PTAB

IPR2025-01441

CyberSecure IPS LLC v. Network Integrity Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Monitoring individual fibers of an optical cable for intrusion
  • Brief Description: The ’641 patent discloses methods for monitoring multiple optical fibers within a cable for movement or manipulation indicative of intrusion. The described system injects light from a single source, uses "jumpers" to loop the light sequentially through multiple fibers, and employs a single sensor arrangement to detect signal changes, thereby allowing a larger number of fibers to be monitored than the number of available light sources and sensors.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Maycock - Claims 1-2 and 8-16 are anticipated and/or obvious over Maycock.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Maycock (Patent 5,093,568).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Maycock disclosed a system that continuously monitored fiber optic cables for "faults" and "unauthorized intrusions," which a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have understood inherently involves detecting physical fiber movement. Maycock’s system used a signal generator (light source) and a signal comparator/master control unit (sensor arrangement) to monitor two fibers (F1/F2). The monitor signal was looped from F1 to F2 at the remote end via multiplexers, effectively teaching the claimed "jumper" or loop-back functionality. Maycock further taught comparing received signals to a stored "history file" to detect changes, generating an alarm, and using an Optical Time-Domain Reflectometer (OTDR) to precisely locate the intrusion.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 alternative): To the extent Maycock’s generic "multiplexers" were not considered explicit wavelength division multiplexers (WDMs) as required by claim 9, Petitioner contended it would have been obvious to implement them as such. Maycock specified that the monitoring signal used a different wavelength than the data signal, which is the exact condition for using readily available, off-the-shelf WDMs. A POSA would have found this a simple, predictable substitution to achieve low-loss signal combining.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success in implementing Maycock’s system, as it relied on well-established fiber optic monitoring principles and components known at the time.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Tomita in view of Vobian and Jezwinski - Claims 8 and 12 are obvious over Tomita in view of Vobian and Jezwinski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Tomita (Patent 5,177,354), Vobian (Patent 6,630,992), and Jezwinski (Patent 5,552,881).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Tomita taught a base system for detecting and locating faults in a hub-and-spoke optical network using a light pulse testing apparatus and a database of baseline reflection data for each fiber. While Tomita focused on post-fault location, Petitioner argued it was obvious to modify it for continuous monitoring. Vobian taught a method for continuous, active monitoring by combining a monitor signal with a data signal using a WDM and analyzing the signal's polarization state, which is highly sensitive to fiber movement. Jezwinski taught an advanced OTDR system that automatically generated detailed alarms upon fault detection.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Tomita with Vobian’s WDM-based continuous monitoring to eliminate system downtime and increase sensitivity to tampering events. The combination would be further modified with Jezwinski's automated alarming capabilities to provide immediate, detailed notice of an intrusion, a recognized benefit over Tomita’s more manual fault-finding process. The motivation was to create a more robust, sensitive, and automated security system.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because the combination involved substituting known, modular components (e.g., Tomita’s optical coupler for Vobian’s WDM) and implementing well-understood software-based analysis on Tomita’s existing CPU architecture, both routine tasks for a POSA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Anderson in view of Jezwinski - Claims 1, 9-10, and 12 are obvious over Anderson in view of Jezwinski.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderson (Patent 5,649,036) and Jezwinski (Patent 5,552,881).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Anderson disclosed a remote fiber test system with a hub-and-spoke architecture where a central OTDR used an optical switch to test multiple fiber links extending to remote offices. Anderson explicitly taught using WDMs to allow the OTDR to test active fibers concurrently with data transmission by using a different wavelength for the test signal. Jezwinski taught a more sophisticated OTDR control method that used a computer to compare current fiber traces against a stored reference trace to automatically detect, locate, and characterize faults, and to generate alarms.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to replace Anderson’s basic OTDR implementation with Jezwinski’s more advanced, automated method. Jezwinski itself touted its advantages over the prior art, including reduced detection time, lower memory requirements, an improved user interface, and automated alarming. A POSA would have sought to incorporate these clear benefits into Anderson's robust hub-and-spoke architecture.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination had a high likelihood of success. Both references are in the same field of OTDR-based testing. The modification would primarily involve software updates to Anderson’s existing central office computer to implement Jezwinski’s superior control and analysis logic, which was well within the skill of a POSA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 1-2 and 8 are anticipated and/or obvious over Evans (Application # 2005/0244116) and that claims 3-5 are obvious over Evans in view of Pope (Patent 6,559,437), relying on similar arguments regarding inherent movement detection and obvious modifications to loop signals through multiple fibers using jumpers.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-5 and 8-16 of the ’641 patent as unpatentable.