NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,

Appellant

v.

APPLE INC.,

Appellee

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE 

FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER 

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF 

THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK 

OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________

2020-1424

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

01140.

______________________

Decided: October 25, 2021

______________________

MARC AARON FENSTER, Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by NEIL 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 1 Filed: 10/25/2021
2 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.

RUBIN.

 ANGELA OLIVER, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by ANDREW S.

EHMKE, DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, Dallas, TX; MICHAEL 

SCOTT PARSONS, Plano, TX.

 FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, Office of the Solicitor, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, 

VA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by MICHAEL 

S. FORMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, MAUREEN DONOVAN 

QUELER.

______________________

Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

Corephotonics, Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,402,032, 

which describes and claims optical lens assemblies. In May 

2018, Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the Patent and 

Trademark Office (PTO) for an inter partes review of four 

claims of the ’032 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Apple argued (1) that U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 (Ogino) anticipated claims 1 and 13 of the ’032 patent and (2) that 

claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 patent would have been obvious to a relevant artisan based on a combination of Ogino 

and U.S. Patent No. 8,233,224 (Chen). The PTO’s Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board agreed. For claims 1 and 13, it 

found that Ogino teaches an embodiment that meets all the 

claim requirements, including the requirement of a lens assembly with an effective focal length (EFL) that exceeds its 

total track length (TTL). Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd., 

IPR2018-01140, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 13253, at *20–31 

(P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2019) (Board Decision). For claims 14 and 

15, the Board found that a relevant artisan would have 

been motivated to use a meniscus lens, as taught by Chen, 

as the second lens element in the assembly, replacing

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 2 Filed: 10/25/2021
COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 3

Ogino’s biconcave second lens, and that doing so would 

have been obvious. Id. at *31–45.

Corephotonics timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4). Besides raising challenges to the merits of the Board’s decision, Corephotonics 

presented a challenge under the Appointments Clause of 

the Constitution, Art. II, § 2. After the Supreme Court resolved a similar constitutional challenge in United States 

v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), we remanded this 

matter, while retaining jurisdiction, to give the Acting Director of the PTO the opportunity to consider reviewing the 

Board decision (an opportunity Corephotonics indicated it 

wanted). The Acting Director has now declined to review 

the Board decision, and Corephotonics has informed us 

that it does not challenge the Acting Director’s denial of 

review, but seeks only our review of the Board’s decision. 

We proceed to address Corephotonics’s challenges to the 

merits of that decision. We affirm.

I

A

The ’032 patent describes a lens assembly intended for 

use as a telephoto lens (a high-resolution lens) in “a portable electronic product such as a cellphone.” ’032 patent, col. 

1, lines 16–19. The assembly includes a plurality of lenses 

(“lens element[s]”) of varying thicknesses and refractive 

power arranged in line along an optical axis running from 

an object side (i.e., the side with the object to be photographed) to an image side (i.e., the side where the image of 

the object is formed). See id., col. 2, line 61, through col. 3, 

line 9. Past the last lens element, on the image side of the 

assembly, is an “image sensor” and “image plane” for capturing the image. Id., col. 3, lines 13–15. Some embodiments include a cover glass element between the last lens 

element and the image sensor. Id., col. 3, lines 11–13. All

embodiments of the lens assembly described in the ’032 patent include a “second plastic lens element” (starting from 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 3 Filed: 10/25/2021
4 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.

the object side) “having a meniscus convex object-side surface.” Id., col. 2, lines 65–67. A meniscus lens is a lens with 

one convex side and one concave side. J.A. 487.

The ’032 patent purports to improve on previous lens 

assemblies by reducing the ratio of the assembly’s TTL to 

its EFL. ’032 patent, col. 1, lines 30–38. The TTL of a miniature lens assembly measures distance along the assembly’s optical axis and “determines how long or thick a 

camera will be,” while the EFL “determines how well the 

camera performs at capturing images of small or distant 

objects, as opposed to closer objects.” J.A. 1668 ¶ 34 (Declaration of Corephotonics expert, Dr. Duncan Moore). A 

greater EFL gives the camera a narrower “field of view,” 

which yields an image that “can resolve precise features 

like . . . tree branches” for “objects at greater distances.” 

J.A. 1668 ¶ 34. Reducing the TTL/EFL ratio results in a 

thin lens with the capability of capturing far-away objects 

in great detail. J.A. 1668–69 ¶¶ 34–35. “In all embodiments [described in the ’032 patent], TTL is smaller than 

the EFL, i.e., the TTL/EFL ratio is smaller than 1.0.” ’032 

patent, col. 1., lines 63–65.

Table 1 of the ’032 patent provides details about the 

lens elements in one particular embodiment of the assembly, including the elements’ radii of curvature, their diameters, their thicknesses, and the space between them along 

the optical axis. Id., col. 3, lines 17–37; see also id., col. 4, 

lines 2–17 (Table 1). The embodiment described in Table 1 

has an EFL of 6.90 mm and a TTL of 5.904 mm, resulting 

in a TTL/EFL ratio of 0.855. Id., col. 4, lines 35–37.

Claim 1, the only independent claim at issue, recites:

1. A lens assembly, comprising: a plurality of refractive lens elements arranged along an optical 

axis, wherein at least one surface of at least one of 

the plurality of lens elements is aspheric, wherein 

the lens assembly has an effective focal length 

(EFL), and wherein the lens assembly has a total 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 4 Filed: 10/25/2021
COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 5

track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less and a 

ratio TTL/EFL of less than 1.0, wherein the plurality of lens elements comprises, in order from an 

object side to an image side, a first lens element 

with positive refractive power and a second lens element with negative refractive power, wherein a 

focal length fl of the first lens element is smaller 

than TTL/2.

Id., col. 7, lines 43–53 (emphasis added). Claim 13 depends 

on claim 1; on appeal, Corephotonics does not challenge the 

Board’s finding that Ogino teaches claim 13’s additional

limitation. Claims 14 and 15 add limitations, only one of 

which is at issue on appeal: “wherein the first lens element 

has a convex object-side surface and a convex or concave 

image-side surface and wherein the second lens element is 

a meniscus lens having a convex object-side surface.” Id., 

col. 8, lines 46–49; id., col. 8, lines 50–51.

B

Apple’s main reference, Ogino, describes several lens 

assemblies containing five lens elements for use in a cell 

phone. See Ogino, col. 1, line 52, through col. 2, line 18.

Apple relied in particular on Example (Figure) 6 for its anticipation argument. In Figure 6, the lens elements are labelled L1 through L5, and the second lens element (L2) 

“has a biconcave shape.” Id., col. 13, lines 1–16. Figure 6 

also includes a cover glass (CG) that “may be disposed between the fifth lens [element] L5 and the imaging device 

100.” Id., col. 5, lines 55–57. Ogino states: “Alternatively, 

an effect similar to the optical member CG may be given to 

the fifth lens L5 or the like by applying a coating to the fifth 

lens L5 or the like without using the optical member CG. 

Thereby, it is possible to reduce the number of components, 

and to reduce the total length.” Id., col. 5, line 65, through 

col. 6, line 2 (emphases added).

Ogino includes a table (Table 11) with values corresponding to the parameters in Example 6 illustrated in 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 5 Filed: 10/25/2021
6 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.

Figure 6. See id., col. 22, lines 11–35. The table includes 

numbers for the thicknesses of the lens elements and the 

spacing between the components of the assembly. See id.,

col. 22, lines 18–34. At the top, Table 11 states: “f = 4.428, 

Bf = 1.424, TL = 4.387,” id., col. 22, line 14, where f is “the 

focal length . . . of the whole system,” Bf is “the back focal 

length,” and TL is “the total lens length,” id., col. 14, lines 

48–50. Ogino elaborates: “In addition, the back focal 

length Bf indicates an air-converted value, and likewise, in 

the total lens length TL, the back focal length portion uses 

an air-converted value.” Id., col. 14, lines 47–53. Corephotonics’s expert, Dr. Moore, explained: “the TL replaces the 

physical thickness of the optical member [cover glass] with 

a value equal to its thickness divided by the ratio of the 

[cover glass’s] index of refraction to that of air.” J.A. 1684 

¶ 66. Based on Ogino’s contemplation of an alternative 

that does not use a cover glass, and on Table 11 and Figure 

6, Apple argued in its petition that Ogino teaches an embodiment without a cover glass where the TTL/EFL ratio 

is less than 1 (a 4.387 focal length is less than a 4.428 total 

lens length), meeting the key disputed element of claim 1 

for purposes of anticipation. J.A. 129.

Apple also argued that claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 patent would have been obvious to a relevant artisan in view 

of Ogino and Chen. Chen relates to a lens assembly, like 

Ogino. But unlike Ogino, whose second lens is biconcave, 

Chen teaches a second lens element “having a convex object-side surface 111 and a concave image-side surface 

112”—i.e., a meniscus lens. Chen, col. 6, line 51, through 

col. 7, line 4; see also J.A. 478 ¶ 56 (Declaration of Apple 

expert, Dr. José Sasián). Apple argued that a relevant artisan would be motivated to substitute Chen’s second lens 

for Ogino’s, relying on testimony of its expert, Dr. Sasián.

According to Dr. Sasián, an advantage of a meniscus 

lens is that it reduces “vignetting,” J.A. 482 ¶ 61, which “is 

the blocking of rays on or near the outer edges of a lens 

system,” J.A. 475 ¶ 51, and is undesirable for “lens systems 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 6 Filed: 10/25/2021
COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 7

designed for cellular telephones,” for which “relative illumination . . . greater than 50%” is sought, J.A. 479–80 ¶ 58; 

see also J.A. 1060 (identifying desirable specifications for 

cellphone lenses). Dr. Sasián explained that a relevant artisan, using common design software (e.g., Zemax), would

have understood that the biconcave shape of the second 

lens element in Ogino’s Figure 6 produced a relative illumination under 50%, J.A. 479–81 ¶¶ 58–60, and that use 

of a meniscus lens would raise that figure by reducing vignetting, J.A. 483 ¶ 62. Dr. Sasián also stated that a relevant artisan would be motivated to use a meniscus lens to 

reduce both “ray aberration,” J.A. 482–85 ¶¶ 60–64, and 

the “chief ray angle (CRA)” to levels desired for mobile 

phone lenses, J.A. 476–77 ¶ 53. Dr. Sasián concluded that 

substituting Chen’s meniscus lens into Figure 6 was “a routine lens adjustment” that a relevant artisan would have 

been motivated to make. J.A. 479–81 ¶¶ 58–60.

Corephotonics disputed Apple’s contentions. With respect to the anticipation argument based on the “TL” number in Ogino’s Table 11, Corephotonics responded that the 

Table 11 “TL” number was based on a “theoretical” air-converted value, not an actual total track length of an embodiment that omitted the cover glass—which would require 

information not in Ogino about where the coverless sensor 

would be located. J.A. 1140–42. With respect to Apple’s 

obviousness argument, Corephotonics responded that 

Ogino encourages the use of a biconcave lens to reduce image aberrations and that a relevant artisan would not have 

been motivated to replace the second lens element with a 

meniscus lens out of the “‘near-infinite’” possibilities for 

modification. Board Decision, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 

13253, at *38 (quoting Patent Owner Response).

C

The Board ruled for Apple. In agreeing that Ogino 

teaches a lens assembly that anticipates claims 1 and 13, 

the Board found that the “TL” value listed in Table 11 does 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 7 Filed: 10/25/2021
8 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.

teach an actual total track length in an embodiment without the cover glass, calculated by adding (a) the widths of 

the five lenses and the spacing between them as listed in 

the table and (b) “the back focal length Bf given in Table 11 

as 1.424 mm,” a value that represented the distance between the final lens and the image plane. Id. at *26. The 

Board noted that “Ogino explicitly discloses that the cover 

glass CG can be removed,” id., and cited the recognition by 

Corephotonics’s expert, Dr. Moore, that “cover glass is optional” and “if it is not present, it need not be counted in 

the TTL measurement,” id. at *27 (citing J.A. 1916 (Tr. at 

70:2–22) (Dr. Moore Deposition)). The Board found that 

the air-converted value indicates the distance at which the 

image sensor must be placed from the final lens when the 

cover glass is omitted. Id. at *28–29. On this basis, the 

Board found that Ogino teaches a TTL/EFL of less than 1, 

resolving the key issue for anticipation. Id.

As to obviousness, the issue for claims 14 and 15 of the 

’032 patent, the Board agreed with Apple that a relevant 

artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious to 

replace the biconcave second lens element in Ogino with 

the corresponding meniscus lens in Chen. Id. at *31–45. 

The Board credited Dr. Sasián’s opinion that vignetting 

would be undesirable in a telephoto lens and that replacing 

Ogino’s second lens with Chen’s second lens would reduce 

vignetting, mitigate ray aberration, reduce the chief ray 

angle, and increase “relative illumination” to over 50%, motivating a relevant artisan to make the replacement for a 

cellphone lens system. Id. at *36–38. The Board rejected 

Corephotonics’s argument that the proposed substitution 

would require selecting such a change out of a “near infinite” number of possible modifications, pointing out that 

both experts agreed that relevant artisans in this field often begin with a lens assembly of “suitable design” and 

then use software to “modify it based on teachings of other 

systems or existing knowledge.” Id. at *40–43. Therefore, 

a relevant artisan would have found it “routine” to change 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 8 Filed: 10/25/2021
COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 9

one element of a lens system to improve a desired element 

(with the software doing the rest of the work) and would 

have been motivated to make the change to a meniscus lens 

in order to reduce vignetting and reduce ray aberration. Id.

at *41–42.

II

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its 

factual findings for substantial-evidence support. Arendi 

S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

The ruling on anticipation is a factual determination. Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Sys., Inc., 

853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The ruling on obviousness is a legal conclusion, based on underlying determinations of fact. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 917 

F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Such factual determinations include whether a prior-art reference teaches away 

and whether a relevant artisan would have been motivated 

to make a combination of prior-art references. Gen. Elec. 

Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., 983 F.3d 1334, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 

2020).

A

For a reference to anticipate a claim under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 102, “each claim element must be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and 

the claimed arrangement or combination of those elements 

must also be disclosed, either expressly or inherently, in 

that same prior art reference.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, 

Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Here, the anticipation issue comes down to whether Ogino 

teaches a lens assembly in which the cover glass is omitted 

and the resulting total track length is 4.387 mm (the TL 

number in Table 11). If it does, that number is undisputedly less than the effective focal length (4.428 mm), satisfying the claim 1 requirement of TTL/EFL < 1.0—the only 

contested issue now regarding anticipation of claims 1 and 

13.

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 9 Filed: 10/25/2021
10 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.

The Board found that Ogino teaches an embodiment of 

Figure 6 that does not include a cover glass and for which 

the 4.387 TL value in Table 11 represents a physical length 

expressing the total track length of that embodiment. 

Board Decision, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 13253, at *25–29. 

Ogino supports the finding. After describing its assembly 

and the inclusion of a cover glass element, Ogino states:

Alternatively, an effect similar to the optical member CG may be given to the fifth lens L5 or the like 

by applying a coating to the fifth lens L5 or the like 

without using the optical member CG. Thereby, it 

is possible to reduce the number of components, 

and to reduce the total length.

Ogino, col. 5, line 65, through col. 6, line 2 (emphases 

added). That language contemplates an embodiment of 

Ogino’s lens assembly without a cover glass element and 

further recognizes that removing that element will reduce 

the assembly’s total length, i.e., the “total lens length,” id., 

col. 14, line 50. The Board could have reasonably found 

that the reduction is a reduction to the TL value in Table 

11, in what the ’032 patent calls the total track length. As 

Dr. Sasián explained, summing the values in Table 11

where the cover glass is included (D2–D13) results in a 

track length of 4.489 mm; and when Figure 6 is considered 

without the cover glass, the total track length is obtained 

by summing the thicknesses of the lens elements and their 

distances from one another (values D2–D10), while excluding the thickness of and space in front of the cover glass 

(values D11–13), but adding in a back-focal-length value to 

represent the spacing in front of the coverless sensor. See 

J.A. 502; 1441–42 (Tr. 103:18–104:1), 2071 (Tr. 67:11–18); 

Ogino, Table 11; see also Board Decision, 2019 Pat. App. 

LEXIS 13253, at *25–26. This calculation adds 2.963 mm 

(for D2–D10) to 1.424 mm (the back focal length, Bf) to result in a track length of 4.387 mm—which is the TL value 

stated in Table 11. Ogino, Table 11. This evidence permitted the Board to find that the 4.387 mm value represents a 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 10 Filed: 10/25/2021
COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 11

total track length of a coverless embodiment, supporting 

the anticipation finding for claims 1 and 13.

B

With respect to claims 14 and 15 of the ’032 patent, 

Corephotonics contends that the Board erred by determining that a relevant artisan would have been motivated to 

replace the biconcave lens from Ogino—which it describes 

as an “essential feature” of the second lens element—with 

the meniscus lens from Chen. Corephotonics Opening Br. 

at 42–43. Corephotonics focuses on the statement in Ogino 

that the second lens must be biconcave to reduce the assembly’s track length, see Ogino, col. 7, lines 39–42, and

contends that a relevant artisan who would be motivated 

to remove the cover glass in Figure 6 to reduce the total 

track length would not counteract that decision by selecting a meniscus lens that would not similarly reduce the 

track length, see Corephotonics Opening Br. at 42–43. 

Corephotonics also argues that the Board erred by accepting the motivation that Apple has offered for the combination of Chen and Ogino—specifically, that a relevant 

artisan would have sought to reduce vignetting by implementing a meniscus lens—because vignetting is not inherently undesirable and because nothing in Chen discusses 

the use of a meniscus lens as the cause of reduced vignetting. Id. at 44–45.

Corephotonics does not address the Board’s finding 

that a relevant artisan “would have been further motivated 

to modify Ogino in view of [Chen]’s teachings concerning 

its second lens element, in order to reduce aberration and 

reduce the [chief ray angle].” Board Decision, 2019 Pat.

App. LEXIS 13253, at *37–38 (citing J.A. 476 ¶ 53 (Dr. Sasián Declaration)). Those further motivations appear to be 

independent bases for the Board’s finding of a motivation 

to combine Ogino and Chen, sufficing by themselves to affirm the Board’s motivation-to-combine analysis (the only 

meaningfully contested aspect of the obviousness 

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 11 Filed: 10/25/2021
12 COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC.

conclusion). See Impax Labs. Inc. v. Lannett Holdings Inc., 

893 F.3d 1372, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2018); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 

2006). But even as to what Corephotonics does challenge 

in this court, the Board had before it substantial evidence 

to support its finding.

The Board found, based on evidence that Apple presented from an optics textbook, see J.A. 761, that vignetting 

is a well-known “issue” and that a relevant artisan would

have been motivated to correct Ogino by using a meniscus 

lens because the artisan would have understood that such 

a lens would not only reduce vignetting but would also “result in relative illumination over 50%, which is known to 

be desirable,” Board Decision, 2019 Patent App. LEXIS

13253, at *36–37 (citing J.A. 475–79 ¶¶ 51, 57). The evidence supports that finding. J.A. 475–79 ¶¶ 51–58; see also

J.A. 1060 (article suggesting relative illumination of more 

than 50%). Indeed, Ogino itself states that it is “advantageous to reduce ‘deterioration in the light receiving efficiency and occurrence of color mixture due to increase of 

incident angle’ [i]n order ‘to achieve optimum optical performance.’” Board Decision, 2019 Patent App. LEXIS 

13253, at *37–38 (quoting Ogino, col. 7, lines 21–25).

Further, despite language in Ogino explaining that the 

rationale for using a biconcave second lens element is to 

reduce track length, Ogino, col. 7, lines 39–42, nothing in 

Ogino “would have the effect of discrediting or discouraging 

the use of a meniscus shaped lens.” Board Decision, 2019

Patent App. LEXIS 13253, at *38–40; see also In re Fulton, 

391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere 

disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute 

a teaching away from any of these alternatives because 

such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise 

discourage the solution claimed . . . .”). Ogino states that 

“the present invention is not limited to the above-mentioned embodiments” and that the lens elements’ “values of 

the radius of curvature” and “aspheric surface

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 12 Filed: 10/25/2021
COREPHOTONICS, LTD. v. APPLE INC. 13

coefficient[s]” may be modified. Ogino, col. 16, lines 11–19. 

Substituting a biconcave lens element for a meniscus one

would be one way to make such modifications. See J.A. 

481–82 (Dr. Sasián Declaration); J.A. 605, 613–17 (optics 

textbook).

Nor is the modification to Ogino based on Chen a result 

of “impermissible hindsight” as Corephotonics suggests. 

Corephotonics Opening Br. at 46–48. The Board found that 

both experts agreed that when seeking to improve a lens 

assembly, a relevant artisan “would have . . . start[ed] with 

a suitable design and then look[ed] to modify it based on 

teachings of other systems or existing knowledge.” Board 

Decision, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 13253, at *41–42; see also

J.A. 476 ¶ 53, 481–82 ¶ 60 (Dr. Sasián Declaration), 1905 

(Tr. 27:19–29:3) (Dr. Moore Deposition). The Board credited Dr. Sasián’s testimony that switching a biconcave lens 

for a meniscus lens “‘would be a routine lens adjustment’” 

for a relevant artisan, and that such an artisan “would 

have understood that the undesirable vignetting of Ogino 

would be mitigated by modifying the shape of the second 

lens.” Board Decision, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 13253, at 

*41–42 (quoting J.A. 147); see also J.A. 481–82 ¶ 60. There 

is thus substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding 

that a relevant artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogino’s Figure 6 with Chen’s second lens to arrive at 

the challenged claims.

III

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1424 Document: 72 Page: 13 Filed: 10/25/2021