PTAB

IPR2023-01056

CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Methods and Implementations of Unshielded Twisted Pair (UTP) Cables with a Barrier Tape
  • Brief Description: The ’030 patent discloses communications cables with twisted-pair conductors, a separating filler, and a multi-layer barrier tape that surrounds the conductors and filler. The key feature is a three-layer tape construction with a conductive layer positioned between two dielectric layers to reduce alien crosstalk.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Cook - 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 communications cable with multiple twisted pairs, a cross-shaped filler separating the pairs, and a surrounding multi-layer barrier tape. Petitioner asserted that Cook’s barrier tape comprises a conductive layer sandwiched between two dielectric layers. The petition further contended that Cook teaches both a continuous conductive material and a structure where the conductive material extends to the lateral edges of the dielectric layers, thus anticipating independent claims 1 and 18. The dependent claims were argued to be anticipated by Cook’s disclosure of features like a dielectric filler, helically twisted components, and a four-arm cross-shaped filler.

Ground 2: Anticipation over Glew - 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 contended that Glew independently anticipates the challenged claims. Glew was shown to disclose a cable with twisted pairs, a filler, and a surrounding multi-layer barrier tape. Petitioner argued that Glew's FIG. 13C shows the claimed three-layer (dielectric/conductive/dielectric) tape structure. Although the figure schematically depicts offset layers, Petitioner argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand that standard manufacturing processes, like slitting, would result in the layers being aligned with flush edges, thereby meeting the "extending to each lateral edge" limitation. Glew was also argued to disclose a continuous conductive layer and all features of the dependent claims, including a filler with four T-shaped arms and a barrier tape seam positioned over a filler arm.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Clark-478, Roberts, and Glew - 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: This ground addressed the specific arguments from the ’030 patent’s prosecution history. The Examiner previously rejected claims over Clark-478 (disclosing a base cable with a two-layer tape) in view of Roberts. However, the Patent Owner overcame the rejection by arguing the specific three-layer tape cited in Roberts (shield 15) was an internal filler, not a surrounding barrier tape as claimed. Petitioner argued that Roberts also discloses a separate surrounding metal shield (shield 18) that is a three-layer tape. Petitioner asserted it would have been obvious to a POSITA to replace Clark-478's two-layer surrounding tape with the known three-layer surrounding tapes from either Roberts (shield 18) or Glew.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references to improve cable performance. Replacing Clark-478's two-layer tape with the three-layer tapes of Roberts or Glew was a known method to enhance shielding from external interference and provide a dielectric layer between the core conductors and the shield's metal layer. This would mitigate risks of high voltage failure, a known concern.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a simple substitution of one known type of surrounding barrier tape for another to perform the same shielding function. As both the base cable design and the proposed replacement tapes were well-known, a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in producing a predictable, functional cable.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional grounds, including: obviousness of claim 11 (seam position) over Cook in view of Glew; anticipation of most claims by Roberts alone; obviousness over combinations of Roberts with Jachimowicz-172 or Jachimowicz-036; and obviousness of claims 12 and 16 (filler shape) over Roberts in view of Simons. These grounds largely relied on permutations of the primary references to address specific claim limitations or potential alternative claim interpretations.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the petition raises new arguments and evidence not before the Examiner. Specifically, the grounds rely on barrier tapes from Roberts (shield 18) and Glew that surround the cable core, directly addressing the distinction the Patent Owner used to overcome the prior art rejection during prosecution.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv factors (§314(a)), noting that the co-pending district court litigation is in a very early stage. No claim construction has occurred, no significant discovery has been conducted, and the trial date is set for more than two years in the future. Petitioner stated its intent to seek a stay of the litigation if the IPR is instituted.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 9-14, and 16-18 of Patent 9,991,030 as unpatentable.