Corning Optical Communications RF, LLCv.PPC Broadband, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2014

13459711 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 76
571-272-7822 Entered: November 21, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

PPC BROADBAND, INC.,
Patent Owner.
____________

Case IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73

IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

2
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC
1
(“Corning”),
filed an amended Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 7–27
of U.S. Patent No. 8,313,353 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’353 patent”). Paper 5
(“Pet.”). Patent Owner, PPC Broadband Inc. (“PPC”), did not file a
preliminary response. The Board determined that the information presented
in the Petition demonstrated that there was a reasonable likelihood that
Corning would prevail in challenging claims 7–27 as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Board instituted this
proceeding on December 5, 2013, on the ground that those claims are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matthews
2
and Tatsuzuki.
3

Paper 15 (“Dec.”).
During the course of this proceeding, PPC filed unredacted and
redacted versions of a Patent Owner Response (Papers 29 and 30, “PO
Resp.”), along with a Revised Motion to Seal and proposed Protective Order
(Paper 39), and three additional Motions to Seal, each with the same
proposed Protective Order (Papers 42, 58, and 68). Corning filed a
Response to PPC’s Revised Motion to Seal (Paper 40), a Motion to Seal

1
During the course of this proceeding, Petitioner filed an updated
mandatory notice indicating that Corning Gilbert Inc., the original Petitioner
in this proceeding, changed its name to Corning Optical Communications
RF, LLC. Paper 23, 1.
2
Matthews, US 2006/0110977 A1, published May 25, 2006 (Ex. 1004).
3
Tatsuzuki, JP 2002-015823, published Jan. 18, 2002 (Ex. 1030) (English
translation Ex. 1002).
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

3
(Paper 45), as well as a Substitute Reply to the Patent Owner Response
(Paper 51, “Pet. Reply”).
PPC filed a Motion to Exclude seeking to exclude portions of a
Declaration and deposition testimony of Mr. Donald Burris, Development
and IP Manager at Corning, that were relied upon by Corning in its
Substitute Reply to the Patent Owner Response. Paper 54, “Mot. to
Exclude.” Corning filed an Opposition to PPC’s Motion to
Exclude. Paper 60. PPC filed a Reply to Corning’s Opposition. Paper 64.
A consolidated oral hearing was held on July 24 and 25, 2014, in
relation to this proceeding and the following four other related proceedings
involving the same parties: (1) IPR2013-00340; (2) IPR2013-00342; (3)
IPR2013-00346; and (4) IPR2013-00347. Transcripts of the entire
consolidated hearing are included in the record as Papers 73–75. Paper 74
corresponds to the transcript from the first session of the consolidated oral
hearing, held the morning of July 24, 2014, and pertains to this proceeding
and IPR2013-00340 in particular.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Decision is a Final
Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to
claims 7–27 of the ’353 patent. For the reasons discussed below, Corning
has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that those claims are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). PPC’s Motion to Exclude is denied.

IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

4
A. Related Matters
Corning indicates that PPC asserted the ’353 patent against it in PPC
Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert Inc., 5:12-cv-0911-GLS-DEP, which
PPC filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Pet. 1. In addition, Corning filed five other petitions seeking inter partes
review of the following patents owned by PPC: the ’353 patent (IPR2013-
00343); U.S. Patent No. 8,323,060 B2 (IPR2013-00340 and IPR2013-
00342); and U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320 B2 (IPR2013-00346 and IPR2013-
00347). Id. at 1–2.
On April 15, 2014, we granted PPC’s request in IPR2013-00343 to
cancel claims 1–6 of the ’353 patent, i.e., all claims at issue in that
proceeding, as well as PPC’s request for entry of adverse judgment against it
in that case. IPR2013-00343, Paper 27.
B. The ’353 Patent (Ex. 1001)
The ’353 patent relates generally to coaxial cable connectors having
electrical continuity members that extend continuity of an electromagnetic
interference shield from a cable through the connector. Ex. 1001, 1:18–22.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

5
Figure 1 of the ’353 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 illustrates a cut-away view of the elements of coaxial cable
connector 100 having electrical continuity member 70. Id. at 2:53–56, 5:66–
6:1. Connector 100 may be affixed, or attached functionally, to coaxial
cable 10 that includes protective outer jacket 12, conductive grounding
shield 14, interior dielectric 16, and center conductor 18. Id. at 6:1–5.
Coaxial cable connector 100 also may include threaded nut 30, post 40,
connector body 50, fastener member 60, continuity member 70 formed of
conductive material, and connector body sealing member 80, e.g., a body O-
ring configured to fit around a portion of connector body 50. Id. at 7:10–16.
The ’353 patent discloses that post 40 includes first forward end 41,
opposing second rearward end 42, and flange 44 located at first forward end
41. Id. at 8:5–10. Post 40 also may include surface feature 47, such as a lip
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

6
or protrusion, which engages a portion of connector body 50 to secure axial
movement of post 40 relative to connector body 50. Id. at 8:17–21.
Connector body 50 includes first end 51, opposing second end 52, and post
mounting portion 57 proximate or otherwise near first end 51 that is
configured to locate securely connector body 50 relative to a portion of the
outer surface of post 40. Id. at 8:66–9:9. The internal surface of post
mounting portion 57 includes an engagement feature, which facilitates the
secure location of continuity member 70 with respect to connector body 50
and/or post 40, by engaging physically continuity member 70 when
assembled within coaxial cable connector 100. Id. at 9:9–14.
The ’353 patent further discloses that threaded nut 30 includes first
forward end 31, opposing second rearward end 32, and internal lip 34, e.g.,
an annular protrusion, located proximate to second rearward end 32. Id. at
7:17–26. In one embodiment, continuity member 70 includes first end 71,
axially opposing second end 72, and post contact portion 77. Id. at 11:5–8.
When coaxial cable connector 100 is assembled, post contact portion 77
makes physical and electrical contact with post 40, which, in turn, helps
facilitate the extension of electrical ground continuity through post 40. Id. at
11:8–11.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

7
Figure 7 of the ’353 patent is reproduced below, with an arrow added.

Figure 7 depicts a perspective cut-away view of a portion of assembled
coaxial cable connector 100 comprising nut 30, post 40, and continuity
member 70. Id. at 3:9–12; 12:13–33. The added arrow in the figure points
to a forward facing surface of inward lip 34 of nut 30 and a rearward facing
surface of flange 44 of post 40.
Method claims 7 and 20 are independent. Claims 8–19 depend,
directly or indirectly, from claim 7, which is reproduced below:
7. A method of assembling a coaxial cable connector
for a coaxial cable, the coaxial cable having a center conductor
surrounded by a dielectric, the dielectric surrounded by a
conductive grounding shield, the conductive grounding shield
surrounded by a protective outer jacket, the method comprising:
providing a connector body;
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

8
providing a post having a forward end and a rearward
end, the forward end including a flange having a forward facing
surface configured to face an interface port when the connector
is coupled to the interface port and a rearward facing surface
facing the rearward end of the post, wherein the rearward end of
the post is configured to contact at least a portion of the
conductive grounding shield of the coaxial cable when the cable
is attached to the connector;
arranging a portion of a post within a portion of the
connector body;
positioning a nut so as to be rotatable relative to the post
and the connector body, the nut including an inward lip,
wherein the inward lip of the nut has a forward facing surface, a
rearward facing surface, and an innermost portion extending
between the forward facing surface and the rearward facing
surface;
positioning an electrical continuity member so as to
contact the rearward facing surface of the inward lip of the nut,
extend between a portion of the post and a portion of the
connector body, electrically couple the post to the nut at a
position other than between the rearward facing surface of the
flange of the post and the forward facing surface of the lip of
the nut, and maintain electrical continuity between the post and
the nut when the post pivots relative to the nut; and
rotating the forward facing surface of the inward lip of
the nut about the rearward facing surface of the flange of the
post.
Id. at 22:11–48.

IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

9

Claims 21–27 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 20, which is
reproduced below:
20. A method assembling a coaxial cable connector for
a coaxial cable, the coaxial cable having a center conductor
surrounded by a dielectric, the dielectric surrounded by a
conductive grounding shield, the conductive grounding shield
surrounded by a protective outer jacket, the method comprising:
providing a post having a forward end and a rearward
end, the forward end including a flange having a forward facing
surface configured to face an interface port when the connector
is coupled to the interface port and a rearward facing surface
facing the rearward end of the post, the rearward end of the post
being arranged so as to be inserted into an end of the coaxial
cable around the dielectric and under at least a portion of the
conductive grounding shield so as to form an electrical
connection with the conductive grounding shield;
providing a connector body having a forward end and a
rearward end configured to receive a portion of the coaxial
cable, the connector body being configured to engage the post
when the connector is assembled;
positioning a portion of the post within the connector
body;
providing a nut having a forward end configured for
engaging the interface port, a rearward end, and an inward lip,
wherein the inward lip of the nut has a forward facing surface
facing the forward end of the nut, a rearward facing surface
facing the reward end of the nut, and an intermediate portion
between the forward facing surface and the rearward facing
surface;
positioning the nut so as to be axially rotatable relative to
the post and the connector body;
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

10
rotating the forward facing surface of the inward lip of
the nut about the rearward facing surface of the flange of the
post; and
positioning an electrical continuity member so as to
extend between a portion of the post and a portion of the
connector body, contact the post, contact the rearward facing
surface of the inward lip of the nut, electrically connect the post
and the nut at a position other than between the rearward facing
surface of the flange of the post and the forward facing surface
of the lip of the nut, and maintain electrical continuity between
the post and the nut when the post rotates relative to the nut.
Id. at 23:43–24:24.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
We construe claims in an unexpired patent by applying the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
Claim terms also are 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). However, a “claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the
patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of
the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.”
CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
1. Claim Phrases Construed in the Decision to Institute
In its Petition, Corning provides constructions for a number of claim
phrases recited in the ’353 patent. Pet. 5–6. In our Decision to Institute, we
adopted the claim constructions proposed by Corning—namely, in relation
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

11
to “pivot” (claim 7), “the rearward facing end of the post” (claim 13),
“reward” (claim 20), and “a cable shielding” (claims 18 and 26). Dec. 11–
14. We also construed the phrases “rotatable,” “rotating,” “axially
rotatable,” and “rotates” (claims 7 and 20). Id. at 9–11. PPC does not
propose alternative claim constructions for those claim phrases in its Patent
Owner Response, nor did Corning challenge our constructions in its Reply.
We discern no reason to alter our claim constructions in any respect for this
Final Written Decision. For convenience, our claim constructions are
reproduced in the table below.
Claim(s) Claim Phrase Claim Construction
7 and 20 “rotatable,” “rotating,”
“axially rotatable,” and
“rotates”
“encompassing the axial rotation of a
nut or a post, whichever the case may
be, in relation to the axial line of the
overall connector”
7 “pivots” “including axial rotational
movement”
13 “the rearward facing
end of the post”
“the rearward end of the post,” as
recited in claim 7
18 and 26 “a cable shielding” “encompassing a conductive
grounding shield in a coaxial cable,”
as recited in claims 7 and 20
20 “reward” “rearward”

2. “electrical continuity member”
As noted above, independent claims 7 and 20 each include a feature
pertaining to an “electrical continuity member.” The feature, as it appears in
claim 7, reads:
positioning an electrical continuity member so as to contact
the rearward facing surface of the inward lip of the nut, extend
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

12
between a portion of the post and a portion of the connector
body, electrically couple the post to the nut at a position other
than between the rearward facing surface of the flange of the
post and the forward facing surface of the lip of the nut, and
maintain electrical continuity between the post and the nut
when the post pivots relative to the nut.
The feature, as it appears in claim 20, reads:
positioning an electrical continuity member so as to extend
between a portion of the post and a portion of the connector
body, contact the post, contact the rearward facing surface of
the inward lip of the nut, electrically connect the post and the
nut at a position other than between the rearward facing surface
of the flange of the post and the forward facing surface of the
lip of the nut, and maintain electrical continuity between the
post and the nut when the post rotates relative to the nut.
In its Patent Owner Response, PPC contends that the pertinent claim
limitation should be construed to require that “the continuity member makes
consistent contact with the nut and the post to maintain a continuous
electrical connection between the nut and the post.” PO Resp. 19. To
support its claim construction, PPC directs us to various portions of the
Specification of the ’353 patent, a dictionary definition of “continuity,” and
the testimony of its expert witness, Dr. Charles A. Eldering. Id. at 18–19
(citing portions of Ex. 1001; Ex. 2071, 6; Ex. 2074 ¶¶ 75–78).
In reply, Corning contends that PPC “construes the claims to require a
direct ground path between the continuity member and the post,” without
identifying claim language that gives rise to such a construction. Pet. Reply
6. According to Corning, a “ground path passing through the continuity
member, to the body, to the post” satisfies the limitation. Id. at 6–7 (citing
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

13
Ex. 1001, 9:44–49, 9:22–28, Fig. 50). Corning argues that PPC’s proposed
claim construction improperly imports limitations from the specification into
the claims. Id. at 7–8. Corning also argues that, when applying the broadest
reasonable construction standard, “the term ‘continuity’ does not require
some undefined level of consistency, reliability, or robustness of an
electrical connection over some undefined period of time.” Id. at 8–9.
We agree with Corning. We must be careful not to read limitations
from a particular embodiment appearing in the specification into the claim if
the claim language is broader than that embodiment. In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If a feature in the disclosure is not
necessary to give meaning to what the inventor means by a claim term, it
would be “extraneous” and should not be read into the claim. Renishaw
PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1998);
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430,
1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
PPC does not allege that the inventors of the ’353 patent acted as their
own lexicographer and provided a special definition in the Specification of
the ’353 patent for the claim term “electrical continuity member” that is
different from its recognized meaning to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Absent a special definition set forth in the Specification in the ’353
patent, we decline to import limitations into the disputed claim limitations
that would require the “electrical continuity member” to make “consistent
contact” with the nut and the post such that it maintains a “continuous
electrical connection” between these components. Indeed, the claimed
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

14
“electrical continuity member” does not cease to be an electrical continuity
member, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, simply
because the contact made between the nut and post may not be “consistent”
to maintain a “continuous electrical connection” between these components.
We also agree with Corning that the term “continuity” does not
require some undefined level of consistency, reliability, or robustness of an
electrical connection between the nut and post over some undefined period
of time. PPC does not direct us to a well-defined or otherwise recognizable
standard for making an objective determination as to how long an electrical
continuity member must make “consistent contact” with a nut and post to
maintain “continuous electrical connection” between these components. If
we were to read the requirements of “consistent contact” and a “continuous
electrical connection” into the disputed claim limitation, that would interject
ambiguity into the determination of claim scope because of the uncertainty
arising from the meaning of “consistent” and “continuous.”
Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe
the disputed claim limitations in connection with the “electrical continuity
member” to require that the continuity member need only make contact with
the nut and the post to establish an electrical connection between the nut and
the post.
3. “shaped to fit”
Claims 16 and 24 ultimately depend from claims 7 and 20,
respectively. Claims 16 and 24 include the limitation that “the portion of the
post comprises an outer surface shaped to fit the portion of the connector
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

15
body.” According to PPC, the phrase “shaped to fit” in that regard should be
construed as requiring that one surface “has a complementary size and shape
as, and faces” the other surface. PO Resp. 24. During oral argument,
counsel for PPC elaborated that, in requiring components that “face” one
another, “shaped to fit” excludes surfaces that are perpendicular to one
another, i.e., arranged at a right angle or 90 degree angle to one another.
E.g., Paper 74, 57–59. Counsel for PPC further represented that “shaped to
fit” does not require surfaces that are “perfectly parallel” (id. at 56–57), but,
in response to queries from the panel, was unable to convey the extent of
variation from parallel that is encompassed or permitted such that surfaces
remain “shaped to fit” one another, yet not parallel (id. at 57–64).
Corning challenges PPC’s position as to the meaning of “shaped to
fit.” To that end, pointing in-part to the testimony of its expert witness, Dr.
Robert S. Mroczkowksi, Corning contends that “‘shaped to fit’ encompasses
both (1) perpendicular surfaces that abut each other . . . , and (2) parallel
surfaces that face each other.” Pet. Reply 9–10.
We observe that the term “shaped to fit” does not appear in the
Specification of the ’353 patent. Although, as noted by both parties, the
Specification describes embodiments of the disclosed invention in which
particular portions of a coaxial cable connector include “opposing
complimentary surfaces,” (e.g., Ex. 1001, 12:56–59), contrary to PPC’s
argument (PO Resp. 24), the Specification does not associate such a
configuration with the characteristic of being “shaped to fit.” Both PPC and
Corning have pointed to dictionary definitions of “fit” as meaning to be a
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

16
“proper size and shape” for (Id.; Pet. Reply 10). Both PPC’s expert witness,
Dr. Eldering, and Corning’s expert witness, Dr. Mroczkowski, also explain
that surfaces shaped to fit one another “need to be dimensioned to abut each
other.” Ex. 1036, 158:20–159:12; Ex. 2074 ¶ 93.
4

In that vein, we understand that surfaces are “shaped to fit” one
another if the surfaces are of an appropriate size and shape with respect to
each other, and are dimensioned to abut one another. As noted above, the
parties have differing views as to what extent surfaces, in being sized
appropriately and dimensioned to abut, also must be recognized as facing
each another. In that regard, the dispute centers on whether the surfaces, in
being shaped to fit each other, must “face” one another in a manner that
excludes abutment of surfaces that are perpendicular.
It is not apparent to us that surfaces that abut one another, yet are
perpendicular, do not “face” each other to some extent. To that end,
surfaces that abut and touch, but are arranged at a 90-degree angle, while not
directly opposed from one another, are nevertheless in a configuration in
which the faces of the surfaces are exposed to each other. Put another way,
surfaces that are perpendicular to one another are not separated by an obtuse

4
Although both Dr. Eldering and Dr. Mroczkowski refer to “configured” to
fit in the noted portions of Exhibits 1036 and 2074, it is apparent on the
record before us that the terms “shaped” and “configured” are used
interchangeably in the context of the ’353 patent. Indeed, at oral argument,
counsel for PPC expressed that “shaped to fit” and “configured to fit” are
synonymous. Paper 74, 55. Corning has expressed no disagreement in that
regard.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

17
angle so as to be regarded as diverging from one another. As noted above,
although the Specification of the ’353 patent depicts embodiments of the
invention in which surfaces corresponding to those of the claims appear
parallel to one another, it does not use the phrase “shaped to fit,” or
otherwise intrinsically associate such an arrangement as the sole
configuration constituting surfaces that “fit” one another. That the
Specification of the ’353 patent depicts embodiments in which portions of a
post and body are arranged parallel to one another does not, itself, mandate
that singular arrangement as the sole configuration presenting surfaces that
are “shaped to fit.” The broadest reasonable construction of the term
includes various positional interrelationships of the surfaces. As noted
above, although PPC maintains that perpendicular surfaces are excluded
from fitting one another, during oral argument, PPC’s counsel was unable to
express cogently how “shaped to fit” encompasses surfaces arranged in a
manner that deviates from parallel, but necessarily excludes perpendicular
surfaces.
In considering the totality of the record before us, we conclude that
components or surfaces that are “shaped to fit” one another are sized and
dimensioned to abut one another, but that such meaning does not exclude
categorically an arrangement of the components in which they are situated
perpendicularly with respect to one another.
B. Ground of Unpatentability Based on Matthews and Tatsuzuki
In its Petition, Corning contends that claims 7–27 are unpatentable
over Matthews and Tatsuzuki. Pet. 38–59. In support of that proposed
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

18
ground of unpatentability, Corning relies upon claim charts to explain how
the proffered combination teaches the claimed subject matter recited in each
of those challenged claims, as well as the Declaration of Dr. Mroczkowski
(Ex. 1005) to support its positions. Id. PPC disagrees that claims 7–27 are
unpatentable over the prior art. PO Resp. 14–34. We consider the
respective positions of the parties in light of the record before us.
1. Principles of Law
A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a
whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations,
including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in
the art; and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We also recognize
that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).
2. Level of Skill in the Art
In determining the level of skill in the art, various factors may be
considered, including “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art
solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made;
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

19
sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in
the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing
Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962
(Fed. Cir. 1986)).
There is evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge
level of a person with ordinary skill in the art. Corning’s expert, Dr.
Mroczkowski, attests that a person with ordinary skill in the art would be an
individual who possesses a bachelor’s degree in engineering and several
years of experience in the cable and telecommunications industry relating to
the design and manufacture of coaxial cable connectors. Ex. 1005 ¶ 15. Dr.
Mroczkowski also attests that ten or more years of experience in the art
could be a substitute for a bachelor’s degree in engineering. Id. PPC’s
expert, Dr. Eldering, generally agrees with Dr. Mroczkowski’s assessment of
the knowledge level of a person with ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2074 ¶ 10.
Furthermore, the prior art of record in this proceeding also is indicative of
the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579
F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).
3. Matthews (Ex. 1004)
Matthews generally discloses a coaxial cable connector that includes
at least one conductive member. Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Figure 1 of Matthews
illustrates a sectional side view of coaxial cable connector 100. Id. ¶¶ 16,
26.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

20
Figure 1 of Matthews is reproduced below:

As shown in Figure 1, coaxial cable connector 100 includes coaxial
cable 10 that has protective outer jacket 12, conductive grounding shield 14,
interior dielectric 16, and center conductor 18. Id. ¶ 26. Coaxial cable
connector 100 also may include threaded nut 30, post 40, connector body 50,
fastener member 60, a mating edge conductive member, e.g., O-ring 70, and
a connector body conductive member, e.g., O-ring 80, as a means for sealing
and coupling connector body 50 and threaded nut 30. Id. ¶ 28.
Figure 3 of Matthews illustrates a sectional side view of post 40.
Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 18, 30. Figure 3 of Matthews is reproduced below:

As shown in Figure 3, post 40 includes first end 42, opposing second
end 44, and flange 46. Id. ¶ 30. Flange 46 is configured to contact internal
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

21
lip 36 of threaded nut 30 (neither shown in Figure 3), thereby facilitating the
prevention of axial movement of the post beyond contacted internal lip 36.
Id. Post 40 also includes surface feature 48, e.g., a shallow recess, detent,
cut, slot, or trough, and mating edge 49 configured to make physical and/or
electrical contact with interface port 20 or mating edge member, e.g., O-ring
70 (illustrated in Figure 1). Id. In one embodiment, post 40 may be inserted
into an end of coaxial cable 10, around interior dielectric 16, and under
protective outer jacket 12 and conductive grounding shield 14. Id.
Accordingly, substantial physical and/or electrical contact with conductive
grounding shield 14 may be accomplished, thereby facilitating grounding
through post 40. Id.
Figure 4 of Matthews illustrates a sectional side view of connector
body 50. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 31. Figure 4 of Matthews is reproduced below:

As shown in Figure 4, connector body 50 includes first end 52,
opposing second end 54, and internal annular lip 55 configured to engage the
surface feature 48 of post 40. Id. ¶ 31.
Figure 2 of Matthews illustrates a sectional side view of threaded nut
30. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 17, 29.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

22
Figure 2 of Matthews is reproduced below:

As shown in Figure 2, threaded nut 30 includes first end 32, opposing
second end 34, and internal lip 36 located proximate to second end 34 that is
configured to hinder the axial movement of post 40. Id. ¶ 29. Threaded nut
30 may be formed of conductive materials, thereby facilitating grounding
through threaded nut 30. Id.
4. Tatsuzuki (Ex. 1030) (English translation Ex. 1002)
Tatsuzuki generally discloses a coaxial plug installed at the tip of a
coaxial cable. Ex. 1002 ¶ 1. Tatsuzuki discloses installing a coaxial cable
connector in reception devices, such as television-satellite broadcasting
tuners. Id. ¶ 2. Reception signals are inputted into these reception devices
by fixing a coaxial plug installed at the tip of a coaxial cable to the coaxial
cable connecter. Id.
Figures 7(a) and 7(b) of Tatsuzuki illustrate disc-shaped spring 13,
and related side-view diagram, respectively. Ex. 1002 ¶ 17.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

23
Figures 7(a) and 7(b) of Tatsuzuki are reproduced below:

As shown in Figures 7(a) and 7(b), disc-shaped spring 13 is formed by
stamp cutout processing of a thin metal plate possessing elasticity, e.g.,
phosphor bronze. Id. ¶ 17. The disc-shaped spring 13 includes spring piece
13b and ring-shaped joining part 13a. Id. Spring piece 13b includes eight
bent spring pieces, which are formed integrally by ring-shaped joining part
13a. Id.
Figure 3 of Tatsuzuki illustrates a cross-section view of coaxial plug 1
securely installed in coaxial cable connecter 50. Id. ¶ 12.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

24
Figure 3 of Tatsuzuki is reproduced below:

As shown in Figure 3, coaxial plug 1 includes plug body 11 and rotary
mounting element 12, which is fixed in a rotatable manner to plug body 11.
Ex. 1002 ¶ 13. The electrical connection between ring-shaped part 11c of
plug body 11 and rotary mounting element 12 is performed by disc-shaped
spring 13 interposed there-between. Id. ¶ 17. The disc-shaped spring is
located within housing channel 11e (illustrated in Figure 2) and, therefore, is
not pressed to the point of becoming flat, i.e., it does not lose its spring
operation. Id.
5. Corning’s Contentions
In its Petition, Corning presents detailed claim charts and relies on
supporting evidence demonstrating how Matthews teaches most of the
limitations of independent claims 7 and 20. In particular, Corning explains
how Matthews’s coaxial cable connector 100 includes connector body 50,
post 40 with flange 46 engaged with the connector body, and nut 30 with
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

25
internal lip 36, and that those components correspond to the connector body,
post, and nut features required by claims 7 and 20. Pet. 38–43, 48–51.
According to Corning, however, certain limitations of claims 7 and 20
directed to the required “electrical continuity member” are not disclosed in
Matthews.
Although Matthews discloses “conductive member” 70 and
“connector body conductive member” 80 (Ex. 1004, Fig. 1, ¶ 28), which act
as continuity members in connector 100, Corning acknowledges that
Matthews does not disclose a continuity member in contact with the
rearward surface of the inward lip of the nut. Pet. 55. In relation to this
requirement in claims 7 and 20, Corning relies on Tatsuzuki. Id. at 55–58.
As discussed above, Tatsuzuki discloses coaxial connector 1 that
incorporates disc-shaped spring 13. That spring is positioned between “plug
body 11” and “rotary mounting element 12” so as to maintain an electrical
connection between those components. Ex. 1002, Abstract. Corning
contends that Tatsuzuki’s plug body 11 (portions B and C) and rotary
mounting element 12 correspond to the claimed post, body, and nut, as well
as post 40, body 50, and nut 30 set forth in Matthews. Pet. 41–43, 50–51.
Corning reasons that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary
skill in the art to modify Matthews’s coaxial cable connector 100 by
incorporating Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13. Id. at 55. In that regard,
Corning contends that such a modification would “promote electrical
continuity from the coaxial cable to the interface port” between Matthews’s
nut 30 and post 40, and also “provides electrical continuity between the post
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

26
40 and the nut 30 through direct electrical contact with the connector body
50, which is in electrical contact with the post 40.” Id. at 57; see, e.g., id. at
55–56 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 148–150, 211–213). Corning further maintains
that such a modification would result in a continuity member that is
“positioned to electrically connect the post 40 and the nut 30 at a position
other than between the rearward facing surface of the flange 46 of the post
40 and the forward facing surface of the lip 36 of the nut 30.” Id. at 57
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 217). That continuity member would contact body
50, post 40, and the rearward facing surface of inward lip 36 of nut 30, and
maintain “electrical continuity between the post 40 and the nut 30 when the
post 40 pivots or rotates relative to the nut 30.” Id. at 57–58.
Corning, thus, asserts that claims 7 and 20 would have been obvious
in light of the teachings of Matthews and Tatsuzuki. Corning also describes
in its Petition where it contends all the features of dependent claims 8–19
and 21–27 are present in the prior art such that those claims also would have
been obvious in light of the teachings of Matthews and Tatsuzuki.
6. PPC’s Contentions
PPC disagrees with Corning’s assessment of the obviousness of
claims 7–27. To that end, PPC contends that the continuity member
required by the claims is absent from the collective teachings of Matthews
and Tatsuzuki. PO Resp. 17–34. More specifically, PPC is of the view that
arranging Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13 between nut 30 and post 40 of
Matthews’s coaxial connector 100 would not result in the formation of a
continuity member that makes consistent contact with the nut and the post to
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

27
maintain continuous electrical connection between those components. Id. at
19–21.
PPC further contends that claim 16 and 24’s requirement that the
outer surface of a post be “shaped to fit” a portion of the connector body is
lacking in the prior art. Id. at 22–36. In that respect, PPC urges that
Corning’s proposed grounds of unpatentability should be limited to a single
arrangement of Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13 between Matthews’s post
40 and body 50 at a position in which the pertinent post surface and body
portion are perpendicular, i.e., not “opposing compl[e]mentary surfaces,”
thereby failing to constitute components that are “shaped to fit” one another.
Id. at 25–34.
Lastly, PPC challenges the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki
under the premise that such a combination as proposed by Corning during
the course of this proceeding rests on “pure speculation” and “hindsight
reconstruction of the prior art to fit PPC’s claims” that is “impermissible,”
and prohibits an assessment of obviousness of those claims based on the
prior art. Id. at 26–33.
7. Analysis
In evaluating Corning’s contentions of obviousness, we consider the
claims in two groupings: (1) claims 7–15, 17–23, and 25–27, and (2) claims
16 and 24.
a. Claims 7–15, 17–23, and 25–27
As set forth above, we disagree with PPC’s proposed interpretation of
the “continuity member” feature of the above-noted claims of the ’353
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

28
patent. See PO Resp. 19. In particular, we are not persuaded that the claims
require a continuity member that makes contact between a nut and a post in
a manner that is “consistent” and facilitating only electrical connection that
is “continuous,” to the exclusion of other contact implementations. As
explained above, in affording the claims their broadest reasonable
construction, we conclude that the continuity member need only make
contact with the nut and the post to establish an electrical connection there-
between.
Tatsuzuki describes a coaxial plug including disc-shaped spring 13,
which is purposed specifically to provide “electrical connection” between
plug body 11 and rotary mounting element 12 of the connector. Ex. 1002,
Abstract. Tatsuzuki further characterizes the overall “object” of its disclosed
invention as being “to provide a coaxial plug without deterioration of
insertion loss characteristics and reflection loss characteristics even in the
state when the coaxial plug is loosened.” Id. ¶ 7.
In its Petition, Corning explains that Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring
13, in establishing electrical connection with plug body 11 and mounting
element 12 in the manner described, is understood reasonably as constituting
a continuity member. Pet. 44–45. Corning also contends that modifying
Matthews’s connector 100 by incorporating Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring
13 would create an arrangement that promotes electrical continuity by
providing an alternative ground path directly between Matthews’s nut 30
and post 40 so that connector body 50 may be made of non-conductive
material. Id. at 55–58. Corning relies upon the testimony of Dr.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

29
Mroczkowski to support its argument that a person with ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have recognized such benefit, and,
therefore, would have been motivated to make such a modification. Id. at
56–57 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 148, 149, 211, 212).
In its Patent Owner Response, PPC relies upon the cross-examination
testimony of Dr. Mroczkowski, including the sketches he produced during
the course of his testimony that represent possible approaches for combining
the teachings of Matthews and Tatsuzuki, to support its argument that Dr.
Mroczkowski engaged in impermissible hindsight reconstruction to render
the challenged claims unpatentable. PO Resp. 13–34 (citing Exs. 2005–
2008, 2013, 1036, 1037).
In its Reply, Corning relies upon Dr. Mroczkowski’s testimony to
support its argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that there are multiple ways to incorporate Tatsuzuki’s disc-
shaped spring 13 into Matthews’s connector 100. Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex.
1005 ¶¶ 147–150, 210–213. Corning argues that, in one approach,
Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13 may be positioned on the outer surface of
Matthews’s post 40. Id. (citing Exs. 2005–2007). Corning argues that, in a
second approach, Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13 may be sandwiched
between Matthews’s post 40 and connector body 50. Id. (citing Ex. 1034;
Ex. 1039; Ex. 2008). With respect to the second approach, Corning asserts
that even PPC’s own expert witness, Dr. Eldering, admits that sandwiching a
continuity member between a post and a body is a well-known technique for
incorporating the continuity member into a connector, as evidenced by
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

30
Figure 6A of U.S. Patent No. 7,114,990 (“the ’990 Bence patent”).
5
Id. at 4–
5 (citing Ex. 2076, 190:10–21).
An illustration of the above-noted sketch produced by Dr.
Mroczkowski in connection with the first approach is reproduced below, as
it has been presented in Patent Owner’s Response:

PO Resp. 13.
As offered by PPC, the illustration reproduced above depicts an
opinion of Dr. Mroczkowski as to an implementation of Tatsuzuki’s disc-
shaped spring 13 positioned with respect to nut, post, and body surfaces of

5
When PPC filed its Patent Owner Response, it entered the ’990 Bence
patent into the record as Exhibit 2024. When Corning filed its initial Reply
to the Patent Owner Response, it also entered the ’990 Bence patent into the
record as Exhibit 1038.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

31
Matthews’s connector. Id. at 13–14. According to PPC, our assessment of
obviousness of the claims of the ’353 patent should be limited to evaluation
solely of the above-noted illustration, and PPC asserts that the illustration
does not depict a continuity member positioned as required by the claims.
Id.
In considering the proposed implementation of Tatsuzuki’s teachings
onto Matthews’s connector shown in the illustration above, contrary to
PPC’s assertion, the illustration encompasses the features laid out in the
claims. The illustration depicts Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13
positioned with respect to portions of Matthews’s connector identifiable as
nut 30, post 40, and connector body 50. We are satisfied that the noted
implementation conveys a continuity member positioned to contact a
rearward surface of the nut and extend between the post and connector body.
Tatsuzuki’s disc shaped spring 13, when positioned in the manner depicted,
would extend between, and facilitate electrical connection among, surfaces
of the nut, post, and body, as is required by the claims. Furthermore, we
credit Dr. Mroczkowski’s testimony to that effect. See, e.g., Ex. 1005
¶¶ 147–150, 210–213.
6

6
We are not persuaded by PPC’s argument that Dr. Mroczkowski’s opinions
should be accorded “little to no weight,” because Dr. Mroczkowski has
indicated that his experience is not directed specifically to the design and
operation of the particular connectors associated, in some respect, with
PPC’s patents. See PO Resp. 11. The record reflects that Dr. Mroczkowski
has considerable background and experience relevant to the connector
industry. See, e.g., Ex. 1006. There is no requirement that a witness must
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

32
In any event, we also are not persuaded by PPC’s contention that our
obviousness evaluation here requires that we consider only the approach
presented in the illustration reproduced above in combining the teachings of
the prior art, without recourse to any other assessment of the skill of a person
of ordinary skill’s viewpoint in so combining the teachings. See PO Resp.
33–34. A person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. A person of ordinary
skill and creativity would have recognized that combining the teachings of
the prior art, in particular Matthews and Tatsuzuki, does not mandate a
singular technique for combining those references that precludes
consideration of other techniques. Indeed, the evidence of record reflects
that a person of ordinary skill in the art knew of other techniques for
positioning a continuity member between a body and post of a coaxial
connector. For instance, as noted above, upon being questioned about the
’990 Bence patent during cross-examination, Dr. Eldering testified that it
was known in the art that a continuity member may be “sandwiched”
between such a body and post. Ex. 2076, 190:16–21.
Although the ’990 Bence patent is not a reference that has been
offered by Corning as forming a part of a proposed ground of unpatentability
instituted in this proceeding, it is a reference providing evidence of the level

have personal familiarity with a particular product to provide meaningful
testimony as to the perspective of one of ordinary skill in a particular art or
technological field. See, e.g., SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594
F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

33
of ordinary skill in the art. “The person of ordinary skill in the art is a
hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior
art.” GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (citing Custom Accessories, Inc., 807 F.2d at
962). As noted above, the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the
prior art of record. What is described by the ’990 Bence patent is indicative
of the level of ordinary skill in the art Furthermore, “the knowledge of such
an artisan is part of the store of public knowledge that must be consulted
when considering whether a claimed invention would have been obvious.”
Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
According to the Supreme Court, “[w]hen there is a design need or
market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of
identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason
to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550
U.S. at 421. In this case, there is a design need to solve a problem, i.e.,
Tatsuzuki provides evidence that its disc-shaped spring 13 operates to
establish electrical connection between components in a coaxial cable
connector as a part of an arrangement that is intended to address
“deterioration of insertion loss characteristics and reflection loss
characteristics even in the state when the coaxial plug is loosened.”
Ex. 1002 ¶ 7. There also is a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, i.e., the ’990 Bence patent, Matthews, and Tatsuzuki provide
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that there is
not a sole position or location recognized for positioning a continuity
member in a coaxial cable connector; however, there are a limited number of
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

34
possible positions for such a continuity member. Exs. 2024, 1004, 1002. As
such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have good reason to pursue known
options within his or her technical grasp when contemplating where, and
how, to position Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13 in Matthews’s connector
100.
In considering the entirety of the record, we are persuaded that
Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13 forms a “continuity member” as required
by the claims of the ’353 patent. We also are satisfied that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have appreciated reasonably that such a spring may be
arranged in the coaxial connector of Matthews so as to form a continuity
member or electrical continuity member positioned to contact nut, post, and
body components of a coaxial cable connector in the manner required by the
claims. In that respect, instead of presenting reasoning that is speculative or
based on impermissible hindsight, as is argued by PPC, Corning has
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings in urging that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have incorporated Tatsuzuki’s disc-shaped spring 13
into Matthews’s connector 100 so as to harness the electrical connectivity
benefits attributed to Tatsuzuki’s spring arrangement.
Based on the record before us, Corning presents sufficient evidence to
support a finding that the elements of independent claims 7 and 20 are taught
or suggested by the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki. In addition,
based on our review of the evidence and argument in the Petition, we also
are persuaded that Corning presents sufficient evidence to support a finding
that the combination also teaches or suggests the elements of dependent
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

35
claims 8–15, 17–19, 21–23, and 25–27. Pet. 43–48, 52–59.
b. Claims 16 and 24
As discussed above, claims 16 and 24 ultimately depend from claims
7 and 20, respectively, and each add a feature that a portion of the post
includes an outer surface “shaped to fit” a portion of the connector body.
Also as discussed above, we disagree with PPC’s construction of the
“shaped to fit” requirement so as to exclude categorically surfaces that are
configured in a perpendicular relationship.
Corning contends that the “shaped to fit” requirement set forth in
claims 16 and 24 is satisfied by corresponding portions of Tatsuzuki’s
corresponding post (B) and connector body (C), shown, for instance in
Tatsuzuki’s Figure 3.
7
Pet. 46–47, 53. Corning further argues that in the
connector of Matthews, “provided with the continuity member of Tatsuzuki,
the portion of the post comprises an outer surface shaped to fit the portion of
the connector body.” Id. at 46–47. Thus, Corning indicates that the “shaped
to fit” requirement also is satisfied by the corresponding portions of
Matthews’s post 40 and connector body 50, shown, for instance, in

7
We note that Corning refers to Tatsuzuki’s Figure 1 when it cites “Ex.
1002, Fig. 1” on pages 46–47 and 53 of the Petition, discussing claim 16 and
24 of the ’353 patent. Pet. 46–47, 53. Those same pages, however, also
refer to a prior discussion in the Petition with respect to claims 7 and 20. Id.
Regarding claim 7, Corning discusses and includes an “annotated”
reproduction of Figure 3 in Tatsuzuki. Id. at 42. Regarding claim 20,
Corning again refers to that “annotated” reproduction of Figure 3 in
Tatsuzuki. Id. at 51.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

36
Matthews’s Figures 1 and 7.
In response, PPC points out that in connection with this proceeding,
Dr. Mroczkowski generated sketches during deposition testimony explaining
how, in one context, Matthews’s post and body incorporate corresponding
surfaces that are shaped to fit one another. PO Resp. 25–26. Illustrations of
those sketches are reproduced below, as they appear in PPC’s Patent Owner
Response:

Id. at 25.
Although there are no figure numbers or reference characters
presented in the illustrations above, those illustrations are recognizable as
depicting portions of Matthews’s Figures 1 and 7, in which a horizontal line
has been marked on a surface of post 40 and a vertical line has been marked
along a surface of connector body 50. See also Ex. 1004 ¶ 28; Ex. 1036,
5:17–6:7; 111:16–112:4; 115:8–19 (indicating that reproduced Exhibits
2003, 2005, and 2006, shown above, depict marked up enlarged views of
annotated Figures 1 and 7 in Matthews).
PPC contends that the marked horizontal and vertical portions form
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

37
surfaces that are not shaped to fit. PO Resp. 25–26. PPC bases its
contention, however, on the premise that perpendicular surfaces cannot
constitute portions that are shaped to fit one another. As noted above in our
claim construction section, we understand that surfaces are shaped to fit one
another if they are sized and dimensioned to abut one another, and that such
association does not preclude a perpendicular arrangement of two surfaces.
Here, we are persuaded that the adjoining and abutting horizontal and
vertical surfaces of the post and body, respectively, in Matthews’s cable
connector are shaped to fit one another.
Furthermore, at oral argument, counsel for PPC expressed that
abutting vertical surfaces of the post and body of Matthews’s connector are
configured or shaped to fit one another. Paper 73, 65:1–4. As discussed
above in connection with the “continuity member” feature of the claims, the
record conveys that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
appreciated reasonably that a continuity member may be positioned in other
locations with respect to a post and connector body, including one in which
the member is sandwiched between those components. In that scenario,
there is no dispute that the surface of the post and the portion of the
connector body between which a continuity member extends, as pertinent to
claims 16 and 24, would be shaped to fit one another.
We also note that Corning persuades us that Tatsuzuki, in
combination with Matthews, suggests a post (B) comprising an outer surface
“shaped to fit” a portion of a separate connector body (C), as shown in
Corning’s annotated version of Figure 3 in Tatsuzuki. Pet. 46, 42, 53, 51.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

38
Dr. Mroczkowski testifies that “Tatsuzuki discloses that the electrical
continuity member 13 extends between structure corresponding to a portion
of the post (B) and structure corresponding to a portion of the connector
body (C).” Ex. 1005 ¶ 183. Moreover, in a modified connector, where post
(B) and body (C) are separate components, as taught in Matthews, “the outer
surface of structure B extends to and abuts structure C.” Id. We are
persuaded that “[i]n the modified connector, the portion of the post
comprises an outer surface shaped to fit the portion of the connector body.”
Id.
For the reasons given above, and in light of the record before us,
Corning has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that the
elements of dependent claims 16 and 24 are taught or suggested by the
combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki.
C. Secondary Considerations
In its Patent Owner Response, in addition to the contentions discussed
above, PPC argues that secondary considerations, including long-felt but
unsolved need (PO Resp. 38–39), failed attempts by Corning (id. at 39–45),
copying by Corning (id. at 36–38, 45–52), and commercial success (id. at
52–57), “clearly establish the non-obviousness of the claims at issue.” Id. at
35. In support of this argument, PPC relies on, inter alia, the Declaration
and cross-examination testimony of Mr. Burris (Exs. 2019, 2020), as well as
Declarations of Mr. David Jackson, Vice President, General Manager of
PPC (Exs. 2072 (unredacted), 2073 (redacted)), and Dr. Eldering (Ex. 2074),
among other evidence.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

39
1. Long-felt But Unsolved Need
PPC contends that the problem addressed by its patents “is that ‘often
connectors are not properly tightened or otherwise installed to the interface
port and proper electrical mating of the connector with the interface port
does not occur.’” PO Resp. 38 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:45–48). PPC contends
that it “solved this problem such that continuity was established even if the
connector was only loosely connected to the port.” Id. (citing Ex. 2074
¶ 112). PPC further contends that Corning’s expert witness, Dr.
Mroczkowski, acknowledged that the problem existed for decades before
2009, and that Mr. Burris indicated that he spent several years working
unsuccessfully on a continuity member design for Corning’s UltraRange
connector (lacking a continuity member), before he developed Corning’s
UltraShield connector (including a continuity member) in 2010. Id. at 39,
36–38.
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that coaxial
connectors known in the art before 2009 had “solved” PPC’s asserted “long-
felt” need for connector continuity “even if the connector was only loosely
connected to the port.” For example, the Bence ’990 patent (Ex. 1038, Ex.
2024), which issued in 2006, disclosed a connector having a “grounding
member,” i.e., a continuity member, placed between a coupler/nut and post.
Ex. 1038, Abstract; see Ex. 2076, 190:16–21. As noted by Corning (Pet.
Reply 16), in relation to such a connector, the ’990 Bence patent states that
an “electrical grounding path is maintained between the coupler and the
tubular post whether or not the coupler is tightly fastened to the appliance.”
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

40
Exs. 1038, 2024, Abstract. Likewise, as discussed above, Tatsuzuki, which
published in 2002, disclosed a connector that included disc-shaped spring
13, which provided an “electrical connection” between plug body 11 and
rotary mounting element 12 of the connector. Ex. 1002, Abstract, ¶ 17;
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38–40. Tatsuzuki states that it provides “a coaxial plug without
deterioration of insertion loss characteristics and reflection loss
characteristics even in the state when the coaxial plug is loosened.” Id. ¶ 7.
2. Failed Attempts by Corning
PPC contends that from September 2008 until March 2010, Corning’s
Mr. Burris attempted, but failed, “to incorporate a continuity member into
the UltraRange connector.” PO Resp. 40. During this time, according to
PPC, Corning developed a number of different concept designs for providing
a continuity member in the UltraRange connector, but either Corning did not
move forward with such designs, or did not pursue the designs
commercially, or the designs “failed” Corning’s continuity test. Id. at 41–
43. PPC contends that prior to March 2010, Mr. Burris was aware of
Matthews, his own Bence ’990 patent (Ex. 2024; Ex. 1038), and the
UltraEase continuity member design, but nonetheless “still went through
dozens of failed and widely differing concepts for several years.” Id. at 44.
According to PPC, in March 2010, it was “only after seeing PPC’s design
that Mr. Burris was able to design the copied UltraShield connector.” Id. at
43–44.
Corning responds that PPC relies only on Corning’s alleged research
and development efforts, not efforts by any other industry participant.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

41
Corning also contends that it chose not to implement a number of Mr.
Burris’ designs from 2008 to 2010 for reasons unrelated to a “failure” of
design, such as manufacturing costs. In addition, Corning contends that a
certain number of Mr. Burris’ designs “failed” Corning’s test (the
“Argentina” test), which measured noise, and not necessarily continuity,
citing deposition testimony by PPC’s expert witness, Dr. Eldering. Pet.
Reply 16–17 (citing Ex. 2078, 60:25–61:15).
The record before us indicates that Corning prepared connectors with
continuity members that maintained electrical continuity in the September
2008 to March 2010 time frame, even if Corning did not sell such
connectors to customers for whatever reason. Although some designs may
have “failed” the “Argentina” test, as PPC notes, evidence cited by PPC
indicates that other designed connectors passed the test. PO Resp. 41
(referring to Corning’s “fifteen different concepts for providing a continuity
member in the UltraRange connector,” citing Ex. 2036, 2); see Ex. 2036, 2
(indicating that some passed and some failed the Argentina test). For
example, contrary to PPC’s contention that “RC-1350-1 Rev 01” failed (PO
Resp. 41), the cited “Test Matrix” chart indicated that this design presented
“[s]ome impr[ovement] over current prod[uct]” during the test. Ex. 2036, 2.
In addition, the same evidence indicates that designs, such as “RC-1350-50
Rev 02,” “RC-1350-70,” and “RC-1350-80,” among others, passed the
Argentina test in 2009. Id.; see also Ex. 2034, 25 (stating that RC-1350-50
“did well” in the Argentina test in August 2009), 31 (stating that RC-1350-
90 “yielded acceptable results” in the Argentina test and that “connector was
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

42
‘well behaved’” in October 2009), 37 (stating that RC-1350-150 “performed
well clear up until it threaded off the mating port” in November 2009).
Thus, although evidence indicates failure of some Corning connector
designs including a continuity member developed before April 2010, some
designs did work as connectors, even if Corning did not pursue those designs
commercially for reasons such as “production expense” or “difficulty in
turning the nut” (Pet. Reply 17).
3. Copying by Corning
PPC contends that Mr. Burris copied PPC’s product, i.e., PPC’s EX
Plus SignalTight design, when designing Corning’s UltraShield connector.
PO Resp. 45–52. Specifically, PPC contends that Mr. Burris knew of PPC’s
design when he developed the UltraShield connector in April-June 2010. Id.
at 46. PPC contends that in initial designs, Mr. Burris “placed the continuity
member on the forward side of the internal lip of the nut as it had been in the
UltraEase connector.” Id. at 47. Thereafter, when that “continuity member
failed,” “Mr. Burris claims that he moved the continuity member for the first
time to the rearward side of the lip of the nut in the May-June 2010
timeframe as part of the project RC-1350-350.” Id.
According to PPC, “Mr. Burris admitted that he had seen the PPC EX
Plus with Signal Tight design in an email prior to April 2010, directly
contradicting his earlier sworn declaration,” citing a transcript from a
deposition of Mr. Burris (Ex. 2019, 179:3–180:8, 191:6–192:2), as well as a
March 1, 2010, e-mail sent by a Corning sales representative to Corning
executive David Johnson and Mr. Burris’s co-inventor Mr. Lutz (Ex. 2048).
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

43
PO Resp. 47–48. PPC also cites a March 31, 2010, e-mail sent by Mr.
Johnson to Mr. Burris and Mr. Lutz attaching a “new ad showing the PPC
Continuity Connector” (Ex. 2053). PO Resp. 48–49. PPC contends that
“Mr. Burris agreed” that the ad showed the continuity member as located
between the post and body on the rearward side of the internal lip of the nut,
as eventually implemented in Corning’s UltraShield connector. Id. at 49
(citing Ex. 2019 189:16–191:5; Ex. 2053; Ex. 2074 ¶ 114).
According to PPC, Mr. Burris also admitted during cross-examination
that he and others at Corning would obtain PPC connector samples, and then
test, cross-section, and/or disassemble the connectors to “see how the
connector is designed” and “to see what they’re doing.” Id. at 50 (citing Ex.
2019, 25:20–28:8). PPC further contends that on June 1, 2010, Mr. Lutz
sent an e-mail to Mr. William McDade, copying Mr. Burris, requesting the
testing of PPC EX Plus connector samples obtained by Mr. Lutz. PO Resp.
49 (citing Ex. 2054). PPC also contends that in an e-mail dated June 21,
2010, Corning’s salesperson indicated that other PPC EX Plus connectors
were being sent overnight to Mr. Lutz. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 2052).
Thereafter, on June 25, 2010, according to PPC, “Mr. Burris reported
completing the design of the RC-1350-350 design which led to the
UltraShield design.” Id. at 51. Based on such evidence, PPC contends that
“Mr. Burris admitted that it was likely that he did see samples of the PPC’s
embodiment of the PPC patents in June 2010,” before he designed Corning’s
UltraShield connector. Id. at 50 (citing Ex. 2019, 194:15–198:13; Ex. 2061,
49:12–24, 51:1–52:15).
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

44
Corning responds that PPC does not establish copying because
Corning’s “UltraShield connector is fundamentally different from [PPC’s]
SignalTight connector in numerous respects.” Pet. Reply 17–18. In
addition, Corning suggests that the evidence fails to establish that Mr. Burris
saw the SignalTight connector before he designed the UltraShield connector.
Id. at 18. Also, even assuming Mr. Burris saw the PPC advertisement for
the EX Plus Signal Tight Connector, Corning contends that PPC’s expert
witness, Dr. Eldering, “admitted that ‘[i]t would be hard to draw an accurate
drawing of that continuity member’” from the figure in the advertisement.
Id. (citing Ex. 2077, 273:5–10; Ex. 2053).
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that there is
sufficient evidence indicating that developers at Corning, including Mr.
Burris, saw and studied PPC EX Plus products just before Corning
developed its final design, RC-1350-350, in April 2010. There also is
sufficient evidence indicating that Corning later sold its final design as the
UltraShield connector, which included a continuity member between the
post and body on the rearward side of the internal lip of the nut. We are
persuaded that PPC has provided some evidence of copying by Corning of
PPC’s EX Plus SignalTight design, in relation to the challenged claims.

4. Commercial Success
PPC contends that its “flagship Signal Tight series connectors” are
commercial embodiments of the coaxial connectors recited in the challenged
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

45
claims, citing Declarations by Mr. Jackson (Ex. 2072) and Dr. Eldering
(Ex. 2074). PO Resp. 53 (citing Ex. 2072 ¶¶ 12–13, 26–28; Ex. 2074
¶ 116). Specifically, PPC and its witnesses state that the SignalTight
connectors use a continuity member that “(a) makes consistent contact with
the post and the nut of the connector while extending between a portion of
the post and a portion of the body to maintain or extend electrical continuity
between the post and the nut on the rearward side of the internal lip of the
nut,” and/or “(b) extends between a portion of the post that is configured or
shaped to fit the portion of the body and makes consistent contact with the
post to maintain or extend electrical continuity between the post and the
nut,” as recited in certain elements of the challenged claims. Id. at 53 (citing
Ex. 2072 ¶ 27; Ex. 2074 ¶ 116).
In addition, PPC contends that “Corning’s UltraShield connectors
constitute a copy of PPC’s SignalTight connectors in all material respects.”
PO Resp. 54 (citing Ex. 2072 ¶¶ 22–23, 26–28; Ex. 2074 ¶ 117). In more
specific support, PPC cites Mr. Jackson’s Declaration, which presents
photographs of a SignalTight connector and an UltraShield connector, with
added arrows pointing to the continuity member in each connector.
Ex. 2072 ¶ 22. Thus, as with its own product, PPC infers that Corning’s
UltraShield connectors use a continuity member that contacts and/or
maintains electrical continuity between the post, nut, and body as recited in
certain elements of the challenged claims. PO Resp. 54.
Such statements and evidence, even if accurate, however, do not show
sufficiently that PPC’s SignalTight connectors or Corning’s UltraShield
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

46
connectors meet all elements of the challenged claims at issue here. Thus,
the evidence cited by PPC fails to show that a relevant marketed product
embodies all claimed features at issue. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F. 3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating the
presumption that commercial success is due to the patented invention applies
“if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive
with them”); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2006). Consequently, we cannot presume nexus between any asserted
commercial success and what is recited in the challenged claims. Demaco
Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir.
1988) (stating that a “prima facie case of nexus is generally made out when
the patentee shows both that there is commercial success, and that the thing
(product or method) that is commercially successful is the invention
disclosed and claimed in the patent”).
In addition, in relation to evidence of commercial sales and market
share, PPC discusses sales of PPC’s SignalTight connectors, Corning’s
UltraShield connectors, and PPC’s “non-continuity EX connectors.” PO
Resp. 55–57. In this context, PPC asserts that “[i]n only three years, the
percentage of non-continuity EX connectors sold by PPC has decreased
steadily and dramatically—93% of PPC’s connector sales are now of
SignalTight connectors.” Id. at 56 (referring to $50 million in revenue in
2013). PPC contends that “SignalTight’s Market Share” has grown from
0% to approximately 67%. Id. at 56. PPC also contends that SignalTight
connectors are sold at a premium, i.e., “have been sold for approximately
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

47
16% more than PPC’s comparable, non-continuity EX connectors.” Id. at
57. In addition, PPC contends that the “market share of Corning’s
UltraShield connectors has similarly grown, and is now approximately
15%.” Id. Thus, according to PPC, the total market share of “products
constituting commercial embodiments of the PPC patents has gone from
zero to 82% in only three years.” Id.
Even assuming such statements and comparisons are accurate, we are
not persuaded that PPC presents sufficient evidence of the market share of
PPC’s SignalTight and Corning’s UltraShield connectors in relation to all
relevant connectors commercially sold in the time frame discussed by PPC.
For example, PPC’s “SignalTight’s Market Share” graph seems to imply that
PPC’s relevant connector market share before 2009 was zero. PO Resp. 56–
57; Ex. 2072 ¶¶ 18–21. That implication, however, is clearly undermined by
evidence cited by PPC. Ex. 2072 ¶ 19 (presenting a chart depicting sales of
EX connector units in 2009 as higher than sales of SignalTight units in
2013).
Furthermore, it is apparent from the record that the relevant “market”
includes connectors that do not have a continuity member. Indeed, PPC’s
own expert, Mr. Jackson, assesses market share by including percentages
and product sales for products that do not have a continuity member, i.e., the
EX connectors. See, e.g., Ex. 2072 ¶¶ 18–21. In that respect, and as noted
above, Mr. Jackson testifies that PPC sold the same, if not more, EX
connectors in 2009, before PPC’s SignalTight connector was introduced,
than the number of SignalTight connectors sold in 2013. Id. ¶ 19. Thus, as
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

48
between EX connectors and SignalTight connectors, PPC’s market share
either remained the same, or slightly decreased from 2009 to 2013.
Likewise, when discussing percentage of sales, or how SignalTight
connectors “are sold at a premium,” PPC only considers a comparison to one
product, PPC’s own EX connector, which lacks a continuity member. PPC
provides no evidence regarding sale percentages or sales “at a premium” in
relation to all coaxial connectors (with or without a continuity member, and
regardless of position of the continuity member, if present) purchased by
multiple system operators from 2009 to 2013, for example. The cited
evidence does not show adequately a significant market share relative to all
competing connectors sold, i.e., the overall relevant market. In re Applied
Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“An important
component of the commercial success inquiry in the present case is
determining whether Applied had a significant market share relative to all
competing pads based on the merits of the claimed invention, which Applied
did not show”). Moreover, we cannot tell from the record before us whether
the asserted “commercial success” of PPC’s SignalTight connectors (or
Corning’s UltraShield connectors) might have been due to a pre-existing
market share in the coaxial connector market, providing an advantage when
promoting newer products over existing ones.
Similarly, PPC does not explain how an e-mail exchange between
Corning sales employees and buyers (e.g., Comcast) establishes that
Corning’s UltraShield connector “was different from and superior to its non-
continuity UltraRange connector” for any reason beyond the fact that
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

49
Corning’s UltraShield connector included a continuity member at all, while
Corning’s pre-existing UltraRange connector lacked one at any location. PO
Resp. 54–55 (citing Ex. 2056). Again, PPC’s contentions and cited evidence
in this regard do not address adequately commercial sales or market share
relative to all competing connectors sold, i.e., the overall relevant market, as
relevant to a product assembled according to methods coextensive with the
challenged claims.
In addition, PPC’s contentions and cited evidence do not explain
sufficiently the nexus between the subject matter of the challenged claims
and the asserted commercial success of the SignalTight and UltraShield
connectors. Even assuming such connectors enjoyed commercial success
over connectors that lacked a continuity member, PPC does not clarify how
that commercial success was due to features recited in the challenged claims
(e.g., a continuity member in a specific location) rather than features (e.g., a
continuity member) expressly described in the prior art, such as in
Matthews, Tatsuzuki, and the Bence ’990 patent. “[I]f the commercial
success is due to an unclaimed feature of the device,” or “if the feature that
creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not
pertinent.” Ormco, 463 F.3d at 1312.
Thus, although we recognize that PPC provides evidence that it and
Corning commercially sold SignalTight and UltraShield connectors,
respectively, and that sales of such products increased after their
introduction to the market in 2009/2010, we are not persuaded that PPC’s
contentions and cited evidence of commercial success provide persuasive
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

50
support of objective indicia of non-obviousness in relation to the challenged
claims.
5. Discussion—All Asserted Evidence of Secondary Considerations
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded by PPC’s
contentions and cited evidence regarding a long-felt but unsolved need, or
failed attempts by Corning. Likewise, PPC’s contentions and evidence
regarding commercial success are less than persuasive. PPC’s strongest
position regarding secondary considerations pertains to copying by Corning
of at least one relevant aspect of PPC’s SignalTight connectors. As noted by
the Federal Circuit, however, “a showing of copying is only equivocal
evidence of non-obviousness in the absence of more compelling objective
indicia of other secondary considerations.” Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. California
Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
We have considered the entirety of the evidence, both Corning’s
strong evidence of obviousness and PPC’s purported objective evidence of
non-obviousness. On balance, we determine that a preponderance of the
evidence supports a conclusion that claims 7–27 of the ’353 patent would
have been obvious over Matthews and Tatsuzuki.
D. Motion To Exclude
In its Motion to Exclude, PPC seeks to exclude certain portions of the
deposition testimony of Mr. Burris, Ex. 2019, 180:5–8, 189:22–23, 235:12–
16, as well as certain portions of Mr. Burris’s Declaration, Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 4, 16,
because these statements made by Mr. Burris constitute hearsay, in violation
of Federal Rule of Evidence 802. Mot. to Exclude 1. As we indicated
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

51
previously, Corning opposes PPC’s Motion to Exclude, and PPC filed a
Reply to Corning’s Opposition to its Motion to Exclude.
At the outset, we observe that the content that PPC seeks to exclude
was introduced into this proceeding by PPC. Paper 41, 4. The fact that PPC
introduced and relied on Mr. Burris’s deposition testimony means PPC may
not bar similar use of that evidence by Corning. In any event, when
determining whether Corning copied PPC’s EX Plus SignalTight design,
i.e., the coaxial cable connector embodied in the challenged claims, we only
relied upon Exhibit 2019 to the extent it was asserted by PPC—not by
Corning. With respect to Exhibit 2020, we did not rely upon it when
addressing PPC’s arguments regarding long-felt but unsolved need, failed
attempts by Corning, copying by Corning, and commercial
success. Accordingly, we deny PPC’s Motion to Exclude.
E. Motions to Seal
On March 26, 2014, PPC filed unredacted and redacted versions of its
Patent Owner Response (Papers 29 and 30), along with an initial Motion to
Seal (Paper 27). After multiple discussions between the parties and the
panel regarding what materials, if any, should be subject to a Motion to Seal,
we withdrew PPC’s initial Motion to Seal, authorized PPC to file a Revised
Motion to Seal, and authorized Corning to file a Response to the Revised
Motion to Seal. Paper 37. On April 17, 2014, PPC filed a Revised Motion
to Seal (Paper 39) that seeks to seal certain portions of its Patent Owner
Response, as well as certain portions of the supporting evidence PPC relied
upon in its Patent Owner Response (Exs. 2019, 2020, 2025, 2026, 2030,
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

52
2031, 2034–2039, 2042, 2044, 2045, 2047, 2048, 2050–2054, 2056, and
2072). On April 21, 2014, Corning filed a Response to the Revised Motion
to Seal that seeks to explain why certain portions of the evidence relied upon
by PPC in its Patent Owner Response contain Corning’s confidential
information. Paper 40.
On May 16, 2014, PPC filed a Second Motion to Seal that seeks to
seal certain portions of Exhibit 2075 and 2079. Paper 42. Exhibit 2079
includes the transcript of Dr. Eldering’s deposition taken on April 25, 2014,
and Exhibit 2075 includes a timeline of facts that purportedly are undisputed
regarding how Corning copied the coaxial cable connector embodied in the
claims at issue in this proceeding. Also on May 16, 2014, Corning filed
redacted and unredacted versions of its initial Reply to the Patent Owner
Response, along with a Motion to Seal that seeks to seal certain portions of
its initial Reply and certain portions of the supporting evidence Corning
relied upon in its initial Reply. Paper 45. On June 23, 2014, based on a joint
proposal from the parties, we dismissed Corning’s Motion to Seal. Paper 48.
We expunged the redacted and unredacted versions of its initial Reply, along
with the supporting evidence relied upon therein that Corning originally
requested to be sealed. Id. We also authorized Corning to file a substitute
Reply to the Patent Owner Response and substitute exhibits. Id.
On July 9, 2014, PPC filed a Third Motion to Seal that seeks to seal
Exhibits 2084 and 2085. Paper 58. Exhibits 2084 and 2085 include
mechanical drawings of PPC’s coaxial cable connector embodied in the
patent claims at issue in this proceeding. On July 21, 2014, PPC filed a
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

53
Fourth Motion to Seal that seeks to seal certain portions of Exhibit 2092.
Paper 68. Exhibit 2092 included PPC’s demonstrative exhibits that it
intended to use at oral argument. On July 23, 2014, we dismissed PPC’s
Fourth Motion to Seal. Paper 71. We explained that the oral argument in
this proceeding is open to the public and, therefore, no confidential
information should be included in the demonstrative exhibits filed by either
Corning or PPC. Id. We expunged Exhibit 2092 and authorized PPC to file
a new set of demonstrative exhibits. Id.
There is a strong public policy in favor of making information filed in
an inter partes review open to the public, especially because the proceeding
determines the patentability of claims in an issued patent and, therefore,
affects the rights of the public. Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1) and 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.14, the default rule is that all papers filed in an inter partes review are
open and available for access by the public; a party, however, may file a
concurrent motion to seal and the information at issue is sealed pending the
outcome of the motion. It is, however, only “confidential information” that
is protected from disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(7); see Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760. The standard for granting a motion to seal is
“for good cause.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a). The party moving to seal bears the
burden of proof in showing entitlement to the requested relief, and must
explain why the information sought to be sealed constitutes confidential
information. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Before PPC filed its initial Motion to
Seal, we reminded the parties that confidential information filed under a
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

54
motion to seal will become public if identified in this Final Written
Decision. Paper 26, 3 (citing Trial Practice Guide, Fed. Reg. 48,761).
We have reviewed the unredacted version of the Patent Owner
Response (Paper 29), as well as Exhibits 2019, 2020, 2025, 2026, 2030,
2031, 2034–2039, 2042, 2044, 2045, 2047, 2048, 2050–2054, 2056, 2072,
2075, 2079, 2084, and 2085, and we are persuaded that good cause exists to
have some, but not all, of these documents remain under seal. The redacted
portions of the Patent Owner Response and the aforementioned Exhibits
contain confidential information pertaining to either PPC’s business or
Corning’s business, and are narrowly tailored to redact only confidential
information. However, in the Secondary Considerations section above, we
discuss Exhibits 2019, 2034, 2036, 2048, 2052–2054, 2056, and 2072. For
instance, we substantively rely on Exhibits 2034 and 2036 to refute PPC’s
contentions regarding failed attempts by others, Exhibits 2019, 2048, and
2052–2054 when favorably considering PPC’s contentions regarding
copying by Corning, and Exhibits 2056 and 2072 to refute PPC’s
contentions regarding commercial success.
Consequently, the unredacted version of the Patent Owner Response
and Exhibits 2020, 2025, 2026, 2030, 2031, 2035, 2037–2039, 2042, 2044,
2045, 2047, 2050, 2051, 2075, 2079, 2084, and 2085 will be maintained
under seal under the terms of the Protective Order entered in this proceeding.
See Paper 42, Appendix A. Consistent with our guidance that confidential
information filed under a motion to seal will become public if identified in
this Final Written Decision (Paper 26, 3), as well as the public’s interest in
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

55
maintaining a complete and understandable record, Exhibits 2019, 2034,
2036, 2048, 2052–2054, 2056, and 2072 will not be maintained under seal
under the terms of the protective order entered in this proceeding.

III. CONCLUSION
Corning has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 7–27 of the ’353 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki.

IV. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Corning has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that claims 7–27 of the ’353 patent are unpatentable;
FURTHER ORDERED that PPC’s Motion to Exclude is denied;
FURTHER ORDERED that PPC’s Revised Motion to Seal (Paper
39), Second Motion to Seal (Paper 42), and Third Motion to Seal (Paper 58)
are granted-in-part. The unredacted version of the Patent Owner Response
and Exhibits 2020, 2025, 2026, 2030, 2031, 2035, 2037–2039, 2042, 2044,
2045, 2047, 2050, 2051, 2075, 2079, and 2084 will be kept under the terms
of the Protective Order entered in this proceeding. See Paper 42,
Appendix A. Exhibits 2019, 2034, 2036, 2048, 2052–2054, 2056, and 2072
will not be maintained under seal under the terms of the protective order
entered in this proceeding.
IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

56
FURTHER ORDERED that PPC’s Fourth Motion to Seal (Paper 68)
and Corning’s Motion to Seal (Paper 45) are dismissed; and
FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
the parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must
comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
Certain documents have been sealed in this proceeding, but have not
been relied upon in this Final Written Decision. See supra Section II.E. The
record will be maintained undisturbed pending the outcome of any appeal
taken from this decision. At the conclusion of any appeal proceeding, or if
no appeal is taken, the documents will be made public. See Trial Practice
Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,760–61. Further, either party may file a motion to
expunge the sealed documents from the record pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 42.56. Any such motion will be decided after the conclusion of any appeal
proceeding or the expiration of the time period for appealing.

IPR2013-00345
Patent 8,313,353 B2

57
For PETITIONER:
Todd R. Walters
Roger H. Lee
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
todd.walters@bipc.com
roger.lee@bipc.com

For PATENT OWNER:
Denis J. Sullivan
Douglas J. Nash
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP
dsullivan@hblaw.com
dnash@hblaw.com