Paper 8
` Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADELOS, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
` Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`ADELOS, INC., and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`AS REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
`Exclusive Licensee and Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
`AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for
`inter partes review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,271,884 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’884 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The United
`States of America, as Represented by the Department of the Navy and
`exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc. (herein collectively “Patent Owner”), filed a
`Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”).1 Institution of an inter
`partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the
`petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood
`that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`Upon consideration of the Petition and Preliminary Response, we conclude
`the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims
`1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of the ’884 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’884 patent is the subject of a court
`proceeding styled Adelos, Inc. v. Halliburton Company et al., Case No. 9:16-
`cv-119-DLC (D. Mon.). Pet. 1; Paper 3, i.
`
`
`1 Adelos, Inc. is identified as “the exclusive licensee of the Government.”
`Paper 3, i. The United States of America, as Represented by the Department
`of the Navy and exclusive licensee Adelos, Inc., jointly submit the
`Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 1. Accordingly, we herein refer to the
`two collectively as Patent Owner.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`B. The ’884 Patent
`The ʼ884 patent is directed to time-domain reflectometers. Ex. 1001,
`1:38. Specifically, the ’884 patent “relates to such reflectometers which are
`a part of a photonic system application in which the object of the
`reflectometry is a span of fiber which has an interrogation signal launch end
`and a remote end.” Id. at 1:39–43. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’884 patent shows a block
`diagram of a time-domain reflectometer system.
`Figure 3 shows a transmitter laser 3 connected to coupler or
`
`beamsplitter 4, which in turn is connected to optical modulator 5. Id. at
`14:43–49. Optical modulator 5 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter
`or circulator 7, which in turn is connected to optical fiber 9. Id. at 14:49–61.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`Master correlation code generator 53 is connected to modulator 5 by
`amplifier 49. Id. at 14:51–52.
`The propagation of the signal in optical fiber 9 “causes a back-
`propagating composite optical signal, which is the linear summation, or
`integration spatially, of all of the individual, continuous, or continuum of
`back-reflections along the span of the optical fiber.” Id. at 15:10–13.
`Optical pathway 11 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter, or
`circulator 7 to receive backscattered light from optical fiber 9 and relay it to
`heterodyne optical receiver 15. Id. at 15:66–16:3, 20:16–20. Optical
`receiver 15 receives an input from local oscillator laser 45. Id. at 17:52–63.
`Transmitter laser 3 and local oscillator laser 45 are also connected to
`receiver 35 through optical couplers 4 and 43 and optical pathways 39 and
`41. Id. at 14:42–47, 17:55–59. Optical receiver 35 is connected back to
`local oscillator laser 45 through phase locking circuity 31. Id. at 18:1–15.
`Correlator system 23 receives RF signal 21 and an input from correlation
`code generator 53. Id. at 19:48–50, 20:4–6. Correlator system 23 is
`connected to phase demodulation system 66 which in turn is connected to
`phase differencer 99. Id. at 20:20–27, 22:43–47. Phase demodulation
`system 66 is comprised of a plurality of phase demodulators 81, 83, and 85.
`Id. at 24:61–64, Fig. 7.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of the ’884
`patent. Claims 1, 21, and 22 are independent claims. Claim 22, reproduced
`below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
`22. Signal sensing apparatus for sensing input signals at
`an array of a plurality of sensing stations along an optical fiber
`span, wherein at respective sensing stations of the array the
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`apparatus senses input signals of a type having the property of
`inducing light path changes within at regions of the span
`influenced by such signals, said apparatus comprising:
`an optical wave network comprising a transmitter laser,
`and a lightwave directional coupler, said network being operative
`to illuminate an optical fiber span with a CW optical signal and
`to retrieve portions of the illumination back-propagating from a
`continuum of locations along the fiber span;
`a modulator operative to modulate the CW optical signal
`in accordance with a reiterative autocorrelable form of
`modulation code;
`a heterodyner which receives said retrieved back-
`propagated portions of illumination and derives therefrom a
`radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart thereof; and
`a subsystem which receives said r.f. counterpart of the
`retrieved back-propagated portions of said illumination and is
`operative to derive signals representation of the phases of input
`signals respectively influencing the sensing stations of said
`plurality of sensing stations, said subsystem including;
`a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation detectors
`which respectively detect components of said r.f. counterpart of
`the retrieved portions of the illumination representative of the
`optical input signals influencing the corresponding sensing
`stations; and
`a corresponding plurality of phase demodulators which
`receive respective corresponding detected components of the
`input signals, said demodulators being operative in phase locked
`synchronism with said CW optical signal.
`
`Id. at 36:32–65.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable based on the following grounds (Pet. 3–4):
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Challenged Claim(s)
`Everard2
`§ 103
`1–3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22
`Everard and Fredin3
`§ 103
`7
`Everard and Yoshino4
`§ 103
`10
`Everard and Henning5
`§ 103
`11
`Everard and Wright6
`§ 103
`13
`Everard and Payton7
`§ 103
`16
`Kersey8 and Yoshino or
`§ 103
`1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22
`Beckmann9
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Henning § 103
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`§ 103
`Beckmann, and Wright
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Everard
`Kersey, Yoshino or
`Beckmann, and Payton
`
`§ 103
`
`11
`
`13
`
`15
`
`§ 103
`
`16
`
`
`2 UK Patent Application No. GB2190186A, published Nov. 11, 1987 (Ex.
`1004) (“Everard”).
`3 U.S. Patent No. 6,606,148 B2, issued Aug. 12, 2003 (Ex. 1008) (“Fredin”).
`4 Toshihiko Yoshino et al., “Common Path Heterodyne Optical Fiber
`Sensors,” Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 10, No. 4, April 1992 (Ex.
`1007) (“Yoshino”).
`5 UK Patent Application No. GB2197953A, published June 2, 1988 (Ex.
`1009) (“Henning”).
`6 U.S. Patent No. 4,596,052, issued June 17, 1986 (Ex. 1010) (“Wright”).
`7 U.S. Patent No. 6,043,921, issued March 28, 2000 (Ex. 1011) (“Payton”).
`8 U.S. Patent No. 6,285,806 B1, issued Sept. 4, 2001 (Ex. 1005) (“Kersey”).
`9 U.S. Patent No. 4,794,249, issued Dec. 27, 1988 (Ex. 1006) (“Beckmann”).
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms in an unexpired
`patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are
`presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
`2007).
`Petitioner proposes constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 13–19.
`Patent Owner provides arguments only regarding Petitioner’s proposed
`construction of “light source.” Prelim. Resp. 6–8. For purposes of this
`decision, we need only construe the term “means for performing a
`corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes” recited in
`independent claim 21.
`Petitioner argues that the “means for performing a corresponding
`plurality of phase demodulation processes” limitation recited in claim 21 is a
`means-plus-function limitation and should be construed under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112, sixth paragraph. Pet. 18–19. Petitioner argues that the corresponding
`structure for the “means for performing a corresponding plurality of phase
`demodulation processes” includes at least the phase demodulator system 66
`of Figure 3. Id. at 19. Phase demodulator system 66 of Figure 3 shows no
`details, but is further described with respect to all of the detailed structure
`shown in Figures 7–11. Ex. 1001, 24:53–27:59. We determine, therefore,
`for purposes of this decision, that the corresponding structure for the “means
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`for performing a corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes”
`are the circuits shown in Figures 7–11 and described in the ’884 patent
`related to phase demodulator system 66 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof.
`For purposes of this decision we need not expressly construe any
`other claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed
`that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co. Ltd., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid
`Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).
`
`B. Principles of Law
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that
`the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art;10 and (4) when in evidence, objective
`
`
`10 Relying on the testimony of Dr. Faramarz Farahi, Petitioner offers an
`assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of the filing date of the ’884
`patent. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 12). Patent Owner does not propose an
`alternative assessment. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this
`Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent
`with the ’884 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
`(1966).
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness of Claims over Everard
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Everard. Pet. 20–47.
`In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the declaration of Dr.
`Faramarz Farahi. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Everard
`Everard describes a pseudo random bit sequencer (PRBS) that is
`amplitude modulated onto a light source. Ex. 1004, 1:48–49. The
`modulated beam is transmitted down an optical fiber and the detected
`backscattered signal is multiplied with a digitally delayed version of the
`transmitted sequence. Id. at 1:50–52. Figure 8 of Everard is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`
`Figure 8 of Everard shows a system of the described invention.
`
`Digital pseudo random generator 1 is amplitude modulated onto laser
`
`2. Id. at 5:37–38. Light from laser 2 is coupled to optical fiber 3 via beam
`splitters 4 and 5 and lens 6. Id. at 5:39–40. The backscattered signal from
`fiber 3 is deflected by beam splitter 5 via lens 8 onto photodetector 9. Id. at
`5:44–45. The output of photo-detector 9 is amplified by amplifier 11, the
`output of which is input to RF mixer 12. Id. at 5:48–50. RF mixer is
`connected to power detector or demodulator 14. Id. at 5:54–55. The
`demodulated signal from 14 is multiplied by multiplier 15 with a time
`delayed version of the original pseudo random sequence 1 using delay
`circuit 16 and PRBS generator 17. Id. at 5:63–6:1.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Everard renders obvious claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12,
`14, 15, and 18–22. Pet. 20–47. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n
`phase demodulators for transforming each respective r.f. counterpart of said
`second component into a substantially linear signal representative of radian
`phase of the corresponding lightwave subcomponent signal.” Independent
`claim 21 recites “means for performing a corresponding plurality of phase
`demodulation processes upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved back-
`propagated modulated CW optical signal, said demodulation processes
`performed in phase locked synchronism with said CW optical signal.”
`Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of phase demodulators which
`receive respective corresponding detected components of the input signals,
`said demodulators being operative in phase locked synchronism with said
`CW optical signal.”
`For each of these similar limitations, Petitioner acknowledges that the
`claimed phase demodulators (claims 1 and 22) and means for performing
`phase demodulation processes (claim 21) are missing in Everard. Pet. 31,
`42–43, 46–47. For the missing element, Petitioner contends that it would
`have been obvious to add phase measurement IC chips to Everard’s system
`to perform phase modulation. Id. For example, Petitioner contends the
`following with respect to claim 1:
`Everard’s Fig. 9 discloses phase demodulation that transforms
`the RF output of the heterodyner to an “output which when
`integrated or averaged would produce spatial information about
`the amplitude, spectrum, phase and polarisation of
`the
`backscatter.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would be
`motivated by Everard’s suggestion to integrate or average the
`output to produce spatial information about phase of the
`backscatter
`to use conventional phase measurement ICs
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`an output
`that provide
`chips)
`electronic
`(integrated
`proportionally linear to the phase shift. A person of ordinary skill
`would have had a reasonable expectation of success in adding
`such ICs to Everard’s system. Ex. 1003, ¶ 64 (1[m]).
`Id. at 31.
`
`Paragraph 64 of Dr. Farahi’s declaration is nearly a duplicate of the
`above, but adds the following.
`
`Based on my experience designing fiber sensing systems in the
`2000-2003 time frame, my opinion is that to those of skill in the
`art the use of conventional phase measurement ICs would have
`provided predictable results to address the design goal identified
`in Everard of producing information about the phase of
`backscatter.
`Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (1[m]).
`
`Petitioner’s showings are similar with respect to the disputed phrases
`found in claims 21 and 22. Pet. at 42–43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 75 (21[f])), 46–
`47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 76 (22[f])).
`Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not accounted
`sufficiently for the phase modulation limitations in claims 1, 21, and 22.
`First and foremost, Petitioner has not accounted for all of the requirements
`of the disputed phrases. Claims 1 and 22 require “phase demodulators.”
`Claim 21 recites “means for performing a corresponding plurality of phase
`demodulation processes.” As explained above, we construe the
`corresponding structure for the “means for performing” to be that which is
`shown in Figures 7–11 that further describes the phase demodulator system
`66 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof. Petitioner has not shown that “phase
`measurement ICs” are the same as “phase demodulators” claimed in claims
`1 and 22, or are the same, or equivalent to, the structure set forth in Figures
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`7–11 for the claim 21 “means for performing a corresponding plurality of
`phase demodulation processes.” For this reason alone, the Petition is
`insufficient.
` In addition, claim 1 requires that the claimed demodulators transform
`“each respective r.f. counterpart of said second component into a
`substantially linear signal representative of radian phase of the
`corresponding lightwave subcomponent signal.” Petitioner does not address
`or show that “conventional phase measurement ICs” would transform the
`claimed r.f. counterpart “into a substantially linear signal representative of
`radian phase of the corresponding lightwave subcomponent signal.” Claim
`22 requires that the plurality of phase demodulators are “operative in phase
`locked synchronism with said CW optical signal.” Claim 21 recites similar
`language associated with the “means for performing” phrase. Petitioner
`does not address or show that conventional phase measurement ICs would
`be operative in phase locked synchronism with a CW optical signal. For
`these additional reasons, the Petition is insufficient.
`Lastly, and independently, to the extent that “phase measurement ICs”
`are equivalent to “phase demodulators,” which for reasons stated above, we
`find that Petitioner has failed to show that they are, we are not persuaded by
`Petitioner’s assertions that adding phase measurement ICs to Everard would
`have been obvious as asserted. In that regard, Petitioner’s assertions are
`conclusory. For example, Dr. Farahi’s statement, reproduced above, that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the use of
`conventional phase measurement ICs would have provided predictable
`results to address the design goal identified in Everard of producing
`information about the phase of backscatter” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (1[m]), lacks
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`underlying facts to support the conclusions made and is entitled to little
`weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Everard.11
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Everard and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following: (1) Everard and
`Fredin (claim 7); (2) Everard and Yoshino (claim 10); (3) Everard and
`Henning (claim 11); (4) Everard and Wright (claim 13); and (5) Everard and
`Payton (claim 16). Pet. 47–51. Petitioner relies on the respective secondary
`references to address elements claimed in claims 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16.
`Claims 7, 10, 11, 13, and 16 depend either directly or indirectly from claim
`1. As explained above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established
`a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim
`1 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Everard.
`Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenges to claims
`7, 10, 11, 13, and 16, which depend from claim 1.
`
`
`
`11 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s arguments as to this challenge.
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann. Pet. 51–73. In support of its showing, Petitioner
`relies upon the declaration of Dr. Farahi. Id. (citing Ex. 1003).
`
`1. Kersey
`Kersey describes an interferometric sensor array with a large number
`of addressable sensor locations for detecting acoustic or other vibrations.
`Ex. 1005, 1:6–9. Figure 2 of Kersey is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 2 of Kersey shows a
`schematic diagram of a fiber sensor array.
`Fiber sensor array 200 includes laser 202 that emits light that passes
`through coupler 204. Id. at 3:29–32. Coupler 204 splits the flux into a first
`portion directed to modulator 208 and a second portion 219. Id. at 3:32–33.
`Pulse modulator modulates the flux with a PRBS generated by PRBS
`generator 206 to produce PRBS optical signal 210. Id. at 3:35–37. Optical
`signal 210 passes through coupler 212 into fiber 214, which has a series of
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`coils 216-1, 216-2, etc. bounded by Bragg grating reflectors 218-0, 218-1,
`etc. Id. at 3:40–45. Each coil acts as a sensor by undergoing a change in its
`refractive index in accordance with a condition to be sensed. Id. at 3:46–48.
`Each Bragg grating reflector 218-0, 21-1, 218-2, etc., reflects a small portion
`of the light flux incident on it and the sum of the reflected light fluxes is
`received by coupler 212 and directed to coupler 220, which also receives
`second portion 219 of light flux split off by coupler 212. Id. at 3:54–61.
`Transducers 222 and 224 convert output of coupler 220 to electric signals
`and input the signals to difference amplifier. Id. at 4:1–3. Signal 228 is fed
`to correlator 230 via delay circuit 228. Id. at 4:8–10. “Correlator 230
`performs a correlation over the span of the time window, determines in a
`known manner the time shift between signals 227 and 229 which maximizes
`the correlation, thereby determining the phase between the two signals.” Id.
`at 4:28–32.
`
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`renders obvious claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22. Pet. 51–73. Claim
`1 recites “a corresponding set of n phase demodulators for transforming each
`respective r.f. counterpart of said second component into a substantially
`linear signal representative of radian phase of the corresponding lightwave
`subcomponent signal.” Independent claim 21 recites “means for performing
`a corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes upon said r.f.
`counterpart of the retrieved back-propagated modulated CW optical signal,
`said demodulation processes performed in phase locked synchronism with
`said CW optical signal.” Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of
`phase demodulators which receive respective corresponding detected
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`components of the input signals, said demodulators being operative in phase
`locked synchronism with said CW optical signal.”
`For each of these similar limitations, Petitioner relies on Kersey’s
`correlators 230 for meeting the limitations. Pet. 62–63, 69–70, 73. Based
`on the record before us, Petitioner has not accounted sufficiently for the
`phase demodulation limitations in claims 1, 21, and 22. Claims 1 and 22
`require “phase demodulators.” Claim 21 recites “means for performing a
`corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes.” As explained
`above, we construe the corresponding structure for the “means for
`performing” to be that which is shown in Figures 7–11 that further describes
`the phase demodulator system 66 of Figure 3 and equivalents thereof.
`Petitioner has not shown that Kersey’s “correlators” are the same as “phase
`demodulators” claimed in claims 1 and 22 or are the same, or equivalent to,
`the structure set forth in Figures 7–11 for the claim 21 “means for
`performing a corresponding plurality of phase demodulation processes.” For
`this reason alone, the Petition is insufficient.
`Moreover, Petitioner also relies on Kersey’s correlators 230 for
`meeting the following limitations “a corresponding set of n correlation-type
`binary pseudonoise code sequence demodulators” (claim 1), “means for
`performing a corresponding plurality of auto-correlation detection
`processes” (claim 21), and “a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation
`detectors” (claim 22). Pet. 61–62, 68–69, 73. Petitioner has not explained
`how Kersey’s correlators meets these limitations as well as those discussed
`above. For example, claim 1 recites that “said set of correlation-type binary
`pseudonoise code sequence demodulators . . . provide at their respective
`outputs r.f. counterparts of the subcomponents of said second signal
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`component.” Claim 1 further recites “a corresponding set of n phase
`demodulators for transforming each respective r.f. counterpart of said
`second component [provided at the respective outputs of the set of
`correlation-type binary pseudonoise code sequence demodulators] into a
`substantially linear signal.” Thus, claim 1 requires two different elements
`for performing the claimed functions. Claims 21 and 22 are similar and also
`require two different elements for performing the claimed functions.
`Petitioner, however, does not explain how Kersey’s correlators 230 meet
`both claimed elements in each independent claim.
`For all of these reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenge to claims 1–3, 5–7, 10, 12, 14, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann.12
`
`F. Obviousness of claims over Kersey and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following: (1) Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Henning (claim 11); (2) Kersey
`in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Wright (claim 13);
`(3) Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in view of Everard
`(claim 15); and (4) Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann and further in
`view of Payton (claim 16). Pet. 74–76. Petitioner relies on the respective
`tertiary references to address elements claimed in claims 11, 13, 15, and 16.
`
`
`12 Because we find Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing on this challenge for the reasons discussed above, we do not reach
`Patent Owner’s arguments as to this challenge.
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`Claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`As explained above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge to claim 1
`as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kersey in view of
`Yoshino or Beckmann. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Petitioner
`has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its
`challenges to claims 11, 13, 15, and 16, which depend from claim 1.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that any of claims
`1–3, 5–7, 10–16, and 18–22 of the ’884 patent are unpatentable.
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02107
`Patent 7,271,884 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Michael Hawes
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`michael.hawes@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Gary Hausken
`Nicholas Kim
`CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
`gary.hausken@usdoj.gov
`nicholas.j.kim@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
