`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________
`
`US CONEC LTD,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SENKO ADVANCED COMPONENTS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`_________________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JAMES F. BRENNAN III, PhD.
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF CLAIMS
`23-40 OF U.S. PATENT 11,307,369
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop “PATENT BOARD”
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`US Conec EX1012
`IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Scope of Engagement ........................................................................ 1
`B.
`Compensation .................................................................................... 2
`C.
`Professional Qualifications, Education and Experience ...................... 2
`D.
`Publications, Speeches, and Patents ................................................... 6
`E. Materials Considered ......................................................................... 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INVALIDITY ............................................... 6
`A. Anticipation ....................................................................................... 8
`B.
`Obviousness ......................................................................................10
`C. Miscellaneous ...................................................................................12
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................ 13
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY ............................................. 15
`A. Data Centers .....................................................................................15
`B.
`Optical Fiber Connector Technology ................................................19
`V. U.S. PATENT NO. 11,307,369 .................................................................. 23
`A. Overview and Background ................................................................23
`B.
`Discussion of Certain Embodiments .................................................25
`C.
`Summary of Relevant Prosecution History .......................................30
`D.
`Claims of the ’369 Patent ..................................................................34
`VI. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .................................................................... 45
`VII. PRIOR ART .............................................................................................. 46
`A. Overview of Nguyen .........................................................................46
`B.
`Overview of Scherer .........................................................................53
`C.
`Overview of Lin ................................................................................56
`D. Overview of Gniadek ........................................................................60
`VIII. SUMMARY OF GROUNDS ..................................................................... 63
`IX. GROUND 1: NGUYEN ANTICIPATES CLAIMS 23-26 AND 40........... 64
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`Claim 23 ...........................................................................................67
`A.
`Claim 24 ...........................................................................................84
`B.
`Claim 25 ...........................................................................................86
`C.
`Claim 26 ...........................................................................................88
`D.
`Claim 40 ...........................................................................................91
`E.
`X. GROUND 2: NGUYEN IN VIEW OF LIN RENDERS OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 27-39 .......................................................................................... 95
`A. Motivation to Combine .....................................................................95
`B.
`Claim 27 ......................................................................................... 106
`C.
`Claim 28 ......................................................................................... 116
`D.
`Claim 29 ......................................................................................... 118
`E.
`Claim 30 ......................................................................................... 123
`F.
`Claim 31 ......................................................................................... 125
`G.
`Claim 32 ......................................................................................... 132
`H.
`Claim 33 ......................................................................................... 137
`I.
`Claim 34 ......................................................................................... 145
`J.
`Claim 35 ......................................................................................... 146
`K.
`Claim 36 ......................................................................................... 147
`L.
`Claim 37 ......................................................................................... 152
`M. Claim 38 ......................................................................................... 156
`N.
`Claim 39 ......................................................................................... 157
`XI. GROUND 3: SCHERER IN VIEW OF LIN RENDER OBVIOUS
`CLAIMS 23-36, 39, AND 40 ....................................................................162
`A. Motivation to Combine ................................................................... 163
`B.
`Claim 23 ......................................................................................... 170
`C.
`Claim 24 ......................................................................................... 194
`D.
`Claim 25 ......................................................................................... 196
`E.
`Claim 26 ......................................................................................... 199
`F.
`Claim 27 ......................................................................................... 200
`G.
`Claim 28 ......................................................................................... 202
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`Claim 29 ......................................................................................... 205
`H.
`Claim 30 ......................................................................................... 207
`I.
`Claim 31 ......................................................................................... 209
`J.
`Claim 32 ......................................................................................... 211
`K.
`Claim 33 ......................................................................................... 213
`L.
`M. Claim 34 ......................................................................................... 222
`N.
`Claim 35 ......................................................................................... 222
`O.
`Claim 36 ......................................................................................... 223
`P.
`Claim 39 ......................................................................................... 226
`Q.
`Claim 40 ......................................................................................... 231
`XII. GROUND 4: SCHERER IN VIEW OF LIN AND GNIADEK RENDER
`OBVIOUS CLAIMS 37 AND 38. ............................................................238
`A. Motivation to Combine ................................................................... 238
`B.
`Claim 37 ......................................................................................... 241
`C.
`Claim 38 ......................................................................................... 245
`XIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................250
`
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`TABLE OF MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`Description
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369 to Takano et al. (“’369 patent”)
`Patent Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369 to Takano
`et al.
`International Application No. WO 2015/027033 to Scherer et. al.
`(“Scherer”)
`International Publication No. WO 2017/127208 to Lee (“Lee”)
`1004
`1005 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0227720 to Lin (“Lin”)
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of James F. Brennan III, Ph.D.
`Exhibit I of Complaint – Claim Chart U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369 and
`MMC, Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v. US Conec, Ltd., No.
`1:23-cv-00083 (D. Del. Jan. 24, 2023), ECF No. 1-1
`Childers, Darrell, et al., “Multi-Fiber, MT Ferrule Endface Fiber Tip
`Displacement Model for Physical Contact Interconnects,” White
`Paper (2006)
`1009 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0238796 to Nguyen et
`al. (“Nguyen”)
`1010 U.S. Patent No. 8,465,317 to Gniadek et al. (“Gniadek”)
`1011 Declaration of James F. Brennan III, Ph.D. (IPR2024-00115)
`1013 Wenke, I.G., “Report on Fiber Optic Cables,” accessed at
`https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308332946 (2015)
`1014 Kant, K., “Data Center Evolution: A Tutorial on State of the Art,
`Issues, and Challenges,” Computer Networks, 53:2939-65 (2009)
`Curran, M. & Shirk, B., “Basics of Fiber Optics”, accessed at
`https://www.fibersystems.com/pdf/whitepapers/Basics-of-Fiber-
`Optics.pdf (May 2016)
`“19-Inch Rack,” Lite-On, accessed at https://liteon-
`cips.com/products/racks/19-inch-rack/
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`Number
`
`Description
`
`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`
`1018
`
`1017
`
`“Fiber Optic Rack Mount Enclosure, 3-Panel 1 RMS,” Computer
`Cable Store, accessed at https://www.computercablestore.com/fiber-
`optic-rack-mount-enclosure-3-panel-1-rms
`“Fiber Optic Connector Tutorial,” Fibermart, accessed at
`https://www.fiber-mart.com/news/fiber-optic-connector-tutorial-a-
`848.html
`1019 U.S. Patent No. 5,615,293 to Sayegh (“Sayegh”)
`1020 Complaint, Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v. US Conec Ltd., Case
`No. 1:23-cv-00083 (D. Del.)
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`
`I, James F. Brennan III, Ph.D., hereby declare:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Scope of Engagement
`A.
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness by counsel for Petitioner US
`
`Conec Ltd. (“Petitioner”) in connection with the above-captioned Inter Partes
`
`Review (“IPR”) proceeding.
`
`2.
`
`I submit this Declaration in the above-captioned proceeding to
`
`provide my expert opinion in support of Petitioner’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369 (the “’369 patent”, EX1001). This is my
`
`second of two Declarations against the ’369 patent where my first declaration
`
`covers the alleged invention of claims 1-22 and my second declaration covers the
`
`alleged invention of claims 23-40. I submit two declarations as I believe the Patent
`
`Owner or Office will consider the claims scope of claims 1-22 and 23-40 to be
`
`different, requiring different prior art either in anticipation or due to the
`
`obviousness of the claims.
`
`3.
`
`The opinions to which I will testify, if asked, are set forth in this
`
`Declaration. My opinions in this Declaration are based upon the information that I
`
`have received to date. They may be supplemented or modified if additional
`
`information is received. They may also be supplemented to rely on additional
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`information or opinions provided by the parties (or witnesses retained by the
`
`parties) and issues that may arise.
`
`B. Compensation
`Exponent charges a rate of $650 per hour for my time spent working
`4.
`
`on this IPR in 2023 and a rate of $750 per hour for my time spent working on this
`
`IPR in 2024. My compensation is not in any way dependent on the statements I set
`
`forth herein or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`C.
`5.
`
`Professional Qualifications, Education and Experience
`I am a Principal in Exponent’s Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice where I have consulted on numerous projects, many relating to
`
`opto-mechanical device development, implementation, and function. I have
`
`worked for Exponent since January 2012. Throughout my career, I have built and
`
`utilized hundreds of electrical, electromechanical, laser, optical, and LED systems
`
`for myriad applications.
`
`6.
`
`I hold an S.B. in electrical engineering and an S.M. in electrical
`
`engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
`
`granted in 1987 and 1989, respectively. I also hold an Electrical Engineer degree
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which was granted in 1991.
`
`Throughout my graduate studies, I taught courses concerning electromagnetic field
`
`and wave theory and applications, including optical systems.
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`In 1995, I was granted a Ph.D. in physics and electrical engineering
`
`7.
`
`from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. During research for my PhD, I
`
`designed and built electro-optical instrumentation to diagnose and treat human
`
`pathologies, including various cancers and arterial diseases. During this work, I
`
`built several investigational medical devices that utilized optical catheters, the
`
`majority of which involved the use of optical fibers to deliver light to and collect
`
`light from locations within the body. I designed and manufactured custom optical
`
`fiber connectors, which often held several optical fibers, to interface these optical
`
`catheters with various diagnostic and therapeutic equipment. These systems were
`
`used at several locations such as the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Leonard Morse
`
`Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Leiden Hospital in Leiden, The
`
`Netherlands, and Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, The
`
`Netherlands.
`
`8.
`
`I was a Senior Research Specialist at 3M Company’s
`
`Telecommunications Systems Division where I developed passive optical
`
`components that addressed the telecommunications and sensor industries, which
`
`became the cornerstone of the 3M Optical Components business unit. I invented a
`
`direct-write laser machining technology for producing fiber gratings of arbitrary
`
`reflectivity profiles and lengths and utilized the method to make chromatic
`
`dispersion compensators for use in long-haul optical communications systems. I
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`led teams that developed and sold products throughout the world, such as specialty
`
`optical fibers, pump stabilizers, dispersion compensators, optical connectors,
`
`junction boxes, and Bragg gratings. Many of these components were tested
`
`extensively on our optical communications testbed, which I built and maintained. I
`
`was on the team that transferred the manufacturing of many of these devices to
`
`Singapore facilities.
`
`9.
`
`I was Vice President of Research and Development at Raydiance,
`
`Inc., where I staffed and led the entire development team and designed and built
`
`high-power fiber laser systems capable of producing ultrashort pulses at ablation-
`
`level energies for use in laser machining and surgery. This work resulted in several
`
`recognitions and awards for the product and the corporation, including the Red
`
`Herring 100 North America Award and recognition as a finalist in the “Most
`
`Innovative Company” category in the 2008 American Business Awards. These
`
`laser systems utilized highly specialized optical fibers and optical fiber amplifiers
`
`that required innovative optical connections between the various optical fiber
`
`components.
`
`10.
`
`I previously served as the Chief Science Officer at Prescient Medical,
`
`Inc., where I led the development of an optical catheter system for the diagnosis of
`
`coronary artery disease by utilizing Raman spectroscopy, which incorporated laser
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`light sources. Commercial multi-fiber connectors (MTP/MPO) were adapted to
`
`interface these optical catheters with custom spectroscopic equipment.
`
`11.
`
`I have been an active researcher with more than 75 journal and
`
`conference papers and 5 book chapters published. I have been granted 34 United
`
`States patents, with others pending. At various times in my career, I have been a
`
`member of the Optical Society of America (“OSA”), the International Society for
`
`Optics and Photonics, and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers
`
`(“IEEE”). I was a committee member for OSA’s 2007 conference on optical fiber
`
`communications and also a committee member for OSA’s Bragg Gratings,
`
`Photosensitivity, and Poling topical conference for 1999, 2001, and 2003. I have
`
`been a regular reviewer for IEEE Photonics Technology Letters, as well as several
`
`other journals.
`
`12.
`
`I am on the American National Standards Institute’s (“ANSI”)
`
`subcommittee for ANSI Z136.3 “Safe Use of Lasers in Health Care,” ANSI
`
`Z136.9, “Safe Use of Lasers in Manufacturing Environments,” and ANSI
`
`Technical Subcommittee 1 (TSC1), “Biological Effects and Medical Surveillance
`
`of the Accredited Standards Committee (ASC Z136) on Laser Safety.”
`
`13. My curriculum vitae is filed herewith as EX1006.
`
`
`
`
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`
`Publications, Speeches, and Patents
`D.
`14. A comprehensive list of publications and patents is included in my
`
`curriculum vitae filed herewith as EX1006.
`
`E. Materials Considered
`15. For purposes of this Declaration, I have reviewed and, where
`
`applicable, relied upon the information and/or teachings of the documents
`
`identified in the Table of Materials Considered following the Table of Contents
`
`above. I have used the same exhibit numbers for the same documents and the same
`
`list of exhibits for the Table of Materials Considered in both my first and second
`
`Declaration, regardless of whether the exhibit is required for both proceedings, for
`
`consistency and ease of use of my first and second Declarations by the Board.
`
`16.
`
`I also base my opinions on my education and professional experience
`
`in the field of electrical engineering and electro-optics.
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INVALIDITY
`I understand that in inter partes review proceedings, a patent claim is
`18.
`
`construed using the same standard that would be used in a civil action, and that a
`
`claim should be construed in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning
`6
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`of the claim as it would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”).
`
`19. While I am neither a patent lawyer nor an expert in patent law, I have
`
`been informed of the applicable legal standards for anticipation and obviousness. I
`
`have relied upon these legal principles, as explained to me by counsel, in forming
`
`my opinions set forth in this Declaration.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a patent may be deemed invalid based on
`
`anticipation or obviousness over the prior art. I understand that to anticipate a
`
`claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a prior-art reference must disclose each and every
`
`element of the claim.
`
`21.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent can be found invalid for several
`
`reasons. It is my understanding that these reasons include, among others: (i) being
`
`anticipated by the prior art; or (ii) being obvious in view of the prior art. My
`
`understanding of each of these bases for invalidity is discussed in greater detail
`
`below.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, I understand that objective evidence of non-obviousness
`
`such as (i) commercial success, (ii) long-felt but unresolved need, (iii) failure of
`
`others, (iv) skepticism by experts, and (v) unexpected results should also be
`
`considered in determining whether a claim would have been obvious, if relevant.
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`I understand that in undertaking an invalidity analysis, the claims are
`
`23.
`
`to be interpreted from the perspective of a POSITA.
`
`A. Anticipation
`I understand that one way to show that a patent claim is invalid is to
`24.
`
`show that the claim is anticipated by a prior-art reference. I understand this to
`
`mean that the patent claim is not new or novel in view of the prior art.
`
`25.
`
`I further understand that to determine whether a prior-art reference
`
`anticipates a patent claim requires a comparison of the claim language to the prior
`
`art on a limitation-by-limitation basis. I have been informed that a prior-art
`
`reference “anticipates” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and renders a patent claim invalid if
`
`all of the claim’s limitations are expressly or inherently disclosed in that single
`
`prior-art reference. The disclosure in the prior-art reference does not have to use
`
`the same words as the claim, but all of the requirements of the claim must be
`
`expressly or inherently present.
`
`26.
`
`I have been informed of the scope of prior art that can be used in an
`
`anticipation analysis as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, I understand that
`
`a patent or publication generally qualifies as prior art to an asserted patent claim if
`
`it was published prior to the invention of the asserted patent claim or more than
`
`one year before the filing date of the application of the asserted patent. I further
`
`have been informed that a patent issued on a patent application filed before the
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`invention of the asserted patent claim also is generally prior art to the asserted
`
`patent claim. I am aware some exceptions may apply based on, e.g., the same
`
`inventors of the asserted patent being the inventors of a prior-art reference.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a prior-art reference anticipates a patent claim when
`
`the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless inherent
`
`in it. I understand that express disclosure means that the subject matter is clearly
`
`described in the prior-art reference.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that when a limitation is inherent in the prior-art
`
`reference, that limitation is not clearly described in the prior-art reference, but is a
`
`natural result flowing from the explicit disclosure of the prior art. I understand that
`
`for a claimed element to be inherently present within a prior art document, it must
`
`be necessarily present. That is, the prior-art reference must necessarily function in
`
`accordance with, or include, the claimed element. I understand that inherency may
`
`not be established by probabilities or possibilities—the mere fact that a certain
`
`thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that in some cases, the inherent property corresponds to a
`
`claimed new benefit or characteristic of a purported invention otherwise in the
`
`prior art. I further understand that when a prior art method is at issue, the inherent
`
`anticipation examines the natural and inherent results in that method without
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`regard to the full recognition of those benefits or characteristics within the art field
`
`at the time of the prior art disclosure.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I have been informed that a patent claim is invalid as being obvious in
`30.
`
`view of the prior art if the differences between the patented subject matter and the
`
`prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`
`time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103. In making a determination of obviousness, I understand that the following
`
`factors are analyzed: (i) the scope and content of the prior art; (ii) the differences,
`
`if any, between the prior art and the claims at issue; (iii) the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art; and (iv) objective evidence of non-obviousness, if any exists.
`
`31.
`
`I have been informed that any of the following rationales are some of
`
`the acceptable bases for the conclusion that a claim is obvious: (i) the claimed
`
`invention is simply a combination of prior art elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results; (ii) the claimed invention is a simple
`
`substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (iii) the
`
`claimed invention uses known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`
`products) in the same way; (iv) the claimed invention was “obvious to try” because
`
`it was a choice from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; (v) there is known work in one field of endeavor
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`that 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 would have
`
`been predictable to a POSITA; or (vi) there is some teaching, suggestion, or
`
`motivation in the prior art that would have led a POSITA to modify the prior-art
`
`references or to combine prior-art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`32.
`
`I have been informed that in order for a patent claim to be considered
`
`obvious, at the time the invention was made, each and every limitation of the claim
`
`must be present within the prior art, or within the prior art in combination with the
`
`general knowledge held by a POSITA, and that such a person would have a
`
`reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings to achieve the
`
`claimed invention. I also understand that the reason to select and combine features,
`
`the predictability of the results of doing so, and a reasonable expectation of success
`
`of doing so may be found in the teachings of the prior art themselves, in the nature
`
`of any need or problem in the field that was addressed by the patent, in the
`
`knowledge of a POSITA in the field at the time, as well as in common sense or the
`
`level of creativity exhibited by a POSITA. There need not be an express or explicit
`
`suggestion to combine references.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that substituting one known element for another known
`
`element would have been obvious when it leads to reasonably predictable results.
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`I understand that a combination of elements would have been obvious
`
`34.
`
`when a POSITA has a good reason to pursue the combination, which is among a
`
`finite number of known options within his or her technical grasp, and leads to
`
`reasonably expected results.
`
`35. A prior-art reference can be said to teach away when a POSITA
`
`would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference or would be
`
`led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken in the claimed invention.
`
`The mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching
`
`away from alternatives that are not disclosed when the prior art does not criticize,
`
`discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed in the alleged invention.
`
`Similarly, a prior-art reference that merely expresses a general preference for an
`
`alternative invention does not teach away.
`
`36.
`
`I have relied upon this understanding of the applicable legal standards
`
`in reaching my opinion set forth in this Declaration.
`
`C. Miscellaneous
`I understand that Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability
`37.
`
`by a preponderance of evidence, which means that the claims are more likely than
`
`not to be unpatentable.
`
`38.
`
`I also understand that the claims are to be construed according to the
`
`same claim construction standard that district courts use wherein claim terms are
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`given their ordinary and customary meaning from the perspective of a POSITA at
`
`the time of the invention.
`
`39. The analysis in this Declaration is in accordance with the above-stated
`
`legal principles.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`I understand that the level of ordinary skill may be reflected by the
`40.
`
`prior art of record and that a POSITA to which the claimed subject matter pertains
`
`would have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering
`
`principles applicable to the pertinent art.
`
`41.
`
`I understand that there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the levels of education and
`
`experience of persons working in the field at the time of the invention; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the types of problems encountered in the field;
`
`and (4) the prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`42.
`
`I am very familiar with the knowledge and capabilities that a POSITA
`
`would have possessed in the subject area in fiber optics. Specifically, my education
`
`and experience in the industry and with engineers practicing in the industry during
`
`the relevant time period allowed me to become personally familiar with the
`
`knowledge and capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the area of fiber optics.
`
`Unless otherwise stated, my testimony below refers to the knowledge of a POSITA
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`in the field of fiber optics at the time of the priority date of the ’369 patent, which I
`
`understand is July 14, 2017.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA of the ’369 patent at the time of its earliest
`
`claimed priority date would have been a person having: (1) at least a bachelor’s
`
`degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related field
`
`and three years of experience in fiber optics and fiber optic connectors; (2) a
`
`master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a
`
`related field and at least one year of experience in fiber optics and fiber optic
`
`connectors; or (3) industry experience (at least five years) designing fiber optic
`
`connectors in lieu of a formal degree.
`
`44.
`
`I believe such a POSITA would have been capable of understanding
`
`the ’369 patent and the prior-art references discussed herein. This level of skill in
`
`the art would apply at the earliest priority date of the ’369 patent, which I
`
`understand is July 14, 2017.
`
`45. Based upon my education, training, and professional experience in the
`
`field of the claimed invention, I am familiar with the level and abilities of a
`
`POSITA at the time of the claimed invention. Additionally, although my
`
`qualifications exceed those of the hypothetical POSITA defined above, my
`
`analysis and opinions regarding the ’369 patent have been rendered from the
`
`perspective of a POSITA at the time of the invention.
`
`2307149.000 – 1140
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2024-00116
`U.S. Patent No. 11,307,369
`46. My analysis is intended to reflect how a POSITA would have
`
`understood the ’369 patent claims as of the priority date, even if I use the present
`
`tense.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`47. My discussion of the background of the technology is intended to
`
`provide some context for my later analysis of the ’369 patent and prior art. This
`
`discussion provides a high-level overview of the components, but it is not intended
`
`to reflect the meaning of any particular claim term in a patent, which must be
`
`assessed in view of the specification and the context of the claim language. Rather,
`
`this is a general overview of fiber optic cables, connectors, adapters, and other
`
`components. The technology at issue generally relates to fiber optic connectors of
`
`the type commonly used in data centers. Optical fiber has been used for a variety
`
`of applications, including but not limited to, broadband voice, video, and data
`
`transmission.
`
`A. Data Centers
`48. Pu