`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 7
`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 IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for
`inter partes review of claims 1–4, 9, 10, 13, and 15–32 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,268,863 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’863 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
`1–4, 9, 10, 13, and 15–32 of the ’863 patent..
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`The parties state that the ’863 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, 1–2. Also, Petitioner has
`challenged related patents in IPR2017-02107 and IPR2017-02109. Paper 3,
`1–2.
`
`
`1 Adelos, Inc. is identified as “the exclusive licensee of the Government.”
`Paper 3, 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`B. The ’863 patent
`The ’863 patent, titled “Natural fiber span reflectometer providing a
`spread spectrum virtual sensing array capability,” issued September 11,
`2007, from U.S. Patent Application No. 11/056,632. Ex. 1001 at [54], [45],
`[21]. The ’863 patent generally relates to time-domain reflectometers. Ex.
`1001, 1:39. Specifically, the ’863 patent “relates to such reflectometers
`which 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 1:40–44. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`Figure 3 of the ’863 patent shows a block
` diagram of a time-domain reflectometer system.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`Figure 3 shows a transmitter laser 3 connected to coupler or beamsplitter 4,
`which in turn is connected to optical modulator 5. Id. at 15:50–57. Optical
`modulator 5 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter or circulator 7,
`which in turn is connected to optical fiber 9. Id. at 14:65–15:2. Master
`correlation code generator 53 is connected to modulator 5 by amplifier 49.
`Id. at 15:57–60.
`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 15:15–21.
`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 16:7–11, 20:24–28. Optical receiver
`15 receives an input from local oscillator laser 45. Id. at 17:60–62.
`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 14:48–55, 17:60–67. Optical receiver 35 is connected back to
`local oscillator laser 45 through phase locking circuity 31. Id. at 18:10–23.
`Correlator system 23 receives RF signal 21 and an input from correlation
`code generator 53. Id. at 19:55–57, 20:12–14. Correlator system 23 is
`connected to phase demodulation system 66 which in turn is connected to
`phase differencer 99. Id. at 21:28–35, 22:50–55. Phase demodulation
`system is comprised of a plurality of phase demodulators 81, 83, and 85. Id.
`at 25:1–4, Fig. 7.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 31, and 32 are independent and
`claims 2–30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Independent claim 1
`is illustrative of the challenged claims and is reproduced below:
`1. A time-domain reflectometer for sensing at a desired
`set of n spaced sensing positions along an optical fiber span, said
`sensing positions being for sensing a type of external physical
`signal having the property of inducing light path changes within
`the optical fiber span at regions there along where the signal is
`coupled to the span, comprising:
`an optical fiber span having a first end which concurrently
`serves as both the interrogation signal input end and the back
`propagating signal output end for purposes of reflectometry, and
`having a second remote end;
`a first light source for producing a coherent carrier
`lightwave signal of a first predetermined wavelength;
`a spectrum spreading signal modulator for temporally
`structuring said carrier lightwave signal into a spread spectrum
`modulated interrogation lightwave signal which continuously
`reiterates sequences of an autocorrelatable spectrum spreading
`signal, the reiterated sequences being executed in a fixed
`relationship to a predetermined timing base;
`a light wave heterodyner having first and second inputs for
`receiving a primary signal and a local oscillator signal,
`respectively, and operative to produce the beat frequencies of
`their respective frequencies;
`a lightwave directional coupler having a first port which
`receives said spread spectrum modulated interrogation lightwave
`signal, a second port coupled to said first end of said optical fiber
`span, and a third port coupled to said primary signal input of the
`hetrodyner;
`said directional coupler coupling said spread spectrum
`modulated interrogation lightwave signal to said second port
`where it is launched in a forwardly propagating direction along
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`said optical fiber span causing the return to said second port of a
`composite back-propagating lightwave signal which is a
`summation of
`the
`lightwave back-propagations from a
`continuum of locations along the length of the span, said
`composite back-propagating lightwave signal comprising a
`summation of multiple components including:
`a first signal component comprising the summation of
`portions of the said spread spectrum modulated interrogation
`lightwave signal which the innate properties of the optical fiber
`cause to back propagate at a continuum of locations along the
`span; and
`a second signal component comprising the modulation of
`said first signal component caused by longitudinal components
`of optical path changes induced into said span at a continuum of
`locations along said span by external physical signals, said
`second signal component further including a corresponding set
`of n subcomponents comprising the modulation of said first
`signal component by optical path changes caused by said
`external signals at the respective sensing positions;
`said directional coupler coupling said composite back-
`propagating lightwave signal to said third port where it is applied
`to said first input of the heterodyner;
`a second light source coupled to said second input of the
`lightwave heterodyner, said second light source producing a
`coherent local oscillator lightwave signal in phase locked relation
`to said carrier lightwave signal and of a second predetermined
`wavelength which differs from
`the first predetermined
`wavelength by an amount of difference small enough to produce
`at the output of the heterodyner a radio frequency (r.f.) composite
`difference beat signal, but by an amount large enough to cause
`said r.f. composite difference beat signal to have sufficient
`bandwidth to cause it to include r.f. counterparts of signal
`components and subcomponents of said composite back-
`propagating lightwave signal;
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`said r.f. difference beat signal being coupled to an n-way
`splitter providing a corresponding set of n output channels, each
`transmitting said r.f. composite difference beat signal;
`a corresponding set of n de-spreaders and de-multiplexers
`having their respective inputs connected to the corresponding
`output channels of said n-way splitter through a corresponding
`set of time delay circuits which respectively provide a
`corresponding set of predetermined time delays in relation to said
`predetermined timing base of the spectrum spreading signal
`modulator, to establish said n desired sensing positions along
`said optical fiber span; and said set of r.f. de-spreaders and de-
`multiplexers concurrently serving multiple functions including:
`a first function of performing a coherent signal correlation
`process upon said r.f. composite difference beat signal to de-
`spread the r.f. counterparts of the interrogation lightwave signal;
`and
`
`a second function of conjunctively temporally and
`spatially demultiplexing said r.f. composite difference beat
`signal to provide at their respective outputs r.f. counterparts of
`the subcomponents of said second signal component of said
`composite back-propagating lightwave signal caused by changes
`in the optical path within said optical fiber span induced by
`external physical signals respectively coupled to the optical fiber
`span at corresponding sensing positions.
`Ex. 1001, 32:33–33:62.
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on
`the following grounds (Pet. 18–19):
`Reference(s)
`Everard2
`
`2 UK Patent Application No. GB2190186A, published Nov. 11, 1987 (Ex.
`1004) (“Everard”).
`
`Basis Claim(s) challenged
`§ 102 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and 25–32
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Everard
`Everard and Fredin3
`Everard and Payton4
`Everard and Wright5
`Everard and Yoshino6
`Everard and Henning7
`Everard and Layton8
`Kersey9 and Yoshino or
`Beckmann10
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Payton
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Wright
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Everard
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Fredin
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Henning
`Kersey, Yoshino or Beckmann,
`and Layton
`
`Basis Claim(s) challenged
`§ 103 10, 15, and 16
`§ 103 9 and 21
`§ 103 13
`§ 103 18
`§ 103 22
`§ 103 23
`§ 103 24
`§ 103 1–4, 9, 10, 15–17, 19, 22,
`25–28, and 30–32
`§ 103 13
`
`§ 103 18
`§ 103 20 and 29
`
`§ 103 21
`
`§ 103 23
`
`§ 103 24
`
`
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,606,148 B2, issued Aug. 12, 2003 (Ex. 1008, “Fredin”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,043,921, issued Mar. 28, 2000 (Ex. 1011, “Payton”).
`5 U.S. Patent No. 4,596,052, issued June 17, 1986 (Ex. 1010, “Wright”).
`6 Toshihiko Yoshino et al., “Common Path Heterodyne Optical Fiber
`Sensors,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 10, No. 4, April, 1992
`(Ex. 1007, “Yoshino”).
`7 UK Patent Application No. GB2197953A, published June 2, 1988 (Ex.
`1009, “Henning”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 5,363,342, issued Nov. 8, 1994 (Ex. 1012, “Layton”).
`9 U.S. Patent No. 6,285,806 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1005, “Kersey”).
`10 U.S. Patent No. 4,794,249, issued Dec. 27, 1988 (Ex. 1006, “Beckmann”).
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`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
`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. 29–35.
`Patent Owner provides arguments regarding only 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 31.
`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. 32–33. Petitioner argues that the construction is
`reflected in Figure 6 of the ’863 patent where multipliers 241, 243, and 245
`are each connected to one of the output channels (identified as 211, 213, and
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`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
`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 as 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.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`Petitioner argues that the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” limitation recited in claim 31 should
`be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Pet. 34. 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
`described with respect to all of the detailed structure shown in Figures 4 and
`5. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:39–42, 23:64–65. 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 the 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.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`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
`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;11 and (4) when in evidence,
`objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
`1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`
`11 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 ’863
`patent. Pet. 29 (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 ’863 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`C. Asserted Anticipation by Everard
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and 25–32 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Everard. Pet. 36–
`58.
`
`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
`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–
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`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.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that Everard anticipates claims 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and
`25–32. Pet. 36–58. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n de-spreaders
`and de-multiplexers 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 n de-spreaders and de-multiplexers
`and the delay circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of Figure 9 correspond to the “time delay
`circuits.” Pet. 44–45. Petitioner’s showing is lacking, however, because
`Petitioner does not explain why Everard’s “correlators” meet the claimed “n
`de-spreaders and de-multiplexers.” 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,” as required by claim 1. 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.
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`Independent claim 31 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, 23:27–44. The optical signals illuminate
`optical detectors 111 and 113, 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.
`The output of optical detector 111 is connected to amplifier 117. Id. at
`23:53–63.
`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. 51–52.
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Everard’s lens 8 and photodetector
`9 are the same structure as what is described in the ’863 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 “the heterodyner
`w[i]th its photodetector is structure used for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal, because output provided by the
`heterodyner into the RF mixer must be a[] radio frequency signal.” Id. at 51
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:44–53). Such an assertion, however, merely accounts for
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`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 ’863 patent, or
`equivalents thereof. We will not assume that the structures are the same or
`equivalent.
`Claim 32 recites
`a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation detectors operative
`to respectively perform coherent correlation processes upon said
`r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal to conjunctively
`perform correlation detection and dispreading
`functions
`therewith, 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, 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 to conjunctively perform correlation detection and dispreading
`functions therewith, in respective timed relationships of a corresponding
`plurality of different timed relationships with respect to said reiterative
`autocorrelatable form of modulation code.” Claim 32 requires “respective
`timed relationships” and “different timed relationships,” yet Petitioner does
`not explain, in any way, how the delay circuits meet this language.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`3. Conclusion
`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 1–4, 17, 19, 20, and 25–32 as anticipated under
`35 U.S.C. § 102 based on Everard.12
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Everard and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following:
`(1) Everard (claims 10, 15, and 16); (2) Everard and Fredin (claims 9 and
`21); (3) Everard and Payton (claim 13); (4) Everard and Wright (claim 18);
`(5) Everard and Yoshino (claim 22); (6) Everard and Henning (claim 23);
`(7) Everard and Layton (claim 24). Pet. 58–63. Petitioner relies on the
`respective secondary references to address elements claimed in claims 9, 10,
`13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24. Claims 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24 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 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 21–24, which
`depend from claim 1.
`
`
`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.
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–4, 9, 10, 15–17, 19, 22, 25–28, and
`30–32 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kersey in
`view of Yoshino or Beckmann. Pet. 51–73. 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.
`
`
`
`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
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`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
`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. at 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
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`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. Analysis
`Petitioner asserts that Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`renders obvious claims 1–4, 9, 10, 15–17, 19, 22, 25–28, and 30–32.
`Pet. 51–75. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n de-spreaders and de-
`multiplexers 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 n de-spreaders and de-multiplexers and the delay circuits of
`Figure 3 correspond to the “time delay circuits.” Pet. 72–73. Petitioner’s
`showing is lacking, however, because Petitioner does not explain why
`Kersey’s “correlators” meet the claimed “n de-spreaders and de-
`multiplexers.” 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 31 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
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02114
`Patent 7,268,863 B2
`
`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 an