Filed on behalf of Petitioners
`By: Todd R. Walters, Esq.
`
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`
`Jonathan R. Bowser, Esq.
`
`Kyle K. Tsui, Esq.
`
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
`
`Telephone (703) 836-6620
`
`Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`
`todd.walters@bipc.com
`
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`
`jon.bowser@bipc.com
`
`kyle.tsui@bipc.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________________
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF LLC,
`Corning Incorporated, and Corning Optical Communications LLC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`__________________
`
`Case No. To be assigned
`Patent 8,075,338
`__________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,075,338 (CLAIMS 5, 6, AND 8)
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ..................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest ............................................................................ 1
`
`Identification of Related Matters Under 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2) ............. 2
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel ..................................................................... 2
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 3
`
`III. WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION ............................................................... 3
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES ..................................................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................ 3
`
`A. Grounds for Standing ............................................................................ 3
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Precise Relief Requested .................... 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested ................. 4
`
`Specific Art and Statutory Ground on Which the
`Challenge Is Based ...................................................................... 4
`
`Supporting Evidence Relied Upon to Support the
`Challenge .................................................................................... 5
`
`Prior Art Qualification of Asserted References .......................... 5
`
`How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed ..................... 6
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘338 PATENT ............................................................. 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background ........................................................................... 6
`
`The ‘338 Patent and the Prior Art ......................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`The ‘338 Patent ........................................................................... 9
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`The Prior Art ............................................................................. 11
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`Summary of Examination History of the ‘338 Patent ......................... 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ‘503 application was allowed because the Examiner
`found that Bence would not have been combined with
`Spencer ...................................................................................... 15
`
`The Petition relies on prior art disclosures which were
`not relied upon by the Examiner during ex parte
`prosecution ................................................................................ 17
`
`The rejection during ex parte prosecution does not
`provide grounds for denying institution under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 325(d) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`VII. HOW THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED .......... 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction Standard .............................................................. 20
`
`PPC’s Infringement Allegations in the Related Litigation ................. 20
`
`Claim Constructions ............................................................................ 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Construction of “post” .............................................................. 24
`
`Construction of “a plurality of engagement fingers” ................ 25
`
`Construction of “biased into a position of interference” .......... 27
`
`Construction of “physical and electrical continuity” ................ 27
`
`Construction of “axially aligned slots” ..................................... 28
`
`Construction of “on” ................................................................. 29
`
`VIII. PETITIONERS HAVE A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF
`PREVAILING ............................................................................................... 30
`
`A.
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8 Are Obvious over Matthews in View of
`Aujla and Bence .................................................................................. 31
`
`ii
`
`

`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`Reference to Where the Elements of Claims 5, 6, and 8
`Are Found in the Prior Art ........................................................ 32
`
`Explanation of Why Claims 5, 6, and 8 Would Have
`Been Obvious ............................................................................ 60
`
`a. Matthews discloses virtually all of the features
`recited in claim 5 of the ‘338 Patent ............................... 61
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The spring projections disclosed by Aujla
`constitute a plurality of engagement fingers that
`are spaced apart by axially aligned slots ........................ 62
`
`It would have been obvious to modify Matthews to
`have an axially slotted post with engagement
`fingers in view of Aujla and Bence ................................ 65
`
`B. Any Purported Secondary Considerations Evidence Does Not
`Overcome the Strong Evidence of the Obviousness ........................... 79
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 79
`
`APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`AFG Industries, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., Inc.,
`239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................... 30
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Bond,
`910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 30
`
`Chimei Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00066, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) .................................. 20
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`No. 15-446, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) ............................................................ 20
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1, 148 U.S.P.Q. 459 (1966) ...................................................... 31
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................. 26
`
`Munchkin, Inc. v. Skip Hop, Inc.,
`IPR2016-00536, Paper 12 (PTAB Jul. 21, 2016) .................................... 19
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................... 26
`
`Trustees of Boston Univ. v. Everlight Elec. Co., Ltd., et al.,
`2016 WL 3976617 (D. Mass. Jul. 22, 2016) ........................................... 30
`
`Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California,
`814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ................................................................................... 5, 15, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................... 4, 5, 15
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319........................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .......................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a) ............................................................................................. 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) ............................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(2) ........................................................................................ 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(i) .................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ............................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ........................................................................................ 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.102(a)(2) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ............................................................................................... 4
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ........................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) .......................................................................................... 4
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF LLC, Corning Incorporated, and
`
`Corning Optical Communications LLC (“Petitioners”) respectfully request inter
`
`partes review for claims 5, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338, issued on
`
`December 13, 2011 to Noah Montena (“the ‘338 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) in accordance
`
`with 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`A. Real Party-In-Interest
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1), Petitioners certify that Corning Optical
`
`Communications RF LLC is a real party-in-interest.
`
`In IPR2014-00440, IPR2014-00441 and IPR2014-00736, the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“Board”) issued a
`
`combined Decision (Ex. 1005) on August 18, 2015 which dismissed those
`
`proceedings, after they were instituted and a trial was conducted, based on a
`
`determination that the Petitions filed in those proceedings did not name all the real
`
`parties-in-interest. Corning Optical Communications RF LLC believes it is the
`
`only real party-in-interest. However, out of an abundance of caution in view of the
`
`above-mentioned Decision, Corning Incorporated and Corning Optical
`
`Communications LLC are also identified as real parties-in-interest, for purposes of
`
`compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Identification of Related Matters Under 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`B.
`The following is a list of any judicial or administrative matters that would
`
`affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC., 5:16-
`
`00162 (N.D.N.Y.).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of Claims 5, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,075,338 (filed concurrently herewith).
`
`C. Lead and Backup Counsel
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioners hereby identify
`
`its lead and backup counsel as follows:
`
`Lead Counsel:
`Todd R. Walters, Esq.
`Registration No. 34,040
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`todd.walters@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Jonathan R. Bowser, Esq.
`Registration No. 54,574
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`jon.bowser@bipc.com
`
`Backup Counsel:
`Roger H. Lee, Esq.
`Registration No. 46,317
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`roger.lee@bipc.com
`Backup Counsel:
`Kyle K. Tsui, Esq.
`Registration No. 62,602
`Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314
`Main Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Main Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`kyle.tsui@bipc.com
`
`Powers of Attorney are being filed concurrently herewith in accordance with
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b).
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Papers concerning this matter should be served by EXPRESS MAIL, hand-
`
`delivery, or electronic mail at lead counsel’s address above.
`
`III. WORD COUNT CERTIFICATION
`Certification of compliance with the word count limit set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.24(a)(1)(i) is provided in the attached Certificate of Compliance.
`
`IV. PAYMENT OF FEES
`The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge the inter partes request fee
`
`of $9,000 as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(1) and the inter partes post-
`
`institution fee of $14,000 as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)(2) for the filing of
`
`this Petition for Inter Partes Review, to Deposit Account No. 02-4800. The
`
`undersigned further authorizes the payment for any additional fees, or credit any
`
`overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 02-4800.
`
`V. REQUIREMENTS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.104
`A. Grounds for Standing
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), Petitioners hereby certify that the ‘338
`
`Patent is available for inter partes review in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.102(a)(2), and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting
`
`inter partes review challenging the claims of the ‘338 Patent on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`This Petition is filed within one year from the date on which Petitioner
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF LLC waived service in connection with a
`
`Complaint by Patent Owner in the related litigation, PPC Broadband, Inc. v.
`
`Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC., 5:16-00162 (N.D.N.Y.) (Ex. 1006),
`
`which asserted infringement of the ‘338 Patent.
`
`Neither Petitioners nor any privies of Petitioners have received a final
`
`written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) with respect to any claim of the ‘338
`
`Patent on any ground that was raised or could have been raised by Petitioners or
`
`privies of Petitioners in any inter partes review, post grant review, or covered
`
`business method patent review.
`
`Identification of Challenge and Precise Relief Requested
`
`B.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b), Petitioners challenge claims 5, 6, and 8 of
`
`the ‘338 Patent, and request that these claims be found unpatentable over the prior
`
`art for the reasons given herein.
`
`1. Claims for Which Inter Partes Review Is Requested
`Petitioners request review of claims 5, 6, and 8 of the ‘338 Patent.
`
`2. Specific Art and Statutory Ground on Which the Challenge Is
`Based
`
`Claims 5, 6, and 8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0110977 (“Matthews”)
`
`(Ex. 1019), in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,156,554 (“Aujla”) (Ex. 1029) and U.S.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Patent No. 7,114,990 (“Bence”) (Ex. 1002).
`
`The challenge presented in this Petition is not redundant with the challenges
`
`presented in the Petition filed concurrently herewith asserting that claims 5, 6, and
`
`8 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bence and
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bence. For example, the challenge
`
`presented in this Petition relies on two additional prior art documents, Matthews
`
`and Aujla, as disclosing certain features as discussed in section VIII.A.1.
`
`Matthews and Aujla are not being relied on in such manner in the § 102(b) and §
`
`103(a) challenges based on Bence set forth in the Petition filed concurrently
`
`herewith.
`
`3. Supporting Evidence Relied Upon to Support the Challenge
`In addition to the above prior art, Petitioners rely upon the evidence listed in
`
`the Exhibit List, including the Declaration and Curriculum Vitae of Ronald P.
`
`Locati (Exs. 1003, 1004).
`
`4. Prior Art Qualification of Asserted References
`The ‘338 Patent was filed on October 18, 2010. The ‘338 Patent does not
`
`claim priority to any prior U.S. or foreign application. Matthews was published
`
`on May 25, 2006. Bence issued on October 3, 2006. Aujla issued on May 29,
`
`1979. Therefore, Matthews, Bence, and Aujla constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102(b) with respect to the ‘338 Patent.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`5. How the Challenged Claims Are to Be Construed
`An explanation of how the challenged claims are to be construed is provided
`
`below in section VII., infra.
`
`VI. SUMMARY OF THE ‘338 PATENT
`A. Technical Background
`A coaxial cable is designed to transmit radio-frequency (RF) transmissions,
`
`and is typically used to connect televisions, set-top boxes, computers, modems, and
`
`the like to signal sources such as satellite dishes, cable television distribution lines,
`
`antennae, and the like. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 16. As shown below, coaxial cables are
`
`constructed in layers.
`
`Central electrical
`conductor
`
`Outer electrical
`conductor (ground)
`
`Central electrical
`conductor
`
`Outer electrical
`conductor (ground)
`
`Insulating layer
`(dielectric)
`
`Protective jacket
`
`Insulating layer
`(dielectric)
`
`Protective jacket
`
`
`Conventional Coaxial Cable
`
`
`
`A central (inner) electrical conductor (the “signal feed” or “signal”) is surrounded
`
`by an insulating layer (the “dielectric”) and an optional foil layer, which are
`
`surrounded by an outer electrical conductor (the “ground return,” “ground,” or
`
`“shield”) that may be in the form of a metal braid. The outer conductor is
`
`surrounded by a nonconductive material that acts as an environmental seal and
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`protective jacket. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 17.
`
`A coaxial cable connector is installed at the end of a coaxial cable to connect
`
`the cable to an interface port of an electrical device such as a television, set-top
`
`box, or modem. A conventional coaxial cable connector attached to a coaxial
`
`cable is depicted below:
`
`Nut (coupler or port
`coupling element)
`
`Body
`
`To interface
`port
`
`Post
`
`Coaxial cable
`
`Conventional Coaxial Cable Connector
`
`
`
`One conventional type of coaxial cable connector has a nut (coupler or port
`
`coupling element), a post, and a body. The nut allows the coaxial cable connector
`
`to be secured to the interface port by rotating the port coupling element about the
`
`post. The inner conductor of the coaxial cable must be connected securely
`
`(mechanically and electrically) to a central pin receptacle on the interface port,
`
`while the outer conductor of the coaxial cable must be electrically connected to the
`
`ground of the device. Typically, the interface port, the nut, and the post are
`
`conductive. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 18-19.
`
`To attach a coaxial cable connector to the coaxial cable, the center conductor,
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`insulating layer and optional foil of the cable are typically inserted into the post in
`
`the connector, while the outer conductor, any additional foil layer(s) surrounding
`
`the outer conductor, and the jacket are captured between the post and the inner wall
`
`of the connector body of the coaxial cable connector, as shown above. The coaxial
`
`cable connector is connected to the interface port, e.g., by threading the nut onto
`
`the interface port. A fully tightened, threaded connection of the connector to the
`
`interface port ensures a ground connection from the interface port, to the post, to
`
`the outer electrical conductor of the coaxial cable. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 20.
`
`However, connectors are often times not properly tightened or installed on
`
`the interface port. Ex. 1001 at 1:38-42, 6:3-8; Ex. 1002 at 1:60-2:3. The structure
`
`of common connectors may permit loss and discontinuity of the electromagnetic
`
`shield. Ex. 1001 at 1:42-45. When a connector is installed properly onto an
`
`interface port, the front face of the post contacts the front face of the interface port
`
`to extend the electrical ground path and electromagnetic shielding provided by the
`
`cable’s outer conductor through the post and to the interface port. This
`
`arrangement is referred to as a direct ground path between the interface port and
`
`the post. Such a direct ground path exists in the ‘338 Patent when the front
`
`(mating) face of the post makes physical and electrical contact with the mating
`
`edge of the interface port. Ex. 1001 at 5:58-61. When a connector is not properly
`
`tightened on the interface port, proper electrical mating of the connector with the
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`interface port does not occur. When the connector is loose on the interface port, a
`
`gap exists between the front face of the post and the front face of the port which
`
`prevents the direct ground path from being formed. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 21.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘338 Patent and the Prior Art
`1. The ‘338 Patent
`The ‘338 Patent attempts to address the problems caused by connectors not
`
`being properly installed on the interface port. Ex. 1001 at 1:41-51. The ‘338
`
`Patent discloses a coaxial cable connector that is designed to extend electrical
`
`continuity through the connector by maintaining electrical and physical
`
`communication between the post and the port coupling element (i.e., the coupling
`
`nut or coupler). Ex. 1001 at 1:17-18, 47-51. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 22. Fig. 2 of the ‘338
`
`Patent depicts an exemplary embodiment:
`
`Fig. 2 of the ‘338 Patent
`
`
`
`The coaxial cable connector comprises a connector body attached to a post, the
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`post having a first end and an opposing second end. Ex. 1001 at 1:62-64. The
`
`connector comprises a port coupling element rotatable about the post and having
`
`an inner surface. Ex. 1001 at 1:65-66. The connector also comprises a plurality of
`
`engagement fingers proximate the second end of the post, wherein the plurality of
`
`engagement fingers are biased into a position of interference with the inner surface
`
`of the port coupling element. Ex. 1001 at 1:65-2:3. The plurality of engagement
`
`fingers are separated, or spaced apart, by slots running axially. Ex. 1001 at 8:16-
`
`18. Exemplary engagement fingers and slots are depicted in the drawings of the
`
`‘338 Patent:
`
`Exemplary
`engagement finger
`
`Exemplary slot that extends
`through the entire thickness
`of the wall of the post
`Fig. 3 of the ‘338 Patent (Annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Exemplary slots that extend
`through the entire thickness
`of the wall of the post
`
`
`
`Fig. 3 of the ‘338 Patent (Annotated)
`
`In the exemplary connector depicted in the drawings of the ‘338 Patent, the slots
`
`extend through the entire thickness of the wall of the post.1 Ex. 1003 at ¶ 23.
`
`2. The Prior Art
`Patent Owner (“PPC”) was neither the first nor the only industry participant
`
`that recognized the problem of loose connectors. For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,114,990 (Ex. 1002, “Bence”) recognized that loose connectors result in gaps that
`
`exist between the outer conductor of the appliance port and the tubular post.2 Ex.
`
`1002 at 1:54-2:2. Bence discloses that manufacturers routinely dimensioned the
`
`
`1 The ‘338 Patent provides additional description concerning the engagement
`
`fingers and slots, discussed below in sections VII. and VIII.
`
`2 Petitioner (Corning Optical Communications RF LLC) has obtained patents in the
`
`field of the ‘338 Patent including, e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 9,172,154, 9,287,659, and
`
`9,407,016. The claims of such patents recite features not recited in the claims of
`
`the ‘338 Patent challenged in this Petition.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`flange of the tubular post to be smaller than the dimension of an inner diameter of
`
`a coupler (port coupling element) to provide free rotation of the nut. Id. at 2:5-13.
`
`Bence explicitly teaches that while components dimensioned in such a manner may
`
`fortuitously provide an alternate ground path (created by contact between the port
`
`coupling element and the post), the alternate ground path created by such fortuitous
`
`contact is not stable. Id. at 2:8-26. See also Ex. 1028 at 5:2-3 (“The threaded nut
`
`30 may be formed of conductive materials facilitating grounding through the
`
`nut.”); JP 1007 at ¶¶ 6-7, 11-12, 16-18. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 24.
`
`Bence discloses a solution to these problems associated with loose
`
`connectors. Bence discloses a connector which provides a stable and reliable
`
`alternate ground path between the port coupling element and the post. Bence
`
`discloses that by providing resilient contact between a projection/finger extending
`
`outwardly from the post and an inner surface of the port coupling element, a
`
`constant, reliable alternate grounding path between the post and the coupler (port
`
`coupling element) can be attained while still allowing for sufficient rotation of the
`
`port coupling element. Ex. 1002 at 3:14-16 (“a resilient, electrically-conductive
`
`grounding member is disposed between the tubular post and the coupler. This
`
`grounding member engages both the tubular post and the coupler for providing an
`
`electrically-conductive path therebetween, but without restricting rotation of the
`
`coupler relative to the tubular post.”), 10:26-30 (“the present invention provides a
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`coaxial cable connector that ensures a reliable grounding path without creating
`
`undue interference with free rotation of the coupler relative to the remaining
`
`components of the connector”), Figs. 7-7C, 11-11D. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 25.
`
`Bence discloses using a resilient, electrically-conductive grounding member
`
`having fingers or projections which provide a constant, reliable electrically-
`
`conductive path between the post and the coupler while allowing for free rotation
`
`of the coupler relative to the tubular post. Id. at 3:15-20, 3:46-52, 8:13-39, 9:64-
`
`10:30, Figs. 7-7C, 11-11D.
`
`Flange of the post
`
`Port coupling
`element
`
`Flange of the post
`
`Port coupling
`element
`
`Resilient, electrically-
`Resilient, electrically-
`conductive grounding member
`conductive grounding member
`Fig. 7A of Bence (Annotated)
`Fig. 11A of Bence (Annotated)
`
`
`Resilient Contact Between the Post and the Port Coupling Element in Bence
`
`Bence demonstrates that it was known in the art that even if a connector is not
`
`
`
`
`
`properly installed on an interface port (and no direct ground path between the
`
`interface port and the post exists), grounding can be achieved through an alternate
`
`ground path, i.e., a ground path extending from the interface port, to the port
`
`coupling element, to the post, to the outer conductor of the coaxial cable. Other
`
`industry participants also recognized the desirability of a reliable alternate ground
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`path extending through the port coupling element and the post. See, e.g., Exs.
`
`1007, 1008 at ¶¶ 11-17; Ex. 1009 at 1:29-2:8, 3:4-14; Ex. 1010 at 1:45-2:34, 5:11-
`
`16. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 26-27.
`
`Coaxial cable connectors having a post, port coupling element, connector
`
`body, and fastener member that are substantially identical to the post, port coupling
`
`element, and connector body, and fastener member depicted in Figs. 1-3 of the
`
`‘338 Patent are known. See, e.g., Ex. 1019 at Figs. 1, 7, 8; Ex. 1028 at 1, 4, 8.
`
`Bence also discloses a coaxial cable connector having the same general
`
`components (post component, port coupling element component, and connector
`
`body component) described in the ‘338 Patent. Ex. 1002 at Figs. 1-3, 7-7C, 11-
`
`11D. Coaxial cable connectors having a post with axially aligned slots are also
`
`known. See, e.g., Ex. 1029 at Figs. 2-6; Ex. 1035 at Figs. 1-6; Ex. 1036 at Figs. 1-
`
`3. Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 28-30.
`
`Summary of Examination History of the ‘338 Patent
`C.
`For the reasons discussed below, the obviousness rejection made during ex
`
`parte prosecution based on the combination of Bence and Spencer (Ex. 1013) is
`
`substantially different from the challenge presented in this Petition, and thus
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`should not preclude institution of this inter partes review proceeding.3 Spencer is
`
`not relied on the challenge presented in this Petition, and the rejection made during
`
`ex parte prosecution did not rely on Matthews (Ex. 1019) and Aujla (Ex. 1029).
`
`1. The ‘503 application was allowed because the Examiner found
`that Bence would not have been combined with Spencer
`
`The ‘338 Patent issued on December 13, 2011, from U.S. Patent Application
`
`Serial No. 12/906,503, filed on October 18, 2010 (“the ‘503 Application”) (Ex.
`
`1011). The application contained claims 1-21. In the first Office Action on the
`
`merits (Ex. 1012), the Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Bence in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,979,911 to Spencer
`
`(Ex. 1013).4 Ex. 1003 at ¶ 31. Spencer discloses a collet 1 having slots 7 that
`
`radially extend through the entire thickness of the wall of the collet 1:
`
`
`3 This Petition sets forth a challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
`
`by Bence and a challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bence.
`
`No such rejections were made during ex parte prosecution.
`
`4 Matthews, Aujla, and Bence are among the over 450 documents cited during
`
`prosecution of the ‘503 application.
`
`15
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`Fig. 2 of Spencer (Excerpt)
`
`
`
`The Examiner stated that the collet 1 having slots 7 disclosed by Spencer is a
`
`slotted post. Id. The Examiner proposed modifying the flanged post of Bence to
`
`have the slots 7 that radially extend through the entire thickness of the wall of the
`
`collet 1 disclosed by Spencer. Id. Ex. 1003 at ¶ 32.
`
`An Office Action Response was filed on August 31, 2011 (Ex. 1014). In the
`
`Response, Applicant argued that “one having ordinary skill in the art would not
`
`combine Bence et al. with Spencer.” Ex. 1014 at 12. Applicant argued that
`
`slotting the post of Bence as disclosed by Spencer “would render the grounding
`
`member 110 obsolete” and “would interfere with the performance of the grounding
`
`member,” and “a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
`
`combine the collet ‘1’ with the Bence et al. connector.” Id. at 12-14. Ex. 1003 at
`
`¶ 33.
`
`The Examiner allowed the ‘503 application on October 18, 2011 (Ex. 1015).
`
`In the Examiner’s reasons for allowance, the Examiner explained that “it would not
`
`have been obvious to modify Bence et al in view of any teachings of Spencer for
`
`16
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`the reasons given by applicant.” Ex. 1015 at 6. Thus, the ‘503 application was
`
`allowed because the Examiner found that Bence would not have been combined
`
`with Spencer. The challenge presented in this Petition does not rely on Spencer.
`
`Thus, the Examiner’s rationale for allowing the ‘503 application is not applicabl