Trials@uspto.gov Paper 19
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: April 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC,
`CORNING INC., and CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PPC BROADBAND, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`____________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Date Entered: April 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF LLC,
`CORNING INC., and CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PPC BROADBAND, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`____________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, TRENTON A. WARD, and
`WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`FINK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Corning Optical Communications RF LLC, Corning Incorporated, and
`
`Corning Optical Communications LLC (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`Corrected Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 50, 53, and
`57–61 of U.S. Patent No. 8,647,136 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’136 patent”). Paper
`9 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, PPC Broadband Incorporated, filed a Preliminary
`Response. Paper 13 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35
`U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be
`instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.”
`
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claims 50,
`53, and 57–61 of the ’136 patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and do
`not institute an inter partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner identify the following pending matters as
`relating to the ‘136 patent: PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical
`Communications RF, LLC., No. 5:14-CV-01170 (N.D.N.Y.); PPC
`Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., No. 5:13-cv-1310 (N.D.N.Y); PPC
`Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., No. 5:12-cv-00911 (N.D.N.Y.);
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00538
`(N.D.N.Y); In the Matter of Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors and
`Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-938
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`(U.S.I.T.C.); U.S. Patent Interference No. 105,680; and Reexamination
`Control No. 95/002,246 and 95/002,400. Pet. 2–3; Paper 6, 1–3.
`In addition to IPR2015-01952, also challenging certain claims of the
`’136 patent, Petitioner and Patent Owner identify eight additional inter
`partes reviews concerning patents related to the ’136 patent: IPR2013-
`00346, IPR2013-00347, IPR2013-00343, IPR2013-00342, IPR2014-00441,
`and IPR2014-00440. Pet. 2–3; Paper 7, 2–3. Petitioner and Patent Owner
`identify the following appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit as concerning a number of these inter partes reviews:
`Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., Case
`Nos. 2015-1361, -1366, -1368, -1369 (Fed. Cir. February 22, 2016)
`(affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part and remanding final written decisions in
`IPR2013-00340, -00345, -00346, and -00347); and Corning Optical
`Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., Case No. 2015-1364
`(Fed. Cir. February 22, 2016) (vacating and remanding final written decision
`in IPR2013-00342). Pet. 2–3; Paper 13, 1.
`
`B. The ’136 Patent
`The ’136 patent relates to “coaxial connectors having electrical
`continuity members that extend continuity of an electromagnetic
`interference shield from the cable through the connector.” Ex. 1001, 1:20–
`22. When a coaxial connector is not properly tightened or improperly
`installed, a loss of ground and discontinuity may occur between the
`connector and interface port. Id. at 1:43–57. The continuity member
`mitigates this problem by “physically and electrically” contacting both the
`nut and the post, “thereby extending ground continuity between
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`components.” Id. at 13:46–51. Figure 5 of the ’136 patent is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 of the ’136 patent depicts a cut-away view of the elements of
`assembled coaxial cable connector 100 having electrical continuity member
`70. Id. at 5:66–6:1, 12:13–17. The assembled coaxial connector comprises
`threaded nut 30, post 40, connector body 50, continuity member 70, and
`connector body sealing member 80. Id. at 7:10–16, 8:8–15. The post may
`comprise flange 44, such as an externally extending annular protrusion,
`located at the end of the post. Id. at 8:8–10. The flange 44 includes a
`rearward facing surface 45 that faces the forward facing surface 35 of the
`nut. Id. at 8:10–13. The nut is free to rotate, and has some freedom for axial
`movement with respect to the connector body. Id. at 18:1–3. The continuity
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`member is located at the rearward end of the nut, and “physically and
`electrically contacts both the nut 30 and the post 40, thereby extending
`ground continuity between the components.” Id. at 13:46–51.
`
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 50 is an independent claim. Claims 53 and 57–61 directly
`depend from claim 50. Claim 50 is reproduced below.
`
`50. A connector for coupling a coaxial cable to an interface port,
`the connector comprising:
`a body having a continuity member contact portion;
`a post configured to engage the body, the post including
`an outward flange including a rearward facing portion;
`a nut configured to rotate relative to the post and body, and
`move between a first position and a second position, the nut
`including:
`
`a first end configured for coupling to the interface
`port; and
`an inward protrusion having a forward facing nut
`portion; a rearward facing nut portion; and an innermost
`nut portion extending between the forward facing nut
`portion and the rearward facing nut portion;
`wherein the nut is further configured to move between a
`first nut-to-post position relative to the post, where the forward
`facing nut portion of the nut contacts the rearward facing portion
`of the post, and a second nut-to-post position relative to the post,
`where the forward facing nut portion of the nut is spaced away
`from the rearward facing portion of the post;
`a continuous metallic electrical ground pathway located
`rearwardly from the rearward facing portion of the inward
`protrusion of the nut, and configured to contact the rearward
`facing portion of the outward flange of the post while extending
`between the rearward facing portion of the outward flange of the
`post and the continuity member contact portion of the body when
`the connector is in an assembled state; and
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`wherein the continuous metallic electrical ground pathway
`is configured to be maintained when the nut is in the first
`position, when the nut is in the second position, when the nut is
`in the first nut-to-post position relative to the post, where the
`forward facing nut portion of the nut contacts the rearward facing
`portion of the post, and when the nut is in the second nut-to-post
`position relative to the post, where the forward facing nut portion
`of the nut is spaced away from the rearward facing portion of the
`post, such that the continuous metallic electrical ground pathway
`is maintained between the rearward facing portion of the outward
`flange of the post and the nut regardless of a location of the nut
`relative to the post.
`Ex. 1001, 29:66–30:41 (as corrected by Certificate of Correction at 4).
`
`Basis
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`D. Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 50, 53, and 57–61 are unpatentable based
`on the following ground:
`References
`Matthews1, Tatsuzuki2, Burris,3 and
`Bence4
`
`
`§ 103(a)
`
`50, 53, and 57–61
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in which they appear.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also In re Cuozzo
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0110977, published May 25,
`2006 (Ex. 1002) (“Matthews”)
`2 Japanese Publication No. 2002-15823 (Ex. 1017) (“Tatsuzuki”) (English
`Translation at Ex. 1003).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 5,975,951, issued November 2, 1999 (Ex. 1004) (“Burris”)
`4 U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990, issued October 3, 2006 (Ex. 1005) (“Bence”)
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress
`implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in
`enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO
`regulation”), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Under the broadest reasonable construction
`standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as
`would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the
`entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007).
`“spaced away”
`Petitioner proposes the term “spaced away,” recited in independent
`claim 50 be construed as “at least a portion of the forward facing portion of
`the nut . . . is physically separated and not in contact with at least a portion
`of the rearward facing surface of the post.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1001, 18:1–
`8). Patent Owner contends the term “spaced away” means “the forward
`facing nut portion of the nut . . . is physically separated from and not in
`contact with the rearward facing portion of the post” and relies on the claims
`themselves as support. Prelim. Resp. 9–10.
`Patent Owner does not dispute that “spaced away” means “not in
`contact with,” but disputes Petitioner’s “further language that would allow
`the two portions to contact each other even in the second (‘spaced away’)
`position by only requiring that ‘at least a portion’ of the two surfaces be
`separated from and not contact each other.” Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Patent
`Owner argues this construction is inconsistent with the claims and the
`specification. Id. at 10.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`For purposes of this Decision, we agree with the undisputed portion of
`Petitioner’s proposal that “spaced away” means “physically separated from
`and not in contact with.” However, we disagree such physical separation
`only needs to apply to “at least a portion of the forward facing portion of the
`nut,” as Petitioner alone contends. First, Petitioner’s single cite to the
`specification does not provide support for such an interpretation. Moreover,
`such a qualification is not consistent with the language of the claim itself,
`which uses “contact” between the claimed nut and post surfaces to describe
`a first nut-to-post position and “spaced away” to describe a second nut-to-
`post position. Ex. 1001, 27:28–34. Under Petitioner’s construction,
`however, there could be some contact (i.e., the at least a portion of) between
`the respective portions that is encompassed by the claimed “spaced away.”
`That would lead to the nonsensical result that term claim term “contact”
`does not encompass all instances of actual contact between the respective
`portions and that “spaced away” encompasses instances of actual contact.
`Accordingly, we decline to include the “at least a portion of” language
`proposed by Petitioner.
`remaining terms
`Petitioner proposed construction of the terms “nut configured to rotate
`. . . and move,” Pet. 24–25, “rearward facing portion of the protrusion of the
`outward flange of the post” and “the rearward facing portion of the post,”
`Pet. 25–27, and “continuous metallic electrical ground pathway,” Pet. 28–
`32. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed constructions. Prelim.
`Resp. 4–8, 10–16.
`We have reviewed the parties’ contentions and, in view of our
`determination below, do not discern how construing these terms is necessary
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`to resolving the disputed issues before us. We therefore determine that no
`specific construction of these terms is necessary.
`
`
`
`B. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 50, 53, and 57–61
`Petitioner contends claims 50, 53, and 57–61 are obvious over the
`combination of Matthews, Tatsuzuki, Burris, and Bence. Pet. 34–59.
`Petitioner also relies upon its proffered declarant, Ronald P. Locati, to
`support its contentions. Ex. 1006. We begin our discussion with brief
`summaries of the references and then address the parties’ contentions.
`
`1. Matthews (Ex. 1002)
`Matthews generally discloses a coaxial cable connector with at least
`one conducive member 70. Ex. 1002 ¶ 1. The one or more conducive
`members facilitate grounding of the coaxial cable. Id. ¶ 10. Figure 1 of
`Matthews is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a sectional side view of a coaxial cable connector.
`Id. ¶¶ 16, 26. The coaxial cable connector includes threaded nut 30, post 40,
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`connector body 50, mating edge conductive member 70, and connector body
`conductive member 80. Id. ¶ 28. The threaded nut 30 may function to
`physically secure and advance the connector 100 onto an interface port 20.
`Id. ¶ 29. The threaded nut 30 may be formed of conductive material to
`facilitate grounding through the nut. Id. The connector body conductive
`member 80 provides an electrical coupling between the nut 30 and connector
`body 50. Id. ¶ 28. This allows for a physical seal and effective electrical
`contact between the connector body 50 and nut 30. Id.
`Figure 3 of Matthews is reproduced below:
`
`
`Figure 3 of Matthews depicts a sectional side view of post 40. Id.
`¶ 30. The post may include a mating edge 49 that makes electrical contact
`with the interface port 20 or O-ring 70 to facilitate grounding with the
`conductive grounding shield. Id. The post 40 may comprise an outward
`flange configured to contact the internal lip of the threaded nut 30. Id.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`2. Tatsuzuki (Ex. 10035)
`Tatsuzuki describes a coaxial plug that includes a disc-shaped spring.
`Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 1, 17. Figure 3 of Tatsuzuki is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates a cross-section view of coaxial plug 1 securely
`installed in a coaxial cable connector 50. Id. ¶ 12. The electrical connection
`is formed between the ring-shaped part 11c and rotary mounting element 12
`with the disc-shaped spring 13 interposed between them. Id. ¶ 17.
`Figures 7(a) and 7 (b) are reproduced below:
`
`
`5 We hereinafter refer to the English translation of Tatsuzuki.
`11
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figures 7(a) and 7(b) illustrate plan view and side view of disc-shaped
`spring 13, respectively. Id. ¶ 17. This disc-shaped spring 13 is formed by a
`stamp cutout process of a thin metal plate possessing elasticity, e.g.,
`phosphor bronze. Id. The disc-shaped spring 13 includes spring piece 13b
`and ring-shaped joining part 13a. Id.
`
`3. Burris (Ex. 1004)
`Burris discloses a coaxial cable connector with O-ring seals to impede
`moisture from outdoor installations. Ex. 1004, 1:7–11. Figures 3 and 4 of
`Burris are reproduced below:
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Figures 3 and 4 depict the same coaxial connector in two different
`positions relative to the threaded terminal, before fully-tightened and fully-
`tightened, respectively. Id. at 4:44–51. In Figure 3, shoulder 80 of tubular
`post 32 is moved slightly away from inwardly directed collar 82 of the nut
`38 before being fully tightened. Id. at 6:5–10. When the nut is fully
`tightened on the threaded terminal, as shown in Figure 4, the O-ring 35
`forms a seal between nut 38 and tubular post 32. Id. at 6:23–27.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`4. Bence (Ex. 1005)
`Bence discloses another type of electrically conductive grounding
`member in a coaxial cable connector. Ex. 1005, 3:1-5, 3:14–16. Figures
`6A–6C are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`Figure 6A illustrates a coaxial cable with the grounding member. Id.
`at 4:48–51. Figures 6B and 6C illustrate an enlarged view of the grounding
`member in a side view and plan view, respectively. Id. at 4:52–56. This
`grounding member engages both tubular post 104 and coupling nut 105 in
`order to provide an electrically-conductive path. Id. at 3:16–18. The spring
`action of fingers 603 make contact with radial surface 604 near the back end
`of coupling nut 105 that faces the front end of coupling nut 105. Id. at 8:10–
`14. This serves as a ground path from the coupling nut to the tubular post
`while allowing the nut to rotate. Id.
`
`5. Analysis
`Petitioner presents a proposed mapping of Matthews, Tatsuzuki,
`Burris, and Bence to the limitations of claims 50, 53, and 57–61. Pet. 34–
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`46; see also Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 83–113. For example, Petitioner contends that the
`recited “body,” “post configured to engage the body,” and “nut” of claim 50
`are respectively taught by body 50, post 40, and nut 30 of the coaxial
`connector 100 of Matthews, as shown, for example, in Figure 1 of Matthews
`(reproduced above). Pet. 34–36 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002, Figs. 1, 7).
`Although Petitioner contends Matthews teaches continuity members,
`Petitioner relies on Tatsuzuki as teaching the recited “continuous metallic
`electrical ground pathway,” of claim 50. Id. at 38–41 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 15, 17, 19, 20, Figs. 3, 7). Petitioner relies on Burris as teaching moving
`the nut axially between a first and second nut-to-post position,6 id. at 38
`(citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, Figs. 3–4), and Bence as teaching the placement of
`the continuous metallic electric ground pathway between the claimed
`surfaces of the post and the body, id. at 41–42 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, Figs.
`6A–6C), even when the nut moves axially, id. at 43.
`Petitioner also proposes a rationale for combining the foregoing
`references to obtain the claimed invention. Pet. 47–58; see also Ex. 1006
`¶¶ 114–161. Petitioner provides the following annotated illustration of the
`proposed modifications to Matthews:
`
`
`
`6 According to Petitioner and its declarant, nut 30 of Matthews is also
`inherently “configured to move between a first position and second
`position,” during the threading of the nut onto interface port 20. Id. at 35–36
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29, 41, 44, Fig. 2; Ex. 1006 ¶ 90).
`15
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Modified Figure 8 of Matthews above represents Petitioner’s proposed
`modification of Matthews according to the teachings of Tatsuzuki and
`Bence. Id. at 47–48.
`According to Petitioner:
`It would have been obvious to modify the Matthews connector
`by incorporating the continuity member 13 of Tatusuzki in the
`manner disclosed by Bence, i.e., by sandwiching a portion of the
`continuity member 13 of Tatsuzuki between the body and post
`of Matthews, as shown in FIG. 6A of Bence. Such modification
`would include dimensioning the components of the Matthews
`connector (e.g., the body, post and nut) to accommodate
`Tatsuzuki’s continuity member 13, as taught by Bence.
`Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 114); see also id. at 51 (explaining the
`“sandwiching” technique of Bence). Petitioner further contends it would
`have been obvious to have a nut capable of moving between the first and
`second nut-to-post positions, as taught by Burris, to allow for flexible
`movement and rotation of the nut relative to the post and body. Id. at 52–53
`(citing Ex. 1004, 6:2–12).
`
`Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed combination. Prelim.
`Resp. 28–60. Among other reasons, Patent Owner contends
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`the claimed ’136 Patent invention is directed to a continuity
`member or path that is configured in a new gap or space
`“between the rearward facing portion of the outward flange of
`the post and the continuity member contact portion of the body”
`(Ex. 1001 Claim 50) that did not exist before.
`Id. at 28–29. According to Patent Owner, however, none of the relied-upon
`references teaches this configuration and Petitioner does not explain
`sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the
`invention, would have been motivated to create a new gap to place a
`continuity member in such a location. Id. at 29–38, 46–47.
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. As explained above,
`Petitioner and its declarant, Mr. Locati, rely on Figure 6A of Bence for
`placing the “continuous metallic electrical ground pathway” (i.e., ring-
`shaped member 13a of Tatsuzuki) between the body (B1), post (PRF), and
`nut (NR) of Matthews as indicated in the modified Figure 8 reproduced
`above. Pet. 47, 51. However, as Patent Owner points out in the following
`illustration, Bence’s grounding member is forward of the lip of the nut and,
`therefore, not “located rearwardly from the rearward facing portion of the
`inward protrusion of the nut,” as claim 50 requires, Prelim. Resp. 34–35:
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The above Figures 6 and 6A–6C of Bence, as annotated by Patent Owner,
`illustrate the placement of the grounding member forward of the lip of the
`nut. Prelim. Resp. 34; see also Ex. 1005, 7:62–8:15 (“The spring action of
`the fingers 603 extend to, and make contact with, a radial surface 604 near
`the back end of the coupling nut 105 that faces the front end of the coupling
`nut”).
`
`Moreover, we agree Petitioner does not address sufficiently why a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rearrange
`the position of the grounding member to obtain its recited placement
`“rearwardly from the rearward facing portion of the inward protrusion of the
`nut, and configured to contact the rearward facing portion of the outward
`flange of the post while extending between the rearward facing portion of
`the outward flange of the post and the continuity member contact portion of
`the body,” when none of the references teach this arrangement. See KSR
`Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2006) (citing In re Kahn, 441
`F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Indeed, the modification Petitioner argues
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`is obvious would require creating a new space in Matthews where none
`currently exists, i.e., between the rearward facing surface of the protrusion of
`the outward flange of the post, PRF, and the body, B1. Prelim. Resp. 45. Mr.
`Locati testifies that it would have been obvious to make such a modification,
`see Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 116–120, but bases this on the assertion that a person of
`ordinary skill would have done so to create an alternate ground path, id.
`¶ 123. We determine Petitioner’s evidence does not support sufficiently this
`assertion.
`
`We also find Petitioner’s combination insufficiently addresses the
`requirement that
`continuous metallic electrical ground pathway is configured to
`be maintained when . . . the nut is in the second nut-to-post
`position relative to the post, where the forward facing nut surface
`of the nut is spaced away from the rearward facing surface of the
`post, such that the continuous metallic electrical ground pathway
`is maintained between the rearward facing portion of the
`outward flange of the post and the nut regardless of a location of
`the nut relative to the post.
`Ex. 1001, 30:29–41. As we discussed, Petitioner relies on alleged inherent
`disclosures of Matthews and, alternatively, on Burris as teaching the recited
`spacing. See Pet. 37–38. Petitioner relies on the following annotated
`version of Figure 1 of Matthews:
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Annotated Figure 1 illustrates how, in Petitioner’s view, nut 30 can move
`axially such that forward facing portion of the nut, NF, is spaced away from
`rearward facing portion of the post, PR, as claim 50 requires.
`However, Petitioner does not provide a modified version of Figure 8
`that illustrates the second nut-to-post position, requiring NF and PR to be
`spaced away, nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain how the second nut-to-
`post position is obtained while maintaining continuity between post and nut.
`If, as Petitioner appears to propose, see Pet. 52–53, the nut is moved relative
`to the post and body (i.e., the nut is “loosened” moving axially to the right),
`continuity is maintained only if ring member 13 remains sandwiched
`between the surfaces B1, NF, and PR in modified Figure 8 above. See Pet.
`48–49 (alleging that continuous ground is maintained by “sandwiching”
`Tatsuzuki’s continuity member 13a between PRF and B1). In this scenario,
`however, spring portion 13b would, as Patent Owner points out, be “crushed
`flat” because the proposed combination lacks the spring housing channel of
`Tatsuzuki, which is designed to avoid crushing the spring. Prelim. Resp. 48
`(quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 17).
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`
`On the other hand, if the spring is allowed to move axially in response
`to the rightward movement of the nut (i.e., to avoid being crushed), it would
`introduce physical separation between surfaces NF and PR and continuity
`member/ring-interface 13a would no longer be “sandwiched” between
`surfaces B1 and PRF necessary to maintain continuity as the claim requires.
`See Pet. 48–49 (alleging that continuous ground is maintained by
`“sandwiching” Tatsuzuki’s continuity member 13a between PRF and B1). In
`any event, we find Petitioner and its declarant’s explanation to be lacking in
`sufficient detail to establish how its proposed combination satisfies the
`requirement that the claimed “continuous metallic electrical ground
`pathway” be maintained in both first and second nut-to-post positions as
`claim 50 requires.
`For the foregoing reasons, we find the Petitioner’s proposed ground of
`obviousness is deficient with respect to claim 50 of the ’136 patent.
`Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address claims 53 and 57–61, which
`depend directly or indirectly from claim 50. We decline to institute inter
`partes review on the grounds that claims 50, 53, and 57–61 are unpatentable
`over the combination of Matthews, Tatsuzuki, Burris, and Bence.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged
`claims of the ’136 patent is unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01955
`Patent 8,647,136 B2
`
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review will be instituted
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) with respect to any of the challenged claims
`of the ’136 patent on the ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Todd R. Walters
`todd.walters@bipc.com
`
`Roger H. Lee
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`
`
`Jonathan R. Bowser
`jon.bowser@bipc.com
`
`Kyle K. Tsui
`kyle.tsui@bipc.com
`
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Denis J. Sullivan
`dsullivan@barclaydamon.com
`
`
`
`22
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
