UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONCoriant Operations, Inc.,
`Coriant (USA) Inc.,
`Ciena Corporation,
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`Fujitsu 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. Unassigned
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`JDS UNIPHASE CORPORATIONCoriant Operations, Inc.,
`Coriant (USA) Inc.,
`Ciena Corporation,
`Cisco Systems, Inc. and
`Fujitsu 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. Unassigned
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 1
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) .................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Real PartyParties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................ 1
`
`Related Matters under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ..................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .................. 3
`
`Service Information ........................................................................... 35
`
`Powers of Attorney ............................................................................ 45
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES - 37 C.F.R. § 42.103 ............................................. 45
`
`IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104 ........................................................................................... 45
`
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) .......................... 45
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and
`Statement of Precise Relief Requested .............................................. 46
`
`Threshold Requirement for Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. §
`42.108(c) ............................................................................................ 75
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ‘368
`PATENT ..................................................................................................... 76
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘368 PATENT ..................................................... 910
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 2
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) .......... 112
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Legal Overview ............................................................................... 112
`
`“continuously controllable” ............................................................. 113
`
`“in two dimensions” ........................................................................ 124
`
`“to control the power of the spectral channel reflected to said
`selected port” ................................................................................... 134
`
`“spectral monitor” ............................................................................ 135
`
`“servo-control assembly” ................................................................ 145
`
`“beam-focuser” ................................................................................ 167
`
`“controlling dynamically and continuously” .................................. 178
`
` “so as to combine selected ones of said spectral channels into
`an output multi-wavelength optical signal” ....................................... 17
`
`J.I.
`
`“control the power of the spectral channels combined into said
`output multi-wavelength optical signal” ......................................... 178
`
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-6, 9-13, AND 15-22 OF THE ‘368 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ................................................................................... 189
`
`A.
`
`Sparks, Lin and Dueck are all prior art to the ‘368 Patent .............. 189
`
`B. Overview of the Bouevitch Prior Art ............................................ 2019
`
`C. Overview of the Sparks Prior Art .................................................... 201
`
`D.
`
`PHOSITA had ample reason to combine Bouevitch with
`Sparks, including the motivations disclosed in both references ...... 201
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 3
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Bouevitch and Sparks Render Obvious All Petitioned Claims ....... 245
`
`1.
`
`Claim 1 – Grounds 1 and 2 .................................................... 246
`
`(1) Claim 1 - preamble ...................................................... 256
`
`(2) Claim element 1[a] - input port ................................... 256
`
`(3) Element 1[b] – Output & other ports for 2nd
`channels ....................................................................... 267
`
`(4) Element 1[c] - wavelength-selective device ............... 278
`
`(5) Element 1[d] – 2-axis beam-deflecting elements ........ 279
`
`(6) Ground 2 – Bouevitch + Sparks + Lin .......................... 31
`
`(7)(6) 2-axis beam-deflecting elements ............................... 3334
`
`(8)(7) Power Control using 2-Axis Mirrors: ....................... 3436
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 2 ................................................................................. 3638
`
`Claim 3................................................................................. 3840
`
`Claim 4................................................................................. 4243
`
`Claim 5................................................................................. 4344
`
`Claim 6................................................................................. 4445
`
`Claim 9................................................................................. 4546
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 4
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`8.
`Claim 10 .............................................................................. 4647
`
`9.8.
`
`
`
`10.9. Claim 11 .............................................................................. 4647
`
`10. Claim 12 – Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 ........................................ 4748
`
`11. Claim 13 .............................................................................. 4950
`
`12. Claim 15 – Grounds 1 and 2 .................................................... 50
`
`(1) Element 15[c] – drop ports for dropped channels ......... 51
`
`(2) Element 15[d]-[e] .......................................................... 51
`
`(3) Element 15[f] – dropped channels to drop ports ........... 52
`
`13. Claim 16 – Grounds 1 and 2 .................................................... 52
`
`(1) Element 16[c] – Add ports for added channels ............. 53
`
`(2) Element 16[e] – Addition of channels from add
`ports ........................................................................... 5354
`
`14. Claim 17 – Grounds 1 and 2 .................................................... 54
`
`(1) Element 17[a] – Separating signal into channels ...... 5455
`
`(2) Element 17[b] – Imaging channels ............................... 55
`
`(3) Element 17[c] – Dynamic & continuous 2-axis
`control ........................................................................ 5556
`
`15. Claim 18 .................................................................................. 57
`
`16. Claim 19 .............................................................................. 5758
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 5
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`17. Claim 20 .................................................................................. 58
`
`18. Claim 21 .................................................................................. 59
`
`19. Claim 22 .................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 6
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`List of Exhibits Cited in this Petition1
`
`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. 6,625,340 to Sparks et al. (“Sparks Patent,” or
`“Sparks”)
`
`Exhibit 1005: Excerpts from Born et al., PRINCIPLES OF OPTICS, (6th Ed.,
`Pergammon Press 1984)
`
`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 at 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.
`
`
`1 All exhibits filed with the Petition were copied exactly from IPR2015-00731,
`
`except that the prefixes of the exhibit numbers from IPR2015-00731 have been
`
`redacted. The exhibit numbers are otherwise identical.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 7
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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”)
`
`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 at al. (“Ranalli”)
`
`Exhibit 1028: Declaration of Sheldon McLaughlin filed in Inter Partes Review
`2015-00731
`
`Exhibit 1029: Declaration of Dr. Dan Marom filed in Inter Partes Review Case
`2014-01166
`
`Exhibit 1030: James A. Walker et al., Fabrication of a Mechanical Antireflection
`vii
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 8
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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”)
`
`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
`
`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: Redline Showing Changes from IPR2015-00731 Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 9
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner JDS Uniphase Corporation Coriant Operations, Inc. (“COI”)
`
`(formerly Tellabs Operations, Inc.), Coriant (USA), Inc. (CUSA”), Ciena
`
`Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.
`
`(“FNC”) (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 (the “Patent Owner”).
`
`In prosecuting its reissue patent, patentee acknowledged 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 mistake and to distinguish over Bouevitch,
`
`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 minimally 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)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 10
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Real PartyParties-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)
`Petitioner JDS Uniphase Corporation is the real party-in-interest for this
`
`petition.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 Patent is asserted against third party Cisco Systems, Inc. Petitioner
`
`in an the following on- going patent lawsuits brought by Patent Owner in Capella
`
`Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, 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.
`
`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-03349 (N.D. Cal.),
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-03350 (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.), and Capella
`
`Photonics, Inc. v. Telefonica Int’l Wholesale Servs, USA, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-22701
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 11
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(S.D. Fla.), all of which are stayed.
`
`The ‘368 Patent is also the subject of an inter partes review proceeding,
`
`IPR2014-01166, to which Petitioner is a party. Inter partes review of claims 1-6,
`
`9-13 and 15-22 in that case was ordered on January 30, 2015. The contentions of
`
`the present Petition regarding obviousness of claims 1-6, 9-13 and 15-22 share
`
`some similarities, but are not identical, to those of IPR2014-01166. For example,
`
`IPR2014-01166 uses U.S. Patent No. 6,798,941 to Smith (“Smith”) as a secondary
`
`reference under §103(a) while the present Petition does not rely on Smith and
`
`instead uses U.S. Patent No. 6,625,340 to Sparks (“Sparks”). Both Smith and
`
`Sparks qualify as §102(e) prior art with respect to the ‘368 Patent. However,
`
`Sparks has an earlier priority date relative to Smith and therefore Sparks has a
`
`higher likelihood of surviving a prior- invention date challenge. Also, Sparks and
`
`Smith are not identical. For at least these reasons, the present Petition and
`
`underlying contentions are not redundant in view of IPR2014-01166.
`
`The ‘368 Patent is also the subject of inter partes review proceedings
`
`IPR2015-00816 (joined with IPR2014-01166), IPR2015-00726 and IPR2015-
`
`00731. This Petition is filed with a motion seeking joinder to IPR2015-00731.
`
`Petitioner is also filing a petition for inter partes review of
`
`U.S. Patent RE42,678 (“the ‘678 Patent”) which is directed to subject matter
`
`similar to that of the ‘368 Patent is subject of inter partes review proceedings
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 12
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`IPR2014-01276, IPR2015-00727 and IPR02015-00739.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Walter C. Linder (Reg. No. 31,707) Ken Liebman
`Tel: 612-766-8801
`Tel: 612-766-8800
`
`walter.linder@FaegreBD.com
`
`ken.liebman@FaegreBD.com
`
`Paul Sherburne (Reg. No. 57,843)
`
`Tel: 612-766-7694
`
`paul.sherburne@FaegreBD.com
`
`All of: Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, 90 South Seventh Street, 2200 Wells Fargo
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioners hereby request authorization to file a motion for Kenneth
`
`Liebman to appear pro hac vice. Mr. Liebman is an experienced litigation
`
`attorney and has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`Petitioners will file such motion upon the grant of this request.
`
`LEAD COUNSEL:
`
`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.
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: Thomas K. Pratt
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`37,210)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 13
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`(TPratt@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.
`
`
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012)
`
`(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;
`
`Robert Steinberg (Reg. No. 33,144) (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: Wayne O. Stacy
`
`(Reg. No. 45,125)
`
`(WStacy@cooley.com), Cooley LLP, 380 Interlocken Crescent, STE 900,
`
`Broomfield, CO 80021, T: (720) 566-4125, F: (720) 566-4099.
`
`
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL: Christopher Chalsen (Reg. No. 30,936)
`
`(CChalsen@milbank.com),
`
`Lawrence
`
`T. Kass
`
`(Reg. No.
`
`40,671)
`
`(LKass@milbank.com),
`
`Nathaniel
`
`Browand
`
`(Reg.
`
`No.
`
`59,683)
`
`(NBrowand@milbank.com),
`
`Suraj
`
`Balusu
`
`(Reg.
`
`No.
`
`65,519)
`
`(SBalusu@milbank.com), Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, 28 Liberty
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 14
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Street, New York, NY 10005, T: (212) 53-5380, F: (212) 822-5380.
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`As identified in the attached Certificate of Service, a copy of the present
`
`petition, including all Exhibits and a power of attorney, is being served on the
`
`attorney or agent of record for the ‘368 Patent.
`
`Petitioner’s consent to service by e-mail to lead and back-up counsel may be
`
`served at the addresses provided in Section I.C. of this Petition, and at Banner-
`
`Tellabs@bannerwitcoff.com and cienacapellaipr.lwteam@lw.com. Petitioner
`
`consents to service by e-mail at the e-mail addresses of lead and back-up counsel
`
`provided above.
`
`Powers of Attorney
`
`E.
`A powerPowers of attorney is are 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. The Office is authorized to charge this fee to Deposit Account No. 190733
`
`as well as any additional fees that might be due in connection with this Petition.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 15
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`A. Grounds for Standing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ‘368 Patent is eligible for inter partes review
`
`under 37 C.F.R. § 47.122(b) 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
`
`‘368 Patent under the statutory grounds set forth in the table below (which are the
`
`same grounds upon which IPR2015-00731 was instituted). Petitioner asks that each
`
`of the claims be found unpatentable. An explanation of how the Petitioned Claims
`
`are unpatentable is included in Part VIII of this petition.
`
`
`
`Additional explanation and support for each ground is set forth in the
`
`Declaration of a technical expert, Sheldon McLaughlin, Ex. 1028 (“McLaughlin
`
`Decl.”).
`
`Ground
`
`‘368 Patent
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`1-6, 9-11, 13, and
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of Sparks
`
`1
`
`15-22
`
`further in view of Lin.
`
`1-6, 9-13, and
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`2
`
`
`
`Sparks further in view of Lin.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 16
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Ground
`‘368 Patent
`
`Basis for Challenge
`
`
`
`32
`
`12
`
`
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of Sparks
`
`and Lin in further view of Dueck.
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`4
`
`12
`
`Sparks 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 Sheldon McLaughlin, filed in IPR2015-
`
`00731 and 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 1-6, 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 the challenged claims 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 17
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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., Ford, 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
`
`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. (‘368 Patent, Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:51-58.) OADMs were known long before the ‘368 Patent’s priority date. (E.g.,
`
`Ford, 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. (Bouevitch, Ex. 1003 at Abstract; Ex. 1019 at 64.) These types of
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 18
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`devices were known in the art prior to the ‘368 Patent’s priority date. (McLaughlin
`
`Decl., Ex. 1028 at ¶ 21.)
`
`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
`
`Patent’s priority date. (McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028 at ¶ 29; Bouevitch, Ex. 1003 at
`
`5:15-38; Ex. 1016 at 1:55-2:45; Ex. 1017 at 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 ‘368 priority date.
`
`(See e.g., McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028 ¶ 26, ¶ 50; Bishop, Ex. 1006 at 2:9-21.)
`
`ROADMs use wavelength selective routers (WSRs) to perform switching
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 19
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`and power control. (Kewitsch, Ex. 1026 at 10:64-11:29.) WSRs are also referred to
`
`as wavelength selective switches (WSSs). (See, e.g., Ranalli, Ex. 1027 at Fig. 1.)
`
`As of the ‘368 priority date, WSRs/WSSs were known. (See, e.g., McLaughlin
`
`Decl. Ex. 1028 at ¶ 26; Kewitsch, Ex. 1026 at Abstract, 4:15-25; Ranalli, Ex. 1027
`
`at Fig. 1; Borella, Ex. 1032 at 1292.)
`
`The embodiment of WSRs relevant to this petition steers light beams using
`
`small
`
`tilting mirrors, sometimes called MEMS, which stand for Micro
`
`ElectroMechanical Systems. (McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028 ¶ 27, 22.) 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 ¶28.)
`
`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 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 power control via mirror tilt:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 20
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.)
`
`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 was intended to be used for power control of a
`
`spectral channel. As explained in the claim construction section (§ VII, below), this
`
`clause is merely functional language and is limiting only to those structures that
`
`may be capable of performing spectral channel power control. Claim 1 of the ‘750
`
`patent as amended, with the amendments underlined, is shown in Table 1.
`
`1 An optical add-drop apparatus comprising
`
`Table 1
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 21
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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 limits the claims to
`
`capable structures, the patentee admitted that Bouevitch disclosed all limitations
`
`but for 2-axis mirrors capable of power control. (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)).)
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1037, Page 22
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. Unassigned
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`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.
`
`Petitioner notes that the standard of construction applied in this proceeding is not
`
`necessarily that which would be applied in any related litigation, and, as such,
`
`reserves the right to proffer other claim construction positions in litigation in
`
`conformity with any applicable and relevant standards therein.
`
`“continuously controllable”
`
`B.
`The term “continuously controllable” is recited in claims 1, 15, and 16. The
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) for the term
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
