PTAB

IPR2021-00932

Unified Patents LLC v. OpTic153 LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Optical Signal Varying Device and Method
  • Brief Description: The ’174 patent describes optical amplifiers, referred to as "optical signal varying devices," that use Raman gain to amplify, attenuate, or provide lossless transmission for optical signals. The system uses a pump source to provide energy into an optical fiber, such as a dispersion compensated fiber (DCF), to generate a controllable Raman gain profile over a specified wavelength range.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Hansen and JP852 - Claims 1, 16, 19, 21, and 22 are obvious over Hansen in view of JP852.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Patent 5,887,093) and JP852 (Japanese Application # H10-73852).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hansen disclosed a Dispersion-Compensating Fiber (DCF) module that functions as a concentrated Raman amplifier. Hansen’s module used a pump source to generate Raman gain within the DCF, and it taught that the amount of gain could be controlled by adjusting the pump power to offset signal loss. Petitioner contended that while Hansen suggested using lasers of different wavelengths, it did not explicitly detail a multi-wavelength pump system. JP852 was argued to supply this missing detail by explicitly teaching an optical amplifier that uses two excitation light sources at different center wavelengths (lambdap1 and lambdap2) to produce Raman gain over a widened, flattened bandwidth, thereby compensating for signal loss more effectively.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine these references because Hansen suggested using multiple pump wavelengths to achieve "relatively uniform amplification" and would have looked to other art for implementation details. JP852 provided a known solution for broadening Raman amplification bandwidth using multiple pump wavelengths. The shared goal of compensating for signal loss in optical fibers and the overlapping technical fields and operating wavelength ranges would have provided a strong motivation to integrate JP852’s multi-pump technique into Hansen's DCF amplifier system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The combination involved applying a known technique (multi-wavelength pumping from JP852) to a known device ready for improvement (Hansen's amplifier) to achieve a predictable result—an expanded and more uniform Raman gain profile. Both references operated on the same principles of Raman amplification, making the integration straightforward.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hansen, JP852, and JP836 - Claims 1, 16, 19, 21, and 22 are obvious over Hansen in view of JP852 and JP836.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hansen (Patent 5,887,093), JP852 (Japanese Application # H10-73852), and JP836 (Japanese Application # H3-13836).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Hansen and JP852, which provided a multi-wavelength pumped Raman amplifier. Petitioner argued that JP836 further taught the "controllably" and "controlling" aspects of the challenged claims. JP836 disclosed an optical amplifier that used a microprocessor to monitor transmission loss in an optical fiber and, in response, control the intensity of multiple pump sources to produce varying amounts of Raman gain to compensate for the monitored loss. This microprocessor-based feedback loop was alleged to directly map to the claim limitations requiring controlled variation of the signal profile.
    • Motivation to Combine: The Hansen/JP852 system already involved controlling pump power. Petitioner argued a POSITA would be motivated to automate this control for improved performance and reliability. JP836 provided an explicit solution for such automation, describing a microprocessor-based control system designed for the same purpose: managing Raman gain to offset signal loss. The consistent goals and technology across the references would have prompted a POSITA to integrate JP836's control system into the Hansen/JP852 amplifier.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable, as the combination involved implementing a known microprocessor control technique (from JP836) into the established Raman amplifier system of Hansen/JP852. This was presented as a routine integration that would predictably enhance system control and flexibility without fundamentally altering the function of the individual components.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including that the claims are obvious over Hansen alone (Ground 1) and over Hansen in view of JP836 (Ground 3). These grounds relied on similar arguments regarding Hansen’s disclosure of a controllable Raman amplifier, with JP836 providing further teachings on automated control.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no terms required explicit construction beyond their plain and ordinary meaning.
  • However, Petitioner asserted that several claim phrases constitute statements of intended use or result that should not be given patentable weight. Specifically, phrases in claim 19 such as "to controllably produce amplification, attenuation and lossless transmission" and "to vary the signal variation profile" were identified as merely describing the inherent function or intended outcome of the claimed apparatus, rather than reciting patentable structural limitations. This argument was extended to similar functional language in claims 1, 16, and 21.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 16, 19, 21, and 22 of Patent 6,115,174 as unpatentable.