`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