PTAB

IPR2014-01077

ARRIS Group Inc v. Cirrex Systems LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Optical Waveguide Device
  • Brief Description: The ’783 patent discloses an optical waveguide device for filtering light. The invention centers on a specific structural arrangement comprising a first waveguide section, an optical filter, and a second waveguide section positioned between them, where the second section is tapered such that its diameter is greater at the end closest to the optical filter.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2 are anticipated by Shioda

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Shioda (Japan Patent No. JPH03118503).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Shioda discloses every element of the challenged claims. Shioda describes an "Optical Device" comprising an optical functioning component (an optical filter) sandwiched between two tapered optical fibers. Petitioner mapped Shioda’s “optical functioning component 4” to the claimed “optical filter,” its “optical fiber 2” to the “first section of waveguide,” and its “tapered optical fiber 3” (specifically core 31) to the “second section of waveguide.” Critically, Shioda’s tapered fiber is positioned between the filter and the first fiber and is explicitly described and shown as having a greater diameter end closest to the filter, thus anticipating claim 1. Shioda also teaches that this second section is tapered, anticipating dependent claim 2.

Ground 2: Claims 1-2 are obvious over Oyamada

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Oyamada (Patent 4,807,954).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Oyamada, which describes an "Optical Coupling Device," teaches all structural limitations of claims 1 and 2, rendering them obvious. Oyamada discloses a multi-mode optical fiber (the "first section of waveguide") coupled to a tapered optical fiber (the "second section of waveguide"). A "non-reflecting coating" is applied to the input face of the tapered fiber. Petitioner argued this coating functions as an optical filter by modifying the spectral composition of light. Oyamada’s tapered fiber is shown with its wider end near the coating and its narrower end near the first fiber, meeting the geometric limitations of claim 1. The explicit tapering of this fiber meets the limitation of claim 2.
    • Motivation to Combine: In the alternative, if Oyamada’s non-reflecting coating is not considered an "optical filter," Petitioner argued a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to substitute a conventional optical filter in its place. Applying optical filters to the end faces of fibers was a well-known technique. A POSA would make this substitution to improve performance by allowing only light in a specific spectrum of interest to enter the waveguide, thereby reducing noise.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success, as applying thin-film filters to optical components was a routine and predictable art.

Ground 3: Claims 1-2 are obvious over Garmon

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Garmon (Patent 4,946,239).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner presented an argument parallel to the Oyamada ground, asserting Garmon renders the claims obvious. Garmon discloses an "Optical Power Isolator" that links a laser diode to an optical fiber (the "first section of waveguide") via a "tapered lens optical isolator" (the "second section of waveguide"). Garmon teaches applying an antireflection coating to the large-diameter end of the tapered isolator. Petitioner argued this antireflection coating is an optical filter. The structure disclosed in Garmon meets the claimed arrangement: the tapered second section is between the coated end (filter) and the first section, with its larger diameter end near the coating. This structure maps to claim 1, and the tapered nature maps to claim 2.
    • Motivation to Combine: As with Oyamada, Petitioner argued in the alternative that if the antireflection coating is not a filter, it would have been obvious to a POSA to substitute a known optical filter. The motivation would be the same: to reduce noise and improve signal integrity by selectively passing desired wavelengths of light, a common goal in optical communications systems.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because substituting one type of optical coating for another on a fiber end-face was a well-understood and predictable design modification.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1 and 2 of the ’783 patent as unpatentable.