PTAB

IPR2013-00058

Nexans Inc v. Belden Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: High Performance Data Cable
  • Brief Description: The ’575 patent discloses a high-performance data communication cable comprising multiple twisted pairs of insulated conductors. The invention focuses on an internal separator, or isolator, having a cross-shaped profile with arms that separate the twisted pairs; these arms feature integral projections that maintain spacing between the pairs and the outer cable jacket to improve electrical performance, particularly by reducing crosstalk.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Gleason in view of Newmayer - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Gleason in view of Newmayer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Gleason (Patent 6,074,503), Newmayer (Patent 5,959,245).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Gleason discloses a high-performance data cable with all the structural elements of independent claim 1 except for the claimed "projections" on the separator arms. Gleason teaches a cable with twisted pairs, a jacket, and a cross-web separator (isolator) that defines channels for the pairs. Petitioner asserted that Newmayer explicitly addresses the problem of maintaining consistent spacing between conductors and the cable jacket by teaching a separator with "ribs" or "projections" on its outer surfaces. These ribs in Newmayer directly correspond to the claimed "projections" and perform the identical function of ensuring consistent spacing for improved electrical characteristics. Dependent claims were addressed by arguing Gleason and Newmayer also teach features like specific materials (claim 5) and cable category ratings (claim 7).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) designing a cable based on Gleason would be motivated to improve its electrical performance, a constant goal in the industry. The problem of signal degradation due to inconsistent spacing between conductors and the cable jacket was well-known. A POSITA would look to known solutions and find Newmayer, which expressly teaches adding ribs to a separator to solve this exact problem. The motivation was to incorporate a known feature (Newmayer’s ribs) into a known cable design (Gleason’s) to achieve the predictable benefit of enhanced and more stable electrical performance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining the references involved the simple mechanical addition of a known spacing feature to a standard cable separator. The physical and electrical principles were well-understood, making the outcome—improved signal integrity—entirely predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Clark in view of Newmayer - Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-13 are obvious over Clark in view of Newmayer.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Clark (Patent 7,005,581), Newmayer (Patent 5,959,245).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Clark, like Gleason, discloses the fundamental structure of the challenged claims. Clark teaches a high-performance cable with twisted pairs arranged around a central filler or separator that has lobes creating channels for the pairs. This structure met all limitations of claim 1 except for the "projections" extending from the separator. As in the first ground, Petitioner relied on Newmayer to supply this missing element. Newmayer’s teaching of adding spacing ribs to a separator was argued to be directly applicable to the separator taught by Clark.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Clark and Newmayer was presented as identical to the motivation for combining Gleason and Newmayer. A POSITA seeking to enhance the performance of the cable taught in Clark would be motivated to ensure consistent spacing between the conductor pairs and the outer jacket. Newmayer provided a known, effective solution for this problem. Combining Clark’s cable geometry with Newmayer’s separator projections represented a logical design choice to achieve a well-understood performance improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high for the same reasons as in Ground 1. The combination represented the application of a known technique to a similar device to obtain predictable results, a routine aspect of cable engineering and design.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining Gleason, Clark, or Tessier (Patent 5,132,488) with Hafften (Patent 6,150,611). Hafften, similar to Newmayer, taught using spacing elements on a separator, and Petitioner relied on similar design modification theories and motivations to combine.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "projections that are integral with the isolator": Petitioner argued this term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning, requiring only that the projections be formed as a single piece with the isolator arms.
  • "projections extending from the arms": Petitioner contended this phrase should be interpreted broadly to encompass any structure that extends outwardly from the main surface of the isolator arms, such as the "ribs" disclosed in Newmayer and Hafften. This construction was central to mapping the prior art onto the claims, as it avoided any narrowing limitation regarding the specific shape, size, or density of the projections beyond their function of creating space. Petitioner argued that the patent specification did not support a narrower construction.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 7,977,575 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.