PTAB

IPR2013-00340

Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Coaxial Cable Connector Having Electrical Continuity Member
  • Brief Description: The ’060 patent discloses a coaxial cable connector that includes a "continuity member" designed to ensure a continuous electrical ground path between the connector components, even when the connector is not fully tightened to an interface port.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tatsuzuki, Montena, and Matthews - Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are obvious over Tatsuzuki in view of Montena and Matthews.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tatsuzuki (Japanese Publication No. 2002-15823), Montena (Patent 6,558,194), and Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Tatsuzuki disclosed a coaxial connector with an integral connector body and post that taught most of the claimed elements, including a disc-shaped continuity member (spring 13) that provides electrical contact between the coupler and the post. The key difference identified was that the ’060 patent claims a connector with a separate post and connector body. Petitioner asserted that both Montena and Matthews explicitly taught that forming a connector with a separate post and connector body was a well-known, alternative construction to an integral design. Specifically, both references showed connectors with separate post and body components that were functionally equivalent to an integrated design.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Montena and Matthews with Tatsuzuki as a matter of obvious design choice. Petitioner asserted two primary motivations: (1) using separate components allows for the use of different, more suitable materials for the post and the body, and (2) it simplifies the connector assembly process by eliminating the need for the complex "curling process" required by Tatsuzuki to form its flange, thereby reducing manufacturing complexity and cost.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because combining the components was a simple substitution of one known element (an integral body/post) for another (separate body and post components) to obtain predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Matthews and Tatsuzuki - Claims 1-9 are obvious over Matthews in view of Tatsuzuki.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977) and Tatsuzuki (Japanese Publication No. 2002-15823).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Matthews disclosed the fundamental structure of the claimed connector, including a separate post, connector body, and rotatable coupler (nut). Matthews taught a structure where a conductive member (80) could be placed between the connector body and the coupler to ensure continuity. However, Petitioner argued that Matthews did not explicitly disclose the specific disc-shaped, flexible continuity member of Tatsuzuki that is disposed rearward of the coupler’s internal lip and biased against it to maintain contact with the post. Tatsuzuki disclosed exactly this type of flexible, disc-shaped spring (13) and its placement to ensure a reliable ground path.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Tatsuzuki's continuity member (13) into the Matthews connector. This modification would provide a reliable, alternative ground path directly between the coupler and the post, which is particularly advantageous in embodiments of Matthews where no other continuity member is present or when seeking to use a non-conductive connector body. This combination would ensure robust electrical grounding, a known objective in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination, as it involved incorporating a known type of spring-based continuity member into a standard connector architecture to improve a well-understood electrical property (grounding).

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner also asserted that claim 7 is obvious over the combination of Tatsuzuki, Montena, and Matthews, further in view of Halbeck (Patent 4,109,126). This ground argued that Halbeck and Matthews taught the use of conductive coatings on non-conductive materials to achieve electrical continuity, making it obvious to apply such a coating to a component of the primary combination.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "pivot": Petitioner argued that because the patent specification does not use or define the term "pivot," its meaning should be derived from the context of claim 1. Based on the described rotational movement of the nut relative to the post and connector body, Petitioner contended that "pivot" should be construed to mean "the rotational movement of the post relative to the coupler about the longitudinal axis of the connector."
  • "the body": Petitioner noted that claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites "the body" without an antecedent basis. Because claim 1 recites a "connector body," Petitioner argued "the body" in claim 3 should be construed to mean the "connector body" of claim 1.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’060 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.