PTAB

IPR2013-00336

JDS Uniphase Corp v. Fiber LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Optical Switching Apparatus
  • Brief Description: The ’332 patent discloses an optical switching apparatus for transmitting an optical beam from one of a plurality of sources to a selected optical receptor. The system utilizes multiple movable mirrors and a control element that provides feedback regarding the mirror's orientation or the beam's location to enable fine-tuning of the beam's path.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 101, 112, 123-128, and their dependents are obvious over Young in view of Buchin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Young (Patent 5,903,687) and Buchin (Patent 5,748,812).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Young disclosed the foundational optical switching system, including a multi-input, multi-output (MxN) switch with pluralities of movable mirrors mounted in free space to direct optical beams from sources to receptors. However, to the extent Young did not explicitly disclose a feedback system for fine alignment, Buchin supplied this element. Buchin taught an optical switch using a galvanometer motor with a closed-loop feedback system to precisely control mirror position, providing information on the mirror's angle of rotation and using sensors to monitor light intensity for alignment. This system in Buchin corresponds to the claimed "radiation emitters," "servo control element," and "data gathering and transmitting element" for providing feedback in the challenged claims.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Buchin's feedback and alignment system with Young's optical switch to solve the known problem of optimizing output path alignment. Adding a closed-loop feedback system was a well-known technique to improve the accuracy and prevent the signal-to-noise degradation inherent in free-space optical switches like Young's.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be predictable. Integrating a known feedback control technique (from Buchin) into a standard optical switch architecture (from Young) would predictably result in an improved, more precisely aligned switching system.

Ground 2: Claims 112, 123-128, and their dependents are obvious over Chande in view of Buchin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Chande (Patent 4,838,631) and Buchin (Patent 5,748,812).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Chande taught an apparatus for directing a light beam to a plurality of optical fibers using two mirrors controlled by galvanometers. Chande’s galvanometers provided analog position feedback signals to a computer controller, meeting the claim limitations for a control system with feedback. While Chande primarily depicted a single laser source, Petitioner argued it would be obvious to incorporate multiple sources. Buchin was cited for its disclosure of an optical switch system configured to handle multiple input sources and switch them to a selected output.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Chande's single-source system to include the multiple-source capability taught by Buchin. This combination would improve the versatility of Chande’s device by allowing different types of lasers (e.g., for welding versus marking, as suggested by Chande) to be directed to any of the workstations. This modification represented the use of a known technique (multi-source input) to improve a similar device.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination would have yielded predictable results, as adding a multi-source front-end to a beam-directing system was a straightforward and well-understood engineering task at the time.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that the challenged claims are obvious over Young in view of Hurst (Patent 6,798,729) and over Young in view of Kittrell (Patent 5,290,275). Both Hurst and Kittrell were cited for teaching closed-loop alignment feedback systems for directing laser beams, similar to the teachings of Buchin, and Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been similarly motivated to integrate these known alignment techniques into Young's base optical switch for predictable improvements in performance.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Priority Date Challenge: A central contention of the petition was that the ’332 patent was not entitled to the June 5, 1998 filing date of its provisional application. Petitioner argued that key claim limitations related to the feedback system—specifically the "radiation emitters" (claim 101), "servo control element" (claim 112), and "data gathering and transmission element" (claim 123)—were not described in the provisional application's disclosure. Therefore, the challenged claims were only entitled to the non-provisional filing date of May 12, 1999, which is critical for establishing the prior art status of the references cited in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 101, 112, 123-128, and all dependent claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.