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. RE42,678
`
`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 No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ET SEQ.
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 1
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1) ................. 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) ................................. 21
`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 ................................................................................... 35
`E.
`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.
`Identification of Challenge under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) and Statement of
`Precise Relief Requested ........................................................................... 46
`C. Threshold Requirement for Inter partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ... 67
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`BACKGROUND OF TECHNOLOGY RELATED TO THE ‘678
`PATENT ................................................................................................... 67
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ‘678 PATENT .................................................. 910
`
`VII.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(B)(3) ...... 1112
`A. Legal Overview ...................................................................................... 1112
`B.
`“continuously controllable/[controlling]”(claims1, 44, 61) and
`continuously pivotable” (claims 9 and 27) ............................................ 1112
`“servo-control assembly” and “servo-based” (claims 2-4, 21-23, 27, 29,
`and 45-46) ............................................................................................ 1213
`“spectral monitor” (claims 3, 22, and 46) .............................................. 1314
`“beam-focuser” (claims 1, 21, 44) ......................................................... 1415
`[Controlling] “in two dimensions” (claim 61) ....................................... 1516
`
`D.
`E.
`F.
`
`C.
`
` 
`
`i
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 2
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`G.
`“control the power of said received spectral channels” (e.g., claims 1 and
`44) and “to control the power of the spectral channels” (claim 61) ...... 1617
`“optical sensor” (claim 20) .................................................................... 1617
`“fiber collimators are arranged in a one-dimensional array” (claim 13)1617
`
`H.
`I.
`
`VIII. CLAIMS 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, AND 61-65 OF
`THE ‘678 PATENT ARE UNPATENTABLE .................................. 1617
`A. Bouevitch, Sparks, Lin and Dueck are all prior art to the ‘678 patent .. 1718
`B. Overview of the Bouevitch Prior Art..................................................... 1819
`C. Overview of the Sparks Prior Art .......................................................... 1920
`D. PHOSITA had ample motivation to combine Bouevitch with Sparks,
`including the motivations disclosed in both references ......................... 1920
`E. Bouevitch and Sparks Render Obvious All Petitioned Claims are Obvious2425
`
`1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 2425
`
`2. Claim 2 .................................................................................................... 37
`
`3. Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 4041
`
`4. Claim 4 .................................................................................................... 43
`
`5. Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 4445
`
`6. Claim 10 .................................................................................................. 45
`
`7. Claim 13 .................................................................................................. 45
`
`8. Claim 17—Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 ............................................................ 46
`
`9. Claim 19 .................................................................................................. 48
`
`10. Claim 20 .................................................................................................. 48
`
`11. Claim 21 .................................................................................................. 49
`
`12. Claim 22 .................................................................................................. 51
`
`13. Claim 23 .................................................................................................. 51
`14. Claim 27 .................................................................................................. 51 
`
` 
`
`ii
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 3
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`15. Claim 29 .................................................................................................. 52
`
`16. Claim 44 .................................................................................................. 52
`
`17. Claim 45 .................................................................................................. 55
`
`18. Claim 46 .................................................................................................. 55
`
`19. Claim 53 .................................................................................................. 55
`
`20. Claim 61 .................................................................................................. 55
`
`21. Claim 62 .................................................................................................. 58
`
`22. Claim 63 .................................................................................................. 59
`
`23. Claim 64 .................................................................................................. 59
`
`24. Claim 65 .................................................................................................. 60
`
`
`
` 
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 4
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`
`List of Exhibits Cited in this Petition1
`
`
`
`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. 6,625,340 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 (“’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 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”)
`
`                                                            
`1 All exhibits filed with the Petition were copied exactly from IPR2015-00739,
`
`except that the prefixes of the exhibit numbers from IPR2015-00739 have been
`
`redacted. The exhibit numbers are otherwise identical.
`
` 
`
`iv
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 5
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`Exhibit 1014: Excerpt from Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged
`10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers.
`http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feedback (accessed: May
`07, 2014) (“feedback”)
`
`Exhibit 1015: Ford et al., Wavelength Add–Drop Switching Using Tilting
`Micromirrors, Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 17, No. 5
`(May 1999) (“Ford”)
`
`Exhibit 1016: U.S. Patent No. 6,069,719 to Mizrahi (“Mizrahi”)
`
`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”)
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 1029: Declaration of Dan Marom as filed in Inter Partes Review No.
`
` 
`
`v
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 6
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`2014-01276 (“Marom Declaration”)
`
`Exhibit 1030: James A. Walker et al., Fabrication of a Mechanical Antireflection
`Switch for Fiber-to-the-Home Systems, 5 J.
`Microelectromechanical Sys. 45, 46-47, Fig. 3 (1996) (“Walker”).
`
`Exhibit 1031: U.S. Patent No. 5,414,540 to Patel et al. (“Patel”)
`
`Exhibit 1032: Borella, et al., Optical Components for WDM Lightwave Networks,
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 85, NO. 8, August 1997 (“Borella”)
`
`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 (“Maynard”)
`
`Exhibit 1037: Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1038: Reserved
`
`Exhibit 1039: Excerpts from Shigeru Kawai, HANDBOOK OF OPTICAL
`Interconnects (2005) (“Shigeru Kawai”)
`
`Exhibit 1040: U.S. Patent No. 6,625,350 to Kikuchi (“Kikuchi”)
`
`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
`
` 
`
`vi
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 7
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`characterization of single mode fiber collimators by use of gradient
`index rod lenses, Appl. Opt. Vol. 38, No. 10, at 3214-3222, (1999)
`
`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: Redline Showing Changes from IPR2015-00739 Petition
`
`
`
` 
`
`vii
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 8
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`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 1-4, 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 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.
`
` 
`
`8
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 9
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(A)(1)
`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)
`Petitioner has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. RE42,368,
`
`which is similar to the ‘678 Patent. Both patents are asserted against Cisco
`
`Petitioner in an the following on-going patent lawsuits: brought by Patent Owner
`
`in Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-
`
`03348-NC (“California litigation”), pending in the Northern District of California.
`
`Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46, 53, and 61-65 of the ‘678 patent are
`
`asserted in the California 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.
`
` 
`
`9
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 10
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`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.), all of which are stayed.
`
`The ‘678 Patent is also the subject of an inter partes review proceeding,
`
`Case IPR2014-01276, to which Petitioner is a party. The contentions of the present
`
`Petition regarding obviousness of claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19-23, 27, 29, 44-46,
`
`53, and 61-65 share some similarities, but are not identical, to those of Case
`
`IPR2014-01276. For example, Case IPR2014-01276 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 ‘678
`
`patent. However, Sparks has an earlier priority date relative to Smith and therefore
`
`Sparks has a higher likelihood of surviving a prior-invention 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 Case IPR2014-01276.
`
`The ‘678 Patent is also the subject of inter partes review proceedings
`
`IPR2015-00894 (joined with IPR2014-01276), IPR2015-00727 and IPR2015-
`
`00739, for which Petitioner is seeking joinder.
`
`Petitioner is also filing petitions for inter partes review of U.S. Patent
`
`RE42,368 (“the ‘368 Patent”, directed to subject matter similar to that of the ‘678
`
` 
`
`10
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 11
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`Patent), IPR numbers unassigned, seeking joinder with IPR2015-00726 and
`
`IPR2015-00731. The ‘368 Patent is also the subject of inter partes review
`
`proceedings IPR2014-01166 and IPR 2015-00816.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Walter C. Linder (Reg. No. 31,707) Kenneth Liebman
`
`T l 612 766 8801
`walter.linder@FaegreBD.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`T l 612 766 8800
`ken.liebman@FaegreBD.com
`
`Paul Sherburne (Reg. No. 57,843)
`
`T l 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.
`
`37746)
`
`(PvanEs@bannerwitcoff.com), Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., 10 S. Wacker Dr, STE
`
` 
`
`11
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 12
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`3000, Chicago, IL 60606, T: 312-463-5000, F: 312-463-5001.
`
`BACKUP COUNSEL:
`
` Thomas K. Pratt
`
`(Reg. No. 37210)
`
`(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. 42338) (JBodner@bannerwitcoff.com), Michael S. Cuviello (Reg. No.
`
`59255) (MCuviello@bannerwitcoff.com), Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., 1100 13th St
`
`NW, STE 1200, Washington, DC 20005, T: 202-824-3000, F: 202-824-3001;
`
`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; 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; Wayne O. Stacy
`
`(Reg. No. 45125) (WStacy@cooley.com), Cooley LLP, 380 Interlocken Crescent,
`
`STE 900, Broomfield, CO 80021, T: 720-566-4125, F: 720-566-4099; 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
`
`Street, New York, NY 10005, T: 212-530-5380, F: 212-822-5380.
`
` 
`
`12
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 13
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`D.
`Service Information
`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 by Express
`
`Mail (USPS), costs prepaid, to an attorney of record for the ‘678 Patent.
`
`Petitioner’s lead and back-up counsel may be served at the address provided in
`
`Section I.C. of this Petition. 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 power Powers of attorney is 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. §
`
`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.
`
` 
`
`13
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 14
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`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 IPR2015-00739
`
`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 is set forth in the Declaration of a technical expert,
`
`Sheldon McLaughlin, Ex. 1028 (“McLaughlin Decl.”).
`
`Ground
`
`‘678 Patent Claims Basis for Challenge
`
`1
`
`1-4, 9, 10, 13, 17,
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`19- 23, 27, 29, 44-
`
`Sparks.
`
`46, 53, and 61-65
`
`21
`
`1-4, 9, 10, 13, 19-23,
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`27, 44-46, and 61-
`
`Sparks further in view of Lin.
`
`6517,
`
`Sparks further in view of Lin.
`
`19-23, 27, 29, 44-
`
`44-46, 53, and 61-65
`
` 
`
`14
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 15
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`3
`17, 29, and 53
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`Sparks in further view of Dueck.
`
`42
`
`17, 29, and 53
`
`Obvious under § 103(a) by Bouevitch in view of
`
`Sparks and Lin in further view of Dueck.
`
`The references relied upon in the grounds 1, 2, 3 and 4 set forth above
`
`qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C., § 102(e) or (b).
`
`This Petition and the McLaughlin Decl., 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
`
` 
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 16
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`(“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 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 a fiber, for example when those channels are
`
`directed locally and need not be passed further down the fiber network. And at 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 Patent, Ex. 1001 at
`
`1:51-58.) OADMs were known long before the ‘678 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; Giles, Ex. 1019 at 64.) These types
`
`of devices were known in the art prior to the ‘678 Patent’s priority date.
`
`(McLaughlin Decl., Ex. 1028 at ¶ 20.)
`
` 
`
`16
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 17
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`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 ‘678
`
`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 ‘678 Patent 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
`
`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.)
`
` 
`
`17
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 18
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`As of the ‘678 Patent’s 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 ‘678 PATENT
`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
`
` 
`
`18
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 19
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`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.)
`
`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
`
`explained in the claim construction section (§ VII, below), this clause is merely
`
`functional language and is limiting, if at all, only to those structures that may be
`
`capable of performing power control. In the reexam, for claim 1, only the last
`
`element was amended, as follows: “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
`
` 
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 1048, Page 20
`
`

`
` 
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,678
`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 were the use
`
`of individual (“corresponding”) 2-axis mirrors for switching channels to ports and
`
`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)).)
`
`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. Petitioner notes
`
`that the standards of construction applied in this proceeding are not necessarily
`
`those which would be applied in any related litigation, and, as such, reserves the
`
`right to proffer other