PTAB

IPR2013-00345

Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

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 reliable electrical ground path. The invention uses a "continuity member" to maintain electrical contact between internal components even when the connector's threaded nut is not fully tightened to an interface port.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tatsuzuki, Montena, and Matthews - Claims 7-27 are obvious over Tatsuzuki in view of Montena, 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 argued that Tatsuzuki disclosed a coaxial connector with a disc-shaped continuity member that meets most limitations of independent claims 7 and 20. However, Tatsuzuki’s connector featured an integral, single-piece post and connector body. The secondary references, Montena and Matthews, were cited to teach that constructing a connector with separate post and body components was a well-known and functionally interchangeable design choice in the art.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted two primary motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify Tatsuzuki. First, a POSITA would recognize from Montena and Matthews that using separate post and body components was an obvious matter of design choice, as the two configurations performed the same function. Second, modifying Tatsuzuki to use separate components would simplify the manufacturing and assembly process by eliminating the need for the complex “curling process” disclosed in Tatsuzuki. This modification would also allow for the use of different materials for the post and body, a known benefit taught by Montena.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Montena and Matthews explicitly teach that integral and separate post/body constructions are functionally equivalent. The modification represented the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Matthews and Tatsuzuki - Claims 7-27 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, as the primary reference, disclosed a coaxial connector with all major structural elements of the challenged claims, including a separate connector body, post, and rotatable nut. However, Petitioner argued that Matthews lacked the specific continuity member claimed in the ’353 patent, which is positioned to directly contact the rearward-facing surface of the nut's inward lip. Tatsuzuki was introduced to supply this missing element, as it explicitly disclosed a disc-shaped spring continuity member positioned to create a reliable electrical path between the post and the nut in this manner.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to combine was to improve the electrical grounding performance of the Matthews connector. Petitioner argued that while the Matthews connector included a conductive member, it did not directly contact the post, potentially leading to an unreliable ground path. A POSITA seeking to enhance grounding reliability would have looked to known solutions like the one in Tatsuzuki, which used a continuity member specifically designed to ensure contact between the post and nut. Incorporating Tatsuzuki’s effective and simple continuity member into the Matthews design was presented as a predictable solution to a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect this combination to be successful because it involved adding a known, discrete component (Tatsuzuki’s spring) into a conventional connector design (Matthews) to achieve its well-understood function of improving electrical continuity.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner proposed constructions for several terms to clarify their scope. The most significant was for the term "pivot" as used in the phrase "when the post pivots relative to the nut" (claim 7). Petitioner argued that based on the specification's repeated disclosures of a rotatable nut, a POSITA would understand "pivot" to mean the "axial rotation" of the nut relative to the post, rather than an angular tilting movement. This construction was central to mapping the rotational features of the prior art connectors to the claim language.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 7-27 of the ’353 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.