PTAB

IPR2019-00262

Ud Electronic Corp v. Pulse Electronics Inc

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Integrated Connector Module
Brief Description: The ’318 patent discloses an integrated connector module (ICM) for networking equipment. The ICM uses a system of electromagnetic interference (EMI) shields, including internal insert body shields, to increase electrical isolation between adjacent electronic subassemblies and mitigate electrical noise.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Molex (International Publication No. WO 2011/057195).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Molex, which discloses a modular stacked jack connector, teaches every element of claim 14. Molex’s housing (32) with ports (33) arranged in vertically aligned pairs satisfies the “row-and-column fashion” limitation. Its internal subassembly modules (70) contain electronic components (transformers and chokes 121) within component housings (75) (“insert bodies”) and include internal printed circuit boards (74, 78). Molex’s comprehensive EMI shielding system, including an outer shield assembly (50) and internal inter-module shields (60), provides the required electrical isolation. Petitioner identified Molex’s internal shield member (190) as the claimed “body shield” that interfaces with the PCB (74) at a back portion via solder tail (195). The claimed “shielding tab” was mapped to Molex’s conductive clip (110) and its flexible contact arms (115), which extend into the housing to electrically connect the inter-module shields to the PCB.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Regnier ’538 (Patent 8,888,538).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Regnier ’538, which issued from a U.S. application corresponding to the Molex publication and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e), also anticipates claim 14. The arguments largely parallel those made for Molex. Petitioner argued Regnier ’538’s stacked jack connector discloses a housing with ports in a row-and-column fashion, electronic components inside insert bodies with PCBs, and a plurality of EMI shields. The internal shield member (190) was identified as the claimed “body shield” interfacing with a back portion of the internal PCB. The conductive clip (110) with flexible contact arms (117) was identified as the claimed “shielding tab” that provides electrical connectivity between the body shield and a front portion of the PCB.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Molex (WO 2011/057195) and Zhang (Application # US 2012/0196458).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Claim 17 depends from claim 14 and adds the limitation of “a wall structure that separates the shielding tab from a plurality of electrical conductors.” Petitioner argued that Molex teaches all elements of claim 14. Zhang, which is directed to improving electrical isolation in multiport connectors, was cited for its teaching of using a wall structure of an insulative housing (2) to physically separate a grounding conductor (90) from signal conductors (541, 542) within the connector ports.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Zhang’s teaching with Molex’s connector to improve electrical isolation and prevent shorting between conductors and shielding elements, a common goal in the art. Specifically, adding a physical barrier as taught by Zhang would be a simple and known way to prevent contact between Molex's shielding tab (clip 110) and its internal conductors.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because incorporating a simple physical barrier from a housing structure into a connector is a straightforward mechanical integration with predictable electrical isolation benefits.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Regnier ’538 (Patent 8,888,538) and Zhang (Application # US 2012/0196458).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an argument parallel to Ground 3, using Regnier ’538 as the base reference for the limitations of claim 14. Zhang was again relied upon for its disclosure of an insulative wall structure separating shielding and signal conductors.
- Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that in Ground 3: a POSITA would apply Zhang's known technique for improving electrical isolation to the connector disclosed in Regnier ’538 to prevent shorting and enhance shielding performance.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable application of a known design principle to a known connector structure, ensuring a high likelihood of success.

"Row-and-Column Fashion": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “an array structure having rows and columns.” This construction was argued to be consistent with the plain meaning and specification, allowing Molex’s and Regnier ’538’s vertically aligned ports to meet the limitation.
"Body Shield": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “a member positioned and formed of materials to mitigate possible electrical noise on at least one side thereof.” This broad construction was central to mapping the internal, plate-like shield member (190) in Molex and Regnier ’538 to this claim element.
"Wall Structure that separates...": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as “a structural portion disposed between a shielding tab and electrical conductors.” This construction was key to the obviousness arguments, allowing portions of the insulative housing taught by Zhang to satisfy the added limitation of claim 17.

Petitioner argued that the proposed grounds were non-cumulative. It contended that Ground 1 (Molex) and Ground 2 (Regnier ’538) rely on primary references with different prior art dates under §102(a) and §102(e), respectively, presenting distinct anticipation challenges. The obviousness grounds were likewise asserted to be distinct from the anticipation grounds and from each other.

Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 14 and 17 of Patent 9,178,318 as unpatentable.