Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. by:
`
`Mark E. Ungerman (Reg. No. 32,070)
`Ungerman IP PLLC
`2305 Calvert Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20008
`(202) 461-3200
`mungerman@ungermanip.com
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`________________
`U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`Issued: January 24, 2017
`
`________________
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 321-328 AND C.F.R. § 42.200 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 3
`
`Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 3
`
`Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................ 4
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) .............................. 4
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15........................................... 5
`
`Timing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.202 ....................................................... 5
`
`Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a) ............................ 5
`
`IV. U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415 – 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(c) .......................................... 7
`
`A. General Description .............................................................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`Effective Filing Date Under AIA ....................................................... 10
`
`V.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b): IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE ......... 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statement Of Requested Relief 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(b) ........................ 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3): Claim Construction ................................. 17
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .......................................... 19
`
`Claim Terms ............................................................................. 20
`
`VI.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(4)-(5): IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT
`CLAIMS 1-9 OF THE ’415 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ................ 25
`
`A.
`
`Brief Description of the Prior Art ...................................................... 25
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`U.S. 6,521,831 .......................................................................... 25
`
`U.S. 6,352,439 (the ’439 Patent) ............................................. 31
`
`iii. Bridgeport 3838ASP Connectors ............................................. 32
`
`iv. U.S. 1,328,290 (“’290 Patent”) ................................................ 33
`
`v.
`
`UL Standard for Safety for Fittings for Cable and Conduit
`(UL 514B) ................................................................................ 34
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`Claims 1-9 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). ................. 34
`
`All Claims Of The ’415 Patent Are Unpatentable In View Of
`U.S. 6,521,831 Alone Or In Combination With Other Prior Art ...... 38
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D. Ground 2 – Claims 1, 2, And 4-7 Are Anticipated By The ’831 Patent.
` ............................................................................................................ 38
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Claims 3, 8 And 9 Would Have Been Obvious In View Of The ’831
`patent And In Further View of U.S. Patent No. 6,352,439 ................ 46
`
`All Claims Of The ’415 Patent Are Unpatentable In View Of Prior
`Sales of Bridgeport Fittings Model No. 3838ASP Connectors Prior To
`The Critical Date, Alone, Or In Combination With The ’439 And ’831
`Patents................................................................................................. 49
`
`Claims 1, 2, 6, And 7 Are Anticipated By The Sale Of The Bridgeport
`3838ASP Connector ........................................................................... 50
`
`Claims 3, 8 And 9 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 As Being
`Obvious In View Of Sales Of 3838ASP More Than One Year Before
`Filing Date And In Further View Of U.S. 6,352,439 ......................... 56
`
`Claims 4 And 5 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 As Being
`Obvious In View Of Sales Of 3838ASP More Than One Year Before
`Filing Date And U.S. 6,352,439 (The “’439 Patent”) In Further View
`Of The ’831 Patent ............................................................................. 60
`
`Ground 4 - Claims 1, 2 And 4-7 Are Obvious In View Of U.S. Patent
`No. 1,328,290 (The “’290 Patent”) And Further In View Of The ’831
`Patent .................................................................................................. 62
`
`K. Ground 4A – Claims 3, 8 And 9 Are Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103 As Being Obvious In View U.S. 1,328,290 (The “’290 Patent”)
`And The ‘831 Patent And In Further View Of U.S. 6,352,439 (The
`“’439 Patent”) ..................................................................................... 72
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`Ground 5 – Claims 1-9 Would Have Been Obvious Under An
`Alternate Construction Of The Claim ................................................ 75
`
`Secondary Considerations Do Not Overcome The Strong Showing Of
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 77
`
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 80
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd.,
`816 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 78, 79
`
`CuozzoSpeed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................................... 17
`
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 34
`
`In re Huang,
`100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 78
`
`In re Packard,
`751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 34
`
`In re Paulsen,
`30 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 18
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 34
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Petitioner v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`Patent Owner,
`CBM-2012-00003 (PTAB Order, Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................ 15
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 18
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................ 6
`
`Ritchie v. Vast Res., Inc.,
`563 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 78, 79
`
`The W. Union Co. v. Moneygram Payment Sys., Inc.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 78
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 18
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................... 78, 79
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 12, 77, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................. 12, 80
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(b) ...................................................................................... 12, 34, 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ........................................................................................................ 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 321-328 .............................................................................................. 12
`
`AIA § 3(n)(1) ............................................................................................................. 6
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b) .............................................................................................. 17
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.202(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4) ................................................................................................ 4
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(4) ...................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.200-42.224 ..................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MPEP § 2173.02 ...................................................................................................... 34
`
`Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961) ........................................... 20
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description of Document
`
`1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415 (“’415 patent”)
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/384,467 (“’467 application”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/080,482 (“’482 application”)
`
`1004
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,882,886 (“’886 patent”)
`
`1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,521,831 (“’831 patent”)
`
`1006
`
`Fed. Cir. Decision on Appeal in 2013-1400, August 29, 2014
`
`1007
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,954,538 (“’538 patent”)
`
`1008
`
`Decision on Appeal, 2014-003316, January 12, 2015
`
`1009
`
`Decision on Appeal, 2014-003387, January 12, 2015
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`Arlington’s Response to Office Action, Control No. 95/001,830,
`April 6, 2012
`
`Arlington’s Response to Office Action, Control No. 95/001,829,
`April 6, 2012
`
`Arlington’s published marketing materials
`reexamination on Nov. 15, 2006.
`
`filed
`
`in
`
`’196
`
`1013
`
`Bridgeport Fittings 2004 catalog
`
`1014
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,171,164 (“’164 patent”)
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,043,432 (“’432 patent”)
`
`1016
`
`Prosecution history of ’415 patent retrieved from Public PAIR
`October 21, 2017
`
`1017
`
`Certain pages from prosecution of the ’467 application
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`1018
`
`Description of Document
`
`Trial Expert Report of Christopher D. Rahn, Ph.D., Civil Action
`No.: 06-cv-1105, September 14, 2007.
`
`1019
`
`Declaration of Lawrence J. Smith
`
`1020
`
`U.S. Patent No. 1,328,290 (“’290 patent”)
`
`1021
`
`Declaration of Nicholas J. Williamson
`
`1022
`
`Relevant Pages of NEMA FB-1 2014
`
`1023
`
`Declaration of Mark E. Ungerman
`
`1024
`
`NEMA Standards Publication No. FB-1, 1993
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`Pages from UL 514B Fourth Edition with revisions through
`Feb. 7, 2002
`
`Pages from UL 514B Sixth Edition with revisions through
`November 21, 2014
`
`Pages from UL 514B Fifth Edition with revisions through
`August 17, 2014
`
`1028
`
`Arlington Catalog References to UL514B and NEMA FB-1
`
`1029
`
`3838ASP Product Sheet
`
`1030
`
`Current Roster of Members of UL STP514B
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`Markman Hearing Transcript of B. Williamson, January 23, 2007
`
`Pages from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 1961
`
`Arlington Brief on Appeal 2013-1400, August 26, 2013
`
`1034
`
`Thomas J. Gretz Declaration, July 12, 2007
`
`1035
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,352,439 (“’439 patent”)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description of Document
`
`1036
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,080,933 (“’933 patent”)
`
`1037
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,075,007 (“’007 patent”)
`
`Memorandum Opinion, Civ. Action No. 3:02-cv-0134, March 19,
`2013
`
`1038
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (“Bridgeport”) respectfully requests Post-
`
`Grant Review (“PGR”) of claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415 (“the ’415
`
`patent”), entitled “Duplex Electrical Connector with One-Piece Connector Body and
`
`Radius Cast on Transition,” issued on January 24, 2017, to Arlington Industries, Inc.
`
`(“Arlington”). (Ex 1001) The ’415 patent is a continuation-in-part of pending U.S.
`
`Application Serial No. 12/384,467 filed April 3, 2009, still pending, (“the ’467
`
`application”) (Exhibit 1002), which purports to be a continuation of U.S. Application
`
`Serial No. 12/080,482, filed April 3, 2008 (“the ’886 application”) (Exhibit 1003),
`
`issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,882,886 on February 8, 2011 (“the ’886 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1004).
`
`The ’415 patent follows three Arlington patents relating to duplex electrical
`
`connectors that did not survive reexamination intact. The first, U.S. 6,521,831 (the
`
`“’831 patent”), issued February 18, 2003 entitled “A Duplex Connector with Spring
`
`Steel Cable Retainer.” (Ex. 1005.) Bridgeport requested inter partes reexamination
`
`of the ’831 patent in 2006, Control No. 95/000,196. The Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the
`
`“Board”) that ’831 patent claims 1 and 5 were obvious. (Decision in 2013-1400,
`
`Ex. 1006.) Bridgeport requested inter partes reexamination of Arlington’s second
`
`and third duplex connector patents, the ’886 patent, Ex. 1004, Control
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`No. 95/001,830, and its continuation, U.S. 7,954,538, the ’538 patent (Ex. 1007),
`
`Control No. 95/001,829. In the reexaminations, Arlington narrowed all claims
`
`before obtaining confirmation on the basis of intricate details of how the molding
`
`cores joined together. In both proceedings, the PTAB decisions stated that the
`
`dispositive issue was the relationship between the shoulder of a first core and the
`
`ends of the fingers of a second core. Control No. 95/001,830, p. 11, Ex. 1008, and
`
`Control No. 95/001,829, p. 13, Ex. 1009. The ’415 patent claims are not limited to
`
`details of the cores of the ’886 and ’538 patents.
`
`The ’886 and ’538 patents have no claims directed toward a connector. This
`
`is not a surprise as Arlington candidly admitted, the prior art ’831 patent, also owned
`
`by the Arlington, “discloses a duplex connector 10 that included a one-piece
`
`housing”. Arlington’s Response to Office Action, Control No. 95/001,830,
`
`Ex. 1010, p. 11 and Arlington’s Response to Office Action, Control No. 95/001,829.
`
`(Ex. 1011, p. 12.)
`
`Arlington filed the application that led to the ’415 patent after the Federal
`
`Circuit affirmed the rejection of claims of the ’831 patent and after being forced to
`
`narrow the claims of the ’886 and ’538 patents in reexamination. The prosecution
`
`history of the ’415 patent shows it was pending less than six months. (Ex. 1016).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`A. Real Party-In-Interest Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioner identifies itself, Bridgeport
`
`Fittings, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut,
`
`having a place of business at 705 Lordship Boulevard, Stratford, Connecticut 06615,
`
`as the real party in interest.
`
`B. Related Matters Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), Petitioner is aware of no other proceedings
`
`involving the ’415 patent. Patent owner and petitioner have been involved in three
`
`inter partes reexaminations of related patents, Control Nos. 95/000,196; 95/001,829;
`
`and 95/001,830. Other proceedings between the parties relate to duplex connector
`
`technology and/or zinc die cast connector technology include:
`
` Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., Civil Action
`
`Nos. 3:08-cv-01105 and 3:02-cv-0134.
`
` Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., Civil Action
`
`No. 3:01-cv-00485.
`
` Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., Appeal
`
`Nos. 2013-1400, -1401, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
` Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. v. Arlington Industries, Inc., Appeal
`
`Nos. 2015-1616, -1617, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`C. Lead And Back-Up Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), lead counsel for this Petition is Mark E.
`
`Ungerman (Reg. No. 32,070), and back-up counsel for this Petition is John F. Klos
`
`(Reg. No. 37,162). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Petitioner has filed a power of
`
`attorney designating the above-identified counsel.
`
`D.
`
`Service Information Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4), service information for the Petition is as
`
`follows:
`
`Mark E. Ungerman, Reg. No. 32,070
`
`John F. Klos, Reg. No. 37,162
`
`Ungerman IP PLLC
`
`Billion & Armitage
`
`2305 Calvert Street, N.W.
`
`7401 Metro Blvd., Ste 425
`
`Washington, DC 20008
`
`Minneapolis, MN 55439
`
`Tel: (202) 461-3200
`
`Fax: (202) 461-3200
`
`Tel: (952) 697-2649
`
`Fax: (952)
`
`Email: mungerman@ungermanip.com
`
`Email: jklos@billionarmitage.com
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service at the above-identified email
`
`addresses.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A.
`
`Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.15
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1)-(4), Petitioner concurrently submits the
`
`fees due on filing a PGR petition. The fees include (1) $12,000 PGR request fee;
`
`and (2) $18,000 PGR Institution Fee. The petition request review of nine (9) claims.
`
`Accordingly, no fees are due under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(3)-(4).
`
`B.
`
`Timing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.202
`
`The ’415 patent issued on January 24, 2017. A petition for post-grant review
`
`of a patent must be filed no later than the date that is nine months after the date of
`
`the grant of a patent under 37 C.F.R. § 42.202(a). Because the deadline to file a
`
`petition for post-grant review of the ’415 patent is October 24, 2017, this Petition is
`
`timely filed.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a)
`
`Petitioner hereby certifies that the ’415 patent is available for post-grant
`
`review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting a post-grant
`
`review challenging the patent claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. The
`
`’415 patent, filed August 1, 2016, as a continuation-in-part application of the’467
`
`application” (Ex. 1002), still pending. The ’467 application purports to be a
`
`continuation of the ’482 application, Ex. 1003, filed April 3, 2008. The ’415 patent
`
`is subject to the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act which applies
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or
`
`contained at any time – “a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing
`
`date that is on or after March 13, 2013.” AIA § 3(n)(1). At least claim 3 sets forth
`
`subject matter not disclosed in the priority applications having pre-AIA filing dates.
`
`“[A] patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of an earlier
`
`filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier applications provides support
`
`for the claims of the later application.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522
`
`F.3d 1229 at 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The earlier application provides support only if
`
`it adequately discloses the disputed limitations as required by the written description
`
`requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Id. Thus, the earlier application “must convey with
`
`reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the
`
`inventor was in possession of the invention.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted.)
`
`The earlier reference must actually or inherently disclose each limitation in the prior
`
`art known or available before the filing date of the patent. See id. ; Research Corp.
`
`Techs., Inc. v Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 871 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (indicating that
`
`Microsoft satisfied its initial burden by coming forward with invalidating prior art).
`
`Once the alleged infringer has done so, the patentee must come forward with
`
`evidence that it is entitled to claim priority to an earlier filing date that predates the
`
`prior art. PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306-06). As described below, the ’415 patent
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`was filed August 1, 2016 and contains or contained at least one claim that has an
`
`effective filing date after March 13, 2013.
`
`Moreover, as set forth in Section III(B) above, this Petition is filed within nine
`
`months after the date of the grant of the ’415 patent. Accordingly, the ’415 patent
`
`is available for post-grant review. Furthermore, Petitioner has not filed a civil action
`
`challenging the validity of a claim of the ’415 patent. Accordingly, Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting a post-grant review challenging the patent claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this petition.
`
`IV. U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415 – 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(c)
`
`A. General Description
`
`The ’415 patent is directed to the general field of connectors for connecting
`
`electrical cables to junction boxes used in residential and commercial wiring. For
`
`many years Arlington, Bridgeport, and others have manufactured and sold lines of
`
`zinc die cast utility connectors. See Ex. 1012, published marketing material filed in
`
`the ’196 reexamination on Nov. 15, 2006, and Ex. 1013, Bridgeport 2004 Catalog,
`
`p. 5-11, 21-24, 43-61, and 68. For example, Patent Owner Arlington Industries has
`
`long offered an extensive line of zinc die cast utility connectors. Connectors secure
`
`electrical cable or conduit to an electrical junction box by having a connector body,
`
`some mechanism for attaching an electrical cable or conduit to the connector body,
`
`and some mechanism for attaching the connector body to a junction box. In the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`1990s, Arlington’s line of zinc die cast connectors included connectors that had a
`
`circular split ring spring metal adapter allowing the connectors to be snap fit into a
`
`“knockout” hole of a junction box. Ex. 1012. An alternative mechanism for
`
`attaching a connector body to a junction box was by having a threaded portion of a
`
`connector body on its leading end (also referred to as outbound end or nose portion)
`
`inserted through a knockout hole, and a locknut being installed on the threaded
`
`portion of the connector. Id. Many different forms of conduit or cable are used, and
`
`the line of connectors offered by Arlington and others include different mechanisms
`
`for attaching different types of conduits or cables to connector bodies. Some
`
`connector bodies have set screws which are particularly suitable for connecting EMT
`
`(electric metallic tube conduit), a type of metal tubing that is used to carry electrical
`
`wires. Saddle grips have been utilized to connect armored cable, metal clad cable,
`
`or flexible metal conduit to connector bodies and straps have been utilized to connect
`
`non-metallic sheathed cable to connector bodies. Ex. 1021, ¶17.
`
`The ’415 patent specifically shows duplex connectors for securing one or two
`
`electrical cables through a single knockout aperture in an electrical box. Ex. 1001,
`
`1:22-25. The duplex connectors have a die cast connector body that has a leading
`
`or outbound end with a single opening and a “fastening arrangement” for connecting
`
`to an electrical box. Id., 2:60-3:2. The inbound or trailing end has two openings
`
`each with a cable retaining ring for securing helically wound cable, such as an
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`armored electrical cable, specifically metal clad (MC), metal clad all purpose
`
`(MCAP), flex cable, or continuous corrugated MC cables, Id., 4:10-12, to the
`
`connector housing. Ex. 1021, ¶18.
`
`The “snap ring” described in the ’415 patent was disclosed in Arlington’s
`
`patent U.S. 5,171,164 for a “Quick-Connect Fitting for Electrical Junction Box,”
`
`issued December 15, 1992 (’164 patent), which shows a “snap ring” utilized on the
`
`nose portion of a connector body to connect the connector body [to a junction box].
`
`Ex. 1014. The cable retaining ring of the ’415 patent was disclosed in Arlington’s
`
`patent U.S. 6,043,432 entitled “Snap-In Cable Connector,” issued March 28, 2000
`
`which shows a “spring locking ring” connecting a helically wound cable to a
`
`connector body. Ex. 1015. This cable has a flexible metal conduit carrying several
`
`conductors extending beyond the end of the conduit so that when the conduit is
`
`inserted into the connector body, the conductors extend past the connector body and
`
`into a junction box. Ex. 1021, ¶19.
`
`The ’415 patent purports to address the problem of providing an easy pathway
`
`for advancing the electrical conductors of two cables in a duplex fitting (Ex. 1001,
`
`1:29-42). The ’415 patent explains, “An end stop at the transition area includes a
`
`radius surface thereon to enable the end stop to effectively stop advancement of the
`
`armor layer of the cable while at the same time enabling easy passage of the
`
`conductors therethrough to the outbound end.” Id., 1:55-51. The ’415 patent also
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`states, “Unfortunately, as a result of the compact length, the transition from two
`
`bores to one bore within the short length of duplex fittings, and the need to stop the
`
`forward advance of the cable’s armor at the transition, the conductors of electrical
`
`cables tend to hang up in prior art duplex connectors.” Id., 5:52-56. Ex. 1021, ¶20.
`
`The ’415 patent, including its claims, do not specify any radius required to
`
`achieve easy pass through, do not specify any way to differentiate between easy pass
`
`through or even measure ease of pass through, and do not compare the ease of pass
`
`through of a connector according to the ’415 patent to any prior art duplex fittings.
`
`Id., ¶21.
`
`The ’831 patent shows a connector with an unimpeded straight-line passage
`
`from the inbound end of the housing 14 to the outbound end of the housing.
`
`(Ex. 1005, Fig. 6.) A similar unimpeded path is present in the prior art Bridgeport
`
`3838ASP connector. Id., ¶22.
`
`The embodiments shown in the ’415 patent all have one-piece connector
`
`bodies, however one-piece is not a limitation to any claim. Id., ¶23.
`
`B.
`
`Effective Filing Date Under AIA
`
`The ’415 patent was filed on August 1, 2016 claiming priority to and as a
`
`continuation-in-part of application no. 12/384,467 filed April 3, 2009, Ex. 1016,
`
`which in turn purports to be a continuation of U.S. 7,882,886 filed April 3, 2008.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`Claim 3 of the ’415 patent sets forth, in combination with independent
`
`claim 1, threads on the outbound end of the connector body, a snap ring on the nose
`
`portion, and a locknut. Claim 3, Ex. 1016, p. 60, of the ’415 patent is not supported
`
`by any priority application. No application in the chain of priority describes a
`
`threaded connector body with a snap ring and a locknut. The recited combination of
`
`a threaded connector body, a snap ring, and a locknut is not disclosed in application
`
`no. 12/384,467, Ex. 1004 or the ’886 patent. Claim 3 and of the ’415 patent is not
`
`supported by the earlier applications and thus claim 3 is not entitled to an effective
`
`filing date any earlier than the actual filing date of the ’415 patent, August 1, 2016.
`
`Ex. 1021, ¶26.
`
`The ’415 specification discloses an additional feature not shown in the ’886
`
`patent or its parent, the ’482 application. The ’415 specification shows a curvature
`
`on a particular interior corner of the connector body, 226, at the outbound end of the
`
`dividing wall. As set forth in the claim construction section, Petitioner submits that
`
`the claims are not limited to this feature. To the extent that the PTAB determines
`
`that the recitation of “an arcuate edge on said end stop” is limited to the curvature
`
`on the outbound end of the dividing wall, the arcuate edge is another limitation not
`
`supported by any pre-AIA priority claim. Ex. 1021, ¶27.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`V.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b): IDENTIFICATION OF THE CHALLENGE
`
`A.
`
`Statement Of Requested Relief 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(b)
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests PGR of claims 1-9 of the ’415 patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 321-328 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.200-42.224. Petitioner challenges claims 1-
`
`9 for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and particularly 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Petitioner further challenges claims 1, 2, and 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and
`
`claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner request institution of post-grant review
`
`as this petition establishes that it is more likely than not that at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in this petition is unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). Moreover, in view
`
`of the accompanying prior art references and supporting declarations, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests cancelation of claims 1-9 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102, 103 and/or 112. A summary of the statutory grounds challenging claims 1-9
`
`of the ’415 patent and the exhibit numbers on which Petitioner relies for each ground
`
`is identified below.
`
`GROUND
`Ground 1: Claims 1-9 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to
`particularly point out and distinctly claim
`the subject matter which the inventor
`regards as his invention.
`
`Exhibit Nos.
`Declaration of
` Nicholas J. Williamson
`(Ex. 1021)
`
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are
`anticipated by U.S. 6,521,831 (“‘831”)
`
`Exs. 1005, 1036, 1021
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Post-Grant Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,553,415
`
`
`Exhibit Nos.
`Exs. 1005, 1036, 1021, 1035
`
`Exs. 1018, 1019, 1021, 1029
`
`Exs. 1018, 1019, 1021, 1029, 1035
`
`Exs. 1005, 1012, 1018, 1019, 1021,
`1029, 1036
`
`Exs. 1005, 1020, 1021, 1026
`
`Exs. 1005, 1020, 1021, 1035
`
`GROUND
`Ground 2A: Claims 3, 8, and 9 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`being obvious in view of U.S. 6,521,831
`(“‘831”) in further view of U.S. 6,352,439
`(“’439”).
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
`being anticipated by sales of 3838ASP
`more than one year before filing date.
`
`Ground 3A: Claims 3, 8, and 9 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`being obvious in view of sales of 3838ASP
`more than one year before filing date and
`in further view of U.S. 6,352,439 (“’439”).
`
` Claims 4 and 5 are
`Ground 3