PTAB

IPR2023-01056

CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Multi-Layer Barrier Tape for Unshielded Twisted Pair Cables
  • Brief Description: The ’030 patent discloses unshielded twisted pair (UTP) cables with a multi-layer barrier tape designed to reduce alien crosstalk. The key feature is a three-layer tape (dielectric/conductive/dielectric) that surrounds the twisted-pair conductors and an internal filler.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation - Claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-18 are anticipated by Cook.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cook (Patent 9,363,935).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cook discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Specifically, Cook teaches a cable with multiple twisted-pairs of conductors, a cross-shaped filler separating the pairs, and a surrounding multi-layer barrier tape. Petitioner asserted that Cook’s barrier tape meets the "three-layer" limitation by disclosing an electrically conductive layer "sandwiched between multiple dielectric layers." Petitioner further contended that Cook teaches the conductive material can be "continuous" and shows in figures that it extends to the lateral edges of the dielectric layers, thereby anticipating independent claims 1 and 18.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that Cook discloses the precise dielectric/conductive/dielectric configuration that was a key element of the patented claims.

Ground 2: Anticipation - Claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-18 are anticipated by Glew.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Glew (Application # 2013/0248240).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Glew, like Cook, discloses a cable with twisted-pair conductors, a filler, and a surrounding multi-layer barrier tape. Glew’s Figure 13C explicitly shows a three-layer tape with a metallic layer disposed between two polymeric/dielectric layers. Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand from standard manufacturing techniques (e.g., slitting larger films) that the layers of the tape would be aligned, causing the conductive layer to extend to the lateral edges of the dielectric layers, even if the schematic drawing appears to show them offset. Glew’s disclosure of a helically twisted filler (via incorporation by reference) was argued to anticipate claims 3 and 9.
    • Key Aspects: This ground relied on a POSITA’s understanding of conventional tape manufacturing to interpret the scope of Glew's schematic figures.

Ground 3: Obviousness - Claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-18 are obvious over Clark-478 in view of Roberts and/or Glew.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Clark-478 (Application # 2006/0168484), Roberts (Patent 3,622,683), and Glew (’240 application).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that this combination remedies the specific issue raised during prosecution. The Examiner previously rejected claims based on Clark-478, which discloses a cable with a two-layer surrounding barrier tape (aluminum/mylar), in view of Roberts’ internal three-layer tape (shield 15). The Patent Owner distinguished this by arguing Roberts' shield 15 was an internal separator, not a surrounding tape as claimed. Petitioner asserted that Clark-478’s two-layer surrounding tape could be obviously replaced with either the surrounding three-layer metal shield 18 from Roberts or the surrounding three-layer tape from Glew.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to improve shielding performance and reduce crosstalk, which are the stated goals of all cited references. Specifically, replacing Clark-478's two-layer tape with a three-layer tape from Roberts or Glew would provide the known benefit of adding a dielectric layer between the conductors and the conductive shield, mitigating risks like high-voltage failures.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved substituting one known type of surrounding barrier tape for another to achieve the predictable function of shielding. Petitioner argued this was a simple substitution of known elements to yield a predictable result.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous other anticipation and obviousness challenges. These included anticipation by Roberts (Ground 5) and obviousness challenges combining Roberts with Jachimowicz-172 (Ground 6), Jachimowicz-036 (Ground 7), and Simons (Ground 9). These grounds relied on similar arguments that Roberts itself, or in combination with other prior art, taught all the claimed features.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued discretionary denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the petition raises new issues. The grounds are not the same or substantially the same as those before the Examiner, who only considered Roberts' internal shield 15, whereas the petition relies on Roberts' surrounding shield 18 and other references not considered during prosecution.
  • Petitioner argued against denial under Fintiv factors, stating that the parallel district court litigation is in a very early stage, with no claim construction, written discovery, or depositions having occurred. The trial is not scheduled until October 2025, providing ample time for the IPR to conclude first.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-18 of the ’030 patent as unpatentable.