Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`COOPER CROUSE-HINDS, LLC,
`Petitioner
`v.
`CMP PRODUCTS LIMITED,
`Patent Owner.
`___________________
`Case No.: IPR2018-00994
`U.S. Patent No. 8,872,027
`___________________
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,872,027
`
` 
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 3 
`A. 
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 3 
`B. 
`Related Matter ....................................................................................... 3 
`C. 
`Counsel and Service Information .......................................................... 3 
`D. 
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3 
`POWER OF ATTORNEY ............................................................................... 4 
`III. 
`IV.  PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 4 
`V.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 4 
`VI.  STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH CLAIM
`CHALLENGED .............................................................................................. 5 
`A. 
`Claims for Which Review is Requested ................................................ 5 
`B. 
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge........................................................... 5 
`VII.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................... 6 
`A.  Declaration Evidence ............................................................................ 6 
`B. 
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 6 
`C. 
`Background of the Technology ............................................................. 7 
`D.  Overview of the ‘027 Patent ................................................................ 15 
`E. 
`The Prosecution History of the ‘027 Patent ........................................ 18 
`VIII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 21 
`A. 
`“Cable Gland” ..................................................................................... 22 
`B. 
`“Resin Well” ........................................................................................ 23 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`“Elongate dispenser” ........................................................................... 24 
`C. 
`IX.  DETAILED EXPLANATION OF GROUNDS ............................................ 26 
`A.  Ground 1: The combination of Babiarz and Everitt renders claims 1,
`2, 4, and 10–13 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). .................... 26 
`Ground 2: The combination of Babiarz, Everitt, and Dunn renders
`claim 5 obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a). ......................................... 44 
`Ground 3: The combination of Babiarz, Everitt, and Widman renders
`claims 14–19 obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a). ............................... 46 
`D.  Ground 4: The combination of 3M and Widman renders claims 1, 2,
`4, 14, and 16–19 obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a). .......................... 60 
`Ground 5: The combination of 3M, Widman, and Dunn renders claim
`5 obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a). ................................................... 76 
`Ground 6: The combination of 3M, Widman, and Everitt renders
`claims 10–13, and 15 obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a). .................. 77 
`CLAIM CHARTS .......................................................................................... 78 
`X. 
`XI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 86 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 21
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 6
`Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.,
`713 F.2d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .............................................................................. 6
`
`CMP Products Limited v. Cooper Crouse-Hinds, LLC and Cooper
`Industries, LLC,
`Case No. 4:17-cv-02194 (S.D. Tex.) .................................................................... 3
`In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc.,
`630 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 53
`Okajima v. Bourdeau,
`261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 6
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 21
`Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp.,
`776 F.2d 309 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 53
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea,
`733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 6
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 21
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ............................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §112 ......................................................................................................... 21
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
` 
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 ................................................................................................ 2
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 3
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 21
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq. .......................................................................................... 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 5
`Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (2002) ........................................................ 25
`
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 8,872,027
`Ex. 1002 Prosecution History for U.S. Patent Application No. 13/391,539,
`which matured into U.S. Patent No. 8,872,027
`Ex. 1003 Declaration of Dr. Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D., P.E.
`Ex. 1004 US Patent No. 7,341,255 to Babiarz et al. (“Babiarz”)
`Ex. 1005 US Patent No. 5,596,176 to Everitt (“Everitt”)
`Ex. 1006 US Patent No. 3,773,706 to Dunn Jr. (“Dunn”)
`Ex. 1007 US Patent No. 6,852,922 to Widman (“Widman”)
`Ex. 1008 3M Electrical Markets Division. Product Catalogue. General Purpose
`Low & Medium Voltage. Resins. 1st edition March 2006 (“3M”)
`Ex. 1009 CHICO® SpeedSeal™ Compound Fast Acting Sealing Compound
`Sealing Fitting Modification Kit For Use with Crouse-Hinds EYS
`Sealing Fittings Installation & Maintenance Information, Revision 1,
`March 2003 (“SpeedSeal Manual”)
`Ex. 1010 April 2003 Chico SpeedSeal Brochure (“SpeedSeal Brochure”)
`Ex. 1011 2005 Material Safety Data Sheet for components of the Chico
`SpeedSeal Compound – Isocyanate (“2005 Isocyanate MSDS”)
`available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20040619023729/http://www.crouse-
`hinds.com:80/CrouseHinds/resources/msds/Msds_isocyanate.cfm 
`(last accessed April 2, 2018)
`Ex. 1012 Crouse-Hinds, Technical Resources, Material Safety Data Sheets
`(“MSDS”) available at
`http://web.archive.org/web/20050306191324/http://www.crouse-
`hinds.com:80/CrouseHinds/resources/msds.cfm (last accessed April
`6, 2018)
`Ex. 1013 2005 Material Safety Data Sheet for components of the Chico
`SpeedSeal Compound – Polyol (“2005 Polyol MSDS”) available at
`
` 
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
` 
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20040619023729/http://www.crouse-
`hinds.com:80/CrouseHinds/resources/msds/Msds_polyolfinal.cfm 
`(last accessed April 2, 2018)
`Ex. 1014 2002 Draft of the International Electrotechnical Commission
`Standard Number IEC 60070-1 from the Saudi Standards, Metrology
`and Quality Organization (SASO) available at
`https://saso.gov.sa/ar/eservices/tbt/TBTNoteDoc/e323.pdf (“IEC
`60070-1”)
`Ex. 1015 Leslie Stoch, “Section 18 – Getting Familiar with Some New
`Terms,” IAEI NEWS, January 16, 2007. (“IAEI News”) available at
`(https://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2007/01/16/section-18-getting-
`familiar-with-some-new-terms/)
`Ex. 1016 Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (2002)
`
` 
`
`vi
`
`

`

` 
`I.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,872,027 (the “‘027 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001)—directed to a method and assembly for filling a cable gland with
`
`curable liquid material—are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In the initial
`
`prosecution of the application, after the Office rejected the application three times,
`
`the applicant submitted a declaration from an employee that emphasized the
`
`importance of a seal that “stretches from conductor to conductor to block flow of
`
`the hardenable compound from flowing outside of the well in the gland where the
`
`compound is injected.” Ex. 1002 at 79–90. After this submission, the Office
`
`allowed the application for the following reasons:
`
`As per claims 1 and 10, the following limitation, in context,
`makes claim 1 inventive: at least one flexible barrier member having
`at least one respective aperture therethrough adapted to stretch to
`engage a plurality of cores of a cable to provide a barrier to passage of
`said curable liquid material along said cores.
`
`As per claims 17 and 18, the following limitations, in context,
`makes claim 17 inventive: the aperture being smaller than the bundle
`of cores so that the cores stretch the aperture to fit tightly around the
`bundle and wherein prior to curing the curable material is a liquid
`when it is placed in the well that flows in between the cores.
`
`Ex. 1002 at 34 (emphasis in original).
`
` 
`
`

`

`Exemplary prior-art references discussed below, however, show that the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
` 
`
`features identified by the Office as inventive were well-known at least one year
`
`before the effective filing date of the ‘027 patent. These references explain that a
`
`flexible membrane in a cable gland can conform closely to the cables to form a
`
`tight mechanical seal that prevents a compound from leaking. See Ex. 1005 at
`
`col. 1, ll. 42–47; Ex. 1007 at col. 1, l. 6 to col. 2, l. 36. Based on such teachings, a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have found it obvious to use
`
`such membranes with the other known features recited in the ‘027 claims.
`
`For these reasons, Cooper Crouse-Hinds, LLC (“Petitioner”) requests inter
`
`partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10–19 (the “challenged claims”) of
`
`the ‘027 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.1 The
`
`detailed analysis below demonstrates that the challenged claims are unpatentable
`
`over the prior art, and that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to the same.
`
`                                                            
`1 According to USPTO records, the ‘027 patent is assigned to CMP Products
`
`Limited (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

` 
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner certifies that Cooper Crouse-
`
`Hinds, LLC is the real party-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matter
`
`The ‘027 patent is at issue in a co-pending litigation captioned CMP
`
`Products Limited v. Cooper Crouse-Hinds, LLC and Cooper Industries, LLC, Case
`
`No. 4:17-cv-02194 (S.D. Tex.), the complaint in which was filed on July 18, 2017.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Petitioner provides the following
`
`designation of counsel:
`
`Lead counsel – Steven M. Auvil (Reg. No. 40,492).
`
`Back-up counsel – Bryan J. Jaketic (Reg. No. 56,280).
`
`Additional back-up counsel – Christopher W. Adams (Reg. No. 62,550).
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), papers concerning this matter should be
`
`served on:
`
`Address:
`
`Steven M. Auvil
`Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,
`127 Public Square,
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`Email:
`
`4900 Key Tower,
`Cleveland, OH 44114
`
`steven.auvil@squirepb.com,
`bryan.jaketic@squirepb.com,
`christopher.adams@squirepb.com
`rebecca.gallagher@squirepb.com, and
`sfripdocket@squirepb.com
`
`Telephone: (216) 479-8023
`
`Fax:
`
`(216) 479-8780
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic filing.
`
`III. POWER OF ATTORNEY
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`petition. The above-identified Lead and Back-up Counsel are registered
`
`practitioners.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the USPTO to charge any fees due during this
`
`proceeding to Deposit Account No. 05-0150.
`
`V. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ‘027 patent is
`
`available for IPR and Petitioner and the real parties-in-interest are not barred or
`
`estopped from requesting IPR on the grounds identified herein. The complaint
`
`referenced in Section II was served within the last 12 months. Neither the
`
` 
`
`4
`
`

`

` 
`Petitioner nor the Petitioner’s privies, have been served with any other complaint
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`alleging infringement of the ‘027 patent.
`
`VI. STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A. Claims for Which Review is Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2), Petitioner requests review and
`
`cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10–19 of the ‘027 patent.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds for Challenge
`
`Ground Claims
`1
`1, 2, 4, and 10–13
`
`2
`
`5
`
`14–19
`
`Basis
`§103(a)
`
`§103(a)
`
`§103(a)
`
`References
`Babiarz in view of Everitt
`
`Babiarz in view of Everitt and
`Dunn
`Babiarz in view of Everitt and
`Widman
`3M in view of Widman
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`1, 2, 4, 14, and 16–19
`
`§103(a)
`
`5
`
`10–13, and 15
`
`§103(a)
`
`§103(a)
`
`3M in view of
`Widman and Dunn
`3M in view of
`Widman and Everitt
`
`For each proposed ground, Petitioner does not rely on prior art other than
`
`those references listed above. Other references discussed herein are provided
`
`merely to show the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention. See, e.g.,
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

` 
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`VII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. Declaration Evidence
`
`This Petition is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Glenn E. Vallee, Ph.D.,
`
`P.E. (Ex. 1003). This declaration describes the ‘027 patent, a POSITA in the
`
`relevant time frame, interpretation of certain terms in the ‘027 patent, the state of
`
`the art of the ‘027 patent, the scope and content of the prior art compared to the
`
`claims of the ‘027 patent, and rationales for combining prior art elements.
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`The level of skill in the art is generally evidenced by the prior art references.
`
`See Chore-Time Equip., Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 779 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1983); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
`
`prior art references show a POSITA would have either (1) an undergraduate degree
`
`in physics, engineering, or a related field, or (2) at least three to five years of
`
`experience in the design or manufacture of electrical fittings, electrical connectors
`
`or sealants for electrical fitting and connectors.
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

` 
`
`C. Background of the Technology
`
`1.
`
`Two-Chamber Dispensers
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`Two-chamber dispensers for mixing and dispensing curable liquids to
`
`electrical fittings were well-known more than one year before the ‘027 patent’s
`
`earliest priority date. For example, SpeedSeal Manual and SpeedSeal Brochure
`
`show that the Crouse-Hinds “CHICO® SpeedSeal™ Compound” (“SpeedSeal”)
`
`was available commercially in a two-chamber dispenser as early as March 2003.
`
`Ex. 1009 at 1; Ex. 1010 at 2. SpeedSeal is “a 2-part rigid polyurethane foam,”
`
`resulting from a mixture of “Diphenylmethane diisocyanate or Methylene
`
`bisphenyl Isocyanate (MDI)” and “polyol.” Ex. 1011 at 1; Ex. 1012 at 1. MDI is a
`
`“[d]ark brown liquid,” while polyol is a “[g]rey colored liquid.” Ex. 1011 at 3;
`
`Ex. 1013 at 3.
`
`The “MDI and polyol are supplied in separate plastic compartments in a
`
`closed plastic container. The barrier between the two substances is broken before
`
`dispersion.” Ex. 1011 at 1. The plastic container or “cartridge” is shown in the
`
`annotated figure below. Ex. 1010 at 1.
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`SpeedSeal Manual instructs users to “[r]emove the tape band from the
`
`cartridge” and “[p]ull the mixing rod up to the top of the cartridge” as illustrated in
`
`Figure 4 below (reproduced with annotations2). Ex. 1009 at 2.
`
`
`
`                                                            
`2 Petitioner added annotations in red. Annotations in black are in original.
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`
`
`SpeedSeal Manual instructs users to “[s]queeze the cartridge in the area of
`
`the removed tape band to deform the foil barrier between the two materials,” and
`
`“[m]ix rapidly for 40 to 50 strokes” as shown in Figure 5 below (reproduced with
`
`annotations). Id.
`
` 
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

` 
`SpeedSeal Manual then instructs users to remove the “mixing rod” by “grasp[ing]
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`the cartridge firmly at the bottom … and immediately unscrew[ing] the mixing rod
`
`and remov[ing it] carefully,” as illustrated in Figure 6 below (reproduced with
`
`annotations). Id.
`
`The user is then instructed to “[s]crew nozzle onto cartridge where mixing
`
`rod was removed,” as illustrated in Figure 7 below (reproduced with annotations).
`
`
`
`Id.
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`
`
`Finally, the user is instructed to “use the mixing rod to push the plunger [to]
`
`[i]nject the proper amount of sealing compound material into the fitting through
`
`the EYS threaded opening,” as illustrated in Figure 8 below (reproduced with
`
`annotations). Id.
`
`2.
`
`Flexible Barriers
`
`Elastomeric barriers stretched around cable cores in a cable gland were also
`
`well-known before the filing date of the ‘027 patent. U.S. Patent No. 5,596,176 to
`
`
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

` 
`Everitt, filed in November 1994 (Ex. 1005) and U.S. Patent No. 6,852,822 to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`Widman, filed in July 2001 (Ex. 1007) are two such examples.
`
`Everitt is directed to a cable gland that is closed by a cable sealing member
`
`that is “a synthetic rubber membrane, e.g., a silicone rubber membrane.” Ex. 1005
`
`at col. 1, l. 64–col. 2, l. 14. Everitt addresses the problem of leaking seals and
`
`instances where “not all the gaps in the seal are reliably filled by the sealing
`
`compound.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 42–47. Everitt provides a membrane that engages
`
`cables in the cable gland to form a “pressure seal … to contain a silicone rubber
`
`sealing compound or the like.” Id at col. 4, ll. 1–16; see also Figures 3A, 5B,
`
`reproduced with annotations below. Everitt notes that “[t]he resilience of the
`
`silicone rubber membrane … forms a tight mechanical seal.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 50–
`
`53. The membrane may be pierced by the cable to form apertures, or the
`
`membrane “could be pre-pierced at the locations thereof.” Id. at col. 7, ll. 13–23.
`
`In the process of forming a pressure seal with the rubber membrane and the sealing
`
`compound, “cable bundle interstices are well filled [so] that any air pockets which
`
`may have been formed during the potting procedure are forced out.” Id. at col. 6,
`
`ll. 56–65.
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`
`
`
`
`Widman is directed to an apparatus and method for sealing a conduit with a
`
`pair of neoprene membranes. Ex. 1007 at Abstract. Widman provides a way to
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

` 
`“prevent[] the passage of vapor, gases, or flames via the conduit from section to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`section” by hermetically sealing the conduit. Id. at col. 1, l. 6–col. 2, l. 36.
`
`Widman discloses an “apparatus 10 [that] couples opposing ends of a conduit 12 to
`
`each other by hermetically sealing the inside of the conduit and its contents,
`
`namely wires and/or cables 14, from the outside.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 56–59; see also
`
`Fig. 1 (reproduced below, with annotations).
`
` Widman includes flexible
`
`membranes 36 and 38 that “have openings, in the form of slits, through which the
`
`wires/cables 14 can be accommodated. The openings in the membranes 36 and 38
`
`are smaller than the outer diameter of the wires/cables 14 so that the membranes
`
`form an interference fit around the outer diameter of the wires/cables.” Id. at
`
`col. 3, ll. 20–27. The sealed chamber is filled with an “epoxy sealant compound …
`
`releasing any air, other gases, or moisture which may be trapped.” Id. at col. 2, ll.
`
`26–36.
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`
`
`D. Overview of the ‘027 Patent
`
`The ‘027 patent, entitled “Filler Assembly for Cable Gland,” is directed to a
`
`“filler assembly for cable glands and relates particularly, but not exclusively to
`
`such a filler assembly for filling cable glands for use in hazardous areas.”
`
`Ex. 1001 at col. 1, ll. 14–17.
`
` 
`
`15
`
`

`

` 
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`
`
`
`
`In one embodiment, shown in Figures 1 and 2 (reproduced above with
`
`annotations), “a dispenser apparatus 2 … [is] use[d] in filling a cable gland 4…
`
`with curable liquid material 6.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 26–28. The dispenser apparatus
`
`includes “a body of suitable transparent flexible plastics material defining a
`
` 
`
`16
`
`

`

` 
`flexible bag 8 having a first compartment 10 for accommodating a first component
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`of a liquid curable material 6, and a second compartment 12 for accommodating a
`
`second component of the material 6.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 27–36.
`
`The dispenser apparatus includes a barrier that “temporarily separates the
`
`first compartment 10 and second compartment 12 to thereby prevent mixing of the
`
`first and second components of the material 6.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 33–36. The
`
`dispenser apparatus also includes a second barrier that “temporarily prevents
`
`material flowing from the second compartment 12 into the nozzle 16, so that
`
`dispensing of the material 6 can be prevented until thorough mixing together of the
`
`first and second components has occurred.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 52–56.
`
`The “first and second components are coloured differently (for example blue
`
`and yellow) so that thorough mixing of the first and second components produces a
`
`green liquid, thereby providing a visual indication when thorough mixing of the
`
`first and second components has occurred.” Id. at col. 3, 36–40. The dispenser
`
`apparatus includes an “elongate hollow nozzle 16 extending from the second
`
`compartment 12 such that dispensing of the mixed curable liquid material can be
`
`carefully controlled.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 43–53.
`
`As shown in Fig. 3 (reproduced below with annotations), the cable gland 4
`
`includes “a flexible seal 32” having an aperture. Id. at col. 4, l. 9. The “aperture in
`
`the seal 32 is sized such that it stretches to pass around the core conductors 20 to
`
` 
`
`17
`
`

`

` 
`tightly engage the core conductors 20 to form a reasonably effective barrier to
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`passage of the material 6 along the space defined between the core conductors 20
`
`and the compound tube 26.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 17–21.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ‘027 Patent
`
`The application for the ‘027 patent, U.S. Patent Application No. 13/391,539
`
`(“the ‘539 application,” Ex. 1002), filed on May 2, 2012, was a national stage
`
`application of PCT/GB2010/050989, which was filed on June 14, 2010, with an
`
`earliest priority date of August 21, 2009.
`
`The Office rejected the application three times before its eventual allowance.
`
`In each Office Action, the Examiner inter alia rejected claims 1–12 as
`
`unpatentable over EP Patent Publication No. 434105 to Kaptein (“Kaptein”) in
`
` 
`
`18
`
`

`

` 
`view of PCT Publication WO 2008029165 to Hand (“Hand”). Ex. 1002 at 247–
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`256, 429–438. The applicant twice responded and failed to overcome the
`
`rejections. Id. at 213–240, 305–307. In a third response, the applicant’s
`
`representative added new claims 13–20 and amended the independent claims to
`
`recite that the barrier member is “a flexible barrier member” with an aperture
`
`“adapted to stretch” to distinguish the claims from Kaptein and Hand. Id. at 69–
`
`72.
`
`The applicant’s response also included an employee declaration. Id. at 76–
`
`102. The employee opined on the importance of a liquid resin system of the
`
`claimed invention, declaring that “[i]t had to be recognized that air gaps were a
`
`problem and that a liquid resin could provide a solution as it could penetrate and
`
`drive out air gaps between cable cores or between the cores and the cable inner
`
`sheath.” Id. at 78, ¶9.
`
`The employee emphasized that “[t]he barrier of the invention, because of its
`
`planar structure with a small aperture and ability to stretch, forms a seal against
`
`multiple conductors because it stretches to bridge the gaps between their outer
`
`surfaces.” Id. at 79, ¶14. The employee declared that the prior art was “unlike the
`
`present invention where the conductors touch the seal and the seal stretches from
`
`conductor to conductor to block flow of the hardenable compound from flowing
`
`outside of the well in the gland where the compound is injected.” Id. at 79–90.
`
` 
`
`19
`
`

`

` 
`The employee also emphasized that “[t]he resin dam disclosed in the ‘539
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`application differs from other cable gland seals in construction in that it forms a
`
`thin membrane that sits essentially perpendicular to the cable or cable cores. It has
`
`a central small hole that can be stretched open easily whilst the seal remains
`
`essentially perpendicular to the cable cores.” Id. at 82, ¶21. The employee
`
`concluded that “[t]his is important because the resin dam sits at the base of a
`
`tubular section that is filled with the barrier material.” Id.
`
`The Office then issued a Notice of Allowance for the following reasons:
`
`As per claims 1 and 10, the following limitation, in context,
`makes claim 1 inventive: at least one flexible barrier member having
`at least one respective aperture therethrough adapted to stretch to
`engage a plurality of cores of a cable to provide a barrier to passage of
`said curable liquid material along said cores.
`
`As per claims 17 and 18, the following limitations, in context,
`makes claim 17 inventive: the aperture being smaller than the bundle
`of cores so that the cores stretch the aperture to fit tightly around the
`bundle and wherein prior to curing the curable material is a liquid
`when it is placed in the well that flows in between the cores.
`
`Id. at 24, 29–36 (emphasis in original).
`
`The applicant paid
`
`the
`
`issue fee and
`
`the ‘027 patent
`
`issued on
`
`October 28, 2014. Id. at 7, 8; see also Ex. 1001 at 1.
`
` 
`
`20
`
`

`

` 
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim subject to an IPR is given its “broadest reasonable construction in
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
`light of the specification of the patent in which it appears” (“BRI”). 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b). Under BRI, claim terms receive their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in the context of the entire
`
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
`
`1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, a claim’s BRI “corresponds with what and how the
`
`inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
`
`consistent with the specification.” Id. at 1383 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d
`
`1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`Because the standard for claim construction at the Office is different than
`
`that used during a U.S. District Court litigation, see In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech
`
`Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Petitioner expressly reserves the
`
`right to argue a different claim construction in litigation for any term of the ‘133
`
`patent as appropriate in that proceeding. Petitioner also preserves any and all
`
`defenses available under 35 U.S.C. §112 in litigation.
`
` 
`
`21
`
`

`

`Below, Petitioner provides the BRI for three claim terms. The remaining
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
` 
`
`terms should be interpreted in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning
`
`under the BRI standard.
`
`A.
`
`“Cable Gland”
`
`Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 of the ‘027 patent each recite a “cable gland.” The
`
`Specification uses the term “cable gland” consistently with how that term was used
`
`in the art at the time of filing. For example, IEC 60070-1 (Ex. 1014) defines a
`
`“cable gland” as “a device designed to permit the entry of a cable, flexible cable or
`
`insulated conducto[r] enclosure, and which provides sealing and retention.” IAEI
`
`News (Ex. 1015) defines a “cable gland” as “a familiar term from the 2002 CE
`
`Code. A cable gland is a device used for the entry of cables or cords to provide
`
`strain relief at the points where they enter electrical equipment. It may also
`
`provide sealing to contain explosive gases, using an approved sealing compound
`
`within the cable gland.”
`
`Dr. Vallee notes that in his mechanical engineering experience, the above
`
`definitions are consistent with how the term “cable gland” is used. Ex. 1003,
`
`¶¶ 42–44. Further, from Dr. Vallee’s experience, the terms, “cable glands” and
`
`“cable connectors, joints, or fittings” are used interchangeably. Id.
`
` 
`
`22
`
`

`

`Based on the definitions and the disclosure of the ‘027 patent, the BRI of a
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Patent 8,872,027
`
` 
`
`“cable gland” is a “fitting, joint, or connector for protecting and connecting a
`
`cable.” Ex. 1003, ¶ 45.
`
`B.
`
` “Resin Well”
`
`Claims 16 and 17 of the ‘027 patent each recite a “resin well.” The
`
`Specification discloses that “to fill the core of the cable gland 4 with curable
`
`material, the flexible seal 32 [is] initially placed over the core conductors 20 of the
`
`cable 22 so that the seal 32 tightly grips the core conductors 20…. As a result, the
`
`flexible seal 32 acts as a barrier to penetration of the curable liquid material 6 into
`
`the interior of the cable gland 4.” Ex. 1001 at col. 4, ll. 37–45. The Specification
`
`also discloses that “[t]he liquid material 6 is then dispensed through the nozzle 16
`
`into the space between the core conductors 20 of