Berk-Tek LLC v Belden Technologies Inc.Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 201412646657 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 29 571-272-7822 Entered: April 28, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ BERK-TEK LLC Petitioner v. BELDEN TECHNOLOGIES INC. Patent Owner ____________ Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 ____________ Before JAMESON LEE, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KAUFFMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. FINAL WRITTEN DECISION 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 2 I. BACKGROUND A. Introduction On November 19, 2012, Petitioner, Berk-Tek, LLC, filed a petition for inter partes review of claims 1-34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,977,575 B2 (“the ’575 Patent”).1 Paper 1. Petitioner filed a revised petition on November 28, 2012.2 Paper 5 (“Pet.”). On May 2, 2013, the Board instituted a trial for each of claims 1-34, on one or more grounds of unpatentability. Paper 13 (“Dec.”). After institution of trial, Patent Owner filed a patent owner response (Paper 22, “PO Resp.”), and did not file a motion to amend. Petitioner subsequently filed a reply. Paper 23 (“Pet. Reply”). A consolidated oral hearing resulting in a single transcript was held on January 8, 2014, for this case and for inter partes review 2013-00069, a related case involving the same parties.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This final written decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Claims 1-34 of the ’575 Patent are unpatentable. 1 In the original Petition, Petitioner is identified as “Nexans, Inc.” Paper 1. On April 18, 2013, Nexans informed the Board that Nexans’s successor in interest is “Berk-Tek, LLC.” Paper 12. 2 All further references to the Petition are to the revised Petition unless otherwise stated. 3 A transcript of the final hearing is included in the record as Paper 28 (“Tr.”). Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 3 B. Standard for Decision with Respect to Patentability When, as here, an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed, the Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by Petitioner. 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). The standard for determining patentability is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), which provides as follows: (e) Evidentiary standards - In an inter partes review instituted under this chapter, Petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. C. The ’575 Patent The ’575 Patent discloses a high performance data cable. Ex. 1001, 1:26. As background, the ’575 Patent discloses that many data communications systems utilize high performance data cables having at least four twisted pairs (a pair of conductors twisted about each other). Id. at 1:32-36. These cables must meet exacting specifications with regard to data speed and electrical characteristics. Id. at 1:39-41. The cable of the ’575 Patent includes an interior support4 having grooves that accommodate twisted pair conductors allowing for easy spacing of the twisted pairs that improves near-end cross-talk (NEXT) and lessens the need for complex and hard to control lay procedures and individual shielding. Id. at 1:43; 2:1-9. 4 An “interior support” is also referred to as a “star separator” or a “separator.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1: 27-28; 4:9-10. Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 4 Figures 1 and 4 of the ’575 Patent are reproduced below: Figures 1 and 4 are vertical cross-sectional views of the cable and the interior support, respectively. In this embodiment, interior support 10 includes central region 12 with four prongs or splines 14 that extend both along the longitudinal length of interior support 10 and radially outward from the central region of interior support 10. Id. at 4:21-32; figs. 1, 4. Insulated twisted pairs of conductors 34 are disposed within grooves 22 defined by each pair of adjacent prongs Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 5 14, and run the longitudinal length of interior support 10. Id. at 4:51; 5:19- 21, 29-32; fig. 1. D. Illustrative Claim Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 17, 24, and 29 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below: 1. An unshielded twisted pair data communications cable comprising: a plurality of twisted pair conductors configured to carry data communications signals; a non-conductive interior support consisting of at least one non-conductive material and having a surface that defines a plurality of channels in the data communications cable within which the plurality of twisted pair conductors are individually disposed; and an outer jacket longitudinally enclosing the plurality of twisted pair conductors and the non-conductive interior support to form the data communications cable, the outer jacket being formed of a non-conductive material; wherein the outer jacket in combination with the nonconductive interior support maintains the plurality of twisted pair conductors within the channels defined by the surface of the non-conductive interior support; and wherein the unshielded data cable does not include a shield between the outer jacket and the twisted pair conductors and the non-conductive interior support. Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 6 E. Prior Art References Supporting Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1-345 Cutler ’064 US 3,209,064 Sept. 28, 1965 Ex. 1007 Burk ’710 US 3,888,710 June 10, 1975 Ex. 1016 Cheng ’467 US 4,935,467 June 19, 1990 Ex. 1012 McNeill ’813 US 5,399,813 Mar. 21, 1995 Ex. 1014 Tessier ’046 CA 2,058,046 Aug. 22, 1992 Ex. 1002 JP ’507 Sh061(1986)-13507 Jan. 21, 1986 Ex. 1006 JP ’470 Sh043(1968)-15470 June 28, 1968 Ex. 1003 F. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability6 Reference(s) Basis Claims Tessier ’046 § 102 1-9, 12-15, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 Tessier ’046 and Cheng ’467 § 103 9-11, 18, 19, 23, 25, and 28 Tessier ’046 and Burk ’710 § 103 16 Tessier ’046 and Cutler ’064 § 103 22 and 27 Tessier ’046 and JP ’507 § 103 26 Tessier ’046 and McNeill ’813 § 103 29, 31, and 33 Tessier ’046, McNeill ’813, and Cheng ’467 § 103 30 5 Exhibits 1006 and 1003 contain both the Japanese and English version of the reference. 6 See Dec. at 32-33. Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 7 Reference(s) Basis Claims Tessier ’046, McNeill ’813, and Cutler ’064 § 103 32 and 34 JP ’470 § 102 29, 31, and 33 II. CLAIM INTERPRETATION In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Claim terms are also given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If an inventor acts as his or her own lexicographer, the definition must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims. See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). If a feature is not necessary to interpret what the inventor means by a claim term, it is “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1249; E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 8 with the inventor’s description is likely the correct interpretation. See Renishaw PLC, 158 F.3d at 1250. A. Channels 1. Board Interpretation We begin our claim construction analysis with the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” (citations and quotations omitted)). Independent claim 1 is directed to a communications cable that includes: a plurality of twisted pair conductors, an interior support, and an outer jacket. The surface of the interior support defines a plurality of channels within which the plurality of twisted pair conductors are individually disposed. The Specification of the ’575 Patent does not provide a lexicographical definition of “channels.” Indeed, the term “channels” is used in the claims, but is not used in the remainder of the Specification. An ordinary meaning of “channel” is “a long gutter, groove, or furrow.” Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002. Nothing in the Specification of the ’575 Patent is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning that a channel is a “long gutter, groove, or furrow.” The ’575 Patent is a continuation of application No. 11/877,343, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,663,061 (“the ’061 Patent”), which is a continuation of Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 9 application No. 09/765,914, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,339,116 (“the ’116 Patent”), which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/074,272, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,222,130 (“the ’130 Patent”), which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 08/629,509, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,789,711 (the ’711 Patent”). Ex. 1001, 1:7-20. Because the ’575 Patent derives from the same parent application and shares common terms with the ’116 Patent and the ’061 Patent, we construe claim terms in the ’575 Patent consistent with their use in the ’116 Patent and the ’061 Patent.7 See NTP Inc., v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (When construing claims in patents that derive from the same parent application and share common terms, “we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”). Further, the ’575 Patent incorporates the ’116 Patent and the ’061 Patent in their entirety. Ex. 1001, 1:20-22. In the ’061 Patent, independent claims 1 and 7 are each directed to a communications cable that includes a separator having a plurality of arms where each pair of adjacent arms defines a channel, and at least one twisted pair of the plurality of twisted pairs is located in the channel. Ex. 3001, 6:42-59; 7:6-26. Claim 12 contains a similar use of the term channel. Id. at 7:35˗8:3. The term “channel” is not otherwise used in the ’061 Patent. 7 The term “channels” is not used in the ’711 Patent or the ’130 Patent. Case IPR2013-00058 Patent 7,977,575 10 In the ’116 Patent, independent claim 1 is directed to a data cable that includes an interior support having a plurality of projections where adjacent projections define an “open space,” and the plurality of twisted pairs are disposed in each open space. Ex. 3002, 6:45-61. Claim 3 of the ’116 Patent depends from independent claim 1 and requires that the open space be one selected from “a group consisting of a channel, a groove, a duct, and a passage.” Id. at 6:65-67. Independent claim 4 and its dependent claim 6 utilize the claim terms “open space” and “channel” in the same manner. Id. at 7:1-15; 8:1-17. The term “channel” is not otherwise used in the ’116 Patent. Independent claims 17, 24, and 29 of the ’575 Patent recite uses of the term “channels” similar to that of independent claim 1. Therefore, in the specific context of these claims, consistent with the ’061, ’116, and ’575 Patents, a channel, as a long gutter, groove, or furrow, is a type of open space defined by the interior support within which at least one of the plurality of twisted pairs is located. Petitioner’s assertion that “channels” are areas in the cable defined by the separator that hold and space the twisted pairs is consistent with our interpretation. Pet. Reply 4-5. 2. Patent Owner Argument Patent Owner argues that “channels” as claimed are substantially enclosed passages formed in the cable by the interior support and the jacket. Ex. 2004, 5; see also PO Resp. 10-12. Case Paten “cha inter eithe tubu snak Paten IPR2013- t 7,977,57 A Th Patent O nnel.” Pat pretation. a) Patent O r “a usuall lar enclose e’s fangs.” t Owner a 00058 5 n annotate Patent Ow is annotate is a wner anno ent Owner Ordinary wner prof y tubular d passage PO Resp rgues that d version ner’s Resp d version cross-secti tated Figu makes se meaning fers that or enclosed p : CONDU . 10-11. B a “channe 11 of Figure onse is re of Figure onal view re 1 with veral asser dinarily “ assage: CO IT, PIPE, D ased upon l” as claim 1 of the ’5 produced 1 of the ’5 of a cable a dotted lin tions in su channel” i NDUIT,” UCT Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation