UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`
`Case: PGR2018-00005
`U.S. Patent No.: 9,553,415
`________________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.207(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. NOTICE OF COUNSEL ............................................................................... 3
`III. RELATED MATTERS ................................................................................. 4
`IV. THE ’415 PATENT ....................................................................................... 6
`A.
`Background of Arlington’s Duplex Connector Technology ................. 6
`B.
`Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter ............................................ 12
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART ................................... 17
`A.
`The ’831 Patent ................................................................................... 17
`B.
`Bridgeport’s 3838ASP Connector ....................................................... 19
`C.
`The ’290 Patent ................................................................................... 22
`D. UL and NEMA Standards ................................................................... 23
`VI. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 23
`A.
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 23
`B.
`Indefiniteness ....................................................................................... 25
`C. Anticipation ......................................................................................... 26
`D. Obviousness ......................................................................................... 27
`VII. BRIDGEPORT’S PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH A
`REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS WITH RESPECT TO
`CLAIM 1. ...................................................................................................... 29
`A. Ground 1: Claim 1 Is Definite. ........................................................... 30
`1.
`The Claim Limitation “an end stop at the outbound end
`of . . .” Is Definite...................................................................... 30
`The Claim Limitation “a snap ring on said nose portion
`of said connector body” Is Definite. ......................................... 34
`
`2.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`2.
`
`B. Grounds 2-4: Bridgeport’s Anticipation and Obviousness
`Grounds Are Predicated on Erroneous Claim Constructions
`That Are Contrary to the Language of Claim 1 and Entirely
`Divorced from the Specification. ........................................................ 36
`1.
`Construction of “an end stop at the outbound end” in
`Claim 1. ..................................................................................... 37
`Construction of “an arcuate edge on said end stop” in
`Claim 1. ..................................................................................... 41
`C. Ground 2: The ’831 Patent Does Not Anticipate Claim 1. ................ 45
`D. Ground 3: Bridgeport’s 3838ASP Connector Does Not
`Anticipate Claim 1............................................................................... 48
`Ground 4: A Combination of the ’290 and the ’831 Patents
`Does Not Render Claim 1 Obvious. .................................................... 51
`Ground 5: Claim 1 Is Not Obvious over Grounds 2-4 in Further
`View of UL and NEMA Standards. .................................................... 53
`VIII. THE BOARD SHOULD EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION TO DENY
`INSTITUTION OF GROUNDS 2, 3, AND 5 BECAUSE THEY ARE
`HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY REDUNDANT. ..................... 57
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 59
`
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr.,
`367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 23
`Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2015-00358, 2015 WL 9899010 (July 2, 2015) ........................................... 53
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`832 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 27, 52
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,
`No. 3:01-cv-00485 (M.D. Pa.) .............................................................................. 5
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,
`No. 3:02-cv-0134 (M.D. Pa.) ................................................................................ 5
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,
`No. 3:06-CV-1105, 2015 WL 2131626 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2015) ........................ 6
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,
`No. 3:06-cv-1105 (M.D. Pa.) (Ex. 2007) .............................................................. 5
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 25
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp.,
`732 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................... 27, 52
`Cephalon, Inc. v. Abraxis Bioscience, LLC,
`No. 2014-1411, 2015 WL 3756870 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2015) ........................... 38
`CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp.,
`349 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................. 27, 52, 55
`Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.,
`596 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................. 39, 40, 44
`
`iii
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`In re Cortright,
`165 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 24
`In re Crish,
`393 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 26
`Dana Corp. v. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc.,
`279 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 26
`In re Donohue,
`766 F.2d 531 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 26
`In re Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC,
`739 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 27
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ............................................................................................ 25
`In re Gordon,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 28
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing, L.P.,
`424 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 25
`Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
`392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 28
`In re Kramer,
`925 F.2d 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .......................................................................... 28
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 27
`In re Lee,
`277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 28
`Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co.,
`CBM-2012-00003, Paper 7 (Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................. 57, 58
`Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`827 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 26
`
`iv
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc.,
`878 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 26, 47
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................ 24, 37, 39, 40
`In re Mouttet,
`686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 28
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .................................................................................. 25, 36
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 36, 44
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 39
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ............................................................................ 28
`Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp.,
`81 F.3d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 28
`Silicon Motion Technology Corp. v. Phison Electronics Corp.,
`IPR2013-00473, Paper 7 (Jan. 28, 2014) ............................................................ 59
`In re Skvorecz,
`580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 24
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 25
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 24
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................................ 26
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 27, 53
`
`v
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`
`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 25
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 25
`35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 53
`35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3) ............................................................................................... 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Nos.
`2001
`2002
`
`Descriptions
`Declaration of Christopher D. Rahn, Ph.D
`
`Declaration of Omar A. Galiano
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`Print-Out of Bridgeport’s Website for the 3838ASP
`Connector
`
`Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. v. Arlington Indus., Inc., 642 F.
`App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming PTAB’s decision
`upholding validity of the ’886 and ’538 Patents in inter
`partes reexaminations)
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:01-
`cv-00485 (M.D. Pa.) (judgment of infringement against
`Bridgeport’s single and duplex connectors)
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., Nos.
`2010-1377, -1400, -1408 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 6, 2012) (judgment
`of infringement against Bridgeport’s single and duplex
`connectors affirmed on appeal)
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:06-
`cv-1105 (M.D. Pa.) (judgement of infringement against
`Bridgeport’s duplex connectors)
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:06-
`CV-1105, 2015 WL 2131626 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2015)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,335,488
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Arlington Industries, Inc. (“Arlington”) respectfully requests
`
`that the Board deny institution of Petitioner Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.’s
`
`(“Bridgeport”) Petition for post-grant review on U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415 (“’415
`
`Patent”). Bridgeport’s Petition has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`success on Grounds 1-5 with respect to claim 1. Additionally, the Board should
`
`exercise its discretion and deny Grounds 2, 3, and 5 with respect to claims 1-9 as
`
`horizontally and vertically redundant.
`
`With respect to claim 1, Bridgeport sets forth several untenable positions.
`
`First, Bridgeport asserts that claim 1 is indefinite because it recites the additional
`
`word “of” after the claim limitation “an end stop at the outbound end.” While the
`
`inclusion of the word “of” is certainly a clerical oversight, it hardly rises to the
`
`level of rendering the claim indefinite. Bridgeport insists that it is not possible to
`
`understand what the outbound end refers to. But a plain reading of the
`
`immediately preceding limitation makes it clear that it is the dividing wall’s
`
`outbound end. This is also confirmed by the disclosed embodiments in the ’415
`
`Patent. Bridgeport’s argument is a nothing more than an attempt to read the claim
`
`limitation in isolation from the remainder of the claim, and to ignore the express
`
`disclosures of the ’415 Patent.
`
`1
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`Second, Bridgeport seeks to exploit the purported ambiguities which it has
`
`created to arrive at an unreasonably broad claim construction that runs afoul the
`
`claim language and is divorced from the specification. In doing so, Bridgeport
`
`extends the meaning of the “end stop at the outbound end” so far that it reads on
`
`other structures that are separately recited in the same claim. And it does the same
`
`with respect to the claimed “arcuate edge on said end stop.” Bridgeport’s
`
`construction cannot stand as a matter of law.
`
`Third, Bridgeport’s anticipation and obviousness arguments under Grounds
`
`2-4 are predicated on its impermissibly broad constructions. None of Bridgeport’s
`
`asserted prior art references disclose an end stop at the outbound end of the
`
`dividing wall, or an arcuate edge on the outbound end of the dividing wall.
`
`Fourth, Bridgeport’s Ground 5 is improper as it lumps together all its prior
`
`grounds in violation of the statutory particularity requirements. Even if
`
`considered, Ground 5 is problematic. It accepts and applies the correct claim
`
`construction now asserted by Arlington. In doing so, Bridgeport effectively
`
`reverses its prior indefiniteness grounds. And under the correct construction, the
`
`additional prior art references suffer from the same deficiencies as Grounds 2-4.
`
`Fifth, Grounds 2, 3, and 5 are horizontally and vertically redundant because
`
`the ’831 Patent and 3838ASP are used for essentially the same teachings.
`
`2
`
`

`

`II. NOTICE OF COUNSEL
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Arlington provides an updated notice of
`
`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`counsel appearing in this matter.
`
`Lead Counsel
`Michael H. Jacobs (Reg. No. 41,870)
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
`Phone: (202) 624-2568
`Fax: (202) 628-8844
`mjacobs@crowell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Backup Counsel
`Omar A. Galiano (Reg. No. 65,764)
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
`Phone: (202) 624-2946
`Fax: (202) 628-8844
`ogaliano@crowell.com
`Kathryn L. Clune
`(pro hac vice to be filed)
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
`Phone: (202) 624-2705
`Fax: (202) 628-8844
`kclune@crowell.com
`Ali H.K. Tehrani
`(pro hac vice to be filed)
`Crowell & Moring LLP
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2595
`Phone: (202) 624-2797
`Fax: (202) 628-8844
`atehrani@crowell.com
`Ronald Sakach (Reg. No. 39,352)
`The Jackson Patent Group, Inc.
`1500 Forest Ave., Suite 212
`Richmond, VA 23229
`Phone: (804) 673-9971
`Fax: (804) 673-9972
`ron.sakach@gmail.com
`
`3
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`III. RELATED MATTERS
`The ’415 Patent is a continuation-in-part of pending U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 12/384,467 (“’467 Application”) (Ex. 1002). See Ex. 1001 at 1:512. It
`
`further claims priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,882,886 (“’886 Patent”) (Ex. 1004)
`
`with a filing date of April 3, 2008. See Ex. 1001 at 1:512. The ’415 Patent is also
`
`related to U.S. Patent No. 7,954,538 (“’538 Patent”), which is a direct continuation
`
`of the ’886 Patent. Ex. 1007 at 1:5-9. The ’886 and ’538 Patents are both directed
`
`to a coring system and method for producing one-piece duplex connectors such as
`
`those in the ’415 Patent. See Ex. 1001 at 1:5-12 (incorporating by reference the
`
`’467 Application and ’886 Patent); Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 2-3; compare Ex. 1004 at Figs.
`
`3-17 with Ex. 1002 at Figs. 1-16 and Ex. 1001 at Figs. 1-17.
`
`On November 18, 2011, Bridgeport lodged two inter partes reexamination
`
`proceedings against the ’886 and ’538 Patents, setting forth—as here—various
`
`indefiniteness allegations, and asserting a total of six prior art references. Ex. 1009
`
`at 5-6 and 14-19. One of the asserted references was Arlington’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,521,831 (“’831 Patent”), which is also cited in Bridgeport’s Petition. Id. at 5-6.
`
`After extensive briefing and a hearing, the Board rejected all of Bridgeport’s
`
`grounds and upheld the validity of both patents. Id. at 23; Ex. 1008 at 23. The
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision. Ex. 2004.
`
`4
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`Bridgeport identifies Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,196
`
`involving the ’831 Patent as a related matter. See Petition at 1-2. To the extent
`
`that the ’831 Patent reexamination is a related matter, dependent claim 3 of the
`
`’831 Patent is currently before the Board on remand from the Federal Circuit. Ex.
`
`1006 at 15-17. Bridgeport further identifies several related patent infringement
`
`proceedings between the parties, which have been adjudicated as follows:
`
`
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:01-cv-00485
`
`(M.D. Pa.) (Ex. 2005); Nos. 2010-1377, -1400, -1408 (Fed. Cir. Sep.
`
`6, 2012) (judgment of infringement against Bridgeport’s single and
`
`duplex connectors; affirmed on appeal) (Ex. 2006);
`
`
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:06-cv-1105
`
`(M.D. Pa.) (judgement of infringement against Bridgeport’s duplex
`
`connectors) (Ex. 2007); and
`
`
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:02-cv-0134
`
`(M.D. Pa.); No. 2014-1633 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2015) (judgment of
`
`contempt and infringement against Bridgeport; affirmed on appeal)
`
`(Exs. 1038, 2008).
`
`Arlington is unaware of any other pending judicial or administrative proceedings
`
`that would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding.
`
`5
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`IV. THE ’415 PATENT
`A. Background of Arlington’s Duplex Connector Technology
`For decades Arlington has been a pioneer in the electrical fittings industry
`
`by developing innovative, cost-effective, and installation-efficient electrical
`
`connectors.1 During installation of electrical fixtures, electricians often encounter
`
`only a single knockout hole of a junction box available to bring power to or away
`
`from the fixture. Ex. 1034 at ¶ 6. Before Arlington’s family of inventions,
`
`electrical connectors commonly required a threaded lock nut for connection to a
`
`junction box. Ex. 1038 at 1. Users were required to hold the connector in one
`
`hand and match the lock nut from within the junction box. Ex. 2009 at 1:24-37.
`
`Only after the connector was attached to the junction box could the electrical
`
`conductors be secured by a screw that tightened a clamp against the armored cable.
`
`Id. at 1:13-26. This installation process was particularly difficult or even
`
`unfeasible in high-risk areas, including areas above floor level, in ceilings of
`
`buildings, or while standing or working from ladders or scaffolding high above
`
`ground. Ex. 1034 at ¶ 6.
`
`
`1 See generally Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-
`1105, 2015 WL 2131626 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2015) (summarizing Arlington’s
`advancements in the industry and Bridgeport’s serial infringement of Arlington’s
`patents) (Ex. 2008).
`
`6
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`Arlington’s SNAP2IT connectors revolutionized the industry by using an
`
`innovative snap ring made of spring steel on the leading end of the connector to
`
`snap directly into the junction box, while employing an internal cable retaining
`
`ring to snap and secure the electrical conductor within the connector body. Ex.
`
`1038 at 1-2; see also Ex. 1012 at 14, 17. This dual snap configuration eliminated
`
`the need for tools during the installation process. Id. As a result, Arlington’s
`
`connectors substantially reduced labor and greatly improved safety during
`
`installation. Ex. 1034 at ¶ 6. Arlington has received multiple patents on its
`
`innovative connectors.2
`
`Arlington again revolutionized the industry when it introduced a one-piece
`
`duplex connector. To allow connection of more than one armored cable through
`
`the single knockout hole, electricians often require a duplex connector. Ex. 1001
`
`at 1:22-25. Prior to the ’886 Patent, duplex connectors typically included at least
`
`two pieces including “a leading body portion 22 and a trailing body portion 24
`
`connected by a screw 26 or a similar fastener.” Ex. 1004 at 1:16-19. The ’831
`
`Patent cited by Bridgeport is directed to an example of such prior duplex
`
`connectors. See Ex. 1005 at Figs. 1-2.
`
`2 The commercial success of Arlington’s connectors did not go unnoticed by
`Bridgeport, which copied many of the designs and against whom Arlington
`secured several judgments of infringement and a judgment for contempt of an
`injunction. See supra at § II.
`
`7
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`After significant research and development, Arlington developed the first
`
`coring system that produces a one-piece electrical duplex connector in a single
`
`molding process, eliminating the need for secondary operations required by the
`
`prior art. Ex. 1004 at 4:26-34. The ’886 Patent— the validity of which was upheld
`
`by the Board and the Federal Circuit—is directed to Arlington’s innovative coring
`
`system. This coring system includes two complementary cores 50, 52 that are
`
`joined together through a connecting arrangement to form a single coring piece.
`
`Id. at 2:1-9. The complementary cores 50, 52 are engaged by fully inserting the
`
`narrowed end portion 55 of the first core 50 into the channel 74 between the two
`
`fingers 68 of the second core 52, as illustrated by Figure 11 of the ’886 Patent
`
`(reproduced below). Id. at 4:59-63.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 1
`
`8
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`The two cores are joined and the connecting arrangement is achieved when
`
`the fingers’ ends 70 on the second core 52 seat on and engage the first core’s
`
`shoulders 64 to form a gap-free connection. Id. at 5:6-10. The narrowed end
`
`portion 55 of the first core 50 is fully inserted into the channel 74 between the two
`
`fingers 68 of the second core 52. Id. at 6:11-16. At the same time, the surfaces 65
`
`of the grooves 60 on the first core 50 have a radius of curvature equal to that of the
`
`inner surfaces 82 of the fingers 68 on the second core 52. Id. at 5:10-13, 32-34.
`
`As illustrated in Figures 13 and 13A of the ’886 Patent (reproduced below with
`
`annotations), the single coring structure leaves the encircled open cavity between
`
`the two fingers to form a dividing wall and an end-stop at the outbound end of the
`
`dividing wall during the die-casting process.
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 13 (annotated)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`Ex. 1004 at Fig. 13A (annotated)
`
`
`
`When both cores are joined in this connecting arrangement, the resulting
`
`single coring structure is placed into a mold cavity 114, which has right- and left-
`
`hand dies 106, 108. Id. at 6:16-21. The dies are closed and molten metal or plastic
`
`is pumped into the mold cavity 114 to form the one-piece duplex connector 40. Id.
`
`at 6:25-28. As illustrated in Figures 16 and 17 (reproduced below), the coring
`
`system of the ’886 Patent produces the duplex connectors such as those in the ’415
`
`Patent and the pending ’467 Application. See Ex. 1004 at Figs. 3-4, 11-17; see
`
`also Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 1-2; Ex. 1001 at 1:5-12. And as previously noted, the validity
`
`of Arlington’s claimed coring system has been upheld by the Board and the
`
`Federal Circuit.
`
`10
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`
`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1004 at Figs. 15-17
`Ex. 1004 at Figs. 15-17
`
`
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter
`B.
`The ’415 Patent is directed to an improvement of the one-piece duplex
`
`connector produced by the coring system disclosed and claimed in the ’886 Patent.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:5-12 (claiming priority to and incorporating by reference the ’886
`
`Patent and the ’467 Application); see also Ex. 1002 at ¶ 3 (“The present invention
`
`is an improved duplex electrical connector that includes a one-piece die cast
`
`connector body produced according to the method disclosed in [the ’886 Patent].”).
`
`Duplex connectors ordinarily include two bores that transition to a single
`
`bore to enable connection of two electrical cables through a single knockout hole.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 1:22-31. Because of the compact size requirements for duplex
`
`connectors, even the smallest internal structures can affect the advancement of
`
`conductors through the bores. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 16; Ex. 1001 at 5:52-56. As the ’415
`
`Patent discloses, “one shortcoming of the prior art [duplex connectors] is the
`
`difficulty in advancing the conductors through internal structure of the fitting.” Id.
`
`at 1:37-39. These difficulties can be caused and exacerbated by obstructions,
`
`including flashes in the internal structures of a connector. Ex. 1002 at ¶ 5 (“Flash
`
`is an undesirable byproduct of the die casting process that is detrimental to the
`
`operation of an electrical connector as it is sharp-edged and can cut electrical
`
`cables that are later inserted into the electrical connector.”); Ex. 1004 at 5:5-6.
`
`12
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`The duplex connector of the ’415 Patent provides an “improved internal
`
`structure for enabling effortless pass-through of conductors through the internal
`
`bores.” Ex. 1001 at 1:17-18. First, it does so by die-casting the duplex connector
`
`in one piece according to the coring system of the ’886 Patent. As a result, the
`
`duplex connector is formed free of any flashes. Id. at 4:61-5:5; see also generally
`
`Ex. 1004. Second, an arcuate edge is provided on an end stop at the outbound end
`
`of the dividing wall that separates the two inbound bores. Ex. 1001 at 5:57-67.
`
`The end stop prevents advancement of the armored layer of the conductors, while
`
`the arcuate edge on the end stop facilitates unobstructed passage of the conductors
`
`to the single outlet bore. Id. at 1:56-61.
`
`As illustrated in Figure 17 (reproduced below), the preferred embodiment
`
`200 includes a connector body 202 having an inbound end 204, an outbound end
`
`206, and a nose portion 208 with reduced diameter seat 210. Id. at 5:33-48. A
`
`snap ring 34 is shown exploded away from the outbound end of the connector body
`
`and is configured to be secured on the nose portion of the connector body’s
`
`outbound end. Id. at 4:30-34. The connector body’s inbound end has two bores
`
`211 defined by tubular walls 212 and a dividing wall 214 that separates the two
`
`bores. Id. at 5:38-40. A cable retaining ring 38 is inserted and secured within each
`
`of the inbound bores. Id. at 5:50-51.
`
`13
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 17
`
`
`
`The connector body’s outbound end 206 and its nose portion 210 form a
`
`single outlet bore. The snap ring 34 is a split ring formed from a blank into a
`
`substantially cylindrical shape so as to be secured on the nose portion. Id. at 3:21-
`
`25, 4:30-34. The snap ring further includes locking tangs 62 bent outwards from
`
`the snap ring. Id. at 3:25-31. During installation, the connector body’s outbound
`
`end is pushed through a knockout hole of a junction box, compressing the locking
`
`tangs until they clear the knockout hole and snap back outward to their unbiased
`
`state. Id. at 4:43-50. This tang-based mechanism secures the connector body’s
`
`outbound end directly to the junction box. Id.
`
`14
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`As further illustrated in Figures 11 and 14 (reproduced below), the cable
`
`retaining rings 38 are secured in each of the inbound bores 211 through outward
`
`extending tangs 86 engaging apertures 48 in the walls 44. Id. at 4:23-28. The
`
`apertures 48 of each bore are radially asymmetric to one another, and the tangs 86
`
`are similarly situated so as to match the radial asymmetry of the apertures. Ex.
`
`1017 at 76. Each cable retaining ring also includes cable retaining tangs 76, 78
`
`protruding into the bores 211. Ex. 1001 at 3:36-50. The cable retaining tangs
`
`engage the armored cable and hold it securely within each respective bore. Id. at
`
`4:39-43. They also function to guide to electrical cable in a converging direction
`
`to the single outlet bore. Ex. 2001 at ¶ 18.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Figs. 11, 14
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 24 (reproduced below), the preferred embodiment’s
`
`dividing wall 214 has an outbound end 229. Ex. 1001 at 5:59-62. An arcuate edge
`
`226 is “provided on the end stop 228 at the outbound end 229 of dividing wall
`
`214.” Id. The location and design of the arcuate edge facilitates easier passing of
`
`the conductors and eliminates potential hanging up at the transition from the two
`
`bores 211 to the single bore 224. Id. at 5:62-6:6; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 20. While a lower
`
`edge of the end stop is designed to engage with and prevent advancement of the
`
`cable, the arcuate edge on the dividing wall’s outbound end enables the conductors
`
`to pass through easily. Ex. 1001 at 1:56-61; Ex. 2001 at ¶ 20.
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 24 (annotated)
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`The prosecution history of the ’415 Patent resulted in allowance without an
`
`Office Action. See Ex. 1016. The prior art considered by the Examiner included
`
`the ’831 Patent, which Bridgeport has asserted in its Petition grounds here. Id. In
`
`particular, the Examiner found that “the limitation of a dividing wall separating
`
`said inbound bores, said dividing wall including an outbound end; and end stop at
`
`the outbound end of [the dividing wall] including an edge at the transition area;
`
`[and] an arcuate edge on said end stop . . . is neither disclosed nor taught by the
`
`prior art of record, alone or in combination.” Id. at 9 (Notice of Allowance,
`
`December 9, 2106, at 2).
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PRIOR ART
`A. The ’831 Patent
`The ’831 Patent discloses several embodiments of a duplex connector “to
`
`connect two helically wound armored or metal clad electrical conductors to a
`
`junction box or an electrical panel.” Ex. 1005 at 2:19-21. As illustrated in
`
`Figure 1 of the ’831 Patent, the duplex connector 10 has a housing 12 with an
`
`inbound end 14 and an outbound end 16. Id. at 3:60-65. A spring steel adapter 28
`
`is secured to the connector’s outbound end 16. Id. at 4:1-2. An insert 18 with a
`
`flange 50 is secured in the housing 12. Id. at 4:23-30. The insert has two bores 24,
`
`26 and cable retainers 20, 22 secured in the two bores, respectively. Id. at 4:37-46.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`PGR2018-00005
`Pat. No. 9,553,415
`
`The second embodiment of the ’831 Patent secures the cable retainers in the
`
`bores with annular ridges 25A, 25B. Id. at 5:1-20. In the third embodiment, the
`
`insert’s “functionality has been built into the housing” with tang accepting
`
`apertures 54A, 54B and outward extending tangs 52A, 52B of the cable retainers.
`
`Id. at 5:22-51. Figure 6 of the ’831 Patent (reproduced below) is directed to the
`
`third embodiment and illustrates an end view of the housing with a dividing wall
`
`between the