PTAB

IPR2017-00138

Viavi Solutions Inc v. EXFO Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: MULTIPLE-ACQUISITION OTDR METHOD AND DEVICE
  • Brief Description: The ’389 patent discloses a method and device for Optical Time-Domain Reflectometry (OTDR) to characterize "events" in an optical fiber link. The invention uses a plurality of light acquisitions performed under different conditions, such as different pulsewidths and wavelengths, and derives parameters for an event using data from at least two of these different acquisitions.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Anderson '500 and Anderson Handbook - Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18, 20-23, 26, and 27 are obvious over Anderson '500 in view of the Anderson Handbook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson '500 (Patent 5,708,500) and Anderson Handbook (Troubleshooting Optical-Fiber Networks, 2nd ed. 2004).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anderson '500 taught a multimode OTDR method using multiple light acquisitions at different wavelengths (1300 nm for range, 850 nm for resolution) and pulsewidths (narrower for 850 nm) to resolve closely-spaced "grouped events." This process created a composite waveform by replacing a portion of the long-range 1300 nm waveform with high-resolution 850 nm waveform data. Petitioner contended this composite waveform inherently contained data from at least two distinct acquisitions. The petition further asserted that the Anderson Handbook, a standard OTDR technical reference, taught well-known algorithms for calculating event parameters—such as location, loss, and reflectance—from any given waveform data. Petitioner argued that applying the Handbook's standard analysis techniques to Anderson '500's composite waveform would result in deriving different parameters from different parts of the waveform, and thus from different underlying acquisitions. For example, the location of a first event in a group might be derived from the 1300 nm data, while its specific reflectance parameter would necessarily be derived from the high-resolution 850 nm data, thereby meeting the key limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 20.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because the primary purpose of acquiring OTDR waveform data, as taught by Anderson '500, is to locate and measure events in the fiber. Anderson '500 explicitly stated its acquired data is "further processed to locate and measure events." The Anderson Handbook provided the standard, well-known, and necessary algorithms to perform this exact function. A POSITA would therefore combine the Handbook's analysis techniques with the improved composite waveform from Anderson '500 to achieve more accurate event characterization, which was the stated goal of Anderson '500.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because the combination involved applying conventional and predictable post-processing algorithms from the Anderson Handbook to standard OTDR waveform data from Anderson '500. Petitioner asserted this application would have yielded predictable results and involved nothing more than the use of well-known techniques to characterize events.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that several terms in the challenged claims were means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph, because they used nonce terms like "module" and "assembly" without reciting sufficiently definite structure.
  • Key terms identified for means-plus-function construction included "light acquisition module," "light generating assembly," "detecting module," and "analyzing module" (recited in claims 10, 14, and 20).
  • For each term, Petitioner identified the claimed function (e.g., "generating and propagating...test light pulse") and the corresponding structure disclosed in the '389 patent's specification (e.g., "a laser driven by a pulse generator"). This construction was central to Petitioner's argument, allowing a direct mapping of the prior art's structural components to the claimed functions.
  • Petitioner also noted that even under the Patent Owner's alternative constructions proposed in a related litigation (which did not treat the terms as means-plus-function), the prior art still disclosed the claimed features.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-14, 17, 18, 20-23, 26, and 27 of the '389 patent as unpatentable.