9. While consulting to Sony and others (2006-2012), I performed work
`
`including intensive analysis of techniques and of hardware and software
`
`implementations of advanced digital image processing systems incorporating
`
`Fourier transform techniques and complex filtration.
`
`10. While consulting to DxO Labs (2007-2018), I performed work
`
`including (1) in-depth analysis of digital image processing systems for correcting
`
`lens aberrations based on look-up tables of measured aberrations; and (2) support
`
`of development of digital image processing systems to produce high-quality
`
`images from smartphone cameras using simple lenses.
`
`11.
`
`I am a named inventor in 20 patents (U.S. and foreign) concerning
`
`electronic video image processing and various complex optical and electro-optical
`
`systems.
`
`12.
`
`I have been a member of the Optical Society of America (now Optica)
`
`for 50 years.
`
`13.
`
`I am a Life Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic
`
`Engineers (IEEE) and an Observer Member of the Advanced Television Systems
`
`Committee (ATSC), which maintains standards for digital television in the USA.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`14.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics from Illinois
`
`Institute of Technology in 1970.
`
`15.
`
`I undertook additional graduate level studies including (i) the study of
`
`Mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University, 1971-1972 (toward M.Sc.), (ii)
`
`the study of Optics at University of Rochester, 1974, and (iii) the study of Physics
`
`at Northwestern University, 1974-1975 (toward Ph.D.).
`
`16. My curriculum vitae is provided as EX1004.
`
`III. MATERIALS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED
`I have reviewed the ’339 patent, its prosecution history, and the prior
`17.
`
`art and other documents and materials cited herein. For ease of reference, the full
`
`list of documents that I have considered is included in Appendix B. I have also
`
`considered the documents cited and referenced herein, even if not included in
`
`Appendix B. Each of these materials is a type of document that experts in my field
`
`would have reasonably relied upon when forming their opinions and would have
`
`had access to either through the applicable patent office and/or well-known
`
`libraries, conferences, publications, organizations, and websites in the field as
`
`further discussed herein.
`
`18. My opinions in this Declaration are based on my review of these
`
`documents, as well as upon my education, training, research, knowledge, and
`
`experience. When developing the opinions set forth in this declaration, I assumed
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”), as set
`
`forth below.
`
`19. The opinions and comments formulated during this assessment are
`
`based on observations and information available at the time of this investigation.
`
`IV. MY UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`In developing my opinions, I discussed various relevant legal
`20.
`
`principles with Petitioner’s attorneys. I have relied upon such legal principles, as
`
`explained to me, while forming the opinions set forth in this declaration. My
`
`understanding in this respect is as follows:
`
`21.
`
`I understand that “inter partes review” (IPR) is a proceeding before
`
`the United States Patent & Trademark Office for evaluating the patentability of an
`
`issued patent’s claims based on prior-art patents and printed publications.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the challenged claims of the ’339 patent are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that a “preponderance of the
`
`evidence” means that the evidence establishes that a fact or conclusion is more
`
`likely true than not true.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that patent claims can be independent or dependent. I
`
`understand that a dependent claim must reference a claim previously set forth, and
`
`then must specify a further limitation of the claimed subject matter. I also
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`understand that a dependent claim is treated as incorporating by reference all
`
`limitations of the previously recited claim that it references. I understand that an
`
`independent claim does not reference or incorporate limitations from a previously
`
`disclosed claim.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that, in IPR proceedings, claim terms in a patent are
`
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the context of the entire patent and the prosecution
`
`history pertaining to the patent. If the specification provides a special definition for
`
`a claim term that differs from the meaning the term would otherwise possess, the
`
`specification’s special definition takes precedence. I have applied these standards
`
`in preparing the opinions in this declaration.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be patentable,
`
`it must be, among other things, new (and consequently not anticipated) and not
`
`obvious from the prior art. My understanding of these two legal standards is set
`
`forth below.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art
`26.
`
`(and therefore not novel), each and every claim limitation must be disclosed,
`
`expressly or inherently, in the subject matter provided by a single prior-art
`
`reference. I understand that anticipation requires that all of the elements of a claim
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`have to be arranged in the same manner as in the claims or can be immediately
`
`envisaged. I understand that a claim limitation is disclosed for the purpose of
`
`anticipation if a POSITA would have understood the reference to disclose the
`
`limitation based on inferences that a POSITA would reasonably be expected to
`
`draw from the explicit teachings in the reference when read in the context provided
`
`by the POSITA’s knowledge and experience.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim limitation is inherent in a prior art reference
`
`if that limitation is necessarily present when practicing the teachings of the
`
`reference, regardless of whether a POSITA recognized the presence of that
`
`limitation in the prior art.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable if the claimed
`28.
`
`invention would have been obvious to a POSITA in view of a single prior-art
`
`reference or a combination of prior-art references. I have been informed that
`
`obviousness is determined from the perspective of a hypothetical person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art and that the asserted claims of the patent should be read
`
`from the point of view of such a person at the time the alleged invention was made.
`
`I have been informed that a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art is
`
`assumed to know and to have all relevant prior art in the field of endeavor covered
`
`by the ’339 patent and would thus have been familiar with each of the references
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`cited herein, as well as the background knowledge discussed in the art and the full
`
`range of teachings they contain.
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that there are two criteria for determining
`
`whether prior art is analogous and thus can be considered prior art: (1) whether the
`
`art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2)
`
`if the reference is not within the field of the patentee’s endeavor, whether the
`
`reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
`
`patentee is involved. I have also been informed that the field of endeavor of a
`
`patent is not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible
`
`conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field. I have also been
`
`informed that a reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
`
`different field from that of the patentee’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the
`
`matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to a patentee’s
`
`attention in considering his problem.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter of the claim and the prior art are such that the claimed subject
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the invention
`
`was made. I have been informed as well that a prior art reference should be viewed
`
`as a whole. Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question involves a
`
`consideration of the scope and content of the prior art; the differences between the
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`prior art and the claims at issue; the knowledge of a POSITA; and any “secondary
`
`considerations” of non-obviousness.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that certain factors called “secondary
`
`considerations” can include (1) the invention’s commercial success, (2) long felt
`
`but unresolved needs, (3) the failure of others, (4) skepticism by experts, (5) praise
`
`by others, (6) teaching away by others, (7) recognition of a problem, (8) copying of
`
`the invention by competitors, and (9) other relevant factors. I have been informed,
`
`however, that for such objective evidence to be relevant to the obviousness of a
`
`claim, there must be a causal relationship (called a “nexus”) between the claim and
`
`the evidence and that this nexus must be based on what is claimed and novel in the
`
`claim rather than something in the prior art. I also have been informed that even
`
`when they are present, secondary considerations may be unable to overcome
`
`primary evidence of obviousness (e.g., motivation to combine with predictable
`
`results) that is sufficiently strong.
`
`32.
`
`I am not aware of any such “secondary considerations” applicable to
`
`the Challenged Claims. To my knowledge, the Patent Owner has not asserted any
`
`such secondary considerations with respect to the ’339 patent. However, should
`
`any be presented, I may address those unknown factors if asked by the Petitioner to
`
`do so.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`33.
`
`I understand that for a claimed invention to be considered obvious, a
`
`POSITA must have had a reason for combining teachings from multiple prior-art
`
`references (or for altering a single prior-art reference, in the case of obviousness in
`
`view of a single reference) in the fashion proposed.
`
`34.
`
`I have also been informed that in considering whether an invention for
`
`a claimed combination would have been obvious, I may assess whether the
`
`POSITA would have had reasons to combine known elements in the prior art in the
`
`manner claimed in view of interrelated teachings of multiple prior art references,
`
`the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace, and/or the background knowledge possessed by a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art. I have been informed that other principles may be relied on
`
`in evaluating whether an alleged invention would have been obvious, and that
`
`these principles include the following:
`
`35. A combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
`
`likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`36. When a device or technology is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or in a different one, so that if a person of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`implement a predictable variation, the variation is likely obvious.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`37.
`
`If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in
`
`the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
`
`beyond his or her skill.
`
`38. An explicit or implicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine
`
`two prior art references to form the claimed combination may demonstrate
`
`obviousness, but proof of obviousness does not depend on, or require, showing a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine.
`
`39. Market demand, rather than scientific literature, can drive design
`
`trends and may show obviousness.
`
`40.
`
`In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim would
`
`have been obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
`
`named inventor controls.
`
`41. One of the ways in which a patent’s subject can be proved obvious is
`
`by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which
`
`there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent’s claims.
`
`42. Any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
`
`invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements in the manner claimed.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`43.
`
`“Common sense” teaches that familiar items may have obvious uses
`
`beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
`
`puzzle.
`
`44. A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity and is not an automaton.
`
`45. A patent claim can be proved obvious by showing that the claimed
`
`combination of elements was “obvious to try,” particularly when there is a design
`
`need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`have had good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
`
`grasp.
`
`46. And one should be cautious of using hindsight in evaluating whether
`
`an alleged invention would have been obvious.
`
`47.
`
`I understand that a POSITA must have a reasonable expectation of
`
`success in combining the teachings in the references that underly a combination. I
`
`understand that a reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of
`
`success in combining the teachings in references to meet the limitations of the
`
`claimed invention, e.g., to achieve the claimed invention. I understand that in
`
`evaluating a combination, a predictable result means not only that the prior art
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`elements are capable of being physically combined, but also that the combination
`
`would have worked for its intended purpose.
`
`48.
`
`I have been asked to consider the patentability of the Challenged
`
`Claims. I have been informed that for inter partes reviews (“IPR”), unpatentability
`
`must be shown under a preponderance of the evidence standard. I have been
`
`informed that to establish something by a preponderance of the evidence one needs
`
`to prove it is more likely true than not true. I have concluded that the Challenged
`
`Claims are unpatentable at least as obvious based on the references described
`
`below and as explained herein.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`I have been informed and understand that for purposes of assessing
`49.
`
`whether prior-art references disclose every element of a patent claim (thus
`
`“anticipating” the claim) and/or would have rendered the claim obvious, the patent
`
`and the prior-art references must be assessed from the perspective of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which the patent is related on the
`
`patent claim’s date of invention. I have been informed and understand that a
`
`POSITA is presumed to be aware of all pertinent prior art and the conventional
`
`wisdom in the art, and is a person of ordinary creativity. I have applied this
`
`standard throughout my declaration.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`50.
`
`I understand that the ’339 patent issued from an application filed on
`
`July 6, 2007. I also understand that the ’339 patent purports to claim priority to a
`
`provisional application filed on July 11, 2006. However, I have been asked to
`
`assume that the Patent Owner has a burden to prove on a claim-by-claim basis that
`
`any particular claim is entitled to a priority date or date of invention of July 11,
`
`2006. I understand that at the time of this declaration the Patent Owner has not
`
`made any such showing. If the Patent Owner attempts to make such a showing, I
`
`understand that I may be asked to respond in a subsequent declaration.
`
`Accordingly, I have been asked to assume that the time of invention for each claim
`
`in the ’339 patent is July 6, 2007, and I have applied that understanding in forming
`
`my opinions throughout this Declaration.
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion the ’339 patent concerns the fields of digital imaging
`
`systems and image processing, particularly digital signal processing. The relevant
`
`fields include understanding the imaging properties of physical optics, specifically
`
`the optical distortions or aberrations introduced by imaging systems, as well as
`
`other artifacts introduced to digital images by imaging system components.
`
`52.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions as to the state of the art in
`
`these fields on July 6, 2007. Whenever I offer an opinion in this declaration about
`
`the knowledge of a POSITA, the manner in which a POSITA would have
`
`understood the claims of the ’339 patent or its description, the manner in which a
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`POSITA would have understood the prior art, or what a POSITA would have been
`
`led to do based on the prior art, I am referencing the July 6, 2007 timeframe, even
`
`if I do not say so specifically in each case.
`
`53.
`
`I was asked to identify the POSITA and their ordinary level of skill in
`
`the relevant art on the effective filing date of July 6, 2007. I understand that the
`
`POSITA’s level of skill in the art can be determined by several non-exhaustive
`
`factors including (1) the inventor’s educational level; (2) the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to the type of problems encountered
`
`in the art; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made in the art; (5) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of active workers in
`
`the field. I understand that the prior art discussed in this Declaration is itself
`
`evidence for determining the POSITA’s ordinary level of skill. I have considered
`
`these factors in forming an opinion on the POSITA’s level of skill on July 6, 2007.
`
`54.
`
`I believe a POSITA in the field of the ’339 patent on or around July 6,
`
`2007, would have been a person with a Bachelor of Sci