`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`___________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. ALEXANDER V. SERGIENKO
`IN SUPPORT OF THE PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “Patent Board”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Capella 2004
`Cisco v. Capella
`IPR2014-01276
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................ 1 
`II. 
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED FOR THIS DECLARATION .................. 4 
`III. 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED FOR THIS DECLARATION ............. 10 
`A. 
`Level of Skill in the Art ....................................................................... 10 
`B. 
`Obviousness ......................................................................................... 11 
`C. 
`Obviousness to Combine ..................................................................... 13 
`D. 
`Claim Construction ............................................................................. 14 
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS ............................................................................ 14 
`V. 
`VI.  TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................ 14 
`A.  General Overview ................................................................................ 14 
`B. 
`Use of Circulators at the Time of the Invention .................................. 18 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE ’678 PATENT AND APPLIED REFERENCES ..... 22 
`A. 
`The ’678 Patent ................................................................................... 23 
`B. 
`Bouevitch ............................................................................................. 33 
`C. 
`Smith.................................................................................................... 45 
`D. 
`Lin ........................................................................................................ 54 
`E. 
`Dueck ................................................................................................... 57 
`VIII.  NON-OBVIOUSNESS TO COMBINE ........................................................ 59 
`A.  A POSA Would Not Have Found it Obvious to Combine Bouevitch
`and Smith. ............................................................................................ 64 
`A POSA would not have found it obvious to combine Bouevitch,
`Smith, and Lin. .................................................................................... 75 
`A POSA would not have found it obvious to combine Bouevitch,
`Smith, Lin, and Dueck. ........................................................................ 75 
`INDEPENDENT CLAIM ELEMENTS ........................................................ 77 
`A. 
`Fiber Collimators, Providing an Input Port and a Plurality of Output
`Ports ..................................................................................................... 77 
`B.  Micromirrors Pivotable About Two Axes and Continuously
`Controllable ......................................................................................... 90 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`IX. 
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`XI.  REFERENCES FROM ORIGINAL PROSECUTION ...............................101 
`XII.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................102 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`I, Dr. Alexander V. Sergienko, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. My name is Alexander V. Sergienko. Capella Photonics, Inc. has
`
`retained me as an expert witness. I have been asked to provide my expert opinion
`
`on the validity of claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, and 61-65
`
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 to Wilde et al. (“’678 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated for my work. My compensation is not
`
`contingent upon and in no way affects the substance of my testimony.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`
`I have a Ph.D. in Physics from Moscow State University in 1987 and
`
`a Master of Science Degree in Physics from Moscow State University in 1981.
`
`4.
`
`I am currently a full professor at Boston University where I hold joint
`
`appointments in the Photonics Center, the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering, and the Department of Physics. My expertise and research interests
`
`include optics, photonics, quantum physics, laser physics, nonlinear optics, and
`
`precise optical measurement in telecommunication and optical engineering.
`
`5.
`
`I have experience and familiarity with the technical areas involved in
`
`this case. With over 30 years of research experience in the field of optics, I have
`
`studied and worked with optical components such as those at issue in this case. For
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`example, during my tenure as a Director of the Quantum Communication and
`
`Measurement Laboratory at the Boston University Photonics Center, I developed
`
`quantum optical technologies for high-resolution evaluation of optical device
`
`parameters (e.g., fibers, switches, and amplifiers). With this research I have
`
`evaluated the differences in wavelength selective switches produced by
`
`commercial vendors. I have thus studied switching technologies such as
`
`microelectromechanical (“MEMS”) mirrors, liquid crystal (“LC”), combined
`
`MEMS+LC, and liquid crystal on silicon (“LCOS”).
`
`6.
`
`For more than a decade, my focus has been on high-resolution
`
`measurement of polarization mode dispersion (“PMD”) in modern wavelength
`
`selective switches operating in 40 Gb/s and 100 Gb/c telecommunication
`
`reconfigurable optical add-drop multiplexer networks. I have worked to develop
`
`measurement technologies that are based on the use of quantum properties of light
`
`and enable measurement of PMD in discrete telecommunication devices, fibers,
`
`and switches with a superior resolution of < 1fs. For details on my research
`
`regarding high-resolution measurement of PMD, see, e.g., Fraine, D.S. Simon, O.
`
`Minaeva, R. Egorov, and A.V. Sergienko, Precise Evaluation of Polarization
`
`Mode Dispersion by Separation of Even- and Odd-Order Effects in Quantum
`
`Interferometry, OPTICS EXPRESS, v. 19, no. 21, 22820 (2011), attached as Exhibit
`
`2019.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`
`I have published 132 technical papers in research journals in the area
`
`7.
`
`of photonics, physics, and optical technology. Several of these research journals
`
`include: Nature Communications; Journal of the Optical Society of America;
`
`Physical Review Letters; and Physical Review A. I have presented more than 300
`
`research papers at major international research conferences. I have contributed 7
`
`book chapters on precise optical measurement and quantum optics. I have also
`
`served as the sole editor of a book titled Quantum Communications and
`
`Cryptography.
`
`8.
`
`I have taught courses in optical measurement, quantum optics,
`
`photonics, electrical circuit theory, and analog electronics. I have also been an
`
`advisor to graduate students researching various subjects in physics, electrical
`
`engineering, and photonics.
`
`9.
`
`I am a Fellow of the Optical Society of America (OSA) (<10% of
`
`total OSA members) and have been a lead of Quantum Computing and
`
`Communication Technical Group at OSA for several years. I am a member of the
`
`American Physical Society and a member of IEEE.
`
`10. From 1990 to 1996, I worked for the University of Maryland and the
`
`National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST”). While at NIST, I
`
`developed several novel optical measurement technologies that outperformed
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`existing conventional approaches both in resolution and in accuracy. In 1996, I
`
`joined the Photonics Center and the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Boston University. I since have been a member of the Boston
`
`University faculty.
`
`11. My curriculum vitae contains further details on my education,
`
`experience, publications, patents, and other qualifications. A copy is provided as
`
`Exhibit 2003.
`
`III.
`
`INFORMATION CONSIDERED FOR THIS DECLARATION
`12.
`
`I have been asked to provide a technical review, analysis, insights, and
`
`opinions regarding the following references. My opinions are based on over 30
`
`years of education, research, and experience, as well as my study of relevant
`
`materials.
`
`13.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’678 patent specification,
`
`the claims, and the prosecution history. I understand that the ’678 patent claims the
`
`benefit of U.S. Provisional App. No. 60/277,217 (“’217 Provisional”), filed on
`
`March 19, 2001. I understand that the ’678 patent has been provided as Exhibit
`
`1001. I will cite to the specification using the following format: (’678 patent, 1:1-
`
`10). This example citation points to the ’678 patent specification at column 1 lines
`
`1-10.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`14.
`
`Review (Paper 2, “Petition”), the Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 7,
`
`“POPR”), and the Board’s Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review (Paper 8,
`
`“Decision”).
`
`15.
`
`I am aware that in addition to IPR2014-01276, the ’678 patent is at
`
`issue in the following inter partes review petitions: IPR2015-00727; IPR2015-
`
`00739; and IPR2015-00894. I am also aware that the ’678 patent is at issue in
`
`district court litigation.
`
`16.
`
`I have reviewed the declaration of Dr. Dan Marom (Ex. 1028,
`
`“Marom Dec.”) and understand that I can compare and contrast the technology
`
`analysis in the Marom Declaration with my own. I was also present during the
`
`deposition of Dr. Dan Marom and understand that I can compare and contrast the
`
`technology analysis in the Marom Deposition transcript with my own.
`
`17.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the following listed references. I
`
`may rely upon these materials to respond to arguments raised by Petitioner.
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`Reference
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 to Wilde et al.
`Prosecution File History for U.S. Patent No. RE42,678.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 to Bouevitch et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,798,941 to Smith et al.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`Reference
`U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 60/234,683 to Smith et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,798,992 to Bishop et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,507,421 to Bishop et al.
`U.S. Provisional Patent App. No. 60/277,217 to Wilde.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,253,001 to Hoen.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,661,591 to Lin et al.
`C. R. Doerr et al., An Automatic 40-Wavelength Channelized
`Equalizer, 12 IEEE Photonics Tech. Letters, no. 9, 1195 (2000).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,936,752 to Bishop et al.
`Servo / Servomechanism, Dictionary.com (2014).
`Feedback, Dictionary.com (2014) (Ex. 1014).
`Joseph E. Ford et al., Wavelength Add-Drop Switching Using
`Tilting Micromirrors, 17 J. Lightwave Tech., no. 5, 904 (1999).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,069,719 to Mizrahi.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,204,946 to Aksyuk et al.
`U.S. Provisional Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0105692 to Lauder et
`al.
`C. R. Giles et al., Reconfigurable 16-Channel WDM DROP
`Module Using Silicon MEMS Optical Switches, 11 IEEE Photonics
`Tech. Letters, no. 1, 63 (1999).
`Andrew S. Dewa et al., Development of a Silicon Two-Axis
`Micromirror for an Optical Cross-Connect, 21 Applied Optics, no.
`15, 2671 (1982).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,011,884 to Dueck et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,243,507 to Goldstein et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,567,574 to Ma et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,256,430 to Jin et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,631,222 to Wagener et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,875,272 to Kewitsch et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,285,500 to Ranalli et al.
`Declaration of Dr. Dan Marom.
`James A. Walker, Fabrication of a Mechanical Antireflection
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`1014
`1015
`
`1016
`1017
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1030
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`Reference
`Switch for Fiber-to-the-Home Systems, 5 J.
`Microelectromechanical Systems, no. 1, 45 (1996).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,414,540 to Patel et al.
`Michael S. Borella et al., Optical Components for WDM
`Lightwave Networks, 85 Proceedings of the IEEE, no. 8, 1274
`(1997).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,928,244 to Goldstein et al.
`Steffen Kurth et al., Silicon Mirrors and Micromirror Arrays for
`Spatial Laser Beam Modulation, A 66 Sensors and Actuators, 76
`(1998).
`C. Randy Giles & Magaly Spector, The Wavelength Add/Drop
`Multiplexer for Lightwave Communication Networks, Bell Labs
`Tech. J., (1999).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,872,880 to Maynard.
`R. E. Wagner & W. J. Tomlinson, Coupling Efficiency of Optics in
`Single-Mode Fiber Components, 21 Applied Optics, no. 16, 2671
`(1982).
`Max Born & Emil Wolf, Principles of Optics v-viii, 615-19
`(Pergammon Press, 6th ed. 1984).
`Handbook of Optical Interconnects 327 (Shigeru Kawai, ed.,
`2005).
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0097956 to Kikuchi et al.
`Joseph E. Ford & James A. Walker, Dynamic Spectral Power
`Equalization Using Micro-Opto Mechanics, 10 IEEE Photonics
`Tech. Letters, no. 10, 1440 (1998).
`U.S. Patent No. 5,048,912 to Kunikane et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 5,315,431 to Masuda et al.
`Shifu Yuan & Nabeel A. Riza, General Formula for Coupling-
`Loss Characterization of Single-Mode Fiber Collimators by Use of
`Gradient-Index Rod Lenses, 38 Applied Optics, no. 15, 3214
`(1999).
`Ming C. Wu, Micromachining for Optical and Optoelectronic
`Systems, 85 Proceedings of the IEEE, no. 11, 1833 (1997).
`Isaac Newton, Opticks: Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`Reference
`Colours of Light (4th ed. corr. 1730) .
`Terumi Chikama et al., Photonic Networking Using Optical Add
`Drop Multiplexers and Optical Cross-Connects, 35 Fujitsu Sci.
`Tech. J. 46 (1999).
`Richard S. Muller, Surface-Micromachined Microoptical Elements
`and Systems, 86 Proceedings of the IEEE, no. 8, 1705 (1998).
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/267,285.
`Transcript of Deposition of Dan M. Marom, Ph.D. (“Marom Depo.
`Tr.”)
`Capella Photonics Launches Dynamically Reconfigurable
`Wavelength Routing Subsystems, Offering Unprecedented
`Operating Cost Savings and Flexibility for Telecom Service
`Providers, Business Wire (June 2, 2003, 8:16 AM),
`http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20030602005554/en/Ca
`pella-Photonics-Launches-Dynamically-Reconfigurable-
`Wavelength-Routing. (“Business Wire”)
`Benjamin B. Dingel & Achyut Dutta, Photonic Add-Drop
`Multiplexing Perspective for Next Generation Optical Networks,
`4532 SPIE 394 (2001). (“Dingle”)
`Tze-Wei Yeow, K. L. Eddie Law, & Andrew Goldenberg, MEMS
`Optical Switches, 39 IEEE Comm. I Mag. no. 11, 158 (2001).
`(“Yeow”)
`Clifford Holliday, Components for R-OADMs ’05 (B & C
`Consulting Services & IGI Consulting Inc. 2005). (“Holliday R-
`OADMs”)
`Patrick B. Chu et al., MEMS: the Path to Large Optical
`Crossconnects, 40 IEEE Comm. I Mag. no. 3, 80 (2002). (“Chu”)
`Clifford Holliday, Switching the Lightwave: OXC’s – The
`Centerpiece of All Optical Network (IGI Consulting Inc. & B & C
`Consulting Services 2001). (“Holliday OXC”)
`An Vu Tran et al., Reconfigurable Multichannel Optical Add-Drop
`Multiplexers Incorporating Eight-Port Optical Circulators and
`Fiber Bragg Gratings, 13 Photonics Tech. Letters, IEEE, no. 10,
`1100 (2001). (“Tran”)
`Jungho Kim & Byoungho Lee, Bidirectional Wavelength Add-
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`2001
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`Reference
`Drop Multiplexer Using Multiport Optical Circulators and Fiber
`Bragg Gratings, 12 IEEE Photonics Tech. Letters no. 5, 561
`(2000). (“Kim”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,984,917 to Greywall & Marom. (“’917 Marom”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,657,770 to Marom et al. (“’770 patent”)
`Max Born & Emil Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge Univ.
`Press, 6th Corrected Ed. 1986) (Excerpts). (“Born”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,543,286 to Gaverick et al. (“’286 patent”)
`WavePath 4500 Product Brief, Capella,
`http://www.capellainc.com/downloads/WavePath%204500%20Pro
`duct%20Brief%20030206B.pdf. (“WavePath”)
`Fraine, D.S. Simon, O. Minaeva, R. Egorov, and A.V. Sergienko,
`Precise evaluation of polarization mode dispersion by separation
`of even- and odd-order effects in quantum interferometry, Optics
`Express v. 19, no. 21, 22820 (2011). (“Fraine”)
`Abdul Al-Azzawi, Fiber Optics: Principles and Practices (CRC
`Press 2006). (“Al-Azzawi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,629,790 to Neukermans et al. (“Neukermans”)
`Dan M. Marom et al., Wavelength-Selective 1 x K Switches Using
`Free-Space Optics and MEMS Micromirrors: Theory, Design, and
`Implementation, 23 J. Lightwave Tech. 4, 1620 (2005). (“Marom”)
`Metallic Coatings, Exsma Optics, available at
`http://eksmaoptics.com/optical-components/coatings/metallic-
`coatings/. (“Exsma”)
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/183,155
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`
`2014
`2015
`2016
`
`2017
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2022
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`18.
`
`I recognize that this declaration represents only the opinions I have
`
`formed to date. I may consider additional documents as they become available or
`
`other documents that are necessary to form my opinions. I reserve the right to
`
`revise, supplement, or amend my opinions based on new information and on my
`
`continuing analysis.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE LAW USED FOR THIS DECLARATION
`19. When considering the ’678 patent and stating my opinions, I am
`
`relying on legal principles that have been explained to me by counsel.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that for a claim to be found patentable, the claims must
`
`be, among other requirements, novel and nonobvious from what was known at the
`
`time of the invention, i.e., the earliest alleged priority date of the ’678 patent –
`
`March 19, 2001.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that the information that is used to evaluate whether a
`
`claim is novel and nonobvious is referred to as prior art.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. has
`
`the burden of proving that each claim element of the ’678 patent is rendered
`
`obvious by the alleged prior art references.
`
`A. Level of Skill in the Art
`23.
`I have been asked to consider the level of ordinary skill in the art that
`
`someone would have had in 2001. With over 30 years of experience in physics and
`
`optical communications, I am well informed with the level of ordinary skill, which
`
`takes into consideration:
`
` Levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
` Types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
` Sophistication of the technology.
`
`
`
`24. Based on the technologies disclosed in the ’678 patent and the
`
`considerations listed above, a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”)
`
`would have had a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Physics, or
`
`an equivalent field, as well as at least three years of industry experience designing
`
`optical systems. Less education could be compensated by more direct experience
`
`and vice versa.
`
`25. Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the
`
`present tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a POSA
`
`would have known at the effective filing date. Additionally, throughout my
`
`declaration, even if I discuss something stating “I,” I am referring to a POSA’s
`
`understanding.
`
`B. Obviousness
`26.
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claims would have
`
`been obvious to a POSA at the effective filing date of March 19, 2001. I
`
`understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight, but from
`
`the perspective of a POSA as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`I understand that to obtain a patent, the claims must have, as of the
`
`27.
`
`effective filing date, been nonobvious in view of the prior art in the field. I
`
`understand that a claim is obvious when the differences between the subject matter
`
`sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`
`would have been obvious to a POSA at the time the invention was made.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that to prove that prior art or a combination of prior art
`
`renders a patent obvious, it is necessary to: (1) identify the particular references
`
`that, singly or in combination, make the patent obvious; (2) specifically identify
`
`which elements of the patent claim appear in each of the asserted references; and
`
`(3) explain how a POSA could have combined the prior art references to create the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia include:
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others
`
`in the field; taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the
`
`patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art.
`
`C. Obviousness to Combine
`30.
`I understand that obviousness can be established by combining
`
`multiple prior art references to meet each and every claim element, but I also
`
`understand that a proposed combination of references can be susceptible to
`
`hindsight bias.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that references are more likely to be combinable if the
`
`nature of the problem to be solved is the same.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that if the combination of references results in the
`
`references being unsatisfactory for their intended purposes or the combination
`
`changes the references’ principle of operation, a POSA would not have a
`
`motivation to combine the references.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that teaching away, e.g., discouragement, is strong
`
`evidence that the references are not combinable. I also understand that a disclosure
`
`of more than one alternative does not necessarily constitute a teaching away. I
`
`understand that the combination does not need to result in the most desirable
`
`embodiment, but if the proposed combination does not have a reasonable
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`expectation of success at the time of the invention, a POSA would not have
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.
`
`D. Claim Construction
`34.
`I understand that in this proceeding the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. I have used the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard when interpreting the claim terms.
`
`V.
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`35.
`
`I understand that in IPR2014-01276, the Board instituted inter partes
`
`review of claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, and 61-65 of the ’678
`
`patent in the manner shown in the table below.
`
`Primary Reference Secondary References
`
`Bouevitch
`
`Bouevitch
`
`Smith and Lin
`
`Smith, Lin, and Dueck
`
`Claims
`1-4, 9, 10, 13,
`19-23, 27, 44-
`46, and 61-65
`17, 29, and 53
`
`Type
`Obviousness
`§ 103
`Obviousness
`§ 103
`
`VI. TECHNOLOGY
`A. General Overview
`
`36. Telecommunication companies use optical fiber to transmit and
`
`receive communication signals for the telephone, cable television, and the Internet.
`
`Optical fiber enables various wavelengths of light to simultaneously travel along
`
`the fiber. Each wavelength carries data intended for delivery to a specific location
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPPR2014-011276
`
`
`Paatent RE422,678
`
`
`on a nettwork. To service maany locatioons, opticall fiber netwworks formm a grid
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`spanninng across thhe country
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Line segmments of opptical fiberr cable inteersect at noodes
`
`
`
`
`
`or hubs, and the nnodes or huubs have swwitching deevices to reedirect signnals, add
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signals,
`
`
`
`
` and drop ssignals. Thhe figure (rreproducedd below) shhows how
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`optical addd
`
`
`
`drop muultiplexers (“OADM””), or alterrnatively reeconfigurabble opticall add drop
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`multipleexers (“ROOADM”), iinterconnecct differennt optical neetworks. (SSee ’217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Provisioonal, Ex. 1008, FIG. 2.)
`
`
`
`7. OAD
`3
`
`
`
`
`DMs are thee backbonee of advancced fiber ooptic netwoorks becauuse
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`switchinng is accommplished inn the optical domain
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`fibers mmay connecct to ports oof an OADDM, and O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by OADMMs. Multiplle optical
`
`
`
`
`
`ADMs cann switch wwavelengthss
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`among ooptical fibeers conneccted to its pports. OADDMs can swwitch signaals travelinng
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`along fiiber optic ccables, rediirect signals to differrent endpoiints, add annd drop
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`signals, and controol traffic fllow.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`In reference to the figure shown above, an OADM may connect a
`
`38.
`
`wide area (or long haul) network to a metropolitan area network. Another OADM
`
`may connect a metropolitan area network to a local access network, for example a
`
`local network in a neighborhood. During switching, OADMs can separate all the
`
`wavelengths of light entering the device and route the wavelengths of light to
`
`different endpoints depending on the OADM’s configuration. An OADM may, for
`
`example, switch wavelengths from optical fibers of the wide area network to
`
`optical fibers of a metro area network. An OADM may also switch wavelengths
`
`from optical fibers of a metro area network to optical fibers of a wide area
`
`network.
`
`39. OADMs can drop certain wavelengths from a fiber altogether and can
`
`add new wavelengths to a fiber. Further, OADMs can control traffic flow across
`
`fiber optic cables. If traffic along one cable is particularly heavy at certain times,
`
`OADMs can manage the load by redirecting traffic along different fibers.
`
`40.
`
`In addition to switching, add/drop, and traffic control capabilities,
`
`OADMs have the ability to control the output power. As a result, OADMs provide
`
`high uniformity or equalization in the channels’ power across all-optical networks.
`
`One way OADMs control power output is through deliberate misalignment of the
`
`light beam to an output waveguide. Misalignment controls power by varying the
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`coupling of the light beam to the optical waveguide. Angular misalignment
`
`changes the angle the light beam is incident to the optical waveguide, and lateral
`
`misalignment reduces the portion of the beam that can enter the output waveguide.
`
`41. Another way OADMs control power output is through manipulation
`
`of polarization and selective filtering.
`
`42. To perform switching and power control, OADMs can use wavelength
`
`selective routers (“WSRs”). Certain WSRs perform switching and power control
`
`functions by steering light beams using beam-deflecting elements. Beam-deflecting
`
`elements can include, but are not limited to, small tilting mirrors commonly
`
`referred to as microelectromechanical systems (“MEMS”). MEMS mirrors can be
`
`used for switching. Varying the tilt of a MEMS mirror can reflect an incident light
`
`beam to a different output port. MEMS mirrors can also be used for power control.
`
`Varying the tilt of a MEMS mirror can control the coupling of a light beam to an
`
`output, effectively attenuating the light beam through a controllable amount of
`
`misalignment.
`
`43. MEMS mirrors can be controlled using two different approaches: (1)
`
`digital and (2) analog. (See Holliday OXC, Ex. 2011.) Digital-controlled mirrors
`
`can be tilted to a limited number of positions (i.e., the control is not continuous but
`
`rather step-wise). Analog controlled mirrors can operate under continuous control.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`B. Use of Circulators at the Time of the Invention
`
`44. At the time of the ’678 patent’s invention date, the demand for optical
`
`switching systems was increasing, even as much as 400% per year. Id. at 12.
`
`Bandwidth-heavy applications (e.g., video streams) were becoming more popular,
`
`and optical fiber applications were reaching a wider populous. With an increase in
`
`demand for fiber optics, the ability to effectively switch data streams having
`
`multiple wavelengths, while accommodating an increase in optical input and
`
`output ports, became critical. Industry was trying to incorporate more ports while
`
`keeping costs down. As researchers published in 2001, the ability to provide an
`
`optical switch scalable to a large number of channels was the number one concern
`
`for fiber optic carriers:
`
`The ability to incorporate more port counts when needed is the
`number one concern of carriers. The increasing amount of data traffic
`in communication networks, especially for long-distance carriers, will
`demand even more wavelengths to be deployed. Therefore, optical
`switches need the capability to scale in order to manipulate the
`increased number of wavelengths. MEMS-based optical switches
`must incorporate this key feature to gain widespread acceptance of the
`carriers.
`
`(Yeow, Ex. 2008, p. 163.)
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`45. Many OADM systems at the time of the ’678 patent’s invention date
`
`were limited to two ports. To separate incoming and outgoing optical signals on
`
`each port, OADM systems commonly used peripheral
`
`devices, such as optical circulators. Optical circulators are
`
`fiber-connected optical devices comprised of birefringent
`
`polarization elements that separate optical signals traveling in opposite directions.
`
`Typically, optical circulators have three circulator ports (see schematic diagram of
`
`an optical circulator, reproduced herein). Light entering a circulator port is emitted
`
`from the next circulator port. For example, light entering circulator port 1 is
`
`emitted from circulator port 2, light entering circulator port 2 is emitted from
`
`circulator port 3, and light entering circulator port 3 is emitted from circulator port
`
`1. This non-reciprocal redirection of light is achieved using collective operation of
`
`birefringent elements, a polarizing beam splitter, a reflector prism, a retardation
`
`plate, and a Faraday rotator unit. A typical optical circular schematic is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`
`
`
`(Al-Azzawi, Ex. 2020, FIG. 6.14.)
`
`46. Optical fiber switching systems that used optical circulators had
`
`limited scalability. Multiple port circulators could be cascaded to create a chain of
`
`circulators. However, each added circulator increased the physical size of the
`
`system, contributed to insertion loss, and increased costs. (See Dingel, Ex. 2007
`
`(commenting that circulator price and circulator crosstalk (i.e., signal interference)
`
`needs improvement).)
`
`47. Around the invention date of the ’678 patent, systems also attempted
`
`to scale switching systems by concatenating OADMs together. However
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276
`Patent RE42,678
`concatenating multiple OADMs together substantially added bulk and cost to the
`
`system. Alternatively, other inventors were attempting to add ports to circulators.
`
`(See e.g., Tran, Ex. 2012 (disclosing a circulator with eight circulator ports); Kim,
`
`Ex. 2013 (disclosing a circulator with six circulator ports). See also Marom Depo.
`
`Tr., Ex. 2005, 204:1-19 (when asked if there would be any need to employ optical
`
`circulators in the ROADMs disclosed in the ’678 patent, Dr. Marom answered
`
`generally saying, “Typically the port count is limited. . . . [I]f you have a single
`
`input you can place a circulator there and obtain an extra port. That’s sometimes
`
`valuable.”).) However these systems still had limited scalability. These circulators
`
`wer