PTAB

IPR2018-00154

Clearfield Inc v. CommScope Technologies LLC

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Telecommunications Equipment Cabinet with Connector Holder
Brief Description: The ’233 patent relates to a telecommunications cabinet that includes a splitter, cable management features, and a dedicated connector holder for storing the connectorized ends of fiber optic cables when they are not in use. The system is designed for scalability, allowing the connector holders to be removed and replaced with standard fiber optic adapters to expand the cabinet's connection capacity in the field.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Oda (JP Publication No. 2000-193833).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Oda’s disclosure, encompassing both a "Conventional Art" system and a "Modified System," teaches every element of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped Oda's "jumper unit" to the claimed "splitter housing" and its physically separate "alignment board" or "connector holding part" to the claimed "connector storage module." Petitioner asserted this disclosed storage module is separate from the splitter housing and does not include connecting structure to optically couple two connectors, thereby meeting the limitations of independent claims 1 and 16. Dependent claim features, such as SC-type connectors and dust caps, were also alleged to be disclosed.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Hirao (JP Publication No. 2000-241629A) and Reagan (Patent 6,983,095).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Hirao discloses the primary elements of the invention, including an optical distribution frame with splitter modules and a separate "unconnected fiber management unit" for storing unused device-side optical fibers. This management unit was argued to constitute the claimed "connector storage module" that is separate from the splitter housing and lacks optical coupling capability.
- Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that while Hirao teaches storing unused device-side fibers, Reagan supplies the motivation to store unused splitter cords in a similar manner. Reagan teaches storing unused splitter pigtails at a dedicated "home position" to improve organization, reduce entanglements, and provide ready access for future use. A POSITA would combine Reagan's explicit storage strategy for splitter pigtails with Hirao's analogous system to achieve the same known benefits of improved fiber management.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying the known organizational principle from Reagan to the fiber management unit of Hirao, as both systems deal with managing connectorized fiber optic cables in a distribution frame.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Reagan (Patent 6,983,095) and Uruno (Patent 6,256,443).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner used Reagan as the primary reference, asserting it discloses a splitter module with integrated storage receptacles on its faceplate. This meets many limitations of the claims. However, in Reagan's design, the storage receptacles are part of the splitter module housing, not separate from it as required by the claims.
- Motivation to Combine: Uruno was introduced to supply the teaching of separating the storage function from the splitter housing. Uruno explicitly discloses a fiber distribution module with a "fiber storage section" that is physically separate from the "splitting jumper section." A POSITA would combine Uruno's teaching of a modular, separated design with Reagan's system. The motivation would be to gain known advantages such as increased design flexibility, easier replacement or repair of individual components, and reduced cable congestion near the splitter module exit.
- Expectation of Success: The combination involves a simple and predictable mechanical separation of known components to achieve well-understood benefits, leading to a high expectation of success.

Petitioner argued that several key terms should be construed as means-plus-function elements under 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, which was central to its invalidity arguments.
"Connector storage means" (claim 15): Petitioner identified the claimed function as "receiving and storing a plurality of the optical connectors." The corresponding structure disclosed in the ’233 patent was identified as the "multi-position connector holder (122)," which includes specific structural details like a housing (160), latching arms (168) that cooperate with standard SC-style connectors, and keying features (238) for mounting.
"Connector storage module" (claims 1, 16): Petitioner contended this term lacks a sufficiently definite structural meaning in the specification and should also be construed as a means-plus-function element.
Alternative Interpretation: Petitioner noted that the Patent Owner in co-pending litigation advanced a much broader interpretation of "connector storage means" (encompassing a simple foam block with holes). Petitioner asserted that its unpatentability arguments prevail even under this broader construction.
"Connecting means" (claim 15): Based on the specification and prosecution history, Petitioner argued this term should be construed as a negative limitation, meaning the "connector storage means" must not include structure for optically coupling two fiber optic connectors.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-8, and 12-16 of Patent 7,809,233 as unpatentable.