Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. RE42,368
`Filing Date: June 15, 2010
`Reissue Date: May 17, 2011
`
`Title: RECONFIGURABLE OPTICAL ADD-DROP MULTIPLEXERS WITH
`SERVO CONTROL AND DYNAMIC SPECTRAL POWER MANAGEMENT
`CAPABILITIES
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-01166
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................... 1 
`A. 
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................... 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 1 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................. 2 
`D. 
`Service Information .............................................................................. 2 
`E. 
`Power of Attorney ................................................................................ 2 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................... 3 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 3 
`A.  Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 3 
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`B. 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................ 3 
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 4 
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’368
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 5 
`VI.  SUMMARY OF THE ’368 PATENT ......................................................... 7 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .............. 9 
`A. 
`Legal Overview .................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`[Controllable] “in two dimensions” ..................................................... 9 
`C. 
`“To control the power of the spectral channel…” and "to reflect
`its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of said
`ports" (Claims 1-16); "whereby a subset of said spectral
`channels is directed to said drop ports" (Claim 15); and “for
`monitoring power levels” and “for controlling said beam-
`deflecting elements” (Claim 3) .......................................................... 10 
`“So as to combine selected ones of said spectral channels into
`an output” and "so as…to control the power" (claims 17-22) ........... 11 
`“Continuously controllable” ............................................................... 12 
`“Servo-control assembly” (Claims 3 & 4) ........................................ 13 
`i
`
`E. 
`F. 
`
`C. 
`
`V. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`E. 
`
`“Spectral monitor"(claim 3) ............................................................... 15 
`G. 
`“Beam-focuser" (claim 11) ................................................................ 15 
`H. 
`VIII.  CLAIMS 1-6, 9-13, AND 15-22 OF THE ’368 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................................... 16 
`A. 
`Smith, Lin and Dueck are all prior art to the ‘368 patent .................. 17 
`B.  Overview of the Bouevitch Prior Art ................................................. 18 
`C.  Overview of the Smith Prior Art ........................................................ 19 
`PHOSITA had ample motivation to combine Bouevitch with
`D. 
`Smith, including the motivations disclosed in both references .......... 19 
`Bouevitch and Smith Render Obvious All Petitioned Claims ........... 23 
`1. 
`Claim 1 – Grounds 1 and 2 ...................................................... 23 
`(1)  Claim 1 - preamble .............................................. 23 
`(2)  Claim element 1[a] - input port ........................... 24 
`(3)  Element 1[b] – Output & other ports for 2nd
`channels ............................................................... 24 
`(4)  Element 1[c] - wavelength-selective device ....... 25 
`(5)  Element 1[d] – 2-axis beam-deflecting
`elements ............................................................... 26 
`(6)  Ground 2 – Bouevitch + Smith + Lin ................. 29 
`(7) 
`2-axis beam-deflecting elements ......................... 31 
`(8) 
`Power Control using 2-Axis Mirrors: ................ 33 
`Claim 2 ..................................................................................... 35 
`Claim 3 ..................................................................................... 37 
`Claim 4 ..................................................................................... 41 
`Claim 5 ..................................................................................... 42 
`Claim 6 ..................................................................................... 43 
`Claim 9 ..................................................................................... 45 
`Claim 10 ................................................................................... 45 
`
`2. 
`3. 
`4. 
`5. 
`6. 
`7. 
`8. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CONTINUED
`
`PAGE
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CONTINUED
`
`PAGE
`
`
`
`Claim 11 ................................................................................... 46 
`9. 
`10.  Claim 12 – Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 ............................................ 47 
`11.  Claim 13 ................................................................................... 49 
`12.  Claim 15 – Grounds 1 and 2 ................................................... 49 
`(1)  Element 15[c] – drop ports for dropped
`channels ............................................................... 50 
`(2)  Element 15[d]-[e] ................................................ 50 
`(3)  Element 15[f] – dropped channels to drop
`ports ..................................................................... 51 
`13.  Claim 16 – Grounds 1 and 2 ................................................... 51 
`(1)  Element 16[c] – Add ports for added
`channels ............................................................... 52 
`(2)  Element 16[e] – Addition of channels from
`add ports .............................................................. 52 
`14.  Claim 17 – Grounds 1 and 2 .................................................... 53 
`(1)  Element 17[a] – Separating signal into
`channels ............................................................... 54 
`(2)  Element 17[b] – Imaging channels ..................... 54 
`(3)  Element 17[c] – Dynamic & continuous 2-
`axis control .......................................................... 55 
`15.  Claim 18 ................................................................................... 56 
`16.  Claim 19 ................................................................................... 57 
`17.  Claim 20 ................................................................................... 57 
`18.  Claim 21 ................................................................................... 58 
`19.  Claim 22 ................................................................................... 59 
`IX.  WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE SMITH
`PATENT’S SEPTEMBER 22, 2000, PRIORITY DATE ....................... 60 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`List of Exhibits Cited in this Petition
`
`Exhibit 1001:U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368 to Chen et al. (“ ‘368 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002: File History of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 to Chen et al. (“ ‘368 File
`History”)
`
`Exhibit 1003: U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 to Bouevitch et al. (“Bouevitch”)
`
`Exhibit 1004: U.S. Patent No. 6,798,941 to Smith et al. (“Smith Patent,” or
`“Smith”)
`
`Exhibit 1005: Provisional Patent App. No. 60/234,683 (“Smith Provisional”)
`
`Exhibit 1006: U.S. Patent No. 6,798,992 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop”)
`
`Exhibit 1007: U.S. Patent No. 6,507,421 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop ‘421”)
`
`Exhibit 1008: Provisional Patent App. No. 60/277,217 (“’368 Provisional”)
`
`Exhibit 1009: U.S. Patent No. 6,253,001 to Hoen (“Hoen”)
`
`Exhibit 1010: U.S. Patent No. 5,661,591 to Lin at al. (“Lin”)
`
`Exhibit 1011: Doerr et al., An Automatic 40-Wavelength Channelized Equalizer,
`IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, Vol., 12, No. 9, (Sept. 2000)
`
`Exhibit 1012: U.S. Patent No. 5,936,752 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop ‘752”)
`
`Exhibit 1013: Excerpt from New World English Dictionary ("servo” and
`“servomechanism”)
`
`Exhibit 1014: Excerpt from Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged
`10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers.
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feedback (accessed: May 07,
`2014) (“feedback”)
`
`Exhibit 1015: Ford et al., Wavelength Add–Drop Switching Using Tilting
`Micromirrors, Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 17, No. 5
`(May 1999) (“Ford”)
`
`Exhibit 1016: U.S. Patent No. 6,069,719 to Mizrahi (“Mizrahi”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit 1017: U.S. Patent No. 6,204,946 to Aksyuk et al. (“Aksyuk”)
`
`Exhibit 1018: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0105692 to Lauder
`et al. (“Lauder”)
`
`Exhibit 1019: Giles et al., Reconfigurable 16-Channel WDM DROP Module Using
`Silicon MEMS Optical Switches, IEEE Photonics Technology
`Letters, Vol. 11, No. 1, (Jan. 1999) (“Giles 16-Channel WDM
`DROP Module”)
`
`Exhibit 1020: Andrew S. Dewa, and John W. Orcutt, Development of a silicon 2-
`axis micro-mirror for optical cross-connect, Technical Digest of the
`Solid State Sensor and Actuator Workshop, Hilton Head Island, SC,
`June 4-8, 2000) at pp. 93-96 (“Dewa”)
`
`Exhibit 1021: U.S. Patent No. 6,011,884 to Dueck et al. (“Dueck”)
`
`Exhibit 1022: U.S. Patent No. 6,243 ,507 to Goldstein et al. (“Goldstein ‘507”)
`
`Exhibit 1023: U.S. Patent No. 6,567,574 to Ma, et al. (“Ma”)
`
`Exhibit 1024: U.S. Patent No. 6,256,430 to Jin, et al. (“Jin”)
`
`Exhibit 1025: U.S. Patent No. 6,631,222 to Wagener et al. (“Wagener”)
`
`Exhibit 1026: U.S. Patent No. 5,875,272 to Kewitsch et al. (“Kewitsch”)
`
`Exhibit 1027: U.S. Patent No. 6,285,500 to Ranalli at al. (“Ranalli”)
`
`Exhibit 1028: Declaration of Dr. Dan Marom
`
`Exhibit 1029: Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Dan Marom
`
`Exhibit 1030: James A. Walker et al., Fabrication of a Mechanical Antireflection
`Switch for Fiber-to-the-Home Systems, 5 J. Microelectromechanical
`Sys. 45, 46-47, Fig. 3 (1996) (“Walker”).
`
`Exhibit 1031: U.S. Patent No. 5,414,540 to Patel et al. (“Patel”)
`
`Exhibit 1032: Borella, et al., Optical Components for WDM Lightwave Networks,
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 85, NO. 8, August 1997 (“Borella”)
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`Exhibit 1033: U.S. Patent No. 6,928,244 to Goldstein et al. (“Goldstein ‘244”)
`
`Exhibit 1034: Steffen Kurth et al., Silicon mirrors and Micromirror Arrays for
`Spatial Laser Beam Modulation, Sensors and Actuators, A 66, July
`1998
`
`Exhibit 1035: C. Randy Giles and Magaly Spector, The Wavelength Add/Drop
`Multiplexer for Lightwave Communication Networks, Bell Labs
`Technical Journal, (Jan.-Mar. 1999) (“Giles and Spector”)
`
`Exhibit 1036: U.S. Patent No. 5,872,880 to Maynard (the “Maynard patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1037: R.E. Wagner and W.J. Tomlinson, Coupling Efficiency of Optics in
`Single-Mode Fiber Components, Applied Optics, Vol. 21, No. 15,
`pp. 2671-2688 (August 1982)
`
`Exhibit 1038: Excerpts from Born et al., PRINCIPLES OF OPTICS, (6th Ed.,
`Pergammon Press 1984)
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, of claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-22 (the “Petitioned
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 (Ex. 1001) (“the ’368 patent”), assigned on
`
`its face to Capella Photonics, Inc.
`
`In prosecuting its reissue patent, Patentee admitted that its original claim set
`
`was overbroad and invalid in light of U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 (Ex. 1003)
`
`(“Bouevitch”). To fix this claim drafting mistake and to distinguish over Ex. 1003,
`
`Patentee made two amendments to all of its independent claims. But those
`
`amendments merely swapped one known component for another known
`
`component. As described in the body of this petition, those amendments swapped
`
`one known type of mirror for another known type of mirror.
`
`While the Patentee’s reissue amendments may have addressed the novelty
`
`issues in light of Ex. 1003, those amendments do not overcome obviousness.
`
`Bouevitch in combination with the prior art described in the body of this petition
`
`renders the Petitioned Claims invalid as obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. is the real party-in-interest for this petition.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`The ’368 Patent is asserted against Cisco in an on-going patent lawsuit
`
`brought by Patent Owner in Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil
`
`Action Nos. 1-14-cv-20529 (“Capella litigation”), filed in the Southern District of
`
`Florida on February 14, 2014. Claims 1-6, 9-13 and 15-22 of the ’368 patent are
`
`asserted in the Capella litigation.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Matthew J. Leary (Reg. No. 58,593)
`Cooley LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Ste. 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`Tel:720-566-4125 Fax:720-566-4099
`CapellaCisco@cooley.com
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Wayne O. Stacy (Reg. No. 45,125)
`Cooley LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`Tel:720-566-4125 Fax:720-566-4099
`wstacy@cooley.com
`
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the present
`
`petition, in its entirety, including all Exhibits and a power of attorney, is being
`
`served by USPS EXPRESS MAIL, costs prepaid, to the address of the attorney or
`
`agent of record for the ’368 patent: Barry Young, Law Offices of Barry N. Young,
`
`P.O. Box 61197, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Petitioner may be served at the lead
`
`counsel address provided in Section I.C. of this Petition. Petitioner consents to
`
`service by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided above.
`
`Power of Attorney
`
`E.
`A power of attorney is being filed concurrently with this petition in
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`accordance with 37 C.F.R, § 42.10(b).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`This petition for inter partes review requests review of 19 claims of the ’368
`
`patent and is accompanied by a request fee payment of $24,600. See 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.15. Thus, this petition meets the fee requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’368 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`further certifies that Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review challenging the identified claims on the grounds identified
`
`within the present petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-22 of the
`
`’368 patent under the statutory grounds set forth in the table below. Petitioner asks
`
`that each of the claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of how the
`
`Petitioned Claims are unpatentable is included in Part VIII of this petition.
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in the
`
`Declaration of a technical expert, Dr. Dan Marom (Ex. 1028) (“Marom Decl.,”).
`
`Ground ’368 Patent
`Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`Ground ’368 Patent
`Claims
`1
`1-6, 9-13,
`and 15-22
`1-6, 9-13,
`and 15-22
`12
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of Smith.
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of Smith
`further in view of Lin.
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of Smith in
`further view of Dueck.
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of Smith
`and Lin in further view of Dueck.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`12
`
`Each of the references relied upon in the grounds set forth above qualify as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C., § 102(e) or (b).
`
`This Petition and the Declaration of Dan Marom, submitted herewith, cite
`
`additional prior art materials to provide background of the relevant technology and
`
`to explain why one of skill in the art would combine the cited references.
`
`C. Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c)
`
`Inter partes review of claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-22 should be instituted
`
`because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the claims challenged. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Each
`
`limitation of each challenged claim is disclosed by and/or obvious in light of the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’368 PATENT
`Fiber-optic communication uses light to carry information over optical
`
`fibers. Originally, fiber-optic systems used one data channel per fiber. To increase
`
`the number of channels carried by a single fiber, wavelength division multiplexing
`
`(“WDM”) was developed. WDM is a type of optical communication that uses
`
`different wavelengths of light to carry different channels of data. WDM combines
`
`(multiplexes) multiple individual channels onto a single fiber of an optical
`
`network. WDM was known before the ‘368’s priority date. (E.g., Ex. 1015 at
`
`904.)
`
`At different points in a fiber network, some of the individual channels may
`
`be extracted (dropped) from the fiber, for example when those channels are
`
`directed locally and need not be passed further down the fiber network. And at
`
`these network points, other channels may also be added into the fiber for
`
`transmission onward to other portions of the network. To handle this add/drop
`
`process, optical add-drop multiplexers (OADMs) were developed. OADMs are
`
`used to insert channels onto, pass along, and drop channels from an optical fiber
`
`without disrupting the overall traffic flow on the fiber. (Ex. 1001 at 1:51-58.)
`
`OADMs were known long before the ‘368 priority date. (E.g., Ex. 1015 at 904.)
`
`(Re)configurable OADMs are referred to as “ROADMs” or “COADMs,”
`
`which are controllable to dynamically select which wavelengths to add, drop, or
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`pass through. (Ex. 1003 at Abstract; Ex. 1019 at 64.) These types of devices were
`
`known in the art prior to the ‘368 priority date. (Marom Decl., Ex. 1028 at ¶ 29.)
`
`ROADMs operate by separating the input light beam into individual
`
`beams—each beam corresponding to an individual channel.
`
` Each input
`
`channel/beam is individually routed by a beam-steering system to a chosen output
`
`port of the ROADM. For example, a first channel can be steered so that it is
`
`switched from an “input” port to an “output” port. Channels switched to the
`
`“output” port are passed along the network. At the same time, a second channel
`
`can be switched to a “drop” port and removed from the main fiber. The ROADM
`
`could also add a new channel to the main fiber through the “add” port to replace
`
`the dropped channel. These add/drop techniques were known prior to the ‘368
`
`priority date. (Ex. 1028 at ¶ 29; Ex. 1003 at 5:15-38; Ex. 1016 at 1:55-2:45; Ex.
`
`1017 at 1:56-67.)
`
`In addition to routing channels, ROADMS may also be used to control the
`
`power of the individual channels. Power control is often performed by steering
`
`individual beams slightly away from the target port such that the misalignment
`
`reduces the amount of the channel’s power that enters the port. This misalignment
`
`power control technique in ROADMs was known prior to the ‘368 priority date.
`
`(See e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶ 35, ¶ 60; Ex. 1006 at 2:9-21.)
`
`ROADMs use wavelength selective routers (WSRs) to perform switching
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`and power control. (See, e.g., Ex. 1026 at 10:64-11:29.) WSRs are also referred to
`
`as wavelength selective switches (WSSs). (See, e.g., Ex. 1027 at Fig. 1.) As of the
`
`‘368 priority date, WSRs/WSSs were known. (See, e.g., Ex. 1026 at Abstract,
`
`4:15-25; Ex. 1027 at Fig. 1; Ex. 1032 at 1292, 1300.)
`
`The embodiment of WSRs relevant to this petition steers light beams using
`
`small
`
`tilting mirrors, sometimes called MEMS, which stand for Micro
`
`ElectroMechanical Systems. (Ex. 1028 ¶ 36, 31.) Prior-art WSRs could tilt the
`
`individual mirrors using analog voltage control. (Id.) The tilt allows reflected
`
`beams to be aimed at selected ports. Prior-art MEMS mirrors could be tilted in one
`
`or two axes. (Id. at 37.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’368 PATENT
`The ‘368 patent originally issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,879,750. According
`
`to the Patentee, the original patent’s claims were invalid over Bouevitch. The
`
`Patentee expressly acknowledged its claiming mistake and identified the two
`
`elements that it alleged needed to be added to its claims to support patentability–
`
`(1) mirror control in two-dimensions, and (2) the mirror’s use for power control:
`
`At least one error upon which reissue is based is described as follows:
`Claim 1 is deemed to be too broad and invalid in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,498,872 to Bouevitch and further in view of one or more of Ex.
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 6,567,574 to Ma, Ex. 1024 U.S. Patent No.
`6,256,430 to Jin, or Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,631,222 to Wagener by
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`failing to include limitations regarding the spatial array of beam
`deflecting elements being individually and continuously controllable in
`two dimensions to control the power of the spectral channels reflected
`to selected output ports, as indicated by the amendments to Claim 1 in the
`Preliminary Amendment. (Ex. 1002 at 81-82.)
`In its efforts to distinguish over Bouevitch, Patentee’s first amendment
`
`specified that the beam-deflecting elements must be controllable in two
`
`dimensions. This amendment corresponds to a mirror tilting in two axes rather
`
`than one. As for the second amendment, Patent Owner added a use clause stating
`
`that the beam-deflecting elements could be used to control power. As explained in
`
`the claim construction section (§ VII, below), use clauses are not limiting, and
`
`have no impact on an invalidity analysis. Claim 1 of the ‘750 patent as amended,
`
`with the amendments underlined, is shown in Table 1.
`
`Table 1
`1 An optical add-drop apparatus comprising
`1a an input port for an input multi-wavelength optical signal having first spectral
`channels;
`1b one or more other ports for second spectral channels; an output port for an
`output multi-wavelength optical signal;
`1c a wavelength-selective device for spatially separating said spectral channels;
`1d a spatial array of beam-deflecting elements positioned such that each element
`receives a corresponding one of said spectral channels, each of said elements
`being individually and continuously controllable in two dimensions to reflect
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of said ports and to
`control the power of the spectral channel reflected to said selected port.
`
`The Patentee made almost identical amendments to the 3 other independent claims.
`
`
`
`Through the Patentee’s admissions about Bouevitch, the Patentee also
`
`admitted that Bouevitch disclosed all the elements of at least claim 1, except for 2-
`
`axis mirrors. The Patentee first admitted that Bouevitch anticipated the pre-
`
`reissue version of claim 1 as it appeared in the ‘750 patent. Following that, the
`
`only amendments the Patentee added to the claim were 2-axis mirrors and their
`
`intended use for power control. Because the intended use language is not limiting,
`
`as discussed in the next section, the Patentee admitted that Bouevitch disclosed all
`
`limitations but for 2-axis mirrors. (See MPEP § 2217 (“admissions by the patent
`
`owner in the record as to matters affecting patentability may be utilized during a
`
`reexamination”) (citing 37 CFR 1.104(c)(3)).)
`
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`A. Legal Overview
`A claim subject to inter partes review (“IPR”) is given its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Except as expressly set out below, Petitioner
`
`construes the language of the claims to have their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`[Controllable] “in two dimensions”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") for the term “in two
`
`dimensions” in light of the specification is "in two axes." As the claim states, the
`
`“beam-deflecting elements” are “controllable in two dimensions.” The ‘368
`
`consistently describes these beam-deflecting elements as various types of mirrors
`
`which are rotated around the two axes in which the mirrors tilt to deflect light. The
`
`specification states, for example, that the beam-deflecting elements "may be
`
`pivoted about one or two axes.” (Ex. 1001 at 4:25-26, Abstract.) The specification
`
`also describes certain embodiments that use two-dimensional arrays of input and
`
`output ports. For these embodiments, the specification describes that the mirrors
`
`are required to tilt along two axes (“biaxially”) to switch the beams between the
`
`ports. (Id., 4:25-29.) And further, the ‘368 patent explains how to control power
`
`by tilting the mirrors in two axes. (Id., 16:36-51 (describing the combined use of
`
`major and minor “tilt axes” for power control & switching).)
`
`C.
`
`“To control the power of the spectral channel…” and "to
`reflect its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of
`said ports" (Claims 1-16); "whereby a subset of said spectral
`channels is directed to said drop ports" (Claim 15); and “for
`monitoring power levels” and “for controlling said beam-
`deflecting elements” (Claim 3)
`
`Each of the above terms is a mere statement of intended use and is not
`
`limiting under a BRI for apparatus claims 1-16. The Federal Circuit stated that
`
`"apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett–
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "An
`
`intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such
`
`statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention
`
`operates." Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320
`
`F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009); MPEP §§ 2114, 1414.)
`
`The BPAI has also had the opportunity to address use clauses. In Ex parte
`
`Kearney, the BPAI stated that use clauses need not be considered when evaluating
`
`the validity of a claim. Ex parte Kearney, 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2675, at *6
`
`(BPAI 2012) (“our reviewing court has held that the absence of a disclosure
`
`relating to function does not defeat a finding of anticipation if all the claimed
`
`structural limitations are found in the reference.")
`
`The above phrases are non-functional use clauses because they say nothing
`
`about
`
`the structure of
`
`the apparatus.
`
` Unlike claim
`
`limitations reciting
`
`"configurable to [perform a function]," which in some cases inform about the
`
`configuration of a part of the apparatus, the term at issue in the '368 patent says
`
`nothing about what the apparatus is. Instead, the claus speaks only to what it might
`
`do. Petitioner asks that the Board find the above phrases non-limiting.
`
`D.
`
`“So as to combine selected ones of said spectral channels into an
`output” and "so as…to control the power" (claims 17-22)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`The above phrases are not limiting for method claims 17-22 under the BRI
`
`because each expresses nothing more than the intended result of a method step. A
`
`"whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses
`
`the intended result of a process step positively recited." Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n of
`
`Sec. Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003);
`
`MPEP 2111.04 (listing "whereby" as one of several terms that raise questions as to
`
`any limiting effect).
`
`Here, instead of a "whereby" or a "whereas" clause, the Patentee chose to
`
`use the term "so as," which just as clearly designates an intended result as
`
`“whereas.” See Regents of University of California v. Micro Therapeutics, Inc.,
`
`Case No. C03–05669, 2007 WL 734998, *18 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2007) (“Thus, a
`
`‘so that clause’ is equivalent to a ‘whereby clause’ in a method claim. A ‘whereby
`
`clause’ in a method claim that merely states the results of the limitations in the
`
`claim adds nothing to the substance of the claim”). Petitioner asks that the Board
`
`find the above terms non-limiting.
`
`“Continuously controllable”
`
`E.
`The BRI for “continuously controllable” in light of the specification is
`
`"under analog control." This definition is consistent with the use of the term in the
`
`specification, which describes how “analog” means are used to effect continuous
`
`control of the mirrors. The patent explains that "[a] distinct feature of the channel
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`micromirrors in the present invention, in contrast to those used in the prior art, is
`
`that the motion…of each channel micromirror is under analog control such that its
`
`pivoting angle can be continuously adjusted.” (Id., 4:7-11; emphasis added).
`
`Another passage in the specification states that "[w]hat is important is that the
`
`pivoting (or rotational) motion of each channel micromirror be individually
`
`controllable in an analog manner, whereby the pivoting angle can be
`
`continuously adjusted so as to enable the channel micromirror to scan a spectral
`
`channel across all possible output ports." (Id., 9:9-14; emphasis added). Yet
`
`another passage states that "channel micromirrors 103 are individually controllable
`
`and movable, e.g., pivotable (or rotatable) under analog (or continuous) control."
`
`(Id., 7:6-8).
`
`“Servo-control assembly” (Claims 3 & 4)
`
`F.
`The BRI for the term “servo control assembly” in light of the specification is
`
`"feedback-based control assembly" This definition is consistent with the use of the
`
`term in the specification, which equates servo control with use of a feedback loop.
`
`For example, when describing its “servo control,” the ‘368 patent teaches a
`
`spectral monitor that provides “feedback” control for the mirrors. "The servo-
`
`control assembly 440 further includes a processing unit 470, in communication
`
`with the spectral monitor 460 and the channel micromirrors 430 of the WSR
`
`apparatus 410. The processing unit 470 uses the power measurements from the
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`spectral monitor 460 to provide feedback control of the channel micromirrors
`
`430." (Id., 11:18-24 emphasis added.) In another passage, the ‘368 patent states
`
`that the servo-control assembly “serves to monitor the power levels of the spectral
`
`channels coupled into the output ports and further provide control of the channel
`
`micro mirrors on an individual basis, so as to maintain a predetermined coupling
`
`efficiency of each spectral channel.” (Id., 4:45-52.)
`
`Moreover, in the figure that the `368 patent labels “servo-control assembly,”
`
`the ‘368 patent shows a controller which takes measurements of the output power
`
`and moves the mirrors to further adjust that power—a typical feedback loop. (Id.,
`
`Fig