`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BELDEN INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case IPR__________
`U.S. Patent No. US 6,998,537
`Issued: Feb. 14, 2006
`Filed: January 3, 2003
`______________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF KENNETH CORNELISON
`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,197,358
`
`I, Kenneth Cornelison, declare as follows.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner, CommScope Technologies LLC,
`
`(“CommScope” or “Petitioner”) to provide expert opinions in connection with a
`
`petition for inter partes review before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office. I understand that this declaration involves my expert opinions and expert
`
`knowledge related to U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537 (“the ’537 Patent”), titled “Multi-
`
`Pair Data Cable with Configurable Core Filling and Pair Separation,” and its field
`
`of endeavor.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my independent technical review,
`
`analysis, insights, and opinions regarding the ’537 Patent and the references that
`
`form the basis for the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’537 Patent. The statements made herein are based on my
`
`own knowledge and opinions.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`To summarize the opinions stated herein, it is my opinion that the claims of
`
`the ’537 Patent are invalid based on the following grounds:
`
`Ground 1
`
`Claims
`Independent
`claim 19
`
`Basis for Unpatentability
`Obvious in view of Beggs, further in view of
`Jachimowicz and the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Ground 2 Dependent
`claims 20,
`22
`Independent
`claim 19
`
`Ground 3
`
`Ground 4 Dependent
`claims 20,
`22
`Claims
`19-20, 22
`
`Ground 5
`
`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`Ground 1, further in view of Gingue and the
`knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`Obvious in view of Yanagida, further in view of
`Jachimowicz and the knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`Ground 3, further in view of Gingue and the
`knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`Obvious in view of GmbH-866, further in view of
`Roberts, Gingue, and/or Jachimowicz and the
`knowledge of a POSITA.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In this declaration, I provide various annotated figures to aid in
`
`explaining my opinions. However, these figures are not intended to necessarily
`
`imply literal, precise physical or bodily combination or modification in exactly or
`
`only the way shown or annotated. Instead, I provide those figures only to help
`
`illustrate various concepts, and they should not be taken as showing the only
`
`disclosure of a particular element, or the only way that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have been motivated to modify or combine references.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`
`III.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I have 40+ years of experience in the wire and cable industry. My
`
`experience includes the design, development and testing of high-speed data cables.
`
`I obtained my BSEE in 1974 and I started working in the wire and cable industry
`
`in 1976. Through the late 1970s through the 2000s, I worked in the design,
`
`manufacturing and testing of wires and cables for companies including Anaconda,
`
`Alcatel, Belden and General Cable. My roles included being manager of product
`
`development and customer engineering, process development manager, and VP of
`
`Technology – Data Communications. Since leaving General Cable, I have
`
`consulted in the wire and cable industry, published several papers, given technical
`
`training and been actively involved in the International Wire and Cable
`
`Symposium (IWCS). The IWCS promotes, initiates, and coordinates the
`
`exchanging of technical information on wire, cable and fiber optics within industry
`
`and the government, through an annual IWCS Symposium. I have been an
`
`instructor (or co-instructor) at the annual Symposiums held in 2013, 2014, 2015,
`
`2016, 2018, 2019, 2022, and am currently expecting to be an instructor at the
`
`Symposium planned for 2023. I am a named inventor on more than 15 US patents.
`
`5.
`
`I am being compensated for my time at the rate of $175 per hour for
`
`time spent on this matter. I have no interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and
`
`my compensation is not dependent upon the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`
`IV.
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`6. My technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions are based on my
`
`experience and other qualifications discussed above, as well as my study of
`
`relevant materials.
`
`7.
`
`I have reviewed and am familiar with the ’537 patent specification,
`
`claims, prosecution history, and inter partes reexamination.
`
`8.
`
`I have also reviewed and am familiar with each exhibit cited herein. I
`
`confirm that to the best of my knowledge the accompanying exhibits are true and
`
`accurate copies of what they purport to be, and that an expert in the field would
`
`reasonably rely on them to formulate opinions such as those set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`Exhibit No. Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095 (the “’095 patent”)
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095: Nov. 8,
`1002
`2002 Notice of Allowance
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,474 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,570,095: Sept. 20, 2011 Action Closing Prosecution
`U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537 (the “’537 patent”)
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: Nov. 2,
`2004 Notice of Allowance
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,476 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,998,537: Sept. 20, 2011 Action Closing Prosecution
`Declaration of Kenneth Cornelison
`Curriculum Vitae of Kenneth Cornelison
`U.S. Patent No. 3,622,683 (“Roberts”)
`
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`1010
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`English language translation of German Patent No. 297,19,866 U1
`(“GmbH-866”), and attached Declaration of translator Anthea Heyes
`German Patent No. 297,19,866 U1 (untranslated original)
`English language translation of Japanese Patent Publication
`S43015470 (“Yanagida”), and attached Declaration of translator
`Anthea Heyes
`U.S. Patent No. 5,670,748 (“Gingue”)
`U.S. Patent No. 3,894,172 (“Jachimowicz”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,755,629 (“Beggs”)
`Electronic Wire & Cable - A User’s Guide: Performance and
`Selection, Section 5: Multiconductor Cables, AT&T (1987)
`Whitham D. Reeve, Subscriber Loop Signaling and Transmission
`Handbook – Digital, IEEE Telecommunications Handbook Series
`(1995)
`Whitham D. Reeve, Subscriber Loop Signaling and Transmission
`Handbook – Analog, IEEE Telecommunications Handbook Series
`(1992)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,380,591
`U.S. Patent No. 1,727,972
`U.S. Patent No. 1,956,730
`U.S. Patent No. 3,803,340 (Jachimowicz-340)
`Canadian Patent Application No. 2,058,046
`U.S. Patent No. 4,262,164
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0169478
`U.S. Patent No. 4,253,890
`U.S. Patent No. 5,283,390
`U.S. Patent No. 5,969,295
`G.F. Moore, Electric Cable Handbook, BICC Cables (3d. ed. 1997)
`The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms (5th ed. 1993)
`Neil Sclater and John Markus, Electronics Dictionary, McGraw-Hill
`(6th ed. 1997)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`S. Yonechi et al., Application of Spacer Forming Technique to
`Communication Cables, International Wire & Cable Symposium
`Proceedings (1980)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,179,999 (the “’999 patent”)
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,475 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,179,999: Oct. 14, 2011 Action Closing Prosecution
`Alcatel Cable Systems Product Catalog1
`U.S. Patent No. 5,789,711
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095: Oct. 22,
`2001 Non-Final Office Action
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095: April 3,
`2002 Final Office Action
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: March 3,
`2004 Non-Final Office Action
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: Terminal
`Disclaimer
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: May 18,
`2004 Amendments
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: June 17,
`2004 Final Office Action
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537:
`September 20, 2004 Request for Continued Examination
`Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: Sept. 9,
`2005 Amendment
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,474 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,570,095: Feb. 24, 2012 Decision Granting Petition to Terminate
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceeding
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,476 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,998,537: Feb. 24, 2012 Decision Granting Petition to Terminate
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,475 of U.S. Patent
`No. 7,179,999: Feb. 24, 2012 Decision Granting Petition to Terminate
`Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings
`
`1 This Alcatel Cable Systems product catalog was publicly available and
`distributed by Alcatel during my employment with Alcatel Cable Systems, which
`was in the 1988-1992 time period.
`
`1047
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,814,768
`U.S. Patent No. 6,037,546
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,474 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,570,095: Jan. 11, 2010 Third Party Requester’s Comments to
`Patent Owner’s Response
`Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,476 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,998,537: Jan. 22, 2010 Third Party Requester’s Comments to
`Patent Owner’s Response
`Belden Techs. et al. v. Superior Essex Comm’cns LP et al., No. 08-63-
`SLR, Dkt. 215 (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2010) – Claim Construction Order
`Belden Inc. v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 22-783-RGA, Dkt. 292 (D.
`Del. May 26, 2023) – Scheduling Order
`Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, PhD
`English Translation of Japanese Patent Publication No. S43-15470
`used in prior reexamination of US 6,998,537
`Japanese Patent Publication No. S43-15470 (untranslated original)
`English language translation of German Patent No. 297,19,866 U1
`used in prior reexamination of US 6,998,537
`
`1048
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`1054
`1055
`1056
`1057
`
`All citations to exhibits are to the bates number stamped at the bottom of the
`
`page except for patents and patent publications, which are cited to their column
`
`and line numbers.
`
`V. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A.
`9.
`
`Effective Filing Date
` I understand that claims of a patent have an “effective filing date”
`
`and that obviousness is considered based on the prior art as of that date.
`
`10. The utility application for ’537 Patent (application No. 10/336,535)
`
`was filed on Jan. 3, 2003. It is a continuation of application No. 09/853,512, filed
`
`on May 11, 2001, now U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095, which is a continuation of
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`application No. 09/257,844, filed on February 25, 1999, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`6,248,954. Therefore, I am told that for the purposes of this proceeding, I have
`
`been asked to use February 25, 1999 as the effective filing date for the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`B.
`11.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`I have been informed that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) is a person who is presumed to have complete knowledge of the
`
`relevant prior art and who would think along the lines of conventional wisdom in
`
`that art. The person of ordinary skill in the art has ordinary creativity and does not
`
`have extraordinary skill, e.g., is not an expert. I have been informed that factors to
`
`consider in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the educational
`
`level of workers in the field, the types of problems addressed in the art, prior-art
`
`solutions to such problems, how quickly innovations are made, and the complexity
`
`of the technology.
`
`12. The ’537 Patent relates to communication cables. Generally speaking,
`
`the ’537 Patent is directed to cables that include a plurality of twisted pairs and
`
`techniques to improve crosstalk. See ’537 Patent (EX-1004) at Title, Abstract,
`
`2:65-3:2, 3:15-28. In view of the factors mentioned above and the discussion of
`
`the technical background herein, it is my opinion that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art of the ’537 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`engineering and a minimum of 3-4 years of industry experience in connection with
`
`
`
`designing, manufacturing, and testing of twisted-pair data cables. An individual
`
`with a master’s degree in electrical engineering would require less industry
`
`experience (e.g., 1-2 years).
`
`13. Throughout my declaration, even if I discuss my analysis in the
`
`present tense, I am always making my determinations based on what a POSITA
`
`would have known as of the effective date (here February 25, 1999).
`
`C. Claim Construction Standard
` I have been instructed by counsel on the law regarding claim
`14.
`
`construction and patent claims, and understand that a patent may include two types
`
`of claims—independent claims and dependent claims. An independent claim
`
`stands alone and includes only the features it recites. A dependent claim can
`
`depend from an independent claim or another dependent claim. I understand that a
`
`dependent claim includes all the features that it recites in addition to all of the
`
`features recited in the claim from which it depends.
`
`15.
`
` In an inter partes review proceeding such as this, I understand the
`
`claim of a patent shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that
`
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action. I understand this includes
`
`construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`such claim in view of the specification and the prosecution history pertaining to the
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`patent, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. For completeness, I
`
`
`
`understand this standard is different from the prior “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation” standard that was used in certain earlier inter partes reexamination
`
`proceedings.
`
`16.
`
`I understand an appropriate dictionary definition may provide
`
`evidence explaining the ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood
`
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that if there are specific statements in the specification
`
`that define the invention with respect to a term, those statements are strong
`
`evidence of a definition for the term.
`
`D. Anticipation and Obviousness Law
` In this declaration I have been instructed by counsel on the law
`18.
`
`regarding anticipation and obviousness. I understand that a claim is invalid if it is
`
`anticipated or obvious. My opinions here relate to both anticipation and
`
`obviousness as detailed below.
`
`Anticipation
`1.
` I understand that anticipation of a claim requires that every element
`
`19.
`
`of a claim is expressly or inherently disclosed in a single prior art reference. I
`
`understand that an anticipating reference need not use the exact terms of the
`
`claims, but must describe the patented subject matter with sufficient clarity and
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`detail to establish that the claimed subject matter existed in the prior art and that
`
`
`
`such existence would be recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the field of the
`
`purported invention. I also understand that an anticipating reference must enable
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the purported invention to practice without
`
`undue experimentation. Under what is known as inherency, I understand that if the
`
`prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes the claimed
`
`limitations, it anticipates. I also understand that I may examine evidence that is
`
`outside of the prior art reference in determining whether a feature, while not
`
`expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present in that reference.
`
`Obviousness
`2.
`I understand that a patent claim is also invalid if the claims would
`
`20.
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention. I understand that the
`
`obviousness inquiry should not be done in hindsight but rather from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA as of the time of the invention.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that to obtain a patent, the claims must have been, as of
`
`the time of the invention, nonobvious in view of the prior art. I understand that an
`
`obviousness analysis involves comparing a claim to the prior art to determine
`
`whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time
`
`of the invention in view of the prior art and in light of the general knowledge in the
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`art as a whole. I also understand that obviousness is ultimately a legal conclusion
`
`
`
`based on underlying facts of four general types, all of which must be considered:
`
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`
`(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art;
`
`and
`
`(4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim is obvious when the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that certain objective indicia can be important evidence
`
`regarding whether a patent is obvious. Such indicia include: industry acceptance;
`
`commercial success of products covered by the patent claims; long-felt need for
`
`the invention; failed attempts by others to make the invention; copying of the
`
`invention by others in the field; unexpected results achieved by the invention as
`
`compared to the closest prior art; praise of the invention by the infringer or others
`
`in the field; taking of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise
`
`by experts and those skilled in the art at making the invention; and the patentee
`
`proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I understand that such
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`evidence must have a nexus, or causal relationship to the elements of the claim. I
`
`
`
`am unaware of any such objective considerations having a nexus to the claims at
`
`issue in this proceeding.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that obviousness can be established by combining
`
`multiple prior art references to meet each and every claim element, or by
`
`modifying a single prior art reference.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that that a showing of obviousness requires that, as of the
`
`patent’s effective filing date, (1) a POSITA would have been motivated to combine
`
`prior art references to arrive at the claimed subject matter and (2) there would have
`
`been a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention from
`
`such combination.
`
`26.
`
`I also understand that to support a combination of multiple prior art
`
`references or a modification of a single reference, there must be a rationale
`
`explaining why a skilled artisan would combine or modify the references in the
`
`manner claimed and how the proposed combination or modification meets each
`
`and every claim element. This rationale may come from a teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation to combine. However, I understand that a specific teaching, suggestion,
`
`or motivation to combine elements in the prior art to achieve the claimed
`
`combination is not required for obviousness. Instead, I understand that a
`
`combination of known elements may be obvious in light of the interrelated
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`teachings of the prior art, the effects of demands in the market, the background
`
`
`
`knowledge possessed by a POSITA, and inferences and creative steps that a
`
`POSITA would employ. But I also understand that a proposed combination or
`
`modification of references can be susceptible to hindsight bias. When it appears
`
`hindsight bias is being used, I understand the modification or combination is not
`
`considered obvious.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion
`
`of obviousness include: combining or modifying prior art elements according to
`
`known methods to yield predictable results; simple substitutions of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results; using a known technique to
`
`improve similar devices in the same way; applying a known technique to a known
`
`device ready for improvement to yield predicable results; choosing from a finite
`
`number of identified, predicable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success; known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other
`
`market forces if the variations are predicable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of
`
`ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art teachings to
`
`arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`I understand that teaching away, e.g., discouragement from making
`
`
`
`28.
`
`the proposed modification, is strong evidence that the references are not
`
`combinable. I also understand that a disclosure of more than one alternative does
`
`not necessarily constitute a teaching away.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that the combination does not need to result in the most
`
`desirable embodiment, but if the proposed combination does not have a reasonable
`
`expectation of success at the time of the invention, a POSITA would not have had
`
`an adequate teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of
`
`a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated or physically combined into the
`
`structure of the primary reference, but whether the claimed invention is rendered
`
`obvious by the teachings of the references as a whole.
`
`VI.
`
`Technology Overview
`
`A. Twisted Pairs
`31. The ’537 Patent relates to data communications cables, such as those
`
`used for telephone and data. ’537 Patent at Abstract. Data communications cables
`
`were typically constructed of twisted pairs of metal conductors (e.g., wires). See
`
`AT&T User Guide (EX-1016) at 7 (“Most of the cables within the scope of
`
`AT&T’s EC&W product line utilize the twisted pair construction.”). Twisted pairs
`
`were (and are) commonly referred to as simply “pairs” in the industry. See, e.g.,
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`Reeve (EX-1017) at 18 (“Each cable pair consists of two twisted insulated
`
`
`
`conductors.”). Each of the conductors of a twisted pair is typically wrapped in an
`
`insulating material, commonly a polymeric material. This was well known at the
`
`time the priority application was filed, February 25, 1999. See, e.g., Keogh (EX-
`
`1019) at 1:10-12 (filed Dec. 30, 1992; “[a] typical telephone cable is constructed of
`
`twisted pairs of metal conductors for signal transmission. Each conductor is
`
`insulated with a polymeric material.”). A number of twisted pairs were then
`
`assembled into a cable and wrapped in a polymeric sheath or jacket. Keogh at
`
`1:12-16; see also AT&T User Guide at 7 (“Production of small cables of this type
`
`involves twisting individual pairs and grouping those twisted pairs to form either a
`
`cable or a unit for a larger cable.”).
`
`32. Twisted pairs have been a staple of the cable industry for over a
`
`century. For example, telephone cable patents from the 1920s discuss using twisted
`
`pairs in electrical cables. See, e.g., Ford (EX-1020) at 2:55-57 (U.S. Patent
`
`No.1,727,972 filed April 18, 1924; “A plurality of copper wires insulated with
`
`paper, cotton, silk, or other suitable materials, usually twisted together in pairs”);
`
`Reichelt (EX-1021) at 1:43-47 (U.S. Patent No. 1,956,730 filed Sept. 11, 1929;
`
`“assembling and twisting a plurality of twisted pairs of individual insulated
`
`electrical conductors into a single compact group or so called cable unit”).
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`33. When compared to untwisted pairs, twisted pairs have improved
`
`
`
`crosstalk and decreased unbalanced mutual capacitance. AT&T User Guide at 7
`
`(“The two main reasons for twisting pairs of conductors are to minimize or
`
`eliminate crosstalk and to decrease unbalanced mutual capacitance.”). Certain
`
`electrical parameters, such as wave impedance, are dependent on the spacing of the
`
`two conductors. Twisting the two conductors maintains consistent spacing between
`
`the two conductors along the length of the pair. The twisting also causes periodic
`
`reversals in the electrical field that surrounds the pair. These reversals also result in
`
`improved isolation from electrical fields produced by adjacent pairs or outside
`
`electrical fields. Twisted pairs also have a mechanical advantage in that the
`
`individual wires stay together, and the individual wires of the pair do not become
`
`intermixed.
`
`B. Crosstalk
`34. Crosstalk was a well-known issue associated with communication
`
`cables at the time the priority application was filed. See, e.g., Jachimowicz (EX-
`
`1014) at 1:8-16. Crosstalk can refer to crosstalk between adjacent pairs or groups
`
`of pairs, or crosstalk between adjacent cables. Crosstalk between pairs or groups
`
`of pairs was known to occur when a signal is transmitted over a first twisted pair—
`
`commonly referred to as a disturbing circuit—and that signal induces currents and
`
`electromotive forces in another twisted pair—referred to as the disturbed circuit.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`Roberts (EX-1009) at 3:21-28; see also (EX-1022) at 1:7-10. This results in the
`
`
`
`disturbed circuit carrying two signals: (1) the information signal intended for
`
`transmission and (2) the unwanted signal induced by the disturbing pair.
`
`Jachimowicz-340 at 1:10-14. The unwanted signal is superimposed over the
`
`intended signal reducing the clarity and reliability of the transmission. Id. at 1:10-
`
`16. Crosstalk between cables was known to occur where one cable induces
`
`disturbing currents in an adjacent cable (sometimes referred to as alien crosstalk).
`
`35. There are multiple types of crosstalk. One is near-end crosstalk. This
`
`is crosstalk that occurs when a twisted pair (or group of twisted pairs) transmitting
`
`in one direction causes crosstalk on a nearby twisted pair (or group of twisted
`
`pairs) transmitting in the opposite direction).2 This happens because the signal
`
`being transmitted out from one end (originating at the near-end) would be
`
`relatively stronger than the signal being received at that near end, because the
`
`received signal originated at the far-end and signal strength is diminished as it
`
`travels through the cable.
`
`
`2 (EX-1030) at 5 (“near-end crosstalk. Crosstalk that is propagated in a disturbed
`channel in the direction opposite to the direction of propagation of the current in
`the disturbing channel. Note: the terminal of the disturbing channel at which the
`near-end crosstalk is present is ordinarily near to or coincides with the energized
`terminal of the disturbing channel.”).
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`36. Far-end crosstalk occurs when there is crosstalk between twisted pairs
`
`
`
`transmitting in the same direction.3 Several design options are used to reduce far-
`
`end crosstalk. One way to prevent far-end crosstalk is adding a metal containing
`
`layer around individual twisted pairs. See EX-1010, EX-1011 (GmbH-866) at 2.
`
`37. Prior to 1999, there were various known ways to reduce crosstalk
`
`between adjacent pairs or groups of pairs. For example, the twist lengths of the
`
`twisted pairs may be varied to prevent the electrical fields surrounding each pair
`
`from being in unison along their length and therefore more strongly influence the
`
`other. The twist lengths of the twisted pairs may also be varied to prevent the
`
`twisted pairs from nesting together. Jachimowicz at 1:30-34. Nesting results when
`
`the circles circumscribing each twisted pair overlap with each other resulting in
`
`closer proximity from pair to pair and stronger crosstalk between the pairs. See,
`
`e.g., Beggs (EX-1015) at 6:57-7:3, Figs. 8A. Preventing the twisted pairs from
`
`nesting together reduces crosstalk.
`
`38. Another known way to reduce crosstalk was to physically separate a
`
`twisted pair or set of twisted pairs from each other such that voltage induced by the
`
`disturbing pair on the disturbed pair is decreased. The crosstalk was known to be
`
`
`3 IEEE Standard at 4 (“far-end crosstalk. Crosstalk that is propagated in a disturbed
`channel in the same direction as the direction of propagation of the current in the
`disturbing channel. The terminal of the disturbed channel at which the far-end
`crosstalk is present and the energized terminals of the disturbing channel are
`ordinarily remote from each other.”).
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`reduced to acceptably low levels by having the physical barrier, which prevented
`
`
`
`the twisted pairs from nesting with each other. See, e.g., Beggs at 6:57-7:3, Figs.
`
`8A. Crosstalk was also known to be reduced to acceptably low levels by the
`
`physical barrier creating and maintaining a certain minimum physical distance
`
`between twisted pairs. E.g., Beggs at 3:48-51 (“As a result of the physical
`
`separation of the conductor pairs and the maintenance of the twist configuration of
`
`each pair, crosstalk performance is improved”), 7:58-60 (“The portions of the
`
`buffer system maintain the conductor pairs spaced apart which improves crosstalk
`
`performance”); Tessier (EX-1023) at 3:17-31. Increasing the distance between
`
`adjacent twisted pairs was understood to effectively decrease the crosstalk. E.g.,
`
`Tessier at 3:17-31.
`
`C. Separators/Buffers Between Twisted Pairs or Groups of
`Twisted Pairs Within a Data Communications Cable
`39. Various physical barriers/buffers/separators between twisted pairs or
`
`groups of twisted pairs in data communications cables were known and used in the
`
`art by 1999 and long before. For example, some barriers were made purely of
`
`plastics/polymers. See, e.g., Beggs at Figs. 6, 7 and 5:64-6:14; Yanagida at Figs. 1,
`
`2; EX-1023, Figs. 2, 3; EX-1036, Fig. 1. Others were plastic-coated metallic tapes.
`
`See, e.g., Roberts, GmbH-886, Jachimowicz-340, Reeve, Reeve 1992. Common
`
`plastic coatings included an olefin polymer such as polyethylene, polypropylene,
`
`polyethylene terapthalate (Mylar), or other plastic material. See, e.g., Roberts at
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537
`3:32-37. Some examples of physical separators in the prior art for separating
`
`
`
`twisted pairs in data communications cables are shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`Roberts, Fig. 17 – plastic-
`coated metal tape separator
`
`
`GmbH-866, Fig. 1 – plastic-
`coated metal tape separators
`
`Yanagida, Fig. 1 – plastic
`separator
`
`
`
`
`Yonechi (IWCS), Fig. 3 –
`polyester tape separators
`
`
`
`
`
`Roberts, Fig. 13 – plastic
`tape-only separator (17a)
`
`
`
`Beggs, Figs. 6, 7 and 5:64-
`6:14, 6:52-56 –
`
`foamed polymer and/or
`dielectric tape separators
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Reeve, Fig. 7-7 – core
`separator (See also EX-1018,
`Fig. 3-1)
`
`
`
`
`
`In Support of Inter Partes