PTAB

IPR2013-00343

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

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Coaxial Cable Connector Having Electrical Continuity Member
  • Brief Description: The ’353 patent discloses a coaxial cable connector designed to ensure a continuous electrical ground path. The invention utilizes a "continuity member" positioned between the connector body and a rotatable coupler to maintain electrical contact even if the connector is not fully tightened to an interface port.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are anticipated by Matthews under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Matthews discloses every element of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, and 5. Specifically, Matthews teaches a coaxial connector with a connector body, post, and rotatable coupler (threaded nut 30). Critically, Matthews discloses a "connector body conductive member 80," which Petitioner asserted is a continuity member positioned axially rearward of the internal lip of the coupler. This member is positioned to extend about an external surface of the connector body and maintain electrical continuity as the connector body moves relative to the coupler, directly corresponding to the key limitations recited in claim 1. Petitioner further mapped elements of Matthews to the additional limitations of dependent claims 2 (fastener member 60), 4 (prevention of RF ingress), and 5 (extending electrical continuity).

Ground 2: Obviousness - Claim 3 is obvious over Matthews in view of Newman under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977) and Newman (Patent 4,795,360).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Claim 3 adds the limitation of "positioning a sealing ring between the coupler and the connector body" to prevent ingress of contaminants. Petitioner contended that the continuity member 80 in Matthews already provides a physical barrier. Newman discloses an electrical cable connector that uses multiple sealing members (O-rings) to seal a joint between two components.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to modify the Matthews connector to include a sealing member separate from the continuity member 80, as taught by Newman.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining a known sealing technique from Newman with the connector design of Matthews would have been a straightforward application of sealing principles to provide an additional physical barrier against moisture, with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Obviousness - Claim 6 is obvious over Matthews in view of Montena under §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977) and Montena (Patent 6,558,194).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Claim 6 adds a limitation requiring "no contact between the coupler and the connector body when the connector is assembled." While Matthews discloses contact between these components, Montena teaches a connector where the coupler (nut member 130) does not contact the connector body. An O-ring seal in Montena is present between the two parts to serve as a moisture barrier.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Matthews with Montena's teaching of a non-contact design to ensure a proper O-ring seal at the joint and to allow the coupler to rotate more freely, which is a known benefit of such a configuration.
    • Expectation of Success: Modifying the Matthews connector to incorporate the non-contact interface taught by Montena was presented as a simple design choice with predictable results.

Ground 4: Obviousness - Claims 1-6 are obvious over Tatsuzuki in view of Montena, further in view of Matthews under §103.

  • 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: Tatsuzuki was asserted as the primary reference, disclosing a coaxial cable connector with a rotatable coupler (rotary mounting element 12) and a disc-shaped spring (13) that acts as a continuity member. However, Tatsuzuki’s connector body and post are formed as an integral, single-piece structure. Matthews and Montena both teach that separate post and connector body components are functionally interchangeable with an integrated design.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to modify Tatsuzuki’s single-piece body to employ separate post and body components for several reasons. First, it would simplify connector assembly by eliminating Tatsuzuki's required curling process, as shown by the straightforward assembly in Matthews. Second, it would enable the use of different materials for the post and body, a known advantage taught by Montena. The combination of Tatsuzuki's continuity member concept with the separable component design of Matthews and the non-contact interface of Montena allegedly renders all claims of the ’353 patent obvious.
    • Expectation of Success: The substitution of separate components for an integral one was argued to be a matter of obvious design choice, well within the skill of a POSITA, with a clear expectation of yielding a functional and more easily manufactured connector.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "the second end of the coupler" (Claim 4): Petitioner argued that since claim 4 lacks an antecedent basis for this term, it should be interpreted consistently with the disclosure and claim 1. Claim 1 recites a coupler with a "forward end" and an "opposing rearward end." Therefore, Petitioner proposed construing "the second end of the coupler" to mean the "rearward end of the coupler" as recited in claim 1.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6 of the ’353 patent as unpatentable.