`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`____________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION AT THE OUTSET
`BECAUSE THIS INTER PARTES REVIEW PETITION IS REDUNDANT
`IN VIEW OF IPR2014-01166 ......................................................................... 9 
`
`III.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY INSTITUTION BECAUSE THIS
`PETITION IS AN IMPROPER ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER THE CASE
`AGAINST CAPELLA ................................................................................... 17 
`
`IV.  BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 18 
`
`A.  Optical Circulators Limited the Scalability of Optical Switches ........ 18 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The ’368 Patent Discloses a Scalable Switch with Multiple Ports ..... 19 
`
`Claims .................................................................................................. 23 
`
`V. 
`
`CLAIMS 1-6, 9-11, 13, AND 15-22 ARE NOT OBVIOUS OVER THE
`COMBINATION OF BOUEVITCH, SPARKS, AND LIN ......................... 24 
`
`A. 
`
`Petitioner Improperly Conflates Two Disparate Embodiments of
`Bouevitch—Modifying Means 150 and MEMS Array 50—Without
`Providing KSR Rationale ..................................................................... 24 
`
`B. 
`
`A POSA Would Not Have Combined Bouevitch and Sparks ............ 30 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`Bouevitch Modifying Means is Based on Polarization, such that
`Adding Sparks’s Mirrors Would Disrupt Switching ................ 33 
`
`Using Sparks’s Tiltable Mirrors in Bouevitch Would Disrupt
`Bouevitch’s Explicit Teaching of Parallel Alignment .............. 34 
`
`Absent Hindsight, a POSA Would Not Have Used a More
`Complex Two-Axis Mirror to Achieve the Same Function as a
`One-Axis Mirror ....................................................................... 38 
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`C. 
`
`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`Bouevitch Does Not Teach or Suggest “Input Port,” “Output Port,”
`and “One or More [Other/Drop/Add] Ports” as Recited in Independent
`Claims 1, 15, and 16 ............................................................................ 39 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Proper Meaning of the Term “Port” as Recited in the ’368
`Patent Claims ............................................................................ 41 
`
`The ’368 Patent Disavows Circulator Ports from Meeting the
`Claimed Ports ............................................................................ 42 
`
`The Meaning of the Term “Port” as Recited in the Claims was
`Understood by a POSA ............................................................. 46 
`
`Bouevitch at Most has Two Ports as Recited in the ’368 Patent
`Claims ....................................................................................... 47 
`
`The Bouevitch Figure 11 Configuration Does Not Reflect Light
`Beams Into the Circulator Ports .......................................................... 49 
`
`The Applied References Do Not Teach or Suggest Beam-Deflecting
`Elements that are Continuously Controllable in Two Dimensions as
`Recited in Independent Claims 1, 15, 16, and 17 ............................... 50 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Petitioner Does Not Have a Reasonable Likelihood of Success
`Because Petitioner Misconstrues the Element Beam-Deflecting
`Elements Being Continuously Controllable in Two Dimensions
` ................................................................................................... 50 
`
`Petitioner Concedes that Bouevitch Does Not Teach or Suggest
`Beam-Deflecting Elements that are Continuously Controllable
`in Two Dimensions ................................................................... 52 
`
`Sparks Does Not Meet the Claimed Continuously Controllable
`in Two Dimensions ................................................................... 52 
`
`Lin’s One-Axis Mirror Does Not Meet the Claimed
`Continuously Controllable in Two Dimensions ....................... 53 
`
`Petitioner Fails to Provide KSR Rationale for Combining
`Sparks and Lin .......................................................................... 57 
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`VI.  PETITIONER HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING THE
`CLAIM ELEMENT “CONTROLLING . . . BEAM-DEFLECTING
`ELEMENTS . . . SO AS TO COMBINE SELECTED ONES OF SAID
`SPECTRAL CHANNELS INTO AN OUTPUT . . . SIGNAL,” AS
`RECITED IN INDEPENDENT CLAIM 17 ................................................. 58 
`
`VII.  SPARKS FAILS TO TEACH THE SERVO CONTROL AND SPECTRAL
`MONITORY FEATURES OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3 AND 22, AND
`EVEN IF TAUGHT, COMBINING SPARKS’S CONTROL WITH
`BOUEVITCH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS ............................ 58 
`
`VIII.  EXPERT TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SAME ISSUES IS
`AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD .................................................................. 60 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 42
`
`Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................... 25
`
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) ................................ 10, 17
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00507, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2014) ........................................ 17
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00628, Paper 21 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014) ..................................... 16
`
`CustomPlay, LLC v. ClearPlay, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00783, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2014) ........................................ 17
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC,
`IPR2013-00479, Paper 54 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) ...................................... 29
`
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc.,
`CBM2014-00170, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2015) .................................. 10
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 50
`
`In re Chaganti,
`554 F. App’x 917 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 25
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013) .................................... 10
`
`JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Fiber, LLC,
`IPR2013-00318, Decision, Paper 45 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) ................. 6, 30
`
`JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Fiber, LLC,
`IPR2013-00336, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) ...................................... 31
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)....................................................................................... 25
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. June 19, 2014) .................................... 10
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00026, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2012) .................................... 51
`
`Nat’l Envm’t Prodts. Ltd. v. Dri-Steem Corp.,
`IPR2014-01503, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2015) ...................................... 24
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advances Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
`242 F.3d F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................. 42
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 7, 2014) ................................. 10, 17
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00139, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2013) ........................................ 51
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2013) ..................................... 17
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 9
`
`Rules 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ................................................................................................ 29
`
`Other Authorities 
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 29
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, 112th Cong. 1st Sess. (2011) .............................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Ex. No.
`2001 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.
`2002 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”)
`2003 WavePath 4500 Product Brief, Capella,
`http://www.capellainc.com/downloads/WavePath%204500%20Product
`%20Brief%20030206B.pdf. (“WavePath”)
`2004 U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/183,155 (“’155 Provisional)
`2005 Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Capella . Photonics, Inc., IPR2014-01166,
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Dan M. Marom, Ex. 2005 (P.T.A.B.
`May 7, 2015). (“Marom Depo. Tr.”)
`2006 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”)
`2008 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”)
`2010 Clifford Holliday, Switching the Lightwave: OXC’s – The Centerpiece
`of All Optical Network (IGI Consulting Inc. & B & C Consulting
`Services 2001). (“Holliday OXC”)
`2011 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 -
`
`2007
`
`2009
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`
`Ex. No.
`
`Description
`
`2012
`
`(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”)
`2013 U.S. Patent No. 6,984,917 (filed Jun. 6, 2002). (“Marom ’917”)
`2014 U.S. Patent No. 6,657,770 (filed Aug. 31, 2001). (“Marom ’770”)
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
` JDS Uniphase, Corp.’s (“JDSU” or “Petitioner”) Petition is wholly
`
`redundant to a previously filed IPR by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”)1 and an
`
`improper attempt to do nothing more than bolster the case against U.S. Patent No.
`
`RE42,368 ( “’368 Patent”). In short, the instant Petition amounts to an
`
`impermissible “second bite” at the apple. As such, Patent Owner Capella
`
`Photonics, Inc. (“Capella” or “Patent Owner”) respectfully requests that the Board
`
`not institute trial.
`
`The Board has consistently denied institution of redundant petitions, and
`
`here, Petitioner’s grounds are entirely duplicative of the grounds asserted by Cisco
`
`in IPR2014-01166. 2 The only difference between the two petitions is the simple
`
`substitution by JDSU of one secondary reference (Smith) for another (Sparks), and
`
`the only alleged reason for this substitution is that Sparks “has a higher likelihood
`
`1 Petitioner is Cisco’s supplier of the optical switches at issue in district
`
`court. See Ex. 2001, pp. 1, 4, 12. Petitioner is obligated under California
`
`Commercial Code § 2312 to indemnify Cisco.
`
`2 See infra Part II (discussing Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.;
`
`Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc.; Unilever, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co.; Medtronic,
`
`Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc.; Intelligent Bio-Sys. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd.; Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`of surviving a prior-invention date challenge.” (Petition, p. 2.) Regardless of
`
`whether this is enough to overcome redundancy in the first instance, Patent Owner
`
`never actually set forth a prior invention challenge to Cisco’s Petition, thereby
`
`obviating the alleged necessity of JDSU’s Petition.
`
`Petitioner has also used its Petition to improperly bolster the case against the
`
`’368 Patent by fixing errors the Board found in the IPR2014-01166 petition. The
`
`Board has consistently found this tactic improper and contrary to Congress’s intent
`
`in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.3
`
`Regardless, the Board should not institute trial because Petitioner has not
`
`shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.
`
`The ’368 Patent claims at least two unique features: (1) an optical switch
`
`that has an input port, an output port, and one or more other ports (e.g.,
`
`collimators) and (2) beam-deflecting elements (e.g., micromirrors) that are
`
`individually and continuously controllable in two dimensions. These features,
`
`shown in Figures 1A and 1B (reproduced below), allow the system to route
`
`
`3 See infra Part III (discussing ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.;
`
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.; CustomPlay, LLC v. ClearPlay,
`
`Inc.; Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.; Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble
`
`Co.).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`individual channels from the input port to a selected output port. Because the
`
`optical system in the ’368 Patent has multiple collimators providing the multiple
`
`ports, the system can route a greater number of individual channels than systems in
`
`the prior art.
`
`Figures 1A and 1B of the ’368 Patent
`
`
`Input Port, Output Port, and
`One or More [Other] Ports 110
`
`
`
` Micromirror Array 103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Optical switches at the time of the invention did not have an input port, an
`
`output port, and one or more other ports, as recited in the ’368 Patent. Existing
`
`systems had a single input port and a single output port. Rather than using
`
`collimators to provide 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. (See Ex. 2002, Business Wire, p. 2.)
`
`A circulator is a device that is used to separate optical
`
`signals traveling in opposite directions. Referencing the
`
`schematic reproduced herein, light can enter and exit circulator
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`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 ’368 Patent designed an
`
`add/drop optical switch with an input port, an output port, and one or more other
`
`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, ’368 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. 2008, Holliday R-OADMs, p. 61
`
`(“Capella is the only company to offer a 10-fiber port solution, i.e., one input, one
`
`express output, and 8 service ports.”); Ex. 2003, WavePath, pp. 1, 4.)
`
`In the instant Petition, Petitioner attempts to piece together Capella’s
`
`configuration using three main references: (1) U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 to
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`Bouevitch et al. (“Bouevitch”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 6,625,340 to Sparks et al.
`
`(“Sparks”); 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 combines multiple embodiments of Bouevitch without providing
`
`KSR rationale. And fundamentally, the separate embodiments of Bouevitch are not
`
`combinable. Petitioner points to modifying means 150 shown in Bouevitch Figure
`
`5 and MEMS array 50 shown in Bouevitch Figure 11 (annotated figures
`
`reproduced below) when arguing that Bouevitch explicitly discloses every element
`
`of the independent claims except for 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. Modifying means 150 shown in Figure
`
`5 is used in an optical system configured to function as a dynamic gain equalizer
`
`(“DGE”) to control power attenuation. MEMS array 50 shown in Figure 11 is used
`
`in an optical system configured to function as a configurable optical add/drop
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`multiplexer (“COADM”) to perform switching. The embodiments are also
`
`different because modifying means 150 uses polarization to control a light beam,
`
`while MEMS array 50 comprises two plain, simple mirrors 51 and 52. Further, the
`
`embodiments are not interchangeable because as shown in the annotations to
`
`Figures 5 and 11, modifying means 150 operates with input and output light beams
`
`in parallel, while MEMS array 50 reflects an input light beam by the incident angle
`
`of reflection. Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art (“POSA”) could not have used modifying means 150 in the system
`
`configured to operate with MEMS array 50.
`
`Petitioner also combines Bouevitch and Sparks. Petitioner contends that
`
`using Sparks’s two-axis mirror in Bouevitch would have been a “simple
`
`substitution.” Petitioner errs because Bouevitch and Sparks are not combinable,
`
`and Petitioner does not reconcile technical differences between Bouevitch and
`
`Sparks. Instead of explaining how the optical systems are combinable, Petitioner
`
`blankly calls the combination a simple substitution of one known optical
`
`component for another. The Board has already held that such conclusory
`
`statements are unsatisfactory. See, e.g., JDS Uniphase Corp. v. Fiber, LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00318, Paper 45 at 36-37 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014) (upholding
`
`patentability where Petitioner relied on conclusory statements).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`Contrary to Petitioner’s contentions, this case is technologically complex. As
`
`the Board can glean from the applied references and expert reports associated with
`
`this technology, Petitioner oversimplifies issues and leaps to conclusions on
`
`combinability. A micromirror is a small device in the end, but a lot of engineering
`
`disciplines (e.g., electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, physics, and
`
`packaging technology) go into designing a micromirror. (Ex. 2005, Marom Depo.
`
`Tr., 222:13-18.) Instead of saying that using Sparks’s micromirror in Bouevitch
`
`would have been a simple substitution and a POSA only had two types of
`
`micromirrors to choose from, Petitioner’s combinability analysis in the Petition
`
`should have reflected the technological complexities of this case. Because
`
`Petitioner failed to timely and adequately explain how the references are
`
`combinable, the Board should not institute trial.
`
`Additionally, the Board should not institute trial 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
`
`’368 Patent, Bouevitch uses peripheral circulators to add optical signals to the
`
`input port and to drop optical signals from the output port. To compare the fiber
`
`collimators that serve as the ports in the ’368 Patent to the circulators in Bouevitch,
`
`Figure 1A of the ’368 Patent and Figure 11 of Bouevitch are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 1A of the ’368 Patent
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
` Figure 11 of Bouevitch
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner contends that the circulator ports in Bouevitch read on the claimed
`
`“input port,” “output port,” and “one or more [other] ports.” But such interpretation
`
`is inconsistent with the ’368 Patent, the ’368 Patent’s earliest provisional
`
`application, and the underlying motivation to design an optical switch scalable to a
`
`large number of channels. The ’368 Patent and its earliest provisional application
`
`distinguish circulators from the claimed “ports” and emphasize that conventional
`
`optical systems could not scale to a large number of channels because the
`
`conventional optical systems utilized circulators. The ’368 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 ’368 Patent
`
`are not circulator ports. Construing the claimed collimator ports to read on optical
`
`circulator ports is contrary to the ’368 Patent and misapprehends the capabilities
`
`the ’368 Patent brought to the industry.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`For the element “beam-deflecting elements . . . being . . . continuously
`
`controllable in two dimensions,” Petitioner uses the second and third references,
`
`Sparks and Lin. Sparks and Lin, however, do not teach or suggest the claim
`
`element. Petitioner first says Sparks teaches continuous control, but Sparks does
`
`not have support to show that its mirror moves in a continuous fashion. Petitioner
`
`then says Lin teaches continuous control, but as recognized by experts in the field,
`
`Lin does not teach or suggest beam-deflecting elements that are continuously
`
`controllable in two dimensions because Lin only shows a mirror rotatable along
`
`one axis (i.e., control in only one dimension).
`
`Even more problematic than the shortcomings of Sparks and Lin, Petitioner
`
`provides no KSR rationale for combining Sparks and Lin or for combining both
`
`references with Bouevitch. Petitioner fails to show in the Petition that the
`
`combination teaches or suggests beam-deflecting elements that are continuously
`
`controllable in two dimensions or that a POSA would have been motivated to
`
`combine the references. These deficiencies cannot be cured, so the Board should
`
`not institute trial.
`
`II. The Board Should Deny Institution at the Outset Because this Inter
`Partes Review Petition is Redundant in View of IPR2014-01166
`
`The Board has discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny petitions that
`
`present the same or substantially the same grounds as were presented in prior
`
`petitions. See, e.g., Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014-
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`00581, Paper 8 at 11-13 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) (“Allowing similar, serial
`
`challenges to the same patent, by the same petitioner, risks harassment of patent
`
`owners and frustration of Congress’s intent.”) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1,
`
`at 48 (2011)); Google Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., CBM2014-00170, Paper 13 at 22-23
`
`(P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2015) (denying institution in part because a ground was the
`
`same or substantially the same as a ground in a different petition submitted by a
`
`different party); Unilever, Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper
`
`17 at 5-8 (P.T.A.B. July 7, 2014) (denying a second petition when the petitioner
`
`did not justify how the petition differed from its first petition); Medtronic, Inc. v.
`
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc., IPR2014-00436, Paper 17 at 11-12 (P.T.A.B.
`
`June 19, 2014); Intelligent Bio-Sys. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., IPR2013-00324,
`
`Paper 19 at 6-7 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2013).
`
`The Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution of the instant
`
`Petition because all grounds are redundant to grounds already in front of the Board.
`
`(Compare Petition, p. 5 with Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-01166, Paper 2 at 4 (P.T.A.B. July 15, 2014) (“Cisco Petition”).) The
`
`grounds set forth in both the instant Petition and in IPR2014-01166 are reproduced
`
`below for comparison.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Challenged Claims Type
`
`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`References
`
`1-6, 9-13 and 15-22
`
`§103 Bouevitch and Sparks
`
`1-6, 9-13 and 15-22
`
`§103 Bouevitch, Sparks, and Lin
`
`12
`
`12
`
`§103 Bouevitch, Sparks, and Dueck
`
`§103 Bouevitch, Sparks, Lin, and Dueck
`
`Challenged Claims Type
`
`References
`
`1-6, 9-13 and 15-22
`
`§103 Bouevitch and Smith
`
`1-6, 9-13 and 15-22
`
`§103 Bouevitch, Smith, and Lin
`
`12
`
`12
`
`§103 Bouevitch, Smith, and Dueck
`
`§103 Bouevitch, Smith, Lin, and Dueck
`
`Petitioner’s
`Grounds
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`
`Cisco’s
`Grounds
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`
`Petitioner presents identical arguments as in IPR2014-01166, albeit using
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,625,340 to Sparks et al. (“Sparks”) rather than U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,798,941 to Smith et al. (“Smith”). (Compare Cisco Petition, p. 19 (“to the extent
`
`Bouevitch does not disclose 2-axis mirrors and their intended use for power
`
`control, both the Smith Patent and the Smith Provisional each does so”) with
`
`Petition, p. 20 (“to the extent Bouevitch does not disclose 2-axis mirrors and their
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`intended use for power control, Sparks does”).) The arguments are supported by
`
`substantially the same expert declaration. (Compare Ex. 1029, Marom Dec. with
`
`Ex. 1028, McLaughlin Dec. See also McLaughlin Dec., ¶ 5 “substantial portions of
`
`the Marom Declaration are repeated herein without particular attribution.”).)
`
`To show that Petitioner uses Sparks for the identical elements as Cisco used
`
`Smith, a side-by-side comparison of Cisco’s Smith arguments and Petitioner’s
`
`Sparks arguments is provided below. Internal citations and emphasis are omitted.
`
`1[d]: “individually and continuously controllable”
`
`SMITH: “Smith teaches continuous control of its MEMS mirrors in an analog
`
`manner.” (Cisco Petition, p. 28.)
`
`SPARKS: “Sparks . . . denotes sufficiently fine precision consistent with analog
`
`control.” (Petition, pp. 30-31.)
`
`1[d]: “in two dimensions”
`
`SMITH: “Smith discloses a 2-axis beam deflecting element.” (Cisco Petition, p.
`
`31.)
`
`SPARKS: “Sparks describes movable micromirrors (16,26), which are . . . capable
`
`of two axis movement.” (Petition, p. 33.)
`
`1[d]: “to reflect its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of said ports”
`
`SMITH: “Smith describe[s] how the goal of controlling the MEMS mirrors is to
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`effect the add/drop process, which includes reflecting the spectral channels to
`
`selected add/drop ports.” (Cisco Petition, p. 33.)
`
`SPARKS: “Sparks disclose[s] switches to redirect a spectral channel to a
`
`particular port.” (Petition, p. 34.)
`
`1[d]: “to control the power of the spectral channel reflect to said selected port”
`
`SMITH: “Smith discusses two-axis (two dimensional tilting for
`
`both switching and power control.” (Cisco Petition, p. 34.)
`
`Specifically, “angular displacement about [one] axis is used for
`
`power control.” (Id.)
`
`SPARKS: “Sparks discusses 2-axis (two dimensional) mirror actuation for both
`
`switching and power control.” (Petition, p. 35.) Specifically, “the
`
`mirrors . . . deliberately misalign the optical beam path . . . . By
`
`non-optimally aligning the optical beam path, the optical beam will
`
`be attenuated.” (Id.)
`
`2: “a control unit for controlling each of said beam-deflecting elements”
`
`SMITH: “It would be obvious to PHOSITA to add a control unit to Bouevitch,
`
`including the Smith control unit.” (Cisco Petition, p. 35.) “Smith explicitly
`
`describes a control unit for its micromirrors.” (Id. at 36.)
`
`SPARKS: “It would be obvious to PHOSITA to add a known control unit to
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`Bouevitch, such as the Sparks control unit.” (Petition, p. 37.) “Sparks discloses
`
`control means 130 for controlling the actuation of the switching means 120.” (Id.)
`
`3: “servo-control assembly”
`
`SMITH: “Smith discloses this servo control
`
`assembly in Fig. 8 . . . in the form of a
`
`controller . . . that receives feedback from an
`
`optical power monitor.” (Cisco Petition, p. 38.)
`
`SPARKS: “Sparks discloses such a servo control
`
`assembly. Specifically, Sparks discloses a closed-loop
`
`servo control system.” (Petition, p. 39.)
`
`Figure 8 of Smith and Figure 4 of Sparks are both reproduced below with
`
`annotations to show similarities. Controller in Smith is substantially similar to
`
`Control Means in Sparks (annotated in green), Optical Power Monitor (“OPM”) in
`
`Smith is substantially similar to Power Measurement Means in Sparks (annotated
`
`in red), and 2 x 2 Optical Cross-Connect (“OXC”) in Smith is substantially similar
`
`to Switching Means in Sparks (annotated in yellow).
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`
`
`
`3: “spectral monitor for monitoring power levels at predetermined values”
`
`SMITH: “Smith discloses a spectral monitor as optical power monitor.” (Cisco
`
`Petition, p. 39.) “Smith discloses that its spectral monitor is for monitoring the
`
`power of the optical outputs.” (Id. at 40.)
`
`SPARKS: “Sparks discloses a power measuring means 140 is [sic] arranged to
`
`provide a signal indicative of the power of the optical signal to the switching
`
`means.” (Petition, p. 40.) “[B]oth the input and the output optical signal to the
`
`switch could be measured.” (Id. at 40-41.)
`
`17[c]: “controlling dynamically . . . said beam-deflecting elements”
`
`SMITH: “As for dynamically controlling the beam-deflecting mirrors, . . . Smith
`
`contemplate[s] this manner of control.” (Cisco Petition, p. 55.) “Smith notes that it
`
`is well known that power control should be dynamic and under feedback control
`
`since the various wavelength components vary in intensity with time.” (Id. at 56.)
`
`SPARKS: “As for dynamically controlling the beam-deflecting mirrors, . . .
`
`Sparks contemplate[s] this manner of control.” (Petition, p. 56.) Sparks teaches
`
`closed-loop 2-axis control which the PHOSITA would have understood to mean
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case IPR2015-00731 of
`U.S. Patent No. RE42,368
`making adjustments to the deflection of the beam in response to real-time
`
`monitoring of the channel power levels.” (Id. at 56-57.)
`
`
`Petitioner presents two arguments why the grounds are not redundant.
`
`Petitioner first argues that Smith and Sparks are not identical. (Petition, p. 2.)
`
`Merely saying that the cited references are not identical, however, is insufficient to
`
`overcome redundancy. See Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-
`
`00628, Paper 21 at 8-9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014). As the