Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`
`
`
`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
`
`Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent No. RE42,678
`Filing Date: June 15, 2010
`Reissue Date: September 6, 2011
`
`Title: RECONFIGURABLE OPTICAL ADD-DROP MULTIPLEXERS WITH
`SERVO CONTROL AND DYNAMIC SPECTRAL POWER MANAGEMENT
`CAPABILITIES
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................... 1 
`A. 
`Real Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ........................ 1 
`B. 
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .................................... 2 
`C. 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) ................. 3 
`D. 
`Service Information .............................................................................. 4 
`E. 
`Powers of Attorney ............................................................................... 4 
`III.  PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................... 4 
`IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................. 5 
`A.  Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................ 5 
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`B. 
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested ................................................ 5 
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................... 6 
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ‘678
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 6 
`VI.  SUMMARY OF THE ‘678 PATENT ......................................................... 8 
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ............ 11 
`A. 
`Legal Overview .................................................................................. 11 
`B. 
`“To control the power…,” “to reflect [its] [corresponding] …
`spectral channels,” “wherein each output port carries a single
`one of said spectral channels,” “whereby said pass-through port
`receives a subset of said spectral channels,” and “for
`maintaining a predetermined coupling…” (Claims 1–19, 21–30,
`44–53) ................................................................................................. 11 
`“Continuously controllable/[controlling]” (Claims 1–19, 44–67) ..... 12 
`“Servo-control assembly” and “servo-based” (Claims 2-4, 21-
`43, and 45-46) ..................................................................................... 13 
`
`C. 
`
`V. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`
`
`E. 
`
`“Spectral monitor” (Claims 3, 22, and 46) ......................................... 15 
`E. 
`“Beam-focuser” (Claims 1–67) .......................................................... 16 
`F. 
`[Controlling] “in two dimensions” (Claims 61–67) ........................... 17 
`G. 
`VIII.  CLAIMS 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, AND 61-65 OF
`THE ‘678 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE ......................................... 17 
`A. 
`Bouevitch, Smith, Lin and Dueck are all prior art ............................. 18 
`B.  Overview of the Bouevitch Prior Art ................................................. 19 
`C.  Overview of the Smith Prior Art ........................................................ 20 
`PHOSITA had ample motivation to combine Bouevitch with
`D. 
`Smith, including the motivations disclosed in both references .......... 20 
`Bouevitch in View of Smith and Lin Render Obvious All
`Petitioned Claims ............................................................................... 24 
`1. 
`Claim 1 – Ground 1 .................................................................. 24 
`2. 
`Claim 2 – Ground 1 .................................................................. 35 
`3. 
`Claim 3 – Ground 1 .................................................................. 39 
`4. 
`Claim 4 – Ground 1 .................................................................. 42 
`5. 
`Claim 9 – Ground 1 .................................................................. 44 
`6. 
`Claim 10 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 44 
`7. 
`Claim 13 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 45 
`8. 
`Claim 17—Ground 2 ................................................................ 46 
`9. 
`Claim 19 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 47 
`10.  Claim 20 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 47 
`11.  Claim 21 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 48 
`12.  Claim 22 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 50 
`13.  Claim 23 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 51 
`14.  Claim 27 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 51 
`15.  Claim 29 – Ground 2 ................................................................ 51 
`16.  Claim 44 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 51 
`17.  Claim 45 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 54 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`Claim 46 — Ground 1 .............................................................. ..54
`
`Claim 53 — Ground 2 .............................................................. ..54
`
`
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Claim 61 — Ground 1 .............................................................. ..54
`
`Claim 62 — Ground 1 .............................................................. ..58
`
`Claim 63 — Ground 1 .............................................................. ..58
`
`Claim 64 — Ground 1 .............................................................. ..59
`
`Claim 65 — Ground 1 .............................................................. ..59
`
`18.  Claim 46 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 54 
`19.  Claim 53 – Ground 2 ................................................................ 54 
`20.  Claim 61 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 54 
`21.  Claim 62 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 58 
`22.  Claim 63 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 58 
`23.  Claim 64 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 59 
`24.  Claim 65 – Ground 1 ................................................................ 59 
`IX.  WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE SMITH
`PATENT’S SEPTEMBER 22, 2000, PRIORITY DATE ....................... 59 
`PATENT’S SEPTEMBER 22, 2000, PRIORITY DATE .......................59
`
`IX. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR THE SMITH
`
`
`
`iii
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`List of Exhibits Cited in this Petition
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1001:U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678 to Wilde et al. (“ ‘678 patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1002: File History of U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 to Wilde et al. (“ ‘678 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 (“‘678 Provisional”)
`
`Exhibit 1009: U.S. Patent No. 6,253,001 to Hoen (“Hoen”)
`
`Exhibit 1010: U.S. Patent No. 5,661,591 to Lin et 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”)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit 1016: U.S. Patent No. 6,069,719 to Mizrahi (“Mizrahi”)
`
`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 et 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”)
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit 1032: Borella, et al., Optical Components for WDM Lightwave Networks,
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 85, NO. 8, August 1997 (“Borella”)
`
`Exhibit 1033: U.S. Patent No. 6,928,244 to Goldstein et al. (“Goldstein ‘244”)
`
`Exhibit 1034: Steffen Kurth et al., Silicon Mirrors 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 (“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: Excerpts from Shigeru Kawai, HANDBOOK OF OPTICAL
`Interconnects (2005)
`
`Exhibit 1040: U.S. Patent No. 6,625,350 to Kikuchi (the “Kikuchi patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1041: Joseph E. Ford & James A. Walker, Dynamic Spectral Power
`Equalization Using Micro-Opto-Mechanics, IEEE Photonics
`Technology Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 10, (Oct. 1998) (“Ford &
`Walker, Spectral Power Equalization”)
`
`Exhibit 1042: U.S. Patent No. 5,048,912 to Kunikane et al. (“Kunikane patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1043: U.S. Patent No. 5,315,431 to Masuda et al. (“Masuda patent”)
`
`Exhibit 1044: S. Yuan, and N. A. Riza, General formula for coupling loss
`characterization of single mode fiber collimators by use of gradient
`index rod lenses, Appl. Opt. Vol. 38, No. 10, at 3214-3222, (1999)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit 1045: Ming C. Wu, Micromachining for Optical and Optoelectronic
`Systems, Proc. IEEE, Vol. 85, No. 11, at 1833-56 (Nov. 1997)
`(“Wu, Micromachining”)
`
`Exhibit 1046: Sir Isaac Newton, Opticks or a treatise of the reflections,
`refractions, and inflections and colors of light (1730)
`
`Exhibit 1047: Chikama et al., Photonic Networking Using Optical Add Drop
`Multiplexers and Optical Cross-Connects, Fujitsu Sco. Tech. J., 35,
`1, pp. 46-55 (July 1999)
`
`Exhibit 1048: Richard S. Muller & Kam Y. Lau, Surface-Micromachined
`Microoptical Elements and Systems, Proceedings of the IEEE, Col.
`86, No. 8 (August 1998)
`
`Exhibit 1049: Redline Showing Changes from IPR2014-01276 Petition to Joinder
`Petition
`
`Exhibit 1050: Redline Showing Changes from IPR2014-01276 Petition Exhibit
`1028 (Marom Declaration) to Joinder Petition Exhibit 1028
`(Marom Declaration)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`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 1-4, 9, 10, 13,
`
`17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, and 61-65 (the “Petitioned Claims”) of U.S. Patent
`
`No. RE42,678 (Ex. 1001) (“the ‘678 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
`
`Bouevitch, Patentee made two amendments to most of the patent’s 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 Bouevitch, 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 Parties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Ciena Corporation, Coriant Operations, Inc. (“COI”), Coriant (USA) Inc.
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`(“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 ‘678 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 ‘678 patent is asserted against Petitioner and other parties in the
`
`following on-going patent lawsuits (Capella litigation): Capella Photonics, Inc. v.
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 3:14-CV-03348 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Fujitsu
`
`Network Commc’ns, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00349 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc.
`
`v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00350 (N.D. Cal.), Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Ciena
`
`Corp., No. 5:14-cv-00351 (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 August 12, 2014, Cisco filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR)
`
`(IPR2014-01276) of the ‘678 patent, instituted February 18, 2015. On February
`
`12, 2015, FNC filed a petition for IPR (IPR2015-00727) against the ‘678 patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`On February 14, 2015, JDS Uniphase Corp. filed a petition for IPR (IPR2015-
`
`00739) against the ‘678 patent. On February 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition
`
`for IPR (IPR2015-00816) against Capella’s U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 (“the ‘368
`
`patent”), which is related to the ‘678 patent and is also asserted in the Capella
`
`litigation. On July 15, 2014, Cisco filed a petition for IPR (IPR2014-01166) of the
`
`‘368 patent, instituted January 30, 2015. On February 12, 2015, FNC filed a
`
`petition for IPR (IPR2015-00726) of the ‘368 patent. On February 13, 2015, JDS
`
`Uniphase Corp. filed a petition for IPR (IPR2015-00731) of the ‘368 patent.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`LEAD COUNSEL: Matthew
`J. Moore
`(Reg. No.
`42012)
`
`(Matthew.Moore@lw.com), Latham & Watkins LLP, 555 Eleventh Street NW,
`
`STE 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), Lawrence T. Kass
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`40,671)
`
`(LKass@milbank.com), Suraj Balusu (Reg. No. 65,519) (SBalusu@milbank.com)
`
`Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`
`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 S. Wacker Dr, STE 3000,
`
`Chicago, IL 60606, T: (312) 463-5000, F: (312) 463-5001; Jordan N. Bodner (Reg.
`
`No. 42,338) (JBodner@bannerwitcoff.com), Michael S. Cuviello (Reg. No.
`
`59,255) (MCuviello@bannerwitcoff.com), Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., 1100 13th St
`
`NW, STE 1200, Washington, DC 20005, T: (202) 824-3000, F: (202) 824-3001.
`
`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
`
`agent of record for the ‘678 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.
`
`Powers of Attorney
`
`E.
`Powers of attorney are being filed concurrently with the designation of
`
`counsel 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 24 claims of the ‘678
`
`patent and is accompanied by a request fee payment of $27,400. See 37 C.F.R. §
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`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 ‘678 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 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23,
`
`27, 29, 44-46, 53, and 61-65 of the ‘678 patent under the statutory grounds set
`
`forth in the table below (which are the same grounds upon which IPR2014-01276
`
`was instituted). Petitioner asks that each of the claims be found unpatentable. An
`
`explanation of how claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, and 61-65
`
`are unpatentable is included in § VIII of this Petition. Additional explanation and
`
`support for each ground of rejection is set forth in the Declaration of a technical
`
`expert, Dr. Dan Marom (Ex. 1028) (“Decl.”).
`
`Ground
`1
`
`2
`
`‘678 Patent Claims
`1-4, 9, 10, 13, 19-23,
`27, 44-46, and 61-65
`17, 29, and 53
`
`Basis for Challenge
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view
`of Smith further in view of Lin.
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view
`of Smith and Lin in further view of Dueck.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`C. Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review Under 37
`C.F.R. § 42.108(c)
`
`Inter partes review of claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, and
`
`61-65 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
`
`the prior art and/or obvious in light of that art.
`
`V. BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ‘678 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 ‘678 priority date. (E.g., Ex. 1015, 904.)
`
`At different points in a fiber network, some of the individual channels may
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`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. (‘678 Pat., 1:51-58.)
`
`OADMs were known long before the ‘678 priority date. (E.g., Ex. 1015, 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. (Bouevitch, Abstract; Ex. 1019, 64.) These types of devices were
`
`known in the art prior to the ‘678 priority date. (Decl., ¶ 30.)
`
`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 to be 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
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`
`channel. These add/drop techniques were known prior to the ‘678 priority date.
`
`(Decl., ¶ 29; Bouevitch, 5:15-38; Ex. 1016, 1:55-2:45; Ex. 1017, 1:56-67.)
`
`In addition to routing channels, ROADMS 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 ‘678 priority date.
`
`(See, e.g., Decl. at ¶¶ 36, 44, 63; Ex. 1006 at 2:9-21.)
`
`ROADMs use wavelength selective routers (WSRs) to perform switching
`
`and power control. (See, e.g., Ex. 1026, 10:64-11:29.) WSRs are also referred to
`
`as wavelength selective switches (WSSs). (See, e.g., Ex. 1027, Fig. 10; Decl., ¶ 32-
`
`33.) As of the ‘678 priority date, WSRs/WSSs were known. (See, e.g., id., Ex.
`
`1026, Abstract, 4:15-25; Ex. 1027, Fig. 10; Ex. 1032 at 1292, 1300.)
`
`The embodiment of WSRs relevant to this petition steers light beams using
`
`small
`
`tilting mirrors, sometimes called MEMS, which stands for Micro
`
`ElectroMechanical Systems. (Decl., ¶¶ 37-38.) Prior-art WSRs tilted individual
`
`mirrors using analog voltage control. (Id.) The tilt allows reflected beams to be
`
`aimed at selected ports. (Id.) MEMS mirrors were tilted in one or two axes, and
`
`were known in the art prior to the priority date for the ‘678’s patent. (Decl., ¶ 38.)
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘678 PATENT
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`
`
`The ‘678 patent originally issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,625,346 and then
`
`reissued as RE39,397. According to the Patentee, this original ‘397 patent
`
`included claims that were invalid over Bouevitch. The 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 U.S. Patent
`No. 6,567,574 to Ma, U.S. Patent No. 6,256,430 to Jin, or 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 Amendments…. (Ex. 1002, 104 (exhibit
`pagination); emphasis added.)1
`In its efforts to distinguish over Bouevitch, Patentee’s first amendment
`
`specified that the beam-deflecting elements must be controllable in two dimensions
`
`rather than in just one. That 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 the power. As
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
` Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise noted.
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`explained in the claim construction section (§ VII, below), use clauses are not
`
`limiting, and have no impact on an invalidity analysis. Claim 1 as amended, with
`
`the amendments underlined and deletions struck through, is shown in Table 1.
`
`Table 1
`1 A wavelength-separating-routing apparatus, comprising:
`1a multiple fiber collimators, providing an input port for a multi-wavelength
`optical signal and a plurality of output ports;
`1b a wavelength-separator, for separating said multi-wavelength optical signal
`from said input port into multiple spectral channels;
`1c a beam-focuser, for focusing said spectral channels into corresponding
`spectral spots; and
`1d a spatial array of channel micromirrors positioned such that each channel
`micromirror receives one of said spectral channels, said channel micromirrors
`being pivotal about two axes and being individually and continuously
`controllable to reflect said corresponding received spectral channels into any
`selected ones of said output ports and to control the power of said received
`spectral channels coupled into said output ports.
`
`The Patentee made almost identical amendments to claims 44 and 61.
`
`Through the Patentee’s admissions about Bouevitch, the Patentee also
`
`admitted that Bouevitch disclosed all the elements of at least claim 1 (including the
`
`preamble), except for 2-axis mirrors. The Patentee first admitted that Bouevitch
`
`anticipated the pre-reissue version of claim 1 in the original ‘397 patent.
`
`Following that, the only substantive amendments the Patentee added to the claim
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`
`
`were the use of individual (“corresponding”) 2-axis mirrors for switching channels
`
`to ports, and the mirrors’ 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)).)
`
`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” (“BRI”).
`
`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.
`
`B.
`
`“To control the power…,” “to reflect [its] [corresponding] …
`spectral channels,” “wherein each output port carries a single
`one of said spectral channels,” “whereby said pass-through port
`receives a subset of said spectral channels,” and “for
`maintaining a predetermined coupling…” (Claims 1–19, 21–30,
`44–53)2
`Each above term is a mere statement of intended use and is not limiting for
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Petitioner sets forth positions on claim construction identical to those in IPR2014-
`
`01276 in the event terms require construction. Petitioner acknowledges that the
`
`Institution Decision in IPR2014-01276 determined no construction was needed.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`
`
`claims 1–19, 21–30, and 44–53. 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 Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320
`
`F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009); MPEP §§ 2114, 1414.
`
`The BPAI also addressed use clauses. In Ex parte Kearney, the BPAI stated
`
`that use clauses need not be considered when evaluating the validity of a claim.
`
`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2675, at *6 (BPAI May 25, 2012) (“our reviewing court has
`
`held that the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not defeat a finding
`
`of anticipation if all the claimed structural limitations are found in the reference.”)
`
`The above phrases are non-functional use clauses because they say nothing
`
`about
`
`the structure of
`
`the apparatus.
`
` Unlike claim
`
`limitations reciting
`
`“configurable to [perform a function],” which might reflect the configuration of a
`
`physical part of the apparatus, the terms at issue in the ‘678 patent say nothing
`
`about what the apparatus is. Instead, the clauses speak only to what it might do.
`
`Petitioner asks that the Board find the above phrases non-limiting.
`
`C.
`
`“Continuously controllable/[controlling]” (Claims 1–19, 44–67)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`
`
`The BRI for “continuously controllable” in light of the specification is
`
`“under analog control.” This BRI is consistent with the use of the term in the
`
`specification, which describes how “analog” means are used to effect continuous
`
`control of the mirrors. The patent explains that “[a] distinct feature of the channel
`
`micromirrors in the present invention, in contrast to those used in the prior art, is
`
`that the motion…of each channel micromirror is under analog control such that its
`
`pivoting angle can be continuously adjusted” (‘678 pat. at 4:7-11). Another
`
`passage states that “[w]hat is important is that the pivoting (or rotational) motion of
`
`each channel micromirror be individually controllable in an analog manner,
`
`whereby the pivoting angle can be continuously adjusted so as to enable the
`
`channel micromirror to scan a spectral channel across all possible output ports.”
`
`(Id. at 9:9-14). Yet another passage states that “channel micromirrors 103 are
`
`individually controllable and movable, e.g., pivotable (or rotatable) under analog
`
`(or continuous) control.” (Id. at 7:6-8).
`
`D.
`
`“Servo-control assembly” and “servo