`
`
`
`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
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RESPONSE TO THE PETITION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 8 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`A.  Optical Circulators Limited the Scalability of Optical Switches .......... 9 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The ’678 Patent Discloses a Scalable Switch with Multiple Ports ..... 10 
`
`Claims .................................................................................................. 14 
`
`III.  CLAIMS 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, AND 61-65 ARE NOT
`OBVIOUS OVER THE COMBINATION OF BOUEVITCH, SMITH, AND
`LIN ................................................................................................................. 15 
`
`A. 
`
`Petitioner Improperly Conflates Two Disparate Embodiments of
`Bouevitch—Modifying Means 150 and MEMS Array 50—Without
`Providing KSR Rationale ..................................................................... 16 
`
`B. 
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Combined Bouevitch and Smith .............. 23 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Bouevitch Modifying Means is Based on Polarization, such that
`Adding Smith’s Mirrors Would Disrupt Switching .................. 26 
`
`Using Smith’s Tiltable Mirrors in Bouevitch Would Disrupt
`Bouevitch’s Explicit Teaching of Parallel Alignment .............. 27 
`
`Absent Hindsight, a POSA Would Not Have Used a More
`Complex Two-Axis Mirror to Achieve the Same Function as a
`One-Axis Mirror ....................................................................... 30 
`
`C. 
`
`Bouevitch Does Not Teach or Suggest “Multiple Fiber Collimators,
`Providing an Input Port . . . and a Plurality of Output Ports” as Recited
`in Independent Claims 1, 21, 44, and 61 ............................................. 32 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Proper Meaning of the Phrase “Multiple Fiber Collimators
`Providing an Input Port . . . and Multiple Output Ports” .......... 34 
`
`The ’678 Patent Disavows Circulator Ports .............................. 35 
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`Dr. Marom Understood the Meaning of the Term “Port” as
`Recited in the ’678 Patent Claims ............................................. 40 
`
`Bouevitch at Most has Two Ports as Recited in the ’678 Patent
`Claims ....................................................................................... 41 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`The Bouevitch Figure 11 Configuration Does Not Reflect Light
`Beams Into the Circulator Ports .......................................................... 42 
`
`The Applied References Do Not Teach or Suggest Micromirrors
`Being Pivotable About Two Axes and Being Continuously
`Controllable as Recited in Independent Claims 1, 44, and 61 ............ 43 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Petitioner Concedes that Bouevitch Does Not Teach or Suggest
`Micromirrors Being Pivotable About Two Axes and Being
`Continuously Controllable ........................................................ 44 
`
`Smith Does Not Meet the Claimed Micromirrors Being
`Pivotable About Two Axes and Being Continuously
`Controllable ............................................................................... 44 
`
`Lin’s One-Axis Mirror Does Not Meet the Claimed
`Micromirrors Being Pivotable About Two Axes and Being
`Continuously Controllable ........................................................ 49 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide KSR Rationale for Combining Smith
`and Lin ...................................................................................... 53 
`
`IV.  A POSA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOTIVATED TO USE DUECK’S
`DIFFRACTION GRATING IN BOUEVITCH ............................................ 54 
`
`V. 
`
`PETITIONER DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW OR WHY A POSA WOULD
`HAVE INCORPORATED SMITH’S SERVO CONTROL INTO
`BOUEVITCH ................................................................................................ 55 
`
`VI.  SMITH IS NOT PRIOR ART TO THE ’678 PATENT BECAUSE THE
`PORTIONS OF SMITH PETITIONER RELIES ON ARE NOT ENTITLED
`TO SMITH’S EARLIEST § 102(E) DATE .................................................. 58 
`
`VII.  CISCO FAILS TO DISCLOSE ALL REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ...... 60 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`VIII.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................. 35, 36
`
`Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 16
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC,
`IPR2013-00479, Paper 54 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) ...................................... 22
`
`In re Chaganti,
`554 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 16
`
`In re Lund,
`376 F.2d 982 (C.C.P.A .1967) ....................................................................... 59
`
`JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Fiber, LLC,
`IPR2013-00318, Paper 45, pp. 36-37 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) ..................... 23
`
`JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Fiber, LLC,
`IPR2013-00336, Paper 40, pp. 41-46 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) ..................... 24
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)....................................................................................... 16
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F. 3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...................................................................... 46
`
`Nat’l Envm’t Prodts. Ltd v. Dri-Steem Corp.,
`IPR2014-01503 (P.T.A.B. 2015) ................................................................... 16
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advances Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................. 35
`
`Securus Techs, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`IPR2015-00153 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2015) ...................................................... 58
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................ 58, 59
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`35 U.S.C. § 119(e) ................................................................................................... 59
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ........................................................................................................ 58
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ........................................................................................................ 60
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................. 58
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 22
`
`M.P.E.P. § 211 .................................................................................................. 58, 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`
`2005
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Ex. No.
`2001
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/267,285. (“’285 Provisional”)
`2002 Affidavit of Nicholas J. Nowak in Support of Pro Hac Vice Admission.
`2003 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Alexander V. Sergienko. (“Sergienko CV”)
`2004 Declaration of Dr. Alexander V. Sergienko in Support of the Patent
`Owner Response. (“Sergienko Dec.”)
`Transcript of Deposition of Dan M. Marom, Ph.D. (“Marom Depo.
`Tr.”)
`2006 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/Capella
`-Photonics-Launches-Dynamically-Reconfigurable-Wavelength-
`Routing. (“Business Wire”)
`2007 Benjamin B. Dingel & Achyut Dutta, Photonic Add-Drop Multiplexing
`Perspective for Next Generation Optical Networks, 4532 SPIE 394
`(2001). (“Dingel”)
`Tze-Wei Yeow, K. L. Eddie Law, & Andrew Goldenberg, MEMS
`Optical Switches, 39 IEEE Comm’n Mag. no. 11, 158 (2001).
`(“Yeow”)
`2009 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’N MAG. no. 3, 80 (2002). (“Chu”)
`2011 Clifford Holliday, Switching the Lightwave: OXC’s – The Centerpiece
`of All Optical Network (IGI Consulting Inc. & B & C Consulting
`Services 2001). (“Holliday OXC”)
`2012 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
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`2008
`
`2010
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`2013
`
`(2001). (“Tran”)
`Jungho Kim & Byoungho Lee, Bidirectional Wavelength Add-Drop
`Multiplexer Using Multiport Optical Circulators and Fiber Bragg
`Gratings, 12 IEEE Photonics Tech. Letters no. 5, 561 (2000). (“Kim”)
`2014 U.S. Patent No. 6,984,917 (filed Jun. 6, 2002). (“Marom ’917”)
`2015 U.S. Patent No. 6,657,770 (filed Aug. 31, 2001). (“Marom ’770”)
`2016 Max Born & Emil Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge Univ. Press,
`7th ed. 1999). (“Born”)
`2017 U.S. Patent No. 6,543,286 (filed Jun. 19, 2001). (“’286 patent”)
`2018 WavePath 4500 Product Brief, Capella,
`http://www.capellainc.com/downloads/WavePath%204500%20Product
`%20Brief%20030206B.pdf. (“WavePath”)
`2019 A. 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”)
`2020 Abdul Al-Azzawi, Fibre Optics: Principles and Practices (CRC Press
`2006). (“Al-Azzawi”)
`2021 Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Capella Photonics, Inc. v.
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Case Number: 1:14-cv-20529-PAS, Docket No.
`19, April 4, 2014.
`2022 U.S. Patent No. 5,629,790 (filed Oct. 18, 1993). (“Neukermans”)
`2023 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”)
`2024 Metallic Coatings, Eksma Optics, available at
`http://eksmaoptics.com/optical-components/coatings/metallic-coatings/.
`(“Eksma”)
`2025 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/183,155 (“’155
`Provisional”)
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Capella’s U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 ( “’678 Patent”) claims at least two
`
`unique features: (1) multiple fiber collimators corresponding to and providing an
`
`input port and a plurality of output ports and (2) micromirrors being pivotable
`
`about two axes and being continuously controllable. These features allow the
`
`system to route individual channels from the input port to a selected output port
`
`among the multiple ports. Because the optical system in the ’678 Patent has
`
`multiple fiber collimators as ports, the system can route a greater number of
`
`individual channels than systems in the prior art.
`
`Figures 1A and 1B of the ’678 Patent
`
`Input Port and Output Ports 110
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Micromirror Array 103
`
`
`
`
`Optical switches at the time of the invention did not have multiple ports, let
`
`alone multiple fiber collimators providing the ports, as recited in the ’678 Patent.
`
`Existing systems had a single input port and a single output port. Rather than using
`
`multiple ports, conventional systems used peripheral components, such as
`
`circulators, to both add optical signals to the input port and to drop optical signals
`
`from the output port. (Ex. 2006, Business Wire, p. 2.)
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`A circulator is a device that is used to separate optical signals traveling in
`
`opposite directions. Referencing the schematic reproduced herein, light can both
`
`enter and exit circulator ports 1, 2, and 3. 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.
`
`Circulators were effective to separate incoming and outgoing
`
`optical signals. But optical systems using circulators were not
`
`scalable to a large number of channels because every added
`
`circulator contributed cost, bulk, and insertion loss (i.e., crosstalk between
`
`channels) to the optical system.
`
`To overcome these limitations, the inventors of the ’678 Patent designed an
`
`add/drop optical switch with multiple fiber collimators as ports. This multiple port
`
`configuration differentiated Capella from competitors because Capella’s system
`
`was reconfigurable and scalable to a large number of channels. (See Ex. 1001, ’678
`
`Patent, 5:56-58, FIG. 1A (capable of seamlessly adding a port 110-N to the array
`
`of ports 110). See also Business Wire, p. 2 (“The introduction of dynamic
`
`reconfigurability will enable service providers to drastically reduce operating
`
`expenses associated with planning . . . by offering remote and dynamic
`
`reconfigurability.”); Ex. 2009, Holliday R-OADMs, p. 61 (“Capella is the only
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`company to offer a 10-fiber port solution, i.e., one input, one express output, and 8
`
`service ports.”); Ex. 2018, WavePath, pp. 1, 4; Ex. 2004, Sergienko Dec., ¶ 53.)
`
`In an attempt to piece together Capella’s configuration, Petitioner uses three
`
`main references: (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 to Bouevitch et al. (“Bouevitch”);
`
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 6,798,941 to Smith et al. (“Smith”); and (3) U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,661,591 to Lin et al. (“Lin”). The asserted combination, however, is problematic
`
`for the following reasons.
`
`Petitioner conflates disparate embodiments of Bouevitch without providing
`
`KSR rationale. And fundamentally, the separate embodiments are not combinable.
`
`Petitioner points to Bouevitch Figure 5 and Bouevitch Figure 11 (annotated figures
`
`reproduced below) when arguing that Bouevitch explicitly discloses every element
`
`of the independent claims except for the use of mirrors rotatable about two axes.
`
`Bouevitch Figures 5 and 11 Annotated to Show Different Reflection Angles
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner errs in combining these two embodiments because the
`
`embodiments were designed to operate in entirely different optical configurations
`
`and to perform entirely different functions. The Figure 5 embodiment is used in an
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`optical system configured to function as a dynamic gain equalizer (“DGE”) to
`
`control power attenuation. The Figure 11 embodiment is used in an optical system
`
`configured to function as a configurable optical add/drop multiplexer (“COADM”)
`
`to perform switching. The embodiments are also different because the Figure 5
`
`embodiment uses polarization to control a light beam, while the Figure 11
`
`embodiment is a plain mirror. Further, the embodiments are not interchangeable
`
`because as shown in the annotations to Figures 5 and 11, the Figure 5 embodiment
`
`operates with input and output light beams in parallel, while the Figure 11
`
`embodiment reflects an input light beam according to the incident angle of
`
`reflection. Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, a POSA could not have plugged
`
`the Figure 5 embodiment into the optical system shown in Figure 11.
`
`Petitioner also errs because Bouevitch and Smith are not combinable.
`
`Petitioner contends that using Smith’s two-axis mirror in Bouevitch would have
`
`been a “simple substitution.” But Petitioner does not explain how to combine the
`
`references or reconcile technical differences between Bouevitch and Smith.
`
`Capella’s expert Dr. Sergienko raises technical problems that would result when
`
`combining Bouevitch and Smith. Dr. Marom, Petitioner’s expert, also explained
`
`during his deposition some of the technical challenges that a POSA would have
`
`considered when designing a functional micromirror. Dr. Marom’s explanation
`
`spanned five pages of the deposition transcript and covered variables including
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`temperature, orientation, moisture, oxide buildup, and stress of metal components
`
`over time. Despite knowing that a POSA would have considered these variables, as
`
`explained by Dr. Marom, Petitioner did not address any when blankly saying that
`
`using Smith’s mirror in Bouevitch would have been a “simple substitution.”
`
`Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, this case is technologically complex. As
`
`the Board can glean from the applied references, Dr. Sergienko’s expert
`
`declaration, Dr. Marom’s explanations during the deposition, and Dr. Marom’s
`
`own patent on a two-dimensional micromirror, Petitioner over simplifies issues and
`
`leaps to conclusions on combinability. As Dr. Marom said, “it’s a small device in
`
`the end but it’s got a lot of engineering disciplines put into it [from] [e]lectrical
`
`engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, [and] packaging technology.” (Ex.
`
`2005, Marom Depo. Tr., 222:13-18.) Petitioner’s analysis on combinability should
`
`have reflected the technological complexities of this case in the Petition. Petitioner
`
`failed to timely and adequately explain how the references are combinable, so the
`
`Board should uphold patentability of all instituted claims.
`
`The Board should also uphold patentability of all instituted claims because
`
`the asserted combination does not disclose each and every claim element.
`
`The first reference, Bouevitch, discloses an optical system comprising one
`
`input port and one output port. Like the prior art systems that are described in the
`
`’678 Patent, Bouevitch uses peripheral circulators to add optical signals to the
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`input port and to drop optical signals from the output port. To compare the multiple
`
`fiber collimators that provide an input port and multiple output ports in the ’678
`
`Patent with the circulators in Bouevitch, Figure 1A of the ’678 Patent and part of
`
`Figure 11 of Bouevitch are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1A of the ’678 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 11 of Bouevitch
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that the circulator ports in Bouevitch read on the claimed
`
`“input port” and “output ports.” But such interpretation is inconsistent with the
`
`’678 Patent, the ’678 Patent’s earliest provisional application, and the underlying
`
`motivation to design an optical switch scalable to a large number of channels. The
`
`’678 Patent and its earliest provisional application distinguish circulators from the
`
`claimed fiber collimators providing the “ports” and emphasize that conventional
`
`optical systems could not scale to a large number of channels because the
`
`conventional optical systems utilized circulators. The ’678 Patent explicitly labels
`
`the ports “collimators” and says throughout the specification that multiple fiber
`
`collimators provide the ports. The multiple fiber collimator ports in the ’678 Patent
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`are not circulator ports. Construing the claimed fiber collimator ports to read on
`
`optical circulator ports is contrary to the ’678 Patent and undermines the
`
`capabilities that the ’678 Patent brought to the industry.
`
`The combination of references also does not teach or suggest micromirrors
`
`being pivotable about two axes and being continuously controllable. For this claim
`
`element, Petitioner uses the second and third references, Smith and Lin. Neither
`
`Smith nor Lin, however, teaches micromirrors being pivotable about two axes and
`
`being continuously controllable. Petitioner first says Smith teaches continuous
`
`control because Smith teaches analog control. But Smith, along with several other
`
`patent applications and patents in the Smith family, indicates that the Smith mirror
`
`operates under step-wise digital control (i.e., not analog control).
`
`Petitioner then says Lin teaches continuous control. As recognized by both
`
`Dr. Sergienko and Dr. Marom, however, Lin does not teach or suggest
`
`micromirrors being pivotable about two axes because Lin only shows a mirror
`
`rotatable along one axis.
`
`Even more problematic than the shortcomings of Smith and Lin for this
`
`feature, Petitioner provides no KSR rationale for combining Smith and Lin or for
`
`combining both references with Bouevitch. Petitioner fails to show in the Petition
`
`that the combination teaches or suggests micromirrors being pivotable about two
`
`axes and being continuously controllable or that a POSA would have been
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`motivated to combine the references, which deficiencies cannot be cured. Thus, the
`
`Board should uphold patentability of all instituted claims.
`
`Further, the Board should uphold patentability of all instituted claims
`
`because the sections of Smith that Petitioner relies on are not prior art to the ’678
`
`Patent as they are only potentially supported by a provisional having no
`
`overlapping inventorship. Petitioner improperly relies on these descriptions of
`
`Smith, so the Board should uphold the patentability of all grounds on this basis.
`
`Finally, the Board should deem the Petition incomplete because Petitioner
`
`fails to identify all real parties in interest (“RPI”). Rather than listing all RPIs, the
`
`multiple petitioners attempt to circumvent the rules to have four opportunities to
`
`invalidate the ’678 Patent. (See IPR2015-00726; IPR2015-00731; IPR2015-
`
`00816.) The attacks are made by Petitioner’s optical switch supplier and different
`
`combinations of Petitioner’s district court co-defendants. The Petitioner’s supplier
`
`is obligated to indemnify Petitioner under California law, and the co-defendants
`
`are bound by court order on the estoppels in this proceeding. These parties are
`
`interested in the outcome of this proceeding. Accordingly, the Board should find
`
`that this Petition is incomplete for a failure to identify all RPIs.
`
`II. Background
`At the time of the effective filing date—March 19, 2001—the number one
`
`concern for fiber optic carriers was the ability to provide an optical switch scalable
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`to a large number of channels. (See Ex. 2008, Yeow, p. 163 (“[O]ptical 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.”); Ex. 2010, Chu, p. 81 (“scalability is
`
`a paramount concern”); Sergienko Dec., ¶¶ 44, 50.) Providing a scalable switch
`
`was an important concern because the demand for fiber optics communication was
`
`increasing, even as much as 400% per year. (See Ex. 2011, Holliday OXC, p. 18;
`
`Sergienko Dec., ¶ 44. See also ’678 Patent, 1:32-36 (“there is a growing demand
`
`for optical components and subsystems that enable the fiber-optic communications
`
`networks to be increasingly scalable, versatile, robust, and cost-effective”).)
`
`A. Optical Circulators Limited the Scalability of Optical Switches
`Optical switches were unable to meet increasing demand because optical
`
`switches were typically limited to two ports. (Sergienko Dec., ¶ 45.) Optical
`
`switches required all signals to enter the optical switch on a single fiber and exit
`
`the optical switch on a single fiber (i.e., two ports). (See ’678 Patent, 1:59-63; Ex.
`
`1008, ’217 Provisional, p. 2; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 48.) An additional means was
`
`required to add optical signals to the single input fiber and to drop optical signals
`
`from the single output fiber. (See ’678 Patent, 1:59-63; ’217 Provisional, p. 2;
`
`Sergienko Dec., ¶ 48.) Optical circulators often served as the additional means to
`
`add and drop optical signals. (See ’678 Patent, 1:59-2:2; ’217 Provisional, p. 2;
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`Sergienko Dec., ¶ 45.) Despite having the capability to add and drop signals,
`
`circulators increased the physical size of a system, contributed to optical loss, and
`
`increased costs. (See Ex. 2007, Dingel, p. 401; Sergienko Dec., ¶¶ 46-47.)
`
`Around the invention date of the ’678 Patent, one attempt to meet increasing
`
`demand was to concatenate optical switches (i.e., connecting multiple optical
`
`switches in a chain). (See ’678 Patent, 1:59-63; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 47.) However,
`
`concatenating optical switches also substantially added bulk and cost. (Sergienko
`
`Dec., ¶ 47.) Other inventors were attempting to add circulator ports to circulators.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 2012, Tran, p. 1100 (disclosing a circulator with eight circulator
`
`ports); Ex. 2013, Kim, p. 561 (disclosing a circulator with six circulator ports).
`
`Sergienko Dec., ¶ 47.) Systems using complex circulators, however, still had
`
`limited scalability because the circulators were bulky, expensive, and resulted in
`
`insertion loss. (Sergienko Dec., ¶ 47.) The industry needed a system that
`
`eliminated optical circulators, while providing an optical switch scalable to a large
`
`number of channels. (See ’678 Patent, 1:32-36; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 47.)
`
`The ’678 Patent Discloses a Scalable Switch with Multiple Ports
`
`B.
`The inventors of the ’678 Patent recognized the limitations of circulator-
`
`based optical switches. (See ’678 Patent, 2:49-57, 3:45-46; Sergienko Dec., ¶¶ 48,
`
`51.) To address the problem of limited scalability, the inventors disclosed a
`
`multiple port optical switch. (See ’678 Patent, 5:51-58 (“[The] underlying
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`architecture is intrinsically scalable to a large number of channel counts.”);
`
`Sergienko Dec., ¶¶ 50-54.) As stated in the ’678 Patent, “the underlying OADM
`
`architecture thus presented is intrinsically scalable and [is a system that] can be
`
`readily extended.” (’678 Patent, 5:36-40.)
`
`The inventors of the ’678 Patent found that continuous control of beam-
`
`deflecting elements could enable reflection to fiber collimators providing multiple
`
`output ports. (See ’678 Patent, 4:7-14; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 52.) The inventors aligned
`
`a plurality of fiber collimators, a diffraction grating, a lens, and a micromirror
`
`array in a configuration capable of directing an input light beam to multiple fiber
`
`collimators providing output ports. (See, e.g., ’678 Patent, FIG. 1A; Sergienko
`
`Dec., ¶ 52.) The configuration disclosed in the ’678 Patent not only enabled
`
`dynamic switching, but also reduced the number of components required to scale
`
`the system. (Sergienko Dec., ¶ 53.) For example, adding a fiber collimator as a port
`
`110-N to the array of ports 110 could seamlessly accommodate an additional input
`
`to the system or an additional output from the system. (See ’678 Patent, FIG. 1A,
`
`2A, 2B, 3; Sergienko Dec., ¶¶ 52, 53, 56. See also Holliday R-OADMs, p. 61
`
`(“Capella’s WavePath product line [(which uses the technology disclosed in the
`
`’678 Patent)] enables system architects to design optical platforms that offer
`
`dynamic and remote reconfigurability, thus greatly simplifying the engineering and
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`provisioning of optical networks.”); WavePath, pp. 1, 4 (showing that the
`
`WavePath product line is covered by the ’678 Patent); Sergienko Dec., ¶ 53.)
`
`The system in Figures 1A and 1B (both reproduced below) depict the
`
`claimed features of the ’678 Patent.
`
`Figures 1A and 1B of the ’678 Patent
`
`
`
`
`The system has an array of micromirrors that are individually and
`
`continuously controllable to reflect corresponding received spectral channels into
`
`any selected ones of said fiber collimators providing output ports. (See, e.g., ’678
`
`Patent, Abstract, FIG. 1A.) The system also has a diffraction grating 101 to
`
`demultiplex and multiplex a light beam and a focusing lens 102 to focus the light
`
`beam’s wavelengths onto the array of micromirrors 103. (Id. at 6:52-63.) Further,
`
`the system has, as circled in red, multiple fiber collimators 110 serving as the
`
`structure for the input and output ports. (Id.) The ’678 Patent describes a collimator
`
`as “typically in the form of a collimating lens (such as a GRIN lens) and a ferrule-
`
`mounted fiber packaged together in a mechanically rigid stainless steel (or glass)
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`tube.” (Id. at 9:17-20.) Additional collimators (i.e., ports) can be added at 110-N.
`
`(See id. at FIG. 1A; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 56.)
`
`In the system, a multi-wavelength light beam is first sent through the input
`
`fiber collimator port. (See ’678 Patent, 6:64-7:11; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 57.) The input
`
`light beam impinges on the diffraction grating to demultiplex the light beam into
`
`individual wavelengths. (See ’678 Patent, 6:64-7:11; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 57.) The
`
`individual wavelengths then diffract off the diffraction grating toward the lens.
`
`(See ’678 Patent, 6:64-7:11; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 57.) And the lens focuses the
`
`individual wavelengths onto different mirrors along the micromirror array. (See
`
`’678 Patent, 6:64-7:11; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 57.)
`
`A unique feature of the ’678 Patent is that each micromirror is pivotable
`
`about two axes, individually and continuously controllable. (See ’678 Patent, 8:21-
`
`27, 9:8-9; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 58.) The mirror’s controllability enables the system to
`
`dynamically reflect light to the multiple output ports. (See ’678 Patent, 8:21-27,
`
`9:8-9; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 58.) So, because the individual wavelengths are focused
`
`onto different mirrors along the micromirror array and because each micromirror is
`
`individually and continuously controllable, the tilt of each micromirror reflects the
`
`individual wavelengths back along a selected path to a desired fiber collimator
`
`output port. (See ’678 Patent, 6:64-7:11; Sergienko Dec., ¶¶ 58, 59.) This enables
`
`the system to scale to a larger number of output ports.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`The individually and continuously controllable mirrors are used not only for
`
`switching, but also for power control. (See ’678 Patent, 8:28-36; Sergienko Dec., ¶
`
`62.) The system controls power by altering the coupling efficiency of the spectral
`
`channels into the respective fiber collimator output ports. (See ’678 Patent, 8:28-
`
`36; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 62.) The coupling efficiency was defined as the ratio of the
`
`amount of optical power that is coupled into the fiber collimator output port’s fiber
`
`core to the total amount of optical power from the light beam. (’678 Patent, 8:31-
`
`36; Sergienko Dec., ¶ 62.)
`
`Embodiments of the ’678 Patent utilize servo control. (’678 Patent, 4:47-56,
`
`11:52-57; Sergienko Dec., ¶¶ 63, 64.) An embodiment of the servo control
`
`assembly is depicted in Figure 4A of the ’678 Patent. (See ’678 Patent, FIG. 4A;
`
`Sergienko Dec., ¶ 63.)
`
`C. Claims
`The elements of the ’678 Patent are incorporated into the claims. The ’678
`
`Patent claims recite the following features in illustrative claims 1 and 61, with
`
`emphasis added:
`
`Claim 1. A wavelength-separating-routing apparatus, comprising:
`a) multiple fiber collimators, providing an input port for a multi-
`wavelength optical signal and a plurality of output ports;
`. . . and
`d) a spatial array of channel micromirrors positioned such that each
`channel micromirror receives one of said spectral channels, said
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2014-01276 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,678
`channel micromirrors being pivotal about two axes and being
`individually and continuously controllable to reflect corresponding
`