UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THOMAS SWAN & CO. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2014-01384
`
`Patent 7,664,395
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,664,395 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THOMAS SWAN & CO. LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2014-01384
`
`Patent 7,664,395
`
`CORRECTED PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,664,395 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.1-.80, 42.100-.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES AND FEES ....................................................... 4
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ................................ 5
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 6
`
`A. Overview of the ‘395 Patent ................................................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................... 8
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .........................................12
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ................13
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Grounds for Challenge ..................................................14
`
`B. Motivation to Combine References ...................................................15
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Warr Thesis ...............15
`
`D. Ground 2: Claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious in view of Warr
`Thesis .................................................................................................24
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 5, 16, 24, 26 and 27 would have been obvious by
`the combination of Warr Thesis and Parker Thesis ..........................25
`
`Ground 4: Claim 17 would have been obvious by the combination of
`Warr Thesis and Tan Thesis ..............................................................40
`
`G. Ground 5: Claim 20 would have been obvious by the combination of
`Warr Thesis and Crossland Patent .....................................................42
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................50
`
`ATTACHMENT A: ...............................................................................................52
`
`ATTACHMENT B: APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS .................................................53
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`Petitioner Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. (“FNC”) requests inter
`
`partes review of Claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, and 27 (“Petitioned Claims”) of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,664,395 (“the ‘395 patent”) (Ex. 1001), assigned on the face of
`
`the patent to Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. (“Thomas Swan”). The claims of the ’395
`
`patent are generally directed to “optical routing modules” that use a “dispersion
`
`device” to disperse light beams of different frequencies in different directions onto
`
`a “Spatial Light Modulator (SLM) having a two dimensional array of pixels.” The
`
`routing module includes circuitry that displays “holograms” on the SLM in order
`
`to route the different frequencies (channels) to particular output ports of the
`
`module. The technology claimed in the ’395 patent has applications in fiber optic
`
`communications. The original patent application that led to the issuance of the
`
`’395 patent was filed in the United Kingdom on September 3, 2001.
`
`Melanie Holmes (“Holmes”) is listed as the sole purported inventor for the
`
`‘395 patent and the priority application. As explained further below, the subject
`
`matter claimed in the ‘395 patent was developed and published by researchers at
`
`the University of Cambridge (“Cambridge”) prior to the filing of the 2001 priority
`
`application. For about a decade prior to the filing of the priority application,
`
`researchers at Cambridge, working in Professor William Crossland’s Photonics &
`
`Sensors group, investigated and published research relating to the use of liquid
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`crystal SLMs in optical communication and other applications. This work is well
`
`documented and described in numerous publications emanating from Dr.
`
`Crossland’s group in the 1990s. See Ex. 1002, http://www-
`
`g.eng.cam.ac.uk/photonics_sensors/ people/bill-crossland.htm (biography of Prof.
`
`Crossland: “Bill Crossland held the position of Group Leader of the Photonics &
`
`Sensors Group . . . from 1992 . . . until his retirement at the end of September
`
`2009. . . He is generally regarded as the founding father of liquid crystal over
`
`silicon (LCOS) technologies.”) and Ex. 1003, http://www-
`
`g.eng.cam.ac.uk/photonics_sensors/publications/index.htm (providing an
`
`exemplary listing of publications from the Photonics & Sensors group).
`
`In the years prior to the filing of the U.K. priority application, Holmes
`
`collaborated with Cambridge on the development and use of liquid crystal SLMs
`
`for optical beam routing and other applications. Holmes completed her Ph.D.
`
`requirements in 1992 and shortly thereafter began collaborating with Dr. Crossland
`
`who was working with three of his doctoral candidates on research relating to
`
`liquid crystal SLMs for use in optical routing (Ex. 1004) (article entitled “Low
`
`Crosstalk Devices for Wavelength-Routed Networks,” by M. J. Holmes, W.
`
`Crossland et al., IEE Colloquium on Guided Wave Optical Signal Processing, IEE
`
`Dig. No. 95-128 London, UK, indicating collaboration with the Crossland group in
`
`at least 1995) (Ex. 1005) (article entitled “Holographic Optical Switching: The
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`‘ROSES’ Demonstrator,” by W. A. Crossland, K.L. Tan, M.J. Holmes et al.,
`
`Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 18, No. 12, Dec. 2000, at 1845-54,
`
`indicating collaboration with the Crossland group continued through at least 2001).
`
`Those three doctoral candidates were Michael C. Parker, Stephen T. Warr and Kim
`
`L. Tan. These doctoral candidates focused on research relating to liquid crystal
`
`SLMs for use in optical routing that culminated in Ph.D. dissertations published by
`
`Cambridge. These Ph.D. dissertations form the primary basis of this petition.
`
`As explained further below, it is apparent that the claimed invention of the
`
`‘395 patent was discovered and disclosed, prior to the filing of Holmes’s U.K.
`
`priority application, through the research and publications of Drs. Warr, Parker and
`
`Tan. A review of the publication history of the Cambridge group preceding the
`
`priority application makes clear that Holmes worked closely with the Cambridge
`
`researchers—sometimes even in the same laboratory using the same devices—and
`
`the researchers openly shared their ideas with her. In addition, they frequently cite
`
`each other’s work in their publications. Thus, by the time Holmes filed her U.K.
`
`priority application, a person having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”) would
`
`have understood that the alleged inventions claimed in the ‘395 patent were
`
`rendered obvious by the prior work of the Cambridge researchers. Particularly in
`
`view of the working environment at Cambridge and the long history of cross-cited
`
`publications, express suggestions in the Cambridge researchers’ publications
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`would have strongly motivated a PHOSITA to combine the Cambridge
`
`publications relied upon in this petition. Moreover, the Petitioned Claims do not
`
`represent innovation over the prior art, but instead would be no more than the
`
`result of the ordinary skill and common sense of a PHOSITA.
`
`Inter partes review of the Petitioned Claims should be instituted because this
`
`petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on
`
`the Petitioned Claims. Each limitation of each Petitioned Claim is disclosed by
`
`and/or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the prior art discussed
`
`herein. Claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, and 27 of the ‘395 patent should be
`
`found unpatentable and canceled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES AND FEES
`
`
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest: Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. is the real
`
`party-in-interest in this petition.
`
`Related Matters: The following matters may affect or be affected by a
`
`decision in this proceeding: Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. & Fujitsu
`
`Network Communications, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-178 (E.D. Texas); and Inter Partes
`
`Review Case No. IPR2014-00461 (directed to the ‘395 patent). Additionally,
`
`Petitioner is filing additional petitions for inter partes review against three other
`
`patents asserted in the above litigation, all of which are related to the ‘395 patent,
`
`U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,335,033; 7,145,710; and 8,089,683. Moreover, each of the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`following Inter Partes Review Case Nos. are directed to patents within the same
`
`family as the ‘395 patent: IPR2014-00460; IPR2014-00462, IPR2014-00465.
`
`Counsel: Lead counsel in this case is Christopher Chalsen (PTO Reg. No.
`
`30,936); backup counsel is Nathaniel Browand (PTO Reg. No. 59,683) and Suraj
`
`Balusu (PTO Reg. No. 65,519). A power of attorney accompanies this Petition.
`
`Service Information: Christopher E. Chalsen, cchalsen@milbank.com;
`
`Nathaniel T. Browand, nbrowand@milbank.com; Suraj Balusu,
`
`sbalusu@milbank.com MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & McCLOY LLP,
`
`1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York 10005
`
`Tel: (212) 530-5380
`
`Fax: (212) 822-5380
`
`Please direct all correspondence to lead counsel at the above address.
`
`Petitioner consents to email service at: cchalsen@milbank.com,
`
`nbrowand@milbank.com, and sbalusu@milbank.com.
`
`Payment: Under 37 C.F.R § 42.103(a), the Office is authorized to charge the
`
`fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) to Deposit Account No. 133250 as well as any
`
`additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies under 37 C.F.R § 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Overview of the ‘395 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Summary: The ’395 patent is “relate[d] to the general field of controlling
`
`one or more light beams by the use of electronically controlled devices.” (Ex. 1001
`
`at 1:18-20). The central element of the ‘395 patent is something referred to in the
`
`claims as a “Spatial Light Modulator (SLM).” (E.g., Ex. 1001 at claim 1). The
`
`SLM is made up of a two-dimensional array of “phase modulating elements” –
`
`e.g., liquid crystal pixels. (Ex. 1001 at Abstract; 2:48-51; 6:3-8). The specification
`
`describes that a “significant feature of [the] embodiments [described in the
`
`specification] is the fact that the size, shape and position of those groups need not
`
`be fixed and can, if need be, be varied. The groups may display holograms which
`
`can be set up as required to deflect the light so as to provide a non-specular
`
`reflection at a controllable angle to the specular reflection direction. The
`
`holograms may additionally or alternatively provide shaping of the beam.” (Ex.
`
`1001 at 11:24-31).
`
`The specification states that the subject SLM is able to modify, in a
`
`controlled manner, the direction, power, focus, aberration, or beam shape of a light
`
`beam. (Ex. 1001 at 11:36-40). That modification is achieved through the display
`
`of a “hologram” at each group of pixels. (Ex. 1001 at 11:26-31). A “hologram” is
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`displayed by applying voltages to each pixel of the group. (Ex. 1001 at 22:1-3).
`
`The applied voltage affects the orientation of the liquid crystal. (Ex. 1001 at
`
`11:66-12:3). When the light strikes the liquid crystal, the phase of the light at each
`
`pixel is “modulated” or modified based on the orientation of the liquid crystal.
`
`(Ex. 1001 at 12:11-14).
`
`Cited Art: Except for the Crossland Patent (defined below), none of the
`
`references relied upon herein were considered during the original prosecution of
`
`the ’395 patent.
`
`Prosecution History: The ’395 patent is part of a family of patents that
`
`originated from UK Patent Application No. 0121308.1, filed on September 3,
`
`2001. PCT Application No. PCT/GB02/04011 was filed on September 2, 2002.
`
`Upon attaining national stage in the United States on September 10, 2004, U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 10/487,810 was prosecuted. That application led to a
`
`restriction requirement and a divisional application, No. 11/514,725, was filed on
`
`September 1, 2006.
`
`Claims of the ’395 Patent: Claim 1 of the ’395 patent is exemplary and
`
`reads:
`
`1. An optical routing module having at least one input and at least one
`
`output and operable to select between the outputs, the or each input
`
`receiving a respective light beam having an ensemble of different
`
`channels, the module comprising:
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`a Spatial Light Modulator (SLM) having a two dimensional
`
`array of pixels,
`
`a dispersion device disposed to receive light from said at least
`
`one input and constructed and arranged to disperse light beams of
`
`different frequencies in different directions whereby different
`
`channels of said ensemble are incident upon respective different
`
`groups of the pixels of the SLM, and
`
`circuitry constructed and arranged to display holograms on the
`
`SLM to determine the channels at respective outputs.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This Petition shows that the Petitioned Claims of the ‘395 patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`are unpatentable when the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`in light of the specification, which is further supported by patentee’s allegations in
`
`the co-pending litigation.1 The constructions set forth below are provided for
`
`purposes of this inter partes review only.
`
`
`
`1 District Courts employ different standards of proof and approaches to claim
`
`interpretation that are not applied by the USPTO for inter partes review.
`
`Accordingly, any interpretation or construction of the challenged claims in this
`
`Petition, either implicitly or explicitly, should not be viewed as constituting, in
`
`whole or in part, Petitioner’s own interpretation or construction, except as regards
`
`the broadest reasonable construction of the claims presented. Petitioner reserves
`
`the right to seek different constructions of these claim terms in a different forum.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`Because the named inventor Holmes was a former collaborator of Drs. Warr,
`
`Parker, Tan, and Crossland and a member of the Crossland group at Cambridge,
`
`and in fact learned all about their work through her many interactions with them at
`
`Cambridge, the ‘395 patent shares with the asserted prior art vastly common
`
`terminology concerning the same subject matter. As a result, there are few terms
`
`in the Petitioned Claims that require construction, as most of the claim terms can
`
`be found verbatim in the asserted prior art in the very same context.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction for the term “controllable phase-
`
`modulating elements” in light of the specification is “components, such as pixels,
`
`which can change the phase of incident light under certain conditions created by
`
`circuitry, such as application of voltage.” This definition is consistent with the use
`
`of the term “controllable phase-modulating elements” in the specification of the
`
`‘395 patent. In particular, the specification makes clear that there needs to be a
`
`large number of phase-modulating elements for the contemplated optical device to
`
`operate. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 11:19-24. The specification also discloses
`
`embodiments where the phase-modulating elements are pixels. See, e.g., Ex. 1001
`
`at 38:54-56. The specification also provides details of the operation and function
`
`of the controllable phase modulating elements, consistent with the proposed
`
`construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 13:23-49.
`
`The district court has construed the term “hologram” to mean “a phase
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`modulation pattern used to control light incident upon the SLM.” Ex. 1006 at 18.
`
`The broadest reasonable construction for the term “hologram” in light of the
`
`specification is that the term is indefinite because it is not clear in the specification
`
`and is context dependent in the industry. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 14:56-59 (“The
`
`signal processing effects are usually realised by a method equivalent to
`
`‘multiplying’ the initial routing and/or corrective hologram exp j (φ0(u)+ φ1(u))
`
`by a further hologram exp j φ2(u) in which φ2(u) is non-linear and oscillatory.”);
`
`15:36-38 (“Referring to FIG. 3, a routing device 25 includes two SLMs 20, 21
`
`which display holograms for routing light 1, 2 from an input fibre array 3,4 to an
`
`output fibre array 5, 6.”); 7:8-13 (“In many routing applications, two SLMs are
`
`used in series, and the displayed information on the one has the inverse effect to
`
`the information displayed on the other. Since the information represents phase
`
`change data, it may be regarded as a hologram.”); Ex. 1012, Timothy J. Drabik,
`
`“Optoelectronic Integrated Systems Based on Free-Space Interconnects with an
`
`Arbitrary Degree of Space Variance,” PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, Vol. 82, No. 11,
`
`November 1994, p. 1597 (“For convenience, all elements causing beam deviation
`
`or splitting will be referred to as holograms, in the spirit of [31]1.”).
`
`To the extent that the term “hologram” is not found indefinite, the broadest
`
`reasonable construction of the term is “a set of modulation values for achieving the
`
`desired change in incident light.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 13:42-49 (“In one example
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`of this operation, the desired phase modulation is expressed modulo 2pi across the
`
`array extent, and the value of the desired modulo-2pi modulation is established at
`
`the centre of each pixel. Then for each pixel, the available level nearest the desired
`
`modulation is ascertained and used to provide the actual pixel voltage. This
`
`voltage is applied to the pixel electrode for the pixel of concern.”); Ex. 1001 at
`
`14:43-47 (“Therefore the routing phase modulation results in a set of equally
`
`spaced diffraction orders. The greater the number of available phase levels the
`
`closer the actual phase modulation to the ideal value and the stronger the selected
`
`diffraction order used for routing.”).
`
`The district court has construed the term “SLM” or “spatial light
`
`modulator” to mean “a device that modifies a property of light as a function of
`
`time and position across the device.” Ex. 1006 at 14. The broadest reasonable
`
`construction for the term “SLM” or “spatial light modulator” in light of the
`
`specification is “a device that modifies a property of light as a function of time and
`
`position across the device, and is at least somewhat polarisation-independent.”
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at Fig. 1, 11:36-40 (“Devices embodying the invention act on
`
`light beams incident on the device to provide emerging light beams which are
`
`controlled independently of one another. Possible types of control include control
`
`of direction, control of power, focussing, aberration compensation, sampling and
`
`beam shaping.”); see also Ex. 1001 at 11:19-31. The specification makes clear that
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`the spatial light modulator of the alleged invention must be polarization insensitive
`
`or independent for the device to work. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 11:41-43
`
`(“polarisation-independent multiple phase liquid crystal over silicon spatial light
`
`modulators (SLMs)”). Indeed, the ‘395 patent apparently disclaims any devices
`
`that are not polarisation insensitive/independent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 12:38-41
`
`(“The invention may be applied to other devices, provided they are capable of
`
`multiphase operation and are at least somewhat polarisation independent at the
`
`wavelengths of concern.”). The specification describes several ways of achieving
`
`polarisation independence of the SLM. One disclosed way is use of ferroelectric
`
`liquid crystal (“FLC”) operating in a polarization independent modality. See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001 at 12:44-47. Another disclosed way is use of a quarter-wave plate that
`
`creates polarisation independence. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 12:44-47; 4:1-3, 7:1-3.
`
`The broadest reasonable interpretation of the remaining terms of the
`
`challenged claims should be presumed to take on their ordinary and customary
`
`meanings for purposes of the IPR.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art is evidenced by the references. See In re
`
`GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“PHOSITA”) for this patent would have at least a Ph.D., or equivalent
`
`experience, in optics, physics, electrical engineering, or a related field, including at
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`least three years of experience designing, constructing, and/or testing optical
`
`systems. Ex. 1007 (hereinafter “Drabik Decl.”) at ¶ 72. For purposes of this
`
`petition, FNC relies on the September 3, 2001 priority date listed on the face of the
`
`‘395 patent for the person of ordinary skill in the art analysis.2
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioner challenges
`
`claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, and 27 of the ‘395 patent. Petitioner requests this
`
`relief in view of the following references:
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1008 “Free Space Switching for Optical
`Fibre Networks,” Stephen Thomas
`Warr (“Warr Thesis”)
`
`Publication
`or Filing
`July 1996
`
`Type of
`Prior Art3
`§ 102(b)
`
`
`
`2 FNC reserves the right to contest this date in this proceeding and in the
`
`companion district court case, Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. & Fujitsu
`
`Network Communications, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-178 (E.D. Texas), for any alleged
`
`conception date that Thomas Swan should submit during this proceeding, whether
`
`earlier or later than the filing of the U.K. application in September 2001.
`
`3 The ’395 patent issued prior to the America Invents Act (the “AIA”).
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner has used the pre-AIA statutory framework to refer to the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`Ex. 1009 “Dynamic Holograms for Wavelength
`Division Multiplexing,” Michael
`Charles Parker (“Parker Thesis”)
`Ex. 1010 “Dynamic Holography Using
`Ferroelectric Liquid Crystal On
`Silicon Spatial Light Modulators,”
`Kim Leong Tan (“Tan Thesis”)
`
`Ex. 1011 U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2001/0050787 (“Crossland
`Patent”)
`
`November
`1996
`
`§ 102(b)
`
` February 1999 § 102(b)
`
`May 18, 2001 § 102(e)
`
`
`
`
`
`A full list of exhibits relied on in this petition is included as Attachment B.
`
`The Parker Thesis, Warr Thesis and Tan Thesis are printed publications under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b). The Parker Thesis, Warr Thesis, and Tan Thesis were indexed
`
`and shelved in the Cambridge University library by at least one year prior to the
`
`U.K. Priority Application date of September 3, 2001. See Drabik Decl. at ¶ 103;
`
`see generally Ex. 1015, Clarke Decl.
`
`A.
`
`Summary of Grounds for Challenge
`
`
`
`Inter partes review is requested on the grounds for unpatentability listed in
`
`the index below. In support of the proposed grounds for unpatentability, this
`
`Petition is accompanied by a declaration of a technical expert, Dr. Timothy Drabik
`
`(Ex. 1007), which explains what the art would have conveyed to a PHOSITA.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ground
`1
`
`35 USC
`§ 102
`
`Index of References
`Warr Thesis
`
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Warr Thesis
`Warr Thesis in view of Parker Thesis
`
`§ 103
`
`Warr Thesis in view of Tan Thesis
`
`Claims
`1 and 2
`
`1 and 2
`5, 16, 24, 26
`and 27
`17
`
`14
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`5
`
`§ 103
`
`Warr Thesis in view of Crossland Patent 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims 1, 2, 5, 16, 17, 20, 24, 26, and 27 of the ‘395 patent are rendered
`
`anticipated and/or obvious by the art cited in the grounds of unpatentability
`
`described above. In the attached declaration, Dr. Drabik provides a thorough
`
`discussion of the state of the art at the time of this alleged “invention.” Drabik
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 24-69. His declaration makes it clear that all the elements of all the
`
`challenged claims lack invention. Drabik Decl. at ¶¶ 104-138.
`
`B. Motivation to Combine References
`
`
`
`FNC submits that no showing of specific motivations to combine the
`
`respective references in Grounds 3-5 (set forth below) is required, as the respective
`
`combinations would have no unexpected results, and at most would simply
`
`represent known alternatives to one of skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1739-40 (2007). Indeed, the Supreme Court held
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
`
`automaton” and “in many cases a person of ordinary skill in the art will be able to
`
`fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 1742.
`
`Nevertheless, specific motivations and reasons to combine the references are
`
`identified below.
`
`C. Ground 1: Claims 1 and 2 are anticipated by Warr Thesis
`
`Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘395 patent are anticipated by Warr Thesis.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`Warr Thesis is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Warr Thesis
`
`is a Ph.D. dissertation submitted by Stephen Warr at the conclusion of his studies
`
`at the University of Cambridge, in July 1996. Dr. Warr worked in Prof.
`
`Crossland’s group at Cambridge under the supervision of Dr. Robert Mears. Warr
`
`Thesis at x. Chapter 5 of Warr Thesis discloses “a single-mode FLC- SLM
`
`crossbar architecture for interconnecting large arrays of input and output fibres.
`
`An array of dynamic holograms can be used to achieve an arbitrary routeing
`
`pattern between N inputs and M outputs, and two methods of re-entering the fibre
`
`network are considered.” Warr Thesis at 4.
`
`The following chart and discussion herein show, as supported by Dr.
`
`Drabik, that the claimed subject matter is anticipated by Warr Thesis. Drabik
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 107-112.
`
`Claims of
`the ‘395
`Patent
`[1pre] An
`optical
`routing
`module
`having at
`least one
`input and at
`least one
`output and
`operable to
`select
`between the
`outputs, the
`
`
`
`
`
`Warr Thesis discloses an optical routing module having at least one
`input and at least one output and operable to select between the
`outputs, the or each input receiving a respective light beam having
`an ensemble of different channels.
`
`Warr Thesis discloses that “this dissertation relates to the optical
`implementation of free space routeing architectures for
`communication networks. These systems potentially allow
`hundreds or even thousands of signals to be optically routed through
`each other in a compact 3-dimensional volume, incurring very little
`crosstalk. This is achieved by the use of programmable computer-
`generated holograms (CGHs) displayed on a ferroelectric liquid
`crystal (FLC) spatial light modulator (SLM). The SLM provides fast
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims of
`the ‘395
`Patent
`or each
`input
`receiving a
`respective
`light beam
`having an
`ensemble of
`different
`channels,
`the module
`comprising:
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`
`
`2-dimensional binary modulation of coherent light and acts as a
`dynamically reconfigurable diffraction pattern.” Warr Thesis at viii.
`
`Warr Thesis discloses that an “array of dynamic holograms can be
`used to achieve an arbitrary routeing pattern between N inputs
`and M outputs, and two methods of re-entering the fibre network
`are considered.” Warr Thesis at 4.
`
`Figure 5.2 of Warr Thesis discloses a holographic crossbar
`architecture, which includes an “input fibre array” and an “output
`fibre array.”
`
`Warr Thesis at 84.
`
`Figure 5.4 of Warr Thesis discloses a holographic crossbar
`architecture:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims of
`the ‘395
`Patent
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`Warr Thesis at 89.
`
`Warr Thesis discloses that “[t]he SLM must be divided into N sub-
`hologram routeing areas, such that each region is filled with a
`distinct and independently controlled CGH. Each hologram deflects
`light from its associated input fibre towards an arbitrary output
`port. The architecture is therefore equivalent to a stacked array of
`one-to-any switches….” Warr Thesis at 84. See Drabik Decl. at ¶
`109[1pre].
`Warr Thesis discloses a SLM having a two dimensional array of
`pixels.
`
`Warr Thesis discloses “the use of programmable computer
`generated holograms (CGHs) displayed on a ferroelectric liquid
`crystal (FLC) spatial light modulator (SLM). The SLM provides
`pixels, fast 2-dimensional binary modulation of coherent light and
`acts as a dynamically reconfigurable diffraction pattern.” Warr
`Thesis at viii.
`
`Warr Thesis discloses that “SLMs typically consist of an array of
`individually controllable pixels.” Warr Thesis at 7.
`
`Warr Thesis states “[e]ach of the four beams was deflected by a
`separate 80x80 pixel region of the 2DX320IR SLM.” Warr Thesis
`at 103. See Drabik Decl. at ¶ 109[1a].
`Warr Thesis discloses a dispersion device disposed to receive light
`from said at least one input and constructed and arranged to disperse
`light beams of different frequencies in different directions.
`
`Figure 5.4 of Warr Thesis discloses a holographic crossbar
`structure:
`
`18
`
`[1a] a
`Spatial
`Light
`Modulator
`(SLM)
`having a
`two
`dimensional
`array of
`pixels,
`
`[1b] a
`dispersion
`device
`disposed to
`receive light
`from said at
`least one
`input and
`constructed
`and
`arranged to
`disperse
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims of
`the ‘395
`Patent
`light beams
`of different
`frequencies
`in different
`directions
`
`
`Warr Thesis discloses using a grating in this architecture to create a
`space-wavelength switch to disperse light of different frequencies in
`different directions: “In some circumstances it may however be
`desirable to introduce wavelength dependence in order to create a
`combined space-wavelength router. This can most conveniently be
`achieved by incorporating the architectural principles from chapter
`4, replacing the spherical interconnect mirror with a high-
`resolution concave grating for wavelength dispersion between the
`two FLC-SLM hologram planes.” Warr Thesis at 107.
`
`Warr Thesis discloses that the “results of the tuneable wavelength
`filter show that it is straightforward to adjust the wavelength
`response of FLC-SLM switches and convert a broadband space-
`switch into a wavelength-switch by the addition of a high-
`resolution blazed linear grating. An active wavelength selective
`component is clearly more versatile than a passive demultiplexer,
`and FLC-SLMs exhibit an exceptionally simple and repeatable
`method of wavelength routeing. The experimental demonstration of
`wavelength tuning achieved a channel separation of a few
`nanometres, but the generic system design is very flexible and could
`be redesigned to achieve a wide variety of filtered bandwidths,
`tuning steps and tuning ranges. Extrapolating the design principles
`demonstrated by the wavelength filter, it is an easy step to imagine
`exciting possibilities for future integrated space-wavelength
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claims of
`the ‘395
`Patent
`
`Inter Partes Review of USPN 7,664,395
`
`[1c]
`whereby
`different
`channels of
`said
`ensemble
`are incident
`upon
`respective
`different
`groups of
`the pixels of
`the SLM,
`
`switches.” Warr Thesis at 109. See Drabik Decl. at ¶¶ 109[1b],
`110-112.
`Warr Thesis discloses different channels of said ensemble are
`incident upon respective different groups of the pixels of the SLM.
`
`Warr Thesis discloses that “[t]he use of an FLC-SLM as a
`diffracti
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
