PTAB

IPR2013-00343

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 ’353 patent discloses a coaxial cable connector designed to ensure a continuous electrical ground path between a coaxial cable and an appliance. The invention uses a "continuity member" to maintain electrical contact between the connector’s components, such as the coupler and connector body, even if the connector is not fully tightened onto an interface port.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Matthews - Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 are anticipated by Matthews.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Matthews disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Specifically, Matthews taught a coaxial cable connector with a "connector body conductive member 80" that functions identically to the claimed "continuity member." Petitioner asserted that this conductive member in Matthews was positioned axially rearward of the coupler’s internal lip and between the coupler and the connector body. It also extended around an external surface of the connector body and maintained electrical continuity when the connector body moved relative to the coupler.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that Matthews disclosed the very features the Patent Office examiner relied upon for allowance, namely the specific placement and function of the continuity member to maintain an unbroken electrical circuit.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Matthews and Montena - Claim 6 is obvious over Matthews in view of Montena.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977) and Montena (Patent 6,558,194).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Matthews disclosed all limitations of claim 6 except for the requirement that "there is no contact between the coupler and the connector body when the connector is assembled." While Matthews’s design showed contact, Montena expressly taught a coaxial connector where the coupler (nut member 130) does not contact the connector body 124, instead using an O-ring seal to create a moisture barrier in the resulting space.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would modify the Matthews connector with Montena's non-contact feature for two predictable reasons. First, the non-contact design allows the coupler to rotate more freely, improving user experience. Second, it helps ensure that an O-ring or similar sealing member properly seals the joint between the coupler and the connector body, a known concern in the field.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed modification was a simple application of a known design feature from one coaxial connector (Montena) to another (Matthews) to achieve a predictable improvement in function.

Ground 3: Comprehensive Obviousness - Claims 1-6 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 asserted this combination rendered all challenged claims obvious. The primary reference, Tatsuzuki, disclosed a coaxial connector with a disc-shaped spring (continuity member 13) positioned between a rotatable coupler and a plug body. However, Tatsuzuki’s plug body was a single, integral piece. Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to modify Tatsuzuki by replacing its single-piece body with the separate post and connector body components taught by both Matthews and Montena.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner presented two primary motivations for this combination. First, a POSITA would separate the post and body components to allow for the use of different materials for each part, a known manufacturing advantage taught by Montena. Second, a POSITA would look to the separate-component design of Matthews to simplify the manufacturing process. The Matthews assembly method avoids the need for the complex and costly "curling process" that Tatsuzuki required to connect its coupler to its integral body, making the combination a logical and cost-effective design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that the substitution of an integral component with two separate parts that perform the same function was a well-known and obvious design choice in the art. Both Matthews and Montena demonstrated that integral and separate post/body designs were functionally interchangeable, making the proposed combination predictable.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claim 3 over Matthews in view of Newman (Patent 4,795,360), arguing that adding a separate sealing ring as taught by Newman to prevent contaminant ingress was a simple and obvious modification.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "the second end of the coupler" (Claim 4): Petitioner argued this term lacked an antecedent basis in the claim. Based on the specification and the structure of claim 1, Petitioner proposed that the term should be construed to mean "the rearward end of the coupler recited in Claim 1." This construction was necessary to properly apply the prior art to the limitation that the continuity member prevents RF ingress "near the second end of the coupler."

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-6 of Patent 8,313,353 as unpatentable.