`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner, PPC Broadband, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01573
`Patent 8,075,338
`__________
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF CHARLES A. ELDERING, PH.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`I, Charles A. Eldering, Ph.D., submit this Declaration in support of
`
`PPC Broadband, Inc.‟s (“PPC”) Preliminary Patent Owner Response to the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of claims 5, 6, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,075,338
`
`(the “„338 Patent”)(EX1001) filed by Petitioner, Corning Optical Communications
`
`RF, LLC et al. (“Corning”) based upon my personal knowledge and my review of
`
`materials and information discussed in this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to review the Declaration of Mr. Locati (EX1003)
`
`and the Petition submitted in the above-captioned IPR (and exhibits cited therein
`
`respectively) where Corning and Mr. Locati have asserted and offered opinions that
`
`claims 5, 6, and 8 of the „336 Patent are anticipated and obvious.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that Corning and Mr. Locati are of the view that that the
`
`claims 5, 6, and 8 of the „336 Patent are obvious based on U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2006/0110977 (“Matthews”)(EX1019) in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,156,554 (“Aujla”)(EX1029) and U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990 (“Bence”) (EX1002)
`
`4.
`
`For the reasons the follow, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Locati‟s
`
`opinions, and, instead, I am of the opinion that the prior art, including Matthew,
`
`Aujla, and Bence does not render the claimed invention obvious.
`
`5.
`
`I have been asked by PPC to prepare this Declaration setting forth my
`
`comments and opinions on whether the claims involved in these proceedings would
`
`have been anticipated or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`the „336 Patent was filed (2010) as asserted by Corning. In addition, I have
`
`reviewed the exhibits and other documents referenced in this Declaration. This
`
`Declaration sets forth my opinions and the basis, reasons, and evidence relied upon
`
`in forming those opinions.
`
`6.
`
`I am being compensated for my services as an expert in this case at a
`
`billing rate of $390 per hour.
`
`7.
`
`I understand that the ultimate question of obviousness is a question of
`
`law with underlying facts for the trier of fact to decide. In determining whether a
`
`claimed invention is obvious I understand that the trier of fact must determine the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, identify the differences between the asserted
`
`claims and the prior art, determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at
`
`the time the invention was made, then decide whether each claim as a whole would
`
`have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art when viewing the
`
`prior art.
`
`8.
`
`To find that a combination of prior art rendered the invention obvious, I
`
`understand that a prima facie case of obviousness can only be established if each
`
`and every limitation in the claim are taught or suggested by the prior art.
`
`9. Moreover, even if the prior art teaches each and every element in the
`
`claims at issue (which they did not), I understand that fact alone would not prove
`
`obviousness. Most, if not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`understand that it is necessary to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`10. Thus, in evaluating whether a claimed invention is obvious, I must
`
`consider whether there was a reason that would have prompted a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art to combine the known elements in a way the claimed
`
`invention does, taking into account factors such as whether the claimed invention
`
`was merely the predictable result of using prior art elements according to their
`
`known function, whether the claimed invention provides an obvious solution to a
`
`known problem in the relevant field, whether the prior art teaches or suggests the
`
`desirability of combining elements claimed in the invention, whether the prior art
`
`teaches away from combining elements in the claimed invention, whether it would
`
`have been obvious to try the combinations of elements, such as when there is a
`
`design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
`
`identified, predictable solutions, and whether the change resulted more from design
`
`incentives or other market forces.
`
`11.
`
`In addition, to find that the prior art rendered the invention obvious, I
`
`must find that it provided a reasonable expectation of success, and I must consider
`
`each claim separately, and I cannot use hindsight – i.e., I can consider only what
`
`was known at the time of the invention.
`
`Experience, Qualifications, And Prior Testimony
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`I am an electrical engineer with over twenty years of experience
`
`spanning the fields of electronics and microelectronics, cable and telephone
`
`communications systems, optics, and intellectual property. A copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae has been submitted as Exhibit 2007 (EX2007).
`
`13. My work experience includes working as an officer in the United States
`
`Air Force where I analyzed the reliability of microelectronic and electronic systems.
`
`I also conducted research in the areas of optics and materials at the University of
`
`California at Davis, where I was awarded a Ph.D. in electrical engineering. In
`
`addition, I worked for cable television and other companies in the
`
`telecommunications industry where I developed electronic and optical equipment
`
`and worked extensively with coaxial cable connectors, such as the ones involved in
`
`this case. A list of my publications can be found in my curriculum vitae.
`
`14.
`
`I have been named as an inventor on over seventy issued United States
`
`patents listed in my in my curriculum vitae. I am a registered United States Patent
`
`Agent. As an agent, I have prosecuted patents before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office.
`
`15.
`
`I have been qualified as an expert witness on the topic of coaxial cable
`
`connectors several times and have testified as an expert witness for PPC in several
`
`cases.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`16. The art involved in the „336 Patent is the design, manufacture, or
`
`utilization of coaxial cable connectors.
`
`17. One of ordinary skill in the art is a person that has at least a bachelor‟s
`
`degree in engineering and several years experience in the cable and
`
`telecommunications industry relating to the design, manufacture, or utilization of
`
`coaxial cable connectors in communications systems. Bachelor‟s degrees in
`
`engineering require basic coursework in physics and mechanics, and experience in
`
`the cable and telecommunications industry will result in use of the knowledge
`
`obtained in those courses as applied to particular engineering problems which occur
`
`with coaxial cable connectors. I am at least of ordinary skill in the art based on my
`
`years experience in the telecommunications field, and more specifically with coaxial
`
`cable connectors.
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`18. For the reasons explained herein, it is my opinion that claims 5, 6, and
`
`8 of the „336 Patent are not obvious based on Matthews, Aujla, and Bence.
`
`II. THE ‘338 PATENT
`
`19. The „336 Patent invention is directed to coaxial cable connectors for
`
`connecting a coaxial cable to an equipment port.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20. A coaxial cable connector creates a continuous waveguide structure and
`
`
`
`extends the physical and electromagnetic shielding structure of the cable all the way
`
`through to the port on the television, set top box, broadband modem or other device
`
`that the cable is being attached to. It also facilitates attachment of the cable to the
`
`port by use of a threaded nut or other means.
`
`21. Although there are many different types of coaxial cable connectors,
`
`the most common among them typically have some form of environmental sealing
`
`that extends the weatherproofing protection afforded by the outer jacket of the cable,
`
`a component (most often referred to as the “post” or the “tubular post”) that extends
`
`the electromagnetic shielding and waveguide structure provided by the cable‟s braid
`
`and foil, and a cavity or other structure through which the center conductor is able to
`
`make an electrical connection with the port.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`22. A connector is required to extend the physical structure of the coaxial
`
`cable all the way to the interface port of a device. For instance, a connector with a
`
`“post” component can allow the electrical grounding and electromagnetic shielding
`
`provided by the cable‟s outer conductor to be extended, if pressed into contact with
`
`a receiving element, all the way to the port.
`
`
`23. When installed properly onto a port, the front face of the post
`
`
`
`electrically contacts the front face of the port to extend the electrical ground path
`
`and electromagnetic shielding provided by the cable‟s outer conductor through the
`
`post and all the way to the port.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24. As illustrated, when the connector is loose on the port, gaps can exist
`
`between the front face of the post and the front face of the port, which prevent the
`
`ground path and electromagnetic shielding from extending through the post and all
`
`the way to the port. While the nut is in electrical contact with the outside of the port
`
`even when the connector is only loosely attached to the port, the gaps that exist
`
`between the nut and the post prevent the nut and the post from sufficiently
`
`contacting each other to allow the ground path and electromagnetic shielding to be
`
`extended all the way to the port. Without a reliable ground path and the shielding
`
`that results, significant signal transmission problems can occur, including signal
`
`interruption, video pixilation, and data loss.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`In the 2009/2010 timeframe, PPC‟s engineers developed a solution to
`
`the loose connector problem that led to the „338 Patent, which is entitled “Connector
`
`Having a Constant Contact Post.” (EX1001 Title.) As shown in the following
`
`annotated version of Fig. 2, the‟338 Patent discloses a “constant contact post” (red)
`
`with a “plurality of engagement fingers” designed to exert a constant biasing force
`
`against the inner surface of the port coupling element (blue) and thus maintain
`
`constant contact between the post (red) and the port coupling element (blue) even
`
`when the connector is loose on a port. (EX1001 4:18-50.)
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`26. Claim 5 of the „338 Patent requires “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.”
`
`27. To solve the loose connector problem, the „338 Patent specification
`
`teaches “an improved connector having a constant contact post for ensuring ground
`
`continuity through the connector, and establishing and maintaining electrical and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`physical communication between the post and a port coupling element.” (EX1001
`
`1:47-51.) The Field of the Invention states that the “present invention relates to . . .
`
`embodiments of a coaxial cable connector having a constant contact post that
`
`extends electrical continuity through the connector.” (EX1001 1:14-18.) The title
`
`of the „338 Patent – “Connector Having A Constant Contact Post” shows that it is
`
`the inventive “post” of the „338 Patent, and not some other component, that is
`
`resolving the loose connector problem.
`
`28. All of the embodiments disclosed in the „338 Patent teach that it is the post 40
`
`(e.g., the engagement fingers 145 or the flange 44 generally) that provides constant
`
`contact with the port coupling element 30 to maintain physical and electrical
`
`continuity between the post 40 and the port coupling element 30. EX1001 8:33-41,
`
`10:40-57, 4:39-59, 7:44-48, 7:60-65.)
`
`„338 Patent (EX1001)
`
`
`
`29. Claim 5 requires that “the plurality of engagement fingers are biased
`
`
`
`
`
`into a position of interference with the inner surface of the port coupling element.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`In other words, it is the engagement fingers of the constant contact post that are
`
`biased so as to contact the inner surface of the port coupling element.
`
`30. The „338 Patent prosecution history confirms that the constant contact
`
`post is the fundamental feature of the invention. The Examiner rejected the claims,
`
`stating that Bence “substantially discloses the claimed invention except for the
`
`flanged post 104, 106 being slotted.” (EX1012 at 2.)
`
`31. The Applicants explained how the “connector taught by Bence et al.
`
`includes an additional grounding member „110,‟ which „contacts both the tubular
`
`post 104 and the coupling nut 105 for providing an electrically-conductive path
`
`therebetween.‟” The Applicant also explained how Bence fails to teach the
`
`fundamental feature of the claimed invention (i.e., the constant contact post) stating
`
`that “when the connector is not mated onto a port, the slotted post ensures
`
`mechanical interference between the port and the coupling element.” (EX1014 at p.
`
`16.)
`
`32. The specification of the „338 Patent discloses :
`
`Engagement fingers 145 can be portions of the post 40 proximate or
`
`otherwise near the second end 42 that are separated, or spaced apart, by
`
`slots 140 running axially through the flange 44 and a portion of the post
`
`40 proximate or otherwise near the second end 42. Engagement fingers
`
`145 may also be resilient members, biasing members, fingers, biasing
`
`fingers, post fingers, teeth, engagement teeth, post teeth, expanding
`
`members, flexible members, and the like. (EX1001 8:16-23.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`33. This teaches that while the disclosed fingers are part of the post, they
`
`can be (1) located proximate or otherwise near the second end of the post, or (2)
`
`spaced apart by slots running through the flange and portion of the post. A person
`
`of ordinary skill would thus readily recognize that such a passage simply refers to a
`
`possible location and arrangement of the engagement fingers of the post.
`
`34. Claim 5 specifically requires that a “plurality of engagement fingers
`
`proximate the second end [of the post]”. As is made clear throughout the
`
`specification, the claim requirement that the “engagement fingers” must be
`
`“proximate the second end” of the post specifies that the engagement fingers are
`
`located on the post near the second end (i.e., the front or forward end) of the post.
`
`For example, FIG. 3 illustrates that in all of the exemplary embodiments described
`
`in the specification, the “plurality of engagement fingers 145 [are] proximate the
`
`second end 42” (i.e., the fingers are a portion of the post near the second end of the
`
`post). (EX1001 4:29-37; see also EX 1001 8:12-16, 10:40-46, 10:57-67.)
`
`engagement fingers (145)
`are a portion of the post
`(40) near the second end
`(42) of the post
`
`
`35. The engagement fingers are consistently described in the specification
`
`
`
`as being proximate the second end of the post, and in each and every disclosed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`embodiment of the‟338 Patent specification, the engagement fingers are a portion
`
`of, and integral with, the post.
`
`36. Each and every time the term “proximate” an end of a component is
`
`used to describe a structural feature, that structural feature is a portion of, and
`
`integral with, the component itself (i.e., not separate from and only near the
`
`component).
`
` “a flange 44 proximate the second end 42” of the post 40 (EX1001
`
`4:21-24)
`
` “an internal lip 34 located proximate, or otherwise near to the second
`
`end 32” of the nut 30 (EX1001 4:56-59)
`
` “a post mounting portion 57 proximate or otherwise near the first end
`
`51 of the body 50” (EX1001 8:50-57)
`
` “an outer annular recess 58 located proximate or near the first end 51 of
`
`the connector body 50” (EX1001 8:57-59)
`
` “an external annular detent 53 located proximate or close to the second
`
`end 52 of the connector body 50” (EX1001 8:64-66)
`
` “the fastener member 60 may comprise an exterior surface feature 69
`
`positioned proximate with or close to the second end 62 of the fastener
`
`member 60” (EX 1001 9:38-41)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37. One of ordinary skill would understand that the ordinary and customary
`
`
`
`meaning of “proximate the second end” of the post in claim 5 is that the engagement
`
`fingers are a portion of the post located near the second end of the post. The
`
`claimed “plurality of engagement fingers” are a portion of, and integral with, the
`
`post.
`
`38. Claim 5 requires “a post, the post having a first end and an opposing
`
`second end.” Each and every embodiment of the post 40 in the specification of the
`
`„338 Patent discloses a single, inseparable component. And while the specification
`
`discloses that “the post 40 may be formed of a combination of both conductive and
`
`non-conductive materials,” this disclosure simple refers to “a metal coating or layer .
`
`. .applied to a polymer of other non-conductive material” (EX1001 6:10-17), which
`
`would still produce a single, integral component. The claimed “plurality of
`
`engagement fingers” of claim 5 must be a portion of, and integral with, the post.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`39. Claim 8 of the „338 Patent depends from claim 5, and further requires
`
`that “the plurality of engagement fingers are spaced apart by axially aligned slots
`
`positioned on the post proximate the second end.”
`
`40. The „338 Patent discloses that the claimed slots can take a variety of
`
`forms, including openings, spaces, cuts, grooves, etc.
`
`With continued reference to FIG. 1, and additional reference to FIG. 3,
`
`post 40 includes a plurality of slots 140 positioned somewhere on or
`
`around the post 40 proximate or otherwise near the second end 42. A
`
`plurality of slots 140 may be a plurality of openings, spaces, voids,
`
`apertures, holes, cuts, channels, grooves, and the like, positioned on the
`
`flange 44 and a portion of the post 40 proximate or otherwise near the
`
`second end 42 of the post 40. (EX1001 6:18-25.)
`
`slots (140)
`
`
`41. The slots described in the cited language from the specification
`
`
`
`(EX1001 6:18-25) are either “positioned . . . on or around,” while claim 8 expressly
`
`requires that the slots be “positioned on” (i.e., and not merely just “around”) the
`
`post. That language from the specification demonstrates that, while claim 8 could
`
`have used broader language allowing the claimed slots to be simply “around” the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`post, the actual language is more restrictive, requiring that the slots be positioned on
`
`the post.
`
`42. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the slots (e.g.,
`
`openings, spaces, voids, apertures, holes, cuts, channels, grooves)(EX1001 6:18-21)
`
`describe areas of missing material that are formed in the post as disclosed in the
`
`specification and shown in the figures.
`
`The number of engagement fingers 145 depends on the number of slots
`
`140 positioned on the post 40. For example, if the post 40 has six slots
`
`140 axially extending from the second end 42, six engagement fingers
`
`145 would be formed. (EX1001 8:24-26.)
`
`43. The claimed “axially aligned slots positioned on the post” requires that
`
`the slots be formed in the post.
`
`IV. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`A. The Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art At The Time Of The
`Invention
`
`44.
`
`In determining the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant
`
`time of the invention, I understand that contemporaneous documentary evidence
`
`should be considered, including “prior art solutions to those problems.” In this IPR,
`
`several contemporaneous patents and patent applications provide evidence as to the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, and demonstrate that
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention were pursuing loose
`
`connector solutions that were far different than PPC‟s design in the „336 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`45. These patent applications and patents demonstrate that, at the time of
`
`the claimed „336 Patent invention, those of ordinary skill in the art tried to solve the
`
`loose connector problem by (1) preventing the nut from becoming loose on the port
`
`after it is tightened, (2) pushing the post toward the port, or (3) eliminating or
`
`bridging certain gaps with a separate conductive grounding member. These
`
`contemporaneous patents and patent applications also demonstrate that those of
`
`ordinary skill understood that, at the time of the‟336 Patent invention, any solution
`
`to the loose connector problem must avoid interfering with the rotation of the
`
`nut/coupler about the post when tightening the connector onto the port.
`
`46. U.S. Patent No. 8,376,769 (“Holland”) (EX2008) provides an objective
`
`summary of the state of the art at the time of the invention. Holland also addressed
`
`the loose connector problem. (EX2008 1:26-33.)
`
`47. Holland discussed several prior art designs. The first solution was to
`
`prevent the nut from becoming loose on the port after it is tightened. Holland
`
`described an existing design (U.S. Patent No. 6,712,631 (“Youtsey”)(EX2009)) for
`
`maintaining a tight nut using a separate lock washer. (EX2008 1:34-40.) The lock
`
`washer (50) was a “lock washer [30] placed inside the coupling nut that produces a
`
`constant tension against a mated male coaxial connector to prevent its loosening or
`
`separation during use, especially during periods of vibration and thermal cycling.”
`
`(EX2009 2:9-13.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`Youtsey (Fig. 2)(EX2009)
`
`
`separate lock washer
`between the nut (30) and the
`flange (44) of the post
`
`
`48. Holland described another existing design using a separate spring
`
`
`
`component:
`
`A second approach . . . [involves a] spring 16 behind the [post] flange
`
`26 design as shown in . . . U.S. Pat. No. 6,716,062 to Palinkas et al. . . .
`
`[EX2010] [T]he second approach is implemented using a compressed
`
`spring that surrounds the post and operates to push the flange away
`
`from the rear wall of the nut which tends to press the male connector‟s
`
`flange against the female connector‟s mating front face. (EX2008
`
`1:44-52.)
`
`49.
`
`In Palinkas, the separate coil spring (16) was designed to eliminate the
`
`gap between the post and the port by forcing the flange of the post forward away
`
`from the nut to contact the port.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`Palinkas (Fig. 3)(EX2010)
`
`
`separate coil spring (16)
`
`
`50. Palinkas emphasized that, in attempting to address the loose connector
`
`
`
`problem, “the nut is connected to the flanged end of the post and is freely rotatable.”
`
`(EX2010 1:56-61.)
`
`51. Another example discussed by Holland was the use of a separate
`
`conductive “spring 12 in front of the flange design as shown in . . . U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,753,705 to Montena [EX2011].” (EX2008 1:56-58.) In Montena, a separate
`
`conductive spring (10, 20) was designed to bridge the gap between the post and the
`
`port to resolve “service quality problems resulting from loose connections.”
`
`(EX2011 1:22-23, 2:6-9, 2:43-46.)
`
`Montena „705 (Figure 3)(EX2011)
`
`separate spring (or RF seal
`(10, 20))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`In Montena‟s proposed solution to the loose connector problem, the
`
`“nut 30 rotates freely around a post 40.” (EX2011 4:22-35.)
`
`53. Holland also discussed a “third approach has been to attach an
`
`electrically conductive spring 110 between the loose nut and the flange as . . .
`
`disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 7,479,035 to Bence et al. [EX2012] (“Bence „035”).
`
`(EX2008 1:64-67.)
`
`54. As shown in Bence „035, the grounding member (110) was a separate
`
`conductive component designed to bridge the gap between the post and the nut on
`
`the forward side of the nut. (EX2012 2:1-5.)
`
`Bence „035 (Fig. 5A)(EX2012)
`
`separate grounding
`member (110)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`55. Bence „035 emphasized that the loose connector solution would
`
`maintain the free rotation of the nut relative to the post:
`
`In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`path therebetween, but without restricting rotation of the coupler
`
`relative to the tubular post. (EX2012 3:14-20.)
`
`56. Holland itself taught the use of a separate “conductive bridge 210
`
`providing an electrical connection between the nut 202 and the body 206.”
`
`(EX2008 4:3-5.)
`
`Holland (Figure 2)(EX2008)
`
`separate
`conductive bridge
`(210)
`
`
`57. Holland also disclosed that in his loose connector solution “[n]otably,
`
`
`
`
`
`the nut is free to rotate with respect to the connector body as the bridge rubs against
`
`one or both of the nut and the body.” (EX2008 3:28-30.)
`
`58. Another solution was shown in U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`No. 2010/0255719 A1 (“Purdy „719”)(EX2013), which is owned by PPC. Purdy
`
`„719 used a separate conductive component (continuity member 70) to provide
`
`contact between the nut and the post. (EX2013 ¶¶ [00028], [0032].)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`Purdy „719 (EX2013)
`(FIG. 5)
`
`separate continuity
`member (70)
`
`
`59. Purdy „719 disclosed that “a continuity connector 100 is assembled, the
`
`
`
`continuity member 70 contacts both the tubular post 40 and the coupling nut 30 for
`
`providing an electrically-conductive path therebetween, but without restricting
`
`rotation of the coupling nut 30 relative to the tubular post 40.” (EX2013 ¶ [0033].)
`
`60. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,062,063 (“Malloy „063”)(EX2014) & 8,113,875
`
`(“Malloy „875”)(EX2015) also disclosed loose connector solutions. Each of the
`
`disclosed embodiments located a separate conductive grounding member forward of
`
`the lip of the nut to bridge the gap with the interface port. (EX2014 Figs. 4, 6A,
`
`7A, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15A, 15B, 23; EX2015 Figs. 2-7.)
`
`Malloy „063 (EX2014)(Fig. 8.)
`
`separate grounding member
`(810)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`61.
`
`In the 2010 timeframe, Corning Engineers, Donald Burris and William
`
`Lutz, who were co-inventors of Bence (EX1007), filed patents directed to a loose
`
`connector solutions, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,517,763 (“Corning
`
`„763”)(EX2017) & 8,272,893 (“Corning „893”)(EX2018).
`
`62. The Corning applications list the same patents discussed in Holland,
`
`including Bence (EX1007), Bence „035 (EX2012), Palinkas (EX2010), and U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 2008/0102696 (EX2016), from which Montena (EX2011)
`
`issued as a continuation. (EX2017 1:53-67; EX2018 1:53-57.)
`
`63. The Corning applications then provided several alternative
`
`embodiments attempting to solve the loose connector problem by positioning
`
`separate conductive grounding members at locations forward of the lip of the nut.
`
`(EX2017 Figs. 1, 7, 8; EX2018 Figs. 1, 9, 15.)
`
`Corning „763 (EX2017)
`Ring (90)
`
`Corning „893 (EX2018)
`Ring (90)
`
`
`64. Corning „893 noted that the “coupler 30 is free to rotate around the post
`
`
`
`
`
`110.” (EX2017 4:3-4.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`65. Corning‟s Mr. Burris filed another application in 2010 trying to address
`
`the loose connector problem. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`2012/0040537 (“Corning „537”)(EX2019) ¶ [0007].) The proposed solution was to
`
`use a separate conductive component (shield 102) to create the conductive path.
`
`(EX2019 ¶ [0025].)
`
`Corning „537 (EX2019)
`
`Corning „537 (EX2019)
`
`
`66. Corning „537 stated that “[a]t the same time the shield is firmly
`
`
`
`
`
`captured and grounded between the body 114 and the tubular post 104 providing
`
`assured electrical and mechanical communication between the coupler 106, the body
`
`114 and the tubular post 104 while allowing smooth and easy rotation of the coupler
`
`112.” (EX2019 ¶ [00031], [0012], [0026], [0034]-[0036].) One of the claims of
`
`Corning „537 required that “the shield provides for unrestricted rotation of the
`
`coupler.” (EX2019 Claim 19.)
`
`67. These patents and applications from the time of the invention evidence
`
`that the conventional wisdom of cable connector designers and manufacturers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`attempting to solve the loose connector problem was to try to use a separate
`
`conductive component that wound not impede rotation of the nut/coupler with
`
`respect to the post. These prior art solutions were different than the design claimed
`
`in the „336 Patent.
`
`68. Rather than use a separate component to provide a ground path between
`
`the nut/coupler and the post, the inventive solution of the „338 Patent involved the
`
`use of engagement fingers that were part of, and integral with, the post. And rather
`
`than employing a design that sought to avoid contact between the post and the nut so
`
`as not to impede rotation of the nut as in the prior art, the inventive solution of the
`
`„338 Patent sought to create constant contact between the post and the nut.
`
`B.
`
`The Scope And Content Of The Prior Art
`
`1.
`
`Bence
`
`69. Bence disclosed the use of a separate conductive grounding member
`
`from the post in all of its embodiments to try to resolve the loose connector problem.
`
`(EX1007 FIGS. 2, 4-11D.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`70. Bence discloses and claims that the “electrical grounding path is
`
`provided by a resilient, electrically-conductive grounding member disposed between
`
`the tubular post and the coupler.” (EX1007 Abstract; 6:66-6:2, 8:32-39, 10:15-25,
`
`Claims 1, 26, 29, 33.)
`
`71. Bence discloses that the intended purpose of its loose connector
`
`solution was to “to avoid interference with rotation of the coupling nut 105 relative
`
`to the tubular post.” (EX1007 7:19-24.) Bence was trying to solve the loose
`
`connector problem through the use of a separate grounding member that would not
`
`restrict the free rotation of the nut. Bence states many times that the loose
`
`connector solution must not interfere with rotation of the nut.
`
`“without restricting rotation of the coupler relative to the tubular post”
`
`(EX1007 3:16-20, 6:7-11.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 8,075,338
`IPR2015-01573
`
`
`
`
`
`“to avoid interference with rotation of the coupler relative to the tubular
`
`post” (EX1007 2:13-17.)
`
`“In order not to interfere with free rotation of the coupling nut 105”
`
`(EX1007 7:15-19.)
`
`“allowing the coupling nut to rotate” (EX1007 6:18-21, 8:9-14, 8:32-
`
`39; 8:55-57, 9:18-21.)
`
`72. Bence teaches that in order to solve the loose connector problem
`
`through the use of a separate grounding member that will “not to interfere with free
`
`rotation of the coupling nut 105, the outer diameter 336 of the shoulder 332 (at the
`
`head 330 of the tubular post 104) is of smaller dimension than the inner diameter
`
`344 of the central bore of the coupling nut 105. (EX1007 7:15-19.)
`
`
`
`outer diameter (336)
`of the shoulder (332)
`of the post (106) is
`smaller than the inner
`diameter (334) of the
`coupling nut (105)
`
`inner diameter (344) of
`the coupling nut (105) is
`larger than the outer
`diameter (336) of the
`shoulder (332) of the
`post (106)
`
`
`
`
`73. Bence‟s design, where the dimensions o