Paper No. 27
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: February 2, 2018
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`PANDUIT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CCS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In these inter partes reviews, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, Panduit Corp. (“Petitioner”) challenges the
`patentability of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,758,600 B2 (“the ’600
`patent”) and claims 1–3 and 8–10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,869,227 B2 (“the
`’227 patent”),1 both of which are owned by CCS Technology, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”). The parties raised overlapping issues. For efficiency, we exercise
`our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) to consolidate these two inter
`partes reviews. See also 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) (giving Director discretion to
`consolidate proceedings).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`arguments raised during the trials in these inter partes reviews. For the
`reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 2 of the ’600 patent and
`claims 1–3 and 8–10 of the ’227 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, the
`petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability
`by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
`A. Procedural History
`On August 19, 2016, Petitioner requested inter partes review of
`claims 1–4 of the ’600 patent and inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6, and
`8–11 of the ’227 patent. IPR2016-01647, Paper 2 (“IPR1647 Pet.”);
`IPR2016-01648, Paper 2 (“IPR1648 Pet.”). In each proceeding, Patent
`
`1 The challenged patent is Exhibit 1001 in each proceeding. Citations may
`be preceded by “IPR1647” to designate IPR2016-01647 or “IPR1648” to
`designate IPR2016-01648.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`Owner filed a Preliminary Response. IPR2016-01647, Paper 7 (“IPR1647
`Prelim. Resp.”); IPR2016-01648, Paper 7 (“IPR1648 Prelim. Resp.”). In
`IPR2016-01647, we instituted trial as to claims 1 and 2 of the ’600 patent on
`the following grounds of unpatentability:
`1. Whether claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`as anticipated by Toyooka;2 and
`2. Whether claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`as having been obvious over Toyooka and Kang.3
`IPR2016-01647, Paper 8 (“IPR1647 Dec. on Inst.”), 27. In IPR2016-01648,
`we instituted trial as to claims 1–3 and 8–10 of the ’227 patent on the
`following ground of unpatentability:
`1. Whether claims 1–3 and 8–10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) as anticipated by Toyooka.4
`IPR2016-01648, Paper 8 (“IPR1648 Dec. on Inst.”), 31.
`In each review, Patent Owner filed a Response (IPR2016-01647,
`Paper 14, “IPR1647 PO Resp.”; IPR2016-01648, Paper 13, “IPR1648 PO
`Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (IPR2016-01647, Paper 21, “IPR1647
`Reply”; IPR2016-01648, Paper 21, “IPR1648 Reply”).
`
`
`2 JP H11-160542, published June 18, 1999 (Ex. 1004). Petitioner also filed
`Toyooka as Exhibit 1008 with a declaration by the translator to address a
`deficiency noted in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses and in our
`Decisions on Institution. See IPR1647 Prelim. Resp. 12–14; IPR1647 Dec.
`on Inst. 5–7; IPR1648 Prelim. Resp. 10–12; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 6–7.
`Because the parties cite Toyooka as Exhibit 1004 in these matters, we also
`cite Toyooka as Exhibit 1004 for consistency in the record.
`3 US 6,604,866 B1, filed Mar. 4, 2002, issued Aug. 12, 2003
`(IPR1647 Ex. 1005).
`4 JP H11-160542, published June 18, 1999 (Ex. 1004).
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`An oral hearing was held for both proceedings on November 16,
`2017, a transcript of which appears in the record of each proceeding.
`IPR2016-01647, Paper 26 (“Tr.”); IPR2016-01648, Paper 26.
`B. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’600 and ’227 patents are at issue in
`Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Panduit Corp., No. 1:16-cv-
`00268-GMS (D. Del.). IPR1647 Pet. 1; IPR2016-01647, Paper 5, 1;
`IPR1648 Pet. 1; IPR2016-01648, Paper 5, 1. The ’600 and ’227 patents are
`also the subjects of IPR2017-01323 and IPR2017-01375, respectively.
`
`C. Overview of the ’600 and ’227 Patents
`The ’600 and ’227 patents generally relate to a particular
`interconnection scheme used in optical interconnection modules. Ex. 1001,5
`2:3–19. In particular, the challenged patents address fiber polarity issues in
`fiber interconnections. Ex. 1001, 1:33–43. The patents describe various
`prior art methods to connect a transmitter on one end to a receiver on the
`other end in a conventional point-to-point fiber system to manage fiber
`polarity. Id. For example, fiber polarity can be addressed by “flipping
`fibers in one end of the assembly.” Id. at 1:37–40. The patents also describe
`the use of “A” and “B” type modules. Id. at 1:41–56. Figure 1 of the
`patents is reproduced below.
`
`
`5 The ’227 patent purports to be a continuation of the ’600 patent and
`contains all of the disclosure of the ’600 patent. The ’227 patent also
`contains an additional figure that does not appear in the ’600 patent. See
`IPR1648 Ex. 1001, Fig. 5. For ease of reference, Exhibit 1001 in this
`Decision refers to the ’227 patent unless otherwise noted.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`The patents explain that Figure 1 “illustrates a conventional module ‘A’
`having six fiber pairs matched as follows: 1–2; 3–4; 5–6; 7–8; 9–10; and
`11–12.” Id. at 1:47–49. The patents explain that “[m]odule A is used in a
`system utilizing an ‘A’ and ‘B’ type module approach where the fibers in the
`‘B’ module are flipped with respect to module A to address, or correct for,
`fiber polarity.” Id. at 1:53–56.
`The patents state:
`implementation confusion,
`to reduce
`In an effort
`complexity and stocking issues with the “A” and “B” module
`method, or fiber flipping before entering the connector, the idea
`of wiring a module in a fiber sequence according to the present
`invention has been devised. Wiring a module in accordance with
`the present invention eliminates the need for an “A” and “B”
`module approach where the module according to the present
`invention is used universally in the system.
`Ex. 1001, 1:59–67.
`The fiber sequence allegedly devised in these patents is illustrated in
`Figure 2 of the patents, which is reproduced below.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`Figure 2 “illustrates an exemplary fiber wiring scheme for routing of optical
`fibers from connector 40 to single or multi-fiber connectors located at
`connector stations 51–56, defined at a break-out section 50 of module 60.”
`Ex. 1001, 3:14–16. The patents explain that “the optical paths of
`connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–56 are optically
`interconnected by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60, the
`fiber pairs being formed by the optical fibers.” Id. at 3:30–34. As illustrated
`in Figure 2 and explained in the patents, fiber pairs are defined within the
`cavity of the module such that the fiber optically connected to the first fiber
`from ribbon 20 is paired with the fiber optically connected to the last fiber at
`connector station 51, and then the fiber optically connected to the next fiber
`in ribbon 20 is paired with the fiber optically connected to the next-to-last
`fiber in ribbon 20 at connector station 52, and so on. See id. at 3:25–27
`(“With reference to FIG. 2, the fiber pairs are defined as follows: 21–32;
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`22–31; 23–30; 24–29; 25–28; and 26–27.”). As explained in detail below,
`Toyooka described a fiber optical module with this routing scheme over
`three years before the filing of the application that issued as the ’600 patent.
`D. Illustrative Claims
`Claims 1 and 2 of the ’600 patent are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`An optical interconnection module, comprising:
`1.
`a) an enclosure defining walls and a cavity within said
`walls for receiving and supporting optical fibers and connectors;
`b) an optical interconnection section formed in a wall of
`said module, said optical interconnection section having a multi-
`fiber connector with multiple optical paths formed therein, said
`optical paths being arranged in a generally planar array with the
`paths being immediately adjacent to at least one other optical
`path for optical alignment with optical fibers in an optical fiber
`ribbon;
`c) an optical connector station formed in a wall of said
`module having a plurality of optical fiber connectors;
`d) said optical paths and said optical connectors being
`optically interconnected by optical fibers disposed in said cavity,
`fiber pairs being formed by the optical fibers, at least one of the
`fiber pairs being routed to a respective connector station that is
`in optical communication with said optical paths, said at least one
`optical fiber pair being optically interconnected with at least two
`of said optical paths, said at least two optical paths selected from
`optical paths not being immediately adjacent to each other.
`
`The optical interconnection module of claim 1, at
`2.
`least 80% of said fiber pairs being optically interconnected with
`optical paths selected from optical paths not being immediately
`adjacent to each other.
`
`Of the challenged claims in the ’227 patent, claims 1 and 3 are
`independent. Claims 2 and 8–10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`Claims 1, 2, and 3 of the ’227 patent are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`1.
`A universal breakout harness for reversing the
`polarity of optical fibers, comprising:
`a multi-fiber connector with multiple optical paths formed
`therein, the optical paths being arranged in a generally planar
`array with each optical path being immediately adjacent to at
`least one other optical path;
`a plurality of optical fibers of an optical ribbon disposed
`in the optical paths formed in the multi-fiber connector; and
`a plurality of optical fiber connectors disposed opposite
`the multi-fiber connector, the plurality of optical fiber connectors
`defining a plurality of pairs of optical paths for receiving the
`optical fibers of the optical ribbon;
`wherein the optical fibers of the optical ribbon are
`separated and routed between the optical paths formed in the
`multi-fiber connector and the pairs of optical paths defined by
`the plurality of optical fiber connectors; and
`wherein the optical fibers in at least one of the pairs of
`optical paths defined by the plurality of optical fiber connectors
`are selected from optical fibers disposed in optical paths formed
`in the multi-fiber connector that are not immediately adjacent to
`each other.
`
`The universal breakout harness of claim 1, wherein
`2.
`at least 80% of the optical fibers in the pairs of optical paths
`defined by the plurality of optical fiber connectors are selected
`from optical fibers disposed in optical paths formed in the multi-
`fiber connector that are not immediately adjacent to each other.
`
`implementing
`A method of
`3.
`
`positioning in a cabling system, comprising:
`assigning a sequential number to each of the optical fibers
`of an optical ribbon;
`installing one end of the optical ribbon into a multi-fiber
`connector with the optical fibers of the optical ribbon arranged
`in sequential number from left to right; and
`installing the other end of the optical ribbon into a plurality
`of optical fiber connectors with the optical fibers of the optical
`ribbon arranged in reverse sequential number from left to right.
`
`reverse-ribbon
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`Citing the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Casimer DeCusatis,
`Petitioner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “(a) a Bachelor’s
`Degree in Electrical Engineering or similar, with at least 5 years of
`experience designing fiber optic cassettes or harnesses; or (b) a Master’s
`Degree in Electrical Engineering or similar, with at least 3-5 year[s] of
`experience designing fiber optic cassettes or harnesses.” IPR1647 Pet. 12
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19); IPR 1648 Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–19).
`Patent Owner, citing the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Eric Pearson,
`argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’600 [and ’227]
`patent[s] would have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering,
`materials science, or a related field; and 2 years of experience in fiber optic
`equipment design.” IPR1647 PO Resp. 1 (citing IPR1647 Ex. 2001 ¶ 16);
`IPR1648 PO Resp. 1 (citing IPR1648 Ex. 2001 ¶ 14).
`Although there are differences between the proposed levels of
`ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ declarants agree that an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree and some
`amount of professional experience with fiber optic equipment. Based on the
`evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the
`subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill
`level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person
`having a four year technical degree with a minimum of two years of
`professional technical experience in fiber optic equipment design. We apply
`this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis below. However, we
`note that our analysis would be the same if we adopted either party’s
`proposed level of ordinary skill.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`The Board interprets claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we interpret
`claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
`ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
`art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
`otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
`applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed.
`Cir. 1997). We presume that claim terms have their ordinary and customary
`meaning. See Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (“Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must
`be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the
`specification and prosecution history.”); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). A patentee, however, may
`rebut this presumption by acting as his own lexicographer, providing a
`definition of the term in the specification with “reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`1994).
`
`1. “Optical Fiber Ribbon”/”Optical Ribbon”
`The term “optical fiber ribbon” appears in challenged claim 1 of the
`’600 patent, and the term “optical ribbon” appears in challenged claims 1, 3,
`and 8 of the ’227 patent.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`a. Preliminary Determination
`Although prior to institution the parties did not propose express
`constructions for the terms “optical fiber ribbon” and “optical ribbon,” the
`parties’ briefing in IPR2016-01648 evinced implicit claim constructions.
`IPR1647 Dec. on Inst. 11–12; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 12; IPR1648 Pet. 31;
`IPR1648 Prelim. Resp. 3. In particular, Petitioner contends that certain
`fibers in Toyooka disclose “an optical ribbon” because they “are grouped
`and aligned and arrayed in a planar array.” IPR1648 Pet. 31; see IPR1647
`Dec. on Inst. 12; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 12. In its Preliminary Response,
`Patent Owner, referring to Figure 5 of the ’227 patent, stated: “An optical
`fiber ribbon 20 leads into the connector. [Ex. 1001,] 3:57–59. The optical
`fibers of the ribbon are connected to optical fibers from within the module
`that are also ‘ribbonized’ (bonded together in a planar array) before they
`are placed into the connector.” IPR1648 Prelim. Resp. 3 (emphasis added);
`see IPR1647 Dec. on Inst. 13; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 13.
`Because the parties provided implicit constructions for the terms
`“optical fiber ribbon” and “optical ribbon,” we provided an analysis and a
`preliminary claim construction for these terms in our Decisions on
`Institution. IPR1647 Dec. on Inst. 11–14; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 12–14.
`Our initial determination as to the scope of “optical ribbon” and “optical
`fiber ribbon” was based in part on Patent Owner’s own explanation of the
`technology of the ’227 patent with reference to Figure 5. See IPR1647 Dec.
`on Inst. 11–14; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 12–14. Figure 5 of the ’227 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`The ’227 patent states that Figure 5 “is a schematic view of a breakout
`harness without a module according to the present invention.” Ex. 1001,
`2:40–41. In its Preliminary Response in IPR2016-01648, Patent Owner
`argued:
`
`As shown in Figure 5 above, the breakout harness contains
`a multifiber connector 40. [Ex. 1001,] 3:49–59. An optical fiber
`ribbon 20 leads into the connector. Id. at 3:57–59. The optical
`fibers of the ribbon are connected to optical fibers from within
`the module that are also “ribbonized” (bonded together in a
`planar array) before they are placed into the connector. Within
`the module, the “ribbonized” optical fibers in the module are
`arranged into fiber pairs by splitting them apart (using, for
`example, a fan-out kit as described at 3:11–13) before they are
`terminated with respective optical connectors, as shown on the
`right-hand side of Figure 5.
`1648 Prelim. Resp. 3 (emphasis added). Based in part on Patent Owner’s
`explanation that optical fibers are “ribbonized” when they are “bonded
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`together in a planar array” (id.), we determined preliminarily that the
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms “optical fiber ribbon” and
`“optical ribbon” in view of the specification of the ’600 and ’227 patents
`includes optical fibers that are bonded together in a generally planar array or
`optical fibers that are grouped and aligned in a generally planar array.
`IPR1647 Dec. on Inst. 14; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 14.
`
`b. Post-Institution Analysis
`In its Responses to the Petitions in these proceedings, Patent Owner
`argues that, “[i]n light of the intrinsic record, the term ‘optical [fiber] ribbon’
`is not so broad that it includes fibers that are merely ‘grouped and aligned in
`a generally planar array.’” IPR1647 PO Resp. 6; IPR1648 PO Resp. 7.
`According to Patent Owner, “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation
`consistent with the specification of the term ‘optical [fiber] ribbon’ is ‘a
`group of optical fibers that are coated with a ribbon common layer.’”
`IPR1647 PO Resp. 6; IPR1647 PO Resp. 7. Patent Owner bases this
`argument primarily on the statement in the “Background of the Invention”
`section of the patents that “[a]n optical ribbon includes a group of optical
`fibers that are coated with a ribbon common layer.” Ex. 1001, 1:18–19
`(emphasis added); see IPR1647 PO Resp. 6–9; IPR1648 PO Resp. 7–10.
`However, this sentence does not necessarily define the “optical ribbon” as “a
`group of optical fibers that are coated with a ribbon common layer” but,
`rather, merely indicates that the term encompasses such a group of fibers.
`As explained more fully below, in view of the intrinsic record as a whole,
`we determine that the subject matter that falls within the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of “optical ribbon” and “optical fiber ribbon” is not limited to
`Patent Owner’s proposal.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`First, we discuss Patent Owner’s contradictory positions on this issue.
`In its Response to the Petition in IPR2016-01648, Patent Owner provides the
`following overview of the subject matter of the ’227 patent:
`As shown in Figure 5 above, the breakout harness contains
`a multi-fiber connector 40. [Ex. 1001,] 3:49–59. An optical fiber
`ribbon 20 leads into the connector 40. Id., 3:57–59. After this,
`the ribbon is split apart (using, for example, a fan-out kit as
`described at 3:11–13). The fibers are then routed to individual
`optical connectors for termination, as shown on the right-hand
`side of the figure.
`This design is reflected in the claims of the ’227 patent.
`Claim 1 recites a “universal breakout harness” of the general type
`described above. Id., 4:32. The harness contains “a multi-fiber
`connector” with “an optical ribbon disposed in the optical paths
`formed in the multi-fiber connector.” Id., 4:34–40. At the other
`end of the harness, there are “a plurality of optical fiber
`connectors” that define a “plurality of pairs” that are respectively
`associated with transmit and receive optical signal functions of
`the optical paths. Id., 4:42–45. Next, “the optical fibers of the
`optical ribbon are separated and routed between the optical paths
`formed in the multi-fiber connector and the pairs of optical paths
`defined by the plurality of optical fiber connectors” in
`accordance with the transmit and receive functions of the optical
`paths. Id., 4:46–49.
`IPR1648 PO Resp. 3–4.
`Patent Owner, therefore, contends that the fibers to the right of
`connector 40 in Figure 5 are the fibers from ribbon 20, rather than fibers to
`which the fibers within ribbon 20 are optically connected. This contrasts
`with the following passage in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in
`IPR2016-01648:
`As shown in Figure 5 above, the breakout harness contains
`a multifiber connector 40. [Ex. 1001,] 3:49–59. An optical fiber
`ribbon 20 leads into the connector. Id. at 3:57–59. The optical
`fibers of the ribbon are connected to optical fibers from within
`the module that are also “ribbonized” (bonded together in a
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`planar array) before they are placed into the connector. Within
`the module, the “ribbonized” optical fibers in the module are
`arranged into fiber pairs by splitting them apart (using, for
`example, a fan-out kit as described at 3:11–13) before they are
`terminated with respective optical connectors, as shown on the
`right-hand side of Figure 5.
`IPR1648 Prelim. Resp. 3 (emphasis added). There, Patent Owner argued
`that fibers from the ribbon are connected to fibers 21–32 to the right of
`connector 40, and, as such, fibers 21–32 to the right of connector 40 are not
`fibers of ribbon 20 but, rather, are fibers that are connected to fibers of
`ribbon 20. This explanation makes sense in the context of the ’600 and ’227
`patents. For example, the ’600 and ’227 patents explain that connector 40
`“contains multiple optical paths, the optical paths being arranged in a
`generally planar array. The optical paths being immediately adjacent to at
`least one other optical path for optical alignment with the optical fibers in an
`optical fiber ribbon.” Ex. 1001, 2:63–67 (emphases added). Connector 40
`contains “optical paths,” which are paths through which light travels, such as
`the light from the fibers within ribbon 20 connected to connector 40. If the
`fibers in ribbon 20 are the same fibers to the right of connector 40, as Patent
`Owner argues in its Response, what purpose does a connector with optical
`paths serve? Indeed, the ’600 and ’227 patents state that “the optical paths
`of connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–56 are optically
`interconnected by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60.” Id.
`at 3:30–33.
`This discussion is important because, post-institution, Patent Owner
`argues that, “[i]n light of the intrinsic record, the term ‘optical [fiber] ribbon’
`is not so broad that it includes fibers that are merely ‘grouped and aligned in
`a generally planar array.’” IPR1647 PO Resp. 6; IPR1648 PO Resp. 7.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`During oral argument in these cases, counsel for Patent Owner stated: “So
`our position is an optical ribbon can’t be just individual fibers that aren’t
`coated or covered with a common material that keeps them together.”
`Tr. 30:23–25. Patent Owner further argued: “Our definition [of] an optical
`ribbon is fibers coated in a ribbon common layer. And once you have
`separated and routed them from the common -- ribbon common layer, they
`are individual fibers. They are not an optical ribbon.” Tr. 33:19–22; see
`also Tr. 21:12–14 (Patent Owner: “And once you have separated them out,
`from the -- whether it be the matrix material, the common matrix material or
`the ribbon common layer, you are now talking about individual fibers.”).
`According to Patent Owner, therefore, once fibers from an optical ribbon are
`separated from each other, they are individual fibers, not a ribbon.
`Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, independent claim 3
`of the ’227 patent, when read in light of the specification, claims “an optical
`ribbon” as individual fibers or, at least, encompasses such subject matter. In
`particular, claim 3 recites “installing one end of the optical ribbon into a
`multi-fiber connector with the optical fibers of the optical ribbon arranged in
`sequential number from left to right” and then “installing the other end of the
`optical ribbon into a plurality of optical fiber connectors with the optical
`fibers of the optical ribbon arranged in reverse sequential number from left
`to right.” (Emphasis added). The claim requires installing “one end” and
`“the other end” of the ribbon, which corresponds to the fibers between
`connector 40 (“multi-fiber connector”) and connector stations 51–56
`(“plurality of optical fiber connectors”) in figures 2 and 5. The ’600 and
`’227 patents describe that “the optical paths of connector 40 and the optical
`connectors at stations 51–56 are optically interconnected by optical fibers
`disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60.” Ex. 1001, 3:30–33. The ’600 and
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`’227 patents do not describe interconnecting a multi-fiber connector and
`connector stations using anything other than individual fibers, such as those
`depicted in figure 2 of the ’600 and ’227 patents and figure 5 of the ’227
`patent. Thus, claim 3, read in light of the specification of the ’227 patent,
`claims an “optical ribbon” encompassing optical fibers that are grouped and
`aligned in a generally planar array.
`During oral argument, counsel for Patent Owner was asked about
`claim 3 of the ’227 patent and stated:
`So if we focus on the yellow highlighting here, the second
`part, so we are in the context of a method here, right, of installing
`an end of the optical ribbon into the plurality of optical fiber
`connectors. Here what I was going to say is I think one of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand that to install the
`optical ribbon into the individual connectors, you [have] got to
`separate out the fibers to do that. The claim does not specifically
`say that but one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`is what you have got to do.
`And then if you keep reading after the second yellow
`highlight here on slide 8, it talks about and distinguishes the
`optical fibers from the optical ribbon. And it’s the optical fibers
`of the optical ribbon that have been arranged in reverse
`sequential number and installed into the individual connectors.
`So I think within the claim language exactly here that we are
`looking at, it distinguishes between optical ribbon and the
`individual optical fibers. I agree it doesn’t say one of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand. But it doesn’t say that you have
`got to separate the individual fibers from the ribbon common
`material before you install them in the individual connectors.
`That would have been clearer, I understand that. But I think one
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand that’s what’s going
`on here.
`Tr. 34:17–35:12. According to Patent Owner, therefore, the claimed
`recitation of “installing the other end of the optical ribbon into a plurality of
`optical fiber connectors” requires “separat[ing] out the fibers to do that.”
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`Tr. 34:17–24. As noted above, however, Patent Owner elsewhere argues
`that once fibers from an optical ribbon are separated from each other, they
`are individual fibers, not a ribbon. Tr. 21:12–14, 30:23–25, 33:19–22.
`Therefore, under Patent Owner’s interpretation of claim 3, the step of
`“installing the other end of the optical ribbon into a plurality of optical fiber
`connectors” really means “installing optical fibers separated from the other
`end of the optical ribbon into a plurality of optical fiber connectors.”
`(Emphasis added). This suggests that optical fibers need not be coated in a
`ribbon common layer to be an “optical ribbon” as recited in claim 3. Indeed,
`if Patent Owner is correct that once fibers are separated they are no longer a
`ribbon, then claim 3 as written cannot be performed because individual
`fibers would be installed into the connectors, not a ribbon.
`The friction between Patent Owner’s proposed construction on one
`hand and the plain language of claim 3 on the other hand renders Patent
`Owner’s construction untenable. The more reasonable reading of the terms
`“optical ribbon” and “optical fiber ribbon” is that they encompass optical
`fibers that are bonded together in a generally planar array or optical fibers
`that are grouped and aligned in a generally planar array. This construction
`gives meaning to the step of claim 3 of “installing the other end of the
`optical ribbon into a plurality of optical fiber connectors” and is supported
`by the disclosure of the ’600 and ’227 patents that “the optical paths of
`connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–56 are optically
`interconnected by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60.”
`Ex. 1001, 3:30–33, Figs. 2, 5.
`Therefore, the intrinsic evidence, including the plain language of
`claim 3, supports our initial determination that the broadest reasonable
`interpretation of the terms “optical fiber ribbon” and “optical ribbon” in
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`view of the specification of the ’600 and ’227 patents encompasses optical
`fibers that are bonded together in a generally planar array or optical fibers
`that are grouped and aligned in a generally planar array.6 We apply this
`definition below in our analysis of the grounds of unpatentability.
`2. Remaining Terms
`In our Decisions on Institution, we determined that the remaining
`terms of the challenged claims did not require express constructions at that
`time. IPR1647 Dec. on Inst. 15; IPR1648 Dec. on Inst. 15. Based on the
`record developed in these inter partes reviews, we maintain our initial
`determination that the remaining terms of