Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01369/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01369-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC
Appellee
PPC Broadband, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PPC BROADBAND, INC.,

Appellant

v.

CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1361, 2015-1366, 2015-1368, 2015-1369

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2013-00340, IPR2013-00345, IPR2013-00346, 

IPR2013-00347. 

______________________ 

Decided: February 22, 2016

______________________ 

J. MICHAEL JAKES, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for 

appellant. Also represented by ROBERT L. BURNS, II,

Reston, VA; JUSTIN A. HENDRIX, Palo Alto, CA.

 TODD RAY WALTERS, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 

P.C., Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented by SCOTT LLOYD SMITH, ROGER HYUNGIL LEE. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/22/2016
2 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

PPC Broadband, Inc. appeals from the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final written decisions in 

inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) concluding that claims 1–32 

of U.S. Patent No. 8,287,320, claims 1–9 of U.S. Patent 

No. 8,323,060, and claims 7–27 of U.S. Patent No. 

8,313,353 would have been obvious. We vacate the 

Board’s determination that claims 8, 16, and 31 of the 

’320 patent, claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent, and claims 7–

27 of the ’353 patent are unpatentable, affirm the Board’s 

determination that claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, and 32 of the 

’320 patent are unpatentable, and remand for further 

proceedings.

BACKGROUND

A coaxial cable has an inner electrical conductor (often called the “signal” or “signal feed”) and an outer 

electrical conductor (often called the “ground return” or 

“ground”). Poor or intermittent connections on either 

conductor can result in noise or non-functionality. The 

’320 patent family discloses coaxial cable connectors 

having a connector body 50, a post 40, a nut 30 (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. ’320 

patent col. 2 ll. 3–6, 15–19, 37–41.1 The ’320 patent 

discloses more than twenty embodiments of continuity 

members. For example, Figure 13 depicts an embodiment 

where the continuity member 370 extends underneath the 

body 50. Figure 17 depicts a continuity member 570 that 

is sandwiched between the post 40 and the body 50.

 

1 The ’353 patent and the ’060 patent are both continuations of the ’320 patent. The three patents share the 

same specification, in relevant part.

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/22/2016
Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/22/2016
4 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, filed petitions requesting IPRs of claims 1–32 of the ’320 patent, 

claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent, and claims 7–27 of the ’353

patent on grounds that these claims were unpatentable as 

obvious over the combination of U.S. published patent 

application 2006/0110977 (“Matthews”) and Japanese 

published patent application JP 2002-015823 (“Tatsuzuki”). Between November and December 2013, the Board 

instituted four separate IPR proceedings.2 

The Board held a consolidated hearing for the four 

IPRs in this appeal and issued four separate decisions in 

which it concluded that all claims at issue would have 

been obvious. The terms “continuity member” or “electrical continuity member” are present in every claim at 

issue, and the construction of these terms is central to the

Board’s decisions. For example, claim 1 of the ’320 patent 

(emphases added) recites: 

1. A coaxial cable connector comprising: 

a connector body;

a post engaged with the connector body, 

wherein the post includes a flange;

a nut, axially rotatable with respect to the 

post and the connector body, the nut having a first end configured for coupling to 

an interface port, and an opposing second 

end, wherein the nut includes an internal 

 

2 Corning also sought, and the Board granted, IPR 

proceedings on claims 10–25 of the ’060 patent. In a 

separate proceeding, the Board canceled all of these 

claims as unpatentable for obviousness over the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki. PPC Broadband also 

appealed this decision to this court in Appeal No. 2015-

1364. 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 5

lip, and wherein the second end portion of 

the nut starts at a side of the lip of the nut 

facing the first end of the nut and extends 

rearward to the second end of the nut;

a continuity member disposed only rearward of the start of the second end portion 

of the nut and contacting the post and the 

nut, so that the continuity member extends 

electrical grounding continuity through the 

post and the nut; and

wherein the nut does not touch the connector body, and the continuity member is 

configured to contact a rearward facing 

surface of the lip of the nut and extend between a portion of the post and a portion 

of the connector body.

The Board construed these terms to require “that the 

continuity member need only make contact with the 

coupler/nut and the post to establish an electrical connection there,” rather than requiring consistent or continuous 

contact between the coupler/nut and the post as PPC 

Broadband argued. J.A. 10, 102, 156, 207. 

The Board also construed the terms “shaped to fit” 

and “configured to fit,” which are present in claims 1–9 of 

the ’060 patent, claims 16 and 24 of the ’353 patent, and 

claim 28 of the ’320 patent. The Board held that components or surfaces that are shaped or configured to fit one 

another “are sized and dimensioned to abut one another,” 

including components whose surfaces are perpendicular. 

J.A. 13, 105, 159. 

The Board concluded that all claims at issue would 

have been obvious over the combination of Matthews and 

Tatsuzuki. The Board considered PPC Broadband’s 

evidence of objective considerations, but determined it did 

not outweigh the strong evidence of obviousness. PPC 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/22/2016
6 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

Broadband appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal decisions de novo and its 

underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence. In re Sullivan, 498 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). Obviousness is a question of law with underlying 

issues of fact. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 

(Fed. Cir. 2013). In IPRs, the Board gives claims their 

broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the 

specification. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 

1268, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted, 84 U.S.L.W. 

3218 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2016) (No. 15-446). We review claim 

construction de novo except for subsidiary fact findings 

based on extrinsic evidence, which we review for substantial evidence. Id. at 1280.

I. “Continuity Member” / “Electrical Continuity 

Member”

PPC Broadband argues that the Board erred when it 

construed the terms “continuity member” and “electrical 

continuity member” to require “that the continuity member need only make contact with the coupler/nut and the 

post to establish an electrical connection there,” without 

requiring that contact to be consistent or continuous in 

time (i.e., always connected). PPC Broadband asserts 

that the Board did not find that the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki teaches consistent or continuous 

contact with coupler/nut and the post, as required by all 

claims when they are correctly construed. 

Under Cuozzo, the Patent and Trademark Office 

(“PTO”) gives claim language its broadest reasonable 

interpretation in IPRs. 793 F.3d at 1279. Historically, 

the PTO applied this standard in the examination and 

reexamination of patents, where the applicant may freely 

amend the claim language to clarify the scope of the 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 7

claim. Examinations and reexaminations are not adjudicatory. Instead, the patent examiner and the applicant 

work together to determine the scope of the claimed 

invention. See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366–67 

(Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The patent examiner and the applicant, 

in the give and take of rejection and response, work 

toward defining the metes and bounds of the invention to 

be patented.”); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.

1989) (“[D]uring patent prosecution when claims can be 

amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and 

breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.”). 

By giving the claim language its broadest reasonable 

interpretation, the patent examiner is able to “reduce the 

possibility that, after the patent is granted, the claims 

may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is 

justified.” In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404–05 (CCPA 

1969). While broadly construing claim language increases 

the likelihood that otherwise distinguishable prior art will 

render the claimed invention anticipated or obvious, the 

patentee can amend the claim language during prosecution—and narrow it if necessary—to clarify the scope of 

the invention and avoid rejection or cancellation of the 

claims. 

District courts, by contrast, do not assign terms their 

broadest reasonable interpretation. Instead, district 

courts seek out the correct construction—the construction 

that most accurately delineates the scope of the claimed 

invention—under the framework laid out in Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The 

same is true of reexaminations before the PTO when 

claims have expired, and therefore may not be amended. 

In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

In 2011, Congress enacted the America Invents Act 

(“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). The 

AIA created several new adjudicatory proceedings before 

the PTO for determining the patentability of alreadyissued patent claims. These proceedings include IPRs, 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 7 Filed: 02/22/2016
8 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

post-grant reviews, and covered business method reviews 

(“CBMs”). IPRs are the proceedings at issue here. Postgrant reviews are available for nine months after the 

issuance of a patent, and IPRs are available after those 

nine months have passed. See 35 U.S.C. § 321(c). CBM 

review is a temporary program allowing parties sued or 

charged with infringing a patent covering financial products or services to challenge that patent. AIA § 18(a)–(d), 

125 Stat. 284, 329–31.

Congress intended these programs to provide “quick 

and cost effective alternatives” to litigation in the courts. 

H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011), as reprinted in 

2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 78; see also id. at 40 (“[AIA] is 

designed to establish a more efficient and streamlined 

patent system that will improve patent quality and limit 

unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.”). 

Indeed, CBM review is only available if the petitioner 

“has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been 

charged with infringement under that patent.” AIA 

§ 18(a)(1)(B).

One hallmark of these proceedings is their adversarial 

nature. H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, at 46–47 (“The Act converts inter partes reexamination from an examinational 

to an adjudicative proceeding, and renames the proceeding ‘inter partes review.’”). To institute an IPR, a petitioner must challenge the patentability of existing patent 

claims by filing a petition with the PTO. 35 U.S.C. 

§ 311(a). The patentee can file an initial response. Id.

§ 313. Within three months, the Director must decide 

whether to grant the petition and institute IPR. Id.

§ 314(b). If IPR is instituted, the case proceeds to discovery. The patentee is permitted discovery, and may conduct depositions. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); 37 C.F.R. 

§ 42.120. If the patentee files a response, the petitioner is 

permitted discovery, including depositions. 35 U.S.C. 

§ 316(a)(5); 37 C.F.R. § 42.51. A trial is conducted by a 

panel of at least three administrative law judges. 35 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 8 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 9

U.S.C. §§ 6(c), 316(c). Both discovery and trial proceed at 

a rapid pace. The entire IPR, including the Board’s final 

decision, must be completed within one year from the date 

of institution, absent an extension for good cause. Id.

§ 316(a)(11). Moreover, claim amendments are not a 

matter of right for IPRs, as they are in examinations and 

reexaminations. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1); 37 C.F.R. 

§ 42.121(a). 

Despite the important differences between the new 

AIA proceedings and the earlier examinational proceedings, the PTO applies the same claim construction standard—the broadest reasonable interpretation—in both 

types of proceedings. We upheld this approach in Cuozzo, 

a decision currently under review by the Supreme Court. 

Cuozzo, 793 F.3d 1268, cert. granted, 84 U.S.L.W. 3218. 

This case hinges on the claim construction standard 

applied—a scenario likely to arise with frequency. And in 

this case, the claim construction standard is outcome 

determinative. Under Phillips, we would hold that the 

correct construction of the term “continuity member” 

requires, as PPC Broadband argues, a continuous or 

consistent connection. The American Heritage College 

Dictionary (4th ed. 2002) defines “continuity” as “1. The 

state or quality of being continuous. 2. An uninterrupted 

succession or flow; a coherent whole.” J.A. 2967. 

Furthermore, the specification discloses in multiple 

places that the continuity member should maintain a 

consistent and continuous connection. The specification 

teaches that “even when the coaxial connector 100 is only 

partially installed . . . the continuity member 70 maintains an electrical ground path,” and that “this continuous 

grounding path provides operable functionality of the 

coaxial cable connector 100 allowing it to work as it was 

intended even when the connector 100 is not fully tightened.” ’320 patent col. 14 ll. 20–30. It teaches that one 

embodiment of the continuity member is designed to “flex 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 9 Filed: 02/22/2016
10 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

and retain constant physical and electrical contact with 

the nut 30, thereby ensuring continuity of a grounding 

path extending through the nut 30.” Id. at col. 15 ll. 2–10. 

It describes other embodiments as making “resilient and 

consistent physical and electrical contact” with the nut,

id. at col. 18 ll. 52–59, as “enhanc[ing]” the continuity 

member’s “ability to make consistent operable contact 

with a surface of the nut,” id. at col. 18 ll. 62–65, and as 

creating “a continuous electrical shield” from the cable 

through the port, id. at col. 16 ll. 10–17. It teaches that 

“[t]hose skilled in the art should appreciated [sic] that 

other geometric configurations may be utilized for the 

post contact portion 1277, as long as the electrical continuity member 1270 is provided so as to make consistent 

physical and electrical contact with the post.” Id. at col. 19 

ll. 16–21 (emphasis added). Indeed, the specification 

teaches that the fundamental purpose of the invention is 

to “ensur[e] ground continuity” and thereby solve problems associated with intermittent ground connections in 

the prior art, such as “loss of ground and discontinuity of 

the electromagnetic shielding.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 44–53. In 

light of the ordinary meaning of “continuity” and the 

specification, which is replete with discussion of the 

“continuous” or “consistent” contact established by the 

continuity member, the correct construction of “continuity 

member” under the framework laid out in Phillips, 415 

F.3d 1303, requires “consistent or continuous contact with 

the coupler/nut and the post to establish an electrical 

connection.” 

However, claim construction in IPRs is not governed 

by Phillips. Under Cuozzo, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, not necessarily the correct construction under the 

framework laid out in Phillips. Cuozzo, 793 F.3d at 1279. 

Here, the Board’s construction is not unreasonable. 

While the ordinary meaning of “continuity” and “continuous” often refers to something that is uninterrupted 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 10 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 11

in time, these terms can also refer to something that is 

uninterrupted in space. See J.A. 2967 (defining “continuous” as “1. Uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance, or 

extent” (emphasis added)). For example, a continuous line 

is continuous for the length of the line; there is no additional requirement of temporal continuity. Corning 

argues that “continuity member” should not be construed 

to require temporal continuity, as PPC Broadband argues. 

Instead, Corning argues that “continuity member” only 

requires spatial continuity—a physical connection that 

extends without interruption through the post, the continuity member, and the nut. 

There is some language in the specification to support 

Corning’s interpretation of “continuity member.” The 

specification discloses that the continuity member “extends electrical grounding continuity through the post 

and the nut.” ’320 patent col. 2 ll. 5–6, 17–19. It also 

teaches a “continuous ground path” that “extends from 

the interface port 20 to the nut 30, to the continuity 

member 70, to the post 40, to the conductive grounding 

shield 14.” Id. at col. 14 ll. 20–30. This description of a 

“continuous ground path” extending from component to 

component is consistent with Corning’s argument that the 

term “continuity” refers to an unbroken physical route, 

not necessarily a connection that is uninterrupted over 

time. We thus conclude that the Board’s construction—

“that the continuity member need only make contact with 

the coupler/nut and the post to establish an electrical 

connection there,” without requiring consistent or continuous contact—is the broadest reasonable construction. 

Under the Board’s construction, there is no requirement of consistent or continuous contact through the post 

and the nut. Because the Board’s construction does not 

include this additional temporal limitation, it is broader 

than PPC Broadband’s proposed construction. Thus, 

while the Board’s construction is not the correct construction under Phillips, it is the broadest reasonable interpreCase: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 11 Filed: 02/22/2016
12 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

tation of “continuity member,” and because this is an IPR, 

under our binding precedent, we must uphold the Board’s 

construction of “continuity member” and “electrical continuity member.” 

II. The “Maintain Electrical Continuity” Limitations

Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of 

“continuity member” does not require the temporal continuity argued for by PPC Broadband, there are several 

claims that require such temporal continuity by virtue of 

other claim limitations. Claim 1 of the ’060 patent, claims 

7 and 20 of the ’353 patent, and claims 8, 16, and 31 of the 

’320 patent require the continuity member “maintain 

electrical continuity” during the operation of the connector. Independent claim 1 of the ’060 patent (emphasis 

added) recites:

1. A connector for coupling an end of a coaxial cable, . . . the connector comprising:

. . .

a continuity member disposed only rearward of the forward facing lip surface of 

the internal lip of the coupler, the continuity member having a continuity base portion extending between the continuity post 

engaging surface of the post and the continuity body engaging surface of the connector body, and a continuity contact 

surface configured to be biased against the 

rearward facing lip surface of the internal 

lip of the coupler so as to maintain electrical continuity between the coupler and the 

post when the coupler is in the partially 

tightened position on the interface port, 

even when the coupler is in the fully tightened position on the interface port, and 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 12 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 13

even when the post moves relative to the 

coupler. 

Similarly, independent claims 7 and 20 of the ’353 patent 

recite methods of assembling a coaxial cable connector, 

the method comprising “positioning an electrical continuity member so as to . . . maintain electrical continuity 

between the post and the nut when the post pivots relative to the nut.” And dependent claims 8, 16, and 31 of 

the ’320 patent require the continuity member to “maintain electrical continuity when the nut is in both the 

partially tightened position on the interface port and in 

the fully tightened position on the interface port.” 

These limitations require the continuity member

“maintain electrical continuity” during certain specified 

periods of operation of the connector. For example, claims 

7 and 20 of the ’353 patent require the connector to maintain electrical continuity “when the post pivots relative to 

the nut.” See also ’320 patent, claims 8, 16, and 31 (requiring the continuity member to maintain electrical 

continuity “when the nut is in both the partially tightened 

position on the interface port and in the fully tightened

position on the interface port”); ’060 patent, claim 1 

(requiring the continuity member to maintain electrical 

continuity “when the coupler is in the partially tightened 

position on the interface port, even when the coupler is in 

the fully tightened position on the interface port, and even 

when the post moves relative to the coupler.”). These 

claims require the continuity member maintain electrical 

continuity when the coupler is in a certain position or 

during certain modes of operation. Maintaining electrical 

continuity requires consistent or continuous contact—

under both the broadest reasonable interpretation standard required by Cuozzo and the framework laid out in 

Phillips. 

Nowhere in its decisions did the Board find that the 

combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki maintains elecCase: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 13 Filed: 02/22/2016
14 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

trical continuity during the specific positions or modes of 

operation required by these limitations. Corning argues 

that the Board did not ignore these limitations, but considered it as part of its claim construction analysis for the 

terms “continuity member” and “electrical continuity 

member.” See Appellee’s Br. 36–37. But the portions of 

the Board decisions cited by Corning suggest the opposite. 

As the Board explained: 

[W]e decline to import limitations into the disputed claim limitation that would require the “continuity member” to make “consistent contact” with 

the coupler/nut and the post such that it maintains a “continuous electrical connection” between

these components. 

J.A. 10; J.A. 101–02; J.A. 155; J.A. 206–07. The Board 

explicitly declined to require the continuity member to 

“maintain[] a ‘continuous electrical connection.’” Id. But 

when the coupler is in a certain position or during certain 

modes of operation, that is exactly what these claims 

expressly require—not because they use the term “continuity member,” but because they use the phrase “maintain electrical continuity.” 

Corning argues that we should nonetheless affirm the 

Board’s decision because the combination of Matthews 

and Tatsuzuki teaches these limitations. The Board did 

not make any such fact findings, and we will not make 

fact findings for the first time on appeal. We therefore 

vacate the Board’s determination that claims 8, 16, and 31 

of the ’320 patent, claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent, and 

claims 7–27 of the ’353 patent are unpatentable. 

III. The “Shaped to Fit” / “Configured to Fit” Limitations 

Claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent, claims 16 and 24 of the 

’353 patent, and claim 28 of the ’320 patent recite a post 

and a body that are “shaped to fit” or “configured to fit”

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 14 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 15

one another. The Board held that components that are 

shaped or configured to fit one another “are sized and 

dimensioned to abut one another,” including components 

with surfaces that do not face one another. 

PPC Broadband does not dispute that the plain meaning of “fit” is that “an object is the proper size and shape.” 

Appellant’s Br. 31. Instead, PPC Broadband argues that 

this plain meaning requires the two surfaces that are 

shaped or configured to fit one another to be somewhat 

parallel—that one surface “has a complementary size and 

shape as, and faces” the other surface. Appellant’s Br. 31

(emphasis added). It argues that components whose 

surfaces do not face one another cannot be “shaped to fit” 

or “configured to fit” one another. It argues that we 

should vacate and remand the Board’s determination as 

to these claims because the Board did not find that the 

combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki teaches this 

limitation.

Figure 17 of the ’060 patent: Certain claims 

require the body 50 to be “shaped to fit” or 

“configured to fit” the post 40.

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 15 Filed: 02/22/2016
16 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

We hold that the Board correctly construed these 

terms. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, 

these terms have their ordinary meaning, which merely 

requires one surface to have a complementary size and 

shape as the other surface. PPC Broadband puts forth no 

dictionary definition supporting its argument that the 

surfaces must be somewhat parallel. 

Nor does PPC Broadband point to any disavowal or 

disclaimer in the specifications of the ’320 patent family 

compelling departure from this ordinary meaning. PPC 

Broadband argues that the specifications refer to surfaces 

that are configured to fit one another as “opposing complimentary surfaces,” which excludes perpendicular 

surfaces. ’320 patent col. 19 ll. 45–52, fig. 50. But there 

is no disclaimer or disavowal here; indeed, the specifications’ descriptions of “opposing complimentary surfaces” 

do not include the terms “configured to fit” or “shaped to 

fit.” Id. Second, PPC Broadband notes that the specifications teach that the continuity member extends between 

two fitting surfaces such that the body, the continuity 

member, and the post are secured “both axially and 

rotationally,” and argues that surfaces that are perpendicular cannot be secured as the specifications describe. 

’320 patent col. 13 ll. 15–20. But perpendicular surfaces 

can be fitted together in a manner that prevents movement of the surfaces relative to each other, thereby ensuring the surfaces are axially and rotationally secured. 

Finally, PPC Broadband argues that the Board’s construction is inoperable. For example, it notes that claim 1 

of the ’060 patent requires that the “body is positioned 

around a portion of the post,” with the continuity member 

“extend[ing] between” the post and the body. It argues 

that if the surfaces of the post and body are perpendicular, the continuity member cannot extend between them. 

We disagree, and see no reason a continuity member 

could not extend between two perpendicular surfaces. 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 16 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 17

We therefore uphold the Board’s construction of 

“shaped to fit” and “configured to fit.” Because PPC 

Broadband’s argument that the combination of Matthews 

and Tatsuzuki does not disclose this limitation is entirely 

predicated on our adoption of its claim construction, we

affirm the Board’s decision that claim 28 of the ’320 

patent is unpatentable. And although we vacate the 

Board’s determination that claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent 

and claims 16 and 24 of the ’353 patent are unpatentable

because of the “maintain electrical continuity” limitation, 

the Board correctly found that the prior art teaches the 

“shaped to fit” and “configured to fit” limitation in these 

claims.

IV. Objective Considerations 

Although the Board found that certain objective considerations pointed towards non-obviousness, it concluded 

that Corning’s strong evidence of obviousness outweighed 

these considerations. On appeal, the parties dispute the 

Board’s findings with respect to the various indicia of 

nonobviousness, including long-felt but unresolved need, 

failed attempts by Corning, copying by Corning, and 

commercial success, as well as the overall weight given by 

the Board to these indicia. 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusions 

on long-felt but unresolved need, failed attempts, and 

copying. The Board rejected PPC Broadband’s argument 

that there was a long-felt but unsolved need for coaxial 

cable connectors where ground continuity could be established even if the connector was only loosely connected to 

the port. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

findings that this long-felt need had been satisfied by 

earlier connectors invented before the priority date of the 

patents at issue here. Substantial evidence also supports 

the Board’s finding that Corning had both successful and 

unsuccessful attempts to design a prototype coaxial cable

with a continuity member, but that none of these successCase: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 17 Filed: 02/22/2016
18 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

ful designs were manufactured or sold to consumers. In 

light of Corning’s failure to manufacture connectors with 

a continuity member that could be sold to consumers, this 

factor weighs in favor of a finding of non-obviousness. 

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s conclusion 

that there was copying by Corning. This too weighs in 

favor of non-obviousness.

Lastly, the Board found that PPC Broadband had not 

presented persuasive evidence of commercial success. In 

coming to this conclusion, the Board found that PPC 

Broadband had not established that its SignalTight 

connectors met all of the elements of the challenged 

claims at issue. Here, the Board erred. PPC Broadband 

alleges that its SignalTight connectors are commercial 

embodiments of the connectors recited in the claims. PPC 

Broadband presented multiple declarations supporting 

this allegation. Corning did not argue to the Board that 

the SignalTight connectors are not commercial embodiments of the claimed connectors. When the patentee has 

presented undisputed evidence that its product is the 

invention disclosed in the challenged claims, it is error for 

the Board to find to the contrary without further explanation. There was no such explanation here. The Board in 

its opinions did not explain why the SignalTight connectors fail to embody the claimed features, or what claimed

features in particular are missing from the SignalTight 

connectors.3 Nor does Corning justify this finding on 

 

3 Without any detailed explanation, the Board also 

noted that commercial success is not established where a 

product has a very large market share if that product was

replacing the same party’s earlier version which likewise 

enjoyed a high market share. We note that it would be 

wrong to conclude that a product with a high market 

share is not commercially successful solely because it is 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 18 Filed: 02/22/2016
PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 19

appeal. Substantial evidence does not support the 

Board’s finding on this point.

Because the evidence shows that the SignalTight connectors are “the invention disclosed and claimed in the 

patent,” we presume that any commercial success of these 

products is due to the patented invention. J.T. Eaton & 

Co. v. Atl. Paste & Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). This is true even when the product has additional, unclaimed features. See, e.g., Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. 

Cal. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000)

(applying presumption even through commercial embodiment had unclaimed mobility feature); Ormco Corp. v. 

Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

(holding that evidence that commercial success was due to 

unclaimed or non-novel features of device “clearly rebuts 

the presumption that [the product’s] success was due to 

the claimed and novel features”). This presumption does 

not apply in the ex parte context, where the PTO cannot

gather evidence supporting or refuting the patentee’s 

evidence of commercial success. See, e.g., In re DBC, 545 

F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 

135, 139–40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It does, however, apply in 

contested proceedings such as IPRs, where the petitioner 

has the means to rebut the patentee’s evidence. We leave 

to the Board the commercial success fact findings in the 

first instance under the correct claim construction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the Board’s determination that claims 8, 16, and 31 of the ’320 patent, 

claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent, and claims 7–27 of the ’353 

patent are unpatentable, affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, and 32 of the ’320 

 

replacing a similarly successful earlier version of the 

product produced by the same company. 

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 19 Filed: 02/22/2016
20 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS

patent are unpatentable, and remand for further proceedings.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-1369 Document: 21-2 Page: 20 Filed: 02/22/2016