PTAB

IPR2026-00019

Eoptolink Technology USA Inc v. Applied Optoelectronics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dual Fiber Type Direct Link Adapter
  • Brief Description: The ’367 patent discloses a dual fiber adapter for optically coupling the internal transmitter and receiver optical subassemblies (TOSA and ROSA) of a transceiver module with external, pluggable LC-type fiber optic connectors. The adapter features a body with slots to receive "direct link connector assemblies" and a cover portion to retain them.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Anderl and Gaio - Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are obvious over Anderl in view of Gaio.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderl (Patent 7,458,733) and Gaio (Patent 6,579,013).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Anderl disclosed all elements of the challenged claims except for the specific internal structure of the optical couplers. Anderl’s "retaining unit 34" was identified as the claimed "adapter," which includes "optical ferrule coupler retainers 90" (the adapter body with slots) and a "retainer cover member 92" (the adapter cover). The "optical couplers 82" held by the retainers correspond to the claimed "direct link connector assemblies." Petitioner asserted that Gaio, which is explicitly incorporated by reference into Anderl, provides the missing details of the internal structure of these optical couplers. Gaio’s coupler includes a fiber ferrule, a sleeve, and an outer housing that defines an LC connector receptacle and includes a flange for securing the assembly, thereby teaching the remaining limitations of claims 1-2 and 4-9.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references because Anderl explicitly incorporates Gaio by reference for the purpose of describing the details of its optical couplers. This direct instruction would have motivated a POSITA to consult Gaio to understand the internal configuration of Anderl’s couplers to ensure a simple, reliable, and effective optical connection.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings due to Anderl’s express reference to Gaio and the clear design compatibility between Anderl's overall system and Gaio's detailed coupler components.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Anderl, Gaio, Ohki, and SFP Specifications - Claim 3 is obvious over Anderl and Gaio, and further in view of Ohki and SFP Transceiver Specifications.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Anderl (’733 patent), Gaio (’013 patent), Ohki (Japanese Publication No. 2005-269474), and SFP Transceiver Specifications (SFF Committee INF-8074i).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination of Anderl and Gaio from Ground 1 to address the length limitation of claim 3 ("less than 30 mm"). Petitioner contended that while Anderl and Gaio do not specify dimensions, the sizes of optical transceivers are standardized by Multi-Source Agreements (MSAs). Ohki and the SFP Transceiver Specifications provide these standard overall lengths for XFP (78 mm) and SFP (56.5 mm) transceivers, respectively. The drawings in these references show that the optical connector adapter is a small fraction (less than one-third) of the total transceiver length.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA designing the Anderl/Gaio adapter for use in a standard transceiver would be motivated to conform to the industry standards taught by Ohki and the SFP Specifications. To ensure the adapter fits within the standardized transceiver housing, the POSITA would necessarily consider its dimensions relative to the overall device length.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because determining the dimensions of a component to fit within a standardized housing is a matter of routine design and optimization. The length was argued to be a result-effective variable that a POSITA could determine through simple observation of the reference drawings or routine experimentation to ensure compatibility.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted parallel obviousness challenges based on Kim (Application # 2009/0010600) in view of Gaio for claims 1-2 and 4-9 (Ground 3), and Kim in view of Gaio, Ohki, and the SFP Transceiver Specifications for claim 3 (Ground 4). The arguments relied on a similar rationale, substituting Kim's "receptacle holders 134" for Anderl's "retaining unit 34" as the primary adapter structure.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’367 patent as unpatentable.