UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., CIENA CORPORATION,
`CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC., CORIANT (USA) INC., AND
`FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2014-011661
`Patent RE42,368
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`OF THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00816 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., CIENA CORPORATION,
`CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC., CORIANT (USA) INC., AND
`FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2014-011661
`Patent RE42,368
`___________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`OF THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`1 Case IPR2015-00816 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`
`I.
`
`Statement of Relief Requested
`
`The Board should rehear and reverse its Final Written Decision because the
`
`Board overlooked key facts Capella raised in its Patent Owner Response and
`
`misinterpreted Capella’s arguments on the combinability of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,498,872 to Bouevitch et al. and U.S. Patent No. 6,798,941 to Smith et al.
`
`In its Patent Owner Response, Capella primarily relied on two reasons why a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSA”) would
`
`not have combined Bouevitch and Smith: (1) Bouevitch teaches away from using
`
`misalignment and angular displacement to control power; and (2) combining
`
`Bouevitch and a two-axis mirror would change the basic principle under which
`
`Bouevitch was designed to operate. For the first reason, the Board erred because it
`
`credited Petitioner’s arguments, which are factually incorrect. For the second
`
`reason, the Board misinterpreted Capella’s arguments. Accordingly, Capella
`
`requests rehearing under 37 C.F.R. §42.71(d).
`
`II. The Facts Support Only One Conclusion: Bouevitch Teaches Away
`From Misalignment to Control Power
`
`Capella argued in its Patent Owner Response that a POSA would not have
`
`combined Bouevitch and Smith because Bouevitch
`
`teaches away from
`
`misalignment and angular displacement—the method Smith uses to control power.
`
`POR, pp. 26-30. The Board disagreed with Capella’s arguments and credited
`
`Petitioner with showing
`
`that certain embodiments
`
`in Bouevitch disclose
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`misalignment. Final Written Decision, p. 32 (citing Pet. Reply, pp. 3-5; Ex. 1028, ¶
`
`71). But under the proper legal standard described below, the facts prove that
`
`Bouevitch teaches away from misalignment and angular displacement to control
`
`power—the power-control method in Smith.
`
`A. Bouevitch Teaches Away from Smith’s Power-Control Method
` “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
`
`upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
`
`in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
`
`taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis
`
`added); see also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (“A case on point is In re
`
`Gurley”); DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamore Danek, 567 F.3d 1314, 1326-
`
`29 (Fed, Cir. 2009).2
`
`
`2 In re Fulton, the case the Board relied on, is distinguishable because the
`
`reference in that case did not criticize or discourage use of alternatives; the
`
`reference merely chose a preference. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200-01 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (a reference must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” to teach
`
`away); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (a disclosure
`
`of an “inferior” alternative is insufficient for a teaching away unless the reference
`
`criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages such a combination). This case is
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`As explained below, Bouevitch’s disclosure meets this standard. In
`
`particular, after reading Boeuvitch, a POSA (1) would have been discouraged from
`
`using misalignment to control power; and (2) would have been led down a
`
`divergent path.
`
`1. Bouevitch Explicitly Discourages the Power-Control
`Method Disclosed in Smith
`
`Smith teaches a method to control power in an optical system—misaligning
`
`or angularly displacing an output beam to an output port. See Smith, 17:24-38; see
`
`also id. at FIGS. 17, 18 (reproduced below); POR, pp. 26-30.
`
`
`
`Bouevitch, however, explicitly teaches away from this method. According to
`
`Bouevitch, the prior art “is limited in that the add/drop beams of light are angularly
`
`displaced relative to the input/output beams of light. This angular displacement is
`
`disadvantageous with respect to coupling the add/drop and/or input/output beams
`
`of light into parallel optical waveguides . . . .” Bouevitch, 2:1-7. To avoid this
`
`
`distinguishable because Bouevitch includes the explicit criticism and
`
`discouragement lacking in In re Fulton and In re Mouttet. See infra Part II.A.2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`angular displacement, Bouevitch discloses two sets of embodiments, which both
`
`avoid misalignment or angular displacement to the output port. First, Bouevitch
`
`discloses embodiments where “[t]he lateral displacement of the input and modified
`
`output beams of light (i.e., as opposed to angular displacement) allows for highly
`
`efficient coupling between a plurality of input/output waveguides.” Bouevitch,
`
`7:60-63; see also id. at 10:62-11:4. Second, Bouevitch discloses embodiments
`
`where the angular displacement of an input beam is corrected on the beam’s return
`
`path. See Bouevitch, 13:65-14:13.
`
`In both sets of embodiments, Bouevitch’s optical system either avoids or
`
`corrects misalignment and angular displacement to have “fewer alignment
`
`problems and less loss than prior art systems.” Bouevitch, 10:62-11:4; see also id.
`
`at 15:28-30 (physically moving the ports if, for whatever reason, angular
`
`displacement is introduced to the system). This is, according to Boeuvitch, the
`
`“advantage” of its system. Bouevitch, 10:62-11:4.
`
`To avoid these disadvantages, every embodiment of Bouevitch purposefully
`
`performs power control at the modifying means—not at the port—and reflects each
`
`modified sub-beam back to the output port. See, e.g., Bouevitch, 2:44-61 (“In
`
`accordance with the instant invention there is provided an optical device
`
`comprising [a] modifying means . . . for selectively modifying each sub-beam of
`
`light and for reflecting each of the modified sub-beams back . . . along substantially
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`parallel optical paths.”) (emphasis added); see also Paper 43, Record of Oral
`
`Hearing, 55:16-56:2. As a result, Bouevitch is able to maintain efficient coupling
`
`of the output beams to the output port, while still performing power control. See,
`
`e.g., Bouevitch, 2:1-7.
`
`2. A POSA, After Reading Bouevitch, Would Have Been Led
`Down a Divergent Path
`
`A POSA, after reading Bouevitch, would have been led down a divergent
`
`path from the misalignment and angular displacement taught in Smith because
`
`Bouevitch teaches that power control should be performed at a modifying means—
`
`not the output port. This is true for every embodiment of Bouevitch, including
`
`Bouevitch’s claimed invention. See, e.g., Bouevitch, claims 1, 5, 12, 27.
`
`The four embodiments in Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, 4a, 4b, and 5 control power
`
`at the modifying means—not the output port. See Bouevitch, 6:33-41; 6:56-57;
`
`7:9-12; 7:37-43; see also id. at 7:45-49 (“[O]ther modifying means 150 including
`
`at least one optical element capable of modifying . . . and reflecting the modified
`
`beam of light back in substantially the same direction from which it originated are
`
`possible.”). The embodiment in Figures 6a and 6b controls power at the modifying
`
`means—not the output port. Bouevitch, 10:47-50 (“Each sub-beam of light . . . is
`
`modified and reflected backwards . . . .”). The embodiment in Figure 8 controls
`
`power at the modifying means—not the output port. Bouevitch, 11:32-35 (“Once
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`attenuated, the sub-beams of light are reflected back . . . .”). And the embodiment
`
`in Figure 9 controls power at the modifying means—not the output port.
`
`Bouevitch, 12:60-65 (“The spherical reflector 910 redirects the modified spatially
`
`dispersed beam of light back . . . such that it is recombined to form a single
`
`modified output beam of light . . . .”).
`
`In each of Bouevitch’s seven embodiments that control power, attenuation
`
`always occurs at the modifying means and away from the output port. Combined
`
`with Bouevitch’s teachings that misalignment and angular displacement are
`
`disadvantageous, a POSA would have been led down a divergent path from the
`
`misalignment and angular displacement taught in Smith.
`
`B. Petitioner’s Argument is Factually Incorrect
`Petitioner’s conclusion that Bouevitch teaches misalignment for power
`
`control is incorrect for at least three reasons.
`
`First, Petitioner and its expert rely on Bouevitch’s Figure 5 embodiment.
`
`Reply, pp. 4, 5; Ex. 1028, ¶ 71. But in Bouevitch’s Figure 5 embodiment, the light
`
`beam is attenuated before it even reaches the output port. Bouevitch explains:
`
`After passing through the quarter waveplate 157 for a second time, the
`attenuated sub-beam of light will have a polarization state that has
`been rotated 90° from the original polarization state. As a result, the
`attenuated sub-beam is refracted in the birefringent element 156 and
`is directed out of the device to port 102b.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`Bouevitch, 7:37-43 (emphasis added).
`
`
`In the Figure 5 embodiment, the light beam is attenuated when passing through the
`
`modifying means. See id.; see also POR, p. 18. And Bouevitch performs
`
`attenuation with a MEMS 155 that does not even tilt—it deflects. See Bouevitch,
`
`7:35-37. So Petitioner’s reliance on Figure 5 to show misalignment at the output
`
`port is misplaced.
`
`Second, Petitioner
`
`relies on mischaracterized
`
`testimony
`
`from Dr.
`
`Sergienko’s deposition. See Pet. Reply, pp. 3-5. Although Dr. Sergienko testified
`
`that Bouevitch could control power using misalignment, Dr. Sergienko testified
`
`that a POSA would not have had a motivation to use misalignment in Bouevitch
`
`because every embodiment of Bouevitch purposefully performs power control at a
`
`modifying means. See POR, pp. 26-28; see also Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 70, 126 (“a POSA
`
`would not have combined Smith’s two-axis mirrors with Bouevitch because Smith
`
`and Bouevitch use entirely different means to control power.”). Bouevitch may be
`
`technically capable of controlling power through misalignment. See Ex. 1039,
`
`145:11-17. However, if a POSA wanted to improve power control in Bouevitch,
`
`the POSA would have pursued power-control methods that remained isolated from
`
`the output port. See Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 130, 131, 134; Ex. 1039, 147:4-18. So, Dr.
`
`Sergienko’s testimony does not lead to a conclusion that Bouevitch teaches
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`misalignment or that a POSA would have used misalignment in Bouevitch. It leads
`
`to the opposite conclusion.
`
`Third, Petitioner in its Reply relied on disclosure from Bouevitch’s Figure 9
`
`embodiment, which allegedly can comprise a MEMS array. Reply, pp. 3-5 (citing
`
`Bouevitch, 12:38-39).3 Figure 9 does not expressly disclose power control using
`
`angular misalignment, so Petitioner alleges that “the principle is inherent because
`
`the POSA would recognize that angular misalignment is necessarily present in the
`
`MEMS variant of Fig. 9.” Reply, p. 6. But inherency cannot counter the teaching
`
`away. For inherency, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given
`
`set of circumstances is not sufficient.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993) (citing In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82 (CCPA 1981)) (emphasis in
`
`original). To show inherency, the feature must be necessarily present in the
`
`reference. Id.
`
`[T]he extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive
`matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference,
`and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.
`
`
`3 The Board relied on Petitioner’s Figure 9 argument in this Final Written
`
`Decision. Final Written Decision, p. 32 (citing Pet. Reply, pp. 3-5). The same
`
`panel in IPR2014-01276, however, deemed this argument outside the scope of the
`
`Petition. See IPR2014-01276, Paper 40, p. 36 n.14 (PTAB Feb. 17, 2016).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
`possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a
`given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2112 (emphasis added).
`
`Misalignment
`
`is not
`
`inherent
`
`in Bouevitch because Bouevitch’s
`
`embodiments comprising MEMS do not necessarily control power using
`
`misalignment. Rather, the embodiments using MEMS can control power without
`
`using misalignment. For example, the Figure 5 embodiment comprises MEMS.
`
`Bouevitch, 7:23-26. And an optical configuration using the Figure 5 embodiment
`
`controls power using polarization-based optics; it does not control power using
`
`misalignment. Bouevitch, 7:37-49. Since misalignment is not necessarily present,
`
`Bouevitch neither expressly nor inherently discloses misalignment.
`
`* * *
`
`A POSA, after reading Bouevitch, would have been led down an alternative
`
`path from the one taken by Capella. Bouevitch not only explicitly discourages
`
`misalignment, but every embodiment points in the direction of controlling power
`
`away from the output port. Therefore, a POSA would have had no reason to look to
`
`an inconsistent method to control power, even if that method existed at the time of
`
`the invention. For these reasons, the Board erred in determining that Bouevitch
`
`does not teach away from the power-control method taught in Smith.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`III. Combining Bouevitch and a Two-Axis Mirror Would Disrupt
`Bouevitch’s Principle of Operation
`
`Capella also asks for rehearing because the Board misinterpreted Capella’s
`
`argument that combining Bouevitch with a two-axis mirror would disrupt
`
`Boeuvitch’s principle of operation.
`
`Capella argued in its Patent Owner Response that a POSA would not have
`
`combined Bouevitch and a two-axis mirror because “the combination would
`
`disrupt Bouevitch’s polarization-based switch.” POR, p. 25; see also Paper 43,
`
`53:1-53:24, 54:19-55:3. The Board in its Final Written Decision, however,
`
`misinterpreted Capella’s argument. See Final Written Decision, pp. 30-31.
`
`Capella did not argue that Bouevitch and Smith are not combinable because
`
`Smith’s mirrors cannot be bodily incorporated into Bouevitch. Contra Final
`
`Written Decision, p. 33, with POR, pp. 25-26. Rather, Capella argued that a POSA
`
`would not have been motivated to combine Bouevitch and a two-axis mirror
`
`because doing so would require substantial reconstruction and redesign, as well as
`
`a change in the basic principle under which Bouevitch was designed to operate.
`
`POR, pp. 23-26; see also Ex. 2004, ¶¶ 112, 122 (“a POSA would not have been
`
`motivated to combine Smith’s two-axis mirrors with Bouevitch because the
`
`combination would render Bouevitch unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.”).
`
`When a combination “would require a substantial reconstruction and
`
`redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed
`
`to operate,” the combination is not obvious. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813
`
`(CCPA 1959); see also M.P.E.P. § 2143.01 (“The proposed modification cannot
`
`change the principle of operation of a reference.”).
`
`Similar to In re Ratti where the combination would have resulted in
`
`substantial reconstruction, substantial redesign, and a change in the basic principles
`
`the primary reference was designed to operate, combining Bouevitch and a two-
`
`axis mirror would result in substantial reconstruction, substantial redesign, and a
`
`change in the core principle Bouevitch was designed to operate. See POR, pp. 25-
`
`26. Bouevitch’s 4-f optical configuration is purposefully designed to avoid
`
`misalignment and angular displacement by using polarization-based optics to
`
`attenuate power. See Bouevitch, 2:1-7; POR, pp. 25-26. As acknowledged by the
`
`Board, combining Bouevitch and a two-axis mirror would require substantial
`
`engineering. See Final Written Decision, p. 33. The combination would require
`
`complex redesign. See POR, p. 25. And importantly, the combination would
`
`fundamentally change the optical principles Bouevitch uses to attenuate power. See
`
`POR, pp. 25-26.
`
`Capella’s argument therefore is that a POSA would not have had a
`
`motivation to use a two-axis mirror in Bouevitch because doing so would require
`
`substantial reconstruction and redesign with no added benefit, while
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`simultaneously disrupting the core principle under which Bouevitch was designed
`
`to operate. This alone is a sound argument for why Bouevitch and Smith are not
`
`combinable.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`The Board erred in determining that Bouevitch and Smith are combinable.
`
`Bouevitch explicitly teaches away from using the power-control method disclosed
`
`in Smith, and even if Bouevitch does not teach away, incorporating Smith’s power-
`
`control method would disrupt the core principle under which Bouevitch was
`
`designed to operate. Accordingly, the Board should rehear and reverse its Final
`
`Written Decision for claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Date: February 29, 2016
`
`STERNE, K ESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`IPR20 14-0 1166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Registration No. 28,912
`Attorney for Patent Owner (cid:173)
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
`
`13
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`IPR2014-01166
`U.S. Pat. No. RE42,368
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing REQUEST FOR
`
`REHEARING OF THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`
`was served electronically via e-mail in its entirety on February 29, 2016 upon the
`
`following counsel for Petitioner:
`
`Wayne 0. Stacy
`Matthew J. Leary
`Matthew J. Moore
`Robert Steinberg
`Christopher Chalsen
`Nathaniel Browand
`Lawrence T. Kass
`Suraj Balusu
`Thomas K. Pratt
`J. Pieter van Es
`
`wstacy@cooley .com
`CapellaCisco@cooley.com
`Matthew.Moore@lw.com
`Bob.Steinberg@lw.com
`CChalsen@milbank.com
`NBrowand@milbank.com
`LKass@milbank.com
`SBalusu@milbank.com
`TPratt@bannerwitcoff.com
`PvanEs@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`Date: February 29, 2016
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 371-2600
`
`Robert Greene Sterne
`Registration No. 28,912
`Attorney for Patent Owner -
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
