PTAB

IPR2013-00346

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 ’320 patent discloses a coaxial cable connector designed to ensure a continuous electrical ground path, even if a threaded nut portion of the connector is not fully tightened to an interface port. The invention achieves this by incorporating an internal "continuity member" that maintains electrical contact between the connector's components.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Tatsuzuki, Montena, and Matthews - Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-31 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 argued that Tatsuzuki disclosed the core elements of the claimed connector, including a body, a post with a flange, a rotatable nut, and a disc-shaped spring acting as a continuity member positioned between the nut and the connector body to ensure a ground connection. However, Tatsuzuki disclosed an integral, single-piece connector body and post. Petitioner contended that Montena and Matthews explicitly taught that using separate connector body and post components was a well-known and obvious design choice. Furthermore, Petitioner asserted that key limitations relied upon by the Examiner for allowance—specifically that "the nut does not touch the connector body" and certain rotational surface interactions—were also disclosed in the prior art. Montena taught using an O-ring as a moisture barrier between the nut and connector body, which necessarily created a space between them and prevented direct contact. Matthews and Tatsuzuki disclosed the flange and nut geometry where the forward-facing surface of the nut's lip rotates about the rearward-facing surface of the post's flange.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Tatsuzuki's connector with the teachings of Montena and Matthews for several reasons. First, a POSITA would substitute the separate post and body from Montena/Matthews for Tatsuzuki's integral body to simplify the manufacturing and assembly process, a common engineering trade-off. Second, a POSITA would incorporate Montena’s O-ring seal into Tatsuzuki’s design to add a moisture barrier, a known and desirable feature. This addition would inherently result in the claimed "non-touching" relationship between the nut and connector body, while also providing a surface for the nut to rotate against. The combination was presented as the simple application of known techniques to improve a known device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved substituting known, interchangeable components (integral vs. separate bodies) and adding a standard sealing element (an O-ring) for its conventional purpose, with predictable results.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Matthews, Tatsuzuki, and Montena - Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 are obvious over Matthews in view of Tatsuzuki, and further in view of Montena.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Matthews (Application # 2006/0110977), Tatsuzuki (Japanese Publication No. 2002-15823), and Montena (Patent 6,558,194).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground asserted that Matthews served as a more appropriate primary reference, as it disclosed a coaxial connector with all the basic structural components claimed: a separate connector body, a post with a flange, and a rotatable nut. Matthews also disclosed the specific flange-to-nut rotational interface that the patent owner had relied on for patentability. The primary element missing from Matthews was the claimed electrical continuity member disposed axially rearward of the nut's lip to contact both the nut and the post.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that a POSITA, starting with the Matthews connector, would be motivated to incorporate the disc-shaped continuity spring from Tatsuzuki. Tatsuzuki explicitly taught using this spring to solve the known problem of maintaining a reliable ground connection when a connector nut becomes loose. Therefore, adding Tatsuzuki's spring to Matthews's connector was an obvious solution to a known industry problem. Montena was again cited to teach the limitation that the nut does not touch the connector body, arguing a POSITA would add Montena’s O-ring seal to the Matthews/Tatsuzuki combination for environmental protection, which would predictably result in the claimed non-contact feature.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed modification was a straightforward addition of a known functional component (Tatsuzuki's spring) to an existing connector design (Matthews) to achieve its well-understood purpose (improved electrical continuity), leading to a high expectation of success.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including claims 18-22, 24, 27, and 28 as obvious over Matthews in view of Tatsuzuki. These grounds relied on the same core prior art and motivations, arguing that the specific dependent claim features were either directly taught or made obvious by the primary combinations.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-31 of Patent 8,287,320 as unpatentable.