PTAB

IPR2023-01062

CommScope Technologies LLC v. Belden Inc

Title: Data Communications Cable
Brief Description: The ’095 patent discloses a data communications cable containing multiple twisted pairs of insulated conductors. A central feature is a configurable, substantially flat dielectric pair separator designed to be arranged within the cable jacket to form grooves that separate the twisted pairs, thereby reducing crosstalk.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (Patent 3,622,683).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Roberts teaches every element of independent claim 27. Roberts discloses a telephone cable with a "plastic-coated metal foil strip or tape" that serves as a configurable and substantially flat dielectric pair separator. This separator divides two groups of conductor pairs and is arranged in a serpentine shape within a plastic jacket, forming at least two grooves. Critically, Roberts teaches that the separator and the conductor pairs are twisted together about a common central axis to form a "twisted composite" cable, meeting all limitations of the claim. The dependent claims are met as Roberts’ separator provides sufficient spacing to improve crosstalk properties and its grooves do not form completely enclosed channels.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Roberts (Patent 3,622,683), Jachimowicz (Patent 3,894,172), and Gingue (Patent 5,670,748).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Roberts teaches the base cable structure of independent claim 31 (similar to claim 27) but does not explicitly disclose that the dielectric separator is formed of a foamed polymer tape. Jachimowicz and Gingue both teach the benefits of using foamed polymer materials and tapes in data communications cables. Specifically, they disclose that foaming a polymer enhances its electrical properties (e.g., lowers the dielectric constant) and can improve flame retardancy.
- Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine the teachings to improve the performance of the cable taught in Roberts. Market pressures to increase cable performance and reliability would have driven a POSITA to incorporate a known material like foamed polymer tape, which offered predictable benefits such as reduced transmission loss (by lowering capacitance) and an enhanced dielectric barrier against breakdown.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the technologies have significant overlap. Both Roberts and the secondary references relate to data cables using similar materials (e.g., Mylar, polypropylene), and incorporating a foamed polymer tape would have involved only routine manufacturing modifications.

Prior Art Relied Upon: GmbH-866 (German Patent DE 297 19 866 U1).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that GmbH-866 discloses a "data transfer cable" that anticipates all elements of claim 27. The reference teaches using plastic-laminated metal foil "partial shieldings" to separate multiple twisted pairs. Petitioner argued these shieldings function as configurable dielectric pair separators that are substantially flat prior to assembly. GmbH-866 explicitly teaches that these shieldings are applied "together with the stranding [of] the conductor pairs," meaning they are twisted about a common central axis. The arrangement of the shieldings within the cable jacket forms distinct sectors or grooves for the twisted pairs.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claims 30-33 are obvious over GmbH-866 in view of Jachimowicz and/or Gingue. Further grounds alleged that claims 27-29 are anticipated by Yanagida (Japanese Patent Publication S43-15474) and that claims 30-33 are obvious over Yanagida in view of Jachimowicz and/or Gingue.

"dielectric pair separator": Petitioner argued this term should be construed as "a separator that serves as a dielectric medium," not one that consists entirely of dielectric material. This construction is critical for allowing prior art separators, such as the plastic-coated metal foils in Roberts and GmbH-866, to meet the claim limitation.
"substantially flat": Petitioner contended this term describes the separator as being a substantially flat member prior to being formed into the final cable assembly. It does not require the separator to remain flat in the radial cross-section of the finished cable. This construction is crucial for mapping onto prior art where flat tapes are folded or shaped during manufacturing.

§325(d) (Same or Substantially Same Art/Arguments): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial because the primary references (Roberts, GmbH-866, Yanagida) were not considered during the original prosecution. Furthermore, prior inter partes reexaminations involving the ’095 patent were terminated before finality and did not consider Roberts or Yanagida.
§314(a) (Fintiv Factors): Petitioner argued against denial based on a parallel district court case, asserting that the trial is not scheduled until October 2025, nearly a year after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision. Petitioner also noted the litigation is in its early stages, with no claim construction or expert discovery completed, and stated its intent to seek a stay if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted.

Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 27-33 of the ’095 patent as unpatentable.