UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`PANDUIT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CCS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: July 18, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK and DANIEL J.
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`PANDUIT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CCS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
` Held: July 18, 2018
`__________
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK and DANIEL J.
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`KATHERINE D. CAPPAERT, ESQ.
`Steptoe & Johnson, LLP
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20036-1795
`202-429-6252
`kcappaert@steptoe.com
`
`KELLY J. EBERSPECHER, ESQ.
`Steptoe & Johnson, LLP
`115 South LaSalle Street
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60603
`312-577-1272
`keberspecher@steptoe.com
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC D. HAYES, ESQ.
`GEORGE WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ.
`Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`312-862-2480 (Hayes)
`eric.hayes@kirkland.com
`312-862-3544 (Foster)
`billy.foster@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday,
`
`July 18, 2018, commencing at 12:00 p.m. at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
`12:03 p.m.
`JUDGE CHANG: Good afternoon. Welcome. This is a
`hearing for IPR2017-01323 and IPR2017-01375. I'm administrative
`patent judge Joni Chang. Here with me is Judge Jennifer Bisk and
`Judge Daniel Galligan is joining us remotely from Dallas. And I just
`want to double-check whether he can hear us.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: I can hear you. Can you hear me all
`
`right?
`
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, that will be great.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Thank you.
`JUDGE CHANG: And also I just want to double-check where
`is the camera showing right now.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: It's showing you right now but I think
`they'll turn it and show the parties after you finish.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay, great. I just wanted to double-check
`
`that.
`
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Thanks.
`JUDGE CHANG: And this is a consolidated oral hearing for
`both cases. At this time I would like to ask counsel please introduce
`yourselves starting with the petitioner's side.
`MS. CAPPAERT: Kate Cappaert from Steptoe & Johnson on
`behalf of petitioner. With me is Kelly Eberspecher from Steptoe &
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`Johnson and in-house counsel from Panduit Jim Williams and
`Anthony Bartosik.
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you so much. Welcome.
`MR. HAYES: Good morning or good afternoon. Eric Hayes
`and Billy Foster from Kirkland & Ellis on behalf of patent owner
`Corning Optical Communication. With us today is Brad Rametta,
`COC patent counsel, and Ben Nardone, Corning litigation counsel.
`JUDGE CHANG: Great. Thank you so much and welcome.
`Because Judge Galligan is participating remotely I ask that counsel
`may speak only at the podium. That way he can hear.
`And also for clarity please identify the specific slide number
`so he can follow because the camera will not be facing the TV over
`there.
`
`But here consistent with our prior order each party has a total
`of 45 minutes to present both cases. Starting with the petitioner to
`present its case as to the challenged claims for both cases.
`Thereafter the patent owner will respond to the petitioner's
`case. Petitioner may reserve a small portion of your time for rebuttal.
`And the transcript of this oral hearing will be entered in both
`
`cases.
`
`
`
`Is there any question before we begin?
`MS. CAPPAERT: No, Your Honor.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`JUDGE CHANG: And I just want to double-check did the
`court reporter have at least a copy of your demonstratives?
`MS. CAPPAERT: Yes.
`MR. HAYES: Yes.
`JUDGE CHANG: Great, thank you. You may start any time.
`MS. CAPPAERT: Good afternoon. Just before I begin I was
`planning on not displaying the demonstratives in the room if that's
`okay with the panel.
`JUDGE CHANG: That's okay.
`MS. CAPPAERT: This is an oral argument for IPR's
`challenging two patents. The '600 patent claims 3 and 4 and the '227
`patent claims 6, 7 and 11.
`JUDGE CHANG: Did you want to reserve any time?
`MS. CAPPAERT: Can I reserve the remainder of my time for
`rebuttal? I don't think I'll go too long but can I just reserve whatever I
`have remaining after.
`JUDGE CHANG: Sure.
`MS. CAPPAERT: So again this is an oral argument for IPR
`challenging the '600 patent and the '227 patent. Specifically for the
`'600 patent claims 3 and 4 are at issue and for the '227 patent claims 6,
`7 and 11 are at issue.
`Both patents were previously challenged in IPRs. The '600
`patent was challenged in IPR2016-01647 but that was directed to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`claims 1 and 2. And the '227 patent was challenged in IPR2016-
`01648 that was claims 1-3 and 8-10. And in both of those previous
`IPRs the Board found the challenged claims unpatentable.
`So moving to slide 2 I'm going to start with the '600 patent.
`The '600 patent relates to optical polarity modules and systems.
`Again only claims 3 and 4 of the '600 patent are at issue here.
`And as we'll be discussing, as we'll show, the evidence will
`show that claims 3 and 4 are obvious in view of Eichenberger and
`Bennett.
`So going to slide 3. As I mentioned the Board has already
`found that claims 1 and 2 of the '600 patent are unpatentable. And
`claims 1 and 2 which were at issue in the previous IPR are directed to
`a specific configuration for an optical interconnection module that
`includes a specific routing pattern and internal structure.
`Claims 3 and 4 which are at issue here are broader. They're
`directed to an optical assembly which includes at least two optical
`interconnection modules that are optically interconnected via optical
`pads and the pads are established through connectors and adapters
`where the connectors and adapters have keys in the same relative
`position, the polarity of the fibers external to the module is not
`reversed so at least some of the optical pads remain with respect to
`their respective color.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`Specifically of interest and of importance here is that there is
`no limitation in claim 3 on the internal structure of the optical
`interconnection module. Instead claim 3 is focused on the optical
`assembly as a whole and what is external to the optical
`interconnection modules and the connection of the actual optical
`interconnection modules.
`In fact this panel recognized that in its institution decision at
`page 9 when it stated that independent claim 3 is directed to an optical
`assembly configuration but does not require the optical
`interconnection module configuration recited in claim 1.
`So going to slide 4 as an initial matter Corning doesn't take
`issue with the majority of Panduit's arguments. Corning makes two
`main arguments both of which are really tied to claim construction.
`First, Corning proposes a narrow construction for optical
`interconnection module and then based on that construction Corning
`argues that Eichenberger does not disclose such a module.
`Corning, however, does not dispute that Eichenberger
`discloses an optical interconnection module under the Board's adopted
`construction in its institution decision which is simply a module in
`which an optical interconnection occurs.
`Additionally, Corning does not dispute that Bennett discloses
`the claimed fiber, color coating technique and doesn't dispute that it
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
`combine Eichenberger and Bennett.
`Starting with claim construction and going ahead to slide 6 in
`its preliminary response Corning proposed a construction for optical
`interconnection module as a module that performs an optical
`interconnection.
`In its institution decision the Board declined to adopt that
`construction finding it limiting and correctly found that an optical
`interconnection module is just that, a module that includes an optical
`connection within it and that's in the institution decision at 10-11.
`However, in its patent owner response Corning came back and
`attempted to even further narrow the claim term optical
`interconnection module trying to limit it by requiring an incoming
`fiber and an outgoing fiber using the module to connect the two. So
`in other words Corning's construction requires optical fibers to extend
`throughout the entirety of the module going in one end and then
`leaving the other end.
`This limitation, however, has no foundation in claim 3 itself or
`in the specification.
`Instead if you go ahead a few slides to slide 9 Corning's
`position is really based on two things.
`First, Corning improperly attempts to import some of the
`internal structural elements shown in figure 2 which is on the left of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`slide 9 of the '600 patent into the claim term. These elements,
`however, are not recited in claim 3.
`Additionally, Corning attempts to narrow the claim term using
`the figure that Corning itself manufactures out of whole cloth. That
`figure is shown on the right of slide 9.
`And in that figure Corning attempts to depict that somehow
`claim 3 would require an optical fiber coming into the module which
`is shown in green and then leaving the module, those green lines on
`the right from the pink connectors which appears nowhere in the
`specification or in claim 3 itself.
`So, going back to slide 7. Sorry for making you jump around
`a little bit. The Board actually already rejected Corning's attempts to
`import the fiber routing scheme from figure 2 of the '600 patent into
`claim 3.
`Specifically, the Board stated that the fiber routing scheme
`depicted in figure 2 of the '600 patent is not recited in claim 3 and the
`Board correctly found that an optical interconnection module simply
`requires an optical connection to occur within the module.
`As is shown on slide 8 there is no dispute regarding what an
`optical interconnection is. As is reflected in Corning's patent owner
`response an optical interconnection simply refers to the joining of one
`optical fiber to another optical fiber.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`So while Corning attempts to argue for a narrow construction
`of optical interconnection module by improperly importing limitations
`into the claim petitioner submits that an optical interconnection
`module is simply a module in which one optical fiber is joined.
`And moving to slide 10 this comports with the principle that
`the claim line which defines the claim scope. Again as you can see on
`slide 10 claim 3 is reproduced on the left and it recites simply at least
`two optical interconnection modules. There is no recitation in claim 3
`of any limitations as to what the internal structure of those modules
`must include.
`Claim 3 just requires at least two optical interconnection
`modules and is really focused on what happens outside of those
`modules. So the fact that those modules are optically interconnected
`to each other via optical paths that are established through connectors
`and adapters.
`That is shown in the annotated figure on the right side of slide
`10 where you can see the optical interconnection modules are shown
`in peach and the optical paths in green connect the optical
`interconnection module on the left to the optical interconnection
`module on the right going through adapters and connectors shown in
`red and blue.
`Again, so while patent owner spends the majority of its time
`focusing on what occurs inside the optical interconnection module
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`there is no recitation in claim 3 as to what the internal structure of that
`optical interconnection module requires.
`And further just as a side note if Corning had wanted there to
`be some sort of limitation onto what an optical interconnection
`module included Corning could have included a dependent claim or
`included the recitations from claim 1 in claim 3. Corning chose not to
`do so. So claim 3 should be read broadly and optical interconnection
`module should be found to be simply that, a module in which an
`optical interconnection occurs.
`So, moving forward a few slides to slide 12. The prior art at
`issue here, Eichenberger in view of Bennett, discloses all of the
`elements of claims 3 and 4. Starting with Eichenberger, Eichenberger
`discloses an optical interconnection module. Specifically as is shown
`on slide 12 in purple Eichenberger discloses an optical
`interconnection module which consists of transceiver module 10, an
`optical head body 40 which is permanently affixed to transceiver
`module 10. Again the Board recognized this structure in its institution
`decision at pages 16-17.
`And moving to slide 13. While Corning disputes whether
`Eichenberger's optical head body 40 is actually part of the claimed
`optical interconnection module Eichenberger itself in its disclosures
`clearly established that the optical head body is permanently affixed to
`the transceiver module 10 and is thus a part of the module.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`For example, looking at the first excerpt from Eichenberger
`shown on slide 13 Eichenberger establishes that the transceiver
`module 10 is equipped with an optical head arrangement 40.
`This means that the optical head body comes with the
`transceiver module. It's like when you have a car that comes equipped
`with leather seats. Your car comes with the leather seats. The leather
`seats are a part of the car. It's the same situation here. The optical
`head body comes with the transceiver module 10 and the two of those
`together form the optical interconnection module.
`And just to note the experts also agree with this in both of
`their depositions. Mr. Pearson in exhibit 1006 page 30 line 20 to page
`31 line 3, Mr. Pearson admitted that optical head body 40 is soldered
`to the transceiver module and that it can't just be disconnected.
`Similarly, petitioner's expert Dr. DeCusatis at exhibit 2002
`page 7 line 22 to page 8 line 2 explained the same thing, that optical
`head body 40 is permanently affixed to the transceiver module.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Counsel, a question. For the
`petitioner's contentions why is it necessary -- why is module 10, and
`I'm going to say module 10 without head body 40 or head assembly
`40, why is module 10 necessary? The electrical part of it. Why is it
`necessary for the contentions of petitioner?
`MS. CAPPAERT: So the electrical part is not for the
`contention of the petitioner necessary. What happens and where the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`optical interconnection occurs is within the optical head body 40. It
`was just that the entire housing and the entire structure of where the
`connection occurs and where it would exit is what would be
`considered to be a module is what Dr. DeCusatis, petitioner's expert
`explained.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Okay. So in that regard under patent
`owner's construction it sounds like petitioner can't win then. Because
`a module can only be that entire thing.
`MS. CAPPAERT: So the module itself if you read it as where
`an optical connection comes in and another connection -- the
`connection ends it could be read that optical head body 40 is a portion
`of the module and that the optical connection is occurring in there,
`that the connection is coming in when connector 64 is plugged in and
`then when the optical connection is converted to an electrical
`connection when the -- it leaves the optical head body and goes into
`the transceiver module 10 you could potentially read that as an entire
`module.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Okay, thanks.
`MS. CAPPAERT: Turning to slides 14 and 15 I think the
`optical interconnection and similar to what Judge Galligan was just
`asking about, the optical interconnection occurs when connector 64 is
`plugged into optical head body 40.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`So as you can see there's an optical fiber ribbon 62 that goes
`through connector 64 which is attached or plugged into the optical
`head assembly 40 and the optical interconnection occurs where the
`yellow cable meets the red fiber segment which is located within the
`optical head assembly.
`Both petitioner's expert and patent owner's expert Mr. Pearson
`admitted that an optical path is created between those optical fibers
`which establishes that there's an optical interconnection occurring
`within the module.
`Slide 14 shows Mr. Pearson, patent owner's expert's
`admission, and going to slide 15 it shows Dr. DeCusatis's discussion
`of the same thing occurring, that the optical interconnection occurs
`when an external cable and connector are plugged into the optical
`head assembly.
`And turning to slide 16 not only do the experts agree that the
`optical interconnection occurs within the module, but as the Board
`noted in its institution decision Eichenberger explicitly discloses that
`there are optical paths which are the fiber segments 48 in the optical
`head body 40.
`Moving onto slide 17 really there's just no dispute that
`Eichenberger discloses that there's an optical interconnection that
`occurs within Eichenberger's optical interconnection module.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`This can be seen even when comparing patent owner's
`excerpted revised figure 3 again which is manufactured from whole
`cloth and really divorced from claim 3. That's shown on the left of
`slide 17.
`When you compare that to Eichenberger which is shown on
`the right you can see that in patent owner's manufactured figure there
`is a green optical fiber coming in on the left. It goes through a
`connector outside of the optical interconnection module, connects into
`the optical interconnection module which is shown by the red arrow
`and then the optical connection extends within the module itself.
`The same is shown in Eichenberger. There's a green optical
`fiber that comes in on the left, goes through the connector shown in
`blue 64 and into the optical head assembly 40 which extends into the
`module.
`And importantly at worst what Eichenberger discloses, and
`again Judge Galligan I think this gets to your earlier question as well,
`Eichenberger discloses more than the '600 patent. It goes a step
`further.
`So Eichenberger takes that optical interconnection and goes a
`step further and converts it to an electrical signal.
`Tellingly, however, if you go to slide 18 based on the figure
`that patent owner's expert created patent owner itself admitted that the
`'600 patent can do the same and that those green lines that patent
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`owner submits are optical connections, those could actually be
`connected to an opto-electronic transmitter or receiver. That same
`connection could be occurring in which case Eichenberger and the
`'600 patent would really be disclosing.
`The '600 patent as annotated by patent owner would be
`disclosing the same thing.
`Slide 19, however, is really the main slide here and it really
`depicts what's at issue in claim 3. Slide 19 shows how Eichenberger
`discloses the optical interconnection limitations of claim 3.
`So if you look at the figure that's annotated on the top which is
`figure 3 from the '600 patent itself it shows at least two optical
`interconnection modules in peach that are optically interconnected by
`optical paths in green via connectors in blue and adapters in red.
`Again, claim 3's main focus isn't the routing scheme within the
`actual interconnection modules, it's the connection between the
`modules and the routing scheme external to the modules.
`And Eichenberger shows this exact connection. Eichenberger
`shows -- Eichenberger's figure 3 is on the bottom of slide 19 and it
`shows going from the left you have the transceiver module in optical
`head body 40 which form Eichenberger's optical interconnection
`module, an optical path shown in green extending through a connector
`going through optical fiber 60, optical fiber 62, then going into a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`connector on the other side that the optical path continues into the
`other optical interconnection module on the right.
`In fact, looking at slide 20 patent owner's expert admitted the
`same. Mr. Pearson explained that he would agree that there's an
`optical path between the module shown at 10 on the left and the
`module shown at 10 on the right in Eichenberger.
`So there's no dispute that there's an optical path between the
`modules. Thus Eichenberger discloses claim elements 3a and 3b
`which relate to the optical interconnection modules and the fact that
`there are multiple optical interconnection modules connected via
`optical paths.
`Element 3c is not disputed. Patent owner doesn't dispute that
`Eichenberger discloses claim element 3c.
`Turning to slide 21 Eichenberger also discloses claim element
`3d. And I'll just touch on this briefly. At least the beginning portion
`of element 3d which relates to the polarity of the optical fibers located
`externally of the modules and that not being reversed.
`As patent owner admits in its own patent owner response
`Eichenberger discloses a straight ribbon cable and this straight ribbon
`cable would mean that the polarity is not reversed between the two
`interconnection modules within Eichenberger.
`With respect to the remaining limitation of claim 3 related to
`the color coating and to claim 4 there's no dispute that Bennett
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`discloses the color coating of the paths and that it would have been
`obvious to combine Eichenberger and Bennett.
`Similarly there's no dispute with respect to claim 4.
`Accordingly for that reason petitioner submits that Eichenberger in
`view of Bennett renders obvious claims 3 and 4.
`Just turning quickly to slide 22 which relates to the '227 patent
`while petitioner requested oral argument on the '227 patent it did so
`only to address any questions should the Board have them. But
`petitioner feels that we can rest on our briefing with respect to the '227
`patent if the Board doesn't have any questions.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: I have no questions.
`MS. CAPPAERT: With that I would like to reserve the rest of
`my time for rebuttal.
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you. You have 24 minutes.
`MR. HAYES: May I proceed?
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, sorry.
`MR. HAYES: Just same position with respect to the '227
`patent. We didn't submit any demonstratives as well and we'll just
`rest on our briefs with respect to that issue.
`So then good afternoon again. Eric Hayes from Kirkland &
`Ellis on behalf of patent owner.
`Turning to slide 2 of our slide deck there's really two issues I'd
`like to focus on this afternoon. The claim construction of optical
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`interconnection module and specifically there looking at the intrinsic
`evidence, the dictionary definition and our expert's analysis of the
`appropriate construction of that term optical interconnection module.
`And then the second issue, whether or not Eichenberger's prior
`art or the opto-electronic module disclosed by Eichenberger discloses
`an optical interconnection module.
`Turning to slide 3 I think everybody is fairly familiar with the
`patent but just a little bit of background again. The '600 patent is an
`optical polarity module patent. It relates to optical fiber
`interconnection modules.
`Here you see on slide 4 just a little bit more background. The
`problem that the '600 patent was trying to solve was to simplify
`managing polarity. Polarity is a fancy word of managing which fibers
`are sending and which fibers are receiving the optical signal.
`And in the past the solution was to have separate types of
`modules which we've said here A and B type modules which the
`patent talks about which would ensure the appropriate polarity or
`sending and receiving at the connections.
`Turning to slide 5 what the '600 patent solved or was invented
`was a solution in which there didn't need to be separate modules, A
`and B type modules to manage that polarity.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`With respect to how it was done the wires were routed in a
`way within a single module that maintained the polarity and thereby
`simplifying solutions and connections in the field.
`Turning to slide 6 here we have module 60 which is the
`embodiment in the '600 patent. You see optical fibers 20 coming in
`from the left to multi-fiber connector 40 there in module 60.
`Those fibers then are routed in module 60 to the duplex
`connectors 51 through 56 which are on the right side of the module.
`I'll just call the Board's attention to the '600 patent description column
`3 lines 20-24 which describes this arrangement which says connector
`40 and optical connectors 51 through 56 are optically interconnected
`by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of module 60. Getting at the
`term we're going to spend some time on here, that's optical
`interconnection and what that means.
`You see here on slide 7 two optical interconnection modules,
`60 on the left and 60 on the right. You see the incoming fibers into
`the optical interconnection module on the left. They're then routed
`inside the module and then they depart the module on the right.
`And you can see how the fibers, for example 12 goes to 12, 6
`goes to 6. It maintains the polarity in that way.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Quick question, I just want to clarify.
`Is patent owner arguing that claims 3 and 4 require the particular
`routing configuration of figure 2?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`MR. HAYES: No, I'm not arguing that. That's just a little bit
`of background just to kind of refocus us on the technology here.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Thank you.
`MR. HAYES: So slide 8 gets us into claim construction. If
`we look here on slide 9 the claim itself requires an optical assembly
`comprising at least two optical interconnection modules.
`Slide 10 again which the Board's very familiar with, the legal
`standard for claim construction here is the broadest reasonable
`interpretation. And the bottom quote there from the Microsoft case
`reminds us that claims should always be read in light of the
`specification.
`JUDGE CHANG: Counselor, does it matter in this particular
`case which claim construction standard we're using?
`MR. HAYES: No.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. HAYES: Here on slide 11 we start to look at the intrinsic
`evidence and the expert Mr. Pearson's analysis and opinions with
`respect to the appropriate construction of optical interconnection
`module.
`We've included a picture here of Mr. Pearson on the upper left
`of slide 11. He is the director of the Fiberoptic Association. Mr.
`Pearson has over 40 years experience in optics. And the license plate
`on his car says NOWIRE. He's very much a fiberoptics guy.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`So here we have an excerpt from his declaration slide 25. An
`optical interconnection module which is sometimes called an
`interconnection box refers to a structure that performs optical
`interconnection at the module level.
`Optical interconnection modules accept one or more incoming
`fibers or fiber cables and form optical paths to corresponding outgoing
`fibers or cables.
`He also said, I didn't include it in paragraph 24, but he kind of
`summarized the optical interconnections in paragraph 24 of his
`declaration which is exhibit 2001 which I'd also suggest the Board
`take a close look, as an optical interconnection refers to connecting
`two separate fibers such that an optical path is formed from one to the
`other.
`
`And then I'd also suggest the Board take a look at petitioner's
`expert's deposition transcript which is exhibit 2002 on page 5 line 18
`to page 6 line 7 where petitioner's expert Dr. DeCusatis also agrees
`that an optical interconnection means an optical path between two sets
`of fiberoptic cables.
`So I think when we're talking about optical interconnection
`module it necessarily means there's two sets of cables with an optical
`path between them. Both parties' experts agree with respect to the
`meaning of optical interconnection.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-01323 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`Case IPR2017-01375 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`Turning to slide 12 we've included some intrinsic evidence
`from the specification here. Figure 4 which is in keeping with what
`Mr. Pearson was saying on the previous slide on slide 11 and that is
`an optical interconnection module has incoming optical fiber and
`optical path within the module and an outgoing optical fiber. You see
`that in all of the examples of the specification of the '600 patent.
`If we turn to slide 13 some more testimony from Mr. Pearson
`who says a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the
`function of these modules 50 and 60 as interconnection. They route
`optical signals from the fibers in the ribbon cable to other individual
`fibers at the other end of the modules.
`Again that's supported by the intrinsic evidence, the '600
`patent column 3 lines 20-24 which talked about connectors 40 and
`connectors 51-56 being optically interconnected by optical fibers
`disposed in cavity 62 of module 60.
`So what we see here is the intrinsic evidence supporting Mr.
`Pearson's analysis with respect to the appropriate construction of how
`one of ordinary skill in the art would understand optical
`interconnection module.
`Here on slide 14 we've included an excerpt from the Fiber
`Optics Standard Dictionary of the meaning. Here we have fiberoptic
`interconnection box, a housing that holds fib
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
