Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner, PPC Broadband, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01569
`Patent 8,075,338
`__________
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE „338 PATENT ......................................................................................... 4
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Intrinsic Evidence, And Even Petitioner‟s Own Admissions
`In Parallel Claim Construction Proceedings, Confirm That The
`Claimed “Plurality Of Engagement Fingers” Must Be A Portion
`Of, And Integral With, The Post. .......................................................... 6
`
`Contrary To Petitioner‟s Made-Up BRI Theory, The
`Specification Does Not “Expressly Contradict” A Construction
`That The Post Is A Single Component. ...............................................14
`
`Petitioner‟s Cherry-Picked Dictionary Definition Of “On”
`Should Be Rejected Because It Is Contrary To What the‟338
`Patent Fundamentally Teaches, Including How The “Axially
`Aligned Slots” Limitations of Claim 8 Must Be Formed In The
`Post. .....................................................................................................15
`
`IV. BENCE CANNOT ANTICIPATE ANY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`BECAUSE IT FAILS TO DISCLOSE OR SUGGEST THE
`FUNDAMENTAL FEATURE OF THE „338 PATENT – A CONSTANT
`CONTACT POST. .........................................................................................19
`
`A. Admittedly, Bence Fails To Disclose Or Suggest The Claimed
`“Plurality Of Engagement Fingers” That Must Be A Portion Of,
`And Integral With, The Post. ..............................................................20
`
`B.
`
`Admittedly, Bence Fails To Disclose “Axially Aligned Slots
`Positioned On The Post.” ....................................................................21
`
`V.
`
`BENCE ALSO CANNOT RENDER THE CLAIMED „338 PATENT
`INVENTION OBVIOUS BECAUSE IT NOT ONLY FAILS TO DISCLOSE
`OR SUGGEST EACH AND EVERY „338 PATENT CLAIM LIMITATION,
`IT ALSO TEACHES AWAY FROM THEM. ..............................................23
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art At The Time Of The
`Invention Confirms That The Prior Art Teaches Away From The
`Claimed Invention. ..............................................................................24
`
`The Scope And Content Of The Prior Art (Bence), Which
`Taught The Use Of A Separate Grounding Member From The
`
`i
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`Post That Would Not Interfere With Nut Rotation, Is The
`Antithesis Of, And Teaches Away, From The Claimed Invention. ....35
`
`C.
`
`The Differences Between The Claimed Invention Of The „338
`Patent And Bence, Which Teaches Away From The
`Fundamental Feature Of The Claimed Invention, Confirm That
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Obvious. .........................................39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner Fails To Acknowledge The Differences
`Between The Claimed Invention And The Prior Art. ...............39
`
`Bence Teaches Away From Petitioner‟s Imagined
`Modification Of Bence‟s Post To Have Engagement
`Fingers Of The Post Interfering With The Inner Surface Of
`The Rotating Nut, Which Would Render Bence Inoperable
`For Its Intended Purpose And Change Its Principal Of
`Operation. ..................................................................................41
`
`Since Petitioner Admits That Bence Already Discloses A
`Solution To The Loose Connector Problem, There Is No
`Reason To Modify Bence According To Petitioner‟s
`Unsupported Obviousness Theory. ...........................................45
`
`The Conclusory Purported “Rationales” Offered By
`Petitioner Cannot Satisfy Petitioner‟s Burden of
`Establishing a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness. ....................47
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner‟s Own Patents At The Time Of The Invention Of The
`„338 Patent And Years Later Provide Objective Evidence That
`Engagement Fingers That Are A Portion Of, And Integrated
`With, The Post Are Not Obvious. .......................................................52
`
`VI. PETITIONER‟S ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`ASSERTED IN MULTIPLE PETITIONS AGAINST THE SAME
`CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE REDUNDANT AND SHOULD BE
`DENIED.........................................................................................................57
`
`VII. SINCE THE SAME PRIOR ART AND ARGUMENTS WERE ALREADY
`CONSIDERED DURING PROSECUTION OF THE „338 PATENT, THE
`BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION UNDER 35 U.S.C. §
`325(D) AND DENY THIS PETITION. ........................................................63
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Patent Owner, PPC Broadband, Inc. (“PPC”), respectfully submits this
`
`Preliminary Patent Owner Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”)
`
`of claims 5, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338 (the “„338 Patent”)(EX1001) filed
`
`by Petitioner, Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC et al. (“Petitioner”).
`
`Petitioner alleges that the challenged claims are anticipated and obvious based on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990 (“Bence”) (EX1002), which is owned by Petitioner.
`
`The petition should be denied for several reasons. First, Petitioner invites the
`
`Board to commit legal error by centering its petition on made-up claim construction
`
`theories that are unreasonable in light of what the „338 Patent clearly teaches, are
`
`the antithesis of the fundamental feature of the claimed „338 Patent invention, and
`
`are even contradicted by Petitioner‟s admissions in other proceedings. For instance,
`
`Petitioner proposes to construe the claimed „338 Patent “engagement fingers” to
`
`cover Bence‟s “engagement fingers,” which are not integral with the post – even
`
`though the only “engagement fingers” taught by the „338 Patent must be integral
`
`with the post, and even though Petitioner has admitted in parallel claim construction
`
`proceedings that the claimed “engagement fingers” must be “portions of the post.”
`
`Second, Petitioner invites the Board to commit legal error by proposing
`
`made-up anticipation and obviousness theories that cannot satisfy its burden of
`
`establishing prima facie cases under longstanding Supreme Court and Federal
`
`1
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`Circuit precedent. Petitioner did not even attempt to satisfy the analysis required by
`
`Graham regarding the level of ordinary skill at the time of the „338 Patent invention.
`
`In fact, a wealth of objective and contemporaneous evidence demonstrates how one
`
`of ordinary skill at the that time would have readily recognized how the prior art –
`
`including Bence – not only fails to disclose or suggest the fundamental features of
`
`the claimed invention (i.e., the claimed “engagement fingers” integral with the post
`
`to achieve the claimed “biasing” limitations), it also admittedly teaches the opposite
`
`of it (i.e., fingers of a grounding member separate from the post). In other words,
`
`the claimed „338 Patent invention went against conventional wisdom and was
`
`contrary to how those of ordinary skill at that time tried to solve the same loose
`
`connector problem.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner‟s own engineers, who co-invented Bence and were
`
`obviously well aware of its teachings, were only able to offer designs at the time of
`
`the „338 Patent invention that also followed conventional wisdom, with not a trace
`
`of Patent Owner‟s inventive solution. And several years later, when Petitioner, and
`
`these Bence co-inventors, belatedly filed their own applications directed to the same
`
`fundamental feature of the „338 Patent, they admitted that the use of engagement
`
`fingers on the post to provide constant radial contact with the nut was patentable.
`
`This admission provides objective evidence of the patentability of the „338 Patent
`
`invention and belies Petitioner‟s litigation-induced and made-up invalidity theories.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`Moreover, one skilled in the art at the time of the „338 Patent invention would
`
`not have considered making Petitioner‟s imagined modifications of Bence because it
`
`teaches the antithesis of the „338 Patent invention. Indeed, the Petitioner‟s
`
`modifications of Bence (i.e., make its separate grounding member integral with its
`
`post) would impermissibly render Bence inoperable for its intended purposes (e.g.,
`
`interfere with nut rotation) and substantially change its principles of operation. It is
`
`only through hindsight afforded by the „338 Patent‟s own disclosure that Petitioner
`
`could imagine such modifications. Such hindsight reasoning has long been
`
`impermissible under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and should be rejected again here.
`
`Finally, Petitioner has asserted three different grounds of unpatentability
`
`based on Bence against the same challenged claims, two in this IPR and another in
`
`IPR2016-01573. But since Petitioner failed to explain why any alternative ground is
`
`not redundant, any alternative ground should be denied. Furthermore, since Bence
`
`and the issues presented here were fully considered during the prosecution of the
`
`„338 Patent, this petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`II. THE „338 PATENT
`
`
`
`The „338 Patent invention is directed to coaxial cable connectors for
`
`connecting a coaxial cable to an equipment port.
`
`As shown, when properly
`
`installed on a port, the front face of a
`
`connector‟s “post” component contacts
`
`the front face of the port to extend the
`
`electrical ground path and
`
`electromagnetic shielding of the outer
`
`conductor of the cable to the port. (EX2030 ¶¶ 19-23.)
`
`In practice, “[h]owever, connectors are often times not properly tightened or
`
`otherwise installed.” (EX1001 1:41-42.) As shown, when the connector is loose on
`
`the port, gaps formed in the connector can
`
`prevent the ground path and electromagnetic
`
`shielding provided by the cable‟s outer
`
`conductor from extending to the port.
`
`Loose connectors thus can result in
`
`significant performance problems. (EX2030 ¶ 24.)
`
`In the 2009/2010 timeframe, PPC‟s engineers devised one solution to the
`
`loose connector problem that led to the „338 Patent, which is entitled “Connector
`
`4
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`Having a Constant Contact Post.” 1 (EX1001 Title.) As shown in the following
`
`annotated version of Fig. 2, the‟338 Patent discloses a “constant contact post” (red)
`
`with a “plurality of engagement fingers” designed to exert a constant biasing force
`
`against the inner surface of the port coupling element (blue) and thus maintain
`
`constant contact between the post (red) and the port coupling element (blue) even
`
`when the connector is loose on a port. (EX1001 4:18-50; EX2030 ¶ 25.)
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`In an IPR, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest
`
`reasonable construction interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v.
`
`Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). “That is not to say, however, that the Board
`
`may construe claims during IPR so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable
`
`under general claim construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(emphasis in original); In re Suitco Surface,
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis is added.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(“The broadest-construction rubric
`
`coupled with the term „comprising‟ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to
`
`interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention.”).
`
`Petitioner offers claim constructions for six different claim elements. Several
`
`of the proposed constructions for claim elements (i.e., “biased into a position of
`
`interference,” “physical and electrical continuity,” and “axially aligned slots”) are
`
`not necessary to resolve any controversy at this stage of the proceeding and
`
`therefore need not be construed. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`
`200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are
`
`in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) And
`
`for those claim elements that do require construction, Petitioner invites the Board to
`
`commit clear legal error by adopting unreasonably broad constructions that are
`
`“divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” In re NTP, Inc., 654
`
`F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`A. The Intrinsic Evidence, And Even Petitioner‟s Own Admissions In
`Parallel Claim Construction Proceedings, Confirm That The
`Claimed “Plurality Of Engagement Fingers” Must Be A Portion
`Of, And Integral With, The Post.
`
`Claim 5 of the „338 Patent requires “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.” According to Petitioner‟s made-up claim construction theory, which is
`
`6
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`divorced from the specification, the claimed “„plurality of engagement fingers‟ are
`
`not required to be portions of the post, nor are the plurality of engagement fingers‟
`
`required to be formed with the post into an integral component.” (Pet. at 23-24.)
`
`Under the guise of advancing a BRI theory, Petitioner based its IPR request
`
`solely on the notion that the‟338 Patent claims should be so broadly construed as to
`
`encompass a “plurality of engagement fingers,” which are neither portions of, nor
`
`integral with, the post. But Petitioner‟s theory is contrary to not only the „338
`
`Patent‟s intrinsic evidence, but also Petitioner‟s own admissions in the related
`
`litigation that the claimed “engagement fingers” are indeed “portions of the post.”
`
`(EX2001 at 7.)
`
`Turning first to the specification, to solve the loose connector problem, the
`
`„338 Patent specification teaches that the invention fundamentally centers on “an
`
`improved connector having a constant contact post for ensuring ground continuity
`
`through the connector, and establishing and maintaining electrical and physical
`
`communication between the post and a port coupling element.” (EX1001 1:47-51.)
`
`The Field of the Invention also confirms that the “present invention relates to . . .
`
`embodiments of a coaxial cable connector having a constant contact post that
`
`extends electrical continuity through the connector.” (EX1001 1:14-18.) The title
`
`of the „338 Patent – “Connector Having A Constant Contact Post” leaves no doubt
`
`that it is the inventive “post” of the „338 Patent, and not some other component, that
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`is resolving the loose connector problem. (EX2030 ¶ 27.)
`
`Consistent with these statements – which confirm that the fundamental
`
`feature of the „338 Patent is the constant contact post – all of the embodiments
`
`disclosed in the „338 Patent teach that it is the post 40 (e.g., the engagement fingers
`
`145 or the flange 44 generally), and only the post, that provides constant contact
`
`with the port coupling element 30 to maintain physical and electrical continuity
`
`between the post 40 and the port coupling element 30. (EX2030 ¶ 28.)
`
`When the nut 30 is attached to the post 40 (i.e. while operably
`
`configured), the resilient engagement fingers 145 should flex, expand,
`
`or “spring” back in a radially outward direction, applying a constant
`
`radial contact force with the nut 30, in particular, the inner surface 35
`
`of the nut 30. The constant radial contact force applied by the
`
`engagement fingers 145 against the inside surface of the nut 30 may
`
`establish and maintain physical and electrical continuity between the
`
`post 40 and the nut 30. (EX1001 8:33-41.)
`
`[A] post 40, the post 40 having a first end 41 and an opposing second
`
`end 42, . . . and a plurality of engagement fingers 145 proximate the
`
`second end 42, . . . the plurality of engagement fingers 145 exerting a
`
`radially outward force against the port coupling element 30, wherein
`
`the radially outward force against the port coupling element 30
`
`establishes and maintains physical and electrical continuity between the
`
`post 40 and the port coupling element 30 regardless of the relative axial
`
`position between the post 40 and the port coupling element 30.
`
`(EX1001 10:40-57.)
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`See also EX1001 4:39-59, 7:44-48, 7:60-65.
`
`
`
`„338 Patent (EX1001)
`
`
`
`Turning back to the claim language itself, claim 5 requires that “the plurality
`
`
`
`
`
`of engagement fingers are biased into a position of interference with the inner
`
`surface of the port coupling element.” In other words, it is the engagement fingers
`
`of the constant contact post that are biased so as to contact the inner surface of the
`
`port coupling element. (EX2030 ¶ 29.)
`
`Tellingly, Petitioner proposes a made-up BRI theory based on what it wishes
`
`the „338 Patent taught, not based on what the „338 Patent actually teaches.
`
`Petitioner‟s theory must be rejected because it is so unreasonable as to cover
`
`engagement fingers that are somehow part of another unidentified and undisclosed
`
`component beyond the scope of the „338 Patent disclosure itself, and run counter to
`
`what the „338 Patent actually teaches is the fundamental feature of the claimed
`
`invention – the “constant contact post.” See Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d
`
`1306, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(“The claims of the patent must be read in light of the
`
`9
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`specification‟s consistent emphasis on this fundamental feature of the invention.”);
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015)(“A
`
`construction that is „unreasonably broad‟ and which does not „reasonably reflect the
`
`plain language and disclosure‟ will not pass muster.”)
`
`Moreover, the „338 Patent prosecution history confirms that the constant
`
`contact post is the fundamental feature of the invention, thus further belying not
`
`only Petitioner‟s made-up BRI theory, but also its reliance on Bence. The Examiner
`
`rejected the claims, stating that Bence “substantially discloses the claimed invention
`
`except for the flanged post 104, 106 being slotted.” (EX1012 at 2; EX2030 ¶ 30.)
`
`In response, the Applicants explained how the “connector taught by Bence et
`
`al. includes an additional grounding member „110,‟ which „contacts both the
`
`tubular post 104 and the coupling nut 105 for providing an electrically-conductive
`
`path therebetween.‟” The Applicant also explained how Bence fails to teach the
`
`fundamental feature of the claimed invention (i.e., the constant contact post) stating
`
`that “when the connector is not mated onto a port, the slotted post ensures
`
`mechanical interference between the port and the coupling element.” (EX1014 at p.
`
`16; EX2030 ¶ 31.)
`
`In this IPR, Petitioner attempted to sidestep such compelling evidence and
`
`shore up its made-up BRI theory by cherry-picking one carefully selected passage
`
`from the „338 Patent. (Pet. at 23)(citing EX1001 8:16-23.) The complete passage
`
`10
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`from the „338 Patent specification is shown below (with emphasis on the language
`
`Petitioner selectively omitted from its cherry-picked version).
`
`Petitioner‟s Cited Passage
`(Pet. at 23)
`Engagement fingers 145 can be portions
`of the post 40 . . . . Engagement fingers
`145 may also be resilient members,
`biasing members, fingers, biasing
`fingers, post fingers, teeth, engagement
`teeth, post teeth, expanding members,
`flexible members, and the like.
`
`
`Complete Cited Passage
`(EX1001 8:16-23.)
`Engagement fingers 145 can be portions
`of the post 40 proximate or otherwise
`near the second end 42 that are
`separated, or spaced apart, by slots 140
`running axially through the flange 44
`and a portion of the post 40 proximate
`or otherwise near the second end 42.
`Engagement fingers 145 may also be
`resilient members, biasing members,
`fingers, biasing fingers, post fingers,
`teeth, engagement teeth, post teeth,
`expanding members, flexible members,
`and the like.”
`
`
`The language omitted by Petitioner provides the necessary context for the
`
`excerpted statement that the “[e]ngagement fingers can be portions of the post 40.”
`
`Consistent with the fundamental feature of the invention – the constant contact post
`
`– while the disclosed fingers are part of the post, they can be (1) located proximate
`
`or otherwise near the second end of the post, or (2) spaced apart by slots running
`
`through the flange and portion of the post. A person of ordinary skill would thus
`
`readily recognize that such a passage simply refers to a possible location and
`
`arrangement of the engagement fingers of the post. (EX2030 ¶¶ 32-33.)
`
`Further undermining Petitioner‟s unreasonably broad proposed construction is
`
`its own proposed construction and statements in the related district court litigation,
`
`11
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`where it agrees that the “[i]t is clear from the specification that the claimed
`
`engagement fingers are portions of the post . . . .” (EX2001 at 7.)2
`
`Finally, Petitioner tries to disregard the fact that claim 5 specifically requires
`
`that a “plurality of engagement fingers proximate the second end [of the post]” in
`
`advancing its made-up BRI theory. As is made clear throughout the specification,
`
`the claim requirement that the “engagement fingers” must be “proximate the second
`
`end” of the post specifies that the engagement fingers are located on the constant
`
`contact post near the second end (i.e., the front or forward end) of the post. For
`
`example, FIG. 3 illustrates that in all of the exemplary embodiments described in the
`
`specification, the “plurality of engagement fingers 145 [are] proximate the second
`
`end 42” (i.e., the fingers are a portion of the post near the second end of the post).
`
`(EX1001 4:29-37; see also EX 1001 8:12-16, 10:40-46, 10:57-67; EX2030 ¶ 34.)
`
`
`2 While Petitioner indicates (Pet. at 22, n.2) that its constructions under the BRI
`
`standard differ from the constructions offered in the district court litigation under
`
`Phillips, it fails to provide any explanation of why the two constructions would be
`
`different in this instance.
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`engagement fingers (145)
`are a portion of the post
`(40) near the second end
`(42) of the post
`
`
`Accordingly, the engagement fingers are consistently described in the
`
`
`
`specification as being proximate the second end of the post, and in each and every
`
`disclosed embodiment of the‟338 Patent specification, the engagement fingers are
`
`a portion of, and integral with, the post. (EX2030 ¶ 35.) In fact, each and every
`
`time the term “proximate” an end of a component is used to describe a structural
`
`feature, that structural feature is a portion of, and integral with, the component itself
`
`(i.e., not separate from and only near the component). (EX2030 ¶ 36.)
`
` “a flange 44 proximate the second end 42” of the post 40 (EX1001
`
`4:21-24)
`
` “an internal lip 34 located proximate, or otherwise near to the second
`
`end 32” of the nut 30 (EX1001 4:56-59)
`
` “a post mounting portion 57 proximate or otherwise near the first end
`
`51 of the body 50” (EX1001 8:50-57)
`
` “an outer annular recess 58 located proximate or near the first end 51
`
`of the connector body 50” (EX1001 8:57-59)
`
`13
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
` “an external annular detent 53 located proximate or close to the second
`
`end 52 of the connector body 50” (EX1001 8:64-66)
`
` “the fastener member 60 may comprise an exterior surface feature 69
`
`positioned proximate with or close to the second end 62 of the fastener
`
`member 60” (EX 1001 9:38-41)
`
`
`Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would readily recognize that the ordinary
`
`
`
`and customary meaning of “proximate the second end” of the post in claim 5 is
`
`simply that the engagement fingers are a portion of the post located near the second
`
`end of the post. The intrinsic evidence, and Petitioner‟s own admissions, make it
`
`clear that, under the BRI, the claimed “plurality of engagement fingers” are a
`
`portion of, and integral with, the post. (EX2030 ¶ 37.)
`
`B. Contrary To Petitioner‟s Made-Up BRI Theory, The Specification
`Does Not “Expressly Contradict” A Construction That The Post Is
`A Single Component.
`
`Claim 5 requires “a post, the post having a first end and an opposing second
`
`14
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`end.” According to Petitioner, “there is nothing in the „338 Patent that indicates, in
`
`any way, that the „post‟ must be a single, homogeneous, inseparable component;
`
`instead, the „338 Patent expressly contradicts such an interpretation.” (Pet. at 22-
`
`23.) But in reality, nothing could be farther from the truth.
`
`For instance, each and every embodiment of the post 40 in the specification
`
`of the „338 Patent discloses a single, inseparable component. And while the
`
`specification discloses that “the post 40 may be formed of a combination of both
`
`conductive and non-conductive materials,” this disclosure simple refers to “a metal
`
`coating or layer . . .applied to a polymer of other non-conductive material” (EX1001
`
`6:10-17), which would still produce a single, integral component.
`
`Accordingly, the claimed “plurality of engagement fingers” of claim 5 must be a
`
`portion of, and integral with, the post. (EX2030 ¶ 38.)
`
`C.
`
`Petitioner‟s Cherry-Picked Dictionary Definition Of “On” Should
`Be Rejected Because It Is Contrary To What the‟338 Patent
`Fundamentally Teaches, Including How The “Axially Aligned
`Slots” Limitations of Claim 8 Must Be Formed In The Post.
`
`Claim 8 of the „338 Patent depends from claim 5, and further requires that
`
`“the plurality of engagement fingers are spaced apart by axially aligned slots
`
`positioned on the post proximate the second end.” Without citing to a single word
`
`from the specification concerning the disclosure of the axially aligned slots on the
`
`post, Petitioner proposes that the term “on” be construed based solely on a general
`
`purpose dictionary. (Pet. at 27)(citing EX1030.) According to Petitioner, based on
`
`15
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`these dictionary definitions, the “term „on‟ encompasses a position that is above and
`
`supported over, and does not require a position that is directly above or in direct
`
`contact with.” (Pet. at 27.)
`
`Once again, Petitioner‟s proposed broadening of the claims is solely
`
`motivated by its unsupported allegations in this IPR that Bence anticipates and
`
`renders obvious the challenged claims of the „338 Patent. Because Bence‟s
`
`grounding members and engagement fingers are admittedly not part of the post and
`
`Bence‟s post admittedly does not include any slots, Bence does not teach or suggest
`
`the claimed plurality of engagement fingers are spaced apart by “axially aligned
`
`slots positioned on the post.” Accordingly, Petitioner seeks to unreasonably
`
`broaden the scope of the claims under the guise of the BRI.
`
`But Petitioner‟s unreasonably broad dictionary-based construction is not only
`
`contradicted by the intrinsic evidence, it is also contradicted by Petitioner‟s own
`
`position in the related litigation where it advocates for a claim construction
`
`confirming that the axially aligned slots are merely “positioned on” the post as
`
`expressly recited in the claim. (EX2001 at 14.) All of this evidence confirms that
`
`the axially aligned slots “positioned on” the post as expressly recited in the claim
`
`should be construed as being formed in the post.
`
`Furthermore, Petitioner‟s practice of proposing a construction of a claim term
`
`based solely on a general purpose dictionary without any support in the specification
`
`16
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`has already been rejected by the Federal Circuit. Earlier this year, in an appeal of
`
`another IPR proceeding between these same parties, the Federal Circuit reversed the
`
`Board‟s adoption of Petitioner‟s dictionary-based definition of the claim term
`
`“reside around” that “fail[ed] to account for how the claims themselves and the
`
`specification inform the ordinary skilled artisan as to precisely which ordinary
`
`definition the patentee was using.” PPC Broadband, Inc., v. Corning Optical
`
`Comms. RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 752 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Turning to the specification involved here, the „338 Patent confirms that the
`
`claimed slots can take a variety of forms, including openings, spaces, cuts, grooves,
`
`etc. (EX2030 ¶ 40.)
`
`With continued reference to FIG. 1, and additional reference to FIG. 3,
`
`post 40 includes a plurality of slots 140 positioned somewhere on or
`
`around the post 40 proximate or otherwise near the second end 42. A
`
`plurality of slots 140 may be a plurality of openings, spaces, voids,
`
`apertures, holes, cuts, channels, grooves, and the like, positioned on
`
`the flange 44 and a portion of the post 40 proximate or otherwise near
`
`the second end 42 of the post 40. (EX1001 6:18-25.)
`
`slots (140)
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`Notably, the slots described in the cited language from the specification
`
`(EX1001 6:18-25) are either “positioned . . . on or around,” while claim 8 expressly
`
`requires that the slots be “positioned on” (i.e., and not merely just “around”) the
`
`post. That language from the specification demonstrates that, while claim 8 could
`
`have used broader language allowing the claimed slots to be simply “around” the
`
`post, the actual language is more restrictive, requiring that the slots be positioned on
`
`the post. (EX2030 ¶ 41.)
`
`In determining the proper construction of the term “positioned on” in
`
`reference to the claimed “slots,” one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`
`recognize that the slots (e.g., openings, spaces, voids, apertures, holes, cuts,
`
`channels, grooves)(EX1001 6:18-21) describe areas of missing material that are
`
`formed in the post as disclosed in the specification and shown in the figures.
`
`(EX2030 ¶ 42.)
`
`The number of engagement fingers 145 depends on the number of slots
`
`140 positioned on the post 40. For example, if the post 40 has six slots
`
`140 axially extending from the second end 42, six engagement fingers
`
`145 would be formed. (EX1001 8:24-26.)
`
`Patent Owner‟ s proposed construction that the claimed slots “positioned on”
`
`the post requires that the slots be “formed in” the post (or require certainly more
`
`than being “above and supported over” the post as proposed by Petitioner) is further
`
`supported by Petitioner‟s own interpretation of the „338 Patent submitted in the
`
`18
`
`

`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01569
`
`
`
`
`
`parallel litigation. In its claim construction submission, Petitioner asserted that “the
`
`„338 Patent addresses potential loss of electrical signal by forming slots on the end
`
`of the post to create resilient fingers that keep the post and nut in contact.” (EX2001
`
`at 1.) But this was not even the first time that Petitioner has characterized the slots
`
`of the „338 Patent as being formed in the post.
`
`On October 16, 2012, Petitioner filed its own patent that issued as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,407,016 B2 (“Corning „016”). (EX2004.) During prosecution, the claims
`
`were rejected as anticipated and/or obvious over the „338 Patent. (EX2006 at 5-10.)
`
`In response, Petitioner attempted to distinguish the „338 Patent and admitted that the
`
`invention of the „338 Patent was directed to “a post that includes a plurality of
`
`openings or slots in between a plurality of fingers at the flange of the post.”
`
`(