Ppc Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications Rf, LLC

815 F.3d 747 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D's '060 patent discloses coaxial cable connectors having a connector body, a post, a nut (also called a coupler), and a continuity member that contacts the post and the nut so that electrical grounding continuity is extended through the post and the nut. As part of one of the claims a piece of the connector would be positioned to reside around an external portion of the connector; this prevents leakage and noise problems. Corning (P) filed a petition requesting an IPR of claims 10-25 of the '060 patent on grounds that the claims were invalid as obvious over the combination of U.S. published patent application 2006/0110977 (Matthews) and Japanese published patent application JP 2002-015823 (Tatsuzuki). Using a general dictionary, the Board construed the term 'reside around' to mean 'in the immediate vicinity of; near.' The Board concluded that the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki taught a continuity member that was positioned in the immediate vicinity of, or near, an external portion of the connector body. The board held that because D used the word “surrounded” in the preamble of the claim, “reside around” must have a different meaning. The Board concluded that the claims at issue were obvious. D appealed.