`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADELOS, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for
`inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–16, and 18–22 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,030,971 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’971 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The United
`States of America, as Represented by the Department of the Navy and
`exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc. (herein collectively “Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Institution of an inter
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
`the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims
`1–3, 6–16, and 18–22 of the ’971 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’971 patent is the subject of a court
`proceeding styled Adelos, Inc. v. Halliburton Company et al., Case No. 9:16-
`cv-119-DLC (D. Mon.). Pet. 1; Paper 3, 1.
`
`B. The ’971 Patent
`The ʼ971 patent is directed to time-domain reflectometers. Ex. 1001,
`1:40–41. Specifically, the ’971 patent “relates to such reflectometers which
`
`
`1 The United States of America, as Represented by the Department of the
`Navy and exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc., jointly submit the Preliminary
`Response. Prelim. Resp. 1. Accordingly, we herein refer to the two
`collectively as Patent Owner.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`are a part of a photonic system application in which the object of the
`reflectometry is a span of fiber which has an interrogation signal launch end
`and a remote end.” Id. at 1:41–45. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’971 patent shows a block
`diagram of a time-domain reflectometer system.
`Figure 3 shows a transmitter laser 3 connected to coupler or
`
`beamsplitter 4, which in turn is connected to optical modulator 5. Id. at
`15:53–60. Optical modulator 5 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter
`or circulator 7, which in turn is connected to optical fiber 9. Id. at 16:1–5.
`Master correlation code generator 53 is connected to modulator 5 by
`amplifier 49. Id. at 15:62–65.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`The propagation of the signal in optical fiber 9 “causes a back-
`propagating composite optical signal, which is the linear summation, or
`integration spatially, of all of the individual, continuous, or continuum of
`back-reflections along the span of the optical fiber.” Id. at 16:21–24.
`Optical pathway 11 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter, or
`circulator 7 to receive backscattered light from optical fiber 9 and relay it to
`heterodyne optical receiver 15. Id. at 17:10–14, 21:28–32. Optical receiver
`15 receives an input from local oscillator laser 45. Id. at 18:64–66.
`Transmitter laser 3 and local oscillator laser 45 are also connected to
`receiver 35 through optical couplers 4 and 43 and optical pathways 39 and
`41. Id. at 15:51–58, 18:64–19:4. Optical receiver 35 is connected back to
`local oscillator laser 45 through phase locking circuity 31. Id. at 19:14–27.
`Correlator system 23 receives RF signal 21 and an input from correlation
`code generator 53. Id. at 20:60–62, 21:16–18. Correlator system 23 is
`connected to phase demodulation system 66 which in turn is connected to
`phase differencer 99. Id. at 22:32–39, 23:55–60. Phase demodulation
`system 66 is comprised of a plurality of phase demodulators 81, 83, and 85.
`Id. at 26:9–12, Fig. 7.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 6–16, and 18–22 of the ’971 patent.
`Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent claims. Claim 22, reproduced below,
`is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`22. Signal sensing apparatus for sensing input signals at
`an array of a plurality of sensing stations along an optical fiber
`span, wherein at respective sensing station of the array the
`apparatus senses input signals of a type having the property of
`inducing light path changes within regions influenced by such
`signals, said apparatus comprising:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`an optical wave network comprising a transmitter laser
`and a lightwave directional coupler, said network being operative
`to illuminate an optical fiber span with a CW optical signal and
`to retrieve portions of the illumination back-propagating from a
`continuum of locations along the fiber span;
`a modulator operative to modulate the CW optical signal
`in accordance with a reiterative autocorrelatable form of
`modulation code;
`a heterodyner which, in phase locked synchronism with
`said transmitter laser, receives said retrieved back-propagated
`portions of illumination and derives therefrom a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart; and
`a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation detectors
`operative upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal
`in respective timed relationships of a corresponding plurality of
`different timed relationships with respect to said reiterative
`autocorrelatable form of modulation code.
`
`Id. at 38:6–31.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 6–16, and 18–22 are unpatentable
`based on the following grounds (Pet. 3–4):
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Everard2
`§ 102
`Everard
`§ 103
`Everard and Fredin3
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1–3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22
`7 and 8
`9
`
`
`2 UK Patent Application No. GB2190186A, published Nov. 11, 1987 (Ex.
`1004) (“Everard”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,606,148 B2, issued Aug. 12, 2003 (Ex. 1008) (“Fredin”).
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Reference(s)
`Everard and Yoshino4
`Everard and Henning5
`Everard and Wright6
`Everard and Payton7
`Kersey8 and Yoshino or
`Beckmann9
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Henning § 103
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`§ 103
`Beckmann, and Wright
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Everard
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Payton
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`10
`11
`13
`16
`1–3, 6–10, 12, 14, and 18–22
`
`11
`
`13
`
`15
`
`16
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`
`
`4 Toshihiko Yoshino et al., “Common Path Heterodyne Optical Fiber
`Sensors,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 10, No. 4, April, 1992
`(Ex. 1007) (“Yoshino”).
`5 UK Patent Publication No. GB2197953A, published June 2, 1988 (Ex.
`1009) (“Henning”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 4,596,052, issued June 17, 1986 (Ex. 1010) (“Wright”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 6,043,921, issued March 28, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Payton”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 6,285,806 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1005) (“Kersey”).
`9 U.S. Patent No. 4,794,249, issued Dec. 27, 1988 (Ex. 1006) (“Beckmann”).
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 13–18.
`Patent Owner provides arguments only regarding Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of “light source.” Prelim. Resp. 6–8. For purposes of this
`decision, we need only address Petitioner’s constructions for the phrases
`“having their respective inputs connected to the corresponding output
`channels of said n-way splitter through a corresponding set of time delay
`circuits” recited in claim 1, and “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” recited in independent claim 21.
`Petitioner argues that the phrase “having their respective inputs
`connected to the corresponding output channels of said n-way splitter
`through a corresponding set of time delay circuits” recited in claim 1 should
`be construed to mean “each oriented to receive a combination of a signal
`from one of the output channels and a signal from a corresponding one of a
`set of delay circuits.” Pet. 16–17. Petitioner argues that the construction is
`reflected in Figure 6 of the ’971 patent where multipliers 241, 243, and 245
`are each connected to one of the output channels (identified as 211, 213, and
`215) of the n-way splitter 203 and one of the delay circuits (identified as
`221, 223, and 225). Id.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. Claim 1 requires that
`the claimed demodulators have their respective inputs connected to the
`corresponding output channels of the claimed splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits. The plain language of the phrase is
`clear on its face and means that the demodulators are not directly connected
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`to the output channels of the claimed splitter, but rather are connected to
`those outputs through delay circuits. Petitioner proposes rewriting the
`phrase to mean that each demodulator receives one signal from the output of
`the n-way splitter and another signal from a delay circuit and directs
`attention to Figure 6 which purportedly shows the same. Figure 6 is
`described as an example implementation of the correlation system 23. Ex.
`1001, 25:43–45. Petitioner does not explain why we should construe the
`phrase to match what is shown per an example, especially when doing so
`would change the plain meaning of the phrase. See, e.g., SRAM Corp. v.
`AD-II Engineering, Inc., 465 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(“While SRAM strongly urges the court to interpret the claim to encompass
`the innovative precision indexing shifting feature it contends it has invented,
`we are powerless to rewrite the claims and must construe the language of the
`claim at issue based on the words used” (citing Hoganas AB v. Dresser
`Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 951 (Fed.Cir.1993)); “In this case, the words are
`clear and the claim covers no more than the recited method of taking up lost
`motion and effecting a shift.”). For purposes of this decision, we need not
`further construe this phrase.
`Petitioner argues that the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” limitation recited in claim 21 should
`be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Pet. 18. Petitioner
`argues that the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio
`frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” includes at least the
`heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3. Id. What is shown in Figure 3
`for heterodyne optical receiver 15 is simply a black box without any details
`of the device itself. The heterodyne optical receiver 15, however, is further
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`described with respect to all of the detailed structure shown in Figures 4 and
`5. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:36–39, 25:4–5. We determine, therefore, for
`purposes of this decision, that the corresponding structure for the “means for
`picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” are
`the circuits shown in Figures 4 and 5 related to heterodyne optical receiver
`15 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof.
`For purposes of this decision, we need not expressly construe any
`other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co. Ltd., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid
`Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the
`same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
`1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
`Cir. 1990).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;10 and (4) when in evidence,
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
`1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`C. Anticipation of Claims over Everard
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Everard. Pet. 20–
`45. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr.
`Faramarz Farahi. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Everard
`Everard describes a pseudo random bit sequencer (PRBS) that is
`amplitude modulated onto a light source. Ex. 1004, 1:48–49. The
`modulated beam is transmitted down an optical fiber and the detected
`backscattered signal is multiplied with a digitally delayed version of the
`
`
`10 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Faramarz Farahi, Petitioner offers an
`assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of the filing date of the ’971
`patent. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 12). Patent Owner does not propose
`an alternative assessment. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this
`Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent
`with the ’971 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`transmitted sequence. Id. at 1:50–52. Figure 8 of Everard is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 8 of Everard shows a system of the described invention.
`Digital pseudo random generator 1 is amplitude modulated onto laser
`
`2. Id. at 5:37–38. Light from laser 2 is coupled to optical fiber 3 via beam
`splitters 4 and 5 and lens 6. Id. at 5:39–40. The backscattered signal from
`fiber 3 is deflected by beam splitter 5 via lens 8 onto photodetector 9. Id. at
`5:44–45. The output of photo-detector 9 is amplified by amplifier 11, the
`output of which is input to RF mixer 12. Id. at 5:48–50. RF mixer is
`connected to power detector or demodulator 14. Id. at 5:54–55. The
`demodulated signal from 14 is multiplied by multiplier 15 with a time
`delayed version of the original pseudo random sequence 1 using delay
`circuit 16 and PRBS generator 17. Id. at 5:63–6:1.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Everard anticipates claims 1–3, 6, 12, 14, 15,
`and 18–22. Pet. 20–45. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n
`correlation-type binary pseudonoise code sequence demodulators having
`their respective inputs connected to the corresponding output channels of
`said n-way splitter through a corresponding set of time delay circuits.”
`Petitioner argues that Everard’s correlators of Figure 9 meet the claimed
`demodulators and the delay circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of Figure 9 correspond to the
`“time delay circuits.” Petitioner’s showing is lacking, however, because
`Petitioner does not explain why Everard’s “correlators” meet the claimed “n
`correlation-type binary pseudonoise sequence code demodulators.” The
`terms are different and Petitioner has not accounted for the different
`language. In addition, Everard’s correlators do not have their respective
`inputs connected to the corresponding output channels of a splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits. Rather, we find that Everard’s
`correlators are connected directly to the output channels, not through a set of
`time delay circuits. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9.
`Independent claim 21 recites “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” As discussed above, we construe
`the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” to be the corresponding structure
`shown in Figures 4 or 5 for the heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3.
`Figure 4 shows an optical coupler or beamsplitter 105 that splits optical
`signals equally and whose outputs are connected to the inputs of optical
`detectors 111 and 113. Ex. 1001, 24:33–51. Optical detectors 111 and 113
`illuminate the optical signals, the output of which is connected to the input
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`of amplifier 117. Id. Similarly, Figure 5 shows an optical coupler or
`beamsplitter 105 that combines the lightwaves on paths 101 and 103 into a
`composite lightwave on path 107 which is connected to optical detector 111.
`The output of optical detector 111 is connected to amplifier 117. Id. at
`24:60–25:3.
`Petitioner argues that Everard’s lens 8 and photodetector 9 of Figure 8
`are a “lightwave heterodyner” that meets the claimed “means for picking off
`a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” Pet. 39.
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Everard’s lens 8 and photodetector
`9 are the same structure as what is described in the ’971 patent for the
`claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the
`retrieved signal,” or equivalent thereof. Instead, Petitioner asserts that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Everard’s
`“photodetector is structure used for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.)
`counterpart of the retrieved signal, because output provided by the
`photodetector into the RF mixer must be an radio frequency signal.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:44–53). Such an assertion, however, merely accounts for
`the function of the disputed phrase, but does not account for the structure.
`Everard’s “photodetector” is a black box. Petitioner has not shown that this
`black box, or the portion of Everard to which we are directed, describes the
`same structure for the claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.)
`counterpart of the retrieved signal,” described in the ’971 patent, or
`equivalents thereof. We will not assume that the structures are the same or
`equivalent.
`Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation
`detectors operative upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`in respective timed relationships of a corresponding plurality of different
`timed relationships with respect to said reiterative autocorrelatable form of
`modulation code.” Petitioner asserts that Everard’s correlators of Figure 9
`and the delay circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Figure 9 meet the recited phrase.
`Petitioner, however, fails to explain why that is so. For instance, we are not
`provided with a showing of how a delay circuit connected to a correlator
`meets the requirement that the detectors are operative “upon said r.f.
`counterpart of the retrieved optical signal in respective timed relationships of
`a corresponding plurality of different timed relationships with respect to said
`reiterative autocorrelatable form of modulation code.” Claim 22 requires
`“respective time relationships” and “different timed relationships,” yet
`Petitioner does not explain, in any way, how Everard’s delay circuits meet
`this language.
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 1–3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Everard.11
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Everard and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 7–11, 13, and 16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following: (1) Everard (claims 7
`and 8); (2) Everard and Fredin (claim 9); (3) Everard and Yoshino (claim
`10); (4) Everard and Henning (claim 11); (5) Everard and Wright (claim 13);
`
`
`11 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s arguments as to this challenge.
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`and (6) Evarard and Payton (claim 16). Pet. 46–51. Claims 7–11, 13, and
`16 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1. As explained above, we
`are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 1 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Everard. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in its challenges to claims 7–11, 13, and 16, which depend either
`directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 6–10, 12, 14, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann. Pet. 51–74. In support of its showing, Petitioner
`relies upon the declaration of Dr. Farahi. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Kersey
`Kersey describes an interferometric sensor array with a large number
`of addressable sensor locations for detecting acoustic or other vibrations.
`Ex. 1005, 1:6–9. Figure 2 of Kersey is reproduced below.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Kersey shows a
`schematic diagram of a fiber sensor array.
`Fiber sensor array 200 includes laser 202 that emits light that passes
`through coupler 204. Id. at 3:29–32. Coupler 204 splits the flux into a first
`portion directed to modulator 208 and a second portion 219. Id. at 3:32–33.
`Pulse modulator modulates the flux with a PRBS generated by PRBS
`generator 206 to produce PRBS optical signal 210. Id. at 3:35–37. Optical
`signal 210 passes through coupler 212 into fiber 214, which has a series of
`coils 216-1, 216-2, etc. bounded by Bragg grating reflectors 218-0, 218-1,
`etc. Id. at 3:40–45. Each coil acts as a sensor by undergoing a change in its
`refractive index in accordance with a condition to be sensed. Id. at 3:46–48.
`Each Bragg grating reflector 218-0, 21-1, 218-2, etc. reflects a small portion
`of the light flux incident on it and the sum of the reflected light fluxes is
`received by coupler 212 and directed to coupler 220, which also receives
`second portion 219 of light flux split off by coupler 212. Id. at 3:54–61.
`Transducers 222 and 224 convert output of coupler 220 to electric signals
`and input the signals to difference amplifier. Id. at 4:1–3. Signal 228 is fed
`to correlator 230 via delay circuit 228. Id. at 4:8–10. “Correlator 230
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`performs a correlation over the span of the time window, determines in a
`known manner the time shift between signals 227 and 229 which maximizes
`the correlation, thereby determining the phase between the two signals.” Id.
`at 4:28–32.
`
`2. Yoshino
`Yoshino discloses a differential heterodyne fiber-optic sensing system
`
`using a dual-frequency laser beam and a single mode, polarization-
`maintaining fiber. Ex. 1007, 503. The sensors may measure “temperature”
`and “strain.” Id. The system light source emits “two modes having a
`frequency separation from 300 to 400 kHz.” Id., 504. The system uses a
`signal fiber and a reference fiber, where the phase difference between the
`two beat signals is detected by a phasemeter. Id.
`
`3. Beckmann
`Beckmann discloses “an optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR)
`with heterodyne reception” that measures the “back-scattered portion of light
`pulses sent into the measuring waveguide.” Ex. 1006, [57]. The “structure
`is comprised of a modulated laser light source” and “a laser light source
`which constitutes a local oscillator and transmits continuous light.” Id. The
`light sources differ by an intermediate frequency. Id. The back-scattered
`light of the transmission light source is superposed and applied to a
`photodetector whose intermediate-frequency electric output signal is filtered
`and evaluated. Id.
`
`4. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`renders obvious claims 1–3, 6–10, 12, 14, and 18–22. Pet. 51–74. Claim 1
`recites “a corresponding set of n correlation-type binary pseudonoise code
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`sequence demodulators having their respective inputs connected to the
`corresponding output channels of said n-way splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits.” Petitioner argues that Kersey’s
`correlators of Figure 3 meet the claimed demodulators and the delay circuits
`of Figure 3 correspond to the “time delay circuits.” Petitioner’s showing is
`lacking, however, because Petitioner does not explain why Kersey’s
`“correlators” meet the claimed “n correlation-type binary pseudonoise code
`sequence demodulators.” The terms are different and Petitioner has not
`accounted for the different language. In addition, Kersey’s correlators do
`not have their respective inputs connected to the corresponding output
`channels of a splitter through a corresponding set of time delay circuits.
`Rather, we find that Kersey’s correlators are connected directly to the output
`channels, not through a set of time delay circuits. Ex. 1005, Fig. 3.
`Independent claim 21 recites “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” As discussed above, we construe
`the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” to be the corresponding structure
`shown in Figures 4 or 5 for the heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3.
`Figure 4 shows an optical coupler or beamsplitter 105 that splits optical
`signals equally and whose outputs are connected to the inputs of optical
`detectors 111 and 113. Ex. 1001, 24:33–51. Optical detectors 111 and 113
`illuminate the optical signals, the output of which is connected to the input
`of amplifier 117. Id. Similarly, Figure 5 shows an optical coupler or
`beamsplitter 105 that combines the lightwaves on paths 101 and 103 into a
`composite lightwave on path 107 which is connected to optical detector 111.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`The output of optical detector 111 is connected to amplifier 117. Id. at
`24:60–25:3.
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to combine Kersey with the lightwave heterodyner of
`either Yoshino or Beckmann “to achieve a means for picking off a radio
`frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” Pet. 68–69. Petitioner
`relies on Yoshino’s phase meter shown in Figure 2(a), or alternatively,
`Beckmann’s optical detector 5 shown in Figure 1, for meeting the “means
`for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.”
`Id.
`
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Yoshino’s phase meter or
`Beckmann’s optical detector are the same structure as what is described in
`the ’971 patent for the claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal,” or equivalent thereof. Petitioner
`asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand
`Yoshino’s phase meter is “operative to produce the beat frequency of their
`respective frequencies.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 504). Petitioner also asserts
`that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Beckmann’s
`optical detector is “operative to produce the beat frequency of their
`respective frequencies.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 5:7–11). Such assertions,
`however, merely account for the function of the disputed phrase, but do not
`account for the structure. Petitioner has not shown how Yoshino’s phase
`meter or Beckmann’s optical detector, or the portions of Yoshino and
`Beckmann to which we are directed, describes the same structure for the
`claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the
`retrieved signal,” described in the ’971 patent, or equivalents thereof. We
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`will not assume that the structures shown in Yoshino or Beckmann are the
`same or equivalent.
`Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation
`detectors operative upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal
`in respective timed relationships of a corresponding plurality of different
`timed relationships with respect to said reiterative autocorrelatable form of
`modulation code.” Petitioner asserts that Kersey’s correlators 230 and delay
`circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of Figure 9 meet the recited phrase. Pet. 73–74.
`Petitioner, however, fails to explain why that is so. For instance, we are not
`provided with a showing of how a delay circuit connected to a correlator
`meets the requirement that the detectors are operative “upon said r.f.
`counterpart of the retrieved optical signal in respective timed relationships of
`a corresponding plurality of different timed relationships with respect to said
`reiterative autocorrelatable form of modulation code.” Claim 22 requires
`“respective time relationships” and “different timed relationships,” yet
`Petitioner does not explain, in any way, how Kersey’s delay circuits meet
`this language.
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 1–3, 6–10, 12, 14, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann.12
`
`
`12 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s arguments as to this challenge.
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`F. Obviousness of claims over Kersey and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following: (1) Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Henning (claim 11); (2) Kersey
`in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Wright (claim 13);
`(3) Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Everard
`(claim 15); and (4) Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in
`view of Payton (claim 16). Pet. 74–76. Petitioner relies on the respective
`tertiary references to address elements claimed in claims 11, 13, 15, and 16.
`Claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 depend either directly or indirectl