PTAB

IPR2017-01073

Panduit Corp v. CCS Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Optical Fiber Connector and Associated Methods Of Validating Optical Fiber Continuity
  • Brief Description: The ’482 patent discloses methods and connectors for validating the continuity of an optical fiber connection. The system uses translucent components and an introduced light source to allow an installer to visually assess the quality of the splice between a factory-installed fiber stub and a field fiber, with a reusable cam mechanism for securing and repositioning the fibers if the initial connection is inadequate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 25, 36, and 43 are obvious over CamSplice, CamLite, de Jong, and Dean.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: CamSplice (a 1994 Siecor assembly manual), CamLite (a 1991 Siecor assembly manual), de Jong (Patent 5,040,867), and Dean (Patent 4,923,274).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination teaches all limitations of the challenged method claims. CamLite was asserted to teach the core validation method: introducing laser light into a fiber stub and visually monitoring the resulting "glow" at the rear of the connector to determine if a field fiber is properly butted against it, where a bright glow indicates a poor connection. De Jong was argued to disclose the foundational connector structure, including a ferrule holding a fiber stub and a linear cam mechanism (a slider) that is actuated by a tool to secure the field fiber. To address the claim steps requiring repositioning, Petitioner relied on CamSplice, which teaches an iterative splice optimization process where, if splice loss is unacceptable, levers (a cam mechanism) are opened, one fiber is repositioned, and the levers are re-actuated. Finally, Dean was introduced to supply the improved hardware: a rotationally-actuatable cam mechanism (locking rings) that can be repeatedly opened and closed, providing a direct substitute for the linear cam of de Jong to effectively implement CamSplice's repositioning algorithm.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to create a more efficient and reliable field-installable connector. The primary motivation was to solve the known problem associated with linear, single-use cams (like in de Jong/CamLite) where a poor connection required cutting the fiber and discarding the connector. A POSITA would have been motivated to replace this inefficient mechanism with the reusable, rotationally-actuatable cam from Dean to allow for repeated repositioning as taught by CamSplice, thereby reducing waste and installation time. Petitioner emphasized that all four references originated from the same corporate entity (Siecor) or its joint ventures, making it highly probable that a POSITA would look to this family of compatible technologies to solve a known problem.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves substituting one known type of mechanical actuator (a linear cam) with another known, reusable type (a rotational cam) to achieve the predictable benefit of repositionability.

Ground 2: Claims 32-34 are obvious over CamSplice, CamLite, de Jong, and UniCam.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: CamSplice (a 1994 Siecor assembly manual), CamLite (a 1991 Siecor assembly manual), de Jong (Patent 5,040,867), and UniCam (a 1996 Siecor assembly manual).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented a similar argument but introduced UniCam as an alternative source for a rotationally-actuatable cam. The base combination of CamLite (visual continuity check), de Jong (basic connector structure), and CamSplice (repositioning method) remained the same. UniCam was argued to teach a field-installable connector and an installation tool that uses a wrench to rotate a cam, thereby pressing the fiber ends into precise alignment. The combination was asserted to teach a complete workflow: placing the UniCam-style connector in its tool, inserting a fiber, using the CamLite visual glow method to check alignment, actuating the rotational cam, and if the glow indicates a poor connection, de-actuating the cam to reposition the fiber as taught by CamSplice. Dependent claim 33 (repeating the steps) was argued to be taught by CamSplice's instruction to "repeat this step until you have achieved maximum performance," and dependent claim 34 (removing the connector from the tool) was taught by both CamLite and CamSplice.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was analogous to the first ground. A POSITA, aware of the inefficiency of the linear cam in the CamLite/de Jong system, would be motivated to incorporate a more robust and reusable rotational cam mechanism as a predictable design alternative. UniCam, another product from Siecor, provided a well-documented, commercially available solution. A POSITA would combine these compatible technologies to improve the existing CamLite product by incorporating the more advanced, reusable cam from the newer UniCam product, solving the problem of lossy junctions without wasting materials.
    • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was argued to be high, as it involved applying the known rotational camming principle from UniCam to the connector system of de Jong/CamLite to enable the iterative optimization process taught by CamSplice.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claims 32-34 based on the combination of CamSplice, CamLite, de Jong, Dean, and UniCam, relying on similar theories of combining reusable cam mechanisms with visual feedback methods.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 25, 32-34, 36, and 43 of the ’482 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.