PTAB

IPR2013-00059

Nexans Inc v. Belden Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Data Cable with Cross-Twist Cabled Core Profile
  • Brief Description: The ’641 patent discloses a high-performance data communications cable, such as a Category 6 or 7 Ethernet cable, designed to reduce internal and external crosstalk. The invention centers on a core filler element that separates twisted pairs of conductors, featuring a non-circular, "cross-twist" profile that is twisted along its length to maintain consistent conductor spacing and improve electrical performance.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Glehr and Hardie - Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 are obvious over Glehr in view of Hardie.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Glehr (Patent 6,590,157) and Hardie (Patent 6,150,611).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Glehr disclosed all limitations of independent claim 1 except for the explicit twisting of the core filler itself. Glehr teaches a data cable with a star-shaped (i.e., non-circular, cross-shaped) core filler containing channels that house twisted conductor pairs, which are then enclosed in a jacket. Petitioner contended this structure met the limitations related to the cable assembly and the core’s cross-sectional shape. Hardie was asserted to explicitly teach the missing element: twisting a cable core containing conductor pairs within its grooves to improve electrical balance and reduce crosstalk. Hardie’s core is twisted independently of the cabling of the pairs around it. Petitioner mapped the dependent claims to additional disclosures within Glehr, such as the use of four twisted pairs and specific materials for the core and jacket, which were presented as standard in the industry.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Glehr and Hardie to solve the well-known problem of crosstalk in high-speed data cables. Glehr provided an effective core shape for separating pairs, and Hardie provided a known technique—twisting the core—to further enhance electrical performance. The motivation was to improve the performance of Glehr's cable design using the predictable and established methods taught by Hardie to meet increasing industry demands for higher data transmission speeds.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying Hardie’s core-twisting technique to Glehr’s cable. The principles of twisting conductors and cores to balance electrical fields and reduce interference were well understood. Combining these known elements was a straightforward application of established design principles to achieve the predictable result of improved crosstalk performance.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Clark and Hardie - Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 are obvious over Clark in view of Hardie.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Clark (Patent 6,455,769) and Hardie (Patent 6,150,611).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative primary reference to Glehr. Petitioner argued that Clark taught a high-performance data cable with a cross-shaped separator (core) that creates channels for separating four twisted pairs, satisfying most limitations of the independent claims. Similar to the argument in Ground 1, Petitioner asserted that Clark’s separator, while shown as untwisted, provided the fundamental structure of the challenged claims. Hardie was again cited for its clear teaching of twisting the cable core to reduce crosstalk. Petitioner contended that applying Hardie’s twisting to Clark’s cross-shaped separator would result in the claimed "cross-twist cabled core profile."
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine Clark and Hardie was identical to that for combining Glehr and Hardie. A POSITA seeking to enhance the performance of the cable design disclosed in Clark would look to known industry techniques for crosstalk reduction. Hardie provided just such a technique, and its application to the separator in Clark was a logical and predictable design modification to achieve a superior cable.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was similarly high, as the combination involved applying a known performance-enhancing feature (core twisting) to a standard cable structure (a cross-separator cable). The outcome—reduced crosstalk—was the expected result of such a combination.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Newell - Claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 are obvious over Newell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Newell (Patent 6,639,153).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Newell, standing alone, anticipated or rendered obvious all challenged claims. Newell discloses a high-speed data cable with a non-circular, cross-shaped core that has a helical twist. This core separates twisted conductor pairs positioned in the channels formed by the core’s fins. Petitioner contended that Newell’s description of a “helically extending central filler” with a “cross-shaped cross-section” directly read on the “cross-twist cabled core profile” limitation of the ’641 patent. Petitioner further argued that other claim elements, such as the number of pairs and jacketing material, were also disclosed by Newell or would have been obvious variations.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "cross-twist cabled core profile": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a POSITA. This construction would not limit the term to any specific angle of twist or precise cross-sectional shape beyond being generally non-circular and twisted along the cable’s length. Petitioner asserted that under this construction, the profiles disclosed in the prior art combinations (e.g., a twisted version of Glehr's star-shaped core) would fall squarely within the scope of the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-22 of the ’641 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.