`
`Poeze et al.
`In re Patent of:
`10,292,628 Attorney Docket No.: 50095-00008IP1
`U.S. Patent No.:
`May 21, 2019
`Issue Date:
`Appl. Serial No.: 16/261,326
`Filing Date:
`January 29, 2019
`Title:
`MULTI-STREAM DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR
`NONINVASIVE MEASUREMENT OF BLOOD
`CONSTITUENTS
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. THOMAS W. KENNY
`
`Declaration
`
`I declare that all statements made herein on my own knowledge are true and
`
`that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true, and
`
`further, that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable under Section 1001 of Title 18 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`Dated: September 29, 2021 By: ________________________________
`
`Thomas W. Kenny, Ph.D.
`
`APPLE 1047
`Apple v. Masimo
`IPR2020-01521
`
`1
`
`
`
`Contents
`
`
`I. GROUNDS 1A-1D RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ..... 3
`A. Inokawa’s lens enhances the light-gathering ability of Aizawa ....................... 3
`B. A POSITA would have been motivated to add a second LED to Aizawa ..... 31
`C. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Aizawa in view of Ohsaki
`to include a convex protrusion ............................................................................. 33
`II. GROUNDS 2A-2B RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ... 36
`A. A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Mendelson-1988 in view
`of Inokawa to add a lens ....................................................................................... 36
`B. Mendelson-1988 in view of Inokawa includes the claimed cover ................. 37
`C. Mendelson-1988 in view of Inokawa renders obvious a “circular housing” . 40
`D. Nishikawa is a supporting reference .............................................................. 40
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 41
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This Declaration further expands the conclusions that I have formed based
`
`on my analysis, in addition to those provided in my first declaration (APPLE-1003,
`
`which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety; “Original Declaration”).
`
`Consistent with my findings provided in my Original Declaration, and based upon
`
`my knowledge and experience and my review of the prior art publications listed
`
`above, a POSITA would have found that claims 1-30 (“the Challenged Claims”) of
`
`the ’628 patent are rendered obvious by at least the combination of as set forth in
`
`my Original Declaration.
`
`
`
`GROUNDS 1A-1D RENDER OBVIOUS THE CHALLENGED
`
`I.
`CLAIMS
`2.
`As I further clarify below in response to Patent Owner’s arguments, claims
`
`1-15, 17, 20-26, and 28 are rendered obvious by the combination of Aizawa and
`
`Inokawa (Ground 1A). For additional reasons as explained below, those same
`
`claims are further rendered obvious by the combination of Aizawa, Inokawa, and
`
`Ohsaki (Ground 1B).
`
`A.
`
`Inokawa’s lens enhances the light-gathering ability of
`Aizawa
`As I previously explained in the Original Declaration, Inokawa very
`
`3.
`
`generally describes a “lens [that] makes it possible to increase the light-gathering
`
`ability” of a reflectance type pulse sensor, APPLE-1008, [0015], [0058], FIG. 2,
`
`3
`
`
`
`and, based on this disclosure, a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate
`
`“an Inokawa-like lens into the cover of Aizawa to increase the light collection
`
`efficiency....” APPLE-1003, ¶¶91-96. In a significant extrapolation from the very
`
`simple and purely illustrative description in Inokawa, Patent Owner provides two
`
`incorrect arguments. First, Patent Owner claims that Inokawa’s disclosure is
`
`narrowly-limited to a particular lens that somehow is only capable of operation
`
`with peripheral emitters and a central detector. Second, the Patent Owner claims
`
`that the lens of Inokawa directs all incoming light rays “to the center of the sensor”
`
`and would “direct light away from the periphery-located detectors as in Aizawa,”
`
`regardless of the direction of light propagation of each ray, which is a violation of
`
`elementary laws of light propagation that would be familiar to a POSITA. POR,
`
`16, 20; see also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my Declaration...if you
`
`have a convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would be condensed or
`
`directed towards the center.”). Based on these two incorrect claims, the Patent
`
`Owner insists that there would be no motivation to combine.
`
`4.
`
`Patent Owner’s misinformed understanding of Inokawa’s lens as well as
`
`lenses in general is demonstrated by their description of Inokawa’s lens 27 as
`
`“focus[ing] light from LEDs (21, 23)...to a single detector (25) in the center” and
`
`“direct[ing] incoming light to the centrally located detector.” POR, 14; see also
`
`APPLE-1042, 170:12-20 (“To be precise, my opinion is that...Inokawa’s convex
`
`4
`
`
`
`lens 27...would redirect light from the...measurement site towards the center.”); see
`
`also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my Declaration...if you have a
`
`convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would be condensed or directed
`
`towards the center.”).
`
`5.
`
`A correct understanding of Inokawa’s lens as well as of reflectance type
`
`pulse sensors in general (like those disclosed by each of Aizawa, Inokawa, and
`
`Mendelson-1988) readily exposes Patent Owner’s flawed rationale. Indeed, as I
`
`noted during deposition, a POSITA would understand that Inokawa’s lens
`
`generally improves “light concentration at pretty much all of the locations under
`
`the curvature of the lens,” as opposed to only at a single point at the center as
`
`asserted by Patent Owner. Ex. 2006, 164:8-16.
`
`6.
`
`Among other things, because Inokawa is a reflectance-type pulse detector
`
`that receives diffuse, backscattered light from the measurement site, its lens cannot
`
`focus all incoming light at a single point. Ex. 2006, 163:12-164:2 (“A lens in
`
`general, when placed in the view of a diffuse optical source, doesn’t produce a
`
`single focal point.”). Indeed, as I previously explained, “light entering and
`
`returning from the tissue will follow many different random paths,” and there are
`
`“variations in the path associated with the randomness of the scattering.” Ex.
`
`2020, ¶128. Reflectance type pulse detectors and oximeters, as in each of Aizawa,
`
`Inokawa, and Mendelson-1988, work in this manner, by detecting light that has
`
`5
`
`
`
`been “partially reflected, transmitted, absorbed, and scattered by the skin and other
`
`tissues and the blood before it reaches the detector.” Ex. 2012, 86. That is, as a
`
`POSITA would have clearly understood, light that backscatters from the
`
`measurement site after diffusing through tissue reaches the active detection area
`
`from various random directions and angles. APPLE-1046, 803 (“The incident
`
`light emitted from the LED’s diffuses in the skin in all directions. This is evident
`
`from the circular pattern of backscattered light surrounding the LED’s”); Ex. 2012,
`
`90 (“In a reflectance oximeter, the incident light emitted from the LEDs diffuses
`
`through the skin and the back scattered light forms a circular pattern around the
`
`LEDs”), 52 (“Light scattering causes the deviation of a light beam from its initial
`
`direction”). Therefore, a POSITA would know that there is no lens of any shape,
`
`material, or orientation that would be capable of refracting all of the light from a
`
`diffuse light source to a single focus. Further, a POSITA would know that there is
`
`no lens of any shape, material or orientation that would be capable of concentrating
`
`or condensing all of the light from a diffuse source towards any single location.
`
`7.
`
`As I further show using green arrows below, light emitted from Inokawa’s
`
`LEDs 21, 23 is backscattered from many locations throughout the measurement
`
`site, each scattered return ray propagating towards the lens with a very wide range
`
`of positions and orientations before it can go through the lens 27:
`
`6
`
`
`
`APPLE-1008, FIG. 2 (modified/annotated)
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Such backscattered light cannot all be focused by Inokawa’s lens—let alone
`
`by any lens—at a singular, central location (i.e., detector 25) without violating the
`
`laws of physics (as well as common sense that a POSITA would possess). Further,
`
`such a lens, or any lens, is not capable of directing, concentrating, or condensing
`
`all such light towards any single location.
`
`9.
`
`Basic laws of refraction, expressed as Snell’s law, dictate this behavior of
`
`light. APPLE-1052, 84 (“This is the very important law of refraction, the physical
`
`consequences of which have been studied…for over eighteen hundred years…[i]n
`
`English-speaking countries…[i]t is generally referred to as Snell’s law); APPLE-
`
`1049, 101; Ex. 2012, 52, 86, 90. Even Dr. Madisetti does not dispute the
`
`applicability of Snell’s law. See APPLE-1043, 80:20-82:20. For reference, Snell’s
`
`law relates to the even more fundamental Fermat’s principle, which states that a
`
`7
`
`
`
`path taken by a light ray between two points is one that can be traveled in the least
`
`time. See APPLE-1052, 87-92; APPLE-1049, 106-111. In fact, Snell’s law of
`
`refraction is routinely taught in high school science classes as part of an elementary
`
`discussion of the properties of light. Further, Snell’s law can be described on its
`
`own and applied without any referral to underlying references, and there is no
`
`lingering controversy about its validity or use.
`
`10.
`
`Indeed, according to Snell’s law, which is stated in simple algebraic form
`
`and illustrated by the simple diagram below, light passing from one medium to
`
`another is refracted according to the angle of incidence and the values of the
`
`indices of refraction of each medium. A POSITA would be familiar with Snell’s
`
`law from high school science demonstrations of light passing through prisms, as
`
`well as from introductory required physics courses included with their bachelor’s
`
`degree programs. Dr. Madisetti admitted that he was familiar with Snell’s law
`
`from his introductory physics courses. APPLE-1043, 80:20-81:1. Incidentally,
`
`while not critical to this discussion, I note that indices of refraction n1 and n2 must
`
`be positive for human tissue and the types of optical lenses we’re dealing with in
`
`this case and that, in general n1 > n2. See APPLE-1052, 84; APPLE-1049, 101;
`
`APPLE-1043, 80:20-82:20.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`11. Referring now to Patent Owner’s annotated version of Inokawa FIG. 2,
`
`which I have marked further to show additional rays of light emitted from LED 21,
`
`it is clear that the rays provided by Inokawa are, at most, only slightly refracted,
`
`consistent with the similarity in indices of refraction between tissue and the lens
`
`materials discussed in this case. In the additional rays drawn in this figure, I have
`
`followed the example provided by Inokawa and shown, at most, only slight
`
`amounts of refraction. From this illustration, and even if larger amounts of
`
`refraction were present, it can be clearly seen how some of the reflected/scattered
`
`light rays from the measurement sites (shown in red) could not possibly reach the
`
`centrally located detector 25 of Inokawa:
`
`9
`
`
`
`POR, 18 (annotated)
`
`
`
`12. A similar drawing is shown below for additional light rays (again shown in
`
`red) emitted from LED 23. In fact, if the 3-dimensional shape of this system is
`
`taken into account, it is clear that the majority of all light rays reflected/scattered
`
`from the measurement site could not be refracted towards the center:
`
`POR, 18 (annotated)
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`13. For these and countless other rays that are not explicitly shown, there is
`
`simply no way for Inokawa’s lens 27 to focus all light at the center of the sensor
`
`device, or even to direct, concentrate, or condense all of the light towards a central
`
`location or any single location. A POSITA would understand that the Inokawa
`
`disclosure describes a lens that provides “improved light-gathering” without
`
`magically directing all the light to the center.
`
`14. Referring now to the region highlighted in purple below where various rays
`
`emitted from the LEDs are shown, only the black ray will refract toward the central
`
`detector according to Snell’s law. The red ray cannot possibly refract to the same
`
`location without violating Snell’s law. There is no type of optical lens in existence
`
`that would somehow cause both of these incoming rays to refract toward the
`
`central detector. This is obviously true because these rays enter the lens at the
`
`same point but with different angles of incidence. Therefore, as required by the
`
`simple algebraic expression of Snell’s law, these rays are refracted with different
`
`angles of refraction, and cannot possibly converge at the center or at any other
`
`location anywhere. This elementary fact would be understood by a POSITA. This
`
`elementary fact clearly and directly contradicts the many statements made by Dr.
`
`Madisetti that the lens directs all incoming light to the center. See APPLE-1041,
`
`40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all
`
`light reflected or otherwise would be condensed or directed towards the center.”).
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`15. The very simple illustrations shown above are for the simplest case of light
`
`rays incident upon the interface between a surrounding medium and a flat plate of
`
`some transparent material, which could be glass or acrylic or another material. For
`
`the case of light rays incident upon a transparent material with a curved surface,
`
`the simple laws of refraction still determine the behavior of the light. By way of
`
`example, the illustration below shows three representative rays incident upon the
`
`curved surface with three different directions and meeting the surface at three
`
`different locations. In each case, Snell’s law determines the direction of the ray
`
`within the transparent material, dependent only on the direction of the incident ray
`
`and its orientation relative to a line drawn perpendicular to the surface at the
`
`location of entry, and the indices of refraction of the surrounding medium and the
`
`transparent material.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`16. Everything shown in this figure would be plainly understood by a POSITA,
`
`based on the understanding of Snell’s law. Indeed, this set of example rays as
`
`shown are similarly not focused to any single point. With this simple
`
`understanding of Snell’s law, a POSITA could not possibly agree with Dr.
`
`Madisetti’s statement that “[t]o be precise, my opinion is that...Inokawa’s convex
`
`lens 27...would redirect light from the...measurement site towards the center.”
`
`APPLE-1042, 170:12-20. See also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my
`
`Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would
`
`be condensed or directed towards the center.”).
`
`17. This basic and commonsensical understanding of Inokawa’s lens stands in
`
`stark contrast to the position taken by Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Madisetti, who
`
`repeatedly stated during deposition that Inokawa’s lens redirects, condenses, and
`
`focus all light from the measurement site toward the center. See APPLE-1042,
`
`166:12-182:3 (“My testimony...to avoid any doubt, is that a POSA viewing the
`
`teachings of Inokawa Figure 2 would understand that the convex lens 27 of Figure
`
`13
`
`
`
`2 would redirect, condense, and focus light toward the center from the
`
`measurement site.”); see also APPLE-1041, 40:4-11 (“...as I describe in my
`
`Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all light reflected or otherwise would
`
`be condensed or directed towards the center.”). Simple ray tracing based on
`
`Snell’s law, as seen above, incontrovertibly debunks Dr. Madisetti’s simplistic
`
`claim.
`
`18.
`
`Indeed, far from focusing all light toward the center as Patent Owner
`
`contends, Inokawa’s lens provides at best a slight refracting effect, such that some
`
`light rays that otherwise would have missed the detection area are instead directed
`
`toward that area as they pass through the interface provided by the lens. This is
`
`especially true in cases like Aizawa where light detectors are arranged
`
`symmetrically about a central light source, thereby enabling backscattered light to
`
`be detected within a larger circular active detection area surrounding that source.
`
`See Ex. 2012, 86, 90. The slight refracting effect is further confirmed by the fact
`
`that the index of refraction of the tissue is only slightly less than the index of
`
`refraction of typical lens materials (e.g., acrylic). For instance, the refractive index
`
`of human skin is typically around 1.4 (APPLE-1044, 1486) while the refractive
`
`index of a typical lens/cover material for these types of applications, such as
`
`acrylic as in Aizawa, is only slightly higher at around 1.5. APPLE-1045, 1484.
`
`Thus, light entering the lens is only slightly refracted according to Snell’s law.
`
`14
`
`
`
`19. As I explained during my deposition, “given the arrangement of the
`
`corpuscles as the reflecting objects in the space all around underneath [Inokawa’s
`
`lens]...there would be some improvement in the light concentration at pretty much
`
`all of the locations under the curvature of the lens.” Ex. 2006, 164:8-16. As
`
`explained further below, this improvement—which a POSITA would understand is
`
`what Inokawa is referring to—is based on the convex shape of the lens and
`
`application of the most basic of optical concepts, namely Snell’s law. Thus,
`
`Inokawa’s lens “provides an opportunity to capture some light that would
`
`otherwise not be captured.” Id., 204:21-205:12. In short, Inokawa’s lens improves
`
`the light-gathering ability of Aizawa’s sensor by allowing a larger fraction of the
`
`backscattered light to reach the areas covered by the lens. See Ex. 2012, 86, 90;
`
`APPLE-1046, 803.
`
`20. As explained in my Original Declaration, the illustrations below showing the
`
`combination of the inventions of Aizawa and Inokawa provide an example of
`
`positioning of curvature near the locations of the sensors:
`
`15
`
`
`
`APPLE-1003, ¶94
`
`
`
`21.
`
`In the expanded version of this same illustration as shown below, I provide
`
`dotted lines to indicate the approximate orientation of a line orthogonal to the
`
`surface at various locations from the center to the edge. As shown in this
`
`illustration, these orthogonal lines vary in orientation most rapidly near the edge,
`
`where the illustrated curvature of the lens surface is the greatest. As discussed
`
`above with respect to Snell’s law, and as I discussed during my deposition, a
`
`POSITA would understand that, for the case of an index of refraction in the lens
`
`that exceeds the index of refraction in the surrounding tissue, the incoming light
`
`rays are refracted in a way that deflects incoming rays somewhat towards these
`
`orthogonal lines. See Ex. 2006, 166:18-170:8; APPLE-1044, 1486; APPLE-1045,
`
`1484. Because of the curvature of the lens, the orthogonal lines positioned at the
`
`locations of greatest curvature are more generally oriented towards the detector
`
`locations. An elementary understanding of Snell’s law, and of the lens shape
`
`16
`
`
`
`provided in this illustration, would guide a POSITA to understand that a
`
`combination of the teachings of Aizawa and Inokawa as presented in my original
`
`declaration, would lead to an improvement in the light concentration at the location
`
`of the detectors. Very simply, a POSITA familiar with Snell’s law and in view of
`
`Aizawa and Inokawa would understand that the placement of the curvature in the
`
`region near the locations of the detectors would have the effect of improving the
`
`light concentration provided by the lens in these regions compared to the case of
`
`not having such curvature (i.e., using a flat plate).
`
`
`
`22. The above illustrations showing light rays and refraction are offered here to
`
`explain the basic concepts that a POSITA would understand and rely on in
`
`considering the combination of Aizawa and Inokawa. As stated repeatedly in my
`
`deposition testimony, these are illustrations and not precision drawings of an
`
`optimized shape. As I described, a POSITA would appreciate that it is reasonable
`
`to consider a system with one or more LEDs at the center and detectors positioned
`
`17
`
`
`
`around the perimeter. Such a POSITA would understand that nothing about the
`
`presence of the lens of Inokawa necessarily and exclusively causes all incoming
`
`light to be focused at the center. In fact, as illustrated above, a POSITA would
`
`understand that it is possible to utilize the inventions of Aizawa and Inokawa
`
`together in a way that improves the concentration of light at peripheral detectors.
`
`All such a POSITA would need is a basic understanding of Snell’s law to
`
`appreciate that the shape of the lens will improve the concentration of light at the
`
`illustrated detector locations.
`
`23.
`
`Indeed, in a manner fully consistent with the analysis above, the only
`
`disclosure Inokawa includes about its lens—which I relied on consistently in the
`
`Original Declaration—is that its “lens makes it possible to increase the light-
`
`gathering ability of the LED.” Inokawa at [0015]; APPLE-1003, ¶¶60, 93-95.
`
`This general benefit of Inokawa’s lens would be applicable to all pulse measuring
`
`devices, not only those whose LEDs and sensors happen to be arranged in the exact
`
`manner as shown on FIG. 2 of Inokawa. See Ex. 2006, 88:21-89:1 (“The lens
`
`provides a general benefit of light concentration, not just at the center.”); id.,
`
`89:21-90:3 (“...one would understand that light coming in from all angles is not
`
`going to be concentrated to a single location by a convex lens. One of ordinary
`
`skill would know that.”).
`
`18
`
`
`
`24. To support the misguided notion that Inokawa’s lens focuses all incoming
`
`light at the center, Patent Owner repeatedly points to FIG. 14B of the ’628 patent,
`
`shown below, as allegedly showing how a convex lens focuses all light at the
`
`center:
`
`
`
`POR, 19, 24
`
`25. Dr. Madisetti, when asked during deposition to justify why he believes
`
`Inokawa’s lens would focus all measured light at the center, likewise pointed to
`
`FIG. 14B of the ’628 patent, explaining that “Figure 14B and associated
`
`text...support my opinions.” APPLE-1042, 171:20-172:17; see also id., 179:3-16,
`
`181:11-182:3; see also APPLE-1041, 127:22-128:18 (“...a POSA viewing [FIG.
`
`14B]...would understand that light, all light, light from the measurement site is
`
`being focused towards the center.”).
`
`19
`
`
`
`26. Patent Owner and Dr. Madisetti’s reliance on FIG. 14B for justification of
`
`their understanding of Inokawa is severely misplaced. While each of Inokawa,
`
`Aizawa, and Mendelson-1988 are directed to a reflectance-type pulse sensor that
`
`detects light that has been backscattered from the measurement site, the scenario
`
`depicted in FIG. 14B shows a transmittance-type configuration where collimated
`
`or nearly-collimated light is “attenuated by body tissue,” not backscattered by it.
`
`APPLE-1001, 35:62-64. Indeed, FIG. 14I of the ’628 patent puts FIG. 14B in
`
`proper context, showing how light from the emitters is transmitted through the
`
`entire finger/tissue before being received by the detectors on the other side:
`
`27. Thus, even if the lens shown in the ’628 patent is presumed to show focusing
`
`of all incoming light at the center of the sensor, this can only occur due to the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`collimated nature of the light coming from the emitters located on the other side of
`
`the measurement site. See Ex. 2007, 287:12-289:5, 291:3-292:9. As I explained
`
`during my deposition, backscattered light collected by a reflectance-type sensor as
`
`in Inokawa, Aizawa, and Mendelson-1988, on the other hand, would result in a
`
`“completely different situation” as each ray of this diffuse light source “will have a
`
`different path as a result of the lens.” Ex. 2007, 287:12-289:5.
`
`28. The light rays provided by the LEDs on one side of the finger in Figure 14I,
`
`if passing through the finger and emerging as collimated light such as shown in
`
`Figure 14B, are capable of being focused by a properly designed, oriented and
`
`positioned lens. A POSITA would understand that this very special case is
`
`incompatible with the situation present in a reflective pulse oximeter, where light is
`
`scattered randomly by the tissue and a portion of that scattered light returns to the
`
`sensor as diffuse light which can be gathered and detected.
`
`29.
`
`In this regard, Dr. Madisetti’s overly-simplistic statements—e.g., “My
`
`testimony...to avoid any doubt, is that a POSA viewing the teachings of Inokawa
`
`Figure 2 would understand that the convex lens 27 of Figure 2 would redirect,
`
`condense, and focus light toward the center from the measurement site” and “...as I
`
`describe in my Declaration...if you have a convex surface...all light reflected or
`
`otherwise would be condensed or directed towards the center”—clearly only apply
`
`to a very special narrow case of collimated light incident on a convex lens along
`
`21
`
`
`
`the axis of symmetry. APPLE-1042, 166:12-182:3; APPLE-1041, 40:4-11. A
`
`POSITA would understand that Dr. Madisetti’s statements do not reflect the
`
`situation for diffuse light incident on a lens-like surface such as would result from
`
`the combination of the teachings of Aizawa and Inokawa.
`
`30. Patent Owner and Dr. Madisetti’s reliance on drawings provided in
`
`paragraphs 119-120 of my Original Declaration filed in IPR2020-01520 for
`
`justification of their understanding of Inokawa’s lens is similarly misplaced. POR,
`
`16, 17, 23; APPLE-1041, 41:7-22, 60:7-61:6. Far from demonstrating the false
`
`notion that a convex lens directs all light to the center, these drawings I previously
`
`provided are merely simplified diagrams included to illustrate, as per dependent
`
`claim 12, one example scenario (based on just one ray and one corpuscle) where a
`
`light permeable cover can “reduce a mean path length of light traveling to the at
`
`least four detectors.” Ex. 2020, ¶¶119-120. As previously illustrated, there are
`
`many other rays that would intersect the interface between the tissue and the lens at
`
`different locations and with different angles of incidence, and the effect of the lens
`
`on this variety of rays is not nearly as simple as the statements provided by Dr.
`
`Madisetti. There is simply no possibility of any lens focusing all incoming rays
`
`from a diffuse light source toward a central location.
`
`31. And even if Inokawa’s lens could hypothetically and magically be
`
`configured to send all reflected light toward the center, which I certainly don’t
`
`22
`
`
`
`agree with and submit violates fundamental optical principles, Patent Owner’s
`
`assertion that the lens would fail to work for a revised design with a central emitter
`
`and peripheral emitters is fundamentally flawed because of the simple principle of
`
`reversibility of light propagation. The well-known and firmly-established optical
`
`principle of reversibility, which comes from the even more fundamental Fermat’s
`
`principle, APPLE-1049, 87-92, trivially dispels Patent Owner’s claim that
`
`reversing the LED/detector configuration of Inokawa (as in Aizawa) by placing the
`
`detectors around centrally located LEDs would necessarily cause Inokawa’s lens to
`
`send less light to the detectors, thereby rendering Inokawa’s lens ineffective when
`
`applied to Aizawa. POR, 15-20. As I noted above, Fermat’s principle states that a
`
`path taken by a light ray between two points is one that can be traveled in the least
`
`time. See APPLE-1052, 87-92; APPLE-1049, 106-111. It is one of the most
`
`fundamental concepts in optics (and physics for that matter) and readily explains
`
`the principle of reversibility. Simply put, the speed of light is independent of the
`
`direction of propagation for these simple materials, which can be represented by an
`
`index of refraction. Therefore the shortest path between two points is the same
`
`regardless of the direction traveled along the path.
`
`32. According to the principle of reversibility, for instance, “a ray going from P
`
`to S will trace the same route as one from S to P.” APPLE-1052, 92; APPLE-
`
`1049, 110. This principle of reversibility is explicit in Snell’s law, which simply
`
`23
`
`
`
`relates angles of refraction to indices of refraction without any dependence on the
`
`direction that the light is travelling. So, even if a POSITA was not explicitly
`
`familiar with the description of the principle of reversibility of light paths, the very
`
`simple algebraic expression of Snell’s law provides the requirement that light paths
`
`must be reversible. Even as Dr. Madisetti happens to be unfamiliar with the
`
`principle of reversibility of light, it is clear from his testimony that he is familiar
`
`with Snell’s law. Therefore he must admit that the paths of light through
`
`transparent materials with varying indices of refraction must be reversible, as this
`
`is a trivial consequence of the simple mathematical expression of Snell’s Law as
`
`simply and exclusively relating the angles of incidence and refraction of light rays
`
`to the indices of refraction of the materials. See APPLE-1052, 84; APPLE-1049,
`
`101; APPLE-1043, 80:20-82:20. The illustration below shows how this principle
`
`of reversibility is a simple consequence of Snell’s law.
`
`24
`
`
`
`
`
`33. To illustrate the relevance of this principle, with reference to Patent Owner’s
`
`annotated version of Inokawa FIG. 2 as shown below, two example ray paths from
`
`the LEDs (green) to the detector (red) can be seen. In this case, the rays originate
`
`from the peripheral LEDs (green) and arrive at the central detector (red).
`
`POR, 14, 18, 21 (annotated)
`
`
`
`34. Now, by flipping the LED/detector configuration, as in Aizawa, and
`
`applying the principle of reversibility, it is readily observed that the two exemplary
`
`paths shown above simply reverse their direction—such that any
`
`condensing/directing/focusing benefit achieved by Inokawa’s lens (blue) under the
`
`25
`
`
`
`original configuration would be similarly achieved under the reversed
`
`configuration (assuming that other factors are kept constant for ease of
`
`comparison):
`
`POR, 13, 16, 20 (modified/annotated)
`
`
`
`35. Of course, as I have stated, the illustration provided by Inokawa was not
`
`intended as a precision optical diagram. Nevertheless, within the intent of the
`
`illustration of Inokawa, it is possible to see that it is possible to switch the locations
`
`of the emitter and detector and that the same light paths in the opposite direction
`
`would be present. A POSITA would appreciate that the direction of the rays in this
`
`drawing can be reversed without any changes to the lens of Inokawa. Therefore, it
`
`is possible to consider a switch of the locations of the detector and emitter in
`
`Inokawa. A POSITA, considering Aizawa and Inokawa would understand that it is
`
`reasonable to use a lens-like surface from Inokawa with the emitter and detector
`
`configuration of Aizawa.
`
`36. When confronted with this basic principle of reversibility derived from
`
`Fermat’s Principle during deposition, Dr. Madisetti refused to acknowledge it,
`
`even going so far as to express ignorance of it (“Fermat’s principle, whatever that
`
`26
`
`
`
`is.”). APPLE-1041, 89:12-19. Dr. Madisetti further tried to brush way the
`
`applicability of this principle as being a “new theory.” Id., 84:2-85:7. Dr.
`
`Madisetti ignores that the reversibility of the paths of light rays is an absolute
`
`requirement of the simple mathematical expression of Snell’s law, with which he is
`
`familiar according to his own testimony.
`
`37. But far from being a new theory, this fundamental concept of the
`
`reversibility of light paths, consistent with the simple algebraic expression of
`
`Snell’s law, forms the basis of all Aizawa-based combinations as I previously set
`
`forth. See, e.g., APPLE-1003, ¶54 (explaining that Aizawa would operate in the
`
`same manner even with “a centrally located detector [surrounded] by a plurality of
`
`emitters.”); see also APPLE-1048, ¶79 (“Although Inokawa shows its two emitters
`
`emitting light toward a centrally located detector, one of ordinary skill would have
`
`recognized that the same effect can be achieved by having the emitters located
`
`centrally instead and emitting radially outward. Indeed, Aizawa itself recognizes
`
`this reversibility, stating that while the confi