PTAB

IPR2017-01870

Cisco Systems Inc v. Oyster Optics LLC

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Secure Optical Data Transmission
  • Brief Description: The ’898 patent discloses systems and methods for secure data transmission in a fiber optic network. The invention centers on a transceiver card that incorporates an energy level detector to monitor the optical power of a received signal, which can be used to detect tapping or other intrusions on the fiber link.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Treyz and Ade - Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12, and 23 are obvious over Treyz in view of Ade.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Treyz (Patent 6,529,316) and Ade (Patent 5,347,601).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Treyz disclosed an optical network equipment card that includes an "optical channel monitor" which functions as the claimed "energy level detector" to measure the power of a received optical signal and compare it against a plurality of thresholds (P-HIGH, P-LOW, P-OFF). However, Treyz described its transmitter and receiver modules functionally without providing specific structural details. Ade was alleged to cure this by disclosing a conventional, integrated optical transceiver on a single chip, including a transmitter (laser, modulator, controller) and a receiver configured for separate transmit and receive fibers, which maps to the remaining structural limitations of independent claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ade's well-known integrated transceiver with Treyz's flexible optical card system to achieve predictable benefits. Implementing Ade's compact transceiver as a module on Treyz's card would reduce the total number of cards in a communications system, thereby lowering the overall cost, physical space, and complexity.
    • Expectation of Success: The proposed combination was presented as a straightforward integration of known components for their intended purposes. A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Ade's standard transceiver within the modular framework taught by Treyz to create the claimed system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Roberts '840 and Ade - Claims 1, 6-9, 11-12, and 23 are obvious over Roberts '840 in view of Ade.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts '840 (Patent 5,969,840) and Ade (Patent 5,347,601).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative to Ground 1. Petitioner asserted that Roberts ’840 disclosed a system for controlling optical power in a transmission system, including an energy level detector ("control system") to measure optical power and compare it to upper and lower threshold values. Like Treyz, Roberts ’840 described a system including a transmitter and receiver but did not detail their structure on a card. Ade again supplied the disclosure of a conventional integrated transceiver chip that could be implemented on a card within a telecommunications box, fulfilling the remaining limitations of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground 1. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the functional system of Roberts ’840 using the concrete, space-saving transceiver structure from Ade. Combining these known elements was argued to be an obvious design choice to build a complete, practical system with reduced cost and complexity.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in combining Ade's standard transceiver with the system-level monitoring functions of Roberts '840, as it represented a predictable integration of known technologies to achieve a known result.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Treyz/Ade and Ikeda - Claim 2 is obvious over the combination of Treyz and Ade, further in view of Ikeda.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Treyz (Patent 6,529,316), Ade (Patent 5,347,601), and Ikeda (Patent 7,016,612).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Treyz/Ade combination to address dependent claim 2, which specifically required the energy level detector to include an "OR gate." While Treyz disclosed comparing a signal to thresholds, it did not specify the circuitry. Petitioner argued that Ikeda explicitly taught a reception level intensity circuit that used comparators coupled to an "OR circuit 625" to generate a digital output indicating when a received power signal exceeded a threshold.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the comparison function in Treyz's control unit would have looked to known, simple logic circuits for a solution. Ikeda provided a well-understood, logic-based circuit for this exact purpose. The digital output from Ikeda's OR gate would have been recognized as a useful and obvious way to trigger the alarm functions described in Treyz.
    • Expectation of Success: Incorporating a standard logic gate from Ikeda to perform a comparison function within the Treyz/Ade system was presented as a routine design choice with a high expectation of success.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining the primary references (Treyz/Ade or Roberts '840/Ade) with Hooijmans (a 1994 textbook on coherent optical systems) to teach phase modulation for claims 3, 4, and 10, and with Kobayashi (Patent 6,404,281) to teach specific photodiode and linear amplifier circuitry for claim 5.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-12 and 23 of the ’898 patent as unpatentable.