Berk-Tek LLC v Belden Technologies Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2014

11877343 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 24
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.
The Patent Owner
____________

Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061 B2
____________

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 IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

2
I. BACKGROUND
A. Introduction
On December 3, 2012, Petitioner, Berk-Tek, LLC, filed a petition for
inter partes review of claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,663,061 B2 (“the
’061 patent”).1 Paper 1 (“Pet.”). On May 23, 2013, the Board instituted a
trial for each of claims 1-21, on one or more grounds of unpatentability.
Paper 11 (“Dec.”).
After institution of trial, the Patent Owner filed a patent owner
response (Paper 16, “PO Resp.”), but did not file a motion to amend claims.
Petitioner subsequently filed a reply. Paper 17 (“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 2013-00058, a
related case involving the same parties.2
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 1-21 of the ’061 Patent are unpatentable.

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

1 In the 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 10.
2 A transcript of the final hearing is included in the record as Paper 23
(“Tr.”).
Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

3
of any patent claim challenged by the 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, the petitioner shall have the burden of
proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of
the evidence.

C. The ’061 Patent
The ’061 Patent discloses a high performance data cable. Ex. 1001,
1:12. As background, the ‘061 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
1:18-19. These cables must meet exacting specifications with regard to data
speed and electrical characteristics. Id. at 1:25-27.
The cable of the ’061 Patent includes a separator3 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 1:28-29, 55-57, 60-63.

3 Also known as an “interior support” and a “star separator.” See, e.g., Ex.
1001, 1:13-14; 6:46.
Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

4
Figures 1 and 4 of the ’061 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 3:57-58, 4:1-3, 13-24; figs. 1, 4. Insulated twisted pairs of
conductors 34 are disposed within grooves 22 defined by each pair of
adjacent prongs 14, and run the longitudinal length of interior support 10.
Id. at 5:10-12; fig. 1.

Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

5
D. Illustrative Claims
Of the challenged claims 1, 7, 12, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is
illustrative, and is reproduced below:

1. A communications cable comprising:
a plurality of twisted pairs that carry communications
signals;
a pair separator disposed among the plurality of twisted
pairs,
the pair separator comprising a central body portion and a
plurality of arms radially extending from the central body
portion, each pair of adjacent arms defining a channel; and
a cable covering surrounding the plurality of twisted
pairs and the pair separator along the length of the cable;
wherein at least one twisted pair of the plurality of
twisted pairs is respectively located in the channel defined by
each pair of adjacent arms;
wherein the plurality of twisted pairs and the pair
separator are helically twisted together along the length of the
cable; and
wherein the cable covering does not include an
electrically conductive shield.

Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

6
E. Prior Art References Supporting Alleged Unpatentability of Claims 1-
21
JP ’307 Sh056 (1981)-7307 Jan. 26, 1981 Ex. 10054
Tessier ’046 CA 2,058,046 Aug. 22, 1992 Ex. 1003
Meer ’4175 CA 2,071,417 Dec. 18, 1993 Ex. 1006

F. Pending Grounds of Unpatentability Against Claims 1-216
Reference(s) Grounds Claims
Tessier ’046 § 102 1-5 and 7-20
Tessier ’046 and Meer ’417 § 103 6
Tessier ’046 and JP ’307 § 103 21
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).

4 Exhibit 1005 contains both the Japanese and English language versions of
the reference.
5 The named inventor is Harry van der Meer.
6 See Dec. 16-17.
Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

7
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 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 pairs, a pair
separator, and a cable covering. The pair separator includes a plurality of
arms, each pair of adjacent arms defining a channel. At least one twisted
pair of the plurality of twisted pairs is located in the channel.
The Specification of the ’061 Patent does not provide a
lexicographical definition of “channel.” Indeed, the term “channel” is used
Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

8
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 ’061 Patent is
inconsistent with the ordinary meaning that a channel is a “long gutter,
groove, or furrow.”
The ’061 Patent is a continuation of application No. 09/765,914, now
U.S. Patent No. 7,339,116 (“the ’116 Patent”), which is a continuation-in-
part of application No. 08/629,509, now U.S. Patent No. 5,789,711 (the ’711
Patent”) and application No. 09/074,272, now U.S. Patent No. 6,222,130
(“the ’130 Patent”). Ex. 1001, 1:3-8.
Because the ’061 Patent derives from the same parent application and
shares common terms with the ’116 Patent, we construe claim terms in the
’061 Patent consistent with their use in the ’116 Patent.7 See NTP v.
Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F. 3d 1282, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (When
construing claim in patents that derive from the same parent application and
share common terms, “we must interpret the claims consistently across all
asserted patents.”).
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 one of the plurality of twisted pairs
is disposed in each open space. Ex. 3001, 6:45-61. Claim 3 of the ’116
Patent depends from independent claim 1 and requires that the open space be

7 The term “channels” is not used in the ’711 Patent or the ’130 Patent.
Case IPR2013-00069
Patent 7,663,061

9
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 7 and 12 of the ’061 Patent contain uses of the
term “channel(s)” similar to that of independent claim 1.8
Therefore, in the specific context of these claims, consistent with the
’116 and ’061 Patents, a channel, as a long gutter, groove, or furrow is a type
of open
space defined by the interior support within which one of the plurality of
twisted pairs is disposed.
2. The Patent Owner Argument
The Patent Owner argues that “channels” as claimed are substantially
enclosed passages formed in the cable by the interior support and the jacket.
Ex. 2004, 4; see also PO Resp. 10-12.

8 Independent claim 19 does not recite “channels.” Rather, the adjacent
arms of the interior support define “grooves.” Ex. 1001, 8:22-43.
Case
Paten

An
“cha
“cha
that
the i
mean
espe
IPR2013-
t 7,663,06
annotated
Th
The Pate
nnel.” Th
nnels” vie
“channels”
nterior sup
a)
The Pate
either “a
cially tubu
00069
1
version o
is annotate
is a
nt Owner
e Patent O
wed in ligh
are subst
port and th
Ordinary
nt Owner
usually tu
lar enclos
f Figure 1
d version
cross-secti
annotated
wner asser
t of the Sp
antially en
e jacket.
Meaning
proffers th
bular enclo
ed passage

10
of the ’06
of Figure
onal view
Figure 1 w
ts that the
ecificatio
closed pas
PO Resp.
at ordinar
sed passa
: CONDU
1 Patent is
1 of the ’0
of a cable
ith a dott
ordinary m
n supports
sages form
9-11.
ily “chann
ge: COND
IT, PIPE,
reproduce
61 Patent
.
ed line ide
eaning o
the interp
ed in the
el” is unde
UIT,” or
DUCT