Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`By: Todd R. Walters, Esq.
`
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`
`Jonathan R. Bowser, Esq.
`
`Kyle K. Tsui, Esq.
`
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
`
`Telephone (703) 836-6620
`
`Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`
`todd.walters@bipc.com
`
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`
`jon.bowser@bipc.com
`
`kyle.tsui@bipc.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF LLC,
`Corning Incorporated, and Corning Optical Communications LLC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case No. To be assigned
`Patent 8,075,338
`__________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,075,338 (CLAIMS 5, 6, AND 8)
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`
`Identification of Related Matters Under 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2) ............. 2
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ..................................................................... 2
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3
`
`III. WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ............................................................... 3
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................ 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Precise Relief Requested .................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested ................. 4
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the
`Challenges Are Based ................................................................. 4
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon to Support the
`Challenge .................................................................................... 5
`
`Prior Art Qualification of Asserted Reference ........................... 5
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed ..................... 6
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘338 PATENT ............................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 6
`
`The ‘338 Patent and the Prior Art ......................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`The ‘338 Patent ........................................................................... 9
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`The Prior Art ............................................................................. 11
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Examination History of the ‘338 Patent ......................... 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ‘503 application was allowed because the Examiner
`found that Bence would not have been combined with
`Spencer ...................................................................................... 13
`
`The Petition relies on connector structure disclosed by
`Bence not relied upon by the Examiner during ex parte
`prosecution ................................................................................ 15
`
`The rejection during ex parte prosecution does not
`provide grounds for denying institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) ..................................................................................... 17
`
`VII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED .......... 18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction Standard .............................................................. 18
`
`PPC’s Infringement Allegations in the Related Litigation ................. 18
`
`Claim Constructions ............................................................................ 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Construction of “post” .............................................................. 22
`
`Construction of “a plurality of engagement fingers” ................ 23
`
`Construction of “biased into a position of interference” .......... 24
`
`Construction of “physical and electrical continuity” ................ 25
`
`Construction of “axially aligned slots” ..................................... 26
`
`Construction of “on” ................................................................. 27
`
`VIII. PETITIONERS HAVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`PREVAILING ............................................................................................... 28
`
`A.
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8 Are Anticipated by Bence ..................................... 29
`
`1.
`
`Reference to Where the Elements of Claims 5, 6, and 8
`Are Found in the Prior Art ........................................................ 30
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`Explanation of Why Claims 5, 6, and 8 Are Anticipated
`by Bence .................................................................................... 49
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Bence discloses the “plurality of engagement
`fingers” ........................................................................... 50
`
`Bence discloses the “axially aligned slots” .................... 50
`
`Bence discloses axially aligned slots that are
`positioned “on” the post ................................................. 51
`
`B.
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8 Would Have Been Obvious Over Bence .............. 53
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Reference to Where the Elements of Claims 5, 6, and 8
`Are Found in the Prior Art ........................................................ 53
`
`Explanation of Why Claims 5, 6, and 8 Would Have
`Been Obvious ............................................................................ 73
`
`C. Any Purported Secondary Considerations Evidence Does Not
`Overcome the Strong Evidence of the Obviousness ........................... 83
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 83
`
`APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................... 28
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 28
`
`Chimei Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00066, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) .................................. 17
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) ............................................................ 18
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 148 U.S.P.Q. 459 (1966) ...................................................... 29
`
`In re Larson,
`340 F.2d 965 (C.C.P.A. 1965) ................................................................. 77
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 24
`
`Munchkin, Inc. v. Skip Hop, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00536, Paper 12 (PTAB Jul. 21, 2016) .................................... 17
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 24
`
`Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elec. Co., Ltd., et al.,
`2016 WL 3976617 (D. Mass. Jul. 22, 2016) ........................................... 28
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................. 4, 5, 6, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 28
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .............................................................................. 4, 5, 14, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 .......................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ............................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(2) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) .................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF LLC, Corning Incorporated, and
`
`Corning Optical Communications LLC (“Petitioners”) respectfully request inter
`
`partes review for claims 5, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338, issued on
`
`December 13, 2011 to Noah Montena (“the ‘338 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners certify that Corning Optical
`
`Communications RF LLC is a real party-in-interest.
`
`In IPR2014-00440, IPR2014-00441 and IPR2014-00736, the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Board”) issued a
`
`combined Decision (Ex. 1005) on August 18, 2015 which dismissed those
`
`proceedings, after they were instituted and a trial was conducted, based on a
`
`determination that the Petitions filed in those proceedings did not name all the real
`
`parties-in-interest. Corning Optical Communications RF LLC believes it is the
`
`only real party-in-interest. However, out of an abundance of caution in view of the
`
`above-mentioned Decision, Corning Incorporated and Corning Optical
`
`Communications LLC are also identified as real parties-in-interest, for purposes of
`
`compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Identification of Related Matters Under 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`B.
`The following is a list of any judicial or administrative matters that would
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC., 5:16-
`
`00162 (N.D.N.Y.).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 5, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,075,338 (filed concurrently herewith).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioners hereby identify
`
`its lead and backup counsel as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Todd R. Walters, Esq.
`Registration No. 34,040
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`todd.walters@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Jonathan R. Bowser, Esq.
`Registration No. 54,574
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`jon.bowser@bipc.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`Registration No. 46,317
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Kyle K. Tsui, Esq.
`Registration No. 62,602
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`kyle.tsui@bipc.com
`
`Powers of Attorney are being filed concurrently herewith in accordance with
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Papers concerning this matter should be served by EXPRESS MAIL, hand-
`
`delivery, or electronic mail at lead counsel’s address above.
`
`III. WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION
`Certification of compliance with the word count limit set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24(a)(1)(i) is provided in the attached Certificate of Compliance.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the inter partes request fee
`
`of $9,000 as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) and the inter partes post-
`
`institution fee of $14,000 as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(2) for the filing of
`
`this Petition for Inter Partes Review, to Deposit Account No. 02-4800. The
`
`undersigned further authorizes the payment for any additional fees, or credit any
`
`overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 02-4800.
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘338
`
`Patent is available for inter partes review in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.102(a)(2), and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘338 Patent on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`This Petition is filed within one year from the date on which Petitioner
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF LLC waived service in connection with a
`
`Complaint by Patent Owner in the related litigation, PPC Broadband, Inc. v.
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC., 5:16-00162 (N.D.N.Y.) (Ex. 1006),
`
`which asserted infringement of the ‘338 Patent.
`
`Neither Petitioners nor any privies of Petitioners have received a final
`
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) with respect to any claim of the ‘338
`
`Patent on any ground that was raised or could have been raised by Petitioners or
`
`privies of Petitioners in any inter partes review, post grant review, or covered
`
`business method patent review.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Precise Relief Requested
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioners challenge claims 5, 6, and 8 of
`
`the ‘338 Patent, and request that these claims be found unpatentable over the prior
`
`art for the reasons given herein.
`
`1. Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested
`Petitioners request review of claims 5, 6, and 8 of the ‘338 Patent.
`
`2. Specific Art and Statutory Grounds on Which the Challenges
`Are Based
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
`
`anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990 (“Bence”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990 (“Bence”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`The challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not redundant with respect to the
`
`challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). For example, as discussed in section VIII.B.,
`
`the challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) asserts that it would have been obvious to
`
`modify Bence such that the grounding member and post are formed into an integral
`
`post component with engagement fingers. No such assertion is made in the
`
`challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The challenges presented in this Petition are not redundant with the
`
`challenge presented in the Petition filed concurrently herewith asserting that claims
`
`5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0110977 (“Matthews,” Ex. 1019), in view
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 4,156,554 (“Aujla,” Ex. 1029) and Bence, at least because the
`
`challenge presented in the Petition filed concurrently herewith relies on two
`
`additional documents, Matthews and Aujla, as disclosing certain claimed features.
`
`3. Supporting Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge
`In addition to the above prior art, Petitioners rely upon the evidence listed in
`
`the Exhibit List, including the Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of Ronald P.
`
`Locati (Exs. 1003, 1004).
`
`4. Prior Art Qualification of Asserted Reference
`The ‘338 Patent was filed on October 18, 2010. The ‘338 Patent does not
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`claim priority to any prior U.S. or foreign application. Bence issued on October 3,
`
`2006. Therefore, Bence constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) with respect
`
`to the ‘338 Patent.
`
`5. How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed
`An explanation of how the challenged claims are to be construed is provided
`
`below in section VII., infra.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘338 PATENT
`A. Technical Background
`A coaxial cable is designed to transmit radio-frequency (RF) transmissions,
`
`and is typically used to connect televisions, set-top boxes, computers, modems, and
`
`the like to signal sources such as satellite dishes, cable television distribution lines,
`
`antennae, and the like. Coaxial cables are constructed in layers. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 16.
`
`
`Conventional Coaxial Cable
`
`
`
`A central (inner) electrical conductor (the “signal feed” or “signal”) is surrounded
`
`by an insulating layer (the “dielectric”) and an optional foil layer, which are
`
`surrounded by an outer electrical conductor (the “ground return,” “ground,” or
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`“shield”) that may be in the form of a metal braid. The outer conductor is
`
`surrounded by a nonconductive material that acts as an environmental seal and
`
`protective jacket. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 17.
`
`A coaxial cable connector is installed at the end of a coaxial cable to connect
`
`the cable to an interface port of an electrical device such as a television, set-top
`
`box, or modem. A conventional coaxial cable connector attached to a coaxial
`
`cable is depicted below:
`
`Conventional Coaxial Cable Connector
`
`
`
`One conventional type of coaxial cable connector has a nut (coupler or port
`
`coupling element), a post, and a body. The nut allows the coaxial cable connector
`
`to be secured to the interface port by rotating the port coupling element about the
`
`post. The inner conductor of the coaxial cable must be connected securely
`
`(mechanically and electrically) to a central pin receptacle on the interface port,
`
`while the outer conductor of the coaxial cable must be electrically connected to the
`
`ground of the device. Typically, the interface port, the nut, and the post are
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`conductive. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 18-19.
`
`To attach a coaxial cable connector to the coaxial cable, the center conductor,
`
`insulating layer and optional foil of the cable are typically inserted into the post in
`
`the connector, while the outer conductor, any additional foil layer(s) surrounding
`
`the outer conductor, and the jacket are captured between the post and the inner wall
`
`of the connector body of the coaxial cable connector, as shown above. The coaxial
`
`cable connector is connected to the interface port, e.g., by threading the nut onto
`
`the interface port. A fully tightened, threaded connection of the connector to the
`
`interface port ensures a ground connection from the interface port, to the post, to
`
`the outer electrical conductor of the coaxial cable. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 20.
`
`However, connectors are often times not properly tightened or installed on
`
`the interface port. Ex. 1001 at 1:38-42; Ex. 1002 at 1:60-2:3. The structure of
`
`common connectors may permit loss and discontinuity of the electromagnetic
`
`shield. Ex. 1001 at 1:42-45. When a connector is installed properly onto an
`
`interface port, the front face of the post contacts the front face of the interface port
`
`to extend the electrical ground path and electromagnetic shielding provided by the
`
`cable’s outer conductor through the post and to the interface port. This
`
`arrangement is referred to as a direct ground path between the interface port and
`
`the post. Such a direct ground path exists in the ‘338 Patent when the front
`
`(mating) face of the post makes physical and electrical contact with the mating
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`edge of the interface port. Ex. 1001 at 5:58-61. When a connector is not properly
`
`tightened on the interface port, a gap exists between the front face of the post and
`
`the front face of the port which prevents the direct ground path from being formed.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 21.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘338 Patent and the Prior Art
`1. The ‘338 Patent
`The ‘338 Patent attempts to address the problems caused by connectors not
`
`being properly installed on the interface port. Ex. 1001 at 1:41-51. The ‘338
`
`Patent discloses a coaxial cable connector that is designed to extend electrical
`
`continuity through the connector by maintaining electrical and physical
`
`communication between the post and the port coupling element (i.e., the coupling
`
`nut or coupler). Ex. 1001 at 1:17-18, 47-51. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 22. Fig. 2 of the ‘338
`
`Patent depicts an exemplary embodiment:
`
`Fig. 2 of the ‘338 Patent
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`The coaxial cable connector comprises a connector body attached to a post, the
`
`post having a first end and an opposing second end. Ex. 1001 at 1:62-64. The
`
`connector comprises a port coupling element rotatable about the post and having
`
`an inner surface. Ex. 1001 at 1:65-66. The connector also comprises a plurality of
`
`engagement fingers proximate the second end of the post, wherein the plurality of
`
`engagement fingers are biased into a position of interference with the inner surface
`
`of the port coupling element. Ex. 1001 at 1:65-2:3. The plurality of engagement
`
`fingers are separated, or spaced apart, by slots running axially. Ex. 1001 at 8:16-
`
`18. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 22-23. Exemplary engagement fingers and slots are depicted in
`
`the drawings of the ‘338 Patent:
`
`Fig. 3 of the ‘338 Patent (Annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Fig. 3 of the ‘338 Patent (Annotated)
`
`
`
`In the exemplary connector depicted in the drawings of the ‘338 Patent, the slots
`
`extend through the entire thickness of the wall of the post.1 Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 23-24.
`
`2. The Prior Art
`Patent Owner (“PPC”) was neither the first nor the only industry participant
`
`that recognized the problem of loose connectors. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,114,990 (Ex. 1002, “Bence”) recognized that loose connectors result in gaps that
`
`exist between the outer conductor of the appliance port and the tubular post.2 Ex.
`
`1002 at 1:54-2:2. Bence discloses that manufacturers routinely dimensioned the
`
`
`1 The ‘338 Patent provides additional description concerning the engagement
`
`fingers and slots, discussed below.
`
`2 Petitioner (Corning Optical Communications RF LLC) has obtained patents in the
`
`field of the ‘338 Patent including, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 9,172,154, 9,287,659, and
`
`9,407,016. The claims of such patents recite features not recited in the claims of
`
`the ‘338 Patent challenged in this Petition.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`flange of the tubular post to be smaller than the dimension of an inner diameter of
`
`a coupler (port coupling element) to provide free rotation of the nut. Id. at 2:5-13.
`
`Bence discloses that while components dimensioned in such a manner may
`
`fortuitously provide an alternate ground path (created by contact between the port
`
`coupling element and the post), the alternate ground path created by such fortuitous
`
`contact is not stable. Id. at 2:8-26. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 25.
`
`Bence discloses a solution to these problems associated with loose
`
`connectors. Bence discloses that by providing resilient contact between a
`
`projection/finger extending outwardly from the post and an inner surface of the
`
`port coupling element, a constant, reliable alternate grounding path between the
`
`port coupling element and the post can be attained while still allowing for
`
`sufficient rotation of the port coupling element. Ex. 1002 at 3:14-16, 10:26-30,
`
`Figs. 7-7C, 11-11D. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 26.
`
`Bence discloses using a resilient, electrically-conductive grounding member
`
`having fingers or projections which provide a constant, reliable electrically-
`
`conductive path between the post and the coupler while allowing for free rotation
`
`of the coupler relative to the tubular post. Id. at 3:15-20, 3:46-52, 8:18-39, 9:64-
`
`10:30, Figs. 7-7C, 11-11D.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Fig. 7A of Bence (Annotated)
`Fig. 11A of Bence (Annotated)
`
`
` Resilient Contact Between the Post and the Port Coupling Element in Bence
`
`
`
`
`
`Bence demonstrates that it was known in the art that even if a connector is not
`
`properly installed on an interface port (and no direct ground path between the
`
`interface port and the post exists), grounding can be achieved through an alternate
`
`ground path, i.e., a ground path extending from the interface port, to the port
`
`coupling element, to the post, to the outer conductor of the coaxial cable. Other
`
`industry participants also recognized the desirability of a reliable alternate ground
`
`path extending through the port coupling element and the post. See, e.g., Exs.
`
`1007, 1008 at ¶¶ 11-17; Ex. 1009 at 1:29-2:8, 3:4-14; Ex. 1010 at 1:45-2:34, 5:11-
`
`16. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 27-30.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Examination History of the ‘338 Patent
`1. The ‘503 application was allowed because the Examiner found
`that Bence would not have been combined with Spencer
`
`The ‘338 Patent issued on December 13, 2011, from U.S. Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 12/906,503, filed on October 18, 2010 (“the ‘503 Application”) (Ex.
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`1011). The application contained claims 1-21. In the first Office Action on the
`
`merits (Ex. 1012), the Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Bence in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,979,911 to Spencer
`
`(Ex. 1013).3 Spencer discloses a collet 1 having slots 7 that radially extend
`
`through the entire thickness of the wall of the collet 1:
`
`Fig. 2 of Spencer (Excerpt)
`
`
`
`The Examiner stated that the collet 1 having slots 7 disclosed by Spencer is a
`
`slotted post. Id. The Examiner proposed modifying the flanged post of Bence to
`
`have the slots 7 that radially extend through the entire thickness of the wall of the
`
`collet 1 disclosed by Spencer. Id. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 31-32.
`
`An Office Action Response was filed on August 31, 2011 (Ex. 1014). In the
`
`Response, Applicant argued that “one having ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`combine Bence et al. with Spencer.” Ex. 1014 at 12. Applicant argued that
`
`slotting the post of Bence as disclosed by Spencer “would render the grounding
`
`member ‘110’ obsolete” and “would interfere with the performance of the
`
`3 Over 450 documents were cited during prosecution.
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`grounding member,” and “a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be
`
`motivated to combine the collet ‘1’ with the Bence et al. connector.” Id. at 12-14.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶ 33.
`
`The Examiner allowed the ‘503 application on October 18, 2011 (Ex. 1015).
`
`In the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, the Examiner explained that
`
`“it would not have been obvious to modify Bence et al in view of any teachings of
`
`Spencer for the reasons given by applicant.” Ex. 1015 at 6. Thus, the ‘503
`
`application was allowed because the Examiner found that Bence would not have
`
`been combined with Spencer. The challenges presented in this Petition do not rely
`
`on Spencer.4 Thus, the Examiner’s rationale for allowing the ‘503 application is
`
`not applicable to the challenges presented in this Petition. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 34-36.
`
`2. The Petition relies on connector structure disclosed by Bence
`not relied upon by the Examiner during ex parte prosecution
`
`As discussed below in section VIII., the challenges presented in this Petition
`
`rely on, inter alia, Bence’s disclosure of projections 1117 of the connector 1100
`
`depicted in Figs. 11-11D and fingers 703 of the connector 700 depicted in Figs. 7-
`
`7C:
`
`
`4 This Petition sets forth a challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Bence and a challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bence.
`
`No such rejections were made during ex parte prosecution.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Figs. 11, 11A of Bence (Annotated)
`
`
`
`Figs. 7, 7A of Bence (Annotated)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`The Examiner did not rely on such structure disclosed by Bence, and did not allege
`
`that Bence itself discloses engagement fingers. In light of the Examiner’s reliance
`
`on Spencer for disclosing a slotted post (Ex. 1012 at 2), it is apparent that the
`
`Examiner did not rely on any structure disclosed by Bence as satisfying the
`
`engagement fingers or axial slots recited in independent claim 5 of the ‘338 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 37-38.
`
`3. The rejection during ex parte prosecution does not provide
`grounds for denying institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`As explained above, the Examiner relied on Bence in a substantially
`
`different manner than the manner in which Bence is being relied on in this Petition.
`
`Further, the Petition does not rely on the Spencer reference, which was found to be
`
`non-combinable with Bence during ex parte prosecution. As such, the Petition
`
`presents arguments that were not considered (and are very different from those
`
`considered) during ex parte prosecution. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 39-40. Thus, the rejection
`
`during ex parte prosecution is irrelevant to, and certainly does not constitute
`
`grounds for denial of institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). See, e.g., Munchkin,
`
`Inc. v. Skip Hop, Inc., IPR2016-00536, Paper 12 at 6 (PTAB Jul. 21, 2016); see
`
`also Chimei Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-
`
`00066, Paper 10 at 8 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). This is also true given the fact that
`
`the expert testimony filed herewith was not considered during ex parte prosecution.
`
`Id.
`
`17
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`VII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED
`A. Claim Construction Standard
`Claims in an unexpired patent subject to inter partes review are given the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in
`
`which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Spe