PTAB

IPR2017-00009

Panduit Corp v. Corning

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: High Density and Bandwidth Fiber Optic Apparatuses and Related Equipment and Methods
  • Brief Description: The ’320 patent discloses fiber optic equipment designed to support a high density of connections within a standardized equipment rack space (U-space). The invention includes a chassis, trays, and modules configured to achieve specified minimum connection densities and bandwidths.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Vazquez - Claims 1-3, 7-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-28 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by Vazquez.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Vazquez (Patent 8,861,918).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Vazquez, which addresses the same problem of increasing fiber optic connection density, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims through two primary embodiments.
      • The embodiment in Vazquez’s Fig. 4 discloses a fiber optic module within a 1-U sized tray that includes 50 LC duplex adapters, providing a total of 100 fiber optic connections. This configuration expressly meets the limitations of independent claim 1, which requires a chassis supporting a connection density of at least 98 connections per U-space.
      • The alternative embodiment in Vazquez’s Fig. 14 discloses a module with three rows of adapters, totaling 75 LC duplex adapters for 150 connections within a 1-U space. This higher-density configuration anticipates dependent claims requiring greater connection densities, such as claim 2 (at least 120 connections) and claim 3 (at least 144 connections).
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the bandwidth limitations of claims 13, 16, and 19 (e.g., at least 962 Gbps) were inherently met. Petitioner argued that transceivers supporting 40 Gbps per fiber were well-known in the art at the time of invention, a fact the Patent Owner allegedly admitted during prosecution. Therefore, the 100 connections taught by Vazquez’s Fig. 4 would inherently support a bandwidth of 4,000 Gbps, and the 150 connections in Fig. 14 would support 6,000 Gbps, far exceeding the claimed thresholds.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Wheeler, Industry Standards, and Smrha - Claims 1-28 are obvious over Wheeler in view of EIA/ECA-310-E, FOCIS 10A, and Smrha under 35 U.S.C. §103.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wheeler (Patent 5,717,810), EIA/ECA-310-E (an industry standard for equipment racks), FOCIS 10A (an industry standard for LC-type connectors), and Smrha (Application # 2008/0175551).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have combined the references to arrive at the claimed invention. Wheeler discloses a fiber optic distribution frame (chassis) with modules holding SC-type adapters. The EIA/ECA-310-E standard teaches the dimensions of the U-space into which such equipment is installed. FOCIS 10A teaches the smaller, standardized dimensions of LC-type adapters. For claims 12 and 24, which require a drawer, Smrha teaches a fiber optic panel arrangement with a sliding drawer for improved access.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was the recognized and long-standing industry need to increase connection density within the fixed, standardized space of an equipment rack. A POSITA, starting with Wheeler’s frame, would be motivated to replace its larger SC-type adapters with the smaller, well-known LC-type adapters defined in FOCIS 10A. This substitution is a simple, predictable design choice to fit more connections into the standard U-space defined by EIA/ECA-310-E. For claims requiring a drawer, a POSITA would incorporate the sliding drawer from Smrha to gain the known benefit of easier access for installation and maintenance.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involves integrating standardized components with predictable results. A POSITA could readily calculate the maximum number of standard LC adapters (per FOCIS 10A) that would physically fit on the face of a standard 1-U panel (per EIA/ECA-310-E), predictably achieving the claimed connection densities. The integration of a sliding drawer is a routine mechanical modification.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-3, 7-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-28 as anticipated by Vazquez, and cancellation of claims 1-28 as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.