PTAB

IPR2017-02122

Clearfield Inc v. CommScope Technologies LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Fiber Optic Enclosure with Internal Cable Spool
  • Brief Description: The ’929 patent discloses a fiber optic enclosure assembly for managing fiber optic cable. The assembly includes a housing containing a cable storage spool that can rotate to pay out cable, with at least one fiber optic adapter mounted directly on the spool so that the adapter rotates in unison with the spool.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Walters - Claims 1-3, 8, 12, and 17 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Walters.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walters (Patent 6,220,413).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Walters, which discloses a retractable cable reel apparatus, teaches every element of the challenged independent claims. Walters discloses a housing (frame 27) containing a rotatable reel (11). Crucially, Walters teaches a connector panel (53) with fiber optic connector sleeves (55) that can be mounted on a reel docking station (47) attached to the reel’s hub (13). When mounted this way, the connector panel and its adapters rotate with the reel. Petitioner contended this directly maps to the ’929 patent’s core concept of an adapter mounted on and rotating with a storage spool. The inner side of Walters’ connector sleeves connects to the spooled cable, while the outer side connects to external subscriber lines, fulfilling the adapter functionality claimed.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Walters and Fuller - Claims 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are obvious over Walters in view of Fuller.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Walters (Patent 6,220,413) and Fuller (Patent 6,933,441).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims requiring features that Petitioner argued were obvious additions to Walters. For claims requiring a multi-fiber connector on the second end of the cable (claims 5, 13), Petitioner asserted that since Walters’ cable contains multiple optical fibers, terminating them with a standard multi-fiber connector as taught by Fuller would be a routine design choice. For claims requiring a movable front cover (claims 6, 10, 15, 19), Petitioner argued that while Walters discloses a cover, Fuller explicitly teaches a movable (slidable) cover (25) for a similar enclosure to provide selective access. For claims requiring the housing be adapted for wall-mounting (claims 7, 11, 16, 20), Petitioner contended it was common knowledge and practice to mount such enclosures on walls.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Walters with Fuller to implement predictable solutions for known needs. A POSA would use a standard multi-fiber connector for efficient connection and a common movable cover for convenient access to the housing’s interior. These were presented as simple substitutions of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying standard, well-known components (multi-fiber connectors, movable covers) to the Walters device for their intended and well-understood functions.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Fuller and Balde - Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are obvious over Fuller in view of Balde.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Fuller (Patent 6,933,441) and Balde (Patent 4,201,278).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground provided an alternative obviousness challenge for nearly all claims. Petitioner argued that Fuller discloses a fiber optic cable enclosure with a rotatable reel (31) inside a housing (13). However, Fuller’s adapter (receptor 15) is mounted on the housing’s faceplate, not the reel itself. Balde, in contrast, teaches a portable cable assembly where a connector (24) for the inner end of the cable is mounted directly within the hub plate (16) of the reel (10), causing it to rotate with the reel.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSA would combine the teachings of Fuller and Balde to improve Fuller's design. The motivation would be to mount Fuller’s adapter assembly directly onto the reel as taught by Balde. This modification would increase the ease, efficiency, and reliability of the system by preventing the "free-floating" connector of Fuller from interfering with cable deployment or getting damaged during rotation. Securing the adapter to the reel provides a fixed, stable connection point.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): There would be a high expectation of success because both references relate to cable reel technology. Modifying Fuller’s design by incorporating Balde’s reel-mounted connector is a straightforward mechanical integration to solve a known problem (managing the connection point during rotation) with a known solution.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 of the ’929 patent as unpatentable.