throbber
Trials@uspto.gov Paper: 36
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`Entered: October 1, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PANDUIT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`Petitioner, Panduit Corp. (“Petitioner”), filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 25, 32–34, 36, and 43 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE45,482 E1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’482 patent”) pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner, Corning Optical Communications
`LLC (“Patent Owner”), filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 8, “Prelim.
`Resp.”) to the Petition. Taking into account the arguments presented in
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determined that the information
`presented in the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 25, 32–34, 36, and 43 of
`the ’482 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we
`instituted this proceeding on October 2, 2017, as to claims 25, 32–34, 36,
`and 43 of the ’482 patent. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 271, “Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held on
`June 27, 2018, and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record.
`Paper 35 (“Tr.”).
`Petitioner filed a Declaration of Casimer DeCusatis, Ph.D. (Ex. 1003)
`with its Petition. Patent Owner filed Declarations of Brandon Barnes
`(Ex. 2002), Sean Kelly (Ex. 2003), and Eric Pearson (Ex. 2004) with its
`Response. The parties also filed transcripts of the depositions of
`Dr. DeCusatis (Ex. 2005), Mr. Barnes (Exs. 10232, 20193), Mr. Kelly
`(Exs. 10212, 20183), and Mr. Pearson (Ex. 10221).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of
`claims 25, 32–34, 36, and 43 of the ’482 patent. For the reasons discussed
`
`
`1 These papers were unsealed pursuant to our Order of June 21, 2018.
`Paper 33.
`2 These papers are sealed pursuant to our Order of June 21, 2018. Paper 33.
`3 These papers are public versions pursuant to our Order of June 21, 2018.
`Paper 33.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`below, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
`claims 25, 32–34, 36, and 43 of the ’482 patent are unpatentable.
`
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`B.
`
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The parties identify the following district court case related to the
`
`’482 patent (Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1):
`Corning Optical Comms. LLC v. Panduit Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00268-
`GMS (D. Del. filed Apr. 15, 2016).
`We also instituted an inter partes review of claims 15, 16, 18–24, 49,
`50, 63–68, and 71 of the ’482 patent in co-pending Case IPR2017-01074.
`
`The ’482 patent
`The ’482 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. RE42,094, which in
`turn is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,816,661 (“the ’661 patent”). Ex. 1001,
`[64], 1:29–34. The application that led to the ’661 patent was filed on
`March 22, 2000. Id. As discussed below, Petitioner establishes that, at a
`minimum, its asserted references qualify as prior art relative to that
`March 22, 2000, filing date.
`The ’482 patent relates to “multifiber connectors, installation tools
`and associated methods for validating optical fiber continuity during the
`connectorization process.” Id. at 1:39–42. Figure 1 of the ’482 patent is
`reproduced below.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a multifiber connector 10 (specifically, the MT-RJ
`UNICAM fiber optic connector) having multifiber ferrule 12, through which
`a number of optical fiber stubs extend and by which these optical fiber stubs
`are secured. Id. at 7:62–63, 8:41–45. Multifiber connector 10 also includes
`sleeve/ferrule holder 22,4 which defines a passageway for at least partially
`receiving ferrule 12. Id. at 9:6–9. Multifiber connector 10 additionally
`includes splice components positioned proximate the rear face of the
`multifiber ferrule for aligning optical field fibers with respective optical
`fibers stubs. Id. at 6:17–21. Cam member 20 is adapted to actuate the splice
`components by urging the splice components toward one another as the cam
`member is rotated relative to ferrule holder 22. Id. at 9:59–10:1.
`Figure 6 of the ’482 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`4 Sleeve/ferrule holder 22 appears to be mismarked with reference numeral
`32 in Figure 1.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`
`
`Figure 6 is a flowchart illustrating the operations performed to validate the
`continuity of optical field fibers with their respective optical fiber stubs. Id.
`at 8:12–15. At block 82, a light source is introduced into the optical fiber
`stub in each optical fiber stub–optical field fiber pair. Id. at 12:58–60.
`While the optical fiber stubs and optical field fibers are apart, a glow
`emanates from the end portions of the optical fiber stubs within the splice
`components. Id. at 13:29–33. The optical fiber stubs and optical field fibers
`are advanced into the connector in block 84. Id. at 13:21–25. When the
`glow has dissipated sufficiently to indicate optical contact between the
`optical fiber stubs and optical field fibers in block 86, the cam member is
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`actuated to secure the optical field fibers in position relative to the optical
`fiber stubs in block 88. Id. at 13:52–58. Then, at block 90, fiber optic
`connector 10 is evaluated to determine if the glow that previously emanated
`from the optical fiber stub completely disappears, thereby indicating that the
`optical field fiber and the optical fiber stubs are continuous. Id. at 14:1–7.
`“[C]ontinuity is presumed to have been established once the glow
`dissipates.” Id. at 4:39–40.
`If the glow has not been extinguished, the cam member is deactuated
`at block 92. Id. at 14:7–9. Then, the optical field fibers may be recleaved
`and cleaned (block 94) prior to reinsertion and repositioning in fiber optic
`connector 10. Id. at 14:12–20. The cam member is then reactuated to secure
`the optical field fibers in position relative to the optical fiber stubs, and
`continuity can again be tested. Id. at 14:26–32. Repositioning and retesting
`can be repeated as many times as necessary until acceptable continuity is
`achieved. Id. at 14:32–36.
`
`Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 25, 32, 36, and 43 of the ’482 patent
`are independent. Claims 33 and 34 depend directly or indirectly from
`claim 32. Claim 25 is illustrative of the challenged claims and recites:
`25. A method of validating the continuity of an optical field
`fiber terminated to a fiber optic connector including a ferrule
`defining at least one bore extending between opposed front and
`rear faces and an optical fiber stub at least partially disposed
`
`C.
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`within the bore and having an end portion extending beyond the
`rear face of the ferrule, the method comprising;
`positioning an end portion of the optical field fiber in the
`fiber optic connector relative to the end portion of the optical
`fiber stub;
`introducing light into at least one the optical field fiber
`and the optical fiber stub such that a glow emanates from at
`least one of the end portions of the optical field fiber or the
`optical fiber stub;
`securing the end portion of the optical field fiber relative
`to the end portion of the optical fiber stub;
`evaluating the continuity of the optical field fiber and the
`optical fiber stub by monitoring the glow emanating from the at
`least one of the end portions of the optical field fiber or the
`optical fiber stub;
`repositioning and re-securing the end portion of the
`optical field fiber relative to the end portion of the optical fiber
`stub when the continuity of the optical field fiber and the
`optical fiber stub is unacceptable; and re-evaluating the
`continuity of the optical field fiber and the optical fiber stub
`after repositioning and re-securing the end portion of the optical
`field fiber relative to the end portion of the optical fiber stub.
`
`
`D.
`
`The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`de Jong et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,040,867, filed Mar. 21,
`1990, issued Aug. 20, 1991 (Ex. 1004, “de Jong”);
`Knecht et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,787,704, filed July 27,
`1987, issued Nov. 29, 1988 (Ex. 1005, “Knecht”);5
`
`5 Although Knecht is not asserted expressly in the enumerated grounds of
`unpatentability below, Petitioner contends Knecht is incorporated by
`reference in de Jong and Dean. See, e.g., Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:15–29,
`2:64–65, Fig. 2), 20 (citing Ex. 1008, 1:9–10). Patent Owner does not
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`Siecor® CamLite™ Connector Laser Assembly Aid
`Instructions, Siecor Recommended Procedure SRP-006-046,
`Siecor Corporation, Issue 1, 1–7, (April 1991) (Ex. 1006,
`“CamLite”);
`Siecor
`Assembly Manual,
`CamSplice
`Siecor
`Recommended Procedure SRP-006-038, Siecor Corporation,
`Issue 6, 1–6 (July 1994) (Ex. 1007, “CamSplice”);
`Dean, U.S. Patent No. 4,923,274, filed June 26, 1989,
`issued May 8, 1990 (Ex. 1008, “Dean”); and
`Siecor UniCam™ SC/ST®/FC Connector Assembly
`Instructions, Siecor® Recommended Procedure SRP-006-277,
`Siecor Corporation, Issue 1, 1–11 (February 1996) (Ex. 1009,
`“UniCam”).
`
`Instituted Grounds
`We instituted inter partes review of claims 25, 32–34, 36, and 43 of
`the ’482 patent on the following grounds (Dec. on Inst. 31):
`References
`Basis
`Claims Challenged
`
`E.
`
`CamSplice, CamLite,
`and de Jong
`CamSplice, CamLite,
`de Jong, and Dean
`CamSplice, CamLite,
`de Jong, and UniCam
`CamSplice, CamLite,
`de Jong, Dean, and
`UniCam
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 25, 32, 36, and 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 25, 32, 36, and 43
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 32–34
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 32–34
`
`
`dispute this contention. Based on the disclosure in de Jong and Dean, we
`agree with Petitioner’s contention and treat the cited portions of Knecht as if
`they were a part of de Jong and Dean.
`8
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`F.
`Claim Interpretation
`In an inter partes review, we construe claims by applying the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016).
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any
`special definitions, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
`context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms or
`phrases must be set forth “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`The parties did not propose any claims for construction, and we
`determine that no terms require explicit construction. 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.”).
`
`
`A.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Obviousness Ground Based on CamSplice, CamLite, and de Jong
`Petitioner contends claims 25, 32, 36, and 43 would have been
`obvious over CamSplice, CamLite, and de Jong. Pet. 23–86. Petitioner also
`relies on Knecht based on Knecht’s incorporation into de Jong by reference.
`Id. at 23.
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`1.
`Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter
`pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
`The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
`considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966). We also recognize that prior art references must be
`“considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480 (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d
`559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). We analyze Petitioner’s obviousness grounds with
`the principles identified above in mind.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art
`2.
`Citing testimony from Dr. DeCusatis, Petitioner contends a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have had “(a) a Bachelor’s Degree in
`Mechanical Engineering or similar, with at least 5 years of experience
`designing or installing fiber optic equipment; or (b) a Master’s Degree in
`Mechanical Engineering or similar, with at least 3-5 year[s] of experience
`designing or installing fiber optic equipment.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 9–
`19). Patent Owner cites Mr. Pearson’s testimony and contends an ordinarily
`skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`engineering, materials science, or a related field; and 2 years of experience
`in fiber optic equipment.” PO Resp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 12–14). In
`particular, Mr. Pearson cites Dr. DeCusatis’s statement that “the level of
`sophistication in this field” is not “particularly high” as supporting a lower
`level of practical experience. Ex. 2004 ¶ 14 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 15).
`Mr. Pearson is correct that the basis for Dr. DeCusatis’s opinion
`requiring 3–5 years of experience is unclear. Ex. 2004 ¶ 14. Instead, we
`credit Mr. Pearson’s statement that “2 years is sufficient for a person to
`obtain an understanding of cam design and structure typical of those in the
`field.” Id. This also comports with Dr. DeCusatis’s testimony about the
`level of sophistication in the field. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 15. Accordingly, we
`apply Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for purposes of this
`Decision. We are satisfied the Patent Owner’s proposal comports with the
`qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the
`teachings of the ’482 patent and the prior art of record.
`
`CamLite
`3.
`The CamLite reference from Siecor Corporation relates to the
`installation of the CamLite connector, which “incorporates a mechanical
`splice and a fiber stub within the connector.” Ex. 1006, 1. The installation
`process includes “cleaving the field fiber, inserting it into the connector until
`its cleaved end contacts the end of the fiber stub in the connector, and
`crimping it in place.” Id.
`The CamLite reference also “describes the use of a helium neon laser
`as an assembly aid for the CamLite multimode connector.” Id. “The laser
`gives the installer visual feedback when the fibers are successfully butted in
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`the connector.” Id. According to this reference, there will be very little light
`visible at the rear of the connector housing if the connector has been
`installed correctly. Id. at 7. On the other hand, if there is a bright glow, then
`the fibers are not touching inside the connector, which will result in high
`attenuation. Id. In the latter scenario, the CamLite reference advises the
`installer to cut off the connector and to begin again. Id.
`Petitioner contends “CamLite is a printed publication dated April
`1991” that “constitutes prior art to the ’482 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b).” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1006, 1, 8). Petitioner notes CamLite includes
`a 1991 copyright date and is identified on an Information Disclosure
`Statement from the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 5,261,020 (“the
`’020 patent”). Pet. 13–14 n.1 (citing Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1011, 28, 52–59); see
`also Ex. 1011, 1 (listing CamLite as a reference cited on the ’020 patent,
`which issued on November 9, 1993). Citing testimony from Alan J.
`McFarland, Petitioner contends CamLite is a “Siecor Recommended
`Procedure[]” that was “widely disseminated . . . upon publication” and
`included “with each unit of product sold covered by such a manual,” which
`made CamLite “freely available without restriction to distributors,
`customers, and potential customers.” Id. at 13 n.1 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 9–10).
`Patent Owner does not dispute the prior art status of CamLite.
`Based on Petitioner’s evidence, we determine that CamLite qualifies
`as a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Petitioner’s
`evidence establishes that CamLite was publicly disseminated more than one
`year before the earliest possible effective filing date for the challenged
`claims of the ’482 patent, which is March 22, 2000. See Ex. 1001, [64].
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`4.
`CamSplice
`The CamSplice reference is an assembly manual from Siecor
`Corporation that “outlines the use of the Siecor CamSplice and TKT-100
`Tool Kits for splicing single or multi-mode optical fibers.” Ex. 1007, 1.
`“The Siecor CamSplice is a mechanical splice which accepts either 250 or
`[sic] 900 μm fibers.” Id. Figure 1 of the CamSplice reference is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a Siecor CamSplice mechanical splice.
`To assemble the CamSplice with a tool, two fibers are slid into the
`CamSplice; the second fiber is slid “into the CamSplice until it butts against
`the first fiber.” Id. at 3. To actuate the CamSplice, the levers of a tool are
`rotated down to a horizontal position. Id. at 4. If testing of the splice
`indicates an unacceptable loss of power, the splice may be “tune[d].” Id. To
`tune the splice, the levers are rotated back to a “vertical position to open the
`splice.” Id. Then, the left fiber is tightened into the CamSplice by rotating
`the left lever by 45°. Id. The right fiber is slightly rotated and then rebutted
`against the left fiber. Id. Tuning is repeated until an acceptable loss is
`achieved and both levers are rotated down fully “to actuate the splice.” Id.
`If this does not result in an acceptable loss, a cleaning procedure can also be
`performed. Id.
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`Petitioner contends CamSplice “is a printed publication dated July
`1994” with “a copyright notice dated 1994,” so “CamSplice . . . constitutes
`prior art to the ’482 Patent under at least 35 U.S.C. [§] 102(b).” Pet. 16
`(citing Ex. 1007, 1, 6). Similar to its showing for the CamLite reference,
`Petitioner presents testimonial evidence from Alan J. McFarland regarding
`CamSplice being a “Siecor Recommended Procedure[]” that was widely
`disseminated upon publication and included with each unit of the product
`sold. See id. at 13–14 n.1 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 9–10), 16 n.2 (citing Ex. 1012
`¶¶ 12–13). Patent Owner does not dispute the prior art status of CamSplice.
`Based on Petitioner’s evidence, we determine that CamSplice
`qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Petitioner’s evidence
`establishes that CamSplice was publicly disseminated more than one year
`before the earliest possible effective filing date for the challenged claims of
`the ’482 patent, which is March 22, 2000. See Ex. 1001, [64].
`
`Knecht
`5.
`Knecht is a patent directed to optical fiber splicing. Ex. 1005, 1:12.
`Knecht discloses “an optical splice having a frame with a channel; two rods
`each having a resilient exterior surface disposed in the channel; and a lid
`adapted to be received on the frame over the channel.” Id. at Abstract.
`Figure 1 of Knecht is reproduced below.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts a perspective view of the frame, lid, and rods of an optical
`splice. Id. at 2:67–68; 3:51–52. Plastic lid 10 fits over plastic frame 11,
`which contains rectangular channel 19. Id. at 3:52–54. Glass rods 15 and
`16, which are covered by resilient coatings 17 and 18, respectively, rest in
`channel 19. Id. at 3:54–56. Lid 10 also has a resilient coating 12. Id. at
`3:58.
`
`“In use, two optical fiber terminal end portions are disposed in the
`groove delimited by the coated rods, the optical fibers being in end wise
`abutting relationship with each other.” Id. at 1:43–46. The frame and lid are
`compressed into a mating relationship, whereupon pressure from the frame
`and lid compresses the optical fiber terminal ends within the coated portion
`of the lid and the coated rods. Id. at 1:53–55, 2:10–14. This centers the
`optical fibers, which may be of different diameters, with each other. Id. at
`2:14–15.
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`Knecht is incorporated by reference in de Jong and Dean. Ex. 1004,
`2:15–18; Ex. 1008, 1:9–10.
`
`De Jong
`6.
`De Jong is a patent directed to a fiber optic connector designed for use
`in the field with which “the steps to complete connectorization are similar to
`those for installing a mechanical splice.” Ex. 1004, 1:7, 1:31–36. Figures 1
`and 2 of de Jong are reproduced below.
`
`
`Figures 1 and 2 depict, respectively, perspective and sectional views of the
`disclosed connector having housing 11. Id. at 1:49–54. Optical fiber 12 is
`placed in ferrule 10. Id. at 2:8–9. The centering assembly of Knecht
`16
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`(described above) is placed in housing 16, and first rib 40 is inserted in
`housing 16 through slot 41. Id. at 2:15–18, 2:21–29.
`Figure 7 of de Jong is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7 depicts a sectional view of a completed connector. Id. at 1:65–66.
`Prior to completion of the connector, cable 28 is inserted through boot 26
`and crimp ring 32. Id. at 2:52–53. The end portion of cable 28 is stripped
`away, revealing buffered optical fiber 30. Id. at 2:58–60. Optical fiber 30 is
`stripped, cleaved, and loaded through crimp tube 18 until it meets the
`terminal end of optical fiber 12. Id. at 2:60–62. Using a tool, slider/locking
`member 14 is “urged inward to slide to the second position over tab 40,
`urging tab 40 radially inward through slot 41 to center the connector.” Id. at
`2:62–65. Crimp ring 32 is then crimped. Id. at 3:2.
`Petitioner contends de Jong qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 102(b) based on its issue date of August 20, 1991. Pet. 8. We agree.
`De Jong’s issue date of August 20, 1991, is more than one year before the
`earliest possible effective filing date for the challenged claims of the
`’482 patent, which is March 22, 2000. See Ex. 1001, [64]; Ex. 1004, [45].
`17
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`7.
`Claim 25
`a.
`Comparison of CamSplice, CamLite, de Jong, and
`Knecht to Claim 25
`In its obviousness analysis for claim 25, Petitioner relies on CamLite
`for teaching the use of a laser for “validating the continuity of an optical
`field fiber terminated to a fiber optic connector.” Pet. 23, 31 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 1). Petitioner further relies on de Jong’s connector having
`ferrule 10 for teaching the same components in the preamble of claim 25.
`Id. at 23–24, 31 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:8–65, Fig. 2). Citing testimony from
`Dr. DeCusatis, Petitioner contends de Jong’s “fiber 12 constitutes an optical
`fiber stub, and the region within the ferrule 10 which receives the fiber 12
`(optical fiber stub) constitutes a bore where the stub is disposed.” Id. at 31
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Petitioner further maps a portion of de Jong’s
`fiber 12 extending from ferrule 10 into the middle of housing 11 to the
`recitation in claim 25 of “an end portion extending beyond the rear face of
`the ferrule.” Id. at 24, 31.
`For the “positioning an end portion” limitation, Petitioner contends
`CamLite teaches “a connector with a mechanical splice and a fiber stub, and
`that installation of an optical field fiber includes inserting the optical field
`fiber into the connector so that an end of the optical field fiber contacts an
`end of the optical fiber stub inside the connector.” Id. at 25–26, 32 (citing
`Ex. 1006, 1, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). Petitioner also contends de Jong teaches this
`limitation based on testimony from Dr. DeCusatis. Id. (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 47).6 For the “introducing light” limitation, Petitioner contends CamLite
`
`
`6 Petitioner cites to Exhibit 1006, but the context makes clear that Petitioner
`intended to cite paragraph 47 from Dr. DeCusatis’s declaration.
`18
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`teaches introducing laser light into a fiber stub such that the connection
`between a field fiber and a fiber stub results in laser light emanating from
`the field fiber. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1006, 1, 6, 7), 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 48–49).
`For the “securing the end portion” limitation, Petitioner cites
`CamLite’s teachings on “actuating a splice after the field fiber contacts the
`fiber stub in the connector.” Id. at 26, 33 (both citing Ex. 1006, 6–7).
`Petitioner also cites de Jong’s and Knecht’s teachings on centering a field
`fiber and stub via pressure from Knecht’s frame and lid and the urging of
`de Jong’s tab 40 radially inward. Id. at 26–28 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstract,
`2:62–65; Ex. 1005, 2:11–15), 33–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 51, 54; Ex. 1004,
`Abstract, 2:15–65, Figs. 2, 7; Ex. 1005, 2:11–15). Regarding “evaluating
`the continuity,” Petitioner contends “CamLite discloses laser light being
`visible at the rear of the connector when the field fiber contacts the stub
`inside the connector.” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1006, 1, 6, 7), 36 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 56, 57; Ex. 1006, 6, 7).
`For the “repositioning and re-securing” limitation, Petitioner relies on
`CamSplice for teaching an optimization process known as “tuning.” Id. at
`28–29 (citing Ex. 1007, 4), 38–39 (citing Ex. 1007, 1, 4, Fig. 8). According
`to Petitioner, tuning involves opening the splice, “rotating a left lever to
`tighten a left fiber, pulling back on a right fiber, slightly rotating it, and then
`rebutting it against the left fiber.” Id. at 28–29, 38 (both citing Ex. 1007, 4).
`Thereafter, according to Petitioner, both levers are rotated fully down to
`activate the splice. Id. at 29, 38–39 (both citing Ex. 1007, 4, Fig. 8).
`Regarding the “re-evaluating the continuity” limitation, Petitioner cites
`CamSplice for teaching the checking of splice loss after repositioning and
`
`19
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`re-securing. Id. at 30–31 (citing Ex. 1007, 4), 39–40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68;
`Ex. 1007, 4).
`Patent Owner does not dispute that the art cited by Petitioner teaches
`the limitations of claim 25. Tr. 17:15–22. Based on our analysis of
`Petitioner’s contentions and the cited art, we find that the combination of
`CamSplice, CamLite, de Jong, and Knecht teaches every limitation of
`claim 25.
`
`
`b.
`
`Rationale for Combining CamSplice, CamLite, and
`de Jong
`According to Petitioner, de Jong (including Knecht) and CamLite
`“arose under the auspices of the same company, Siecor Corporation,” so an
`ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to combine CamLite
`with de Jong to fully understand the optical connector technology available
`from Siecor.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Petitioner also contends that
`CamLite and de Jong both concern identical optical connector technologies,
`namely, the Siecor CamLite connector. Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–62;
`Ex. 1004, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006, 1, Fig. 6). Thus, according to Petitioner, an
`ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to consider and
`combine CamLite and de Jong (including Knecht) by a desire to fully
`understand how to properly use the optical connector technology from
`Siecor” and “to better assess the installation tools that are appropriate and
`useful for optical fiber connectorization.” Id. at 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–
`64). Petitioner further contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had
`a reasonable expectation that the features of CamLite and de Jong could be
`combined based on “the extremely close relationship between CamLite and
`de Jong.” Id.
`
`20
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`Petitioner further contends it would have been obvious to combine
`CamSplice with de Jong and CamLite because Siecor Corporation is also
`responsible for publishing CamSplice. Id. at 41. As such, Petitioner
`contends an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to
`combine the subject matter of these references to achieve enhanced optical
`connector technologies.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 83). Petitioner also
`notes that all three references “address the need for mechanisms and
`processes that align fibers” and that “achieve the same goal of establishing
`low-loss optical junctions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 84). Petitioner
`further contends the three references “concern optical connector
`technologies that are particularly suited for use by a field technician,” so
`they are “all directed toward solving the same general problem.” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 72). Petitioner additionally notes similarities in the specific
`features of the references. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74) (noting
`commonalities with 900 μm fibers, no need to polish fibers, and epoxy-free
`technologies).
`Petitioner also contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
`recognized the problem of cam mechanisms creating fiber junctions that are
`too lossy. Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75). According to Petitioner, known
`processes for fixing this problem required a technician to cut off the end of
`an optical fiber, discard the connector, and restart the connectorization
`process, which is inefficient. Id. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75). Petitioner
`contends an ordinarily skilled artisan faced with this problem would have
`been motivated to apply one of the finite number of solutions, namely, the
`use of a reversible, rotationally-actuatable cam mechanism as described in
`
`21
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01073
`Patent RE45,482 E1
`CamSplice. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77); Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1003
`¶ 77; Ex. 1007, 1, 4).
`Patent Owner contends Petitioner has not put forth a sufficient
`rationale for combining CamSplice and CamLite. PO Resp. 12–21. In
`particular, Patent Owner contends that certain commonalities between these
`references do not constitute a reason to combine them. Id. at 12–17. Patent
`Owner also argues that CamLite’s teaching of cutting off a connector in
`cases of poor coupling would not have motivated an ordinarily skilled
`artisan to combine CamSplice with CamLite. Id. at 17–18. According to
`Patent Owner, Petitioner’s purported motivation to reach CamLite is merely
`“a retelling of the ’482 patent’s description of its invention” that is made
`with hindsight. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:42–48, 4:44–51). Patent Owner
`also argues that Petitioner provides no evidence to support its contention that
`CamSplice provides a “ready solution” to CamLite’s deficiencies. Id. at 18.
`Although we agree with Patent Owner that commonalities alone are
`not sufficient to support Petitioner’s obviousness rationale, see Securus
`Techs., Inc. v. Glob. Tel*Link Corp., 701 F. App’x 971, 977 (Fed. Cir.
`2017), Petitioner provides a persuasive reason why an ordinarily skilled
`artisan would have combined CamSplice with CamLite: CamSplice’s
`reversible, rotationally-actuatable cam would have allowed the artisan to
`avoid the inefficiencies associated with linearly-actuated cam mechanisms
`of cutting off the end of an optical fiber, discarding a connector, and
`restarting the connectorization process when a junction is too lossy. See
`Pet. 38–39, 42–43 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75, 77). In particular,
`CamSplice describes a “[t]uning” process to “[o

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket