PTAB

IPR2017-01074

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 an optical fiber connector and methods for verifying a successful splice between a factory-installed fiber stub and a field-installed fiber. The invention features translucent components and a cam mechanism that allow an installer to visually confirm continuity by observing a glow of light at the splice junction and to reposition the fiber if the connection is inadequate.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over de Jong and CamLite, with further support from Takizawa - Claims 15, 16, and 64-68 are obvious over de Jong in view of CamLite, optionally combined with Takizawa.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: de Jong (Patent 5,040,867), CamLite (a 1991 Siecor® connector instruction manual), and Takizawa (Patent 6,179,482).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that de Jong taught all structural elements of independent claim 15’s optical fiber connector, including a ferrule with a fiber stub, splice components, a sleeve (housing), and a cam mechanism (slider 14) that actuates the splice. However, de Jong did not explicitly teach using translucent components for visual verification. CamLite, an installation manual for what Petitioner asserted was the same Siecor® connector described in de Jong, filled this gap. CamLite expressly taught introducing laser light into the fiber stub and observing a glow at the rear of the connector to determine continuity; a bright glow indicated a bad connection, while reduced light indicated a successful splice. This visual feedback method inherently required at least one of the splice components to be translucent, as claimed. Dependent claims reciting a window in the sleeve (16), a ferrule holder (65), a spring (66), a crimp band (67), and a boot (68) were all argued to be disclosed by de Jong.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine de Jong and CamLite because they both originated from the same company (Siecor) and concerned the same or substantially identical connector technology. A POSITA seeking to understand the connector disclosed in the de Jong patent would naturally consult its corresponding installation manual, CamLite. Takizawa was offered as additional evidence that using translucent components to visually verify fiber optic connections was a known and motivated technique in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in combining the references, given their common origin and subject matter, to achieve a connector with a visual continuity check.

Ground 2: Obviousness over de Jong, CamLite, Dean, and CamSplice - Claim 63 is obvious over the combination of de Jong, CamLite, Dean, and CamSplice.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: de Jong (Patent 5,040,867), CamLite (a 1991 Siecor® manual), Dean (Patent 4,923,274), and CamSplice (a 1994 Siecor® assembly manual).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground focused on claim 63, which requires that the cam mechanism be "reversible for releasing the splice components." Petitioner argued that the linearly-actuated slider in de Jong and CamLite was a single-use mechanism. If a splice failed, the connector had to be discarded. Dean and CamSplice both taught rotationally-actuatable cam mechanisms (locking rings in Dean, levers in CamSplice) that could be repeatedly opened and closed. This feature allowed for releasing the splice components to reposition the fibers without destroying the connector.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to solve a known problem with the connectors of de Jong and CamLite, where a failed connection resulted in wasted time and materials. Dean and CamSplice, which also originated from Siecor, provided a known solution: a reversible cam. A POSITA would have been motivated to replace the linear, single-use cam of de Jong/CamLite with the superior, reopenable rotational cam taught by Dean or CamSplice to create a more efficient and less wasteful field-installable connector.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected as this combination involved substituting one known type of actuation mechanism for another to gain a predictable advantage (reusability).

Ground 3: Obviousness over CamSplice, CamLite, and de Jong - Method claims 18 and 20-24 are obvious over CamSplice in view of CamLite and de Jong.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: CamSplice (a 1994 Siecor® manual), CamLite (a 1991 Siecor® manual), and de Jong (Patent 5,040,867).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed the method claims, particularly the steps of "repositioning and re-securing" and "re-evaluating" continuity if it is "unacceptable" (claim 18). Petitioner argued that CamSplice explicitly taught an iterative "splice optimization procedure." If initial splice loss was unacceptable, the procedure involved opening the splice (by rotating levers), pulling back and rotating one fiber (repositioning), rebutting the fiber, and closing the splice again (re-securing). After this, the splice loss was checked again (re-evaluating). Petitioner contended that CamLite taught the initial steps of evaluating continuity via visual feedback (observing a glow).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine CamLite's visual evaluation method with CamSplice's iterative optimization process. CamLite identified the problem (a bright glow indicating unacceptable continuity) but offered a crude solution (cut off and start over). CamSplice provided a much more elegant solution for the same problem. A POSITA would logically apply the superior repositioning method from CamSplice to the connector system of CamLite/de Jong to improve field installation efficiency.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would reasonably expect success in applying CamSplice’s well-defined optimization steps to a system that uses visual, rather than power meter, feedback for continuity checks, as the underlying principle of adjusting and re-testing a splice is the same.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations including UniCam (a 1996 Siecor® manual) to explicitly teach performing the repositioning step while the connector remains in an installation tool, as required by claim 19.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 15, 16, 18-24, 49, 50, 63-68, and 71 of Patent RE45,482 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.