PTAB

IPR2025-00833

Belden Inc v. CommScope Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Communications Cable Payout Bag
  • Brief Description: The ’697 patent discloses a communications cable payout bag constructed of a flexible material. The bag includes a main compartment, an adjustable shoulder strap, and a removable insert designed to fit within the compartment and hold a reel of cable for payout.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Cohn and Redzisz - Claims 9-12 are obvious over Cohn in view of Redzisz.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Cohn (Patent 3,150,769) and Redzisz (Application # 2004/0016666).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Cohn disclosed a device for transporting and paying out wire from a reel, comprising a rectilinear box and an internal cradle that supports the reel. This combination of the box and cradle, which is placed inside the main container, constituted the claimed "removable insert." Redzisz disclosed a flexible tool bag made of canvas with a shoulder strap, an openable and closable main compartment, and exterior pouches. The combination resulted in placing Cohn's payout device (the insert) into Redzisz's flexible bag (the main compartment).
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to improve portability and safety for cable installers. Placing Cohn's device into Redzisz's bag with a shoulder strap would allow for hands-free operation, increasing mobility, freeing the installer's hands for other tasks like climbing ladders, and reducing the risk of injury.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as combining a carrying bag with a tool-like device was a simple application of known components requiring only ordinary skill. The components were compatible, and routine optimizations like adjusting the bag's size for a proper fit would have been straightforward.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Young and Bass - Claims 9-11 are obvious over Young in view of Bass.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Young (Patent 4,650,073) and Bass (Patent 5,529,186).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Young disclosed a cable payout bag made of a flexible material with an adjustable shoulder strap, a main compartment, and a payout opening. However, Young's design involved paying cable from the center of an unsupported coil, which can cause kinks. Bass disclosed a boxed spool assembly including a reel supported by a pair of end plates that allow the reel to rotate smoothly. Petitioner argued that Bass's end plates constituted the "removable insert" when placed inside Young's bag.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Bass's reel support structure into Young's flexible bag to solve the known problem of cable twisting and kinking associated with center-pull payout from an unsupported coil. This combination would ensure smoother, more reliable cable deployment, prevent cable damage, and increase payout efficiency, consistent with Young's goal of a "user-oriented container."
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was predictable. A POSITA would have known how to assemble Bass's reel and end plates and place the assembly inside Young's bag, a modification requiring only basic practical skills.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Young and Barnett - Claims 9-11 are obvious over Young in view of Barnett.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Young (Patent 4,650,073) and Barnett (Patent 5,704,479).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was similar to the one above, using Young as the primary flexible bag. Barnett was used to teach a cable package with a removable cardboard insert that includes a cradle to support a spool of cable. Petitioner argued that Barnett's insert teaches the claimed "removable insert" and that modifying its material from cardboard to plastic for improved durability and reusability would have been an obvious design choice.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was identical to that for combining Young and Bass: to improve the functionality of Young's bag by adding a support structure (from Barnett) for the cable reel. This would facilitate a smooth payout from the outer portion of the reel, preventing the kinking issues inherent in Young's center-pull design.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in placing Barnett's insert into Young's bag. The principles were well-understood, and the modification was a straightforward application of known techniques to improve a known device.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for dependent claims 12 and 13. These grounds added a third reference to the primary combinations above: Redzisz was added to teach adding "at least one storage pouch" (claim 12), and Eastwood (Patent 7,320,445) was added to teach a "cable lock" (claim 13).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that the terms "removable plastic insert" (claim 9) and "removable insert" (claim 10) are means-plus-function terms under §112, ¶ 6.
  • Petitioner contended that the terms do not recite a sufficiently definite structure for performing the claimed functions of "supporting a cable reel" and "being removable from the main compartment."
  • The petition identified the corresponding structure disclosed in the ’697 patent's specification as an open-topped box made of solid plastic, corrugated plastic, or corrugated cardboard. This construction was central to Petitioner's argument that the prior art discloses the required structure.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors was not warranted because no trial date had been set in the parallel district court litigation, indicating the proceeding was not in an advanced state.
  • Petitioner also argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that the petition raises new grounds and arguments not previously considered by the USPTO. Specifically, the key prior art references of Redzisz, Bass, and Barnett were never before the Examiner during the original prosecution of the ’697 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 9-13 of the ’697 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.