PTAB

IPR2013-00057

Berk Tek LLC v. Belden Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Making Enhanced Data Cable With Cross-Twist Cabled Core Profile
  • Brief Description: The ’503 patent describes a method for manufacturing high-performance data cables with reduced internal signal interference (crosstalk). The disclosed method involves cabling multiple twisted pairs of insulated conductors around a cross-shaped core profile, or spline, which is designed to maintain the physical separation and geometric arrangement of the conductor pairs along the length of the cable.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation/Obviousness over Gleason - Claims 1-13 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Gleason.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gleason (Patent 5,952,615).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gleason, which discloses a high-speed data cable containing a central "spline" member, teaches every limitation of the challenged claims. Gleason describes a cable structure comprising twisted pairs disposed within the channels of a cross-shaped spline. Petitioner contended this disclosure of the final product structure inherently anticipates or renders obvious the claimed method of making it. Specifically, Gleason’s figures and description of the assembled cable were argued to necessarily teach the claimed steps of providing twisted pairs, providing a cross-shaped core profile, and cabling the pairs into the channels of that core profile.
    • Key Aspects: The argument centered on the legal principle that a prior art reference disclosing a product with a particular structure can inherently disclose a method of making that product, especially where the manufacturing steps are conventional and implicit in the final assembly.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Boucino and Gleason Int'l - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Boucino in view of Gleason Int'l.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Boucino (Patent 5,969,295), Gleason Int'l (WO 98/26425).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Boucino teaches a foundational method for manufacturing data cables, which includes providing and cabling twisted conductor pairs around a central filler element to form a cable core. However, Boucino does not explicitly disclose the cross-shaped core profile required by the claims. Gleason Int'l was cited to supply this missing element, as it expressly discloses using a cross-shaped spacer or core profile to separate twisted pairs in a data cable specifically to improve crosstalk performance. The combination of Boucino's method with Gleason Int'l's core profile was alleged to meet all limitations of the independent claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), seeking to enhance the performance of a cable made using Boucino's method, would have been motivated to address the well-known problem of crosstalk. Gleason Int'l identifies this exact problem and provides an explicit solution: the use of a cross-shaped spline to maintain pair separation. Therefore, a POSITA would combine Boucino’s manufacturing process with the superior core profile from Gleason Int’l to achieve improved electrical performance.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a simple substitution of one known component (Boucino's filler) for another known, functionally equivalent component (Gleason Int'l's spline) to achieve a predictable improvement in performance. As both references operate in the same field of data cable manufacturing, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing this combination.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Teszler and Gleason Int'l - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Teszler in view of Gleason Int'l.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Teszler (Patent 5,132,488), Gleason Int'l (WO 98/26425).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented a similar argument using Teszler as the primary reference. Teszler discloses a communication cable with multiple twisted pairs and a central filler member, teaching the basic steps of cabling pairs around a central element. As with Boucino, Teszler lacks the specific cross-shaped profile. Gleason Int'l was again relied upon to teach this feature.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that asserted for the Boucino combination: to improve the crosstalk characteristics of the cable disclosed in Teszler. A POSITA would have recognized the limitations of Teszler's simple filler and looked to known solutions like the cross-shaped core from Gleason Int'l to enhance signal integrity. The combination was framed as an obvious design choice to solve a known industry problem.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because it involved applying a known solution (a shaped separator) to a known problem (crosstalk) within the same technical field.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 1-13 based on the combination of Chapman (Patent 4,873,393) with Gleason Int'l, relying on a similar motivation to improve crosstalk performance in a known cable design.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 6,074,503 as unpatentable.