Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nikon Corporation, Panasonic Entertainment & Communication Co., Ltd.,
`Olympus Corporation, OM Digital Solutions Corporation, FUJIFILM North
`America Corporation, FUJIFILM Corporation,
`Petitioners,
`v.
`Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________________________
`
`Case IPR2024-01373
`
`Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. STEVENSON
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Background and Qualifications ...................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. Materials Reviewed ........................................................................................ 7
`IV. Summary of Opinions ..................................................................................... 9
`V. Understanding of the Law .............................................................................. 9
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................ 16
`VII. Claim Construction ....................................................................................... 18
`VIII. Background on the State of the Art .............................................................. 18
` Digital Image Correction In Camera .................................................. 18
`Storage of Correction Data ................................................................. 21
`
`Optical Aberration Corrections .......................................................... 21
`
`Focal Length ....................................................................................... 22
`
`Aperture Settings ................................................................................ 23
`
`Fast Fourier Transform (“FFT”) ........................................................ 24
`
` Depth of Field (“DOF”) Adjustment .................................................. 24
`IX. Overview Of The ’805 Patent ....................................................................... 25
`Summary ............................................................................................ 25
`
`Relevant Prosecution History ............................................................. 26
`
`X. Overview of the Prior Art References .......................................................... 27
` Niikawa............................................................................................... 27
`Enomoto ............................................................................................. 33
`
`Levien ................................................................................................. 34
`
` Yamasaki ............................................................................................ 35
`XI. The Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ................................................... 36
` Grounds 1(a) and 1(b) ........................................................................ 36
`1.
`Independent Claim 9 ................................................................ 36
`
`-i-
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`a.
`b.
`
`Element [9pre] ............................................................... 36
`Element [9A] ................................................................. 37
`(1)
`[9A-1] Digital Camera Mechanism ..................... 37
`(2)
`[9A-2] Optical Lens Mechanism ......................... 39
`(3)
`[9A-3] Digital Sensor .......................................... 41
`(4)
`[9A-4] Microprocessor ........................................ 43
`(5)
`[9A-5] Digital Signal Processor .......................... 44
`(6)
`[9A-6] Application Specific Integrated
`Circuit .................................................................. 46
`[9A-7] System Software ...................................... 50
`(7)
`[9A-8] Database Management System ................ 50
`(8)
`[9A-9] Memory Storage Sub-System .................. 53
`(9)
`Element [9B] .................................................................. 54
`c.
`Element [9C] .................................................................. 57
`d.
`Element [9D] ................................................................. 58
`e.
`Element [9E] .................................................................. 62
`f.
`Element [9F] .................................................................. 63
`g.
`Element [9G] ................................................................. 66
`h.
`Element [9H] ................................................................. 67
`i.
`Element [9I] ................................................................... 68
`j.
`Element [9J] ................................................................... 69
`k.
`Independent Claim 24 .............................................................. 70
`a.
`Element [24pre] ............................................................. 70
`b.
`Elements [24A-1]-[24A-9] ............................................ 70
`c.
`Element [24B] ................................................................ 70
`d.
`Element [24C] ................................................................ 70
`e.
`Element [24D] ............................................................... 71
`f.
`Element [24E] ................................................................ 71
`
`2.
`
`-ii-
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`
`
`g.
`Element [24F] ................................................................ 71
`Element [24G] ............................................................... 72
`h.
`Element [24H] ............................................................... 72
`i.
`Element [24I] ................................................................. 75
`j.
`Element [24J] ................................................................. 75
`k.
`Element [24K] ............................................................... 76
`l.
`Grounds 2(a) and 2(b) ........................................................................ 76
`1.
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................ 76
`a.
`Elements [1pre]-[1A-9] ................................................. 76
`b.
`Element [1B] .................................................................. 76
`c.
`Element [1C] .................................................................. 80
`d.
`Element [1D] ................................................................. 80
`e.
`Element [1E] .................................................................. 81
`f.
`Element [1F] .................................................................. 81
`g.
`Element [1G] ................................................................. 81
`h.
`Element [1H] ................................................................. 81
`i.
`Element [1I] ................................................................... 82
`j.
`Element [1J] ................................................................... 85
`k.
`Element [1K] ................................................................. 85
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 85
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 87
`Independent Claim 18 .............................................................. 88
`a.
`Elements [18pre]- [18A-9] ............................................ 88
`b.
`Element [18B] ................................................................ 88
`c.
`Element [18C] ................................................................ 88
`d.
`Element [18D] ............................................................... 89
`e.
`Element [18E] ................................................................ 89
`f.
`Element [18F] ................................................................ 89
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`-iii-
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`
`
`g.
`Element [18G] ............................................................... 89
`Element [18H] ............................................................... 90
`h.
`Element [18I] ................................................................. 90
`i.
`Element [18J] ................................................................. 90
`j.
`Claim 19 ................................................................................... 90
`5.
`Claim 20 ................................................................................... 91
`6.
`Ground 3 ............................................................................................. 91
`1.
`Independent Claim 4 ................................................................ 91
`a.
`Elements [4pre]-[4A-9] ................................................. 91
`b.
`Element [4B] .................................................................. 92
`c.
`Element [4C] .................................................................. 92
`d.
`Element [4D] ................................................................. 92
`e.
`Element [4E] .................................................................. 92
`f.
`Element [4F] .................................................................. 92
`g.
`Element [4G] ................................................................. 93
`h.
`Element [4H] ................................................................. 93
`i.
`Element [4I] ................................................................... 93
`j.
`Element [4J] ................................................................... 96
`k.
`Element [4K] ................................................................. 99
`l.
`Element [4L] .................................................................. 99
`Claim 5 ................................................................................... 100
`Claim 6 ................................................................................... 101
`Claim 7 ................................................................................... 101
`Claim 8 ................................................................................... 102
`Independent Claim 21 ............................................................ 103
`a.
`Elements [21pre]-[21A-9] ........................................... 103
`b.
`Element [21B] .............................................................. 103
`c.
`Element [21C] .............................................................. 103
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`6.
`
`-iv-
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`d.
`Element [21D] ............................................................. 103
`Element [21E] .............................................................. 104
`e.
`Element [21F] .............................................................. 104
`f.
`Element [21G] ............................................................. 104
`g.
`Element [21H] ............................................................. 104
`h.
`Element [21I] ............................................................... 105
`i.
`Element [21J] ............................................................... 105
`j.
`Claim 22 ................................................................................. 105
`7.
`Claim 23 ................................................................................. 105
`8.
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness .............................. 106
`
`XII. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 106
`
`-v-
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`1. My name is Robert L. Stevenson. I have been retained by counsel for
`
`Olympus Corporation, OM Digital Solutions Corporation, FUJIFILM Corporation,
`
`FUJIFILM North America Corporation, Nikon Corporation, and Panasonic
`
`Entertainment & Communication Co., Ltd. (“Petitioners”) as an expert witness in
`
`this inter partes review to examine whether claims 1-9 and 18-24 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,612,805 (“the ’805 Patent” or “Ex-1001”) are patentable over certain prior art. I
`
`understand the ’805 Patent is currently assigned to Optimum Imaging Technologies
`
`LLC (“Patent Owner”).
`
`2.
`
`I have personal knowledge of all the facts set forth herein, and if called
`
`to testify at any hearing in this inter partes review, I would competently testify and
`
`verify that testimony contained herein.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated at my hourly rate of $750 per hour. I am also
`
`being reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses. My compensation does not depend in
`
`any way on the outcome of this proceeding or the particular opinions I express, or
`
`the testimony I give.
`
`4.
`
`I expect to be available for deposition and to testify at the evidentiary
`
`hearing in this inter partes review to the extent required.
`
`5.
`
`This declaration contains my conclusions and a summary of my
`
`analysis including a summary of my conclusions; an overview of my qualifications
`
`1
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`as an expert; an overview of the scope and terms of my engagement for this
`
`declaration; an overview of the materials I have considered in arriving at my
`
`conclusions; an overview of the terminology and legal principles that I applied in
`
`my analysis; an overview of the technical background of the subject matter; an
`
`overview of the ’805 Patent; an analysis of the level of ordinary skill in the art related
`
`to the ’805 Patent; and an analysis of the asserted references; and a patentability
`
`analysis of the challenged claims.
`
`6.
`
`This declaration is based on information currently available to me. I
`
`intend to continue my investigation and study, which may include a review of
`
`documents and information that may yet be produced, as well as deposition
`
`testimony from depositions for which transcripts are not yet available or that may
`
`yet be taken in this review. Therefore, I expressly reserve the right to expand or
`
`modify my opinions as my investigation and study continue, and to supplement my
`
`opinions in response to any additional information that becomes available to me, any
`
`matters raised by Patent Owner and/or other opinions provided by Patent Owner’s
`
`expert(s), or in light of any relevant orders from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`or other authoritative body.
`
`2
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`II. Background and Qualifications
`7. My qualifications and professional experience are described in my
`
`Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which can be found in Ex-1004. The following is a
`
`brief summary of my relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`8.
`
`I have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the University
`
`of Delaware and a Ph.D. degree in Electrical Engineering from Purdue University.
`
`My Ph.D. research was on communications and signal processing.
`
`9.
`
`I am presently a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering
`
`and in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of
`
`Notre Dame. I first joined the faculty at the University of Notre Dame as an
`
`Assistant Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering in 1990. I was
`
`granted tenure and promoted to the rank of Associate Professor in August 1996. I
`
`attained the rank of Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering in August
`
`2002, and I continue to serve in that capacity. I have served concurrently as a
`
`Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University
`
`of Notre Dame from January 2003 through June 2018.
`
`10. Since 2013 I have served as an Associate Chair of the Department of
`
`Electrical Engineering. I also serve as the Director of Undergraduate Studies in
`
`Electrical Engineering. In this role I oversee the department’s undergraduate
`
`program in Electrical Engineering.
`
`3
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`11.
`
`I spent the summer of 1992 at the Air Force Research Lab in Rome,
`
`New York and I spent the summer of 1993 at the Intel® Corporation in Hillsboro,
`
`Oregon.
`
` Several
`
`leading computing companies,
`
`including Intel®, Sun
`
`Microsystems®, Apple® Computer, and Microsoft®, have supported my research
`
`at Notre Dame. During the past 20 years, I have published over 150 technical papers
`
`related to the field of image processing and digital systems.
`
`12.
`
`I am a member of the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers,
`
`The International Society for Optical Engineering, and the Society for Imaging
`
`Science and Technology. I am a member of the academic honor societies Eta Kappa
`
`Nu, Tau Beta Pi, and Phi Kappa Phi.
`
`13. For the past 20 years my work has focused on the design of techniques,
`
`hardware, and software for the processing of digital signals using digital computing
`
`devices. As an academic researcher I attempt to develop novel ideas for systems,
`
`then publish and present those ideas to the technical community. My success as an
`
`academic is directly related to the insights and techniques that provide the basis for
`
`new generations of products. My early work on digital techniques for printing and
`
`image capture devices led to significant interaction with companies developing
`
`desktop computers products in the early 1990’s as they tried to incorporate those
`
`ideas into their products.
`
`4
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`14. My interaction with Apple’s Imaging Group focused on various
`
`imaging devices such as digital cameras, scanners, and printers and how to best
`
`support those devices on desktop computers. At Intel, I worked in Intel’s
`
`Architecture Lab at the time the MMX multimedia instructions were being
`
`incorporated into the Pentium processor. My work there dealt with developing video
`
`compression techniques for CD-ROM’s and network communications that were well
`
`matched to the Pentium architecture. I also gave a series of talks on how advanced
`
`communication and video processing techniques could be better supported on the
`
`Pentium platform. Similarly, my interaction with Sun Microsystem’s group
`
`examined how advanced signal processing techniques could be best implemented
`
`using Sun’s new Visual Instruction Set on the Sparc architecture.
`
`15.
`
`I have also received significant support for my research from several
`
`U.S. Department of Defense Agencies. The Air Force Research Laboratory has
`
`funded my work to develop advanced parallel processing algorithms that exploited
`
`an ad-hoc network of mixed computers to achieve significant computational
`
`advantages over their previously implemented techniques. Other Department of
`
`Defense agencies have supported my work in image and video enhancement.
`
`16. Through my work I have contributed significantly to the understanding
`
`and modeling of the limitations of and aberrations found in optical image capture
`
`systems. For example, I directed a Ph.D. dissertation entitled “Modeling,
`5
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`Approximation, and Estimation of Spatially-varying Blur in Photographic Systems”
`
`with my student John Simpkins and co-authored several papers in the 2011-2016
`
`directly on the modeling of optical systems.
`
`17. Additionally, I have developed numerous novel computational
`
`algorithms to overcome such issues with optical capture systems over the past 30
`
`years. Some examples include “Improved Definition Image Expansion” (1994),
`
`“Color Palette Restoration” (1995), “Extraction of High-Resolution Frames from
`
`Video Sequences” (1996), “Reduced-Complexity Iterative Post-Filtering of Video”
`
`(2001), “Improving the Performance of Single Chip Image Capture Devices” (2003),
`
`“Estimation Theoretic Approach to Dynamic Range Improvement Through Multiple
`
`Exposures” (2003), “A Parameterized Spatially-Varying PSF Model” (2014),
`
`“Multi-Image Motion Deblurring Aided By Inertial Sensors” (2016), “Inertial
`
`Sensor Aided Multi-Image Nonuniform Motion Blur Removal Based on Motion
`
`Decomposition” (2018), “Deep Motion Blur Removal Using Noisy/Blurry Image
`
`Pairs” (2021), and “DeblurExpandNet: Image Motion Deblurring Network Aided by
`
`Inertial Sensor Data” (2022). These references were all published in peer referred
`
`international journals and have collectively been cited thousands of times in the
`
`field. I have also presented such work at internationals conferences around the world.
`
`Complete citations to this work can be found in my curriculum vitae which is
`
`included as Ex-1004.
`
`6
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`18.
`
`I have published over 150 papers in international journals and
`
`international conferences.
`
`19.
`
`I am an inventor of U.S. Pat. No. 6,081,552, “Video Coding Using a
`
`Maximum A Posteriori Loop Filter,” June 27, 2000.
`
`20. Additional information concerning my background, qualifications,
`
`publications, conferences, honors, and awards are described in my Curriculum Vitae
`
`(Ex-1004).
`
`III. Materials Reviewed
`In reaching the conclusions described in this declaration, I have relied
`21.
`
`on the documents and materials recited herein as well as those identified in this
`
`declaration, including the ’805 Patent, the prosecution history of the ’805 Patent, the
`
`prior art references, and information discussed and any other references specifically
`
`identified in this declaration, including the materials identified in the chart below.
`
`Exhibit
`Ex-1001
`Ex-1002
`Ex-1003
`Ex-1004
`Ex-1005
`Ex-1006
`Ex-1007
`Ex-1008
`Ex-1009
`
`Description
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,612,805 (“’805 Patent”)
`Prosecution History of the ’805 Patent Sans NPL
`[Reserved]
`Curriculum Vitae of Expert Witness, Dr. Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0135688 (“Niikawa”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,323,934 (“Enomoto”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,524,162 (“Levien”)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0071905 (“Yamasaki”)
`Dkt. No. 88, Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and
`Order, Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC v. Canon Inc., No.
`2:19-cv-00246 (E.D. Tex. June 11, 2020) (“Canon Case”)
`
`7
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`Exhibit
`Ex-1010
`
`Ex-1011
`Ex-1012
`
`Ex-1013
`Ex-1014
`Ex-1015
`Ex-1016
`Ex-1017
`Ex-1018
`Ex-1019
`
`Ex-1020
`Ex-1021
`
`Ex-1022
`Ex-1023
`Ex-1024
`Ex-1025
`
`Ex-1026
`Ex-1027
`Ex-1028
`Ex-1029
`
`Ex-1030
`
`Ex-1031
`Ex-1032
`
`Ex-1033
`
`Description
`Certified Translation of Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004-
`266768 (“Matsutani”)
`Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004-266768 (“Matsutani-JP”)
`Certified Translation of Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. 2003-
`158672 (“Endo”)
`Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. 2003-158672 (“Endo-JP”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,849,964 (“Ralston”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,451,339 (“’339 Patent”)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,063,982 (“Bestgen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,920,443 (“Cesare”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,245,319 (“Enomoto II”)
`Dkt. No. 1, Complaint, Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC v.
`Nikon Corporation, Case No. 4-23-cv-00923 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 18,
`2023)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,477,264 (“Sarbadhikari”)
`English Translation of Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. 11-205652
`(“Ichiyama”)
`Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. 11-205652 (“Ichiyama-JP”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 5,276,519 (“Richards”)
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,862,373 (“Enomoto III”)
`Certified Translation of Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. H6-113309
`(“Ito”)
`Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. H6-113309 (“Ito-JP”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,683,950 (“Kelly”)
`Sotera Stipulation for Petitioners
`Certified Translation of Ricoh Technical Report No. 31, RICOH
`(Apr.
`20,
`2006),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060420051054/http:/www.ricoh.
`co.jp/about/business_overview/report/31/ (“Ricoh”)
`Ricoh Technical Report No. 31, RICOH (Apr. 20, 2006),
`https://web.archive.org/web/20060420051054/http:/www.ricoh.
`co.jp/about/business_overview/report/31/ (“Ricoh-JP”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,873,685 (“’685 Patent”)
`Certified Translation of Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. H5-3568
`(“Shiomi”)
`Japanese Pat. App. Pub. No. H5-3568 (“Shiomi-JP”)
`
`8
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`IV. Summary of Opinions
`
`22. Ground 1(a): It is my opinion that claims 9 and 24 are obvious over
`
`Niikawa.
`
`23. Ground 1(b): It is my opinion that claims 9 and 24 are obvious over
`
`Niikawa in view of Enomoto.
`
`24. Ground 2(a): It is my opinion that claims 1-3 and 18-20 are obvious
`
`over Niikawa in view of Levien.
`
`25. Ground 2(b): It is my opinion that claims 1-3 and 18-20 are obvious
`
`over Niikawa in view of Enomoto and Levien.
`
`26. Ground 3: It is my opinion that claims 4-8 and 21-23 are obvious over
`
`Niikawa in view of Enomoto and Yamasaki.
`
`V. Understanding of the Law
`
`27.
`
`I am not a legal expert. In forming my opinions, I have been informed
`
`of and applied the legal standards as follows. I understand that the legal standards
`
`relating to anticipation and obviousness apply to the ’805 Patent and have been
`
`instructed to assume an effective filing date of July 11, 2006.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not
`
`new. For a claim to be invalid on the basis of anticipation because it is not new, all
`
`of its elements must be present, either expressly or inherently, in a single previous
`
`9
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`device or method, or described, either expressly or inherently, in a single previous
`
`publication or patent.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the description in a reference does not have to be in
`
`the same words as the claim, but all the requirements of the claim must be there,
`
`either stated expressly or necessarily implied or inherent to one of ordinary skill in
`
`the field of technology of the patent at the time of the invention, so that someone of
`
`ordinary skill in the field of technology of the patent looking at that one reference
`
`would be able to make and use the claimed invention. I further understand that to
`
`be necessarily implied or inherent, the claim element must be a necessary part of the
`
`reference that is not expressly disclosed. Merely being one option is not sufficient
`
`for a claim element to be necessarily implied or inherent to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art (“POSA”).
`
`30.
`
`I have been informed that in relying upon the theory of inherency, there
`
`must be a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
`
`determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the
`
`teachings of the applied prior art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is “obvious” and therefore invalid when
`
`the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the
`
`10
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a POSA to which the subject matter pertains.
`
`32.
`
`In making an obviousness determination, I understand that there are
`
`several factors to consider: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed
`
`invention; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, if any,
`
`and (4) objective considerations, if any exist, such as any commercial success,
`
`copying, prior failure by others, licenses, longstanding need, and unexpected results.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that prior art used to show that a claimed invention is
`
`obvious must be “analogous art.” Prior art is analogous art to the claimed invention
`
`if (1) it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it
`
`addresses a different problem) or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the
`
`problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not from the same field of endeavor as
`
`the claimed invention).
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the U.S. Supreme Court has
`
`recognized several rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to
`
`show obviousness of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the
`
`following: (a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`11
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`obtain predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`art that would have led a POSA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`35. Also, I have been informed and understand that obviousness does not
`
`require physical combination/bodily incorporation, but rather consideration of what
`
`the combined teachings would have suggested to a POSA at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made.
`
`36.
`
`I understand that it is improper to engage in hindsight when trying to
`
`determine the obviousness of a patent claim. I understand that the obviousness
`
`inquiry must be conducted from the standpoint of a POSA at the time the claimed
`
`invention was made. What is known today, and what is learned from the teachings
`
`and disclosures of the patent itself containing the claim under analysis, should not
`
`be considered.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed that various “secondary considerations”
`
`(sometimes referred to as objective indicia of non-obviousness) may support a
`
`12
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`determination of non-obviousness and that such secondary considerations must be
`
`considered as part of an obviousness analysis. I have been informed that secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness may include:
`
`a.
`
`commercial success of a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention;
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`a long felt need for the solution provided by the claimed invention;
`
`unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution provided by the
`
`claimed invention;
`
`copying of the claimed invention by others;
`
`unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention; and
`
`acceptance by others of the claimed invention as shown by praise
`
`from others in the field or from the licensing of the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`38.
`
`I understand that in order for such “secondary considerations” evidence
`
`to be relevant to the obviousness inquiry, there must be a relationship or “nexus”
`
`between the advantages and features of the claimed invention and the evidence of
`
`secondary considerations.
`
`13
`
`PETITIONERS EX1003
`
`

`

`Declaration Of Robert L. Stevenson
`U.S. Patent No. 7,612,805
`
`
`39.
`
`I understand that if a claim is not obvious, then the claims that depend
`
`from it are not obvious.
`
`40.
`
`I have been advised that in an inter partes review the claim terms
`
`generally should be given their ordinary and customary meaning as a POSA would
`
`have understood them at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention
`
`and in light of the patent and its prosecution history. Furthermore, I have been
`
`instructed that a claim’s plain language can help guide the interpretation of the claim
`
`terms in question, and the manner in which a claim term is used in a claim may be
`
`informative of its meaning.
`
`41. Further, I have been informed that in an inter partes review proceeding,
`
`only claim terms that are actually in dispute need be construed. Thus, terms that are
`
`not in dispute, or ones for which alter