PTAB

IPR2017-00139

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 ’173 patent discloses a method and device for characterizing "events" (e.g., splices, connectors) in an optical fiber link using Optical Time-Domain Reflectometry (OTDR). The invention involves performing multiple light acquisitions of a single event under different conditions, such as different light pulsewidths or wavelengths, and then combining information from at least two acquisitions to compute a target parameter for that event.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Anderson '500 and the Anderson Handbook - Claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, 16, 18-21, and 24 are obvious over Anderson '500 in view of the Anderson Handbook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson ’500 (Patent 5,708,500) and the Anderson Handbook (Duwayne R. Anderson, et al., Troubleshooting Optical-Fiber Networks, 2nd ed. 2004).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anderson ’500, a patent by one of the co-authors of the Anderson Handbook, discloses the core limitations of the challenged claims. Specifically, Anderson ’500 teaches an OTDR device that improves the resolution of closely-spaced "grouped events" by performing a first light acquisition with a long wavelength (1300 nm) and wide pulsewidth to achieve range, and a second acquisition at the event location with a shorter wavelength (850 nm) and narrower pulsewidth to achieve high resolution. Anderson ’500 explicitly teaches combining the waveform data from these two distinct acquisitions to form a single "composite waveform" that has both long range and high resolution at the event location.

    While Anderson ’500 teaches creating the composite waveform, the Petitioner asserted that the Anderson Handbook supplies the missing step of calculating event parameters from it. The Handbook, a general reference on OTDR technology, describes standard, well-known mathematical algorithms for automatically analyzing OTDR waveform data to calculate an event's key parameters: position, loss, and reflectance. Petitioner contended that applying the standard analysis techniques from the Handbook to the composite waveform generated by Anderson ’500 would have been obvious and would meet the claim limitation of "computing a value for a target parameter... by combining information from more than one of the light acquisitions." For example, calculating the reflectance of an event in the composite waveform would inherently combine information from both acquisitions: the peak of the reflection comes from the high-resolution 850 nm data, while the baseline backscatter level comes from the long-range 1300 nm data. The arguments for device claims (e.g., 9) followed a similar logic, mapping the claimed modules to the hardware disclosed in Anderson ’500.

    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because the primary purpose of acquiring OTDR waveform data, as taught in Anderson ’500, is to locate and measure events in a fiber link. The Anderson Handbook provides the well-known, standard tools and algorithms for performing this exact function. Applying the analytical methods from the Handbook to the data generated by the Anderson ’500 device is a simple application of a known technique to its intended subject matter to achieve a predictable result—the characterization of fiber optic events.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination merely involved applying conventional post-processing algorithms (from the Handbook) to OTDR waveform data (from Anderson ’500). The process was routine and the results of calculating loss, reflectance, and position were entirely predictable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued for specific constructions of several key terms, asserting they were critical to the obviousness analysis.
  • "event" (claims 1, 4, 9, 13, 18, 21): Petitioner proposed construing this term as "a perturbation along the fiber link which affects the returning light pulses," based on an explicit definition in the ’173 patent’s specification.
  • "different acquisition conditions..." (claims 1, 9, 18): Based on the specification, Petitioner proposed this phrase means "changing parameters of the test light signals, namely their pulsewidths, wavelengths or both, from one light acquisition to the next."
  • Means-Plus-Function Terms (claims 9, 13, 16, 18): Petitioner contended that terms such as "light acquisition module," "light generating assembly," "detecting module," and "an analyzing module" are nonce terms that fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, invoking treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
    • For the "analyzing module," Petitioner argued its functions include analyzing signals, deriving parameters, and computing a target value by combining information. Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed structure from related litigation: a "processor and trace analysis components and software executing one or more of the algorithms" described in the ’173 patent. Petitioner then argued that the combination of the processor in Anderson ’500 and the standard algorithms in the Anderson Handbook met this functional limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-4, 7, 9-13, 16, 18-21, and 24 of the ’173 patent as unpatentable.