UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PANDUIT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CCS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 16, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and DANIEL J.
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`PANDUIT CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CCS TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: November 16, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JENNIFER S. BISK, and DANIEL J.
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`KELLY J. EBERSPECHER, ESQUIRE
`DANIEL S. STRINGFIELD, ESQUIRE
`KATHERINE D. CAPPAERT, ESQUIRE
`Steptoe & Johnson, LLP
`115 South LaSalle Street
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`ERIC D. HAYES, ESQUIRE
`GEORGE WILLIAM (BILLY) FOSTER, ESQUIRE
`Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`
`November 16, 2017, commencing at 1:30 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE CHANG: Good afternoon. I'm Administrative Judge Joni
`Chang. Here with me is Judge Jennifer Bisk, and remotely joining us is
`Judge Daniel Galligan. Judge Galligan, hello. Can you hear us?
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me?
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, perfectly. Thank you.
`And counsel, please introduce yourself and your colleagues,
`starting with the petitioner.
`MR. EBERSPECHER: Kelly Eberspecher of Steptoe & Johnson
`on behalf of Panduit Corp. With me is Dan Stringfield and Kate Cappaert,
`also of Steptoe & Johnson.
`MR. HAYES: Good afternoon, Eric Hayes on behalf of patent
`owner, Corning CCS Technology. With me is my colleague, Billy Foster.
`And I have three folks from Corning here today, Tim Aberle, who is
`Corning IP counsel; Brad Rametta, Corning IP counsel; and Ben Nardone,
`Corning litigation counsel.
`JUDGE CHANG: Welcome. Thank you so much. This is the
`consolidated oral hearing for IPR2016-01647 and IPR2016-01648. Before
`we begin, I just want to take a few minutes on a procedural matter. This oral
`hearing is open to the public. The transcript of this hearing will be entered
`into the official file of both cases. And the demonstrative exhibits are not
`evidence. They are merely visual aids for the presentation at this oral
`hearing.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`The presenter may speak only at the podium so that way
`everybody can hear clearly. And for clarity, please identify a specific slide
`number for the record when you are doing your presentation. And if you do
`have a paper copy of your demonstratives, we would like to have the court
`reporter have a copy of it. And if you have one for us, we can take them.
`Petitioner will proceed first to present its case as to the challenged
`claims. Each party will have a total of 60 minutes to present. After the
`petitioner, patent owner will respond to the petitioner's case. Petitioner may
`reserve a small portion of their time to respond to the patent owner's
`arguments.
`Is there any questions? No. Okay, counsel for the petitioner, you
`may begin any time. Just let me know how much do you want to reserve for
`rebuttal.
`MR. EBERSPECHER: Can I reserve the balance? I can't tell you
`exactly how long I'll go. I think I'll be fairly short. I'll reserve the balance,
`if I may, Judge. Thank you.
`JUDGE CHANG: Okay.
`MR. EBERSPECHER: As I said earlier, my name is Kelly
`Eberspecher and I'm here on behalf of Panduit Corp. And I would like to
`thank the Board for hearing us today.
`The patent owner has identified the issue -- really the only issue
`before this panel as one of claim construction. They have raised a few other
`points we can deal with fairly quickly a little bit later on, but a fair reading
`of their briefing is that we are going to be talking about what is the meaning
`of an optical ribbon or an optical fiber ribbon.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`I'll just quickly direct the Board to Defendant's -- Demonstrative
`Exhibit 2 and Defendant's Demonstrative Exhibit 3 which is just the cover
`pages of the '600 and the '227 patents. I just want to make a quick point here
`is that if we look for an example, and I have got it on slide 3, which is the
`cover of the '227 patent -- and may I just refer to it as the '227 patent?
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes.
`MR. EBERSPECHER: This panel has seen four petitions and four
`preliminary responses and instituted four decisions. So I assumed you knew
`what I was talking about.
`If we look at the '227 patent, what we see is we are talking about
`managing fiber polarity. And that's really the essence of what these patents
`are. We are ultimately going to move into talking about an optical fiber
`ribbon, but if we look at the nature and the essence of these patents, what we
`are talking about is routing schemes and whatnot and means for and ways to
`route optical fibers. And so I know the Board is fully aware of the
`standards, but we did want to point out that special definitions for claim
`terms and phrases must be set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness
`and precision. In the absence of such a definition, then limitations are not to
`be read into the claims.
`I'll go to Defendant's Exhibit 5, which is a decision here where the
`Board said the Board must look to whether the specification read as a whole
`suggests that the very character of the invention requires the limitation be a
`part of every embodiment. This kind of goes back to what I was just talking
`about, is that the question will be whether an optical fiber ribbon -- that
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`optical fibers be coded with a ribbon common layer, does that really go to
`the very character of the invention? And I would submit that it doesn't.
`So we'll cut right to kind of maybe the lynchpin of the patent
`owner's case, which is a sentence from the background of the invention.
`You guys, I know you have read this sentence many times, but it says, An
`optical ribbon includes a group of optical fibers that are coated with a ribbon
`common layer and then which common layer may be of the ultraviolet
`curable type. So the issue is, does that language alone, does that create a
`limitation inside the claims? Do the claims require that the optical fibers
`have to be coated with a ribbon common layer?
`When we look at the summary and the detailed description of the
`invention -- again, we are not talking about the background of the invention
`anymore. We're talking about what they said their invention is. They refer
`to an optical ribbon or an optical fiber ribbon several times. Nowhere in
`there do they give us any indication that an optical ribbon is going to require
`that the fibers are coated with a ribbon common layer.
`We can go to the claim language, for example. Now I'm talking
`about Defendant's Exhibit 8 and the claim language of the '600 patent. And
`once again, we see an optical fiber ribbon but we see no limitation in there.
`No additional limitation. We just see that they are saying that this module --
`and again, they are claiming a module. That's what we are really talking
`about here, a module for routing optical fibers. But in this module, there is
`an optical fiber ribbon, but they say nothing more about it.
`So we can go back, I'll go back to Defendant's Exhibit 6, and
`again, background of the invention, they say an optical ribbon includes, and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`then based on that they say that the following language that the optical fibers
`are coated with a ribbon common layer must be in the claims.
`So I'll bounce ahead to -- give me one moment. I tell you what,
`I'm sorry, because of the recent institution decision, I'm going to change this
`up a little bit. So what I'm going to do is bounce ahead, and I'll give the
`Board time to follow along. I'm going to go ahead to Defendant's
`Exhibit 20. I have got it up here on the screen right now. And here is where
`we actually see the module that they are talking about in the '600 patent. I
`have actually juxtaposed it with language, claim 1 of the '227 patent.
`Now, to be clear, admittedly, the '227 patent is talking about a
`harness, whereas, the '600 is talking about a module. But if we could now
`focus on Figure 2 here to the left, I think we can recall that -- and the Board
`recently identified this language, and I'll identify it again which is in the
`patent owner's preliminary response of the '227 petition. They stated that the
`optical fibers of the ribbon are connected to optical fibers from within the
`module -- so we're talking about within the module -- that are also
`ribbonized, bonded together in a planar array before they are placed into the
`connector. And of course, the connector stations are on the right denoted by
`numbers 51 to 56.
`Within the module, again, we are talking about within the module,
`the ribbonized optical fibers in the module are arranged into fiber pairs by
`splitting them apart using, for example, a fan-out kit before they are
`terminated with respective optical connectors, as shown on the right side of
`Figure 5. So this was a clear admission by the patent owner that what we are
`talking about is the module itself and what's inside this module, what exists
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`between the multifiber connector and the connector stations is a ribbon. The
`reason I put the language there from claim 1 of '227 there is that's talking
`about a harness. But really we know all a harness is, is it doesn't have a
`module, but we are still talking about what exists between the multifiber
`connector and the connector stations.
`I have highlighted some language there. And it says, Wherein, the
`optical fibers of the optical ribbon are separated and routed between the
`optical paths formed in the multifiber connector and the pairs of optical
`paths defined by the plurality of optical fiber connectors. That is telling us
`clearly that where the ribbon is, is between the multifiber connector and
`between the connectors. So that structure right there, what they are showing
`us is a ribbon by the very claim language of the '227 patent and by the patent
`owner's own admission.
`And from there we can go and touch upon -- we can actually do a
`comparison. As you see up there, I have got Figure 2 from the '600 and '227
`patent, and I have also got Figure 2 from Toyooka. And we've done a
`callout there for the right side of the Toyooka figure so that we can focus on
`what we are looking at. We are looking at the same thing. If we look at the
`'600 and the '227 patent, they denote number 20 is the optical ribbon.
`Toyooka calls it a tape.
`As we move right, they both go into a multifiber connector in the
`'227/'600 language. Toyooka calls them a multicore connector. They both
`move over to connector stations at the right. What is clear based on what I
`just said is what's inside the module is a ribbon by the '600 and the '227
`patent description, by the specification of the '600 and '227. When you look
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`down at the figure we've shown from Toyooka, it is indistinguishable. It
`uses different nomenclature. Instead of calling it a ribbon, it calls it a tape.
`Instead of calling it a module, it calls it a box. But again, it's
`indistinguishable. So what is shown in the box structure of Toyooka is
`indisputably a ribbon if we are going by how the '600 and the '227 define
`such a ribbon.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Mr. Eberspecher, can you hear me?
`MR. EBERSPECHER: Yes, I can.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: So I have a question on that. Patent owner
`now says that the fibers within that box in Figure 2 are or -- I guess in
`Figure 5 in the '227 patent are the same fibers that are of -- that they are the
`fibers of the ribbon. What does petitioner have to say about that?
`MR. EBERSPECHER: I would echo what the Board originally
`said, which is that that makes no sense. We have a multifiber connector. It
`is a connector. When we look at the language of the claims, there is a
`connection taking place. If we were to read that as the patent owner urges,
`this really is no longer even a multifiber connector. It would be essentially a
`conduit because if the fibers are not connected, if they are just fibers running
`through, there's no connection. There would be no need for a multifiber
`connector. Again, if I understand their argument right, it's talking about
`fibers that run completely straight through. There's no connection juncture,
`nothing. They would go straight through to what they call the ribbonized
`fibers, and that's not a connection. It ceases to be. It's not an MPO at that
`point. Again, it doesn't make sense in the context of this entire specification
`of what this invention is teaching us and claiming. Any other questions?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: No. Thanks.
`MR. EBERSPECHER: And so that is what a ribbon is. It is, as we
`can see from these two figures, a group of fibers arranged in a generally
`planar array. Arranged in a generally planar array because they have to mate
`with an MPO connector. That's the whole point of it. So that again is why it
`kind of touches on what you said, Judge Galligan, is that the MPO connector
`serves a purpose. It's there as a connection. That's why, again, the patent
`owner's argument doesn't make sense in the context of this patent. So again,
`our position is and always has been that all that is required for a fiber for a
`ribbon is a group of fibers that are arranged in a planar arrangement.
`Now I will -- let me back up again now. I can get us back on track.
`I'm sorry. I'll go back to -- I'm going to call the Board's attention to
`Defendant's Exhibit 9 which is just testimony from our expert, Dr. Casimer
`DeCusatis. And the patent owner has identified some of his deposition
`testimony where they claim he was saying that, well, what they identified as
`a ribbon is a group of fibers coated with a ribbon common layer. And I
`won't spend a lot of time here because I think we briefed it. We've outlined
`that he was asked this same question many times. And I won't read it in its
`entirety, but he was essentially saying that an optical ribbon is broad enough
`to include and certainly can include fibers coated with a ribbon common
`layer but it's not required to. When you look at his testimony as a whole, it
`goes back to it's never in contradiction with what he said in paragraph 78 of
`his declaration which is the fibers within the module 110, he was talking
`about Toyooka at that point, are a ribbon because they are a collection of
`fibers arranged in a generally planar array.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`If we go to -- I'll now go to Defendant's Exhibit 10 and we look at
`the textbook and testimony of Eric Pearson. This textbook was actually
`written by Mr. Pearson a couple years before he was ever retained or this
`matter was ever a matter. And he had a glossary which provided definitions.
`And we see there he said a ribbon is a structure on which multiple fibers are
`precisely aligned. He said nothing about the fibers have to be -- have to
`have some type of coating, have to be coated with a ribbon common layer.
`He simply said a ribbon is a structure on which multiple fibers are precisely
`aligned.
`At his deposition, I'll also point out, he said that that was a
`reasonable definition, and also the very last part he said that it would have
`been a reasonable definition going back to the '80s, you know, or certainly
`far predating these inventions. Mr. Pearson, later in his deposition, tried to
`clean this up and say, well, the structure I'm talking about, that's the ribbon
`common layer. But even that doesn't make sense because if that was the
`case, it would have been a structure in which multiple fibers are precisely
`aligned or a structure within which multiple fibers are precisely aligned.
`What he said prior to ever being retained in this action was a ribbon is
`simply a structure on which multiple fibers are precisely aligned.
`I will pull up one of the patent owner's exhibits. This is our
`demonstrative slide number 11. Fiber ribbon, a linear array of fiber
`filaments arranged in close parallel proximity and held together by jacket
`materials that may be color coded.
`Petitioner's demonstrative Exhibit 12, a fiber optic ribbon is a fiber
`optic cable consisting of optical fibers arranged side by side and held in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`place by one or more materials such as tapes, adhesives, and gives us an
`example.
`And the point of all this is I'm not trying to drag us into a battle of
`the experts or a battle of the dictionaries and resort to extrinsic evidence. It's
`simply to say that an optical ribbon is a very broad term. It can mean many
`things. The fact is, if you look at '600 patent, they refer to it as an optical
`fiber ribbon to where as the '227 in its claims is talking about an optical
`ribbon. They don't even use the same terminology in the claims. Of course,
`in the background they just refer to it as an optical ribbon. Mr. Pearson
`refers to it as a ribbon. The patent owner's dictionary calls it a fiber ribbon.
`The dictionary we supplied calls it a fiber optic ribbon. That's five different
`names for this structure that everybody generally knows what it is. But that
`tells you it's a very broad term. There is no precision here, certainly not the
`type of precision that they have given us that an optical ribbon has to mean a
`group of fibers coated with a ribbon common layer.
`We talk about, you know, we are always looking to what did the
`inventor intend. Did they intend broad coverage for the claim? And this
`kind of just dovetails on what I just said is that optical ribbon or an optical
`fiber ribbon is a broad term. And the patentee did not intend to limit that
`term to simply fibers coated with a ribbon common layer because they
`certainly could have included that limitation in the claims if they had wanted
`to or they could have filed a motion to amend to try to fix it now.
`We went back and of course looked at the specification. We said,
`well, this includes -- what does that mean? Are they being consistent in their
`usage? And I'd point to petitioner's Exhibit 13. They have been absolutely
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`consistent in their usage. A module includes an enclosure defining walls and
`a cavity within the walls for receiving and supporting optical fibers and
`connectors. If we go to the claim, that language is there verbatim. A
`module also includes an optical interconnection section. And we go to the
`claims and we see that they included that limitation.
`I'll go to the next slide, petitioner's demonstrative 14, same thing,
`an MTP connector includes a key. And it's talking about for proper
`orientation. Here they are claiming they put that language in the claims, a
`multifiber connector that has a key and it's for orientation. So they were
`consistent. They were disciplined about if they said a limitation belonged in
`the claims, including in the claims, even if it said includes in the
`specification. The only instance where we don't see that where the language
`following "includes" is not included in the claims is optical ribbon and
`optical fiber ribbon. What that clearly means is they meant broad coverage.
`And demonstrative 15, it's more of the same point, that here they
`are actually calling it an optical ribbon. In the '600 patent they are calling it
`an optical fiber ribbon. There's no precision in this term. It's a general term.
`It's a broad term.
`An optical tape, I'll dismiss this quickly. They take issue with,
`well, Toyooka is teaching an optical tape. We don't know the constituency
`or the makeup of an optical tape. An optical tape is used synonymously by
`one of ordinary skill in the art with a ribbon. We see this through the
`testimony of Dr. DeCusatis, and it's unrebutted. We also saw it in the
`dictionary that I showed you earlier which said aligning fibers with things
`such as tapes or plastic materials.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`Mr. Pearson, for his part, he's never worked as an electrical
`engineer. He has no experience with tapes. So again, Dr. DeCusatis'
`testimony on the fact that tapes and ribbons are used synonymously is
`unrebutted.
`And that's really it for the claim construction issue, I think. It's that
`if we look at the specification as a whole, it is clear that what they are
`talking about is a separate ribbon with inside the module or in the harness
`between the MPO connector and the connector stations. And what is shown
`in the '227 and '600 patents is also shown in the Toyooka reference.
`They do raise issue with the generally planar array. And so I
`pulled up a snippet from the specification, their specification where they talk
`about the preferred connectors, an MTP or an MPO connector. These are
`standardized connectors. They were standardized at the time of this
`invention. Connectors are epoxy and polished compatible multifiber
`connectors. For example, part of Corning Cable Systems' LANScape
`solution set, the epoxy and polished connector is a 12-fiber connector
`achieving a very high density in a small space. It contains multiple optic
`paths, the optical paths being arranged in a generally planar array. They are
`talking about a standardized connector, and it comes with the optical cores
`arranged in a generally planar array.
`So if we go to Toyooka, one of ordinary skill in the art would look
`at Toyooka and say, at the very top we've got a snippet from paragraph 21 of
`Toyooka which says they are arranged in one-dimensional form. The other
`form, it gives us a semicircle, but one-dimensional form. One of ordinary
`skill in the art, as testified to by Dr. DeCusatis, they would see that this is a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`multicore connector. That's what they call it in Toyooka. And it would be
`arranged in a generally planar array. It's in one-dimensional form. It's
`symmetrical. You could turn it 180 degrees. It's still in the same form.
`So I will now bounce ahead to our demonstrative 22. And this is
`Kang. I'll make a point about the experts. I know we went to lengths to talk
`about the difference in training and expertise between the two experts.
`Dr. DeCusatis, before he was a professor, spent 19 years at IBM. He
`identified a higher level of skill in the art. And we submit that he provided
`the appropriate level of skill in the art. And that particular person would
`look at Toyooka and see that it's the cores of the multicore connector are
`arranged in a generally planar array. They would recognize this right away.
`To the extent they wouldn't, if there is some doubt about it, then we have
`Kang which shows an MPO. And just as Corning said it would be, in an
`MPO -- they're talking about standardized MPOs, the cores are arranged in a
`generally planar array.
`Why would one do this? Well, you would do this because if
`somebody wanted to take the optical fiber wiring unit of Toyooka, they
`would want to do so, so they could communicate with common standardized
`fiber optic network equipment. And I don't believe that Mr. Pearson even
`offered a rebuttal there. If one needed, again, if they couldn't see that the
`cores in Toyooka were arranged in a generally planar array, they would
`certainly think that take an MPO, something like taught in Kang, and utilize
`that with the wiring scheme with Toyooka so it could communicate with
`standardized fiber optic networking equipment.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`So that's really all I had. Again, I know this Board has seen a lot
`of briefing on this issue and I think understands the issues. I will reserve -- I
`think I have got now plenty of time. I'll reserve the balance of that for
`rebuttal if necessary.
`JUDGE CHANG: Thank you.
`MR. HAYES: Good afternoon. Eric Hayes again on behalf of
`patent owner. May I proceed?
`JUDGE CHANG: Yes, please.
`MR. HAYES: The parties, the one thing the parties do agree on in
`this case is that the focus of these two trials is on the proper construction of
`optical ribbon. Since the institution decisions, there has been a substantial
`amount of new evidence, and I would like to spend my time today focusing
`on the new evidence that's come the light since the institution decisions.
`The meaning of optical ribbon is set out in the specification where
`it says a group of optical fibers coated with a ribbon common layer. An
`optical ribbon is used consistently throughout the specification. In fact,
`petitioner's expert in this case agrees that what the inventors meant by
`optical ribbon is set out in the specification. All the dictionary definitions in
`this case, when you look at them closely, including the two dictionary
`definitions that were proposed by petitioner, are consistent with how the
`term "optical ribbon" is used in the specification.
`Indeed, the evidence in this case shows that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of optical ribbon must include ribbon common
`layer. And under that proper construction, there's no dispute that Toyooka
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`does not anticipate and the Toyooka and Kang combination do not render
`obvious the claims of the '600 patent.
`So I'm on slide 3. Sorry, I'll try to be better here to identify the
`specific slides that I'm talking about. Just a minute on the background of the
`technology here. The '600 and the '227 patent, they do, in fact, talking
`techniques for routing fibers to reverse the polarity of the optical fibers.
`Here we see on the top left of slide 3 Figure 5 which is talking about routing
`fibers between multifiber connector 40 on the left and individual connectors
`51 through 56 on the right.
`Just one quick comment. I will deviate here for a minute, too, in
`light of the recent institution decisions. And petitioner's counsel's comments
`on this idea or this issue of whether or not the fibers from optical ribbon 20
`pass through connector 40 all the way to the individual connectors on the
`right or whether or not there's an optical ribbon 20 that comes into multifiber
`connector 40 and then there's a separate optical ribbon that comes out of
`multifiber connector 40. I'll call the Board's attention to both patents
`because this disclosure is in both, but I'll start with the '600 patent, which is
`Exhibit 1001, where it describes module 60 as optically associated with an
`optical fiber ribbon 20, for example, having 12 distinctly colored optical
`fibers 21 through 32 disposed in a matrix. That's at column 2, lines 42
`through 45 of the '600 patent.
`And if you look at Figure 5 that I have here on slide 3 in relation to
`that specific disclosure, you see optical ribbon 20 having 12 distinctly
`colored optical fibers 21 through 32 that pass through multifiber connector
`40 and go to the individual connectors on the right 51 through 56.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: Mr. Hayes, what is the point of a connector
`with optical paths? My understanding, and I have read a lot of patents and
`literature in these cases on this, is that a connector terminates an optical
`ribbon. And your patents even say that the connector has optical paths
`within it. So why is it just passing through? What is the point of that
`connector there?
`MR. HAYES: So in that case the connector is acting more like in
`the context, for example, of a harness in its structure that protects it is fibers
`from, for example, stripping further back. It maintains where that spread-out
`or the fan-out of the fibers is on your optical ribbon.
`And I think the specification, you are right, Judge Galligan, that
`the specification discloses kind of this pass-through type of multifiber
`connector that I just described and then what might sometimes be referred to
`as a biconic connector, which is more kind of standard as you think about it.
`There is an optical ribbon that comes in and there is a separate optical ribbon
`that leaves the multifiber connector. And so the discussion I was describing
`there in column 2 for the '600 patent at lines 42 to 45 is the pass-through.
`And then further down lines 57 through 60 where it talks about the optical
`paths -- just to be sure, optical paths I think you can think about as a signal
`path or a signal propagation path being immediately adjacent to at least one
`other optical path for optical alignment with the optical fibers in an optical
`fiber ribbon.
`JUDGE GALLIGAN: I agree that an optical path can be a signal
`path. But that then changes the entire -- your entire argument because your
`argument is that the fibers to the right of connector 40, I'll call them, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01647 (Patent 6,758,600 B2)
`IPR2016-01648 (Patent 6,869,227 B2)
`
`ones that are spread out are the same fibers as the ribbon. I have no doubt
`they are optically connected to the ribbon. But everything I read in your
`patent says they are different. In fact, column 3 says that between the
`connector 40 and optical fiber stations 51 and 56, they are optically
`interconnected by optical fibers disposed in cavity 62 of the module 60. So I
`get to the point, if that's the case, then that seems to be what the ribbon in the
`claim is reading on, and I'm trying to figure out what the distinction is
`between that and what you describe in Toyooka as single-core optical fibers.
`They look the same to me.
`MR. HAYES: I don't think anywhere in the specification does it
`describe like, for example, we are looking at slide 3 and Figure 5 here on the
`top left. Nowhere in the specification does it describe kind of the right half
`after those fibers have been separated and routed. The specification never
`refers to those indi
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
