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 IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`In this inter partes review, Panduit Corp. (“Petitioner”) challenges the
`
`patentability of claims 6, 7, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,869,227 B2 (“the
`
`’227 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 6, 7, and 11 of the ’227 patent are
`
`unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review instituted
`
`under this chapter, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a
`
`proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”).
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`On May 5, 2017, Petitioner requested inter partes review of claims 6,
`
`7, and 11 of the ’227 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner filed a
`
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial on all
`
`grounds of unpatentability, which are as follows:
`
`1. Whether claim 6 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`having been obvious over Toyooka,1 Eichenberger,2 and Giebel;3
`
`2. Whether claim 7 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`
`1 JP H11-160542, published June 18, 1999 (Ex. 1004). Petitioner also filed
`Toyooka as Exhibit 1007 with a declaration by the translator to address a
`deficiency noted in our Decisions on Institution. See Dec. on Inst. 6 n.1.
`Because the parties cite Toyooka as Exhibit 1004 in these matters, we also
`cite Toyooka as Exhibit 1004 for consistency in the record.
`2 US 7,021,837 B2, filed Feb. 20, 2001, issued Apr. 4, 2006 (Ex. 1005).
`3 US 6,149,313, issued Nov. 21, 2000 (Ex. 1006).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`
`having been obvious over Toyooka and Eichenberger; and
`
`3. Whether claim 11 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`having been obvious over Toyooka and Giebel.
`
`Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.”), 38.
`
`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.”).
`
`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 ’227 patent to Corning.” Paper 5, 1.
`
`C. Related Matters
`
`The parties indicate that the ’227 patent is at issue in Corning Optical
`
`Communications LLC v. Panduit Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00268-GMS (D. Del.).
`
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1. In IPR2016-01648, the Board issued a Final Written
`
`Decision as to claims 1–3 and 8–10 of the ’227 patent. IPR2016-01648,
`
`Paper 27. In IPR2016-01647, the Board issued a Final Written Decision as
`
`to claims 1 and 2 of related Patent 6,758,600 B2 (“the ’600 patent”).
`
`IPR2016-01647, Paper 27. We are concurrently issuing a Final Written
`
`Decision in IPR2017-01323 addressing claims 3 and 4 of the ’600 patent.
`
`D. The ’227 Patent
`
`The ’227 patent generally relates to optical modules having a
`
`particular interconnection scheme. Ex. 1001, [57]. Figure 2 is reproduced
`
`below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 “illustrates an exemplary fiber wiring scheme for routing of optical
`
`fibers from connector 40 to single or multi-fiber connectors located at
`
`connector stations 51–56, defined at a break-out section 50 of module 60.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 3:14–17. The ’227 patent explains 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, 3:30–34. As
`
`illustrated in Figure 2 and explained in the ’227 patent, fiber pairs are
`
`defined within the cavity of the module such that the fiber optically
`
`connected to the first fiber from ribbon 20 is paired with the fiber optically
`
`connected to the last fiber at connector station 51, and then the fiber
`
`optically connected to the next fiber in ribbon 20 is paired with the fiber
`
`optically connected to the next-to-last fiber in ribbon 20 at connector station
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`52, and so on. See Ex. 1001, 3:25–27 (“With reference to FIG. 2, the fiber
`
`pairs are defined as follows: 21–32; 22–31; 23–30; 24–29; 25–28; and 26–
`
`27.”).
`
`The ’227 patent also describes particular optical assemblies, which are
`
`depicted in Figures 3 and 4. See Ex. 1001, 2:36–39, 3:55–4:23. Figure 3 is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 depicts “a schematic view of a first optical assembly according to
`
`the present invention.” Ex. 1001, 2:36–37. The ’227 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, 3:62–4:2.
`
`E. Claims at Issue
`
`Claim 6 depends from claim 3, and claim 11 depends from claim 1.
`
`Claim 7 is independent. Claims 1 and 11, claims 3 and 6, and claim 7 are
`
`reproduced below.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`
`A universal breakout harness for reversing the
`1.
`
`polarity of optical fibers, comprising:
`a multi-fiber connector with multiple optical paths formed
`therein, the optical paths being arranged in a generally planar
`array with each optical path being immediately adjacent to at
`least one other optical path;
`a plurality of optical fibers of an optical ribbon disposed
`in the optical paths formed in the multi-fiber connector; and
`a plurality of optical fiber connectors disposed opposite
`the multi-fiber connector, the plurality of optical fiber connectors
`defining a plurality of pairs of optical paths for receiving the
`optical fibers of the optical ribbon;
`wherein the optical fibers of the optical ribbon are
`separated and routed between the optical paths formed in the
`multi-fiber connector and the pairs of optical paths defined by
`the plurality of optical fiber connectors; and
`wherein the optical fibers in at least one of the pairs of
`optical paths defined by the plurality of optical fiber connectors
`are selected from optical fibers disposed in optical paths formed
`in the multi-fiber connector that are not immediately adjacent to
`each other.
`
`11. The universal breakout harness of claim 1, wherein
`the optical fiber connectors include at least one multi-fiber
`connector.
`
`implementing
`A method of
`3.
`
`positioning in a cabling system, comprising:
`assigning a sequential number to each of the optical fibers
`of an optical ribbon;
`installing one end of the optical ribbon into a multi-fiber
`connector with the optical fibers of the optical ribbon arranged
`in sequential number from left to right; and
`installing the other end of the optical ribbon into a plurality
`of optical fiber connectors with the optical fibers of the optical
`ribbon arranged in reverse sequential number from left to right.
`
`The method of claim 3, wherein the multi-fiber
`6.
`connector has a key oriented in a predetermined direction and
`
`reverse-ribbon
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`
`wherein each of the plurality of optical fiber connectors has a key
`oriented in the same predetermined direction.
`
`A method of transitioning ribbon cabling into
`7.
`
`multiple duplex systems, comprising
`providing a first transition module and a second transition
`module by:
`
`assigning a sequential number to each of the optical
`fibers of a first optical ribbon;
`installing one end of the first optical ribbon into a
`first multi-fiber connector having a key with the optical
`fibers of the first optical ribbon arranged in sequential
`number from left to right and the key oriented in a
`predetermined direction; and
`installing the other end of the first optical ribbon
`into a plurality of optical fiber connectors with the optical
`fibers of the first optical ribbon arranged in reverse
`sequential number from left to right; and
`connecting the first multi-fiber connector of the first
`transition module to a second multi-fiber connector installed on
`one end of a second optical ribbon having a plurality of optical
`fibers arranged in a sequential number from left to right, the
`second multi-fiber connector having a key oriented in the
`predetermined direction; and
`connecting the first multi-fiber connector of the second
`transition module to a third multi-fiber connector installed on the
`other end of the second optical ribbon, the third multi-fiber
`connector having a key oriented in the predetermined direction.
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`experience designing fiber optic cassettes or harnesses.” Pet. 12 (citing
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 10–19).
`
`Patent Owner, citing the testimony of its declarant, Mr. Eric Pearson,
`
`argues that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’227 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. 2002 ¶ 14).
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`1. “Optical Ribbon”
`
`The parties disagree as to what subject matter is encompassed within
`
`the term “optical ribbon,” which appears in the challenged claims or in
`
`claims from which they depend. The parties’ arguments and evidence on
`
`this issue are largely the same as the arguments and evidence presented on
`
`this issue in IPR2016-01648.4 In that case, we fully evaluated the issue and
`
`determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “optical
`
`ribbon” in view of the specification of the ’227 patent “encompasses optical
`
`fibers that are bonded together in a generally planar array or optical fibers
`
`that are grouped and aligned in a generally planar array.” IPR2016-01648,
`
`Paper 27, 10–19.
`
`In addition to its previous arguments, Patent Owner presents three
`
`illustrations allegedly showing optical ribbons in which fibers are separated
`
`at the ends. PO Resp. 18–19. Patent Owner argues:
`
`It does not follow from the fact that the ribbon common
`layer is ultimately broken out at the end to install the individual
`fibers into connectors that no ribbon ever existed in the first
`place. Similarly, claim 3 recites installing one end of a ribbon
`into a multi-fiber connector and the other end into a plurality of
`separate connectors, which a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand to require a breakout of the individual fibers
`from the ribbon common layer at the point of installation. That
`person would not, however, conclude from this that no ribbon
`common layer ever existed, especially
`in
`light of
`the
`specification’s clear statement that one does.
`
`
`4 Patent Owner submits the same evidence in this case that it submitted in
`IPR2016-01648. In particular, Exhibits 2001, 2002, and 2003 in this case
`are the same as Exhibits 2004, 2001, and 2003, respectively, in IPR2016-
`01648.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 22–32). This argument appears directed to
`
`our discussion in the Final Written Decision in IPR2016-01648 explaining
`
`that claim 3 of the ’227 patent, read in light of the specification, shows that
`
`the term “optical ribbon” encompasses optical fibers that are bonded
`
`together in a generally planar array or optical fibers that are grouped and
`
`aligned in a generally planar array but not necessarily bound in a ribbon
`
`common layer. IPR2016-01648, Paper 27, 16–19. In particular, we stated
`
`the following:
`
`[I]ndependent claim 3 of the ’227 patent, when read in light of
`the specification, claims “an optical ribbon” as individual fibers
`or, at least, encompasses such subject matter. In particular,
`claim 3 recites “installing one end of the optical ribbon into a
`multi-fiber connector with the optical fibers of the optical ribbon
`arranged in sequential number from left to right” and then
`“installing the other end of the optical ribbon into a plurality of
`optical fiber connectors with the optical fibers of the optical
`ribbon arranged in reverse sequential number from left to right.”
`(Emphasis added). The claim requires installing “one end” and
`“the other end” of the ribbon, which corresponds to the fibers
`between connector 40 (“multi-fiber connector”) and connector
`stations 51–56 (“plurality of optical fiber connectors”) in figures
`2 and 5. The ’600 and ’227 patents describe that “the optical
`paths of connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–
`56 are optically interconnected by optical fibers disposed in
`cavity 62 of the module 60.” Ex. 1001, 3:30–33. The ’600 and
`’227 patents do not describe interconnecting a multi-fiber
`connector and connector stations using anything other than
`individual fibers, such as those depicted in figure 2 of the ’600
`and ’227 patents and figure 5 of the ’227 patent. Thus, claim 3,
`read in light of the specification of the ’227 patent, claims an
`“optical ribbon” encompassing optical fibers that are grouped
`and aligned in a generally planar array.
`
`IPR2016-01648, Paper 27, 16–17. This discussion explained that the only
`
`disclosure in the ’227 patent of connecting a “multi-fiber connector” to “a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`plurality of optical fiber connectors,” as recited in claim 3, was via
`
`individual fibers. Claim 3’s recitation of an “optical ribbon” connecting
`
`these connectors, therefore, encompasses the disclosure in the specification
`
`of the ’227 patent that describes this subject matter, namely that “the optical
`
`paths of connector 40 and the optical connectors at stations 51–56 are
`
`optically interconnected by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the
`
`module 60.” Ex. 1001, 3:30–33; see also id. at Fig. 2.
`
`Patent Owner also argues, “As the ’227 patent explains, a ‘break-out
`
`section 50’ is used to separate the individual fibers from the ribbon—i.e.,
`
`break apart the ribbon common layer.” PO Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:17).
`
`We disagree. The ’227 patent states, “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. Each connector station 51–56 preferably
`
`includes one or more connectors.” Ex. 1001, 3:14–19. Break-out section
`
`50, therefore, designates where connector stations 51–56 are located, as also
`
`illustrated in Figure 2, but it does not “separate the individual fibers from the
`
`ribbon,” as asserted by Patent Owner. Rather, the connectors at break-out
`
`section 50 connect to optical fibers within the module that are already
`
`separated, specifically “optical fibers disposed in cavity 62.” Ex. 1001,
`
`3:30–33. Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges this in IPR2017-01323 when
`
`it states that, “[a]s the ’600 patent explains, module 60 uses internal fibers to
`
`perform this interconnection: ‘connector 40 and the optical connectors at
`
`stations 51-56 are optically interconnected by optical fibers disposed in
`
`cavity 62 of the module 60.’” IPR2017-01323, Paper 14, 20 (quoting ’600
`
`patent, 3:20–24). The ’227 patent purports to be a continuation of the ’600
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`patent (Ex. 1001, 1:6–9), and the quoted portion of the ’600 patent is the
`
`same as the disclosure of the ’227 patent at column 3, lines 30–34. Thus, the
`
`’227 patent does not describe that break-out section 50 separates fibers from
`
`the ribbon.
`
`We see nothing the record before us indicating that we should deviate
`
`from our construction of the term “optical ribbon” in the Final Written
`
`Decision in IPR2016-01648. See IPR2016-01648, Paper 27, 10–19. We,
`
`therefore, adopt the construction in that case—that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “optical ribbon” in view of the specification of the
`
`’227 patent “encompasses optical fibers that are bonded together in a
`
`generally planar array or optical fibers that are grouped and aligned in a
`
`generally planar array.” IPR2016-01648, Paper 27, 18–19. We apply this
`
`construction below in our analysis of the grounds of unpatentability.
`
`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. 19. 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`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. Overview of References
`
`Petitioner relies on Toyooka, Eichenberger, and Giebel in its
`
`contentions of obviousness. Pet. 5, 14–36.
`
`1. Toyooka
`
`Toyooka discloses optical fiber wiring units, such as the one
`
`reproduced below in Figure 1.
`
`Figure 1 depicts an optical fiber wiring unit having “multicore connector 12”
`
`on one side of “box 10” and “single-core connectors 141 to 142N” on the
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`other side of box 10. Ex. 1004 ¶ 20. Toyooka describes that “each of the
`
`two single-core connectors constituting each connector pair is connected, by
`
`means of an optical fiber, to each of the two symmetrically situated cores of
`
`the multicore connector 12.” Id. ¶ 23. As such, single-core connectors 141
`
`and 142 are connected, respectively, to cores 121 and 122N, which are situated
`
`symmetrically on multicore connector 12. Id. ¶ 24. This pattern continues
`
`and, ultimately, single-core connectors 142N-1 and 142N are paired with 12N
`
`and 12N+1, respectively. See Ex. 1004, Fig. 1.
`
`Toyooka also depicts “a connection configuration of conventional
`
`optical-fiber wiring units and multicore optical-fiber tape” in Figure 5,
`
`reproduced below. Ex. 1004 ¶ 5.
`
`Figure 5 shows a configuration in which “two optical-fiber wiring units 100
`
`and 200 are connected with a multicore optical-fiber tape 130.” Ex. 1004
`
`
`
`¶ 5.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`
`2. 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 2 of Eichenberger is
`
`reproduced below.
`
`Figure 2 depicts “a perspective view of an 8-fiber transmission cable
`
`consisting of an 8-fiber transmission ribbon terminated at each end with an
`
`8-fiber connector, showing the special keying of the two connectors.”
`
`Ex. 1004, 5:22–24. Eichenberger discloses:
`
`
`
`As shown in FIG. 2 the connectors 64 have key tabs 69 which
`limit the orientation of the connector when inserted in connector
`receptacle 56, in that the connector can only be mated to the
`receptacle with the key tab point upwards in FIG. 1. In
`conventional ribbon cables the connectors at opposite ends of the
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`
`optical ribbon have the key tabs pointing in opposite directions,
`thereby to force a 180 degree twist along the length of the ribbon
`so as to preserve same channel numbering on the transmitter and
`receiver sides. When connecting two identical transceiver
`modules 10, however, a “straight” ribbon cable is needed to
`guarantee that the transmit side of one be connected to the
`receive side of the other module.
`
`Ex. 1004, 7:52–64.
`
`3. Giebel
`
`Giebel “relates generally to fiber optic connectors and associated
`
`fabrication methods and, more particularly, to multi-fiber connectors having
`
`male and female configurations and associated fabrication methods.”
`
`Ex. 1006, 1:6–9. Giebel discloses gender selectable fiber optic connector 10
`
`having shroud 18 and alignment key 28. Ex. 1006, 6:50–54, 8:58–9:3, Figs.
`
`5–6. In particular, Giebel discloses:
`
`[S]hroud 18 can also include various alignment features for
`aligning the resulting fiber optic connector 10 with another fiber
`optic connector or with an alignment sleeve, an outlet or other
`receptacle. In this regard, the shroud body 20 can include an
`outwardly extending alignment key 28 and the forward end of
`the shroud body can define several cut-outs 30 that are sized and
`shaped to mate with corresponding features within an alignment
`sleeve, an outlet or other receptacle. For example, the alignment
`key and cut-out portions of the shroud bodies illustrated in FIGS.
`1–5 are adapted to engage corresponding alignment features
`within a conventional sleeve, outlet or receptacle that has been
`designed to receive MT connectors.
`
`Ex. 1006, 8:58–9:3.
`
`E. Claim 11 – Obviousness over Toyooka and Giebel
`
`Petitioner contends claim 11, which depends from claim 1, is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over the combined
`
`teachings of Toyooka and Giebel. Pet. 5, 49–60. Petitioner relies on
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`Toyooka to teach the limitations of claim 1, and its contentions in this regard
`
`are substantively the same as its contentions in IPR2016-01648 asserting
`
`that Toyooka anticipated claim 1. Compare Pet. 50–58,5 with IPR2016-
`
`01648, Paper 2, 18–24, 30–32. Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to
`
`claim 11 in this case are directed to limitations of claim 1 and are
`
`substantively the same as arguments it made in IPR2016-01648 that
`
`Toyooka does not describe particular limitations of claim 1. Compare PO
`
`Resp. 19–25, with IPR2016-01648, Paper 13, 17–20, 28–30. We fully
`
`addressed the parties’ evidence and arguments in the Final Written Decision
`
`IPR2016-01648, and we found that Toyooka describes all of the limitations
`
`of claim 1 and, therefore, anticipated claim 1. IPR2016-01648, Paper 27,
`
`37–52. We herein adopt our analysis from the Final Written Decision in
`
`IPR2016-01648 as to the limitations of claim 1, and, therefore, we turn to
`
`the additional recited limitation of claim 11.
`
`Claim 11 recites, “The universal breakout harness of claim 1, wherein
`
`the optical fiber connectors include at least one multi-fiber connector.”
`
`Petitioner asserts that “Giebel teaches a multi-fiber connector mounted on a
`
`plurality of fibers 32.” Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1006, 9:54–65; Ex. 1003 ¶ 108).
`
`We agree with Petitioner’s contention, and we find Giebel teaches a
`
`“multi-fiber connector,” as recited in claim 11, because it describes
`
`“multi-fiber ferrule 14.” Ex. 1006, 9:55–56.
`
`Petitioner argues that “[i]t would have been . . . obvious to a [person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art] to replace the N individual, single-core
`
`
`5 Petitioner’s challenge to claim 11 is based only on Toyooka and Giebel,
`and, therefore, we do not rely on Petitioner’s citation to Eichenberger. See
`Pet. 51.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`connectors 14 with N/2 multi-fiber connectors to reduce the number of
`
`ferrules included per module” in order to “reduce the manufacturing cost and
`
`complexity in manufacturing the ribbon module 10 taught by Toyooka.”
`
`Pet. 59 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 110). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s
`
`contentions, and we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
`
`reason to, and would have been motivated to, use multi-fiber connectors, as
`
`taught in Giebel, in the module of Toyooka to reduce the number of ferrules
`
`in the module. We credit Dr. DeCusatis’s testimony that “[i]ncluding half as
`
`many ferrules and connectors would reduce the manufacturing cost and
`
`complexity in manufacturing the ribbon module 10 taught by Toyooka.”
`
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 110. We further note that Toyooka discloses that two-core
`
`connectors may be used to service 2N fibers rather using 2N single-core
`
`connectors. Ex. 1004 ¶ 42 (“[I]n the optical-fiber wiring unit shown in the
`
`above-mentioned embodiment, 2N pieces of single-core connectors are
`
`provided to thereby form an N number of connector pairs; however, N
`
`pieces of two-core connectors may be provided in place thereof.”), cited in
`
`Dec. on Inst. 31. This further supports the finding that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had reason to use multi-fiber connectors rather
`
`than single-core connectors.
`
`We find that the combination of Toyooka and Giebel teaches the
`
`limitations of claim 11, and we find a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have had reason to, and would have been motivated to, use
`
`multi-fiber connectors, as taught in Giebel, in the module of Toyooka.
`
`Having considered the full record developed during trial, Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 11 of the ’227
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
`
`combined teachings of Toyooka and Giebel.
`
`F. Claim 6 – Obviousness over Toyooka, Eichenberger, and Giebel
`
`Petitioner contends claim 6, which depends from claim 3, is
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over the combined
`
`teachings of Toyooka, Eichenberger, and Giebel. Pet. 5, 21–32. Petitioner
`
`relies on Toyooka to teach the limitations of claim 3, and its contentions in
`
`this regard are substantively the same as its contentions in IPR2016-01648
`
`asserting that Toyooka anticipated claim 3. Compare Pet. 22–24, 26–27,
`
`with IPR2016-01648, Paper 2, 28–30, 34–35. Patent Owner’s arguments
`
`with respect to claim 6 in this case are directed to limitations of claim 3 and
`
`are substantively the same as arguments it made in IPR2016-01648 that
`
`Toyooka does not describe particular limitations of claim 3. Compare PO
`
`Resp. 25–28, with IPR2016-01648, Paper 13, 30–33. We fully addressed the
`
`parties’ evidence and arguments in the Final Written Decision IPR2016-
`
`01648, and we found that Toyooka describes all of the limitations of claim 3
`
`and, therefore, anticipated claim 3. IPR2016-01648, Paper 27, 55–59. We
`
`herein adopt our analysis from the Final Written Decision in IPR2016-01648
`
`as to the limitations of claim 3, and, therefore, we turn to the additional
`
`recited limitations of claim 6.
`
`Claim 6 recites, “The method of claim 3, wherein the multi-fiber
`
`connector has a key oriented in a predetermined direction and wherein each
`
`of the plurality of optical fiber connectors has a key oriented in the same
`
`predetermined direction.” With respect to the recitation that “the multi-fiber
`
`connector has a key oriented in a predetermined direction,” Petitioner asserts
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`“Eichenberger teaches that MPO [(multi-fiber push-on)]6 connectors have
`
`keys 69, and Eichenberger teaches that all MPO connectors are connected
`
`key-up to key-up.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:52–64). Eichenberger
`
`discloses that “connectors 64 have key tabs 69 which limit the orientation of
`
`the connector when inserted in connector receptacle 56, in that the connector
`
`can only be mated to the receptacle with the key tab point upwards in
`
`FIG. 1.” Ex. 1005, 7:52–56. Although this key is on ribbon connector 64 of
`
`Eichenberger, Petitioner contends,
`
`It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`the art (“POSITA”) to include a key 69 on connector 40 of
`Eichenberger to make sure that the two connectors 40, 64 are
`connected in proper alignment and to maintain polarity.
`Eichenberger provides the motivation for including keys on
`MPO connectors by teaching that keys 69 limit orientation of
`connectors 40, 64 when inserted into an adapter 56.
`
`Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Ex. 1005, 7:52–56). Petitioner further
`
`contends that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art] to modify the multicore connector 112 of Toyooka to include a key
`
`so that proper orientation is established when mating connector 112 to
`
`connector 132” to “assist an installer . . . with visual detection of proper
`
`orientation, prevent an upside-down connection between connector 112 and
`
`connector 132, prevent a polarity issue, and prevent an improper optical
`
`coupling.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 69).
`
`We are persuaded by these contentions. We determine that, in view of
`
`Eichenberger’s disclosure of a key on the ribbon connector for proper
`
`
`6 See Ex. 1003 ¶ 21 (stating that “the ’227 Patent relates to optical breakout
`harnesses having a multi-fiber push-on (‘MTP’ or ‘MPO’) optical connector
`or the like”).
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017-01375
`Patent 6,869,227 B2
`
`mating with the conne