Paper 7
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`
`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 IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: April 2, 2018
`
`
`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 IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for
`inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6–16, and 18–22 of U.S. Patent No.
`7,030,971 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’971 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 6 (“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, 6–16, and 18–22 of the ’971 patent.
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties state that the ’971 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, 1.
`
`B. The ’971 Patent
`The ʼ971 patent is directed to time-domain reflectometers. Ex. 1001,
`1:40–41. Specifically, the ’971 patent “relates to such reflectometers which
`
`
`1 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`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 1:41–45. Figure 3 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 3 of the ’971 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
`15:53–60. Optical modulator 5 is connected to optical coupler, beamsplitter
`or circulator 7, which in turn is connected to optical fiber 9. Id. at 16:1–5.
`Master correlation code generator 53 is connected to modulator 5 by
`amplifier 49. Id. at 15:62–65.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`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 16:21–24.
`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 17:10–14, 21:28–32. Optical receiver
`15 receives an input from local oscillator laser 45. Id. at 18:64–66.
`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 15:51–58, 18:64–19:4. Optical receiver 35 is connected back to
`local oscillator laser 45 through phase locking circuity 31. Id. at 19:14–27.
`Correlator system 23 receives RF signal 21 and an input from correlation
`code generator 53. Id. at 20:60–62, 21:16–18. Correlator system 23 is
`connected to phase demodulation system 66 which in turn is connected to
`phase differencer 99. Id. at 22:32–39, 23:55–60. Phase demodulation
`system 66 is comprised of a plurality of phase demodulators 81, 83, and 85.
`Id. at 26:9–12, Fig. 7.
`
`C. Illustrative Claim
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–3, 6–16, and 18–22 of the ’971 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 station of the array the
`apparatus senses input signals of a type having the property of
`inducing light path changes within regions influenced by such
`signals, said apparatus comprising:
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`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 autocorrelatable form of
`modulation code;
`a heterodyner which, in phase locked synchronism with
`said transmitter laser, receives said retrieved back-propagated
`portions of illumination and derives therefrom a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart; and
`a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation detectors
`operative upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal
`in respective timed relationships of a corresponding plurality of
`different timed relationships with respect to said reiterative
`autocorrelatable form of modulation code.
`
`Id. at 38:6–31.
`
`D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–3, 6–16, and 18–22 are unpatentable
`based on the following grounds (Pet. 3–4):
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`Everard2
`§ 102
`Everard
`§ 103
`Everard and Fredin3
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`1–3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22
`7 and 8
`9
`
`
`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”).
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Reference(s)
`Everard and Yoshino4
`Everard and Henning5
`Everard and Wright6
`Everard and Payton7
`Kersey8 and Yoshino or
`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
`
`§ 103
`
`Challenged Claim(s)
`10
`11
`13
`16
`1–3, 6–10, 12, 14, and 18–22
`
`11
`
`13
`
`15
`
`16
`
`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
`
`
`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 Publication 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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`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. 13–18.
`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 address Petitioner’s constructions for the phrases
`“having their respective inputs connected to the corresponding output
`channels of said n-way splitter through a corresponding set of time delay
`circuits” recited in claim 1, and “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” recited in independent claim 21.
`Petitioner argues that the phrase “having their respective inputs
`connected to the corresponding output channels of said n-way splitter
`through a corresponding set of time delay circuits” recited in claim 1 should
`be construed to mean “each oriented to receive a combination of a signal
`from one of the output channels and a signal from a corresponding one of a
`set of delay circuits.” Pet. 16–17. Petitioner argues that the construction is
`reflected in Figure 6 of the ’971 patent where multipliers 241, 243, and 245
`are each connected to one of the output channels (identified as 211, 213, and
`215) of the n-way splitter 203 and one of the delay circuits (identified as
`221, 223, and 225). Id.
`We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. Claim 1 requires that
`the claimed demodulators have their respective inputs connected to the
`corresponding output channels of the claimed splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits. The plain language of the phrase is
`clear on its face and means that the demodulators are not directly connected
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`to the output channels of the claimed splitter, but rather are connected to
`those outputs through delay circuits. Petitioner proposes rewriting the
`phrase to mean that each demodulator receives one signal from the output of
`the n-way splitter and another signal from a delay circuit and directs
`attention to Figure 6 which purportedly shows the same. Figure 6 is
`described as an example implementation of the correlation system 23. Ex.
`1001, 25:43–45. Petitioner does not explain why we should construe the
`phrase to match what is shown per an example, especially when doing so
`would change the plain meaning of the phrase. See, e.g., SRAM Corp. v.
`AD-II Engineering, Inc., 465 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
`(“While SRAM strongly urges the court to interpret the claim to encompass
`the innovative precision indexing shifting feature it contends it has invented,
`we are powerless to rewrite the claims and must construe the language of the
`claim at issue based on the words used” (citing Hoganas AB v. Dresser
`Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 951 (Fed.Cir.1993)); “In this case, the words are
`clear and the claim covers no more than the recited method of taking up lost
`motion and effecting a shift.”). For purposes of this decision, we need not
`further construe this phrase.
`Petitioner argues that the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” limitation recited in claim 21 should
`be construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Pet. 18. Petitioner
`argues that the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio
`frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” includes at least the
`heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3. Id. What is shown in Figure 3
`for heterodyne optical receiver 15 is simply a black box without any details
`of the device itself. The heterodyne optical receiver 15, however, is further
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`described with respect to all of the detailed structure shown in Figures 4 and
`5. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:36–39, 25:4–5. We determine, therefore, for
`purposes of this decision, that the corresponding structure for the “means for
`picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” are
`the circuits shown in Figures 4 and 5 related to heterodyne optical receiver
`15 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
`To establish anticipation, each and every element in a claim, arranged
`as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference.
`See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
`2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed.
`Cir. 2001). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the
`same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
`test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d
`1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); accord In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed.
`Cir. 1990).
`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
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`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 evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
`1, 17–18 (1966).
`
`C. Anticipation of Claims over Everard
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Everard. Pet. 20–
`45. 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
`
`
`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 ’971
`patent. Pet. 12–13 (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 ’971 patent and the asserted prior art.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`transmitted sequence. Id. at 1:50–52. Figure 8 of Everard is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`2. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Everard anticipates claims 1–3, 6, 12, 14, 15,
`and 18–22. Pet. 20–45. Claim 1 recites “a corresponding set of n
`correlation-type binary pseudonoise code sequence demodulators having
`their respective inputs connected to the corresponding output channels of
`said n-way splitter through a corresponding set of time delay circuits.”
`Petitioner argues that Everard’s correlators of Figure 9 meet the claimed
`demodulators and the delay circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of Figure 9 correspond to the
`“time delay circuits.” Petitioner’s showing is lacking, however, because
`Petitioner does not explain why Everard’s “correlators” meet the claimed “n
`correlation-type binary pseudonoise sequence code demodulators.” The
`terms are different and Petitioner has not accounted for the different
`language. In addition, Everard’s correlators do not have their respective
`inputs connected to the corresponding output channels of a splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits. Rather, we find that Everard’s
`correlators are connected directly to the output channels, not through a set of
`time delay circuits. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9.
`Independent claim 21 recites “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” As discussed above, we construe
`the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” to be the corresponding structure
`shown in Figures 4 or 5 for the heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3.
`Figure 4 shows an optical coupler or beamsplitter 105 that splits optical
`signals equally and whose outputs are connected to the inputs of optical
`detectors 111 and 113. Ex. 1001, 24:33–51. Optical detectors 111 and 113
`illuminate the optical signals, the output of which is connected to the input
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`of amplifier 117. Id. Similarly, Figure 5 shows an optical coupler or
`beamsplitter 105 that combines the lightwaves on paths 101 and 103 into a
`composite lightwave on path 107 which is connected to optical detector 111.
`The output of optical detector 111 is connected to amplifier 117. Id. at
`24:60–25:3.
`Petitioner argues that Everard’s lens 8 and photodetector 9 of Figure 8
`are a “lightwave heterodyner” that meets the claimed “means for picking off
`a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” Pet. 39.
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Everard’s lens 8 and photodetector
`9 are the same structure as what is described in the ’971 patent for the
`claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the
`retrieved signal,” or equivalent thereof. Instead, Petitioner asserts that a
`person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Everard’s
`“photodetector is structure used for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.)
`counterpart of the retrieved signal, because output provided by the
`photodetector into the RF mixer must be an radio frequency signal.” Id.
`(citing Ex. 1004, 5:44–53). Such an assertion, however, merely accounts for
`the function of the disputed phrase, but does not account for the structure.
`Everard’s “photodetector” is a black box. Petitioner has not shown that this
`black box, or the portion of Everard to which we are directed, describes the
`same structure for the claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.)
`counterpart of the retrieved signal,” described in the ’971 patent, or
`equivalents thereof. We will not assume that the structures are the same or
`equivalent.
`Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation
`detectors operative upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`in respective timed relationships of a corresponding plurality of different
`timed relationships with respect to said reiterative autocorrelatable form of
`modulation code.” Petitioner asserts that Everard’s correlators of Figure 9
`and the delay circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Figure 9 meet the recited phrase.
`Petitioner, however, fails to explain why that is so. For instance, we are not
`provided with a showing of how a delay circuit connected to a correlator
`meets the requirement that the detectors are operative “upon said r.f.
`counterpart of the retrieved optical signal in respective timed relationships of
`a corresponding plurality of different timed relationships with respect to said
`reiterative autocorrelatable form of modulation code.” Claim 22 requires
`“respective time relationships” and “different timed relationships,” yet
`Petitioner does not explain, in any way, how Everard’s delay circuits meet
`this language.
`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, 6, 12, 14, 15, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Everard.11
`
`D. Obviousness of claims over Everard and Additional References
`Petitioner contends claims 7–11, 13, and 16 are unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious based on the following: (1) Everard (claims 7
`and 8); (2) Everard and Fredin (claim 9); (3) Everard and Yoshino (claim
`10); (4) Everard and Henning (claim 11); (5) Everard and Wright (claim 13);
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`and (6) Evarard and Payton (claim 16). Pet. 46–51. Claims 7–11, 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. § 102(b) over Everard. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would
`prevail in its challenges to claims 7–11, 13, and 16, which depend either
`directly or indirectly from claim 1.
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness over Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`Petitioner contends claims 1–3, 6–10, 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. 51–74. 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.
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`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. Yoshino
`Yoshino discloses a differential heterodyne fiber-optic sensing system
`
`using a dual-frequency laser beam and a single mode, polarization-
`maintaining fiber. Ex. 1007, 503. The sensors may measure “temperature”
`and “strain.” Id. The system light source emits “two modes having a
`frequency separation from 300 to 400 kHz.” Id., 504. The system uses a
`signal fiber and a reference fiber, where the phase difference between the
`two beat signals is detected by a phasemeter. Id.
`
`3. Beckmann
`Beckmann discloses “an optical time-domain reflectometer (OTDR)
`with heterodyne reception” that measures the “back-scattered portion of light
`pulses sent into the measuring waveguide.” Ex. 1006, [57]. The “structure
`is comprised of a modulated laser light source” and “a laser light source
`which constitutes a local oscillator and transmits continuous light.” Id. The
`light sources differ by an intermediate frequency. Id. The back-scattered
`light of the transmission light source is superposed and applied to a
`photodetector whose intermediate-frequency electric output signal is filtered
`and evaluated. Id.
`
`4. Discussion
`Petitioner asserts that Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann
`renders obvious claims 1–3, 6–10, 12, 14, and 18–22. Pet. 51–74. Claim 1
`recites “a corresponding set of n correlation-type binary pseudonoise code
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`sequence demodulators having their respective inputs connected to the
`corresponding output channels of said n-way splitter through a
`corresponding set of time delay circuits.” Petitioner argues that Kersey’s
`correlators of Figure 3 meet the claimed demodulators and the delay circuits
`of Figure 3 correspond to the “time delay circuits.” Petitioner’s showing is
`lacking, however, because Petitioner does not explain why Kersey’s
`“correlators” meet the claimed “n correlation-type binary pseudonoise code
`sequence demodulators.” The terms are different and Petitioner has not
`accounted for the different language. In addition, Kersey’s correlators do
`not have their respective inputs connected to the corresponding output
`channels of a splitter through a corresponding set of time delay circuits.
`Rather, we find that Kersey’s correlators are connected directly to the output
`channels, not through a set of time delay circuits. Ex. 1005, Fig. 3.
`Independent claim 21 recites “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” As discussed above, we construe
`the corresponding structure for the “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal” to be the corresponding structure
`shown in Figures 4 or 5 for the heterodyne optical receiver 15 of Figure 3.
`Figure 4 shows an optical coupler or beamsplitter 105 that splits optical
`signals equally and whose outputs are connected to the inputs of optical
`detectors 111 and 113. Ex. 1001, 24:33–51. Optical detectors 111 and 113
`illuminate the optical signals, the output of which is connected to the input
`of amplifier 117. Id. Similarly, Figure 5 shows an optical coupler or
`beamsplitter 105 that combines the lightwaves on paths 101 and 103 into a
`composite lightwave on path 107 which is connected to optical detector 111.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`The output of optical detector 111 is connected to amplifier 117. Id. at
`24:60–25:3.
`Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
`have been motivated to combine Kersey with the lightwave heterodyner of
`either Yoshino or Beckmann “to achieve a means for picking off a radio
`frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.” Pet. 68–69. Petitioner
`relies on Yoshino’s phase meter shown in Figure 2(a), or alternatively,
`Beckmann’s optical detector 5 shown in Figure 1, for meeting the “means
`for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal.”
`Id.
`
`Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Yoshino’s phase meter or
`Beckmann’s optical detector are the same structure as what is described in
`the ’971 patent for the claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency
`(r.f.) counterpart of the retrieved signal,” or equivalent thereof. Petitioner
`asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand
`Yoshino’s phase meter is “operative to produce the beat frequency of their
`respective frequencies.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007, 504). Petitioner also asserts
`that a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand Beckmann’s
`optical detector is “operative to produce the beat frequency of their
`respective frequencies.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 5:7–11). Such assertions,
`however, merely account for the function of the disputed phrase, but do not
`account for the structure. Petitioner has not shown how Yoshino’s phase
`meter or Beckmann’s optical detector, or the portions of Yoshino and
`Beckmann to which we are directed, describes the same structure for the
`claimed “means for picking off a radio frequency (r.f.) counterpart of the
`retrieved signal,” described in the ’971 patent, or equivalents thereof. We
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`will not assume that the structures shown in Yoshino or Beckmann are the
`same or equivalent.
`Claim 22 recites “a corresponding plurality of autocorrelation
`detectors operative upon said r.f. counterpart of the retrieved optical signal
`in respective timed relationships of a corresponding plurality of different
`timed relationships with respect to said reiterative autocorrelatable form of
`modulation code.” Petitioner asserts that Kersey’s correlators 230 and delay
`circuits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of Figure 9 meet the recited phrase. Pet. 73–74.
`Petitioner, however, fails to explain why that is so. For instance, we are not
`provided with a showing of how a delay circuit connected to a correlator
`meets the requirement that the detectors are operative “upon said r.f.
`counterpart of the retrieved optical signal in respective timed relationships of
`a corresponding plurality of different timed relationships with respect to said
`reiterative autocorrelatable form of modulation code.” Claim 22 requires
`“respective time relationships” and “different timed relationships,” yet
`Petitioner does not explain, in any way, how Kersey’s delay circuits meet
`this language.
`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, 6–10, 12, 14, and 18–22 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Kersey in view of Yoshino or Beckmann.12
`
`
`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.
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02109
`Patent 7,030,971 B1
`
`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.
`Claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 depend either directly or indirectl
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
