PTAB

IPR2017-01404

Luxshare Precision Industry Co Ltd v. Bing Xu Precision Co Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: SATA-Compliant Electrical Connector Assembly
  • Brief Description: The ’071 patent relates to an electrical connector assembly compliant with the Serial Advanced Technology Attachment (SATA) standard. The invention describes a connector structure comprising an insulated housing, a printed circuit board (PCB), and a flexible flat cable (FFC) intended to reduce manufacturing costs by integrating the functions of a separate spacer and bracket onto the PCB.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Wu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wu (Patent 7,563,108).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Wu disclosed every element of claims 1 and 3. Wu’s electrical connector was asserted to teach an insulating housing with grooves (slots 1224) and terminal holes (ports 105, 106), a PCB with first and second soldering holes, and distinct power and data terminals (contacts 144, 142) fastened in the grooves and soldered to the PCB. Petitioner contended that Wu’s cable 3, described as a flexible, flat cable with an insulating jacket enclosing wires for both power and data, met the limitations of the claimed FFC. For dependent claim 3, Petitioner argued that Wu’s cover 4, in conjunction with its PCB 2, inherently fastens a bending portion of cable 3, as a flexible cable would necessarily bend upon exiting the housing in practical applications.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 5, 16, and 18 are obvious over Wu in view of Tang

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wu (Patent 7,563,108) and Tang (Patent 6,152,765).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims requiring a pin-and-latch mechanism for securing the PCB to the connector housing. Petitioner asserted that while Wu taught the foundational SATA connector, it secured its PCB using a sliding cover and glue. Tang was cited as teaching the specific claimed securing mechanism. Petitioner mapped Tang’s “positioning posts 13” to the claimed “pin” and its “board lock 21” to the claimed “latch,” which engage corresponding holes in a PCB to fasten it to a dielectric housing. For claims 5 and 18, Wu’s “stopper member 122” and Tang’s “spaced standoffs 15” were argued to teach the claimed stopper and block elements used for alignment.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Wu and Tang to improve the reliability of the PCB connection. The pin-and-latch method taught by Tang was presented as a well-known, more secure alternative to Wu’s sliding cover. A POSITA would be motivated to substitute this known, finite, and superior securing technique to create a more robust connector assembly.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was argued to be a predictable substitution of one conventional mounting solution for another, with a high expectation of success in producing a functional and improved connector.

Ground 3: Claims 6, 7, 11, 19, and 20 are obvious over Wu in view of the SATA Standard and Su

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Wu (Patent 7,563,108), the SATA Standard (Serial ATA Revision 2.6 of 2007), and Su (Patent 7,803,009).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targeted claims reciting specific, non-one-to-one soldering relationships between FFC conductors and PCB contacts. Wu was asserted to provide the base SATA connector. The SATA Standard was used to establish a motivation for non-standard soldering, as it described configurations like “port multipliers” for connecting a single source to multiple devices, which could require greater power delivery. Su was presented as explicitly teaching a solution, disclosing a 3-to-1 connection where multiple power conductors are soldered to fork-shaped conductive traces on a PCB to consolidate power. This, Petitioner argued, rendered a two-to-one power connection, as claimed, an obvious design choice.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA designing a connector for the SATA ecosystem (like Wu) would naturally consult the SATA Standard. The standard’s disclosure of multi-device connectivity would motivate the POSITA to seek methods for managing the associated increased power demands. Su provided an explicit and known technique for achieving this by soldering multiple conductors to a common point.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that applying the known power consolidation technique from Su to the Wu connector, in order to meet the functional possibilities outlined in the SATA Standard, was a straightforward design step that would predictably result in a connector capable of delivering more power.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that claims were obvious over Wu alone based on simple design choices. Further grounds relied on combining Wu with the Area Array Interconnection Handbook for teachings on “fan-out” PCB routing, with Green and De Lollis for teachings on using adhesives with injection holes, and with Brennan for teachings on hook-and-latch fastening mechanisms.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • “FFC (flexible flat cable)”: Petitioner proposed this term meant “a flexible flat cable that has a consolidated / unitary construction for housing both power and data conductor wires in one cable.” This construction was argued to be consistent with the patent’s goal of reducing cable management and allowed Petitioner to map Wu’s single “cable 3” to the claimed FFC.
  • “Latch”: Petitioner proposed this term meant “a fastening mechanism.” This broad, functional construction was used to argue that various prior art structures, such as the “board lock” in Tang, met the claim limitation without being restricted to the specific embodiment shown in the ’071 patent’s figures.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’071 patent as unpatentable.