PTAB

IPR2013-00069

Nexans Inc v. Belden Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: High Performance Data Cable
  • Brief Description: The ’061 patent discloses a high-performance data cable, such as a Category 6 cable, comprising multiple twisted pairs of insulated conductors. The invention focuses on a central separating member, described as a "non-uniform discontinuous cross-member," designed to isolate the twisted pairs, maintain their geometric arrangement, and thereby reduce electrical interference like crosstalk.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Siekierka and Gareis - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Siekierka in view of Gareis.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Siekierka (Patent 6,455,770) and Gareis (Patent 6,365,836).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Siekierka discloses all elements of the independent claims except for the specific "non-uniform discontinuous" nature of the central cross-member. Siekierka teaches a high-performance data cable with four twisted pairs separated by a central filler element to reduce crosstalk. However, Siekierka’s filler is a solid, continuous member. Petitioner contended that Gareis remedies this deficiency by disclosing various separator shapes designed to improve electrical performance, including star-shaped or cross-shaped members with voids, channels, or flutes. These features, according to Petitioner, inherently create a "non-uniform" cross-section and introduce discontinuities that increase air spacing around the conductors, directly teaching the missing limitation.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to modify the solid filler of Siekierka with the improved separator designs taught by Gareis. The primary motivation was the well-understood goal of enhancing electrical performance and reducing crosstalk in high-speed data cables. Gareis explicitly teaches that its profiled separators improve these characteristics by optimizing the spacing and air volume between conductor pairs, providing a clear reason to incorporate its teachings into Siekierka’s fundamental cable structure.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. The proposed modification involved substituting one known type of pair separator for another within the same technological field to achieve a predictable improvement in electrical performance. The principles of using shaped separators to control crosstalk were well-established, making the outcome of the combination highly predictable.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Siekierka and Clark - Claims 1-13 are obvious over Siekierka in view of Clark.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Siekierka (Patent 6,455,770) and Clark (Patent 6,639,153).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to the first ground, Petitioner asserted that Siekierka provided the foundational cable structure with twisted pairs and a central separator. Petitioner argued that Clark explicitly discloses the missing "non-uniform discontinuous cross-member" limitation. Clark teaches a "spline-type pair separator" having a non-round, non-uniform cross-section, which includes a plurality of fins extending outwardly from a central portion. Critically, Clark describes that these fins can be discontinuous along the length of the cable. Petitioner asserted this teaching directly maps onto the key limitation of the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the performance of the cable disclosed in Siekierka would have been motivated to incorporate the separator design from Clark. Clark explicitly states that its spline design is for maintaining pair spacing and reducing crosstalk in high-speed communication cables. This shared objective would have prompted a POSITA to apply Clark’s more advanced separator technology to the basic cable configuration of Siekierka to achieve superior performance.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination of Siekierka and Clark would have been straightforward for a POSITA. Both patents operate in the same field and address the same technical problem. Incorporating Clark’s finned, discontinuous spline into Siekierka’s cable was a simple substitution of components, and a POSITA would have reasonably expected it to result in the predictable benefit of reduced crosstalk as taught by Clark.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims 1-13 are obvious over Clark in view of Gareis, and that the claims are anticipated by or obvious over various combinations including Japanese Patent Application No. H10-188746 (Kashima). These arguments relied on similar rationales of combining known separator designs to achieve predictable improvements in cable performance.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "non-uniform discontinuous cross-member": Petitioner argued this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, consistent with the patent's specification and the understanding of a POSITA. Petitioner contended this construction should be broad enough to encompass any separator that does not have a perfectly consistent, solid, and symmetrical shape along its entire length. This interpretation was central to their argument, as it allowed the fluted, channeled, or finned separators from prior art like Gareis and Clark, which may have periodic or irregular features, to meet the "non-uniform" and "discontinuous" limitations of the claims.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-13 of Patent 7,663,061 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or §103.