UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________
`
`COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BELDEN INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01056
`Patent 9,991,030 B2
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHARLES A. ELDERING IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`26983805.3
`
`CommScope v. Belden
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Belden EX-2001
`
`
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________
`
`COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BELDEN INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01056
`Patent 9,991,030 B2
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHARLES A. ELDERING IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`26983805.3
`
`CommScope v. Belden
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Belden EX-2001
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Table of Contents
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... i
`I.
`Qualifications and Background ..................................................................... iii
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... v
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................ 1
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 1
`The ’030 Patent ................................................................................................ 3
`The Challenged Claims Are Not Anticipated. ................................................. 6
`A.
`Cook Does Not Anticipate Any Of The Challenged Claims.
`(Ground 1) ............................................................................................. 6
`Glew Does Not Anticipate Any Of The Challenged Claims.
`(Ground 3) ...........................................................................................13
`Roberts Does Not Anticipate Any Of The Challenged Claims.
`(Ground 5) ...........................................................................................21
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Not Obvious. ....................................................28
`A.
`Neither Glew Alone, Nor In Combination With Cook, Renders
`Obvious Any Of The Challenged Claims. (Ground 4) ......................28
`The Combination Of Roberts and Jachimowicz-172 Does Not
`Render Obvious Any Of The Challenged Claims. (Ground 6) ...........34
`The Combination Of Roberts And Jachimowicz-036 Does Not
`Render Obvious Any Of The Challenged Claims. (Ground 7) ..........35
`The Combination Of Clark-478, Roberts, And Glew Does Not
`Render Obvious Any Of The Challenged Claims. (Ground 10) ........41
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`26983805.3
`
`i
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`I, Dr. Charles A. Eldering, submit this declaration to state my opinions
`
`on the matters described below.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Patent Owner, Belden Inc. (“Belden”),
`
`as an independent expert for the above-identified inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`proceeding involving Patent 9,991,030 B2 (“’030 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner, CommScope Technologies LLC
`
`(“CommScope”),
`
`challenges claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’030 Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to, and have, reviewed the Expert Declaration of
`
`Kenneth Cornelison (“Cornelison” or “Mr. Cornelison”) in which Cornelison has
`
`asserted and offered opinions that all of the Challenged Claims are anticipated and/or
`
`obvious in view of four primary references (U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`2013/0248240 (Glew) (EX-1008), U.S. Patent No. 3,622,683 (“Roberts”) (EX-
`
`1009), U.S. Patent No. 9,363,935 (“Cook”) (EX-1010), and U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`
`2006/0169478 (Clark-478) (EX-1025)) and three secondary references (U.S. Patent
`
`No. 3,911,200 (“Simons”) (EX-1012), U.S. Patent No. 3,233,036 (“Jachimowicz-
`
`036”) (EX-1013), and U.S. Patent No. 3,894,172 (“Jachimowicz-172”) (EX-1014))
`
`(collectively, the “Petitioner Prior Art”).
`
`5.
`
`Petitioner sets forth eleven different grounds, including three
`
`anticipation grounds and eight obviousness grounds.
`
`26983805.3
`
`i
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`6.
`
`The anticipation grounds are as follows:
`
`a. Ground 1 – Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18 are anticipated by Cook
`
`b. Ground 3 – Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18 are anticipated by Glew
`
`c. Ground 5 – Claims 1-3, 9-11, 13, 16-18 are anticipated by
`
`Roberts
`
`7.
`
`The obviousness grounds are as follows:
`
`a. Ground 2 – Claim 11 is obvious in view of Cook and Glew and/or
`
`the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`b. Ground 4 – Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18 are obvious in view of Glew
`
`and Cook and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`c. Ground 6 – Claims 1-3, 9-11, 13, 16-18 are obvious in view of
`
`Roberts and Jachimowicz-172 and/or the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA
`
`d. Ground 7 – Claims 1-3, 9-11, 13, 16-18 are obvious in view of
`
`Roberts, Jachimowicz-036 and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`e. Ground 8 – Claim 11 is obvious in view of Any of Grounds 5-7
`
`and Glew and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`f. Ground 9 – Claims 12 and 16 are obvious in view of Any of
`
`Grounds 5-8 and Simons and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`g. Ground 10 – Claims 1-3, 9-14, 16-18 are obvious in view of
`
`26983805.3
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Clark-478 and Roberts, Glew and/or the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`h. Ground 11 – Claims 3 and 9 are obvious in view of any of
`
`Grounds 3-7 in view of one or more of Cook and/or the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA
`
`8.
`
`I have been asked by Belden to prepare this Declaration setting forth
`
`my comments and opinions on whether the Challenged Claims would have been
`
`anticipated and/or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention of the ’030 Patent (2013) in light of the Petitioner Prior Art.
`
`9.
`
`For the reasons that follow, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Cornelison.
`
`Instead, it is my opinion that the proposed grounds do not render any of the
`
`Challenged Claims anticipated or obvious. This Declaration sets forth my opinions
`
`and the bases, reasons, and evidence relied upon in forming those opinions.
`
`10. Although I am being compensated at a rate of $475 per hour and
`
`reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, no part of my compensation
`
`depends on the outcome of these proceedings, and I have no other interest in these
`
`proceedings.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS AND BACKGROUND
`11.
`I believe that I am well qualified to serve as a technical expert in this
`
`matter based upon my educational and work experience.
`
`12.
`
`I have degrees in both physics and electrical engineering, as well as
`
`26983805.3
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`extensive experience in the telecommunications industry.
`
`13.
`
`I gained significant experience in the telecommunications industry as a
`
`systems engineer during my time with Alcatel in the 1990-1993 timeframe. During
`
`this time, I worked on the development of a Passive Optical Network (PON)
`
`telecommunications systems that delivered voice services to buildings over a fiber
`
`optic connection with the final connection to the subscriber being over twisted wire
`
`pair wiring. I was also involved in research regarding the use of Digital Subscriber
`
`Line (DSL) technology to deliver high-speed digital data services from the central
`
`office or a remote access point to the subscriber over twisted wire pair cable.
`
`14. My later experience in the cable industry was gained during my time at
`
`General Instrument Corporation from 1993–1995. General Instrument was a
`
`significant supplier of equipment to the Multiple System Operators (“MSO’s”). My
`
`work at General Instrument included development of products to put voice services
`
`over Hybrid Fiber Coaxial (HFC) networks including using the use of twisted wire
`
`pair cable for distribution of voice signals and in particular Plain Old Telephone
`
`Service (POTS) within the residence. I also developed detailed cost-performance
`
`analyses of traditional twisted wire pair, HFC, and Fiber to the Curb/Home
`
`(FTTC/FTTH) architectures for the delivery of residential voice, video, and data
`
`services.
`
`15.
`
`Subsequent to my employment in the telecommunications industry and
`
`26983805.3
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`through my company, Technology, Patents, and Licensing, Inc. I gained further
`
`experience regarding the use of twisted wire pair cabling for transmission of high-
`
`speed digital signals using formats including but not limited to Asymmetric Digital
`
`Subscriber Line (ADSL) and Very High Bitrate Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL).
`
`This work included evaluation of crosstalk in these systems and optimization of the
`
`modulation format to increase the capacity of the system.
`
`16. A copy of curriculum vitae is attached to this declaration as Appendix
`
`A.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`17.
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’030 Patent would have been anticipated by and/or obvious
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in
`
`light of the Petitioner Prior Art. It is my opinion that the Challenged Claims would
`
`not have been anticipated or obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the earliest claimed priority date of the ’030 Patent. (2013).
`
`18.
`
`In forming my opinions expressed below, in addition to my own
`
`knowledge and experience based upon my work in the field of cable technology as
`
`described below, I have considered the documents provided to me by Belden’s
`
`counsel (“counsel”):
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`EX-1001 U.S. Patent No. 9,991,030 (“’030 Patent”)
`v
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`EX-1002 Office Action dated 06/28/2019
`EX-1003 Amendment and Response to Non-Final Office Action dated
`10/3/2017
`-
`EX-1004
`EX-1005 Scheduling Order, C.A. No. 22-783-RGA (D. Del.)
`EX-1006 Expert Declaration of Kenneth Cornelison
`EX-1007 Curriculum Vitae of Kenneth Cornelison
`EX-1008 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0248240 (“Glew”)
`EX-1009 U.S. Patent No. 3,622,683 (“Roberts”)
`EX-1010 U.S. Patent No. 9,363,935 (“Cook”)
`EX-1011 U.S. Patent No. 7,335,837 (“Pfeiler”)
`EX-1012 U.S. Patent No. 3,911,200 (“Simons”)
`EX-1013 U.S. Patent No. 3,233,036 (“Jachimowicz-036”)
`EX-1014 U.S. Patent No. 3,894,172 (“Jachimowicz-172”)
`EX-1015 U.S. Patent No. 4,428,787 (“Pan”)
`EX-1016 Electronic Wire & Cable - A User’s Guide: Performance and
`Selection, Section 5: Multiconductor Cables, AT&T (1987)
`EX-1017 Whitham D. Reeve, Subscriber Loop Signaling and Transmission
`Handbook – Digital, IEEE Telecommunications Handbook Series
`(1995)
`EX-1018 Whitham D. Reeve, Subscriber Loop Signaling and Transmission
`Handbook – Analog, IEEE Telecommunications Handbook Series
`(1992)
`EX-1019 U.S. Patent No. 5,380,591 (“Keogh”)
`EX-1020 U.S. Patent No. 1,727,972 (“Ford”)
`EX-1021 U.S. Patent No. 1,956,730 (“Reichelt”)
`EX-1022 U.S. Patent No. 3,803,340 (“Jachimowicz-340”)
`EX-1023 Canadian Patent Application No. 2,058,046 (“Tessier”)
`EX-1024 U.S. Patent No. 4,262,164 (“Nutt”)
`EX-1025 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0169478 (“Clark-478”)
`EX-1026 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0206609 (“’609 Publication”)
`EX-1027 U.S. Patent No. 5,670,748 (“Gingue”)
`EX-1028 G.F. Moore, Electric Cable Handbook, BICC Cables (3rd. Ed. 1997)
`EX-1029 The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms (5th ed. 1993)
`EX-1030 Neil Sclater and John Markus, Electronics Dictionary, McGraw-Hill
`(6th Ed. 1997)
`
`26983805.3
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`EX-1031 Draka – B03: Rodent protection (2009-01-19)
`EX-1032 U.S. Patent No. 5,427,643 (“Aitken”)
`EX-1033 U.S. Patent No. 4,213,280 (“Sandborn”)
`EX-1034 U.S. Patent No. 4,439,632 (“Aloisio”)
`EX-1035 U.S. Patent No. 4,327,248 (“Campbell”)
`EX-1036 U.S. Patent No. 5,518,836 (“McCullough”)
`EX-1037 US Patent Publication No. 2011/0147039 (“Smith”)
`EX-1038 US Patent No. 7,532,794 (“Cook-794”)
`EX-1039 US Patent No. 6,074,503 (“Clark-503”)
`EX-1040 U.S. Patent No. 4,755,629 (“Beggs”)
`EX-1041 Alcatel Cable Systems Product Catalog (circa 1988-1990)
`EX-1042 U.S. Patent No. 6,378,283 (“Barton”)
`EX-1043 U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095 (“Clark”)
`EX-1044 U.S. Patent No. 6,365,836 (“Blouin”)
`EX-1045 Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, PhD. re. EX-1016, EX-1017, EX-
`1018 and EX-1028
`
`EX-2001 Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering in Support of Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response (“Eldering”)
`EX-2002 August 29, 2016 Amendment (U.S. Application No. 14/520,125)
`EX-2003 March 7, 2017 Amendment (U.S. Application No. 14/520,125)
`EX-2004 March 27, 2017 NOA (U.S. Application No. 14/520,125)
`EX-2005 May 31, 2017 Original Claims (Application No. 15/610,504)
`EX-2006 U.S. Patent No. 8,450,606 B2 (“McNutt”)
`EX-2007 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0037691 (“Kroushl”)
`EX-2008 NEPTCO – NEPTAPE® Data Sheet – NEPTAPE Foil Free Edge
`Shielding Tapes: General Information (8/2000)
`EX-2009 NEPTCO – NEPTAPE® Data Sheet – Foil Free Edge Shielding Tapes
`- NEPTAPE® F1141 (8/2000)
`
`26983805.3
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`19.
`In preparing this declaration and forming my opinions, I am relying on
`
`certain legal principles that counsel explained to me.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed Mr. Cornelison’s summaries of the Relevant Legal
`
`Principles with respect to claim construction, anticipation, and obviousness. I do not
`
`disagree with those summaries.
`
`A.
`21.
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is determined by
`
`considering (1) the type of problems encountered in the art, (2) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems, (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made, (4) the
`
`sophistication of the technology, and (5) the educational level of active workers in
`
`the field.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that I must evaluate the ’030 Patent and the Petitioner Prior
`
`Art from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the ’030
`
`Patent and the Petitioner Prior Art must be evaluated through the eyes of a person
`
`with ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention of this patent
`
`(“POSITA”).
`
`23.
`
`I understand that the earliest application to which the ’030 Patent claims
`
`26983805.3
`
`1
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`priority was a provisional application (No. 61/894,728) filed on October 23, 2013.
`
`I have been asked to assume that the invention date of the Challenged Claims is
`
`October 23, 2013 (i.e., the time of the invention).
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that the ‘030 patent relates to telecommunications in
`
`general and telecommunications cables in particular. As stated in the “Field of
`
`Invention” portion of the specification of the ‘030 patent, “the invention relates to a
`
`filler for controlled placement of pairs of conductors within a data cable and
`
`controlled application angle of an electromagnetic interference (EMI) reducing
`
`tape.” ’030 patent 1:17-21.
`
`25. My opinions in this Declaration are based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the 2013 timeframe. This is true even if the testimony
`
`is stated in the present tense.
`
`26. Based on the field of the invention and technological aspects, it is my
`
`opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ‘030 patent would have had
`
`at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3-4 years of
`
`industry experience in the telecommunications industry. I do not agree with Mr.
`
`Cornelison that a POSITA would have to had direct industrial experience in the
`
`designing, manufacturing, and testing of twisted-pair data cables, as general
`
`experience in the field of telecommunications would include exposure to issues such
`
`as crosstalk, balanced and unbalanced transmission in transmission media including
`2
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`twisted wire pairs.
`
`27. Based on my educational background and experience in the
`
`telecommunications field, and more specifically with telecommunications cables, I
`
`am qualified as at least a POSITA with respect to the ’030 Patent. Thus, I am
`
`familiar with the knowledge of the POSITA. I am able to opine on how POSITA
`
`would have understood the disclosure and claims of the ’030 Patent, the disclosures
`
`of the Petitioner Prior Art and other patents, the motivation to combine the prior art,
`
`and what combinations would have been obvious and not have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA.
`
`28. Although my definition of a POSITA differs slightly from that offered
`
`by Mr. Cornelison, adoption of his definition would not change any of the analysis
`
`or opinions offered herein.
`
`V.
`
`THE ’030 PATENT
`29.
`The ’030 Patent addresses the problem of “crosstalk” between adjacent
`
`twisted pairs of conductors. As described in the ’030 Patent, “internal” crosstalk
`
`occurs within a cable when “signal flow in a first twisted pair of conductors in a
`
`multi-pair cable generates an electromagnetic field that is received by a second
`
`twisted pair of conductors in the cable and converted back to an electrical signal.”
`
`’030 Patent 1:39-44.
`
`30. As also described in the ’030 Patent, “alien crosstalk is electromagnetic
`3
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`interference between adjacent cables” “with discrete signals [] in close proximity
`
`and parallel for long distances.” ’030 Patent 1:44-50.
`
`31.
`
`The ’030 Patent provides a solution to reducing alien crosstalk between
`
`adjacent cables using a “barrier tape around helically arranged twisted pairs of
`
`conductors” and a “filler included within the cable to separate the twisted pairs and
`
`provide a support base for the barrier tape.” ’030 Patent 2:22-33.
`
`32.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 18 of the ’030 Patent each require: (i) a first
`
`twisted pair of insulated conductors (102a); (ii) a second twisted pair of insulated
`
`conductors (102b); (iii) a filler (108) separating the first twisted pair of insulated
`
`conductors from the second twisted pair of insulated conductors; and (iii) a multi-
`
`layer conductive barrier tape (110). ‘030 Patent 4:48-61, 6:20-24, 7:32-34, 7:55-57,
`
`11:26-39, 12:28-40, FIGS. 1, 3A-3E.
`
`26983805.3
`
`4
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Multi-layer
`Barrier Tape
`First Twisted
`Pair
`
`Second
`Twisted Pair
`
`Filler
`
`33.
`
`The claimed barrier tape (110) includes a continuous conductive
`
`material (302) contained between two layers of a dielectric material (300, 304),
`
`where the conductive material extends to each lateral edge (306a, 306b) of the two
`
`layers of the dielectric material. The barrier tape also surrounds the first and second
`
`twisted pair of insulated conductors and the filler. ’030 Patent 6:3-10, 7:34-54, 7:64-
`
`8:5, 11:26-39, 12:28-40, FIGS. 1, 3A (cross section)-3E.
`
`26983805.3
`
`5
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Continuous
`Conductive Material
`
`Dielectric Material
`
`Dielectric Material
`
`Multi-layer
`Barrier Tape
`
`Multi-layer
`Barrier Tape
`
`Cross-Section
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Filler
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`VI. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE NOT ANTICIPATED.
`A.
`COOK DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS.
`(GROUND 1)
`In his Declaration, Cornelison alleged that Cook (EX-1010) anticipates
`
`34.
`
`all of the Challenged Claims. EX-1006 ¶¶79-120. I disagree.
`
`35.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 18 of the ’030 Patent require that the
`
`conductive material extend to each lateral edge of the two layers of the dielectric
`
`26983805.3
`
`6
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`material. To try to find this claim limitation in Cook, Cornelison relied upon two
`
`different embodiments in Cook (i.e., shown in FIGS. 8D and 11). Cornelison ¶¶84-
`
`87. But neither of these embodiments disclose a conductive barrier tape comprising
`
`a conductive material contained between two layers of a dielectric material, as also
`
`required by independent claims 1 and 18.
`
`36.
`
`Petitioner (Pet. 20) provided the following annotated illustration of the
`
`separator or shield layer 840 shown in FIG. 8D of Cook, which is described in Cook
`
`as being “a top level (or bottom level) view.” Cook 23:58-64.
`
`37. As shown in FIG. 8D, a POSITA would understand that Cook teaches
`
`that the conductive material in the embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 8A-8D is
`
`formed on a single dielectric layer. Cook 22:62-23:5.
`
`38.
`
`Since the conductive material is visible on the surface of the single layer
`
`of dielectric material in the top level (or bottom) level view of FIG. 8D, the
`
`conductive material is not contained between two layers of a dielectric material.
`7
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`39. Cornelison (EX-1006 ¶85) also provided the following annotated
`
`illustration of the separator or shield layer 1125 shown in FIG. 11. Cook 25:39-63.
`
`40. As shown in FIG. 11, a POSITA would understand that Cook teaches
`
`that the conductive patches 1135A-D of the shield layer 1125 are formed on a single
`
`substrate (dielectric) layer 1130. Cook 25:51-57.
`
`41.
`
`Since the conductive patches 1135A are visible on the surface of the
`
`single substrate layer 1130 of dielectric material in the illustration of FIG. 11, the
`
`conductive material is not contained between two layers of a dielectric material.
`
`42.
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ’030 Patent also requires that the conductive
`
`material contained between two layers of a dielectric material be continuous. To try
`
`26983805.3
`
`8
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`to find this claim limitation in Cook, Cornelison relied upon various embodiments
`
`in Cook (i.e., shown in FIGS. 7B & 8A-8D). Cornelison ¶¶82, 87. But none of those
`
`embodiments disclose a continuous conductive material contained between two
`
`layers of a dielectric material, as also required by independent claim 1.
`
`43. Cornelison cited to the text of Cook at column 6, line 50, to column 7,
`
`line 20. EX-1006 ¶82 (citing Cook 6:50-7:20). But that text only refers to “a
`
`relatively continuous shield” (i.e., not continuous) or “a discontinuous shield,” as
`
`shown in FIGS. 8A-8C. Cook 6:52-7:9.
`
`44. As shown above, a POSITA would understand that Cook discloses that
`
`the “discontinuous” conductive material in those shield layers is formed on a single
`
`dielectric material layer (Cook 22:62-23:5) and is not contained between two layers
`
`of a dielectric material.
`
`45.
`
`This section of Cook (Cook 6:50-7:20) incorporates by reference
`
`another patent application (Application No. 12/653,804 that issued as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,450,606 B2 (“McNutt”) (EX-2006)) with a common inventor to Cook
`
`(Christopher W. McNutt). McNutt teaches away from using a continuous shield.
`
`46. McNutt teaches that “complications can arise when a cable is encased
`9
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`by a shield that is electrically continuous between the two ends of the cable.”
`
`McNutt 1:63-2:4. One of the complications is that “[i]f a person contacts the
`
`shielding, the person may receive a shock if the shielding is not properly grounded.”
`
`McNutt 2:5-15. Another complication is that “a continuous shield can also set up
`
`standing waves of electromagnetic energy based on signals received from nearby
`
`energy sources.” McNutt 2:16-21.
`
`47.
`
`To avoid these problems with a continuous shield, McNutt provides a
`
`tape that “can be a shield that is electrically discontinuous or exhibits a high level of
`
`resistance between opposite ends of a cable.” McNutt 2:39-60, 4:20-36 (“The
`
`present invention supports shielding a communication cable, wherein at least one
`
`break or discontinuity in a shielding material electrically isolates shielding at one
`
`end of the cable from shielding at the other end of the cable.”).
`
`48. Cornelison also cited to the text of Cook at column 11, line 64 to
`
`column 12, line 5. EX-1006 ¶82. But that text also only refers to “a relatively
`
`continuous shield.”
`
`49. Cook describes the conductive material of the shield layer 840, which
`
`is shown in FIG. 8D and annotated by Petitioner (Pet. 20, 22), as being “relatively
`
`continuous” with a dielectric end. Cook 23:58-67.
`
`26983805.3
`
`10
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`50. Admitting that the metal shield layer 840 was not continuous,
`
`Cornelison proposed to modify the shield layer 840 in FIG. 8D to try to provide
`
`continuous conductive material. EX-1006 ¶87.
`
`51. As shown in FIG. 8D, a POSITA would understand that Cook teaches
`
`that the “relatively” continuous conductive material is formed on a single layer of
`
`dielectric material (Cook 22:62-23:5) and is not contained between two layers of a
`
`dielectric material.
`
`26983805.3
`
`11
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`52. Cornelison also relied upon the shield layer disclosed in FIG. 7B of
`
`Cook. EX-1006 ¶82. But Cornelison admitted Cook discloses “a discontinuous
`
`‘electrically conductive layer 720’,” as shown in the figure below annotated by
`
`Cornelison. EX-1006 ¶82 (citing Cook 22:39-41, FIG. 7B).
`
`53.
`
`Since Cook does not disclose any shield layer (or barrier tape) with
`
`conductive material contained between two layers of a dielectric material and
`
`extending to each lateral edge of the two layers of the dielectric material, Cook
`
`cannot anticipate independent claims 1 and 18 or any of the dependent claims.
`
`54.
`
`Since Cook does not disclose any shield layer (or barrier tape) with
`
`continuous conductive material contained between two layers of a dielectric
`
`material, Cook cannot anticipate independent claim 1 or any of the dependent claims
`
`for that additional reason.
`
`For Ground 2, Cornelison also alleged that dependent claim 11, which
`12
`
`55.
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`depends from claim 1, is obvious based on the combination of Cook and/or Glew.
`
`EX-1006 ¶¶121-128. Since in Ground 2, Cornelison only focused on the additional
`
`claim element(s) added in claim 11 and did not even attempt to address Cook’s
`
`failure to disclose the missing elements of independent claims 1 and 18, Ground 2
`
`does not render obvious dependent claim 11.
`
`B.
`
`56.
`
`GLEW DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS.
`(GROUND 3)
`In his Declaration, Cornelison alleged that Glew (EX-1008) anticipates
`
`all of the Challenged Claims. EX1006 ¶¶129-173. I disagree.
`
`57.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 18 of the ’030 Patent require a multi-layer
`
`barrier tape (110) that comprises a conductive material (302) contained between two
`
`layers of a dielectric material (300, 304), where the conductive material extends to
`
`each lateral edge (306a, 306b) of the two layers of the dielectric material.
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Dielectric Material
`
`Dielectric Material
`
`Continuous
`Conductive Material
`
`Multi-layer
`Barrier Tape
`
`26983805.3
`
`Cross-Section
`
`13
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Multi-layer
`Barrier Tape
`
`Filler
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`58.
`
`The ’030 Patent makes it clear that the “lateral edges” of the barrier tape
`
`are the conductive edges (306a, 306b) running along the sides of the tape parallel to
`
`(or in) the longitudinal direction and exposing the conductive material 302. ’030
`
`Patent 7:64-8:3 (“Referring now to FIG. 3B, illustrated is a cross section of an
`
`embodiment of a barrier tape 110 around the filler 108 of FIG. 2A. The tape 110 has
`
`a first edge 306a and a second edge 306b, referred to generally as edge(s) 306 of the
`
`barrier tape 110.”), FIGS. 3B-3E.
`
`26983805.3
`
`14
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Multi-layer
`Barrier Tape
`
`59.
`
`The ’030 Patent states that “the tape edge 306 will continue to follow
`
`the end portion 204 of the terminal portion without ever crossing above a channel or
`
`pair 102. This prevents electrical coupling of pairs 102 to conductive edges 306 of
`
`tape 110, and thus reduces leakage and ANEXT.” ’030 Patent 8:38-46, FIG. 3E.
`
`60.
`
`Since the conductive material 302 is exposed along the conductive
`
`lateral edges 306a, 306b of the barrier tape 110, the patent teaches that these
`
`conductive lateral edges should be placed above the terminal portions 202 of the
`
`filler 108 (as shown in FIGS. 3C and 3D), and not above the channels 208 holding
`
`the twisted pairs (as shown in FIG. 3B), to avoid electrical coupling of the exposed
`15
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`conductive lateral edges 306a, 306b and the twisted pairs 102. ’030 Patent 8:3-25,
`
`FIGS. 3B-3D.
`
`61.
`
`Two of Petitioner’s relied upon prior art references also show that a
`
`POSITA would understand that a tape’s “lateral edges” are the edges running along
`
`the sides of the tape parallel to the longitudinal direction.
`
`62.
`
`In Ground 1, Petitioner provided the following annotated illustration of
`
`the shield layer or separator 840 shown in FIG. 8D of Cook (Pet. 20), which
`
`describes the “electrically conductive material running along a longitudinal length
`
`of the separator.” Cook 23:58-67.
`
`26983805.3
`
`16
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`63.
`
`Those edges running along the side of the tape parallel to the
`
`longitudinal direction in Cook, labeled by Petitioner as “lateral edges,” are the same
`
`lateral edges 306a, 306b disclosed and claimed in the ’030 Patent.
`
`64. Roberts (EX-1009) also shows that POSITA would understand that a
`
`tape’s “lateral edges” are the edges running along the sides of the tape parallel to the
`
`longitudinal direction. For example, Roberts’ metal foil shield tapes 15 in FIGS. 2
`
`and 3 (a cross-section of which is shown in FIG. 10) have edges running along the
`
`sides of the tape parallel to the longitudinal direction (like the conductive lateral
`
`edges 306a, 306b of the barrier tape 110 in the ’030 Patent) that are also described
`
`as being “lateral edges.” Roberts 2:20-24 (“FIG. 3 … showing two groups of
`
`electrical conductors separated by a shield made from a plurality of tapes helically
`
`disposed, the lateral edges of which overlap adjacently lying tapes”), 2:42-46 (“a
`
`shield composed of a plurality of tapes made from a metal foil coated on both sides
`
`with a plastic, the lateral edges of which overlap adjacently disposed tapes”), 4:27-
`17
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`33 (“the plastic-coated metal foil shield (15) [FIG. 2] has lateral edges that overlap,”
`
`“the lateral edges of the shield overlapping one another. (See [15 a])”), 4:34-40
`
`(“The lateral edges of the helically disposed tapes [of FIG. 3] overlap adjacently
`
`lying tapes.”), 5:65-75 (“the shield (15) [of FIG. 10] is made up of a plurality of
`
`tapes, the lateral edges of which overlap adjacently disposed like tapes”), FIGS. 2,
`
`3, 10.
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`Lateral Edge
`
`65. A POSITA would understand that the claimed “lateral edge[s]” of the
`
`barrier tape are the edges running along the sides of the tape parallel to the
`
`longitudinal direction.
`
`26983805.3
`
`18
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`66. Cornelison relied upon FIG. 13C in Glew, as shown below and
`
`incorrectly annotated by Cornelison.
`
`Pet. 37.
`
`67. Cornelison argued that “the metallic layer 133 [in Grew] extends to the
`
`front edges of dielectric layers 135 and 137, which can be considered “lateral edges”
`
`of these two dielectric layers ….” EX-1006 ¶136. But the “lateral edge[s]” of
`
`Glew’s tape 129 are the edges running along the sides of the dielectric layers 135,
`
`137 parallel to the longitudinal direction. The “front edges” of the tape 129 in FIG.
`
`13C identified by Cornelison are not lateral edges, but instead are the ends of the
`
`tape or the cross-section prior to the ends of the tape.
`19
`
`26983805.3
`
`
`
`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01056
`
`68. Cornelison also provided the following annotated figure correctly
`
`illustrating how the actual lateral edges in Glew are the edges running along the sides
`
`of the tape parallel to the longitudinal direction. EX-1006 ¶174.
`
`69.
`
` Applying the proper construction of “lateral edge,” as understood by a
`
`POSITA, Glew’s metallic foil layer 133 does not extend to the lateral edges o
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
