UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CIENA CORPORATION, INFINERA CORPORATION, INC., HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`AND NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC
` PATENT OWNER.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held December 12, 2018
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, RAMA G. ELLURU, and JOHN R. KENNY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CIENA CORPORATION, INFINERA CORPORATION, INC., HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`AND NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION
`PETITIONER,
`
`V.
`
`OYSTER OPTICS, LLC
` PATENT OWNER.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held December 12, 2018
`____________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, RAMA G. ELLURU, and JOHN R. KENNY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
` W. KARL RENNER, ESQUIRE
` FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
` 100 Maine Avenue, Southwest
` Suite 1000
` Washington, D.C. 20024
` (202) 626-6447
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
` WAYNE HELGE, ESQUIRE
` DAVIDSON, BERQUIST, JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
` 8300 Greensboro Drive
` Suite 500
` McLean, Virginia 22102
` (571) 765-7708
`
`ALSO PRESENT:
` AYAN ROY-CHOWDHURY
` ALDO NOTO
` DAVID SOLTZ
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Wednesday, December 12,
`2018, commencing at 11:00 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
`600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
` P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`
` JUDGE LEE: Good morning. Welcome to the Board. This
`is the oral hearing for IPR2018-00070. Each side has 45
`minutes of argument time. Petitioner may reserve some time
`for rebuttal. But let's start with introduction of counsel,
`starting with petitioner, followed by patent owner.
` MR. RENNER: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Karl
`Renner from Fish and Richardson, representing petitioner. I
`am joined by Ayan Roy-Chowdhury as well as Dave Soltz,
`representative from Infinera.
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
` MR. HELGE: Good morning, Your Honor. My name is
`Wayne Helge. I'm here with Mr. Aldo Noto representing the
`patent owner, Oyster Optics, LLC.
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you. Mr. Renner, how many minutes
`would you like to reserve?
` MR. RENNER: 20, Your Honor.
` JUDGE LEE: 20, okay. Any time you're ready, you can
`begin.
` MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honors. Again, Karl
`Renner for petitioner.
` Your Honors, please change to slide 2, please. It's
`not strange to anyone in the room that there are two sets of
`grounds that were instituted, five total grounds. The first
`set, Your Honors, dealt with a combination of Corke and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`Swanson in primary fashion and the second of Choy and
`DeSalvo.
` Slide 3, please. We've organized our presentation
`materials, really focusing on the combinations in primary
`part as they relate to Corke and Swanson and Choy/DeSalvo.
`You can see this from the table of contents, where the first
`set of slides, 4 to roughly 18, are dedicated to the
`Corke/Swanson set of grounds and the combination motivations
`and demonstration as well as a few slides there for other
`issues, but we get right into the Choy/DeSalvo slides
`thereafter at slide 28. And that's as a consequence of the
`way the briefing has gone in the case. These are core to the
`dispute between the parties -- seems to be the combinability
`as it relates to each of these two instituted grounds.
` If we go to slide 4, please, I'd like to begin with
`Corke's invention and speak a little bit to how Corke and
`Swanson come together as a consequence of what Corke's
`teachings are and what Swanson brings to the table. Here you
`can see an excerpt from Corke that speaks to a variety of
`things that include the problems that are being addressed by
`Corke. Chief among them are serious, as highlighted, signal
`failures. Two are articulated here. I think they're worth
`visiting for a moment.
` The first is an example that involves excavation
`equipment and it bumping into cables and bending those cables
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`and otherwise affecting those cables' ability to transmit
`properly. That would be all the fibers in the cable would be
`inside of the cable being bumped by this excavation
`equipment.
` The second is similarly fashioned, with respect to
`cables being penetrated by water that freezes, and the fibers
`in the cables, much like in the first instance, are said to
`be bent or otherwise inhibited in their ability to transmit
`as a consequence of the cable itself having the freezing
`condition.
` The next slide, please. Here we have, at slide 5, an
`excerpt -- or the drawings of FIG. 1a and FIG. 1b from Corke,
`and these speak to how it accomplishes what it's trying to
`do. Basically, Corke is involving a monitoring or testing of
`either of two alternative pathways, where the same signal is
`sent on each of those two pathways. In the top example, FIG.
`1a, we can see that the signal path is sufficient as it's
`measured at the receiver -- or as it's measured as it's being
`received, that is, for receipt, and as a consequence, it
`being the primary path, the switch A/B at 7 maintains an
`upward orientation so that the continuation of the signal
`being monitored happens with respect to that primary fiber
`and that primary pathway.
` In FIG. 1b we see the alternative. We see that the
`signal that's on path A, the upper most primary path, is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`thought to be -- it's detected to be insufficient. It
`doesn't meet a threshold and other conditions exist such that
`the switch A/B is moved down, and the secondary pathway is
`used to receive the signal to be monitored. This is referred
`to by Corke as its invention, and that's important because
`notably absent here, and we'll get into this, is a
`transmitter or an indication of the selection as a primary
`function to drive transmission of the signal. We're going to
`see that over and over again.
` Next slide, please. This slide here, this is slide 6.
`We see the same thing shown with respect to FIG. 2 in Corke.
`Where in Corke, here, if you look inside of the figure
`towards the right, you'll see the receivers. Two different
`receivers are shown. There is no transmitter that is shown
`right next to the A in and A out. And yet, this embodiment
`is referred to as a preferred embodiment and later a
`preferred embodiment of the invention by Corke. So here we
`are -- through FIGS. 1a, 1b, and 2, we still have no mention
`of transmitting.
` Next slide, please.
` JUDGE LEE: Mr. Renner, what's the significance of
`this FIG. 2 embodiment in your discussion of the motivation
`to combine?
` MR. RENNER: Certainly, Your Honor. The significance
`is that when you look at Corke, you're looking at a circuit
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`that is designed to monitor either of two alternative
`pathways. To determine whether or not one of the two
`pathways is suitable -- which of the two pathways is most
`suitable may be the best way of saying it -- to receive
`signals. It's using the signal along the pathway as a proxy
`to determine the viability or the ability of that pathway to
`function well. What we see in FIGS. 1a, 1b, and 2 is that
`that process, by Corke's own writing and its own thinking, is
`a process that is consumed in how you determine whether to
`receive signals along a path. It may also be leveraged for
`transmitting, but it's enough that invention of Corke is
`really about the receipt of those signals.
` So when we get to our combination, we're talking about
`in the front end of this circuit, two different lines that
`are bidirectional fibers. That's what Corke does say, and we
`acknowledge that Corke implements this with a bidirectional
`fiber. But what we'll see is when we're talking about the
`inbound pathway, there's no difference. A bidirectional
`fiber versus a fiber-pair, which is what we're going to
`combine in with Swanson, that you're still going to monitor
`the inbound fiber in exactly the way that Corke does here in
`FIG. 2 or mentioned in FIG. 1b. So you can still switch,
`regardless of whether the inbound signal comes in on a
`fiber-pair or a bidirectional fiber. What we'll talk about
`is how a bidirectional fiber is less good at handling some of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`the issues that Corke is trying to address.
` So the transition from a bidirectional fiber, which
`has to handle both directions, to a fiber-pair or
`unidirectional fibers at each of path A and path B is quite
`logical. Not only does it achieve the invention that Corke
`recognizes by allowing sampling to be done in the monitored
`inbound path, but additionally, it allows for a better
`transmission path and a more functional alternative.
` In the industry, bidirectional fibers and fiber-pairs
`were thought to be interchangeable. In this circumstance
`it's actually better to use a fiber-pair than a bidirectional
`single fiber, and we'll get into that because of the
`telecommunications applications that are described in Corke.
`Does that answer your question?
` JUDGE LEE: Kind of. Mostly, but here's the follow
`up: When you use a fiber-pair instead of a bidirectional
`fiber for each route, what would you be monitoring? Would
`you just be monitoring the receiving line, or would you be
`monitoring the line that's transmitting as well?
` MR. RENNER: That's an excellent question. You'd be
`monitoring the receiving line. And this is consistent with
`what we're showing you in FIGS. 1b and 2 and 7, that in
`Corke, its implementations are about monitoring the receipt
`of a signal. It's going to act on what it finds is
`information on the monitoring of that receipt signal. When
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`you replace a --
` JUDGE LEE: That's consistent. I understand that
`because it doesn't teach monitoring the transmission line.
` MR. RENNER: Correct.
` JUDGE LEE: So you then monitor the receiving line in
`the pair?
` MR. RENNER: Correct.
` JUDGE LEE: But then I don't think your petition tells
`us what you're going to do when you detect trouble in the
`receiving line. Are you going to switch the transmission
`line as well to the other pair, or are you just going to
`switch one of the two lines to the other?
` MR. RENNER: Thank you, Your Honor. That's a great
`question. Frankly, it could be either one, but we think most
`naturally, Corke is about switching from route A to route B.
`We're staying true to Corke in our combination as we
`presented it, and we say that it transitions to route A, or
`from route A to route B, and then a transition from route A
`to route B if all I've done is replaced, which is what we
`proposed, the inbound fiber, which is bidirectional, with a
`pair, then we'd switch to both. We'd switch both to the
`receive and the transmit of B. And there are reasons for
`that.
` Recognized in Corke is the possibility to infer things
`about the alternative path, the alternative path being the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`transmit path, right? And if we have a pair, we think you
`can also take that teaching from Corke, and as you're seeing
`issues in the receive fiber, that you might assume those
`issues. They might appear in the transmit fiber that's near
`it.
` Remember the two problems that we just talked about
`Corke solving. One, excavation equipment bumping a wire --
`well, it wasn't bumping a fiber, it was bumping a cable, if
`you look back at the text that was involved there, and the
`cable has multiple fibers in it. In a similar way, we had
`freezing lines. The freezing didn't affect one fiber, the
`freezing affected the cable. The freezing penetrated the
`jacket, and then it bent the fibers. And it actually
`pluralizes the word fibers. It speaks to that.
` JUDGE LEE: So your answer is you would switch both?
` MR. RENNER: We think so. That's right.
` JUDGE LEE: Yeah.
` MR. RENNER: That's right. And a person of ordinary
`skill with a master's degree and five years experience
`working, which was the standard that was elevated by opposing
`counsel, which is an appropriate standard, would certainly be
`able to take into transition the corresponding structures
`that switch from a two-by-one to a four-by-two. These are
`not the kinds of difficulties that one of skill would have.
` JUDGE LEE: Well, I understand it now, but I don't
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`recall reading it in the petition. Where's this story that
`when you detect something wrong in the receiving line, you
`would want to switch to, you know, pull out both the
`receiving and the transmission line and go to the other route
`on both lines?
` MR. RENNER: So, Your Honor, we believe that was
`implicit in the substitution of A and B from a bidirectional
`fiber to a pair. When we look at the way you draw it, it
`would be -- you're taking those two fibers now, and if you're
`going to switch one or the other -- but I will retreat to the
`idea that you could also do it the alternative way. Again,
`this is -- we think would probably be in the purview of one
`of skill, it's just we're trying to be true to Corke's
`teachings when we say, if I'm going to switch, that I would
`hold through to a switch that would go to path A or path B.
` So when we described that the Corke teaching was to be
`maintained, but there's going to be a fiber-pair replacing
`the bidirectional fiber, the teaching was that the switch
`would flip between path A or path B. Path A just now happens
`to have a fiber-pair as opposed to a bidirectional fiber. So
`the story told in the petition was to switch in the way that
`Corke had contemplated by switching to path A. Path A just
`now has an input and an output fiber delineated, as opposed
`to a one bidirectional fiber.
` JUDGE LEE: Thank you.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
` MR. RENNER: Other questions -- of course, primarily
`we're here to answer your questions as you're reading the
`record, but happy to take any further ones, otherwise I would
`probably move, with the level of understanding you seem to
`have, toward the notion in our slides of there being a
`telephone application because core to the motivation here of
`actually bringing Swanson is this notion of a telephone
`application. So if I go maybe to slide 9, thank you.
` In slide 9, we see in the upper left-hand side that
`throughout Corke is said to generally refer to
`telecommunications equipment, and that we have an indication
`from even Dr. Goossen that such telecommunications would
`include long-distance telecommunications. We won't belabor
`the point too much, but on the lower right section we see
`that the telecommunications here are described as one of two
`primary implementations. The other was a cable -- a cable
`transmission -- cable television transmission.
` If you look at slide 10, here, again, I will go
`quickly through this piece of it just to note that there were
`-- just littered throughout Corke is reference to the
`telecommunications-type equipment and applications. And so
`here are just four excerpts that speak to the same. And
`again, why do we care? We care because when you look at a
`telecommunications application, and a long-distance one at
`that, what you'll notice you need to boost the signal.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
` It's well-known in the industry to boost the signal in
`order to have a long-distance communication in optical
`environments. And a booster, we'll see in the evidence here
`in the record, doesn't work as well -- this is per Dr.
`Goossen, even -- in a bidirectional fiber environment as it
`does in a fiber-pair. And that makes sense. Interference,
`as it is and in other attenuation issues, oscillation, that
`are introduced and you have a bidirectional fiber and you
`amplify on it, are gone when you move to a fiber-pair.
` So let's go to slide 11, if I could, please. Here's
`where we can see some testimony on the record from Dr.
`Goossen that speaks to a telephone call from L.A. to New York as
`a long-distance telecommunication that would certainly flow
`from -- there's nothing really surprising or terribly
`interesting here, we just thought it would be useful for your
`reference.
` Slide 12. The fiber-pairs are beneficial for
`long-distance communication. Again, this is a relative
`truism, but in the upper left here, we can see Dr. Goossen
`acknowledge the same. He says that optical amplifiers, in
`the very last part of the highlighted section on that slide
`where paragraph 30 is, it says, optical amplifiers generally
`have better performance unidirectionally. Unwrap that a
`little bit. What it's saying is that optical amplifiers work
`better when you have a fiber-pair. Unidirectional paths
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`fiber-pair, versus a bidirectional, where optical amplifiers
`are said by -- or acknowledged by their expert as not working
`as well.
` The next quote on the lower right here is also from
`the deposition of Dr. Goossen, and it really amplifies the
`same issue. That -- in the last two lines here, again, we
`can see that the amplifiers didn't work well with
`communication flowing in both directions in the same fiber.
`What he's saying is that in an application where you need to
`have amplification, long-distance telecommunications, staying
`with Corke's application with the bidirectional fiber doesn't
`work as well as if you moved to what he acknowledges as a
`unidirectional pathway, which would a fiber-pair. And that's
`exactly the nature of the combination we're talking about.
` Next slide, please, 13. Here we just wanted to show
`you that MacFarlane, our expert, had said the same type of
`thing in his declaration. So instead of relying only on
`their expert having acknowledged, though that would be
`sufficient, here we wanted to refer to the record where we
`see MacFarlane also say the same thing. And in taking
`inventory of this, we have an indication and admission that
`telecommunications were in play, that they include
`long-distance communications, that long-distance
`communications need and benefit from amplification, that
`amplification doesn't work very well in Corke's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`unidirectional fiber implementation because it has this
`unidirectional fiber, and we have testimony as well that a
`bidirectional -- sorry, a unidirectional fiber-pair
`accommodates the amplification in a better way.
` This gives us the motivation to want to integrate a
`fiber-pair rather than the unidirectional -- or the
`bidirectional fiber of Corke.
` JUDGE LEE: What about putting the detector on the
`same card? Can you talk about that a little?
` MR. RENNER: Oh, certainly. Let's move to that
`briefly. So Corke tells us that the detector is on the same
`card as is the receiver and the transmitter, so it's on the
`same device. Corke tells us, with respect to its FIG. 4,
`that -- let me show you, perhaps, a citation from Corke
`itself. Where it's described in 29 that is shown in its FIG.
`4, Corke itself tells us that --
` JUDGE ELLURU: Slide 39?
` MR. RENNER: Column 8, lines 3 through 10, Corke
`describes 29 -- says, referring now to FIG. 4, there is
`illustrated in detail an optical communications control
`device 29. When you look at FIG. 4 -- and I believe it's our
`slide 8, perhaps -- there's a picture of slide -- of FIG. 4.
`So slide 8. You can see that in slide 8 it's shown not only
`the optical energy level detector, but also the receivers and
`transmitters that come with it.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
` So Corke is itself describing that, on a single
`device, you have grouped these items. And then, when you
`look at Swanson, to the extent you want to attribute -- and
`we don't believe you should -- any patentable weight to the
`word card, there's nothing in the patent application nor the
`record that speaks to why a card is special over a device.
`So Corke tells us they're all on the same device. But even
`if you did attribute there some special meaning to the word
`card, you could look to Swanson that tells us that a receiver
`and a transmitter are on a card, and you can part that it's
`receiver/transmitter on the card would also be a
`classification of the device that's in Corke.
` So we think it's obvious to one of skill in the art,
`when you look at the device that's in Corke, pictured here in
`FIG. 4, shown at 29 to include these different devices, that
`they'd be on a device and therefore a card.
` JUDGE LEE: I'm not getting it. All you have, really,
`is just saying, reference A says they're all on the same
`device.
` MR. RENNER: Correct.
` JUDGE LEE: And therefore, you just can't put them on
`the same card? I'm not getting it. It seems like you're
`missing some steps.
` MR. RENNER: So, Your Honor, our position is that the
`device is a card, that the card is a device, that these are
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`-- this is the name of the device is a card. And that these
`devices are all co-located. The only description that's
`provided in the patent itself of the word card, is the word
`card. There's no indication of any special meaning given to
`that word, other than their co-location.
` JUDGE LEE: Isn't a card more specific than a device?
`A device could have multiple cards, couldn't it?
` MR. RENNER: It's possible, if you can figure it that
`way. But here, again, we're in an obviousness context, and
`one of ordinary skill with five years of master's --
`experience and a master's degree, we believe that when you
`look at Corke, the notion that that would be a card, or could
`be on a card, this isn't a point of novelty.
` And again, if you want to -- if you did want to
`attribute some special meaning to the word card, you could
`look to Swanson. It references the device that it has as a
`card. So -- and we mentioned that in our briefing, that
`Swanson has -- in fact, there's a slide that opposing party
`has presented that shows Swanson was said to have a receiver
`and transmitter on a card, but it's being integrated with the
`optical level detector of Corke. And therefore, the same
`devices used for all three of those components, you could say
`it's Swanson's card or it's the device of Corke, which is a
`card, is our position.
` JUDGE LEE: So the record doesn't have any reference
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`of a single card including a detector and a receiver or a
`detector and a transmitter; is that right?
` MR. RENNER: So our position is that Corke is that
`teaching. Corke is a device that has the three components
`together on it. We think that device renders obvious a card
`and that that teaching of the device with all three
`components on it is augmented by the mention in Swanson,
`which is the integrated teaching of that device being a card.
`So Swanson is telling us that the receiver and the
`transmitter are on the card. We're integrating Swanson's
`fibers, as well as the notion of transceiver, into the Corke
`reference.
` JUDGE LEE: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. RENNER: We're going to maybe just return for a
`moment -- if there's further questions on that, I'm happy to,
`of course, take them, but we'll turn otherwise to the
`interchangeability of the bidirectional fiber and the fiber
`-pair, only to note at slide 15, if we could, the
`interchangeability of those devices.
` Which was also acknowledged -- I guess let's go to
`slide 14, actually, where we see the teachings of Swanson
`that are referenced in briefing. And I'll read, to achieve
`bidirectional transmission, either two fibers can be used,
`one for transmitting each direction, and that's the fiber
`-pair, or one fiber can be used with an eastbound and
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`westbound traffic on different wavelengths, that is the
`unidirectional fiber. The point of this slide and the point
`of this teaching is that they are known by those of skill to
`be interchangeable. And that same interchangeability on
`slide 15 is found in the '898 patent, where it alternatively
`says that a single fiber for inputting and outputting signals
`could be provided.
` Here again, what we say is, interchangeability is
`recognized in either of these two reference teachings. Is
`there any further mention of how you implement a change
`between a single bidirectional fiber and a fiber-pair? Why
`is that? That's because the authors know that a person of
`ordinary skill with a master's degree and five years
`experience is not challenged by changing as between these two
`implementations.
` In fact, if you looked at FIG. 2, this is shown in the
`opposing party's slides. Just to give you -- FIG. 2 though,
`of the '898 patent, they have a nice picture of it at slide 7
`of their materials. You can see that the pair of fibers are
`shown to come into the '898 patent in that slide and to
`interact with the various different components -- circuit
`components. And an alternative is nevertheless contemplated,
`as we've shown in our slide 15, that interchangeability,
`alternatively, a single fiber, they say, for inputting and
`outputting signals could be provided. There's no further
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`detail. But how would you change this circuit? Because
`people know how to change a circuit to accommodate a pair of
`fibers versus a unidirectional or vice versa.
` While we're out of the slides, if we could look at
`paper 43, which is the petitioner's reply, at page 2. It's a
`page that cites to MacFarlane in the original declaration at
`paragraph 27, and it demonstrates what's demonstrated also on
`slide 16, but differently. And that is that there are other
`motivations to combine Corke with Swanson as well. And it
`was here in the petitioner's reply that we discussed a
`portion of his original declaration, that is MacFarlane's,
`where he points out that a POSITA would consider likely an
`implementation of Corke that integrates EDFAs for inline
`boosting amplifiers. In doing so, Dr. MacFarlane comments
`that fiber-pairs would be useful for two additional reasons.
` JUDGE LEE: Counsel, you're out of time. Do you want
`to use your rebuttal time?
` MR. RENNER: I would like to use maybe five more
`minutes, Your Honor. Thank you.
` In doing so he says there are two additional reasons.
`One is to eliminate oscillations and instabilities and the
`other is to eliminate interference between working
`wavelengths. Ultimately, we have a combination that is
`yielded on, as we've discussed, where the fiber-pairs replace
`that which is in Corke.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
` Briefly, I'd like to touch upon the DeSalvo/Choy
`combination. And so if we could turn to slide 28, please.
`DeSalvo -- we're looking at DeSalvo here. It's a secondary
`reference, but we thought it was best to talk about DeSalvo
`in order to ground ourselves in this combination. You have
`four wavelengths coming together in DeSalvo on a fiber that's
`inline amplified in red and then passed through a variety of
`components, including a star coupler that's shown here,
`ultimately to receive at a receiver unit.
` This signal, as it's received at the receiver unit,
`is, of course, attenuated by the distance traveled. And in
`an optimized circumstance for a circuit, you would expect to
`see that attenuation significant enough to optimize the
`length of the distance traveled.
` And we see that, if you look at slide 31, third line
`down, when referencing DeSalvo's teaching at column 5, you
`see a reference to this translates to shorter transmission
`lengths. And it's referring to the losses that are
`acknowledged in the sentence prior on demultiplexing, but
`also the losses that come of any circuit path interference on
`the way in and the extended path itself. So DeSalvo -- as
`you can see further in that paragraph, it identifies no fewer
`than three different advantages that would come from
`integrating a preamplifier.
` One is the last sentence that's highlighted here at
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`the very end of it, it's, and increase the receiver
`sensitivity. So one advantage is receiver sensitivity is
`increased by amplifying the optical signal as it hits this --
`or hits it right before the photo detector of the receiver.
`Another, just prior to that, it says, can increase the
`signal level well above the receiver noise floor. So in
`addition to increasing the sensitivity of the receiver, you
`want to make sure that your signal is above the noise floor.
`These two things are accomplished through the
`preamplification.
` And the third, if we're backing up further, is to
`account for these demultiplexing losses that it acknowledges
`in sentence one, where DeSalvo is unambiguous in saying that
`demultiplexing process is not ideal, and optical losses are
`incurred.
` The record is not in debate as to whether there are
`losses through demultiplexing. The only question is what the
`extent of them are. And here in DeSalvo, what we see is
`there's three different goals that are accomplished by
`integrating a preamplifier.
` Our combination -- just to cut this short since we're
`moving into the clock here -- our combination puts this
`preamplification DeSalvo ahead of the photo detector in its
`receiver unit, and that accomplishes each of the three goals
`that you see here in DeSalvo. One of ordinary skill would
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`22
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00070
`Patent 8,913,898
`
`surely put the preamplifier of DeSalvo in a position in Choy
`that would accomplish the goals that are outlined by its own
`teaching. Whether or not they might also position that
`amplifier -- preamplifier at a different position, doesn't
`inform the question of whether or not they would find it
`obvious to put the preamplifier where we've placed it in our
`combination.
` JUDGE KENNY: Well, Counsel, can I ask you that -- I
`think your opposing counsel raises the issue that DeSalvo
`puts the amplifier before the demultiplexer. Why isn't that
`of significance, that placement?
` MR. RENNER:
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
