Amphenol Corp v. Credo Technology Group Ltd

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00835](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835)
- Patent #: [10,877,233](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10877233)
- Filed: April 10, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Amphenol Corporation](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/amphenol-corp)
- Patent Owner(s): [Credo Technology Group LTD](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/credo-technology-group-ltd)
- Challenged Claims: 1-20

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Active Electrical Cables with Pre-Equalization
- Brief Description: The [’233 patent](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1001) relates to active electrical cables used for high-speed data communication between devices like servers and routers. The invention describes cables with pluggable modules at each end containing powered transceivers, which the patent calls data recovery and re-modulation (DRR) devices, that provide signal conditioning, including pre-equalization, using transmit filter coefficient values stored in non-volatile memory.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 are obvious over Lugthart-706 in view of Gorecki-617.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Patent 9,882,706 (“[Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005)”), Patent 7,233,617 (“[Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006)”).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005) discloses the core components of the challenged claims, including an "active cable" with transceivers at each end that perform pre-equalization (termed "pre-emphasis") on transmitted signals using finite impulse response (FIR) filters configured with "tap coefficients." However, [Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005) does not explicitly teach how these coefficients are stored. Petitioner asserted that [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006) remedies this by teaching systems and methods for transmitter equalization that store FIR filter tap coefficients in non-volatile memory (NVM), such as EEPROM, to be retrieved during startup or initialization. The combination of [Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005)'s active cable system with [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006)'s NVM storage of filter coefficients allegedly renders independent claims 1, 8, and 15 obvious, as it teaches the very limitation—storing coefficient values in non-volatile memory—that the Examiner cited as the basis for allowance.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006) with [Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005) to enhance the performance of high-speed digital communications, a goal common to both references. Implementing [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006)’s NVM storage was argued to be a conventional and convenient technique for setting and persisting filter coefficients in [Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005)’s active cable, allowing for initial values to be set at manufacture and reliably reloaded after power cycles.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Petitioner asserted a POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves integrating known, compatible components (active cables, FIR filters, NVM) using conventional techniques for pre-equalization that were well within the ordinary skill in the art.

#### Ground 2: Claims 7, 14, and 20 are obvious over Lugthart-706, Gorecki-617, and IEEE Std. 802.3-2015.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005), [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006), and IEEE Std. 802.3-2015 (“802.3”).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground addressed the negative limitation recited in claims 7, 14, and 20, which requires that the DRR devices *do not* perform pre-equalization of the multi-lane data streams provided to the host interface ports. Petitioner argued that while the base combination of [Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005) and [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006) teaches an active cable with pre-equalization capabilities, the 802.3 standard teaches how to effectively disable this function. Specifically, 802.3 describes setting transmit filter tap coefficients (e.g., setting outer taps to zero and maximizing the center tap) to achieve a state of "no equalization," thereby passing the input signal through without modification.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSA would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of the 802.3 standard to solve the known problem of reducing transceiver power consumption. Disabling pre-equalization when not needed for signal integrity provides a desirable low-power operational mode, a conventional feature for such components. This would improve the Lugthart+Gorecki design by adding a known functionality to solve a known problem.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Success in this combination was expected because disabling pre-equalization by setting specific filter coefficient values was a known technique explicitly described in the primary industry standard (802.3) and other prior art. Implementing this functionality was a conventional design choice for providing a lower power mode and was well within the skill of a POSA.

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- **§314(a) (Fintiv):** Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under *Fintiv* is unwarranted. The petition was filed expeditiously, within four weeks of the Patent Owner filing complaints in the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC. As of the petition filing, the ITC had not instituted an investigation and no trial date was set in either parallel proceeding. Petitioner asserted that a Final Written Decision (FWD) from the Board would likely issue before a final determination in the ITC or trial in the district court, and that the balance of the *Fintiv* factors, particularly factors one through four and six, strongly favors institution.
- **§325(d) (Advanced Bionics):** Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) is inappropriate because the primary prior art references relied upon in the petition ([Lugthart-706](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1005), [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006), and 802.3) were never considered by the USPTO Examiner during prosecution. Petitioner contended that [Gorecki-617](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00835/doc/1006) expressly teaches the very functionality—storing equalization filter coefficients in NVM—that the Examiner identified as missing from the prior art of record and cited as the reason for allowance. Because the petition raises art and arguments that are substantially different from what the Examiner considered, Petitioner argued that the *Advanced Bionics* factors weigh against discretionary denial.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of Patent [10,877,233](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/10877233) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Active electrical cable patent contested: Lugthart & Gorecki art supports obviousness of all 20 claims over NVM storage of pre-equalization coefficients.