`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`Ciena Corporation,
`
`Coriant Operations, Inc. (formerly Tellabs Operations, Inc.),
`
`Coriant (USA) Inc., and
`
`Cisco SystemsFujitsu Network Communications, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. RE42,368
`Filing Date: June 15, 2010
`Reissue Date: May 17, 2011
`
`Title: RECONFIGURABLE OPTICAL ADD-DROP MULTIPLEXERS WITH
`SERVO CONTROL AND DYNAMIC SPECTRAL POWER MANAGEMENT
`CAPABILITIES
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-01166
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-1
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................... 1
`Real Party-In-InterestParties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. §
`A.
`42.8(b)(1) .............................................................................................. 1
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................. 12
`B.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ............... 23
`C.
`Service Information ............................................................................ 24
`D.
`PowerPowers of Attorney ................................................................. 24
`E.
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................. 34
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... 34
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .......................... 34
`B.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested .............................................. 35
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c) ............................................................................................. 46
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’368
`PATENT ...................................................................................................... 56
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’368 PATENT ....................................................... 78
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .......... 911
`Legal Overview ................................................................................ 911
`A.
`[Controllable] “in two dimensions” ................................................. 911
`B.
`C.
`“To control the power of the spectral channel…” and "to reflect
`its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of said
`ports" (Claims 1-16); "whereby a subset of said spectral
`channels is directed to said drop ports" (Claim 15); and “for
`monitoring power levels” and “for controlling said beam-
`deflecting elements” (Claim 3) ...................................................... 1012
`“So as to combine selected ones of said spectral channels into
`an output” and "so as…to control the power" (claims 17-22) ....... 1113
`“Continuously controllable” ........................................................... 1214
`
`V.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-2
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`“Servo-control assembly” (Claims 3 & 4) .................................... 1315
`F.
`“Spectral monitor"(claim 3) ........................................................... 1516
`G.
`“Beam-focuser" (claim 11) ............................................................ 1517
`H.
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-6, 9-13, AND 15-22 OF THE ’368 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................. 1618
`Bouevitch, Smith, Lin and Dueck are all prior art to the ‘368
`A.
`patent .............................................................................................. 1718
`B. Overview of the Bouevitch Prior Art ............................................. 1819
`C. Overview of the Smith Prior Art .................................................... 1920
`D.
`PHOSITA had ample motivation to combine Bouevitch with
`Smith, including the motivations disclosed in both references ...... 1921
`Bouevitch andin View of Smith and Lin Render Obvious All
`Petitioned Claims 23 1-6, 9-11, 13, and 15-22, and Bouevitch
`in View of Smith, Lin, and Dueck Render Obvious Claim 12 ..... 24
`Claim 1 – GroundsGround 1 and 2 ................................... 2325
`1.
`(1) Claim 1 - preamble .......................................... 2325
`(2) Claim element 1[a] - input port ....................... 2425
`(3) Element 1[b] – Output & other ports for 2nd
`channels ........................................................... 2426
`(4) Element 1[c] - wavelength-selective device ... 2527
`(5) Element 1[d] – 2-axis beam-deflecting
`elements ........................................................... 2628
`(6) Ground 2 – Bouevitch + Smith + Lin .............. 29
`(76) 2-axis beam-deflecting elements ..................... 3132
`(87) Power Control using 2-Axis Mirrors: ............ 3334
`Claim 2 – Ground 1 ............................................................ 3536
`Claim 3 – Ground 1 ............................................................ 3738
`Claim 4 – Ground 1 ............................................................ 4142
`Claim 5 – Ground 1 ............................................................ 4243
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CONTINUED
`
`PAGE
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-3
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CONTINUED
`
`PAGE
`
`Claim 6 – Ground 1 ............................................................ 4344
`6.
`Claim 9 – Ground 1 ............................................................ 4546
`7.
`Claim 10 – Ground 1 .......................................................... 4546
`8.
`Claim 11 – Ground 1 .......................................................... 4647
`9.
`10. Claim 12 – Grounds 1,Ground 2, 3 and 4 ........................ 4748
`11. Claim 13 – Ground 1 .............................................................. 49
`12. Claim 15 – GroundsGround 1 and 2 ................................ 4950
`(1) Element 15[c] – drop ports for dropped
`channels ............................................................... 50
`(2) Element 15[d]-[e] ............................................ 5051
`(3) Element 15[f] – dropped channels to drop
`ports ..................................................................... 51
`13. Claim 16 – GroundsGround 1 and 2 .................................... 51
`(1) Element 16[c] – Add ports for added
`channels ............................................................... 52
`(2) Element 16[e] – Addition of channels from
`add ports .......................................................... 5253
`14. Claim 17 – GroundsGround 1 and 2 ..................................... 53
`(1) Element 17[a] – Separating signal into
`channels ............................................................... 54
`(2) Element 17[b] – Imaging channels ..................... 54
`(3) Element 17[c] – Dynamic & continuous 2-
`axis control .......................................................... 55
`15. Claim 18 – Ground 1 .............................................................. 56
`16. Claim 19 – Ground 1 .............................................................. 57
`17. Claim 20 – Ground 1 .............................................................. 57
`18. Claim 21 – Ground 1 .............................................................. 58
`19. Claim 22 – Ground 1 .............................................................. 59
`
`iii
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-4
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`CONTINUED
`
`
`IX. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE SMITH
`PATENT’S SEPTEMBER 22, 2000, PRIORITY DATE ....................... 60
`
`PAGE
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-5
`
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits Cited in this Petition
`
`Exhibit 1001: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368 to Chen et al. (“‘368 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002: File History of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 to Chen et al. (“‘368 File
`History”)
`
`Exhibit 1003: U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 to Bouevitch et al. (“Bouevitch”)
`
`Exhibit 1004: U.S. Patent No. 6,798,941 to Smith et al. (“Smith Patent,” or
`“Smith”)
`
`Exhibit 1005: Provisional Patent App. No. 60/234,683 (“Smith Provisional”)
`
`Exhibit 1006: U.S. Patent No. 6,798,992 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop”)
`
`Exhibit 1007: U.S. Patent No. 6,507,421 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop ‘421”)
`
`Exhibit 1008: Provisional Patent App. No. 60/277,217 (“’‘368 Provisional”)
`
`Exhibit 1009: U.S. Patent No. 6,253,001 to Hoen (“Hoen”)
`
`Exhibit 1010: U.S. Patent No. 5,661,591 to Lin atet al. (“Lin”)
`
`Exhibit 1011: Doerr et al., An Automatic 40-Wavelength Channelized Equalizer,
`IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, Vol., 12, No. 9, (Sept. 2000)
`
`Exhibit 1012: U.S. Patent No. 5,936,752 to Bishop et al. (“Bishop ‘752”)
`
`Exhibit 1013: Excerpt from New World English Dictionary ("“servo” and
`“servomechanism”)
`
`Exhibit 1014: Excerpt from Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged
`10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers.
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feedback (accessed: May
`07, 2014) (“feedback”)
`
`Exhibit 1015: Ford et al., Wavelength Add–Drop Switching Using Tilting
`Micromirrors, Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 17, No. 5
`(May 1999) (“Ford”)
`
`Exhibit 1016: U.S. Patent No. 6,069,719 to Mizrahi (“Mizrahi”)
`
`v
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-6
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1017: U.S. Patent No. 6,204,946 to Aksyuk et al. (“Aksyuk”)
`
`Exhibit 1018: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0105692 to
`Lauder et al. (“Lauder”)
`
`Exhibit 1019: Giles et al., Reconfigurable 16-Channel WDM DROP Module
`Using Silicon MEMS Optical Switches, IEEE Photonics
`Technology Letters, Vol. 11, No. 1, (Jan. 1999) (“Giles 16-Channel
`WDM DROP Module”)
`
`Exhibit 1020: Andrew S. Dewa, and John W. Orcutt, Development of a silicon 2-
`axis micro-mirror for optical cross-connect, Technical Digest of the
`Solid State Sensor and Actuator Workshop, Hilton Head Island, SC,
`June 4-8, 2000) at pp. 93-96 (“Dewa”)
`
`Exhibit 1021: U.S. Patent No. 6,011,884 to Dueck et al. (“Dueck”)
`
`Exhibit 1022: U.S. Patent No. 6,243 ,507 to Goldstein et al. (“Goldstein ‘507”)
`
`Exhibit 1023: U.S. Patent No. 6,567,574 to Ma, et al. (“Ma”)
`
`Exhibit 1024: U.S. Patent No. 6,256,430 to Jin, et al. (“Jin”)
`
`Exhibit 1025: U.S. Patent No. 6,631,222 to Wagener et al. (“Wagener”)
`
`Exhibit 1026: U.S. Patent No. 5,875,272 to Kewitsch et al. (“Kewitsch”)
`
`Exhibit 1027: U.S. Patent No. 6,285,500 to Ranalli atet al. (“Ranalli”)
`
`Exhibit 1028: Declaration of Dr. Dan Marom (“Decl.”)
`
`Exhibit 1029: Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Dan Marom
`
`Exhibit 1030: James A. Walker et al., Fabrication of a Mechanical Antireflection
`Switch for Fiber-to-the-Home Systems, 5 J. Microelectromechanical
`Sys. 45, 46-47, Fig. 3 (1996) (“Walker”).
`
`Exhibit 1031: U.S. Patent No. 5,414,540 to Patel et al. (“Patel”)
`
`Exhibit 1032: Borella, et al., Optical Components for WDM Lightwave Networks,
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 85, NO. 8, August 1997 (“Borella”)
`
`vi
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-7
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1033: U.S. Patent No. 6,928,244 to Goldstein et al. (“Goldstein ‘244”)
`
`Exhibit 1034: Steffen Kurth et al., Silicon mirrorsMirrors and Micromirror
`Arrays for Spatial Laser Beam Modulation, Sensors and Actuators,
`A 66, July 1998 (“Kurth”)
`
`Exhibit 1035: C. Randy Giles and Magaly Spector, The Wavelength Add/Drop
`Multiplexer for Lightwave Communication Networks, Bell Labs
`Technical Journal, (Jan.-Mar. 1999) (“Giles and Spector”)
`
`Exhibit 1036: U.S. Patent No. 5,872,880 to Maynard (the “Maynard patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1037: R.E. Wagner and W.J. Tomlinson, Coupling Efficiency of Optics in
`Single-Mode Fiber Components, Applied Optics, Vol. 21, No. 15,
`pp. 2671-2688 (August 1982)
`
`Exhibit 1038: Excerpts from Born et al., PRINCIPLES OF OPTICS, (6th Ed.,
`Pergammon Press 1984) (“Born”)
`
`Exhibit 1039: Redline Showing Changes from IPR2014-01166 Petition to
`Joinder Petition
`
`Exhibit 1040: Redline Showing Changes from IPR2014-01166 Petition Exhibit
`1028 (Marom Declaration) to Joinder Petition Exhibit 1028
`(Marom Declaration)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc.Ciena Corporation, Coriant Operations,
`
`Inc., Coriant (USA) Inc., and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) requests inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-
`
`319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42, of claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-22 (the “Petitioned Claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 (Ex. 1001) (“the ’‘368 patent”), assigned on its face
`
`to Capella Photonics, Inc.
`
`In prosecuting its reissue patent, Patentee admitted that its original claim set
`
`was overbroad and invalid in light of U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 (Ex. 1003)
`
`(“Bouevitch”). To fix this claim drafting mistake and to distinguish over Ex. 1003,
`
`Patentee made two amendments to all of its independent claims. But those
`
`amendments merely swapped one known component for another known
`
`component. As described in the body of this petition, those amendments swapped
`
`one known type of mirror for another known type of mirror.
`
`While the Patentee’s reissue amendments may have addressed the novelty
`
`issues in light of Ex. 1003, those amendments do not overcome obviousness.
`
`Bouevitch in combination with the prior art described in the body of this petition
`
`renders the Petitioned Claims invalid as obvious.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`A. Real Party-In-InterestParties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.8(b)(1)
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. is the real party-in-interest for this
`
`petition.
`
`Ciena Corporation, Coriant Operations, Inc. (“COI”), Coriant (USA)
`
`Inc. (“CUSA”), Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc. (“FNC”), and Fujitsu
`
`Limited are real parties-in-interest for this petition. Tellabs, Inc., a parent
`
`holding company of COI, was accused in litigation identified herein of
`
`infringing the ‘368 Patent. Even though Tellabs, Inc. was dismissed on
`
`jurisdictional grounds, Tellabs, Inc., and CUSA’s corresponding parent
`
`holding company, Coriant International Group LLC) (formerly Blackhawk
`
`Holding Vehicle LLC), are also identified in this section out of an abundance
`
`of caution.
`
`B. Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)
`The ’368 Patentpatent is asserted against Cisco in anPetitioner and other
`
`parties in the following on-going patent lawsuit brought by Patent Owner
`
`inlawsuits (Capella litigation): Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco SystemsSys.,
`
`Inc., No. 3:14-cv-03348 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Fujitsu Network
`
`Commc’ns, Inc., Civil Action Nos. 1-14-cv-20529 (“Capella litigation”), filed in
`
`the Southern District of Florida on February 14, 2014. Claims 1-6, 9-13 and
`
`15-22 of the ’368 patent are asserted in the Capella litigation.No. 3:14-cv-
`
`03349 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-03350
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-10
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`(N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Ciena Corp., No. 5:14-cv-03351 (N.D.
`
`Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Columbus Networks USA, Inc., No. 0:14-cv-
`
`61629 (S.D. Fla.) (stayed), and Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Telefonica Int’l
`
`Wholesale Servs. USA, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-22701 (S.D. Fla.) (stayed).
`
`On July 15, 2014, Cisco filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR)
`
`(IPR2014-01166) of the ‘368 patent, instituted January 30, 2015. On
`
`February 12, 2015, FNC filed a petition for IPR (IPR2015-00726) against the
`
`‘368 patent. On February 13, 2015, JDS Uniphase Corp. filed a petition for
`
`IPR (IPR2015-00731) against the ‘368 patent. On August 12, 2014, Cisco filed
`
`a petition for IPR (IPR2014-01276, instituted February 18, 2015) against
`
`Capella’s U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 (“the ‘678 patent”), which is related to the
`
`‘368 patent and is also asserted in the Capella litigation. On February 12,
`
`2015, FNC filed a petition for IPR (IPR2015-00727) against the ‘678 patent.
`
`On February 14, 2015, JDS Uniphase Corp. filed a petition for IPR (IPR2015-
`
`00739) against the ‘678 patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Wayne O. Stacy (Reg. No. 45,125)
`Cooley LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`Tel:720-566-4125 Fax:720-566-
`4099 wstacy@cooley.com
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Matthew J. Leary (Reg. No. 58,593)
`Cooley LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Ste. 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`Tel:720-566-4125 Fax:720-566-4099
`CapellaCisco@cooley.com
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-11
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`LEAD COUNSEL: Matthew
`
`J. Moore
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`42012)
`
`(Matthew.Moore@lw.com), Latham & Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street
`
`NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1304, T: (202) 637-2278, F: (202) 637-
`
`2201.
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: Robert Steinberg
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`33144)
`
`(Bob.Steinberg@lw.com ) Latham & Watkins LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue,
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560, T: (213) 891-8989, F: (213) 891-8763.
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: Christopher Chalsen
`
`(Reg. No. 30,936)
`
`(CChalsen@milbank.com), Nathaniel Browand
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`59,683)
`
`(NBrowand@milbank.com), Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, 1
`
`Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, NY 10005, T: (212) 530-5380, F: (212)
`
`822-5380.
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: Thomas K. Pratt (Reg. No. 37,210)
`
`(TPratt@bannerwitcoff.com), J. Pieter van Es (Reg. No. 37,746)
`
`PvanEs@bannerwitcoff.com, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., 10 South Wacker
`
`Drive, Suite 3000, Chicago, IL 60606, T: (312) 463-5000, F: (312) 463-5001.
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the present
`
`petition, in its entirety, including all Exhibits and a power of attorney, is being
`
`served by USPS EXPRESS MAIL, costs prepaid, to the address of the attorney or
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-12
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`agent of record for the ’‘368 patent: Barry Young, Law Offices of Barry N.
`
`Young, P.O. Box 61197, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Petitioner may be served at the
`
`lead counsel address provided in Section I.C. of this Petition. Petitioner consents
`
`to service by e-mail at the e-mail addresses provided above.
`
`E.
`PowerPowers of Attorney
`A powerPowers of attorney isare being filed concurrently with this petition
`
`in accordance with 37 C.F.R,. § 42.10(b).
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103
`This petition for inter partes review requests review of 19 claims of the
`
`’‘368 patent and is accompanied by a request fee payment of $24,600. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.15. Thus, this petition meets the fee requirements under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(1).
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’‘368 patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`further certifies that Petitioner is not barred or otherwise estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review challenging the identified claims on the grounds identified
`
`within the present petition.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-22 of the
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`’‘368 patent under the statutory grounds set forth in the table below (which are the
`
`same grounds upon which IPR2014-01166 was instituted). Petitioner asks that
`
`each of the claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of how the Petitioned
`
`Claims are unpatentable is included in PartSection VIII of this petitionPetition.
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground of rejection is set forth in the
`
`Declaration of a technical expert, Dr. Dan Marom (Ex. 1028) (“Marom Decl.,”).
`
`Groun
`d
`
`’‘368 Patent
`Claims
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`1
`
`21
`
`1-6, 9-13, and 15-
`22
`1-6, 9-11, 13, and
`15-22
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`Smith.
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`Smith further in view of Lin.
`
`3
`
`12
`
`42
`
`12
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`Smith in further view of Dueck.
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`Smith and Lin in further view of Dueck.
`
`Each of the references relied upon in the grounds set forth above qualify as
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C., § 102(e) or (b).
`
`This Petition and the Declaration of Dan Marom, submitted herewith, cite
`
`additional prior art materials to provide background of the relevant technology and
`
`to explain why one of skill in the art would combine the cited references.
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`C. Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`Inter partes review of claims 1-6, 9-13, and 15-22 should be instituted
`
`because this Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail
`
`with respect to at least one of the claims challenged. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Each
`
`limitation of each challenged claim is disclosed by and/or obvious in light of the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ’‘368 PATENT
`Fiber-optic communication uses light to carry information over optical
`
`fibers. Originally, fiber-optic systems used one data channel per fiber. To increase
`
`the number of channels carried by a single fiber, wavelength division multiplexing
`
`(“WDM”) was developed. WDM is a type of optical communication that uses
`
`different wavelengths of light to carry different channels of data. WDM combines
`
`(multiplexes) multiple individual channels onto a single fiber of an optical
`
`network. WDM was known before the ‘368 patent’s priority date. (E.g., Ex. 1015
`
`at 904.)
`
`At different points in a fiber network, some of the individual channels may
`
`be extracted (dropped) from the fiber, for example when those channels are
`
`directed locally and need not be passed further down the fiber network. And at
`
`these network points, other channels may also be added into the fiber for
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-15
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`transmission onward to other portions of the network. To handle this add/drop
`
`process, optical add-drop multiplexers (OADMs) were developed. OADMs are
`
`used to insert channels onto, pass along, and drop channels from an optical fiber
`
`without disrupting the overall traffic flow on the fiber. (Ex. 1001 at 1:51-58.)
`
`OADMs were known long before the ‘368 priority date. (E.g., Ex. 1015 at 904.)
`
`(Re)configurable OADMs are referred to as “ROADMs” or “COADMs,”
`
`which are controllable to dynamically select which wavelengths to add, drop, or
`
`pass through. (Ex. 1003 at Abstract; Ex. 1019 at 64.) These types of devices were
`
`known in the art prior to the ‘368 priority date. (Marom Decl., Ex. 1028 at ¶ 29.)
`
`ROADMs operate by separating the input light beam into individual
`
`beams—each beam corresponding to an individual channel.
`
` Each input
`
`channel/beam is individually routed by a beam-steering system to a chosen output
`
`port of the ROADM. For example, a first channel can be steered so that it is
`
`switched from an “input” port to an “output” port. Channels switched to the
`
`“output” port are passed along the network. At the same time, a second channel
`
`can be switched to a “drop” port and removed from the main fiber. The ROADM
`
`could also add a new channel to the main fiber through the “add” port to replace
`
`the dropped channel. These add/drop techniques were known prior to the ‘368
`
`priority date. (ExDecl. 1028 at ¶ 29; Ex. 1003 at 5:15-38; Ex. 1016 at 1:55-2:45;
`
`Ex. 1017 at 1:56-67.)
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-16
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`In addition to routing channels, ROADMSROADMs may also be used to
`
`control the power of the individual channels. Power control is often performed by
`
`steering individual beams slightly away from the target port such that the
`
`misalignment reduces the amount of the channel’s power that enters the port. This
`
`misalignment power control technique in ROADMs was known prior to the ‘368
`
`priority date. (See, e.g., ExDecl. 1028at ¶¶ 35, ¶ 60; Ex. 1006 at 2:9-21.)
`
`ROADMs use wavelength selective routers (WSRs) to perform switching
`
`and power control. (See, e.g., Ex. 1026 at 10:64-11:29.) WSRs are also referred to
`
`as wavelength selective switches (WSSs). (See, e.g., Ex. 1027 at Fig. 1.) As of the
`
`‘368 priority date, WSRs/WSSs were known. (See, e.g., Ex. 1026 at Abstract,
`
`4:15-25; Ex. 1027 at Fig. 1; Ex. 1032 at 1292, 1300.)
`
`The embodiment of WSRs relevant to this petition steers light beams using
`
`small
`
`tilting mirrors, sometimes called MEMS, which stand for Micro
`
`ElectroMechanical Systems. (ExDecl. 1028at ¶¶ 36, 31.) Prior-art WSRs could
`
`tilt the individual mirrors using analog voltage control. (Id.) The tilt allows
`
`reflected beams to be aimed at selected ports. Prior-art MEMS mirrors could be
`
`tilted in one or two axes. (Id. at ¶ 37.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ’‘368 PATENT
`The ‘368 patent originally issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,879,750. According
`
`to the Patentee, the original patent’s claims were invalid over Bouevitch. The
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`Patentee expressly acknowledged its claiming mistake and identified the two
`
`elements that it alleged needed to be added to its claims to support patentability–
`
`(1) mirror control in two-dimensions, and (2) the mirror’s use for power control:
`
`At least one error upon which reissue is based is described as follows:
`Claim 1 is deemed to be too broad and invalid in view of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,498,872 to Bouevitch and further in view of one or more of Ex.
`1023 U.S. Patent No. 6,567,574 to Ma, Ex. 1024 U.S. Patent No.
`6,256,430 to Jin, or Ex. 1025 U.S. Patent No. 6,631,222 to Wagener by
`failing to include limitations regarding the spatial array of beam
`deflecting elements being individually and continuously controllable in
`two dimensions to control the power of the spectral channels reflected
`to selected output ports, as indicated by the amendments to Claim 1 in the
`Preliminary Amendment. (Ex. 1002 at 81-82.)1
`In its efforts to distinguish over Bouevitch, Patentee’s first amendment
`
`specified that the beam-deflecting elements must be controllable in two
`
`dimensions. This amendment corresponds to a mirror tilting in two axes rather
`
`than one. As for the second amendment, Patent Owner added a use clause stating
`
`that the beam-deflecting elements could be used to control power. As explained in
`
`the claim construction section (§ VII, below), use clauses are not limiting, and
`
`have no impact on an invalidity analysis. Claim 1 of the ‘750 patent as amended,
`
`with the amendments underlined, is shown in Table 1.
`
`
`1 Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise noted.
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-18
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`
`Table 1
`1 An optical add-drop apparatus comprising
`1a an input port for an input multi-wavelength optical signal having first spectral
`channels;
`1b one or more other ports for second spectral channels; an output port for an
`output multi-wavelength optical signal;
`1c a wavelength-selective device for spatially separating said spectral channels;
`1d a spatial array of beam-deflecting elements positioned such that each element
`receives a corresponding one of said spectral channels, each of said elements
`being individually and continuously controllable in two dimensions to reflect
`its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of said ports and to
`control the power of the spectral channel reflected to said selected port.
`
`The Patentee made almost identical amendments to the 3 other independent claims.
`
`
`
`Through the Patentee’s admissions about Bouevitch, the Patentee also
`
`admitted that Bouevitch disclosed all the elements of at least claim 1, except for 2-
`
`axis mirrors. The Patentee first admitted that Bouevitch anticipated the pre-
`
`reissue version of claim 1 as it appeared in the ‘750 patent. Following that, the
`
`only amendments the Patentee added to the claim were 2-axis mirrors and their
`
`intended use for power control. Because the intended use language is not limiting,
`
`as discussed in the next section, the Patentee admitted that Bouevitch disclosed all
`
`limitations but for 2-axis mirrors. (See MPEP § 2217 (“admissions by the patent
`
`owner in the record as to matters affecting patentability may be utilized during a
`
`reexamination”) (citing 37 CFR 1.104(c)(3)37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(3)).)
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-19
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3)
`A. Legal Overview
`A claim subject to inter partes review (“IPR”) is given its “broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it
`
`appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Except as expressly set out below, Petitioner
`
`construes the language of the claims to have their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`[Controllable] “in two dimensions”2
`B.
`The broadest reasonable interpretation ("“BRI"”) for the term “in two
`
`dimensions” in light of the specification is "“in two axes." ” As the claim states,
`
`the “beam-deflecting elements” are “controllable in two dimensions.” The ‘368
`
`consistently describes these beam-deflecting elements as various types of mirrors
`
`which are rotated around the two axes in which the mirrors tilt to deflect light. The
`
`specification states, for example, that the beam-deflecting elements "“may be
`
`pivoted about one or two axes.” (Ex. 1001 at 4:25-26, Abstract.) The specification
`
`also describes certain embodiments that use two-dimensional arrays of input and
`
`output ports. For these embodiments, the specification describes that the mirrors
`
`2 Petitioner sets forth positions on claim construction identical to those in
`
`IPR2014-01166
`
`in the event terms require construction.
`
` Petitioner
`
`acknowledges that the Institution Decision in IPR2014-01166 determined no
`
`construction was needed.
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Ciena Corp. et al.
`Exhibit 1039-20
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,368
`
`are required to tilt along two axes (“biaxially”) to switch the beams between the
`
`ports. (Id., at 4:25-29.) And further, the ‘368 patent explains how to control
`
`power by tilting the mirrors in two axes. (Id., at 16:36-51 (describing the
`
`combined use of major and minor “tilt axes” for power control & switching).)
`
`C.
`
`“To control the power of the spectral channel…” and "“to
`reflect its corresponding spectral channel to a selected one of
`said ports"” (Claims 1-16); "“whereby a subset of said spectral
`channels is directed to said drop ports"” (Claim 15); and “for
`monitoring power levels” and “for controlling said beam-
`deflecting elements” (Claim 3)
`Each of the above terms is a mere statement of intended use and is not
`
`limiting under a BRI for apparatus claims 1-16. The Federal Circuit stated that
`
`"“apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."” Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "
`
`(emphasis in original). “An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the
`
`scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a
`
`context in which the invention operates."” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetme