Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Patent #: 8,323,060
• Filed: June 10, 2013
• Petitioner(s): Corning Gilbert Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): PPC Broadband, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 10-25

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Coaxial Cable Connector Having Electrical Continuity Member
• Brief Description: The ’060 patent discloses a coaxial cable connector designed to ensure a reliable electrical ground path. The invention focuses on a "continuity member" that maintains grounding between the connector body and a rotatable nut, even if the connector is not fully tightened to an interface port.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 10-25 are obvious over Tatsuzuki in view of Montena and further in view of 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 asserted that Tatsuzuki, the primary reference, discloses a coaxial connector with all major components of claim 10, including a connector body, post, nut, and a disc-shaped continuity member that ensures electrical grounding. However, Tatsuzuki discloses an integral, single-piece connector body and post. Petitioner argued that Montena and Matthews both explicitly teach that the connector body and post can be made as separate components, which is a known alternative. Therefore, modifying Tatsuzuki’s integral structure to use separate components as taught by Montena and Matthews would be an obvious design choice. Petitioner further argued that Montena and Matthews teach adding a sealing ring (for environmental protection) and that Matthews teaches a movable cable fastener member, which would be obvious additions to the Tatsuzuki design to incorporate known features.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references for several reasons. First, substituting separate body and post components for an integral one, as taught by Montena and Matthews, was a known design choice that could simplify assembly and allow for the use of different materials for each component. Second, a POSITA would be motivated to add a sealing O-ring from Montena or Matthews to the Tatsuzuki connector to provide a physical barrier against moisture and other contaminants, a common objective in connector design.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves substituting known, interchangeable components (integral vs. separate body/post) and adding well-understood features (sealing rings, fasteners) to achieve their predictable functions.

Ground 2: Claims 10-25 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 argued that Matthews serves as the primary reference, disclosing a coaxial connector with a separate connector body, post, and rotatable nut. However, Petitioner asserted that the continuity member in one embodiment of Matthews is positioned such that it does not directly contact the post, creating a potentially inferior ground path, while another embodiment lacks a continuity member between the nut and connector body altogether. Tatsuzuki was introduced to supply its disc-shaped continuity member, which is configured to reside around an external portion of the connector body while directly contacting both the nut and the post, thereby providing a more robust and direct electrical ground path.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Tatsuzuki's continuity member into the Matthews connector to improve its electrical grounding performance. Petitioner argued that Tatsuzuki’s member would provide a superior and more reliable ground path compared to the embodiment in Matthews. This modification would be particularly advantageous in the Matthews embodiment that lacks a continuity member, and it would also allow the connector body in Matthews to be made from a non-conductive material while still maintaining a solid ground path through the post and nut via the added Tatsuzuki member.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted success would be expected, as incorporating Tatsuzuki's well-characterized continuity spring into the Matthews connector is a straightforward combination of known elements to enhance a known function (electrical grounding).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

Petitioner argued that several claim terms lack antecedent basis and proposed constructions to resolve the ambiguity, asserting these interpretations are necessary for a proper comparison to the prior art.

• "the second surface of the internal lip of the nut" (claim 15): Petitioner proposed this should be construed to mean "the rear surface of the internal lip of the nut" as recited in the parent claim 10.
• "the external protrusion of the post" (claims 18-19): Petitioner proposed this should be construed to mean "the external annular protrusion" as recited in the parent claim 10.
• "the first surface" and "the second surface" (claim 20): Petitioner proposed these terms should be construed as "the front surface" and "the rear surface" of the internal lip of the nut, respectively, as recited in claim 10.
• "the first end of the connector body" (claim 24): Petitioner proposed this should be construed to mean "the forward end of the connector body" as recited in the parent claim 23.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 10-25 of the ’060 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.