Petitioners’ Presentation
`(Cisco Systems, Inc and Oclaro, Inc.)
`November 20, 2018
`IPR2017-01881 —U.S. Patent No. 8,913,898
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`1
`
`
`(Cisco Systems, Inc and Oclaro, Inc.)
`November 20, 2018
`IPR2017-01881 —U.S. Patent No. 8,913,898
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`1
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner fails to overcome Petitioners’ challenges by failing to provide contrary evidence
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments improperly rely on narrow interpretations of Petitioners’ combinations
`
`For example, Petitioners’ Corke-Ade combination does not rely on protection switching or the use of
`bidirectional fibers
`
`The Corke-Ade combination discloses all elements of Claim 14
`
`The Roberts‘840-Ade combination also discloses all elements of Claim 14
`
`• Kobayashi discloses a photodiode and linear amplifier that scales the output of the photodiode, as
`required in Claim 19
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`2
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`3
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`4
`
`
`
`‘898 Patent’s Claim 14 and Limitations at Issue
`
`I. Petition and Institution Decision
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`5
`
`
`
`The Petitioners Explain the Corke-Ade Combination
`
`I. Petition and Institution Decision
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 26-27
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`6
`
`
`
`The Panel Acknowledged the Teachings of Petitioners’ Corke-Ade
`Combination
`
`I. Petition and Institution Decision
`
`-01881, Paper 11, Decision, p. 21, 29
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`7
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Doesn’t Provide Any Evidence
`
`I. Petition and Institution Decision
`
`-01881, Paper 11, Decision, pp. 29-30
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`8
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`9
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`10
`
`
`
`Corke Discloses Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`
`II.A Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner argues that any combination with
`Corke must include using the energy level detector
`for protection switching
`
`• However, Corke explicitly contemplates applying its
`monitoring teachings outside of protection switching
`applications
`
`•
`
`Further, Petitioners’ combination of Corke with Ade
`does not rely on any protection switching teachings,
`but only energy level monitoring
`
`-01881, Paper 16, Resp., 25-26; Ex. 2026, ¶¶ 28-32
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 3-4; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 8-9
`Ex. 1005, Abstract and 11:2-8
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 23-26; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`11
`
`
`
`Corke Discloses Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`
`II.A Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`
`• Dr. Goossen agrees that Corke states that “you could
`just use the monitoring part of the Corke
`embodiments”
`
`• A POSITA would readily understand how to combine
`the monitoring teachings of Corke without including
`protection switching
`
`• Accordingly, Patent Owner’s arguments are
`unpersuasive because they rely on a faulty
`assumption that protection switching is required
`
`Ex. 1038, 83:11 - 84:12
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 23-29, Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 3-4; Ex. 1039, ¶ 9
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`12
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Combinations with Corke Do Not Rely on Bidirectional
`Fibers
`
`II.B Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`
`•
`
`Petitioners’ ground points to Corke’s FIG. 2 and
`shows how an energy level detector used to
`measure an optical signal may be integrated with
`a receiver
`
`• Corke’s FIG. 2 illustrates an example embodiment
`using unidirectional fibers for the receive portion
`of a system
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner’s expert admits that this
`embodiment teaches monitoring using
`unidirectional fibers
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 23-26; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 7-8; Ex. 1038, 40:7-16
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`14
`
`
`
`Bidirectional Fibers are Not Required for Corke’s Protection Switching
`
`II.B Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner assumes that bidirectional fibers
`are required for Corke’s protection switching
`
`• Corke’s FIG. 2 teaches, however, protection
`switching of a fiber used to receive signals based
`on faults in the received signals.
`
`• As Dr. Blumenthal explains, the switching of the
`transmit fiber is not required in Corke’s
`protection switching
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`15
`
`-01881, Paper 16, pp. 26-27; Ex. 2026, ¶¶33-39, 43-45
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 7-9; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 9-10 and 13-14
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Combinations with Corke Do Not Rely on Bidirectional
`Fibers
`
`II.B Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioners reference Corke’s FIG. 4 as further support of
`a detector incorporated with both a transmitter and a
`receiver – “Corke also discloses embodiments where the
`detector is incorporated into a device with both
`transmitter and receiver (i.e., a transceiver).”
`
`The Petition does not rely on the bidirectional fiber
`shown in some of Corke’s embodiments
`
`Instead it uses the detection teachings of Corke in
`combination with the transceiver chip of Ade, which
`discloses a pair of unidirectional fibers
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`16
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 23-26; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 5 and 8
`
`
`
`Two-Way Communications Systems Using Unidirectional Fibers Were
`Well-known in the Art
`
`II.B Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would not
`modify Corke to use its energy level detector
`with separate fibers for transmitting and
`receiving the first and second optical signals
`
`Patent Owner’s suggestion that a bidirectional
`fiber cannot be replaced by a pair of
`unidirectional fibers is contrary to a POSITA’s
`understanding
`
`• Using unidirectional fibers for two way
`communications was well known at the time of
`filing of the ‘898 Patent
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 6-8; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 6-7, 10, and 13
`Ex. 1041, FIG. 1
`-01881, Paper 16, Resp., pp. 23-28; Ex. 2026, ¶¶ 36-39
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`17
`
`
`
`Two-way Communication Using Unidirectional Fibers
`
`II.B Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`
`• A POSITA would have understood a node
`incorporating the receiver of Corke’s FIG. 2
`to also include a transmitter
`
`• As Dr. Blumenthal explains, the inclusion
`of transmitters and receivers at the same
`node were common practice
`
`•
`
`Petitioners’ Corke-Ade combination
`includes a transmitter and receiver
`incorporated on the same chip having
`separate transmit (output) and receive
`(input) fibers
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 23-26; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 7-8; Ex. 1039, ¶ 10 and 13
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`18
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Corke-Ade Combination is Proper
`
`II.B Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`The Corke-Ade combination does not rely on the protection switching teachings of Corke
`
`Even if protection switching used in combination, Corke teaches protection switching with unidirectional
`fibers
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments fail to address the entirety of the teachings of the combination by failing to
`recognize:
`– that the energy level detector teachings of Corke may be used outside of the protection switching
`context
`– that bidirectional fibers are not required for protection switching
`
`Ex. 1005, FIGs. 1a and 1b
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 8-9; Ex. 1039, ¶ 9-10. 13-14
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`19
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`20
`
`
`
`The Corke-Ade Combination Teaches Including a Laser on the Same
`Card as the Modulator
`
`III. Ade’s Laser
`
`• Ade discloses a modulator and a
`receiver on the same chip
`
`• Ade also discloses a laser providing
`input light to the modulator on the
`chip
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 25-26; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83; Ex. 1024, FIG. 1
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 10, Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 15-16
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`21
`
`
`
`The Corke-Ade Combination Teaches Including a Laser on the Same
`Card as the Modulator
`
`III. Ade’s Laser
`
`• Ade’s chip would have been affixed to a card,
`and a POSITA would have known to affix Ade’s
`off-chip laser to the same card
`
`• As Dr. Blumenthal explains, it was well known
`that affixing semiconductor chips to cards
`provides robustness to changing environmental
`conditions and improved reliability
`
`•
`
`Further, a POSITA would affix the laser as close
`as possible to the modulator of Ade’s chip, e.g.,
`on the same card, to provide best input light
`source by reducing susceptibility to
`environmental disturbances and optical signal
`loss
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`22
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 25-26; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83; Ex. 1024, FIG. 1
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 10-11, Ex. 1039, ¶ 15-17, 19
`
`
`
`The ‘898 Patent Acknowledges that Including a Laser on a Transceiver
`Card was Known in the Art
`
`III. Ade’s Laser
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Even the ‘898 Patent’s background concedes that
`transceiver cards including both modulators and
`lasers were known in the art
`
`Therefore, even if the laser is “external” to Ade’s
`chip, a POSITA would understand and be
`motivated to integrate the laser on the same
`card as Ade’s chip
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., p. 29; Ex. 1002, 1:25-37
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 11-12; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 18-19
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`23
`
`
`
`Decision of the Instituting Panel
`
`III. Ade’s Laser
`
`-01881, Paper 11, Decision, p. 25
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`24
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`25
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881
`
`26
`
`
`
`The Corke-Ade Combination Discloses an Energy Level Detector on a
`Transceiver Card
`
`IV.A Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`
`• Corke discloses a energy level detector located
`with a receiver
`
`• A POSITA would have been motivated to place
`the energy level detector proximate the receiver,
`i.e., on the same card
`
`• Ade already discloses a photodetector on the
`same chip as the receiver
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 20, 23-29; 35-37; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 61, 82-83, 156
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 12-13; Ex. 1039, ¶ 21-23
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 27
`
`
`
`The Corke-Ade Combination Discloses an Energy Level Detector on a
`Transceiver Card
`
`IV.A Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`
`• A POSITA would have been motivated to
`include as many elements on the card as
`possible
`
`• A POSITA would have been motivated to
`place the detector as close as possible to the
`receiver to measure the energy level as
`accurately as possible
`
`•
`
`The Corke-Ade combination teaches placing
`the energy level detector on the same card
`as the receiver, if not on the same chip
`
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 12-13; Ex. 1039, ¶ 21-23
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 28
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 29
`
`
`
`The Corke-Ade Combination Discloses an “energy level detector
`including a threshold indicating a drop in amplitude”
`
`IV.B Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner argues that Corke’s detector does not detect a “drop in amplitude” or else it would
`trigger the fault detection every time an amplitude modulated signal dropped in amplitude
`
`This assumes that the “drop in amplitude” requires bit-by-bit detection of the power incident on the
`photodetector
`
`Based on this assumption, Patent Owner improperly attempts to narrow the scope of this element to
`be limited to detecting phase-modulated signals
`
`Such a narrow construction would not only render Claim 18 superfluous, but also contradict expressly
`contemplated embodiments of the ‘898 Patent
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 37-38; 35-37; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83 , 156, and 158
`-01881, Paper 16, Resp., pp. 39-41; Ex. 2026, ¶¶ 51-56
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 13-17; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 24-30; Ex. 1038 107:14-108:2
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 30
`
`
`
`Energy, Amplitude, and Intensity of an Optical Signal
`
`IV.B Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`
`• As explained by Dr. Blumenthal, the optical energy, power, amplitude, and intensity are all
`mathematically related:
`
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 16; Ex. 1039, ¶ 25
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 31
`
`
`
`Energy, Amplitude, and Intensity of an Optical Signal
`
`IV.B Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`
`• Accordingly, a drop in amplitude in a signal is mathematically related to a drop in intensity and power
`of the signal, as acknowledged by Patent Owner’s expert
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 16; Ex. 1039, ¶ 25
`Ex. 1038, 101:3 – 103:20
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 32
`
`
`
`‘Amplitude’ and ‘Energy’ are Interchangeable in the ‘898 Patent
`
`IV.B Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`
`•
`
`The ‘898 Patent uses the terms “amplitude”
`and “energy” interchangeably in discussing
`detecting a tap of the received signal
`
`• Accordingly, a POSITA would understand
`that reference to an amplitude would also
`refer to the energy level associated with an
`optical signal having that amplitude and
`vice versa
`
`•
`
`Likewise, a reference to an intensity level
`would also refer to the energy level of the
`signal having that intensity
`
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 13-15; Ex. 1039, ¶ 26
`Ex. 1002, 5:11-16
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 33
`
`
`
`The ‘898 Patent Discloses Comparing an Average Output of a
`Photodetector to its Thresholds
`
`IV.B Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments rely on the assumption that the ‘898 Patent’s disclosed embodiments would
`measure bit-by-bit changes of the amplitude of the measured signal
`
`• However, the ‘898 Patent does not require bit-by-bit energy level detection
`
`• As explained by Dr. Blumenthal, a monitoring photodetector, such as the one described in the ‘898
`Patent, would detect a power of the optical signal based on a number of incident bits on the order of
`100 million to 1 billion bits or more
`
`• A POSITA would understand the photodetector of the ‘898 Patent to output an energy level
`corresponding to an average energy over those bits, which is further low-pass filtered before being
`amplified and compared to the thresholds
`
`• Accordingly, bit-by-bit energy level detection is not required in the techniques disclosed in the ‘898
`Patent and would exclude its disclosed embodiments
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 13-15; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 27-28
`-01881, Paper 16, Resp., pp. 40-41; Ex. 2026, ¶¶51-56
`Ex. 1038, at 107:14 – 108:2
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 34
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Narrow Reading Contradicts the Disclosure of the ‘898
`Patent
`
`IV.B Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`
`•
`
`The ‘898 Patent discloses a monitoring
`system that can be used for either
`amplitude-modulated signals or phase-
`modulated signals
`
`• Claim 14 does not limit the “second optical
`signal” to a phase-modulated optical signal,
`but dependent Claim 18 includes such a
`limitation
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner’s narrow reading would not
`only disregard a whole category of expressly
`disclosed embodiments, but also render at
`least Claim 18 superfluous
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 35
`
`Ex. 1002, 4:45-48, Claim 18
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 15-16; Ex. 1039, ¶ 29
`
`
`
`Corke Discloses Measuring a “drop in amplitude” of an Amplitude-
`modulated Signal
`
`IV.B Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`
`• Corke discloses measuring a “drop in amplitude” of an amplitude-modulated signal
`
`•
`
`For example, the modulation type would not change the fact that the average power measured at the
`receiver, e.g., using detectors of Corke’s FIG. 2, would drop if the signal degraded
`
`• As Dr. Blumenthal explains, even an ASK modulated signal would produce a detectable power
`difference if the signal was degraded (e.g., due to a tap or a kink in the fiber) or if there was a line fault
`
`•
`
`Further, a POSITA would understand that a threshold used to detect a drop in energy of an optical
`signal would detect both a drop in intensity and a drop in amplitude
`
`• Accordingly, Corke uses thresholds that measure a “drop in amplitude”
`
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, p. 16-17; Ex. 1039, ¶ 30
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 37-38; 35-37; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 82-83 , 156, and 158
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 36
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 37
`
`
`
`Kobayashi Discloses the “Scaling Requirement”
`
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Petitioners and Dr. Blumenthal explained that a POSITA would have been motivated to use the scaling
`of Kobayashi’s amplifier with the energy level detectors of Corke and Roberts ‘840
`
`Patent Owner does not challenge the combination of Kobayashi with Corke or Roberts ‘840
`
`Patent Owner only contends that Petitioners haven’t pointed to a portion of Kobayashi’s amplifier
`that “scale[s] an output of the photodiode,” as recited in Claim 19.
`
`Patent Owner ignores the clear disclosure by Kobayashi and fails to provide any rebuttal to
`Petitioners’ expert testimony
`
`• Kobayashi teaches an improved optical power monitor providing an accurate and linear response
`based on the monitored optical power.
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 51-52; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 105-109
`-01881, Paper 16, Resp., pp. 41-43
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 17-20; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 31-33
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 38
`
`
`
`Kobayashi Teaches Scaling an Output of a Photodiode
`
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`
`• A POSITA would understand that an amplifier
`that converts a current output from a
`photodiode to a voltage linearly would meet
`the “scaling requirement”
`
`• Kobayashi teaches a linear amplifier that
`scales an output of a photodiode
`
`• A POSITA would also understand the
`components in the blue, dashed-lined box
`would constitute a linear amplifier that linearly
`converts the optical signal power to a voltage
`
`• Accordingly, the linear amplifier comprising
`the components in the blue, dashed-lined box
`satisfies the scaling requirement of Claim 19
`
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 18-20; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 32-33; Ex. 1025, FIG. 2b (annotated)
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 39
`
`
`
`Kobayashi Teaches Scaling an Output of a Photodiode
`
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`
`• Kobayashi uses a photodiode to generate a
`current in response to an optical signal
`
`•
`
`The current is converted into a voltage by
`transimpedance amplifier 102
`
`• Current mirror 110 linearly scales the amplified
`current to generate a voltage or current that
`corresponds to the input power
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 40
`
`-02881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 14, 53-54; Ex. 1003, ¶¶68-69
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 19-20; Ex. 1039, ¶ 33
`
`
`
`Kobayashi Teaches Scaling an Output of a Photodiode
`
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`
`• As Dr. Blumenthal explains, amplifier circuit 106
`provides low-pass filtering using a capacitor and
`current mirror circuit 110 linearly scales the
`electrical signal from the photodiode based on
`the filtered electrical signal
`
`• Dr. Blumenthal explains that current mirror
`circuit 110 “reflects the gain control provided by
`transistor QFB that ‘shunts the overdrive photo-
`diode current Ipd to ground instead of into the
`input of the amplifier 102’”
`
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 19-20; Ex. 1039, ¶ 33 (citing Ex. 1025, 3:7-19, 5:50-53)
`
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 41
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 42
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 43
`
`
`
`The Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination Discloses a Transmitter and
`Receiver on the Same Card
`
`VI.A Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner argues that Roberts ‘840 does not
`teach putting a receiver 4 and transmitter 2
`together on the same transceiver card
`
`Patent Owner’s argument assumes that the receiver
`in Roberts ‘840 must be remote from all
`transmitters
`
`• A POSITA would understand, however, that Roberts
`‘840’s figures show only one direction of
`communication for simplicity
`
`•
`
`For example, a POSITA would recognize that
`receiver 4 of Roberts ‘840 would be coupled with a
`transmitter, enabling two-way communication with
`the two ends of the system in FIG. 1
`
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 54-56; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 84-88
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 20-22; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 34-36
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 44
`
`
`
`The Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination Discloses a Transmitter and
`Receiver on the Same Card
`
`VI.A Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`
`• As Dr. Blumenthal explains, two-way
`communications using unidirectional fibers
`was well-known
`
`• A POSITA would recognize this two-way
`communication in Roberts ‘840, in which the
`nodes on the left side of FIG. 1 (including
`transmitter 2) and the right side of FIG. 1
`(including receiver 4) each have a transmitter
`and a receiver
`
`•
`
`This is consistent with Ade’s transceiver chip
`a POSITA’s understanding of putting
`transmitters and receivers together on the
`same card at the time of the ‘898 Patent
`
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 20-22; Ex. 1039, ¶¶ 34-36
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 45
`
`
`
`Overview
`
`I. The Petition and Institution Decision
`II. Corke-Ade Combination
`A. Corke’s Embodiments Without Protection Switching
`B. Bidirectional Fibers are Not Necessary to the Combination
`III. Ade’s Laser
`IV. Corke's Energy Level Detector
`A. Combination Teaches Energy Level Detector on a Transceiver Card
`B.
`Includes a Threshold Indicating a Drop in Amplitude
`V. Kobayashi’s Scaling
`VI. Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination
`A. Teaches a Transmitter and Receiver on the Same Card
`B. Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`C. Energy Level Detector Measures Optical Signal
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 46
`
`
`
`Roberts ‘840 Discloses an Energy Level Detector Measuring the Power
`of the Optical Signal in the Receiver
`
`VI.B Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Patent Owner argues that the Roberts ‘840-
`Ade combination does not teach
`measurement elements of an energy level
`detector on the transceiver card
`
`Patent Owner’s argument ignores that
`Roberts ‘840 expressly discloses measuring
`the power of the optical signal in the receiver
`
`Ex. 1009, 8:25-34
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., p. 55; Ex. 1003, ¶ 86
`-01881, Paper 19, Reply, pp. 21-22; Ex. 1039, ¶ 36
`-0181, Paper 16, Resp., pp. 45-49
`CISCO EXHIBIT 1042, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Oclaro, Inc. v. Oyster Optics LLC, IPR2017-01881 47
`
`
`
`The Roberts ‘840-Ade Combination Teaches an Energy Level Detector
`on a Card with a Transmitter and a Receiver
`
`VI.B Teaches an Energy Level Detector on the Same Card
`
`•
`
`Roberts ‘840 teaches an energy level detector including means for
`determining power of each band
`
`• A POSITA would understand the receiver of Roberts ‘840, with energy
`level detector, would be accompanied by a transmitter on the same card
`in the combination
`
`• As Dr. Blumenthal explains, the transmitter can be used to transmit the
`measurements and/or determinations made at the receiver for further
`control processes
`
`• As an example, the transmitter may provide information to a control
`system, which may instruct another node to increase its transmission
`power or switch to a secondary fiber
`
`• Accordingly, the combination teaches putting the energy level detector
`-01881, Paper 1, Pet., pp. 58-60; Ex. 1003, ¶¶ 212, 192, 200
`with a receiver and a transmitter on the same card, as in Ade
`-01881, Paper 19, Rep
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
