throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: September 29, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`LUMENTUM HOLDINGS, INC., LUMENTUM, INC.,
`LUMENTUM OPERATIONS, LLC, CORIANT OPERATIONS, INC.,
`CORIANT (USA) INC., CIENA CORPORATION, CISCO SYSTEMS,
`INC., and FUJITSU NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAPELLA PHOTONICS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-007311
`Patent RE42,368
`____________
`
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
`JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`1 IPR2015-01969 was joined with IPR2015-00731 on March 10, 2016, by
`Order in IPR2015-01969, Paper 11 (IPR2015-00731, Paper 42).
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Petitioner, Lumentum Holdings, Inc., Lumentum Inc., Lumentum
`Operations, LLC, Coriant Operations, Inc., Coriant (USA) Inc., Ciena
`Corporation, Cisco Systems, Inc., and Fujitsu Network Communications,
`Inc., filed petitions requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–6, 9–13,
`and 15–22 of U.S. Patent No. RE42,368 (“the ’368 patent”). Paper 1
`(“Petition” or “Pet.”); see also IPR2015-01969, Paper 6.
`Claims 1–6, 9–13, and 15–22 of the ’368 patent were previously held
`to be unpatentable in Cisco Systems, Inc., Ciena Corporation, Coriant
`Operations, Inc., Coriant (USA) Inc., and Fujitsu Network Communications,
`Inc., v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2014-01166, (PTAB Jan. 28, 2016)
`(Paper 44) (the ’1166 case). Claims 1–6, 9–12, and 15–22 of the ’368 patent
`also were previously held to be unpatentable in Fujitsu Network
`Communications, Inc., Coriant Operations, Inc., Coriant (USA) Inc., and
`Ciena Corporation v. Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00726, (PTAB
`Sep. 28, 2016) (Paper 38) (the ’726 case). The grounds of unpatentability
`asserted by Petitioner in this case rely on combinations of prior art,
`evidence, and arguments not asserted in either the ’1166 case or the ’726
`case. Likewise, Patent Owner, Capella Photonics, Inc., advances arguments
`and evidence in response in this case that were not asserted by Patent Owner
`in either the ’1166 case or the ’726 case.
`Based on the information provided in the Petition, and in
`consideration of the Preliminary Response (Paper 7) of Patent Owner, we
`instituted a trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) of: (1) claims 1–6, 9–11, 13,
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`and 15–22 as obvious over Bouevitch,2 Sparks3, and Lin4 under 35 U.S.C. §
`103(a); and, (2) claim 12 as obvious over Bouevitch, Sparks, Lin, and
`Dueck5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Paper 8 (“Institution Decision”); see also
`IPR2015-01969, Paper 11.
`After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 17,
`“Response” or “PO Resp.”) and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 37, “Pet.
`Reply”). The Petition is supported by the Declaration of Sheldon
`McLaughlin (Ex. 1028). The Response is supported by the Declaration of
`Dr. Alexander V. Sergienko (Ex. 2022).
`A transcript of the Oral Hearing conducted on May 24, 2016, is
`entered as Paper 50 (“Tr.”).
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner has shown by
`a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6, 9–13, and 15–22 of the
`’368 patent are unpatentable.
`BACKGROUND
`II.
`The ’368 patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’368 patent, titled “Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop
`Multiplexers with Servo Control and Dynamic Spectral Power Management
`Capabilities,” reissued May 17, 2011, from U.S. Patent No. 6,879,750
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,498,872 B2, issued December 24, 2002 (Ex. 1003,
`“Bouevitch”)
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,625,340 B1, issued September 23, 2003 (Ex. 1004,
`“Sparks”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 5,661,591, issued August 26, 1997 (Ex. 1010, “Lin”)
`5 U.S. Patent No. 6,011,884, issued January 4, 2000 (Ex. 1021, “Dueck”)
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`(“the ’750 patent”). Ex. 1001. The ’750 patent issued April 12, 2005, from
`application number 10/745,364, filed December 22, 2003.
`According to the ’368 patent, “fiber-optic communications networks
`commonly employ wavelength division multiplexing (WDM), for it allows
`multiple information (or data) channels to be simultaneously transmitted on
`a single optical fiber by using different wavelengths and thereby
`significantly enhances the information bandwidth of the fiber.” Id. at 1:37–
`42. An optical add-drop multiplexer (OADM) is used both to remove
`wavelengths selectively from a multiplicity of wavelengths on an optical
`fiber (taking away one or more data channels from the traffic stream on the
`fiber), and to add wavelengths back onto the fiber (inserting new data
`channels in the same stream of traffic). Id. at 1:45–51.
`The ’368 patent describes a “wavelength-separating-routing (WSR)
`apparatus that uses a diffraction grating to separate a multi-wavelength
`optical signal by wavelength into multiple spectral channels, which are then
`focused onto an array of corresponding channel micromirrors.” Id. at
`Abstract. “The channel micromirrors are individually controllable and
`continuously pivotable to reflect the spectral channels into selected output
`ports.” Id. According to Petitioner, the small, tilting mirrors are sometimes
`called Micro ElectroMechanical Systems or “MEMS.” Pet. 8.
`The WSR described in the ’368 patent may be used to construct
`dynamically reconfigurable OADMs for WDM optical networking
`applications. Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`Figure 1A of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1A depicts wavelength-separating-routing (WSR) apparatus 100, in
`accordance with the ’368 patent. WSR apparatus 100 is comprised of an
`array of fiber collimators 110 (multiple input/output ports, including input
`port 110-1 and output ports 110-2 through 110-N), diffraction grating 101 (a
`wavelength separator), quarter wave plate 104, focusing lens 102 (a beam-
`focuser), and array of channel micromirrors 103. Ex. 1001, 6:57–63, 7:55–
`56.
`A multi-wavelength optical signal emerges from input port 110-1 and
`
`is separated into multiple spectral channels by diffraction grating 101, which
`are then focused by focusing lens 102 into a spatial array of distinct spectral
`spots (not shown). Id. at 6:64–7:2. Channel micromirrors 103 are
`positioned such that each channel micromirror receives one of the spectral
`channels.
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`Figure 1B of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1B depicts a close-up view of the array of channel
`micromirrors 103 shown above in Figure 1A. Id. at 8:6–7. The channel
`micromirrors “are individually controllable and movable, e.g. pivotable (or
`rotatable) under analog (or continuous) control, such that, upon reflection,
`the spectral channels are directed” into selected output ports by way of
`focusing lens 102 and diffraction grating 101. Id. at 7:6–11.
`According to the ’368 patent:
`each micromirror may be pivoted about one or two axes. What 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 9:8–14.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`Similar to Figure 1A, above, Figure 3 also shows a WSR apparatus as
`described by the ’368 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:25–26. In this embodiment, two-
`dimensional array of fiber collimators 350 provides an input port and
`plurality of output ports. Id. at 10:31–32. First and second two-dimensional
`arrays of imaging lenses 360, 370 are placed in a telecentric arrangement
`between two-dimensional collimator-alignment mirror array 320 and two-
`dimensional fiber collimator array 350. Id. at 10:37–43. “The channel
`micromirrors 103 must be pivotable biaxially in this case (in order to direct
`its corresponding spectral channel to anyone of the output ports).” Id. at
`10:43–46.
`The WSR also may incorporate a servo-control assembly (together
`termed a “WSR-S apparatus”). Id. at 4:65–67. According to the
`’368 patent:
`The servo-control assembly serves to monitor the power levels
`of the spectral channels coupled into the output ports and further
`provide control of the channel micromirrors on an individual
`basis, so as to maintain a predetermined coupling efficiency of
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`each spectral channel in one of the output ports. As such, the
`servo-control assembly provides dynamic control of the coupling
`of the spectral channels into the respective output ports and
`actively manages the power levels of the spectral channels
`coupled into the output ports.
`Id. at 4:47–56.
`Figure 5 of the ’368 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 5 depicts OADM 500 in accordance with the ’368 patent composed
`of WSR-S (or WSR) apparatus 510 and optical combiner 550. Id. at 12:40–
`44. Input port 520 transmits a multi-wavelength optical signal, which is
`separated and routed into a plurality of output ports, including pass-through
`port 530 and one or more drop ports 540-1 through 540-N. Id. at 12:44–48.
`Pass-through port 530 is optically coupled to optical combiner 550, which
`combines the pass-through spectral channels with one or more add spectral
`channels provided by one or more add ports 560-1 through 560-M. Id. at
`12:52–56. The combined optical signal is then routed into an existing port
`570, providing an output multi-wavelength optical signal. Id. at 12:56–58.
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`Illustrative Claims
`B.
`Challenged claims 1, 15, 16, and 17 of the ’368 patent are
`independent. Claims 2–6 and 9–13 ultimately depend from claim 1 and
`claims 18–22 ultimately depend from claim 17. Claims 1 and 17 of the
`’368 patent are illustrative of the claims at issue:
`1. An optical add-drop apparatus comprising
`an input port for an input multi-wavelength optical signal
`having first spectral channels;
`one or more other ports for second spectral channels; an
`output port for an output multi-wavelength optical signal;
`a wavelength-selective device for spatially separating said
`spectral channels; [and]
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 14:6–20.
`17. A method of performing dynamic add and drop in a
`WDM optical network, comprising
`separating an input multi-wavelength optical signal into
`spectral channels;
`imaging each of said spectral channels onto a corresponding
`beam-deflecting element; and
`controlling dynamically and continuously said beam-
`deflecting elements in two dimensions so as to combine
`selected ones of said spectral channels into an output
`multi-wavelength optical signal and to control the power
`of the spectral channels combined into said output multi-
`wavelength optical signal.
`Ex. 1001, 16:3–14.
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`The Board interprets claims using the “broadest reasonable
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they]
`appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presume a claim term carries its
`“ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term
`would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question” at the time of
`the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007). A patentee may, however, act as their own lexicographer and give a
`term a particular meaning in the Specification, but must do so with
`“reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Only terms which are in controversy need to
`be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`“to control”
`1.
`Independent claims 1, 15, and 16 each recite outside of the preamble:
`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.
`Ex. 1001, 14:14– 20, 15:14–20, 15:31–37 (emphases added). Independent
`claim 17 contains a similar limitation.6 Petitioner contends that the “to
`
`
`6 Claim 17 recites: “controlling dynamically and continuously said beam-
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`control” clause “refers merely to intended use” and is limited “only to
`structure that may be capable of redirecting a spectral channel to a particular
`port.” Pet. 13. Petitioner further asserts that the “to control” clause means
`“to change the power in the spectral channel that is received by a particular
`port.” Id. Petitioner identifies no sufficient evidence in support of
`construing “to control” as meaning “to change.” Patent Owner does not
`address the meaning of the term. Although “apparatus claims cover what a
`device is, not what a device does,” the language at issue here describes the
`function that the apparatus must be capable of performing. Hewlett-Packard
`Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.Cir.1990); see also
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(explaining that functional language is an additional limitation in the claim).
`In that regard, the “to control” clause is, thus, functional rather than non-
`functional. Accordingly, the claimed “spatial array of beam-deflecting
`elements” is further limited to a spatial array that satisfies the “to control”
`functional limitations. We determine no further express construction of the
`“to control” clause is necessary for purposes of this decision.
`“continuously controllable”
` 2.
`Claim 1 requires “a spatial array of beam-deflecting elements . . . each
`of said elements being individually and continuously controllable.”
`Similarly, claim 17 requires “controlling dynamically and continuously said
`beam-deflecting elements.” Petitioner asserts that “continuously
`
`
`deflecting elements in two dimensions so as to combine selected ones of said
`spectral channels into an output multi-wavelength optical signal and to
`control the power of the spectral channels combined into said output multi-
`wavelength optical signal.” Ex. 1001, 16:9–14.
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`controllable” should be construed to mean “able to effect changes with fine
`precision.” Pet. at 11. Petitioner also notes, however, that the ’368 patent
`identifies “under analog control” as an example of continuous control, and
`contends that “the example of analog control does not alone define the
`[broadest reasonable interpretation] of continuously controllable.” Id. at 12;
`see also Ex. 1028 (stating “a mirror that is disclosed to be under analog
`control would fit within the scope of "continuously controllable”).
`Petitioner identifies the following disclosures of the ’368 patent as
`supporting its proposed construction:
`The ’368 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.” ([Ex. 1001], 4:7–11; emphasis added).
`Another passage in the specification 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., 9:9–14;
`emphasis added). Yet another passage states that “channel
`micromirrors 103 are individually controllable and movable,
`e.g., pivotable (or rotatable) under analog (or continuous)
`control.” (Id., 7:6–8).
`Pet. 12. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s proposed construction, but offers
`no express alternative. PO Response 46–47. We find that Petitioner:
`(1) offers no sufficient explanation for how its proposed definition accounts
`for the term “continuously” in “continuously controllable”; (2) directs us to
`no portion of the specification of the ’368 patent that uses “fine precision”;
`and (3) fails to explain what “fine precision” is intended to encompass or
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`exclude. See id. at 11–12. Additionally, based on all of the evidence
`presented, we are not persuaded that “continuously controllable” is limited
`to “analog control,” or that “analog control” necessarily corresponds to
`“continuous” control under all circumstances. We determine that
`“continuously controllable,” in light of the specification of the ’368 patent,
`encompasses “under analog control such that it can be continuously
`adjusted.”
`“port”
`3.
`Claim 1 requires “an input port . . . one or more other ports. . . [and]
`an output port.” Patent Owner contends that in the ’368 patent “the structure
`or elements making up the ports are collimators.” PO Resp. 33. Patent
`Owner offers no definition of “port,” and does not suggest that the
`’368 patent provides an express definition of the term, but instead argues
`that a “port,” as claimed, is not a “circulator port” because the ’368 patent
`“disavows circulator-based optical systems.” Id. at 34. We disagree.
`There is no dispute that the ordinary and customary meaning of “port”
`encompasses circulator ports, and, indeed, any “point of entry or exit of
`light.” See Dr. Sergienko Deposition Transcript (Ex. 1040), 43:16–23,
`45:12–13 (“The circulator ports are ports with constraints.”). Nor does the
`’368 patent equate the term “port” to “collimator,” as both “port” and
`“collimator” appear separately in the claims of the ’368 patent. Ex. 1001,
`14:7, 14:48–51. We have considered the testimony of Dr. Sergienko as well
`(Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 168–172), and find that even if certain fiber collimators serve
`as ports in the ’368 patent, that does not redefine the term “port” to mean
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`“collimator.” See id. at ¶ 171. Thus, the primary issue is whether the ’368
`patent disavows circulator ports from the scope of the term “port.”
`Although the broad scope of a claim term may be intentionally
`disavowed, “this intention must be clear,” see Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“The patentee may
`demonstrate an intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning
`of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest
`exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”),
`and cannot draw limitations into the claim from a preferred embodiment.”
`Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l., 460 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`Patent Owner fails to show any expressions of manifest exclusion or
`restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope with respect to the
`use of “port” in the ’368 patent. Patent Owner argues: (1) that the ’368
`patent provides a scalable system without circulator ports, that a provisional
`application to the ’368 patent “describes existing add/drop architectures that
`had a number of problems” (PO Resp. 35); (2) that U.S. Patent No.
`6,984,917 shows how experts use the term “input port” and “output port”
`because it uses elements “similar to how the ’368 patent describes fiber
`collimators serving as ports” (PO Resp. 42–43); and (3) that because the
`inventors of the ’368 patent “consistently emphasized the limitations of
`circulator-based switches and provided an alternative configuration,” a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the inventors
`were disavowing the use of optical circulators (PO Resp. 35). See also PO
`Resp. 34–39 (citing Ex 2022 ¶ 182).
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`We do not discern any “clear disavowal of claim scope” from the
`arguments advanced by Patent Owner. Dr. Sergienko merely states that
`based on market differentiation, construing “ports” to include circulator
`ports “goes beyond the intent of the ’368 patent.” Ex. 2022, ¶ 182. Even if
`the ’368 patent were viewed as Dr. Sergienko suggests, a speculative
`purported intent of market differentiation is not disavowal. Moreover,
`Petitioner further demonstrates that a provisional application to the ’368
`patent in fact uses circulator ports as “ports.” Pet. Reply 12–13 (citing
`Ex. 1008, 3, Fig. 9). Such usage undermines Patent Owner’s disavowal
`contention. Patent Owner’s argument that the provisional application is
`“entirely consistent with the ’368 patent’s use of collimators” fails to negate
`the fact that the provisional application uses circulator ports as “ports.” See
`PO Resp. 39–42. Similarly, we find insufficient support for Patent Owner’s
`argument based on the preamble that “circulators can only be coupled to, but
`not part of, the [optical add drop] apparatus. See id. at 39. We are not
`persuaded that the preamble’s recitation of a “[a]n optical add-drop
`apparatus comprising” of claim 1 is limiting because “the body of the claim
`fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of its
`limitations.” See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298,
`1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Because “the preamble offers no distinct definition
`of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states . . . the
`purpose or intended use of the invention, . . . the preamble is of no
`significance to claim construction.” Id. (citing Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473,
`478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc.,
`868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`(CCPA 1951)). We also are persuaded that Bouevitch’s “Configurable
`Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer” is recognized as an optical add-drop
`apparatus and includes circulators. See Pet. Reply 13. We have considered
`all of the arguments advanced by Patent Owner in its effort to redefine
`“port” as excluding “circulator ports” (PO Resp. 31–43), and find
`insufficient support for Patent Owner’s contention that the ’368 patent
`disavows or otherwise excludes circulator ports from the scope of the term
`“port.” We determine that “port,” in light of the specification of the ’368
`patent, encompasses “circulator port.”
`“beam focuser”
`4.
`Claim 11 requires a “beam-focuser for focusing said separated
`spectral channels onto said beam deflecting elements.” The ’368 patent
`states that “[t]he beam-focuser may be a single lens, an assembly of lenses,
`or other beam focusing means known in the art.” Ex. 1001, 4:20–22.
`Petitioner contends that “beam focuser” is “a device that directs a
`beam of light to a spot.” Pet. 16. According to Petitioner:
`The Summary of the ’368 patent states that the “beam-focuser
`focuses the spectral channels into corresponding spectral spots.”
`([Ex. 1001], 3:63-64.) The specification also explains that the
`beams of light are “focused by the focusing lens 102 into a spatial
`array of distinct spectral spots (not shown in FIG. lA) in a one-
`to-one correspondence.” (Id., 6:65-7:5.) The MEMS mirrors are
`in turn “positioned in accordance with the spatial array formed
`by the spectral spots, such that each channel micromirror
`receives one of the spectral channels.” (Id.)
`Id. Patent Owner does not dispute expressly Petitioner’s proposed
`construction, and provides no alternative construction of “beam focuser.”
`Consistent with Petitioner’s proposed construction, Dr. Sergienko testified
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`that “focusing means bringing of the energy in the original image limited to
`the focal spot.” Ex. 1040, 245:17–19. We agree that, based on the
`specification of the ’368 patent, “beam focuser” means “a device that directs
`a beam of light to a spot.”
`“dynamically”
`5.
`Claim 17 recites “[a] method of performing dynamic add and drop in
`a WDM optical network, comprising: . . . controlling dynamically and
`continuously said beam-deflecting elements in two dimensions.” Ex. 1001,
`16:3–10. Petitioner contends that “‘dynamically’ imports an aspect of
`control during operation,” and equates the term to “able to effect changes . . .
`during operation.” Pet. 17. It is unclear how Petitioner equates
`“dynamically” to “during operation” and no supporting citation is provided.
`The ’368 patent uses “dynamic” and “dynamically” throughout the
`specification, stating, for example, that “[t]he power levels of the spectral
`channels in the output ports may be dynamically managed according to
`demand.” Ex. 1001, 11:30–32. We determine from the specification that
`the ’368 patent uses “dynamically” in contrast to “static,” in accordance with
`its ordinary and customary meaning.
`6.
`Additional Claim Terms
`Petitioner addresses several additional claim terms, including “in two
`dimensions,” “spectral monitor,” and “servo-control assembly.” Pet. 12–16.
`For purposes of this decision, no express construction of any additional
`claim terms is necessary.
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`
`References Asserted as Prior Art
`B.
`Petitioner relies on Bouevitch, Sparks, Lin, and Dueck with respect to
`its assertion that the challenged claims would have been obvious.
`Bouevitch
`1.
`Bouevitch describes an optical device for rerouting and modifying an
`optical signal, including modifying means such as a MEMS array and a
`liquid crystal array which function as an attenuator when the device operates
`as a dynamic gain equalizer (DGE), and as a switching array when the
`device operates as a configurable optical add/drop multiplexer (COADM).
`Ex. 1003, Abstract. According to Petitioner, the COADM described in
`Bouevitch “uses MEMS mirrors with 1 axis of rotation.” Pet. 20. Petitioner
`also contends that the Bouevitch COADM controls the power of its output
`channels by tilting beam-deflecting mirrors at varying angles. Id. at 19.
`Sparks
`2.
`Sparks describes an optical switch arranged to misalign the optical
`beam path to provide a predetermined optical output power. Ex. 1004,
`Abstract. According to Sparks, “[t]he system operates by controlling the
`movable micromirrors (16, 26), which are fabricated using MEMS
`technology and are capable of two axis movement, to carefully align the
`beams so as to ensure that the maximum possible input optical signal is
`received at the output of the switch.” Id. at 4:43–46.
`Lin
`3.
`Lin describes a “spatial light modulator… operable in the analog
`
`mode for light beam steering or scanning applications.” Ex. 1010, Abstract.
`Lin explains that the angular deflection of a mirror about the torsional axis is
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`a function of the voltage potential applied to an address electrode. Id. at
`6:29–32. Petitioner contends that Figure 3B of Lin depicts a continuous and
`linear relationship between the deflection angle of the MEMS mirrors and
`the applied voltage. Pet. 31.
`
`4.
`Dueck
`
`Dueck describes a wavelength division multiplexer that integrates an
`axial gradient refractive index element with a diffraction grating to provide
`efficient coupling from a plurality of input sources. Ex. 1021, Abstract.
`Petitioner contends that Dueck describes various diffraction gratings for use
`in WDM devices. Pet. 19.
`Asserted Obviousness Over Bouevitch, Sparks, and Lin
`C.
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 9–11, 13, and 15–22 would have
`been obvious over Bouevitch, Sparks, and Lin.7 Pet. 5.
`1.
`Claim 1
`Claim 1, directed to an optical add-drop apparatus, requires “an input
`port . . . one or more other ports . . . [and] an output port.” Petitioner asserts
`that Bouevitch discloses an optical add-drop apparatus, including an input
`
`
`7 Petitioner initially argues that Patent Owner admitted in a Replacement
`Reissue Application Declaration by Assignee that all elements of claim 1,
`except for two-axis mirrors, were disclosed by Bouevitch. Pet. 9–11
`(quoting Ex. 1002, 81–82). Petitioner identifies no persuasive authority for
`the proposition that such a statement should be treated as an admission in
`this proceeding. Moreover, rather than admit that all original elements of
`claim 1 are disclosed by Bouevitch, the statement makes clear that three
`additional references not relied upon by Petitioner in this proceeding were
`considered in combination with Bouevitch. As a result, we are not
`persuaded that Patent Owner has admitted all elements of claim 1, except for
`two-axis mirrors, were disclosed by Bouevitch.
`19
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`port (labeled “IN”), one or more other ports (labeled 80b “IN ADD” and
`“OUT DROP”), and an output port (labeled “OUT EXPRESS”), as recited
`by claim 1 of the ’368 patent. Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 11).
`Petitioner’s contentions are supported by Sheldon McLaughlin, an employee
`of Petitioner. Ex. 1028 (Declaration of Sheldon McLaughlin) ¶¶ 2, 38–41.
`Patent Owner argues that, under its proposed claim construction of
`“port,” Bouevitch discloses at most two ports because the ’368 patent
`equates “port” to “collimator” and disavows circulator ports. PO Resp. 31–
`44. For the reasons explained above in our claim construction analysis for
`“port,” we reject Patent Owner’s claim construction for “port.”
`Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that the only
`ports disclosed by Bouevitch are collimator lenses 12a and 12b. See
`PO Resp. 44. Petitioner has shown, as discussed above and as supported by
`Mr. McLaughlin, that Bouevitch discloses the recited input, output, and one
`or more other ports, as recited by claim 1.
`Claim 1 requires “a wavelength-selective device” for spatially
`separating spectral channels. Petitioner identifies diffraction grating 20 of
`Bouevitch as corresponding to the recited “wavelength-selective device.”
`Pet. 27. Claim 1 also requires “a spatial array of beam-deflecting elements.”
`Petitioner identifies MEMS mirror array 50 of Bouevitch as corresponding
`to the recited “spatial array of beam-deflecting elements positioned such that
`each element receives a corresponding one of said spectral channels.”
`Pet. 27–28. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions, with
`which we agree. Patent Owner does, however, argue that “Petitioner does
`not meet its burden of showing in the Petition how ‘deflecting’ to a
`
`20
`
`

`
`IPR2015-00731
`Patent RE42,368
`
`circulator and then ‘propagating’ to the output or the drop meets the claim
`element “reflecting” to an output port,” and that “propagating” is not
`“reflecting.” PO Resp. 44–45. Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive
`because it is beyond the scope of the claims, which do not require reflection
`directly to an output port. To the contrary, we agree with Petitioner that
`“Fig. 1A of the ’368 patent, for example, discloses a light beam that reflects
`off micromirror 103, and then propagates back though both focusing lens
`102 and quarter-wave plate 104 before being directed to an output port.”
`Pet. Reply 14.
`For each of the beam-deflecting elements, claim 1 further requires that
`they be “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 ’368 patent provides analog control as an example of
`“continuously controllable,” and Petitioner sho

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket