UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________
`
`COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BELDEN INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`__________
`
`Case No. IPR2023-01061
`Patent 6,998,537 B2
`__________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. CHARLES A. ELDERING IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`27007806.5
`
`CommScope v. Belden
`IPR2023-01061
`
`Belden EX-2001
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`Qualifications and Background ....................................................................... 3
`II.
`III. Materials Considered ....................................................................................... 4
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards ................................................................................ 8
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 8
`The ’537 Patent ..............................................................................................10
`V.
`VI. Claim Construction ........................................................................................17
`VII. The Challenged Claims Are Obvious. ...........................................................20
`A.
`The Combination Of Yanagita And Jachimowicz Does Not
`Render Claim 19 Obvious ...................................................................20
`The Combination Of GmbH-866 And Roberts, Gingue And/Or
`Jachimowicz Does Not Render Claims 19, 20 or 22 Obvious. ...........27
`The Combination Of Beggs And Jachimowicz Does Not Render
`Obvious Claims 19, 20, and 22 (Ground 1). .......................................33
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`27007806.5
`
`i
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`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 6,998,537 B2 (“’537 Patent”).
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner, CommScope Technologies LLC
`
`(“CommScope”),
`
`challenges claims 19, 20, and 22 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’537 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 the following prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 3,622,683
`
`(“Roberts”) (EX-1009), German Patent DE 297 19 866 U1 (“GmbH-866”) (EX-
`
`1010), Japanese Patent Publication S43-15474 (“Yanagita”) (EX-1012), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,670,748 (“Gingue”) (EX-1013), U.S. Patent No. 3,894,172 (“Jachimowicz”)
`
`(EX-1014), and U.S. Patent No. 4,755,629 (“Beggs”) (EX-1015) (collectively, the
`
`“Petitioner Prior Art”).
`
`Petitioner sets forth five different obviousness grounds.
`
`Not used.
`
`The obviousness grounds are as follows:
`1
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`a. Ground 1 – Claim 19 is obvious in view of Beggs and
`
`Jachimowicz
`
`b. Ground 2 – Claims 20, and 22 are obvious in view of Beggs and
`
`Jachimowicz, and further in view of Gingue
`
`c. Ground 3 – Claims 19, 20, and 22 are obvious in view of
`
`Yanagita and Jachimowicz (Although Ground 3 in the Petition is
`
`entitled “Ground 3: Yanagida And Jachimowicz Render Claims
`
`19-20, 22 Obvious” (Pet. 38), there appears to be a typographical
`
`error here in that the ensuing section only contains argument with
`
`respect to claim 19 and does not even mention claims 20 or 22).
`
`d. Ground 4 – Claims 20, and 22 are obvious in view of Yanagita
`
`and Jachimowicz, and further in view of Gingue
`
`e. Ground 5 – Claims 19, 20, and 22 are obvious in view of GmbH,
`
`modified in view of Roberts, Gingue, and/or Jachimowicz
`
`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 ’537 Patent (1999) 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
`2
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`Challenged Claims 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
`
`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
`3
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`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
`
`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
`4
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’537 Patent would have been 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 obvious
`
`to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`’537 Patent. (1999).
`
`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. 6,570,095 (the “’095 patent”)
`EX-1002 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095: Nov.
`8, 2002 Notice of Allowance
`EX-1003 Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,474 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,570,095: Sept. 20, 2011 Action Closing Prosecution
`EX-1004 U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537 (the “’537 patent”)
`EX-1005 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: Nov.
`2, 2004 Notice of Allowance
`EX-1006 Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,476 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,998,537: Sept. 20, 2011 Action Closing Prosecution
`EX-1007 Declaration of Kenneth Cornelison
`EX-1008 Curriculum Vitae of Kenneth Cornelison
`EX-1009 U.S. Patent No. 3,622,683 (“Roberts”)
`EX-1010 English language translation of German Patent No. 297,19,866 U1
`(“GmbH-866”), and attached Declaration of translator Anthea
`Heyes
`EX-1011 German Patent No. 297,19,866 U1 (untranslated original)
`EX-1012 English language translation of Japanese Patent Publication
`S43015470 (“Yanagita”), and attached Declaration of translator
`
`27007806.5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`Anthea Heyes
`EX-1013 U.S. Patent No. 5,670,748 (“Gingue”)
`EX-1014 U.S. Patent No. 3,894,172 (“Jachimowicz”)
`EX-1015 U.S. Patent No. 4,755,629 (“Beggs”)
`EX-1016 Electronic Wire & Cable - A Users’ 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
`EX-1020 U.S. Patent No. 1,727,972
`EX-1021 U.S. Patent No. 1,956,730
`EX-1022 U.S. Patent No. 3,803,340 (Jachimowicz-340)
`EX-1023 Canadian Patent Application No. 2,058,046
`EX-1024 U.S. Patent No. 4,262,164
`EX-1025 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0169478
`EX-1026 U.S. Patent No. 4,253,890
`EX-1027 U.S. Patent No. 5,283,390
`EX-1028 U.S. Patent No. 5,969,295
`EX-1029 G.F. Moore, Electric Cable Handbook, BICC Cables (3d. ed.
`1997)
`EX-1030 The New IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics
`Terms (5th ed. 1993)
`EX-1031 Neil Sclater and John Markus, Electronics Dictionary, McGraw-
`Hill (6th ed. 1997)
`S. Yonechi et al., Application of Spacer Forming Technique to
`Communication Cables, International Wire & Cable Symposium
`Proceedings (1980)
`EX-1033 U.S. Patent No. 7,179,999 (the “’999 patent”)
`EX-1034 Excerpt of Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/000,475 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,179,999: Oct. 14, 2011 Action Closing Prosecution
`EX-1035 Alcatel Cable Systems Product Catalog
`EX-1036 U.S. Patent No. 5,789,711
`EX-1037 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095: Oct.
`6
`
`EX-1032
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`EXHIBIT
`
`DESCRIPTION
`22, 2001 Non-Final Office Action
`EX-1038 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,570,095:
`April 3, 2002 Final Office Action
`EX-1039 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537:
`March 3, 2004 Non-Final Office Action
`EX-1040 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537:
`Terminal Disclaimer
`EX-1041 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: May
`18, 2004 Amendments
`EX-1042 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: June
`17, 2004 Final Office Action
`EX-1043 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537:
`September 20, 2004 Request for Continued Examination
`EX-1044 Excerpt of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 6,998,537: Sept.
`9, 2005 Amendment
`EX-1045 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
`EX-1046 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
`EX-1047 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
`EX-1048 U.S. Patent No. 5,814,768
`EX-1049 U.S. Patent No. 6,037,546
`EX-1050 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
`EX-1051 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
`EX-1052 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
`EX-1053 Belden Inc. v. CommScope, Inc. et al., No. 22-783-RGA, Dkt. 292
`(D. Del. May 26, 2023) – Scheduling Order
`
`27007806.5
`
`7
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`DESCRIPTION
`EXHIBIT
`EX-1054 Declaration of Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis, PhD
`EX-1055 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)
`EX-1056
`EX-1057 English language translation of German Patent No. 297,19,866 U1
`used in prior reexamination of US 6,998,537
`
`EX-2001 Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering in Support of Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response (“Eldering”)
`EX-2002 Definition of “twisted pair” from Webster’s New World Telecom
`Dictionary, 2008
`
`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 ’537 Patent and the Petitioner Prior
`
`27007806.5
`
`8
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`Art from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the ’537
`
`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 ’537 Patent claims
`
`priority was an application (No. 09/257,844) filed on February 25, 1999. I have been
`
`asked to assume that the invention date of the Challenged Claims is February 25,
`
`1999 (i.e., the time of the invention).
`
`24.
`
`It is my opinion that the ‘537 patent relates to telecommunications in
`
`general and telecommunications cables in particular. As stated in the “Field of
`
`Invention” portion of the specification of the ‘537 patent, “the invention relates to
`
`high-speed data communications cables having a light-weight, configurable core-
`
`refilling isolation pair separator that provides geometrical separation between the
`
`twisted pairs of insulated conductors.” ’537 patent 1:19-25.
`
`25. My opinions in this Declaration are based on the perspective of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art in the 1999 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 ‘537 patent would have had
`
`at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3-4 years of
`9
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`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
`
`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 ’537 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 ’537 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 ’537 PATENT
`29.
`The inventions of the ’537 Patent are directed to: “high-speed data
`
`communications cables using at least two twisted pairs of insulated conductors.
`10
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`More particularly, the invention relates to high-speed data communications cables
`
`having a light weight, configurable core-refilling isolation pair separator that
`
`provides geometrical separation between the twisted pairs of insulated conductors.”
`
`’537 Patent 1:19-25.
`
`30.
`
`The specification of the ’537 Patent defines “twisted pairs” as “pairs of
`
`insulated conductors twisted together to form a balanced transmission line.” ’537
`
`Patent 1:29-31. “FIG. 4 depicts an embodiment of a data communications cable 10
`
`according to the present invention. The cable 10 includes two twisted pairs 12 of
`
`insulated conductors 13.” ’537 Patent 4:27-30.
`
`’537 Patent FIG. 4 (annotated) – Twisted Pairs
`
`31.
`
`The ’537 Patent also relates to an improved data communications cable
`
`having “a plurality of twisted pairs of insulated conductors and a core made from a
`11
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`configurable, dielectric pair separator.” ’537 Patent 4:11-13.
`
`32. As the ’537 Patent explains, “when twisted pairs are closely placed,
`
`such as in a cable, electrical energy may be transferred from one twisted pair of a
`
`cable to another twisted pair. Such energy transferred between twisted pairs is
`
`referred to as crosstalk. As operating frequencies increase, improved crosstalk
`
`isolation between the twisted pairs becomes more critical. ’537 Patent 1:31-37.
`
`33. As shown in FIG. 4, “cable 10 includes two twisted pairs 12 of insulated
`
`conductors 13. The twisted pairs 12 are separated by a low dielectric constant, low
`
`dissipation factor, polymer ‘pair separator’ 14. The twisted pairs 12 and the pair
`
`separator 14 are encased within a jacket assembly 16.” ’537 Patent 4:28-33, 1:23-
`
`25.
`
`’537 Patent FIG. 4 (annotated) – Separating Twisted Pairs
`
`34.
`
`“[T]he pair separator improves the crosstalk isolation between the
`
`27007806.5
`
`12
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`twisted pairs by providing desired spacing between the twisted pairs,” as it does in
`
`each of the disclosed embodiments. ‘537 Patent 4:47-50.
`
`’537 Patent – Dielectric Pair Separator Provides Spacing Between Twisted Pairs
`
`the
`improves
`“the pair separator
`crosstalk isolation between the twisted
`pairs by providing desired spacing
`between the twisted pairs.” ’537 Patent
`4:47-50.
`
`“The cable includes the low-dielectric
`constant,
`low-dissipation
`factor
`polymer pair separator 14 formed into a
`cable core in such a way as to physically
`separate the four twisted pairs 12,
`thereby decreasing
`field coupling
`between the twisted pairs, providing a
`desired opposite twisted pair-to-pair
`physical distance, as well as providing a
`desired adjacent pair separation.” Id. at
`5:35-42.
`
`“FIG. 7 depicts a cable 10 wherein six
`twisted pairs 12 are encased within the
`jacket assembly 16, and are separated
`from each other by the configurable pair
`separator 14.” Id. at 6:65-7:1.
`
`27007806.5
`
`13
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`’537 Patent – Dielectric Pair Separator Provides Spacing Between Twisted Pairs
`“Accordingly, with this embodiment of
`the cable of the invention, there can be
`selective enhancement of
`isolation
`between twisted pairs TP1-TP4, TP2-
`TP4, and TP3-TP4.
`It
`is
`to be
`appreciated that although the twisted
`pair TP4 has been illustrated as being
`isolated from the remainder of the
`twisted pairs, that any of the twisted
`pairs can be so wrapped with the filler
`and isolated.” Id. at 7:23-29.
`
`another
`still
`depicts
`9
`“FIG.
`data
`the
`of
`embodiment
`cable 10 having
`communications
`multiple twisted pairs 12 encased within
`the jacket assembly 16 and physically
`separated from each other by
`the
`configurable pair separator 14 . . .” Id.
`at 7:39-42.
`
`“Twisted pairs 12 are encased within a
`substantially flat jacket assembly 16 and
`physically separated from each other by
`the configurable pair separator 14.” Id.
`at 7:62-64
`
`27007806.5
`
`14
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`’537 Patent – Dielectric Pair Separator Provides Spacing Between Twisted Pairs
`
`“In particular, each data cable 10
`contains multiple
`twisted pairs 12
`separated by
`the configurable pair
`separator 14 according to any of the
`above-described configurations, and
`encased in the jacket assembly 16.” Id.
`at 8:14-18.
`
`35.
`
`In a twisted pair cable, “each twisted pair has a specified distance
`
`between twists along a longitudinal direction of the twisted pair, that distance being
`
`referred to as the ‘twist lay.’” ’537 Patent 1:55-58.
`
`36.
`
`The ’537 Patent teaches that with the invention a reduction in the
`
`number of twist lays, namely a longer distance between twists, can be employed
`
`while achieving the same crosstalk isolation: “This embodiment of the invention
`
`[shown in Fig. 8] may also be used in conjunction with a lessening of the twist lays
`
`requirements for the twisted pairs, to provide cable having a same amount of
`
`isolation between twisted pairs as a cable with tighter twist lays. Accordingly, this
`
`embodiment of the cable according to the invention allows for selective design of
`
`isolation between particular twisted pairs of the cable and lessening of the twist lay
`
`requirements for the cable.” ’537 Patent 7:31-37.
`15
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`37. Accordingly, employing a dielectric pair separator between the various
`
`twisted pairs comprising the cable in order to physically distance them from each
`
`other provides “a high-speed data cable having multiple twisted pair wires with
`
`desired crosstalk performance, improved handling and termination capabilities, that
`
`is inexpensive, flexible and has a desired size.” ’537 Patent 2:65-3:2, 8:53-9:7.
`
`38.
`
`In addition, the ’537 Patent teaches “bunching,” where the twisted pairs
`
`and pair separator combination may be additionally configured by twisting all of
`
`those components together when forming the data communications cable, to
`
`improve the mechanical properties of the cable, namely keeping the components of
`
`the cable in their respective positions. Regarding FIG. 12, the ’537 Patent teaches
`
`that:
`
`27007806.5
`
`16
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`’537 Patent FIG. 12
`
`’537 Patent 8:38-48.
`
`The formed pair separator 15 is then
`passed through opening 36 in second die
`38 and brought together with the four
`twisted pairs 12 which are passed through
`corresponding openings 40 in the second
`die. The plurality of twisted pairs are then
`cabled with the formed pair separator by a
`third die 42, in an operation referred to as
`“bunching”. The third die places the
`twisted pairs in the channels 15 (see FIGS.
`5-10) of the formed pair separator prior to
`twisting of the cable. It is to be appreciated
`that the cable can be twisted with any
`known twisting arrangement such as a
`helix, or an S-Z configuration.
`
`39.
`
`The “bunching” process taught by the ’537 Patent is different than, and
`
`entirely separate from, the helical twisting of a given pair of conductors together to
`
`form a “twisted pair.” Instead, the twisting associated with “bunching” involves all
`
`of the components in the cable, including the plurality of twisted pairs and the pair
`
`separator. ’537 Patent 8:38-48.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`40. Neither Petitioner not Cornelison proposed a construction for the term
`
`“twisted pair[s]” that appears over twenty times in the Challenged Claims. The
`
`specification of the ’537 Patent provides the following definition of the term: “High-
`
`speed data communications media in current usage include pairs of insulated
`
`conductors twisted together to form a balanced transmission line. Such pairs of
`17
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`insulated conductors are referred to herein as ‘twisted pairs.’” ’537 Patent 1:28-31.
`
`41.
`
`FIG. 4 of the ’537 Patent shows a “cable 10 includ[ing] two twisted
`
`pairs 12 of insulated conductors 13.” ’537 Patent 4:27-29.
`
`’537 Patent FIG. 4 (annotated) – Twisted Pairs
`
`42. As shown in FIG. 4, the two, individual conductors in each pair (i.e.,
`
`each set of two separately insulated wires) are twisted together in a helix.
`
`43.
`
`The ’537 Patent’s definition and depiction of twisted pairs is consistent
`
`with the definition of “twisted pairs” provided in a technical dictionary. See EX-
`
`2002 503 (“A twisted pair comprises two copper conductors, separately insulated by
`
`a dielectric material and smoothly twisted in a helix with a constant pitch or distance
`
`to make a 360° twist.”).
`
`That plain and ordinary meaning of “twisted pair[s]” to a POSITA (i.e.,
`18
`
`44.
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`requiring “two insulated conductors twisted together” as shown in FIG. 4 like the
`
`’537 Patent’s definition that further requires that the pair form a balanced
`
`transmission line) is also shown in the figures and description of “twisted pair[s]” in
`
`some of Petitioner’s prior art references (i.e., Beggs (EX-1015) and Jachimowicz
`
`(EX-1014)) that illustrate how twisted pairs constitute two insulated conductors
`
`twisted together in a helix.
`
`Beggs 5:33-37, FIGS. 1, 9A, 9B.
`
`Jachimowicz-172 2:66-3:4, FIG. 2 (twisted pairs 10 and 12).
`19
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`45.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed “twisted pair[s]” that
`
`are separated by a dielectric pair separator to a POSITA is “two insulated conductors
`
`twisted together” as shown in FIG. 4 of the ’537 Patent.
`
`Paragraphs 46-61 Not Used
`
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS.
`A.
`THE COMBINATION OF YANAGITA AND JACHIMOWICZ DOES NOT
`RENDER CLAIM 19 OBVIOUS
`
`62. Cornelison alleged that the combination of Yanagita (EX-1012) and
`
`Jachimowicz (EX-1014) renders claim 19 of the ’537 Patent obvious. EX-1007
`
`¶¶126-144. But Yanagita discloses separated bundles of straight-line conductors,
`
`not twisted pairs of insulated conductors:
`
`Petitioner’s Yanagita Allegations (Pet. 40)
`
`63. Cornelison asserted that Yanagita, an English translation of the
`
`underlying Japanese language patent application publication, discloses “twisted
`
`27007806.5
`
`20
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`pairs” of conductors.1 It does not. In fact, Yanagita never even mentions the
`
`reduction of crosstalk in a cable or the separation of twisted pairs.
`
`64.
`
`The invention of Yanagita relates “to an alternatingly twisted cable that
`
`prevents twisting of a wire core from becoming undone.” Yanagita 1 (col. 1).
`
`Yanagita discloses laying groups (i.e., bundles (not pairs)) of parallel wires (i.e.,
`
`untwisted wires) over a twisted core material such that “the twisting will not become
`
`undone even when a tensile force is applied, in the lengthwise direction, to the wire
`
`core.” Yanagita 1 (col. 2).
`
`65. Yanagita discloses separated bundles (i.e., not pairs) of straight-line
`
`conductors:
`
`1 Cornelison refers to EX-1012 as “Yanagida” throughout the Declaration when the
`
`certified translation in EX-1012 actually reads “Yanagita.”
`
`27007806.5
`
`21
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`Yanagita FIGS. 1 and 2
`
`The present invention focuses on this point, and a first invention thereof
`is an alternatingly twisted cable wherein a large number of insulated
`wire strands, or that wherein the insulated wire strands are twisted
`together, are laid, while twisting along the surfaces, along both surfaces
`of a core material that is made by forming a plate-shaped body so that
`the direction of
`the surface
`thereof gradually changes
`in a
`reciprocatingly twisted shape, applying a pressing coil on the outer
`periphery thereof, and covering the outer periphery thereof with a cable
`sheath, and a second invention is an alternatingly twisted cable wherein
`a portion of the aforementioned core body is replaced with a connecting
`portion.
`
`Explaining this for an illustrated embodiment, 1 is an insulated wire or
`that wherein insulated wires are twisted together, laid divided onto both
`sides of a core material 2, with the outer periphery thereof wrapped with
`a rough wrapping yarn for applying pressure, with the outer periphery
`then covered with a cable sheath 4. The core material 2 is formed in a
`reciprocatingly twisted shape so that the directions of both sides
`gradually change along the lengthwise direction thereof, as depicted
`22
`
`27007806.5
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`best in FIG. 2.
`
`Yanagita 1 (col. 1).
`
`66. Yanagita’s text and Figures teach a bundle of insulated wires that are
`
`laid on opposite sides of a core material and twisted together along the surfaces of
`
`the core in a longitudinal direction.
`
`67. As depicted in FIG. 2, the resulting twisting of the insulated wire or
`
`groups of insulated wires follows the contour of the inner core. But nowhere does
`
`Yanagita even refer to two individual conductors forming or being part of a “pair,”
`
`let alone teach that two conductors are “twisted together” to form a “twisted pair.”
`
`Accordingly, the groups of wires disclosed in Yanagita cannot be “twisted pairs” as
`
`defined by the ’537 Patent.
`
`’537 Patent FIG. 4 (annotated) – Twisted Pairs
`
`27007806.5
`
`23
`
`

`

`Declaration of Dr. Charles A. Eldering
`
`
`
`IPR2023-01062
`
`68. Cornelison only relied upon two citations to the asserted certified
`
`Yanagita translation itself regarding the twisted pair claim limitations at issue. EX-
`
`1007 ¶131.
`
`69.
`
`The first of these citations paraphrases Yanagita by stating that
`
`“Yanagida explains it pertains to cables with a plurality of ‘strands of insulated wires
`
`or pairs thereof’ that run along the surface of the core material. Yanagida, 1[col.1].”
`
`EX-1007 ¶131. But when read in context, the cited language is drawn to the prior
`
`art, not any embodiment disclosed in Yanagita:
`
`There is a trend to often using, as communication cables, so-called
`“alternatingly twisted cables,” wherein that wherein a large number of
`strands of insulated wires or pairs thereof or quad strands, or units
`thereof, are twisted together so as to reverse the direction of twisting
`thereof with given periodicity. However, there is a shortcoming with
`this type of cable in that, when a tensile force is applied in the
`lengthwise direction of the cable core prior to application of the cable
`sheathing, in particular, the twisting of the cable core becomes undone,
`and while there has been a variety of innovations to prevent this, each
`has problems in practice.
`
`Yanagita 1 (col. 1).
`
`70. But there is no d