PTAB

IPR2014-00736

Corning Optical Communications RF LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Connector and Method of Operation
  • Brief Description: The ’446 patent describes a coaxial cable connector for coupling a cable to a threaded port. The invention features a connector with a tubular post, a deformable connector body, and a fastener member that, when axially advanced, compresses the connector body to create a secure mechanical and environmental seal around the cable.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Holliday, Saba, and Szegda - Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are obvious over Holliday in view of Saba, further in view of Szegda.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holliday (Patent 5,863,220), Saba (Patent 4,668,043), and Szegda (Patent 5,470,257).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Holliday taught the fundamental components of a coaxial connector, including a tubular post, connector body, and a fastener member that advances by rotation to compress the connector body. The key limitation used to overcome prior art during prosecution—securing the fastener member to the connector body in a "pre-installed first configuration"—was allegedly not disclosed by Holliday. However, Petitioner contended this feature was well-known and explicitly taught by both Saba (using a pre-loaded, telescoping fastener) and Szegda (using a pre-installed fastener that advances via rotation and linear sliding). Dependent claims reciting non-rotational sliding (claim 3), securing by a detent (claim 6), and securing by a press-fit (claim 7) were also allegedly taught by Saba and Szegda.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to achieve predictable results. Petitioner asserted it would have been obvious to modify Holliday’s rotational compression connector to incorporate the pre-installed fastener taught by Saba to improve ease of use and prevent loss of parts before installation. Furthermore, Szegda explicitly taught that axial movement by threaded rotation (like Holliday) and non-rotational linear sliding (like Saba) were known, equivalent alternatives for advancing a fastener member.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involved the simple substitution of one known fastening and pre-installation method for another to gain the known benefits of each, such as improved mechanical integrity and easier installation.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Holliday, Saba, Szegda, and Bawa - Claims 4 and 5 are obvious over Holliday in view of Saba, further in view of Szegda, further in view of Bawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Holliday (Patent 5,863,220), Saba (Patent 4,668,043), Szegda (Patent 5,470,257), and Bawa (Patent 5,072,072).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination in Ground 1 to address the limitations of claims 4 and 5, which required a "corrugated surface portion" or a "series of grooves" on the outer wall of the connector body to reduce driving force or drag as the fastener member is advanced. Petitioner argued that while the primary combination disclosed the core connector, Bawa taught the claimed friction-reducing surface. Bawa, which related to an electrical connector for a liquid-tight conduit, disclosed a ferrule with an exterior surface having a plurality of friction-reducing elements (a corrugated surface) to reduce the force needed to connect components.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA seeking to improve the connector of the primary combination would have been motivated to reduce the installation force required to slide the fastener member over the connector body. Bawa taught the benefit of using friction-reducing elements for precisely this purpose. Applying this known technique from Bawa to the outer surface of the connector body in the proposed Holliday/Saba/Szegda connector was a straightforward design choice to solve a known problem.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Hayward and Saba - Claims 1-3 and 7 are obvious over Hayward in view of Saba.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hayward (Patent 4,400,050) and Saba (Patent 4,668,043).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative invalidity theory using a different primary reference. Petitioner argued that Hayward disclosed a coaxial connector with a deformable body but taught securing the cable via a crimping action rather than an advancing fastener. Saba, as established in Ground 1, taught a connector that used a pre-loaded, telescoping fastener member to compress a connector body.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify Hayward’s connector by replacing the crimping mechanism with the telescoping compression mechanism taught by Saba. This modification represented a simple substitution of one known cable securement method for another to achieve the benefits taught by Saba, such as high mechanical integrity and simpler, more economical installation without the need for a specialized crimping tool. The art recognized these different compression methods as interchangeable for achieving the same function.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including combinations of Hayward/Saba/Bawa for claims 4-5 and Hayward/Saba/Szegda for claim 6, which relied on similar substitution and design modification theories.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "driving force" (Claim 4): Petitioner argued this term should be interpreted, consistent with the patent’s disclosure, to mean the force required to slidingly advance the fastener member along the connector body. This construction was central to the argument for incorporating the friction-reducing features taught by the Bawa reference.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • Interchangeability of Mechanisms: A core technical contention was that different methods for compressing a connector body—such as rotational advancement (Holliday), telescoping/linear sliding (Saba, Szegda), and crimping (Hayward)—were all well-known, equivalent, and interchangeable alternatives in the art of coaxial connectors.
  • Analogous Art: Petitioner argued that connectors for different types of cables (e.g., flexible, semi-rigid, and conduit) were analogous arts. A POSITA would look to solutions across these fields to solve common problems like securing a connector, providing environmental sealing, and reducing installation force.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 of Patent 6,676,446 as unpatentable.