Paper 23
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 4, 2018
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: October 4, 2018
`
`
`
`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
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`In this inter partes review, Panduit Corp. (“Petitioner”) challenges the
`
`patentability of claims 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,758,600 B2 (“the ’600
`
`patent”), which was assigned to CCS Technology, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), addresses issues and
`
`arguments raised during the trial in this inter partes review. For the reasons
`
`discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 3 and 4 of the ’600 patent are
`
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted
`
`under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a
`
`proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`On May 1, 2017, Petitioner requested inter partes review of claims 3
`
`and 4 of the ’600 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary
`
`Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial on the sole ground
`
`of unpatentability, namely Petitioner’s assertion that claims 3 and 4 are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over the combined
`
`teachings of Eichenberger1 and Bennett.2 Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 22.
`
`During the trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and
`
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 16, “Pet. Reply”). An oral hearing was held
`
`on July 18, 2018, a transcript of which appears in the record. Paper 22
`
`(“Tr.”).
`
`
`1 US 7,021,837 B2, filed Feb. 20. 2001, issued Apr. 4, 2006 (Ex. 1004).
`2 US 5,915,055, issued June 22, 1999 (Ex. 1005).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`
`Patent Owner indicates that Corning Optical Communications LLC
`
`(“Corning”) is a real party in interest by virtue of CCS’s assignment of “all
`
`substantial rights in the ’600 patent to Corning.” Paper 4, 1.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’600 patent is at issue in Corning Optical
`
`Communications LLC v. Panduit Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00268-GMS (D. Del.).
`
`Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. In IPR2016-01647, the Board issued a Final Written
`
`Decision as to claims 1 and 2 of the ’600 patent. IPR2016-01647, Paper 27.
`
`In IPR2016-01648, the Board issued a Final Written Decision as to claims
`
`1–3 and 8–10 of related Patent 6,869,227 B2 (“the ’227 patent”). IPR2016-
`
`01648, Paper 27. We are concurrently issuing a Final Written Decision in
`
`IPR2017-01375 addressing claims 6, 7, and 11 of the ’227 patent.
`
`D. The ’600 Patent
`
`Claims 3 and 4 are directed to “[a]n optical assembly” having “at least
`
`two optical interconnection modules.” Although the ’600 patent describes
`
`an optical module having a particular fiber routing scheme (see Ex. 1001,
`
`Fig. 2), claims 3 and 4 do not require optical modules having any particular
`
`internal routing scheme. See Dec. on Inst. 9 (“[I]ndependent claim 3 is
`
`directed to a particular ‘optical assembly’ configuration but does not require
`
`the optical interconnection module configuration recited in claim 1.”).
`
`The ’600 patent illustrates optical assemblies in Figures 3 and 4. See
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:30–33, 3:44–4:11. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts “a schematic view of a first optical assembly according to
`
`the present invention.” Ex. 1001, 2:30–31. The ’600 patent explains:
`
`In system[] 80, . . . the polarity is not reversed, fibers one through
`twelve are not flipped between the modules. In other words, the
`optical paths are not flipped at the adapters or other position
`between the modules. For example, the optical path remains with
`its color, blue stays with blue (1-1), orange with orange (2-2),
`green with green (3-3), and so on, from one module to another
`including the connectors 40 externally of the modules 60.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:50–57.
`
`E. Claims at Issue
`
`Claims 3 and 4 are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`An optical assembly, comprising:
`3.
`(a) at least two optical interconnection modules;
`(b) said modules being optically interconnected by optical
`paths, said optical paths being established through connectors
`and adapters having respective keys being positioned in the same
`place on the connectors, and optical fiber ribbons;
`(c) said connectors and adapters being mated with keys in
`the same relative position; and
`(d) polarity of the optical fibers located externally of the
`modules is not reversed, such that at least some of said optical
`paths remain with their respective color, blue is in optical
`communication with blue (fibers 1-1), orange with orange (fibers
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`2-2), green with green (fibers 3-3), and so on, from one module
`to another.
`
`The optical assembly of claim 3, wherein all of said
`4.
`optical paths remain with their respective color from one module
`to another.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Citing the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Casimer DeCusatis,
`
`Petitioner argues that the level of ordinary skill in the art is “(a) a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering or similar, with at least 5 years of
`
`experience designing fiber optic cassettes or harnesses; or (b) a Master’s
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering or similar, with at least 3-5 years of
`
`experience designing fiber optic cassettes or harnesses.” Pet. 9 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 11–19).
`
`Patent Owner, citing the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Eric Pearson,
`
`argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’600 patent would
`
`have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, materials science, or a
`
`related field; and 2 years of experience in fiber optic equipment design.” PO
`
`Resp. 1 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15).
`
`Although there are differences between the proposed levels of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, the parties and their declarants agree that an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree and
`
`some amount of professional experience with fiber optic equipment. Based
`
`on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants,
`
`the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the
`
`skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`person having a four year technical degree with a minimum of two years of
`
`professional technical experience in fiber optic equipment design. We apply
`
`this level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis below. However, we
`
`note that our analysis would be the same if we adopted either party’s
`
`proposed level of ordinary skill.
`
`B. Claim Interpretation
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In
`
`applying a broadest reasonable construction, claim terms generally 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).
`
`1. “Optical Interconnection Module”
`
`In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner argued:
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`specification of the term “optical interconnection module” is a
`module that performs an optical interconnection (i.e., forming an
`optical path between two fiber optic components of the module).
`It cannot be read so broadly as to encompass modules that do not
`form optical interconnections, such as transceivers that receive
`electrical signals and convert them to optical signals and vice
`versa.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 8. In our Decision on Institution, we largely agreed, stating:
`
`Although the particular fiber routing scheme depicted in
`Figure 2 of the ’600 patent is not recited in claim 3, we agree
`with Patent Owner that the specification’s description of optical
`interconnection modules, such as module 60, requires, at the
`least, an optical connection within the module. See Ex. 1001,
`Abstract, 1:66–2:15, 2:41–3:30, Fig. 2. On this record, we also
`agree with Patent Owner that “optical interconnection module”
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`“cannot be read so broadly as to encompass modules that do not
`form optical interconnections.” See Prelim. Resp. 8.
`
`Dec. on Inst. 10–11.
`
`In its Response, Patent Owner argues that “further construction is
`
`necessary to address what it means for a module to form optical
`
`interconnections.” PO Resp. 9. According to Patent Owner, “[a]n ‘optical
`
`interconnection module’ is a module that performs an optical
`
`interconnection by accepting an incoming fiber and connecting it to an
`
`outgoing fiber.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 16–27); see also PO
`
`Resp. 14 (“a box or housing that distributes optical signals from at least one
`
`incoming fiber optic cable to at least one outgoing fiber optic cable.”).
`
`Patent Owner cites Figure 2, reproduced below, and its associated
`
`description in support of its proposed construction. PO Resp. 11–12.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`Figure 2 “illustrates an exemplary fiber wiring scheme for routing of optical
`
`fibers from connector 203 to single or multi-fiber connectors located at
`
`connector stations 51–56, defined at a break-out section 50 of module 60.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:6–9.
`
`Patent Owner argues that “module 60 accepts a set of incoming fibers
`
`via the multi-fiber connector 40 on the left and then forms optical paths to
`
`the outgoing fibers in the plurality of duplex connectors 51-56 on the right.”
`
`PO Resp. 11. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’600 patent explicitly states
`
`that the module performs the interconnection between the incoming fibers at
`
`connector 40 and the outgoing fibers at connectors 51-56.” PO Resp. 11
`
`(citing Ex. 1001, 3:20–24; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 17–20). The cited portion of the
`
`’600 patent states: “In other words, the optical paths of connector 40 and the
`
`optical connectors at stations 51–56 are optically interconnected by optical
`
`fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60, the fiber pairs being formed
`
`by the optical fibers.” Ex. 1001, 3:20–24. This cited portion, therefore,
`
`describes optically interconnecting connector 40 and connector stations 51–
`
`56 within the module. It does not “explicitly” mention “outgoing fibers at
`
`connectors 51-56,” as Patent Owner argues. Although outgoing fibers may
`
`be connected to connector stations 51 through 56, these fibers are not
`
`themselves part of module 60.
`
`Patent Owner also cites the following testimony of Mr. Pearson: “An
`
`‘optical interconnection module,’ which is sometimes called an
`
`‘interconnection box,’ refers to a structure that performs optical
`
`
`3 This appears to be a typographical error. Elsewhere, the ’600 patent
`denotes “connector” using numeral 40, and the patent uses numeral 20 to
`refer to “optical fiber ribbon.” See Ex. 1001, 2:43, 2:51, 3:20–21.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`interconnection at the module level. Interconnection modules accept one or
`
`more incoming fibers or fiber cables and form optical paths to corresponding
`
`outgoing fibers or cables.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 25, quoted in PO Resp. 12. Patent
`
`Owner and Mr. Pearson also cite a definition of “fiber optic interconnection
`
`box” from Fiber Optics Standard Dictionary. PO Resp. 12–13 (citing
`
`Ex. 2003, 346); Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. Patent Owner’s arguments based on this
`
`evidence, however, focus on what is external to the modules, specifically
`
`that “an optical interconnection module requires at least one incoming fiber
`
`and at least one outgoing fiber.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27).
`
`Claim 3, however, recites “[a]n optical assembly” having “at least two
`
`optical interconnection modules,” and claim 3 then separately recites what is
`
`required between the modules and external to the modules. Figure 3 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`As explained above, figure 3 depicts “a schematic view of a first optical
`
`assembly according to the present invention.” Ex. 1001, 2:30–31. Claim 3
`
`encompasses what happens between the modules, reciting “said modules
`
`being optically interconnected by optical paths, said optical paths being
`
`established through connectors and adapters having respective keys being
`
`positioned in the same place on the connectors, and optical fiber ribbons.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`Figure 3 shows “connectors 40 with associated adapters 41” and optical fiber
`
`ribbons. Ex. 1001, 3:44–48. The claimed “optical assembly” does not
`
`require fibers to be connected to the left of the left module or to the right of
`
`the right module.
`
`Furthermore, claim 3 does not recite any particular structure for the
`
`claimed “optical interconnection modules.” In stark contrast, claim 1, which
`
`is directed to “[a]n optical interconnection module,” recites limitations that
`
`specifically define the module of claim 1. Claim 3 recites no such
`
`limitations but, rather, focuses on the manner in which the “optical
`
`interconnection modules” are connected to form the claimed “optical
`
`assembly.”
`
`Based on the evidence of record, we maintain our determination that
`
`an optical interconnection module requires an optical connection within the
`
`module. See Dec. on Inst. 10. This is consistent with the intrinsic record,
`
`particularly the ’600 patent’s disclosure that “the optical paths of
`
`connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–56 are optically
`
`interconnected by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60, the
`
`fiber pairs being formed by the optical fibers.” Ex. 1001, 3:20–24, Fig. 2.
`
`As discussed above, the module itself does not require fibers to be plugged
`
`into it. Rather, an “optical assembly,” such as that recited in claim 3, is
`
`formed by connecting modules via fibers.
`
`We further clarify that, because it is an “optical interconnection
`
`module,” it must be a module that forms an optical interconnection. This is
`
`consistent with the ’600 patent’s disclosure that “[m]odule 60 also includes
`
`an optical interconnection section having an optical connector. The
`
`preferred connector is an MTP or MPO connector 40.” Ex. 1001, 2:49–51
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`(emphasis added). In Figure 2, the optical interconnection section optically
`
`interconnects with fibers in ribbon 20. The ’600 patent describes that the
`
`optical paths of the connector in the optical interconnection section are
`
`“immediately adjacent to at least one other optical path for optical alignment
`
`with the optical fibers in an optical fiber ribbon.” Ex. 1001, 2:57–60.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to distinguishing
`
`Eichenberger’s disclosure of an optoelectronic transceiver module from the
`
`claimed optical interconnection modules. See PO Resp. 14–22. Patent
`
`Owner argues:
`
`It would be unreasonable . . . to conclude that an ‘optical
`interconnection module’ is so broad that it includes modules that
`accept a signal from an incoming fiber optical cable but then,
`rather than distribute the signal to an outgoing fiber, instead
`convert it to electricity and output an electrical signal to a wire.
`
`PO Resp. 14. As explained below, however, Eichenberger describes a
`
`module that forms an optical interconnection and makes optical connections
`
`within the module and also converts light signals to electrical signals and
`
`vice-versa. Claim 3 uses the open-ended transitional term “comprising,”
`
`which does not exclude additional unrecited elements, and the claim
`
`language does not preclude optical to electrical conversion. We see no
`
`reason to disregard Eichenberger’s teachings merely because it discloses
`
`more than claim 3 requires in certain respects.
`
`2. Remaining Terms
`
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that the remaining terms
`
`of the challenged claims did not require express constructions at that time.
`
`Dec. on Inst. 11. Based on the record developed during trial, we maintain
`
`our initial determination that the remaining terms of the challenged claims
`
`do not require express constructions.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`C. Principles of Law
`
`A patent 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. 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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) any secondary
`
`considerations, if in evidence. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–
`
`18 (1966).
`
`D. Obviousness over Eichenberger and Bennett
`
`Petitioner contends claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Eichenberger and
`
`Bennett. Pet. 5, 17–36.
`
`1. Eichenberger
`
`Eichenberger “relates generally to the field of optical fiber data
`
`transmission and communication and more particularly concerns an optical
`
`interface in the form of an optical interface for interconnecting a 4-channel
`
`optoelectronic transmitter-receiver module and an 8-fiber optical fiber
`
`transmission ribbon.” Ex. 1004, 1:8–13. Figure 1 of Eichenberger is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts “a typical 4-channel fiberoptic transceiver module equipped
`
`with the optical interface.” Ex. 1004, 5:8–10.
`
`More particularly with respect to Figure 1, Eichenberger discloses that
`
`“module 10 includes a module housing 12” and “transmitter chip 26
`
`comprising a 4-diode laser diode array and a receiver chip 28 comprising a
`
`4-diode photodetector array.” Ex. 1004, 5:45–53. Eichenberger further
`
`discloses:
`
`Turning to FIGS. 1, 1A and 1B the optical interface in its
`first embodiment includes an optical head body 40 which is a
`rectangular block comprised of [a] lower half 42a and an upper
`half 42b. . . . The diode elements on photodiode receiver chip 28
`and laser diode transmitter chip are optically aligned to the fiber
`ends of the head body 40 and the chips are permanently
`assembled to the head body also as by laser welding. The
`assembly comprising the head body 40 and the diode array chips
`26, 28 form an optical head assembly which is mounted to the
`transceiver housing 12 as by soldering of the proximal surface 51
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`to the apertured wall 14 of the housing such that the chips 26, 28
`are supported through the wall opening 16 within the housing
`where the diode array chips are electrically interconnected to
`other appropriate electronic transmitter and receiver circuits.
`
`Ex. 1004, 6:41–60.
`
`Figure 3 of Eichenberger is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 3 depicts “a 4-channel optical fiber communications system including
`
`two 4-channel transceiver modules interconnected by an 8-fiber transmission
`
`cable.” Ex. 1004, 5:22–24. Eichenberger discloses:
`
`
`
`The optical fiber connector 64 at the opposite end of transmission
`ribbon 62, not seen in FIG. 1, is similarly coupled to a second
`transceiver module 10 also equipped with an optical head 40
`arrangement similar to that shown in FIG. 1. The interconnection
`of two transceiver modules optically interfaced in this fashion to
`a[n] optical ribbon transmission cable 60 is illustrated in FIG. 3.
`
`Ex. 1004, 7:45–52.
`
`2. Bennett
`
`Bennett relates to “connectorizing fiber optic cable” and discloses
`
`fiber coatings that “are usually made in twelve standard colors used in the
`
`industry (blue, orange, green, brown, slate, white, red, black, yellow, violet,
`
`rose and aqua).” Ex. 1005, 1:6, 3:9–11.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`3. Independent Claim 3
`
`a. “Optical interconnection module”
`
`Independent claim 3 is directed to “[a]n optical assembly” having “at
`
`least two optical interconnection modules.” Petitioner contends Figure 3 of
`
`Eichenberger teaches an optical assembly having two optical interconnection
`
`modules, specifically modules 10 connected via ribbon 62. Pet. 18, 25–26
`
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:22–27, 7:30–42; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–50).
`
`Patent Owner argues that module 10 is an optoelectronic module
`
`rather than an “optical interconnection module,” as recited in claim 3. PO
`
`Resp. 17–22; see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 33 (Mr. Pearson testifying that “a device
`
`that accepts an incoming fiber and converts it to electricity rather than
`
`performing an optical interconnection by routing the signal to an outgoing
`
`fiber is not an ‘optical interconnection module’ but rather an optoelectronic
`
`module”). We agree that Eichenberger’s module 10 is an optoelectronic
`
`module because Eichenberger expressly states that it is: “FIG. 1 shows a
`
`4-channel optoelectronic transceiver module generally designated by
`
`numeral 10.” Ex. 1004, 5:43–45. As explained below, however, we do not
`
`find Eichenberger’s disclosure of structure that performs optical to electrical
`
`signal conversion and vice-versa as disqualifying it from also teaching an
`
`optical interconnection module.
`
`As an initial matter, as we explained in our Decision on Institution,
`
`Eichenberger’s module 10 includes connector 40. In particular,
`
`Eichenberger discloses that “[t]he assembly comprising the head body 40
`
`and the diode array chips 26, 28 form an optical head assembly which is
`
`mounted to the transceiver housing 12 as by soldering of the proximal
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`surface 51 to the apertured wall 14 of the housing.” Ex. 1004, 6:53–57
`
`(emphasis added). Eichenberger further discloses:
`
`The optical head is also contained in a fiber ribbon connector
`receptacle 56 fastened to the module housing 12. The purpose of
`receptacle 56 is to receive and mechanically retain an optical
`ribbon connector in optical coupling with the fiber ends on the
`rear or distal surface of the optical head.
`
`Ex. 1004, 6:60–65 (emphasis added). Eichenberger further discloses that
`
`“[a]n optical fiber connector 64 is retained in optical fiber receptacle 56 by
`
`retainer arms 55 of the receptacle to hold the optical fiber connector 64 in
`
`optical coupling with the optical head 40.” Ex. 1004, 7:42–45. According
`
`to Eichenberger, therefore, optical head 40 and receptacle 56 are both
`
`mounted to module 10’s housing 12, and connector 64 is inserted into
`
`receptacle 56 and held in place therein by retainer arms 55. Ex. 1004, 6:53–
`
`57, 6:60–65, 7:42–45. In addition, Dr. DeCusatis testifies that “those having
`
`ordinary skill in the art of fiber optics would understand that modules
`
`generally include all the module connectors, and anything external of the
`
`module would not include components of the module itself.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 67,
`
`cited in Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 71 (“[M]odule connector 40 is
`
`associated with and a component of the module 10 in Eichenberger . . . .”).
`
`Thus, we agree with Petitioner that “module connector 40 of Eichenberger is
`
`associated with and a component of the module 10.” Pet. 33.
`
`Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s assertion that “optical head body 40
`
`is ‘a component of the module 10’ is inconsistent with the theory advanced
`
`by Petitioner’s expert at his deposition that ‘there’s not an optical
`
`interconnect inside module 10 portion, it’s outside in module 40.’” PO
`
`Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2002, 20:12–14). This quoted testimony is excerpted
`
`from a larger passage, in which Dr. DeCusatis explained: “I can’t take
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`head 40 off of the body 10 according to Eichenberger. So even though
`
`there’s not an optical interconnect inside module 10 portion, it’s outside in
`
`module 40, they’re one single piece and I can’t separate them.” Ex. 2002,
`
`20:10–15. Dr. DeCusatis’s deposition testimony, therefore, is fully
`
`consistent with his declaration testimony that connector 40 is part of
`
`module 10. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67, 71.
`
`Patent Owner argues that, even if module 10 includes connector 40,
`
`Eichenberger still does not teach an optical interconnection module, and it
`
`produces the following illustrations in support:
`
`PO Resp. 20. The figure above on the left is an annotated excerpt from
`
`Figure 3 of the ’600 patent, and the figure above on the right is an annotated
`
`excerpt from Figure 4 of Eichenberger. PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner argues:
`
`
`
`Starting on the left with the ’600 patent disclosure, module
`60 accepts incoming fibers via the connector (blue) on the end of
`optical fiber ribbon 20 (green) that pairs with a connector internal
`to
`the module (also blue).
` Module 60 performs an
`interconnection, i.e., it forms an optical path from those external
`fibers to the external fibers at the plurality of fiber optic
`connectors 51-56 (pink). [Ex. 2001] ¶ 32[.] As the ’600 patent
`explains, module 60 uses internal fibers to perform this
`interconnection: “connector 40 and the optical connectors at
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`stations 51-56 are optically interconnected by optical fibers
`disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60.” [Ex. 1001], 3:20-24.
`
`PO Resp. 20.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that the ’600 patent describes optically
`
`interconnecting connector 40 and connector stations 51–56. Ex. 1001, 3:20–
`
`24. The green fibers to the right of module 60, however, are not part of the
`
`original drawing and are not part of the “optical interconnection module.”
`
`More importantly, the “optical assembly” of claim 3 does not require fibers
`
`to be connected to the right of the module, as shown in Patent Owner’s
`
`annotated drawing. Thus, we do not interpret the claimed “optical
`
`interconnection module” to require that external fibers be connected to it.
`
`Claim 3 elsewhere recites the configuration of fibers connected in the
`
`claimed “optical assembly.”
`
`We find that Eichenberger’s module 10, which includes optical
`
`head 40, teaches an “optical interconnection module.” Figure 1 of
`
`Eichenberger is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1 depicts “a typical 4-channel fiberoptic transceiver module equipped
`
`with the optical interface.” Ex. 1004, 5:8–10.
`
`As shown in Figure 1, ribbon 62 with connector 64 plugs into the
`
`module. Eichenberger discloses: “An optical fiber connector 64 is retained
`
`in optical fiber receptacle 56 by retainer arms 55 of the receptacle to hold the
`
`optical fiber connector 64 in optical coupling with the optical head 40.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 7:42–45. Eichenberger explains that connector 64 has pins 71 that
`
`“mate into corresponding pin holes 58 of optical head 40 as shown in FIG. 1
`
`to precisely position and optically align the fiber end array 68 of the
`
`transmission 40 cable 60 with the array of distal fiber ends 54 on the distal
`
`face 53 of the optical head.” Ex. 1004, 7:37–42. Thus, Eichenberger
`
`describes fibers within optical head 40 optically interconnecting to fibers
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`from the ribbon. Therefore, Eichenberger teaches a module that forms an
`
`optical interconnection.
`
`Eichenberger also discloses that optical head 40 contains eight fiber
`
`segments 48. Ex. 1004, 6:44–45. Eichenberger discloses:
`
`The proximal fiber ends are grouped in two fiber end arrays 48a,
`48b of four fiber ends each. One fiber end array 48a is in optical
`alignment with the 4-channel transmitter chip 26 while the other
`fiber end array 48b is in optical alignment with the 4-channel
`receiver chip 28.
`
`Ex. 1004, 7:4–8. Eichenberger describes that “the 4-diode laser diode array
`
`of the transmitter chip 26 . . . emit[s] light pulses” into the optical fibers and
`
`also that “[t]he four photodetector diodes of receiver chip 28 are each
`
`illuminated by a corresponding optical fiber.” Ex. 1004, 5:60–6:6. Thus,
`
`Eichenberger describes fibers 48 within optical head 40 optically
`
`interconnecting fibers from ribbon 62 and diodes on the transmitter and
`
`receiver chips, thereby describing an optical connection within the module.
`
`This is similar to the ’600 patent’s disclosure that fibers within module 60
`
`optically connect fibers from ribbon 20 to connector stations 51–56. In
`
`particular, the ’600 patent describes:
`
`FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary fiber wiring scheme for
`routing of optical fibers from connector [40] to single or multi-
`fiber connectors located at connector stations 51–56, defined at
`a break-out section 50 of module 60. . . . At least one but
`preferably at least 80% of the fiber pairs routed to respective
`connector stations 51–56 are made by fibers not immediately
`adjacent in the optical fiber ribbon 20. In other words, the optical
`paths of connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–
`56 are optically interconnected by optical fibers disposed in
`cavity 62 of the module 60, the fiber pairs being formed by the
`optical fibers.
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:6–24.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`As discussed above, claim 3 does not require the particular routing
`
`scheme of Figure 2. Rather, this disclosure is useful for illustrating how
`
`Eichenberger’s internal optical connection of the ribbon fibers to the optical
`
`diodes via fibers 48 teaches an internal optical connection as described in the
`
`’600 patent. Although the terminals are different—laser diodes and
`
`photodetector diodes in Eichenberger and connector stations in Figure 2 of
`
`the ’600 patent—claim 3 does not recite particular connector stations within
`
`its claimed “optical interconnection modules,” unlike claim 1, which
`
`expressly recites “an optical connector station formed in a wall of said
`
`module having a plurality of optical fiber connectors.” This confirms that
`
`Eichenberger’s module 10, including optical head 40, teaches “an optical
`
`interconnection module,” as recited in claim 3.
`
`Patent Owner also argues: “To be sure, there is an optical
`
`interconnection at the point where the fibers of optical head body 40 are
`
`connected to the separate fibers of connector 64. . . . This, however, only
`
`speaks to the limitation of claim 3 that ‘said modules be[] optically
`
`interconnected.’” PO Resp. 19. We disagree. The limitation to which
`
`Patent Owner refers recites “said modules being optically interconnected by
`
`optical paths, said optical paths being established through connectors and
`
`adapters having respective keys being positioned in the same place on the
`
`connectors, and optical fiber ribbons.” As discussed above, claim 3 is
`
`directed to an “optical assembly,” and this limitation speaks to the particular
`
`manner in which the modules are interconnected in the assembly,
`
`specifically via “optical paths,” which “are established through connectors
`
`and adapters” and “optical fiber ribbons.”
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01323
`Patent 6,758,600 B2
`
`
`In view of the foregoing, we find that Eichenberger’s module 10
`
`including optical head 40 teaches a module that forms an interconnection
`
`and that makes an optical connection within the module and therefore
`
`teaches an “optical interconnection module.” We further find that Figure 3
`
`of Eichenberger teaches an optical assembly having two such optical
`
`interconnection mo
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
