Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADELOS, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 7
`Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADELOS, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for
`inter partes review of claims 1–4, 9, 10, 13, and 15–32 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,268,863 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’863 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The United
`States of America, as Represented by the Department of the Navy and
`exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc. (herein collectively “Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Institution of an inter
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
`the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims
`1–4, 9, 10, 13, and 15–32 of the ’863 patent..
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ’863 patent is the subject of a court
`proceeding styled Adelos, Inc. v. Halliburton Company et al., Case No. 9:16-
`cv-119-DLC (D. Mon.). Pet. 1; Paper 3, 1–2. Also, Petitioner has
`challenged related patents in IPR2017-02107 and IPR2017-02109. Paper 3,
`1–2.
`
`
`1 Adelos, Inc. is identified as “the exclusive licensee of the Government.”
`Paper 3, 1. The United States of America, as Represented by the
`Department of the Navy and exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc., jointly submit
`the Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 1. Accordingly, we herein refer to
`the two collectively as Patent Owner.
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`B. The ’863 patent
`The ’863 patent, titled “Natural fiber span reflectometer providing a
`spread spectrum virtual sensing array capability,” issued September 11,
`2007, from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/056,632. Ex. 1001 at [54], [45],
`[21]. The ’863 patent generally relates to time-domain reflectometers. Ex.
`1001, 1:39. Specifically, the ’863 patent “relates to such reflectometers
`which are a part of a photonic system application in which the object of the
`reflectometry is a span of fiber which has an interrogation signal launch end
`and a remote end.” Id. at 1:40–44. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’863 patent shows a block
` diagram of a time-domain reflectometer system.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`Figure 3 shows a transmitter laser 3 connected to coupler or beamsplitter 4,
`which in turn is connected to optical modulator 5. Id. at 15:50–57. Optical
`modulator 5 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter or circulator 7,
`which in turn is connected to optical fiber 9. Id. at 14:65–15:2. Master
`correlation code generator 53 is connected to modulator 5 by amplifier 49.
`Id. at 15:57–60.
`The propagation of the signal in optical fiber 9 “causes a back-
`propagating composite optical signal, which is the linear summation, or
`integration spatially, of all of the individual, continuous, or continuum of
`back-reflections along the span of the optical fiber.” Id. at 15:15–21.
`Optical pathway 11 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter, or
`circulator 7 to receive backscattered light from optical fiber 9 and relay it to
`heterodyne optical receiver 15. Id. at 16:7–11, 20:24–28. Optical receiver
`15 receives an input from local oscillator laser 45. Id. at 17:60–62.
`Transmitter laser 3 and local oscillator laser 45 are also connected to
`receiver 35 through optical couplers 4 and 43 and optical pathways 39 and
`41. Id. at 14:48–55, 17:60–67. Optical receiver 35 is connected back to
`local oscillator laser 45 through phase locking circuity 31. Id. at 18:10–23.
`Correlator system 23 receives RF signal 21 and an input from correlation
`code generator 53. Id. at 19:55–57, 20:12–14. Correlator system 23 is
`connected to phase demodulation system 66 which in turn is connected to
`phase differencer 99. Id. at 21:28–35, 22:50–55. Phase demodulation
`system is comprised of a plurality of phase demodulators 81, 83, and 85. Id.
`at 25:1–4, Fig. 7.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 31, and 32 are independent and
`claims 2–30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Independent claim 1
`is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1. A time-domain reflectometer for sensing at a desired
`set of n spaced sensing positions along an optical fiber span, said
`sensing positions being for sensing a type of external physical
`signal having the property of inducing light path changes within
`the optical fiber span at regions there along where the signal is
`coupled to the span, comprising:
`an optical fiber span having a first end which concurrently
`serves as both the interrogation signal input end and the back
`propagating signal output end for purposes of reflectometry, and
`having a second remote end;
`a first light source for producing a coherent carrier
`lightwave signal of a first predetermined wavelength;
`a spectrum spreading signal modulator for temporally
`structuring said carrier lightwave signal into a spread spectrum
`modulated interrogation lightwave signal which continuously
`reiterates sequences of an autocorrelatable spectrum spreading
`signal, the reiterated sequences being executed in a fixed
`relationship to a predetermined timing base;
`a light wave heterodyner having first and second inputs for
`receiving a primary signal and a local oscillator signal,
`respectively, and operative to produce the beat frequencies of
`their respective frequencies;
`a lightwave directional coupler having a first port which
`receives said spread spectrum modulated interrogation lightwave
`signal, a second port coupled to said first end of said optical fiber
`span, and a third port coupled to said primary signal input of the
`hetrodyner;
`said directional coupler coupling said spread spectrum
`modulated interrogation lightwave signal to said second port
`where it is launched in a forwardly propagating direction along
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`said optical fiber span causing the return to said second port of a
`composite back-propagating lightwave signal which is a
`summation of
`the
`lightwave back-propagations from a
`continuum of locations along the length of the span, said
`composite back-propagating lightwave signal comprising a
`summation of multiple components including:
`a first signal component comprising the summation of
`portions of the said spread spectrum modulated interrogation
`lightwave signal which the innate properties of the optical fiber
`cause to back propagate at a continuum of locations along the
`span; and
`a second signal component comprising the modulation of
`said first signal component caused by longitudinal components
`of optical path changes induced into said span at a continuum of
`locations along said span by external physical signals, said
`second signal component further including a corresponding set
`of n subcomponents comprising the modulation of said first
`signal component by optical path changes caused by said
`external signals at the respective sensing positions;
`said directional coupler coupling said composite back-
`propagating lightwave signal to said third port where it is applied
`to said first input of the heterodyner;
`a second light source coupled to said second input of the
`lightwave heterodyner, said second light source producing a
`coherent local oscillator lightwave signal in phase locked relation
`to said carrier lightwave signal and of a second predetermined
`wavelength which differs from
`the first predetermined
`wavelength by an amount of difference small enough to produce
`at the output of the heterodyner a radio frequency (r.f.) composite
`difference beat signal, but by an amount large enough to cause
`said r.f. composite difference beat signal to have sufficient
`bandwidth to cause it to include r.f. counterparts of signal
`components and subcomponents of said composite back-
`propagating lightwave signal;
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`said r.f. difference beat signal being coupled to an n-way
`splitter providing a corresponding set of n output channels, each
`transmitting said r.f. composite difference beat signal;
`a corresponding set of n de-spreaders and de-multiplexers
`having their respective inputs connected to the corresponding
`output channels of said n-way splitter through a corresponding
`set of time delay circuits which respectively provide a
`corresponding set of predetermined time delays in relation to said
`predetermined timing base of the spectrum spreading signal
`modulator, to establish said n desired sensing positions along
`said optical fiber span; and said set of r.f. de-spreaders and de-
`multiplexers concurrently serving multiple functions including:
`a first function of performing a coherent signal correlation
`process upon said r.f. composite difference beat signal to de-
`spread the r.f. counterparts of the interrogation lightwave signal;
`and
`
`a second function of conjunctively temporally and
`spatially demultiplexing said r.f. composite difference beat
`signal to provide at their respective outputs r.f. counterparts of
`the subcomponents of said second signal component of said
`composite back-propagating lightwave signal caused by changes
`in the optical path within said optical fiber span induced by
`external physical signals respectively coupled to the optical fiber
`span at corresponding sensing positions.
`Ex. 1001, 32:33–33:62.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`the following grounds (Pet. 18–19):
`Reference(s)
`Everard2
`
`2 UK Patent Application No. GB2190186A, published Nov. 11, 1987 (Ex.
`1004) (“Everard”).
`
`Basis Claim(s) challenged
`§ 102 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and 25–32
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Everard
`Everard and Fredin3
`Everard and Payton4
`Everard and Wright5
`Everard and Yoshino6
`Everard and Henning7
`Everard and Layton8
`Kersey9 and Yoshino or
`Beckmann10
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Payton
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Wright
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Everard
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Fredin
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Henning
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Layton
`
`Basis Claim(s) challenged
`§ 103 10, 15, and 16
`§ 103 9 and 21
`§ 103 13
`§ 103 18
`§ 103 22
`§ 103 23
`§ 103 24
`§ 103 1–4, 9, 10, 15–17, 19, 22,
`25–28, and 30–32
`§ 103 13
`
`§ 103 18
`§ 103 20 and 29
`
`§ 103 21
`
`§ 103 23
`
`§ 103 24
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,606,148 B2, issued Aug. 12, 2003 (Ex. 1008, “Fredin”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,043,921, issued Mar. 28, 2000 (Ex. 1011, “Payton”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,596,052, issued June 17, 1986 (Ex. 1010, “Wright”).
`6 Toshihiko Yoshino et al., “Common Path Heterodyne Optical Fiber
`Sensors,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 10, No. 4, April, 1992
`(Ex. 1007, “Yoshino”).
`7 UK Patent Application No. GB2197953A, published June 2, 1988 (Ex.
`1009, “Henning”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 5,363,342, issued Nov. 8, 1994 (Ex. 1012, “Layton”).
`9 U.S. Patent No. 6,285,806 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1005, “Kersey”).
`10 U.S. Patent No. 4,794,249, issued Dec. 27, 1988 (Ex. 1006, “Beckmann”).
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent 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).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 29–35.
`Patent Owner provides arguments regarding only Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of light source. Prelim. Resp. 6–8. For purposes of this
`decision, we need only address Petitioner’s constructions for the phrases
`“having their respective inputs connected to the corresponding output
`channels of said n-way splitter through a corresponding set of time delay
`circuits” recited in claim 1, and “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” recited in independent claim 31.
`Petitioner argues that the phrase “having their respective inputs
`connected to the corresponding output channels of said n-way splitter
`through a corresponding set of time delay circuits” recited in claim 1 should
`be construed to mean “each oriented to receive a combination of a signal
`from one of the output channels and a signal from a corresponding one of a
`set of delay circuits.” Pet. 32–33. Petitioner argues that the construction is
`reflected in Figure 6 of the ’863 patent where multipliers 241, 243, and 245
`are each connected to one of the output channels (identified as 211, 213, and
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`215) of the n-way splitter 203 and one of the delay circuits (identified as
`221, 223, and 225). Id.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. Claim 1 requires that
`the claimed demodulators have their respective inputs connected to the
`corresponding output channels of the claimed splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits. The plain language of the phrase is
`clear on its face and means that the demodulators are not directly connected
`to the output channels of the claimed splitter, but rather are connected to
`those outputs through delay circuits. Petitioner proposes rewriting the
`phrase to mean that each demodulator receives one signal from the output of
`the n-way splitter and another signal from a delay circuit and directs
`attention to Figure 6, which purportedly shows the same. Figure 6 is
`described as an example implementation of the correlation system 23. Ex.
`1001, 25:43–45. Petitioner does not explain why we should construe the
`phrase to match what is shown as an example, especially when doing so
`would change the plain meaning of the phrase. See, e.g., SRAM Corp. v.
`AD-II Engineering, Inc., 465 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(“While SRAM strongly urges the court to interpret the claim to encompass
`the innovative precision indexing shifting feature it contends it has invented,
`we are powerless to rewrite the claims and must construe the language of the
`claim at issue based on the words used” (citing Hoganas AB v. Dresser
`Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 951 (Fed.Cir.1993)); “In this case, the words are
`clear and the claim covers no more than the recited method of taking up lost
`motion and effecting a shift.”). For purposes of this decision, we need not
`further construe this phrase.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” limitation recited in claim 31 should
`be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Pet. 34. Petitioner
`argues that the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio
`frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” includes at least the
`heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3. Id. What is shown in Figure 3
`for heterodyne optical receiver 15 is simply a black box without any details
`of the device itself. The heterodyne optical receiver 15, however, is further
`described with respect to all of the detailed structure shown in Figures 4 and
`5. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:39–42, 23:64–65. We determine, therefore, for
`purposes of this decision, that the corresponding structure for the “means for
`picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” are
`the circuits shown in Figures 4 and 5 related to the heterodyne optical
`receiver 15 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof.
`For purposes of this decision, we need not expressly construe any
`other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co. Ltd., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid
`Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the
`same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
`1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
`Cir. 1990).
`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;11 and (4) when in evidence,
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
`1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`11 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Faramarz Farahi, Petitioner offers an
`assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of the filing date of the ’863
`patent. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 12). Patent Owner does not propose an
`alternative assessment. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this
`Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent
`with the ’863 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`C. Asserted Anticipation by Everard
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and 25–32 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Everard. Pet. 36–
`58.
`
`1. Everard
`Everard describes a pseudo random bit sequencer (PRBS) that is
`amplitude modulated onto a light source. Ex. 1004, 1:48–49. The
`modulated beam is transmitted down an optical fiber and the detected
`backscattered signal is multiplied with a digitally delayed version of the
`transmitted sequence. Id. at 1:50–52. Figure 8 of Everard is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Figure 8 of Everard shows a system of the described invention. Digital
`pseudo random generator 1 is amplitude modulated onto laser 2. Id. at 5:37–
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`38. Light from laser 2 is coupled to optical fiber 3 via beam splitters 4 and 5
`and lens 6. Id. at 5:39–40. The backscattered signal from fiber 3 is
`deflected by beam splitter 5 via lens 8 onto photodetector 9. Id. at 5:44–45.
`The output of photo-detector 9 is amplified by amplifier 11, the output of
`which is input to RF mixer 12. Id. at 5:48–50. RF mixer is connected to
`power detector or demodulator 14. Id. at 5:54–55. The demodulated signal
`from 14 is multiplied by multiplier 15 with a time delayed version of the
`original pseudo random sequence 1 using delay circuit 16 and PRBS
`generator 17. Id. at 5:63–6:1.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that Everard anticipates claims 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and
`25–32. Pet. 36–58. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n de-spreaders
`and de-multiplexers having their respective inputs connected to the
`corresponding output channels of said n-way splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits.” Petitioner argues that Everard’s
`correlators of Figure 9 meet the claimed n de-spreaders and de-multiplexers
`and the delay circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of Figure 9 correspond to the “time delay
`circuits.” Pet. 44–45. Petitioner’s showing is lacking, however, because
`Petitioner does not explain why Everard’s “correlators” meet the claimed “n
`de-spreaders and de-multiplexers.” The terms are different and Petitioner
`has not accounted for the different language. In addition, Everard’s
`correlators do not have their respective inputs connected to the
`corresponding output channels of a splitter “through a corresponding set of
`time delay circuits,” as required by claim 1. Rather, we find that Everard’s
`correlators are connected directly to the output channels, not through a set of
`time delay circuits. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`Independent claim 31 recites “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” As discussed above, we construe
`the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” to be the corresponding structure
`shown in Figures 4 or 5 for the heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3.
`Figure 4 shows an optical coupler or beamsplitter 105 that splits optical
`signals equally and whose outputs are connected to the inputs of optical
`detectors 111 and 113. Ex. 1001, 23:27–44. The optical signals illuminate
`optical detectors 111 and 113, the output of which is connected to the input
`of amplifier 117. Id. Similarly, Figure 5 shows an optical coupler or
`beamsplitter 105 that combines the lightwaves on paths 101 and 103 into a
`composite lightwave on path 107 which is connected to optical detector 111.
`The output of optical detector 111 is connected to amplifier 117. Id. at
`23:53–63.
`Petitioner argues that Everard’s lens 8 and photodetector 9 of Figure 8
`are a “lightwave heterodyner,” that meets the claimed “means for picking off
`a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” Pet. 51–52.
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Everard’s lens 8 and photodetector
`9 are the same structure as what is described in the ’863 patent for the
`claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the
`retrieved signal,” or equivalent thereof. Instead, Petitioner asserts that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would understand “the heterodyner
`w[i]th its photodetector is structure used for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal, because output provided by the
`heterodyner into the RF mixer must be a[] radio frequency signal.” Id. at 51
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:44–53). Such an assertion, however, merely accounts for
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`the function of the disputed phrase, but does not account for the structure.
`Everard’s “photodetector” is a black box. Petitioner has not shown that this
`black box, or the portion of Everard to which we are directed, describes the
`same structure for the claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.)
`counterpart of the retrieved signal,” described in the ’863 patent, or
`equivalents thereof. We will not assume that the structures are the same or
`equivalent.
`Claim 32 recites
`a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation detectors operative
`to respectively perform coherent correlation processes upon said
`r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal to conjunctively
`perform correlation detection and dispreading
`functions
`therewith, in respective timed relationships of a corresponding
`plurality of different timed relationships with respect to said
`reiterative autocorrelatable form of modulation code.
`Petitioner asserts that Everard’s correlators of Figure 9 and the delay circuits
`1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of Figure 9 meet the recited phrase. Petitioner, however, fails to
`explain why that is so. For instance, we are not provided with a showing of
`how a delay circuit connected to a correlator meets the requirement that the
`detectors are operative “upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical
`signal to conjunctively perform correlation detection and dispreading
`functions therewith, in respective timed relationships of a corresponding
`plurality of different timed relationships with respect to said reiterative
`autocorrelatable form of modulation code.” Claim 32 requires “respective
`timed relationships” and “different timed relationships,” yet Petitioner does
`not explain, in any way, how the delay circuits meet this language.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`3. Conclusion
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and 25–32 as anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Everard.12
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Everard and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following:
`(1) Everard (claims 10, 15, and 16); (2) Everard and Fredin (claims 9 and
`21); (3) Everard and Payton (claim 13); (4) Everard and Wright (claim 18);
`(5) Everard and Yoshino (claim 22); (6) Everard and Henning (claim 23);
`(7) Everard and Layton (claim 24). Pet. 58–63. Petitioner relies on the
`respective secondary references to address elements claimed in claims 9, 10,
`13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24. Claims 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24 depend
`either directly or indirectly from claim 1. As explained above, we are not
`persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Everard. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in its challenges to claims 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24, which
`depend from claim 1.
`
`
`12 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s arguments as to this challenge.
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–4, 9, 10, 15–17, 19, 22, 25–28, and
`30–32 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kersey in
`view of Yoshino or Beckmann. Pet. 51–73. In support of its showing,
`Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr. Farahi. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Kersey
`Kersey describes an interferometric sensor array with a large number
`of addressable sensor locations for detecting acoustic or other vibrations.
`Ex. 1005, 1:6–9. Figure 2 of Kersey is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Kersey shows a schematic
`diagram of a fiber sensor array.
`Fiber sensor array 200 includes laser 202 that emits light that passes through
`coupler 204. Id. at 3:29–32. Coupler 204 splits the flux into a first portion
`directed to modulator 208 and a second portion 219. Id. at 3:32–33. Pulse
`modulator modulates the flux with a PRBS generated by PRBS generator
`206 to produce PRBS optical signal 210. Id. at 3:35–37. Optical signal 210
`passes through coupler 212 into fiber 214, which has a series of coils 216-1,
`216-2, etc. bounded by Bragg grating reflectors 218-0, 218-1, etc. Id. at
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`3:40–45. Each coil acts as a sensor by undergoing a change in its refractive
`index in accordance with a condition to be sensed. Id. at 3:46–48. Each
`Bragg grating reflector 218-0, 21-1, 218-2, etc., reflects a small portion of
`the light flux incident on it and the sum of the reflected light fluxes is
`received by coupler 212 and directed to coupler 220, which also receives
`second portion 219 of light flux split off by coupler 212. Id. at 3:54–61.
`Transducers 222 and 224 convert output of coupler 220 to electric signals
`and input the signals to difference amplifier. Id. at 4:1–3. Signal 228 is fed
`to correlator 230 via delay circuit 228. Id. at 4:8–10. “Correlator 230
`performs a correlation over the span of the time window, determines in a
`known manner the time shift between signals 227 and 229 which maximizes
`the correlation, thereby determining the phase between the two signals.” Id.
`at 4:28–32.
`
`2. Yoshino
`Yoshino discloses a differential heterodyne fiber-optic sensing system
`using a dual-frequency laser beam and a single mode, polarization-
`maintaining fiber. Ex. 1007, 503. The sensors may measure “temperature”
`and “strain.” Id. The system light source emits “two modes having a
`frequency separation from 300 to 400 kHz.” Id. at 504. The system uses a
`signal fiber and a reference fiber, where the phase difference between the
`two beat signals is detected by a phasemeter. Id.
`
`3. Beckmann
`Beckmann discloses “an optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR)
`with heterodyne reception” that measures the “back-scattered portion of light
`pulses sent into the measuring waveguide.” Ex. 1006, [57]. The “structure
`is comprised of a modulated laser light source” and “a laser light source
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`which constitutes a local oscillator and transmits continuous light.” Id. The
`light sources differ by an intermediate frequency. Id. The back-scattered
`light of the transmission light source is superposed and applied to a
`photodetector whose intermediate-frequency electric output signal is filtered
`and evaluated. Id.
`
`4. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`renders obvious claims 1–4, 9, 10, 15–17, 19, 22, 25–28, and 30–32.
`Pet. 51–75. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n de-spreaders and de-
`multiplexers having their respective inputs connected to the corresponding
`output channels of said n-way splitter through a corresponding set of time
`delay circuits.” Petitioner argues that Kersey’s correlators of Figure 3 meet
`the claimed n de-spreaders and de-multiplexers and the delay circuits of
`Figure 3 correspond to the “time delay circuits.” Pet. 72–73. Petitioner’s
`showing is lacking, however, because Petitioner does not explain why
`Kersey’s “correlators” meet the claimed “n de-spreaders and de-
`multiplexers.” The terms are different and Petitioner has not accounted for
`the different language. In addition, Kersey’s correlators do not have their
`respective inputs connected to the corresponding output channels of a
`splitter through a corresponding set of time delay circuits. Rather, we find
`that Kersey’s correlators are connected directly to the output channels, not
`through a set of time delay circuits. Ex. 1005, Fig. 3.
`Independent claim 31 recites “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” As discussed above, we construe
`the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” to be the corresponding structure
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`shown in Figures 4 or 5 for the heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3.
`Figure 4 shows an optical coupler or beamsplitter 105 that splits optical
`signals equally an
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
