Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01576/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01576-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Belden Inc.
Appellant
Berk-Tek LLC
Cross-Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BELDEN INC.,

Appellant

v.

BERK-TEK LLC,

Cross-Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1575, -1576

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 

IPR2013-00057.

______________________ 

Decided: November 5, 2015 

______________________ 

 MATTHEW B. LOWRIE, Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, 

MA, argued for appellant. Also represented by MATTHEW 

AMBROS, AARON W. MOORE. 

 JAMES S. BLANK, Kaye Scholer LLP, New York, NY, 

argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by BENJAMIN 

C. HSING, DAVID SOOFIAN; GREGORY C. ANTRIM, JOSEPH 

SOFER, Sofer & Haroun, LLP, New York, NY.

 FRANCES LYNCH, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for 

intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by NATHAN 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/05/2015
2 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

K. KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, ROBERT J. MCMANUS,

SCOTT WEIDENFELLER. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. 

Belden Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 6,074,503, which 

discloses and claims a method for making a communications cable. On a petition for inter partes review under 35 

U.S.C. § 311 et seq. filed by the predecessor of Berk-Tek 

LLC, the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board instituted a review and later reached a 

mixed decision: it rejected claims 1–4 of the ’503 patent

for obviousness, while confirming claims 5 and 6. We now 

affirm the rejection of claims 1–4 and reverse the upholding of claims 5 and 6. We also reject Belden’s contention 

that the Board denied it procedural rights in the review.

BACKGROUND

Belden and Berk-Tek compete in making and selling 

telecommunications cable and cabling systems. The ’503 

patent, issued on June 13, 2000, discloses a method of 

making a cable by passing a core and conducting wires 

through one or more dies, bunching the wires into grooves 

on the core, twisting the bunch to close the cable, and 

jacketing the entire assembly. These figures show an 

assembly described as containing three dies (403, 411, 

413) and a cross-section of a resulting cable (200): 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/05/2015
Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/05/2015
4 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

’503 patent, col. 6, lines 4–17. 

Belden groups claim 4 with claim 1 for analysis. 

Claim 4, dependent on claim 1, adds an “extrusion” requirement: during the passing step, “extruding the core so 

that the surface features thereof align with the plurality 

of transmission media.” Id., col. 6, lines 28–31. 

Belden groups claims 2 and 3 for analysis. Claim 2 

requires, “before passing the transmission media and the 

core through the first die, passing the transmission media 

and the core through a third die which generally centers 

the core relative to the plurality of transmission media.” 

Id., col. 6, lines 18–22 (emphases added). That is, claim 2 

calls for the large die (“third”) that is upstream of the 

small die (“first”) shown in the left figure above—the 

“second” being the tube-shaped structure shown there. 

Claim 3, dependent on claim 2, claims for the third die 

what claim 4 claims for the first: it requires “extruding 

the core at a center position relative to the plurality of 

transmission media” when the core and media pass 

through the third die. Id., col. 6, lines 23–27. 

Belden groups claims 5 and 6 for analysis. Claim 5, 

dependent on claim 1, requires that the transmission 

media be “twisted pairs of insulated conductors.” ’503 

patent reexamination certificate, col. 2, lines 7–9 (emphasis added). Claim 6, dependent on claim 5, requires four 

such pairs. Id., col. 2, lines 10–12.

On November 19, 2012, Berk-Tek’s predecessor, 

Nexans, Inc., petitioned for inter partes review of all 

claims of the ’503 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 311. The 

petition—actually, the corrected petition filed nine days 

later, making changes not material here—asserts anticipation and obviousness based on seven prior-art referCase: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 5

ences.1 On April 16, 2013, the Board, as delegee of the 

PTO Director, instituted a review of all claims under 

§ 314(a), finding a “reasonable likelihood” that the methods of all six claims were unpatentable. Nexans, Inc. v. 

Belden Technologies Inc., IPR2013-57, 2013 WL 8595538

(PTAB Apr. 16, 2013).

The Board found likely obviousness of the methods of 

claims 1 and 4 based on Japanese Patent No. 19910 (JP 

’910). It found likely obviousness of the methods of claims 

2 and 3 based on JP ’910 together with either U.S. Patent 

No. 4,393,582 (US ’582) or Japanese Patent No. 76694 (JP 

’694). And it found likely obviousness of the methods of 

claims 5 and 6 based on JP ’910 together with Canadian 

Patent No. 2,058,046 (CA ’046).2

The central reference, JP ’910, describes a method of 

making a communication cable, illustrated below. The 

method entails extruding a core (thread-like object 1)

through heated rollers (2a–2c) to form four grooves in the 

core, located at corners of a square when viewed in crosssection. The core and four conducting wires (4a–4d) are 

fed through a die (wire-splitting board 5), the wires placed 

1 The versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (anticipation) 

and 103 (obviousness) that apply here are those preceding 

the changes made by the America Invents Act, given the 

effective filing dates of the claims of the ’503 patent. See

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 

125 Stat. 284, 293 (2011). 2 The Board also found likely anticipation of claims 

1 and 2 by US ’582, but in its final written decision, it 

rejected anticipation, so we do not elaborate on the initial 

likely-anticipation finding. 

 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/05/2015
6 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

into the grooves on the core, and the assembly bunched, 

stranded, and jacketed to form a cable.3 

 

FIG. 1 (JP ’910)

 FIG. 4 (JP ’910)

 

JP ’694 and US ’582 also describe methods of making 

a cable or cable core, illustrated below. JP ’694 teaches 

passing a group of wires and shielding tape through a 

first die (plate 31), then a second die (plate 32), and 

finally a set of shaping tubes that wrap the shielding tape 

around the wires. JP ’694, col. 4, lines 7–28. US ’582 

similarly teaches making a cable core, in which a metallic 

tape and two groups of wires are fed through a first die 

(plate 67) and a second die (plate 71). ’582 patent, col. 5, 

lines 1–33.

3 JP ’910 describes “S-Z” stranding, which involves 

alternately twisting in one direction, then the other. The 

name reflects the difference in the resulting helices 

viewed from outside: “S” has a diagonal from northwest to 

southeast, “Z” from southwest to northeast.

 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 7

FIG. 1 (JP ’694)

FIG. 1 (US ’582)

CA ’046 describes a telecommunications cable containing twisted pairs of conducting wires, separated by a 

spacer to minimize cross talk. The patent illustrates 

different spacers separating four twisted pairs of wires. 

CA ’046, col. 3, line 36 to col. 4, line 37.

FIG. 2 (CA ’046) FIG 3. (CA ’046)

Among the Board’s preliminary determinations in its 

Institution Decision are the following. (We discuss only 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/05/2015
8 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

claims 1, 2, and 5, there being no separate arguments for 

claims 4, 3, and 6.) As to claim 1, the Board determined 

that “JP ’910 articulates a special need to have the wires 

aligned at precise locations on the core during stranding 

after passing through wire-splitting board 5” and, based 

on that need, “one with ordinary skill in the art would 

have known that the passage of core 1 through wiresplitting board 5 preferably should be made such that 

twisting of the core causing misalignment of the wires 

would be prevented.” Nexans, 2013 WL 8595538 at *14. 

As to claim 2, the Board found that “each of [US] ’582 and 

JP ’694 discloses the concept of an additional die which 

centers, in a general manner, the core relative to the 

plurality of transmission media,” id., and that “[i]nserting 

an additional die upstream of wire-splitting board 5 of the 

assembly of JP ’910 involves merely a predictable use of a 

prior art element disclosed in each of [US] ’582 and JP 

’694, to achieve the same advantage[ou]s result.” Id. at 

*15. As to claim 5, the Board determined that CA ’046 

discloses that “a telecommunication cable is constructed 

normally with one or more core units each of which is 

conventionally a twisted pair of conductors,” id. at *17,

and that, because “JP ’910 is directed to a method of 

manufacturing insulated communication cables,” a skilled 

artisan “would have understood that the method of JP 

’910 is applicable for use in manufacturing a telecommunications cable” and “would have known to apply the 

teaching in CA ’046, about a conductor unit’s being made 

conventionally of a twisted pair of conductors, to each 

conductor unit 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d, in JP ’910.” Id. at *18.

The review having been instituted, Belden submitted 

its Patent Owner Response on June 24, 2013, attaching a 

declaration from its expert, William T. Clark, who is a 

named inventor on the ’503 patent and many other cabling patents. Berk-Tek submitted its Reply on August 

26, 2013, attaching a declaration from its expert, Les 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 9

Baxter. Berk-Tek had attached no declaration to its 

Petition. 

Belden orally opposed receipt of Mr. Baxter’s declaration with the Reply, arguing that it had no opportunity to 

respond. On September 10, 2013, the Board noted that its 

regulations permitted Belden to cross-examine Mr. Baxter, see 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii), and that Belden could 

move to file non-argumentative observations (up to five 

pages) calling the Board’s attention to relevant aspects of 

the cross-examination. The Board also “cautioned” BerkTek that, if its Reply “includes material it should have 

submitted together with its Petition, the Board may 

decline the entirety of the Reply,” and the Board gave 

Belden “two days to consider whether to file a Revised 

Reply”—only to remove material, not add any. J.A. 876; 

see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 

48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Reply material is limited

to responsive matter; whole Reply may be rejected if any 

part is improper). 

On September 12, 2013, Berk-Tek submitted a revised 

Reply. On October 17, 2013, after taking Mr. Baxter’s 

deposition, Belden filed a motion for observations on what 

Mr. Baxter had said. The same day, Belden moved to 

exclude Mr. Baxter’s declaration and accompanying 

exhibits, arguing that portions of Mr. Baxter’s declaration 

were not responsive to Mr. Clark’s declaration and that 

Mr. Baxter’s declaration contained arguments and evidence necessary for the prima facie case of obviousness. 

Berk-Tek opposed the motion, and Belden replied.

On the merits, Belden focused its argument as to 

claim 1 on the prevention-of-twisting element. It argued 

that JP ’910 does not suggest configuring board 5 to 

prevent twisting, that board 5 would not have been able 

to grip the core in JP ’910, at least not without producing 

friction that would have deformed the core, and that any 

tension placed on the core during the cable-making proCase: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/05/2015
10 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

cess would already have been relieved in JP ’910 by its 

(alternating-direction) stranding step. As to claim 2, 

Belden argued that JP ’910 did not suggest adding a third 

die to its method, Berk-Tek had submitted no evidence 

showing a reason to combine the third die of US ’582 or 

JP ’694 with the JP ’910 method, and that a skilled artisan would have viewed adding a third die to JP ’910 as 

only increasing stress without any apparent benefit. As 

to claim 5, Belden argued that JP ’910 teaches away from 

making a cable with individually insulated twisted pairs, 

particularly because using insulated conductors would 

render JP ’910’s jacketing step redundant and “would 

destroy the circular shape of JP ’910’s ‘quad’ wire.” J.A. 

586.

Berk-Tek, in its Reply, countered Belden’s arguments. 

As to claim 1, Berk-Tek argued that JP ’910’s requirement 

that each conducting wire fall into its corresponding 

groove on the core made it imperative to prevent twisting 

of the core, that there was no reason to doubt board 5’s 

ability to grip the core, and that a skilled artisan would 

choose an appropriate polymer, and use cooling after 

extrusion, to avoid friction-caused deformation of the core. 

As to claim 2, Berk-Tek reiterated the need to prevent 

twisting and argued that using extra dies to align and 

alleviate stress in cable manufacturing is routine. As to 

claim 5, Berk-Tek argued that a skilled artisan, making 

any cable by joining transmission media with a separator 

and stranding the group, as in CA ’046, would have been 

motivated to use a die to align the separator and media 

and prevent back twisting, as taught by JP ’910.

The Board agreed with Berk-Tek as to claims 1–4 and 

with Belden as to claims 5–6. Berk-Tek, LLC v. Belden 

Inc., IPR2013-57, 2014 WL 1253012 (PTAB Mar. 18, 

2014) (Final Written Decision). As to claim 1: The Board

concluded that, “by teaching alignment of the grooves and 

the conductors at board 5, JP ’910 suggests using board 5 

to prevent twisting motion of core 1. That is, a person of 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 11

ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that 

preventing twisting motion of core 1 in relation to board 5 

would maintain alignment between” the grooves and 

conductors “in accordance with the teaching of JP ’910.” 

Id. at *13. As to claim 2: The Board concluded that US 

’582 and JP ’694 each teach “the benefit of a third die,” 

stating that adding a third die to JP ’910 would have 

“involve[d] merely a predictable use of a prior art element 

. . . to perform the same function it was known to perform 

and to yield no more than one of ordinary skill would 

expect from such use.” Id. at *19–20. As to claim 5: The 

Board determined that “JP ’910 cannot be understood 

reasonably as teaching or suggesting a method of manufacturing all types of twisted cables having a separator,” 

in particular “conventional twisted cable . . . that includes 

twisted pairs of individually-insulated conductors.” Id. at

*23 (emphasis added). The Board faulted Berk-Tek for 

giving no “apparent reason to combine the known elements of JP ’910 and CA ’046.” Id. 

The Board also denied Belden’s motion to exclude. It 

concluded that Mr. Baxter’s declaration “fairly respond[ed] to Mr. Clark’s declaration” and was unnecessary for Berk-Tek to establish a prima facie case of 

obviousness. Id. at *26. 

Belden appeals the cancellation of claims 1–4 and the 

denial of its motion to exclude. Berk-Tek appeals the 

upholding of claims 5 and 6. Both appeals are authorized 

by 35 U.S.C. § 319. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We begin with a review of the substantive challenges 

to the Board’s determinations on the evidence and arguments presented to and considered by it. We then review 

Belden’s procedural challenge to the Board’s decision to 

allow Berk-Tek’s Reply evidence. 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/05/2015
12 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

A 

Whether a claimed invention would have been obvious 

is a question of law, based on factual determinations 

regarding the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, the 

level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, the motivations 

to modify or combine prior art, and any objective indicia of 

non-obviousness. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 

1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We review the Board’s compliance 

with the governing legal standards de novo and its underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence. Id.

1 

In challenging the cancellation of claim 1 for obviousness, Belden argues that JP ’910 does not teach making 

cables, but only transmission lines (a component of a 

cable), and it disputes the Board’s finding of a motivation 

to use board 5 in JP ’910 to prevent the twisting of core 1. 

See ’503 patent, col. 1, lines 4–8. Neither argument has 

merit.

The Board found that “[t]he purpose of the invention 

of JP ’910 ‘is to provide a method of manufacturing plastic 

insulated communication cable.’” Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 

1253012, at *11 (quoting JP ’910 at ¶ 3); see Nexans, 2013 

WL 8595538, at *12 (“JP ’910 discloses an assembly for 

manufacturing insulated communication cables.”). That 

finding is supported by substantial evidence. The title of 

JP ’910 is: “A method of manufacturing plastic insulated

communication cables.” JP ’910 at ¶ 1. JP ’910 claims 

“[a] method of manufacturing plastic insulated cables.” 

Id. at ¶ 2. The patent further explains: “The present 

invention relates to a method of manufacturing plastic 

insulated communication cables.” Id. at ¶ 3. Belden

argues that, despite those descriptions, JP ’910 teaches 

only the making of quads, which themselves are not 

cables but mere components of cables. But the claims of 

the ’503 patent do not so limit the meaning of “cable” to a 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 13

category that excludes quads, and Belden does not dispute 

that it never argued for a construction of “cable” before 

the Board. Thus, Belden’s argument that JP ’910 does not 

describe a method of making communication cables fails. 

The Board also found that, by teaching the need for 

alignment of the conductors and core at board 5, JP ’910 

suggested using board 5 to prevent the twisting of core 1. 

Although the Board twice stated that “board 5 could have 

been used to prevent twisting of core 1 by one with ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity,” BerkTek, 2014 WL 1253012, at *13, *17 (emphasis added), it 

did not stop there—and properly so, because obviousness 

concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have 

made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the 

claimed invention. See InTouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO 

Communications, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 

2014). The Board found that “[v]iewed as a whole, JP ’910 

does teach the importance of avoiding any misplacement 

of the conductors in relation to the core,” Berk-Tek, 2014 

WL 1253012, at *14; “[a] person with ordinary skill in the 

art would have recognized that such alignment of the 

grooves on core 1 with the fixed positions of the conductors on board 5 cannot be maintained if core 1 twists in 

relation to board 5,” id. at *13; and “[t]herefore, by teaching alignment of the grooves and the conductors at board 

5, JP ’910 suggests using board 5 to prevent twisting 

motion of core 1,” id. And the Board reiterated its earlier 

finding in its Institution Decision: “‘Given that JP ’910 

articulates a special need to have the wires aligned at 

precise locations on the core during stranding after passing through wire-splitting board 5, one with ordinary skill 

in the art would have known that the passage of core 1 

through wire-splitting board 5 preferably should be made 

such that twisting of the core causing misalignment of the 

wires would be prevented.’ ” Id. at *14 (emphasis added). 

In support of those affirmative findings, the Board reCase: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/05/2015
14 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

peatedly cited the Petition. Id. at *13, *14, *15 (relying 

on J.A. 146–47).

Those findings suffice to show that claim 1 (and claim 

4) must fall, because the findings are supported by substantial evidence. In the circumstances here, involving a 

simple point in a mechanical field and one very close piece 

of prior art, the Board was entitled to rely on its own 

reading of JP ’910—supported by the Petition’s observations about it—to find that a skilled artisan would have 

understood the importance of aligning the core and conductors and the connection between achieving such 

alignment and preventing the core from twisting at the 

aligning die. And the Board also had substantial evidence 

on which to reject Belden’s contrary arguments.

Mr. Baxter responded to Belden’s suggestion that a 

skilled artisan would have had no reason to modify board 

5 of JP ’910 to prevent twisting, as required by claim 1 of 

Belden’s patent. He stated that JP ’910 and Belden’s

patent address the same problem of aligning conductors 

with grooves in a cable’s core; that JP ’910’s touted elimination of “back-stranding” of wires—imparting a preparatory twist to the wires before cable manufacturing to 

compensate for twisting during cabling, JP ’910 at ¶ 3—

made it evident that twisting should be prevented by

another means; and that a skilled artisan would have 

seen that the die (board 5 in JP ’910) should be used to 

control twisting. Mr. Baxter also plausibly explained why 

the S-Z stranding in JP ’910 might increase the need to 

prevent twisting at the die, contrary to Belden’s suggestions that the alternating-direction stranding would by 

itself so clearly prevent misalignment of the core with the 

conducting wires that there was no reason to contemplate 

using board 5 to prevent twisting. And in answer to

Belden’s argument about friction-caused deformation of 

the core if the die hugged the core to prevent its twisting, 

Mr. Baxter stated that a skilled artisan would have 

chosen a polymer with the right resistance to heat and a 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 15

cooling process after extrusion. The Board thus had an 

ample basis for its obviousness determination as to claims 

1 and 4. 

2 

As to claims 2 and 3, Belden does not dispute that 

both US ’582 and JP ’694 disclose a third die. See US ’582 

Fig. 1; id. Fig. 3; id., col. 5, lines 20–33; JP ’694 Fig. 2; id., 

col. 4, lines 7–12. Belden disputes only the Board’s finding of a reason to combine a third die with the method of 

JP ’910. 

The Board found that “die 71 in [US ’582] and die 31 

in JP ’694 each suggests passing the transmission media 

and the core through a third die that generally centers the 

core relative to the plurality of transmission media,” BerkTek, 2014 WL 1253012 at *18, and that each patent 

“teaches the benefit of a third die,” id. at *19. It also 

found that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

have added a third die, as recited in claim 2, in order to 

align further the cable components.” Id. The Board cited 

the Petition’s argument to that effect. Id. at *18, *19

(citing J.A. 154).

Significantly, it was only in the context of those findings about why a skilled artisan would have had reason to 

add a third die that the Board quoted the Supreme 

Court’s reference to a “ predictable variation” in KSR Int’l 

Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Berk-Tek, 

2014 WL 1253012 at *19. The Supreme Court’s passage

does not establish that it suffices for obviousness that a 

variation of the prior art would predictably work, but 

requires consideration of whether, in light of factors such 

as “design incentives and other market forces,” the hypothetical skilled artisan would recognize the potential 

benefits and pursue the variation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. 

In the present case, the Board, in its overall analysis,

made the required full inquiry.

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 15 Filed: 11/05/2015
16 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

The Board’s findings suffice to show that claim 2 (and 

claim 3) must fall, because the findings are supported by 

substantial evidence. Here, as with claim 1, the prior art 

is close enough and plain enough that, with even an 

abbreviated argument in the Petition, the Board could 

determine that a skilled artisan would see the benefit of 

adding a third die to enhance alignment. And here, as 

with claim 1, the Board had sufficient evidence to reject 

Belden’s arguments to the contrary.

In response to Belden’s argument that a skilled artisan would have no reason to add a third die to JP ’910, 

though one is undisputedly shown in US ’582 and JP ’694, 

Mr. Baxter explained that a third die upstream from the 

first die would have a “benefit” of “‘more accurately 

aligning the input wires with the rest of the machine with 

less or lessened tensions and with better angles, allowing 

the supply reels to be located farther from the wiresplitting board.’ ” Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 1253012, at *19 

(quoting J.A. 706). Mr. Baxter also responded to Belden’s 

argument that a third die would increase friction and 

drag, harming a fragile core. He stated that fragility was 

speculative and that an upstream die would be “ ‘looser 

fitting.’” Id. (quoting J.A. 706). Berk-Tek, citing the 

Baxter declaration, argued in its Reply that a third die 

was a “‘routine’” way of improving alignments and lessening tensions. Id. (quoting J.A. 897). The Board thus 

had an ample basis for its obviousness determination as 

to claims 2 and 3.

3 

As to claims 5 and 6, Berk-Tek argues that a person of 

ordinary skill in the art seeking to manufacture cables 

disclosed in CA ’046—with four insulated twisted pairs

and a separator—would have been motivated to use the 

method of JP ’910 to solve the alignment issues common 

to manufacturing the cables in both prior-art sources. 

Even giving the Board the deference it is due under the 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 16 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 17

substantial-evidence standard of review of factual findings, we agree that the record requires the finding BerkTek urges. The Board’s contrary finding rests on legal 

errors. 

There is no meaningful dispute here, and the Board 

did not deny, that the two pieces of prior art in combination teach or suggest the methods of claims 5 and 6. The

dispute concerns motivation to combine. The Petition and 

the Institution Decision reveal the two related ways in 

which that issue was presented and considered: whether a 

skilled artisan would substitute the twisted pairs of CA 

’046 into the method of JP ’910; alternatively, whether a 

skilled artisan making the cable of CA ’046 would look to 

the JP ’910 method to make it. The brief discussion in the 

Petition suggests both views of the matter. J.A. 148–49

(“CA ’046 . . . in view of . . . JP ’910 . . . invalidates claims 

3 through 5”); J.A. 155 (“JP ’910 uses single conductors 

(4a-4d), but it is known to likewise use twisted pairs with 

a cross shaped separator—see for example CA ’046”). The

Board’s Institution Decision does so as well: “[O]ne with 

ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the 

method of JP ’910 is applicable for use in manufacturing a 

telecommunications cable. Accordingly, one with ordinary 

skill in the art would have known to apply the teaching in 

CA ’046, about a conductor unit’s being made conventionally of a twisted pair of conductors, to each conductor unit 

4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d, in JP ’910.” Nexans, 2013 WL 8595538, 

at *18.

As the Board found, it is “undisputed that CA ’046 

discloses ‘a helically twisted cable.’” Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 

1253012, at *24. There is no dispute that the twisted 

pairs in CA ’046 need to fit into the notches of (i.e., be 

aligned with) the separator, as shown in the two figures 

from CA ’046 reproduced above, for the resulting cable to 

be made. And the Board correctly recognized in its discussion of claims 1 and 2 that JP ’910 clearly teaches the 

importance of aligning conductors with a separator (core), 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 17 Filed: 11/05/2015
18 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

and suggests doing so with a die to prevent twisting of the 

separator, before they are all bunched together for twisting in a stranding device. That evidence points clearly 

toward a motivation of a skilled artisan to arrive at the 

methods of claims 5 and 6 based on JP ’910 and CA ’046, 

as the Board reasoned in its preliminary determination in 

the Institution Decision. 

None of the Board’s reasons for concluding otherwise 

in its Final Written Decision withstands scrutiny through 

the lens of governing law. The Board’s first reason was 

that JP ’910 shows only conductors that are not individually insulated, so that “one of ordinary skill, tasked to 

produce the conventional twisted cable of CA ’046, would 

not have been motivated by the teachings of JP ’910

simply to substitute twisted pairs of insulated conductors 

for the bare metal conductors in the method of JP ’910.” 

Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 1253012, at *23 (emphasis in original). But JP ’910 plainly discloses the need to align the 

conducting wires with the core and how to do so, as the 

Board recognized in its analysis of claims 1 and 4, id. at 

*13–14. The alignment problem and solution do not 

depend on whether the wires are insulated. The Board’s 

disregard of the insulation-independent alignment teaching of JP ’910 violates the principle that “[a] reference 

must be considered for everything it teaches by way of 

technology and is not limited to the particular invention it 

is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP Corp. v. 

Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

(emphases in original); see In re Applied Materials, Inc., 

692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

 The Board next reasoned that “Berk-Tek ha[d] not 

explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

have had sufficient reason to use the S-Z stranding step of 

JP ’910 to manufacture the helically-twisted cable of CA 

’046,” stating that “the S-Z stranding step of JP ’910 is 

inconsistent with production of a helically-twisted cable.” 

Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 1253012, at *24. That reasoning 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 18 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 19

makes the same mistake we have just noted regarding the 

Board’s reliance on the lack of insulation of the individual 

conductors in JP ’910: it disregards the evident independent force of JP ’910’s teaching of the alignment problem 

and solution. The Board did not find, and could not 

reasonably find, that the significance to claims 5 and 6 of 

JP ’910’s alignment teaching is dependent on the particular method of stranding described in JP ’910, any more 

than it is dependent on insulation of individual wires. 

The claims of Belden’s patent call simply for “twisting” 

the assembly, without restrictions on the particular kind 

of twisting. And Belden’s expert, Mr. Clark, did not rely 

on the S-Z stranding method of JP ’910 in urging the 

validity of claims 5 and 6.

The Board, returning to its focus on insulation of individual conductors, further reasoned: “Berk-Tek also has 

not explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art 

would have had sufficient reason to use the final jacketing/extrusion step of JP ’910, which serves to insulate 

electrically the bare-metal conductors of JP ’910, to manufacture a cable comprising twisted pairs of individuallyinsulated conductors that do not require additional electrical insulation.” Id. The Board found no answer to 

Belden’s statement that the final jacketing step, if the 

conductors themselves were insulated, would be “‘redundant.’ ” Id. But that logic misconstrues the claim language and overlooks on-point evidence.

The claim language concerning the final jacketing 

step does not require that the jacket be insulating at all. 

And it is clear from the Belden patent and at least 

CA ’046 that the jacketing step serves a function not 

dependent on adding insulation. The evident function is 

to hold the assembly together to form a cable, and hold its 

components in place, whether or not the component 

conductors are insulated. Thus, Belden’s patent itself 

declares that “[c]onventional designs of data grade telecommunications cables for installation in plenum chamCase: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 19 Filed: 11/05/2015
20 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

bers have a low smoke generating jacket material . . . 

surrounding a core of twisted conductor pairs, each conductor individually insulated with a[n] . . . insulation 

layer.” ’503 patent, col. 2, lines 24–30 (emphases added); 

see id., col. 4, lines 22–25; id., col. 2, lines 59–64 (“[T]he 

cable includes . . . an outer jacket maintaining the plurality of data transmission media in position with respect to 

the core.”). CA ’046 also teaches this purpose of jacketing 

insulated twisted pairs. CA ’046, col. 3, line 16 to col. 4, 

line 4 (“[I]n a cable 20, the jacket 12 surrounds four pairs 

14 of insulated conductors 16 which are held in controlled 

distances apart, as they extend in stranded condition 

along the cable, by a spacer means in the form of a central 

core member 20.”) (emphasis added). 

Finally, the Board made a passing reference to 

“Belden’s argument that modifying the cable of JP ’910 to 

include twisted pairs would ‘destroy the circular shape of 

JP ’910’s “quad” wire.’” Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 1253012, at 

*24. But nothing in the ’503 patent describes or claims 

the circularity of the cable produced by its method. And 

neither JP ’910 nor CA ’046 ascribes any significance to 

the shape of the cables they disclose. The Board identified, and we see, no reason that the teaching of JP ’910 

about the alignment problem and solution is inapplicable 

to making the cables of CA ’046 even if the resulting 

cable’s cross-section is not circular.

In short, the record is one-sided on the proper question of whether JP ’910 taught a solution to the problem of 

aligning cable components that a skilled artisan would 

have been motivated to use in making CA ’046’s cables. 

The Board erred in determining that Berk-Tek had not 

proven the obviousness of the methods of claims 5 and 6 

of the ’503 patent by a preponderance of the evidence. 

B 

 Belden challenges the Board’s denial of the motion to 

exclude the Baxter declaration that Berk-Tek submitted 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 20 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 21

with its Reply. It argues that the Board violated a regulation governing evidence submitted with a Reply and two 

aspects of the Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, thereby 

relying on evidence to which Belden lacked a fair opportunity to respond. We review the Board’s evidentiary 

ruling for abuse of discretion, which may be found if the 

Board violated governing law. Chen v. Bouchard, 347 

F.3d 1299, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2003). We reject Belden’s 

contentions.

1 

 Belden asserts that Berk-Tek’s filing of the Baxter 

declaration violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), which states 

that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in 

the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 

The Board found no violation, concluding that Mr. Baxter’s declaration “fairly responds to Mr. Clark’s declaration” and is “generally . . . in fair reply to Mr. Clark’s 

declaration and/or Belden’s response to the revised petition.” Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 1253012, at *26. We see no 

error in that ruling.

Each of the points that Mr. Baxter made in his declaration responds to a statement made in Mr. Clark’s declaration. Mr. Baxter’s discussion of claims 1 and 4 of 

Belden’s patent is representative. After quoting Mr. 

Clark’s argument that JP ’910 does not teach a method of 

making communication cables, the Baxter declaration 

responds with reference to JP ’910 and a supporting 

exhibit. J.A. 692. After summarizing Mr. Clark’s argument about JP ’910’s teaching of a need to control twisting 

of the core and the elimination of back twisting, the 

Baxter declaration explains what JP ’910 means by “back 

stranding” and distinguishes back stranding from the 

problem of “back-twisting” addressed by Belden’s patent 

and JP ’910. J.A. 692–97. The Baxter declaration then 

similarly summarizes and responds to Mr. Clark’s statements regarding S-Z stranding in JP ’910, the utility of 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 21 Filed: 11/05/2015
22 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

board 5 in preventing twisting of the core, the deformability of the core in JP ’910, and the ability of board 5 to grip

the core. J.A. 697–705. The Baxter declaration’s discussion of claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 follows a similar approach. 

J.A. 706–09. The Board did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding that, as relevant here, Mr. Baxter’s declaration fairly responds only to arguments made in Mr. 

Clark’s declaration and Belden’s response. 

2 

 Belden relies on a passage from the Patent Office 

Trial Practice Guide that elaborates on the regulation 

that limits replies to responsive arguments, excluding 

new issues. The passage states that “[e]xamples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include 

new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for 

the . . . unpatentability of an original . . . claim.” 77 Fed. 

Reg. at 48,767. Belden argues that the Baxter declaration, submitted with Berk-Tek’s Reply, was necessary to 

make out the prima facie case of obviousness and for that 

reason should have been excluded. 

Although the Board has recognized that the Guide 

merely “provides guidance,” Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., IPR2013-60, 2013 WL 8595541, at *3 

(PTAB May 3, 2013), the Board did not reject Belden’s 

contention on the ground that the Guide is not a binding 

regulation. Rather, the Board rejected Belden’s premise 

“that Mr. Baxter’s testimony was necessary for Berk-Tek 

to establish a prima facie case.” Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 

1253012, at *26. We see no error in that ruling.4

4 The same Guide passage includes, among its 

“[e]xamples of indications that a new issue has been 

raised in a reply,” “new evidence that could have been 

presented in a prior filing.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767. That 

 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 22 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 23

Our earlier discussion of the merits of the obviousness 

issues shows how the prior art itself, together with the 

Petition, sufficed to supply a prima facie case of obviousness—as confirmed by the Institution Decision. For 

example, as to claim 1, the Board found that JP ’910 itself 

articulates a special need to have the wires aligned with 

the grooves on the core after passing through board 5, and 

that one with ordinary skill in the art would have known 

that board 5 could and preferably should be made to 

prevent twisting of the core that would cause misalignment. Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 1253012, at *14–15; Nexans, 

2013 WL 8595538, at *14. As to claim 2, the Board found

that both US ’582 and JP ’694 disclose the advantage of 

using an additional die to center the core relative to the 

transmission media, and that a person of skill in the art 

would recognize that the same benefit predictably would 

be achieved by using a third die in the method of JP ’910. 

Berk-Tek, 2014 WL 1253012, at *18–19; Nexans, 2013 WL 

8595538, at *15. Such findings are well supported in the 

prior-art documents themselves, as are those which we 

have concluded show obviousness of the methods of claims 

5 and 6.

To be sure, the Board cited Mr. Baxter’s declaration in 

its Final Written Decision—mostly in explaining why it 

was rejecting Belden’s arguments, but partly in stating 

the affirmative reasons to find the motivation required for 

a prima facie case. But such citations do not mean that 

the Baxter declaration was “necessary” for the prima facie 

case. Evidence admitted in rebuttal to respond to the 

patent owner’s criticisms will commonly confirm the 

prima facie case. That does not make it necessary to the 

prima facie case. And nothing required the Board to write 

language—which, read literally, might cover most responsive evidence—is not independently significant here.

 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 23 Filed: 11/05/2015
24 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

its opinion to separate the material offered by Berk-Tek 

at different stages of the proceeding. 

No rule requires a Petition to be accompanied by any 

declaration, let alone one from an expert guiding the 

Board as to how it should read prior art. What the Board 

can find without an expert depends on the prior art involved in a particular case. Even in court, we have said, 

“expert testimony is not required when the references and 

the invention are easily understandable.” Wyers v. Master 

Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And 

Board members, because of expertise, may more often find 

it easier to understand and soundly explain the teachings 

and suggestions of prior art without expert assistance. In 

the present case, which is all we address, we conclude 

that the Baxter declaration was not necessary for the 

prima facie case of obviousness. 

3 

Belden cites the Patent Trial Guide’s statement that 

“[t]he Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper 

portions of the reply.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767. It argues 

on that basis that the Board had to exclude Berk-Tek’s 

entire Reply and supporting material if any portion was 

improper. But Belden has identified no part of the Reply 

and supporting declaration that is improper and material 

to the Board’s ruling. Nothing in the Guide requires 

wholesale exclusion in such circumstances. More generally, the Guide cannot fairly be read to do more than put 

the public on notice that the Board may, in its discretion, 

refuse to consider a Reply if any part is improper. Here, 

the Board warned Berk-Tek and gave it an opportunity to 

truncate its Reply and supporting submissions to eliminate any improper material. We see no error in that 

reasonable course of action.

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 24 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 25

4 

 Belden’s broadest contention is that the Board improperly relied on new evidence to which Belden had no 

opportunity to respond. But Belden provides no argument 

on this score that is independent of its specific allegations 

of error. We have rejected those allegations, upholding 

the Board’s rulings that the Baxter evidence was legitimately responsive to Belden’s arguments and not needed 

for a prima facie case of obviousness. In these circumstances, and without any other identification of error, 

Belden has not established that it was denied its procedural rights. 

A patent owner in Belden’s position is undoubtedly 

entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the 

grounds of rejection. “The indispensable ingredients of 

due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by 

a disinterested decision-maker.” Abbott Labs. v. Cordis 

Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013). And for a 

formal adjudication like the one at issue here, the Administrative Procedure Act requires the PTO to “timely 

inform[]” a patent owner of “the matters of fact and law 

asserted” in an inter partes review of its patent, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 554(b)(3), to give “all interested parties opportunity for 

. . . the submission and consideration of facts [and] arguments . . . [and] hearing and decision on notice,” § 554(c), 

and to permit a party “to submit rebuttal evidence, and to 

conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a 

full and true disclosure of the facts,” § 556(d). See Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 

U.S. 281, 288 n.4 (1974); Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. 

v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 655 (1990). Section 554(b)(3) 

has been applied to mean that “an agency may not change 

theories in midstream without giving respondents reasonable notice of the change” and “the opportunity to 

present argument under the new theory.” Rodale Press, 

Inc. v. FTC, 407 F.2d 1252, 1256–57 (D.C. Cir. 1968). In a 

related PTO setting, this court has determined whether 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 25 Filed: 11/05/2015
26 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

the Board relied on a “new ground of rejection” by asking

“whether applicants have had fair opportunity to react to

the thrust of the rejection.” In re Biedermann, 733 F.3d 

329, 337 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

But the rules and practices of the Board generally 

protect against loss of patent rights without the required 

notice and opportunity to respond. If there are deficiencies in Board rules and practices, none has been established as relevant to this case. Nor has Belden identified 

a deficiency in the application of Board rules and practices to this case. 

The statute provides for inter partes review proceedings to begin with a petition from the challenger. 35 

U.S.C. §§ 311, 312(a). The patent owner has the right to

file a preliminary response to argue against the institution of review. § 313. If a review is instituted, based on a 

finding of a reasonable likelihood that the claims do not 

meet statutory requirements, the patent owner has the 

right to file a post-institution response to defend the 

claims. § 316(a)(8). The petitioner also has a right to file 

at least one set of written comments. § 316(a)(13). And 

both parties have a right to an oral hearing. § 316(a)(10).

The PTO Director has implemented those provisions 

through regulations under § 316(a). The regulations 

provide for the two patent-owner filings, one before and 

one after institution. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.107(a), 42.120(a). 

And they allow the petitioner to reply to the patent owner’s post-institution response, but declare that the “reply 

may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” § 42.23(b).

Under § 42.51(b)(1)(ii), moreover, a party may crossexamine an affiant who has submitted testimony prepared for the review. Under § 42.51(b)(2)(i), a party also 

may move for additional discovery. In addition, a party 

may move to exclude evidence, whether as improper 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 26 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 27

under the response-only regulation, under the Trial 

Practice Guide’s advice, or on other grounds. § 42.64(c). 

The Guide itself provides that, “[i]n the event that crossexamination occurs after a party has filed its last substantive paper on an issue, . . . [t]he Board may authorize 

the filing of observations” on that cross-examination, 

though the observations are to be brief and nonargumentative. 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,767–68. And for most 

regulations governing inter partes review—i.e., those 

promulgated under parts 1, 41, and 42 of title 37 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations—“[t]he Board may waive or 

suspend a requirement . . . and may place conditions on 

the waiver or suspension.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b). 

Finally, although no rule provides patent owners the 

right to file surreplies to a petitioner’s Reply, the Board 

has allowed such surreplies in inter partes reviews. See, 

e.g., Sensio, Inc. v. Select Brands, Inc., IPR2013-580, 2015 

WL 1009189, at *1, *4–7 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2015); Zodiac Pool 

Sys., Inc. v. Aqua Prods., Inc., IPR2013-159, 2014 WL 

4244016, at *1, *22 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2014); ABB, Inc. v. 

ROY-G-BIV Corp., IPR2013-63, 2014 WL 2112556, at *4 

(PTAB May 16, 2014). In doing so, the Board has followed 

a tradition that pre-dates the America Invents Act. In 

proceedings on applications and in interferences, the 

Board (or its predecessor) has long granted permission to 

file surreplies despite the absence of any regulation 

providing for such filings.5 

5 For interferences, see, e.g., Tseng v. Doroodian, 

Interference No. 104,482, 2002 WL 390537 at *28 (BPAI 

2002); Flanders v. Moorman, Interference No. 103,891, 

2001 WL 35825814, at *2–4 (BPAI Sept. 26, 2001). For 

applications, see, e.g., Ex parte Jang, Appeal No. 2011-

7826, 2012 WL 3186809, at *4 (BPAI July 31, 2012); Ex 

parte Wyss, Appeal No. 2011-5375, 2012 WL 3142233, at 

 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 27 Filed: 11/05/2015
28 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

Thus, if the petitioner submits a new expert declaration with its Reply, the patent owner can respond in 

multiple ways. It can cross-examine the expert and move 

to file observations on the cross-examination. It can move 

to exclude the declaration. It can dispute the substance of 

the declaration at oral hearing before the Board. It can 

move for permission to submit a surreply responding to 

the declaration’s contents. And it can request that the 

Board waive or suspend a regulation that the patent 

owner believes impairs its opportunity to respond to the 

declaration. The options are not mutually exclusive. 

In the foregoing respects, the Board’s rules and practices establish standards bearing similarities to those 

often applied in district-court litigation. See Victor Gold, 

28 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 6164 (2d ed. 2015). The 

tribunal has broad discretion to regulate the presentation 

of evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). Rebuttal evidence 

is supposed to be limited to that which is responsive to 

the adversary’s evidence: “the traditional principle [is] 

that evidence offered to rebut must accomplish the function of rebuttal; ‘to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove 

*1 n.1, *3 (BPAI July 31, 2012); Ex parte Zajchowski, 

Appeal No. 2010-6962, 2012 WL 2992507, at *2 (BPAI 

July 13, 2012); Ex parte Selvin, Appeal No. 2009-13065, 

2010 WL 2070576, at *2 n.8, *3 (BPAI May 21, 2010); Ex 

parte Domb, Appeal No. 2008-3664, 2010 WL 2030469, at 

*8–10, *12 (BPAI May 20, 2010); Ex parte Frippiat, Appeal No. 2009-10881, 2010 WL 1725736, at *2, *5 (BPAI 

Apr. 26, 2010); Ex parte Kringelum, Appeal No. 2008-

3378, 2008 WL 3272056, at *7 (BPAI Aug. 7, 2008); Ex 

parte Schultz, Appeal No. 2008-3731, 2008 WL 2856377, 

at *6, *9–10 (BPAI July 24, 2008); Ex parte Wells, Appeal 

No. 2005-2607, 2005 WL 4779434, at *1 n.2 (BPAI Sept. 

23, 2005); Ex parte Yoshida, Appeal No. 1997-61, 1999 

WL 33134885, at *1 (BPAI Oct. 18, 1999).

 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 28 Filed: 11/05/2015
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 29

the evidence of the adverse party.’ ” Gold, supra (quoting 

United States v. Luschen, 614 F.2d 1164, 1170 (8th Cir. 

1980)). Where new enough matter is allowed on rebuttal, 

surrebuttal may be allowed, but a proffer of specifics may 

be required to justify the additional round of evidentiary 

submissions. Gold, supra; Hall v. General Motors Corp., 

647 F.2d 175, 181 (D.C. Cir. 1980); United States v. Sadler, 488 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir. 1974). Those standards 

are widely employed to provide the required procedural 

fairness through careful case-specific application. 

Here, the Board held Berk-Tek to the response-only 

standard for evidence submitted with a Reply and even 

held itself to ensuring that the prima facie case did not 

depend on that evidence. It provided for Belden’s crossexamination of Mr. Baxter and for submission of nonargumentative observations on that cross-examination. It 

accepted Belden’s detailed motion to exclude (and its 

reply after Berk-Tek’s response). It provided Belden with 

a meaningful opportunity to respond to the propriety of 

Mr. Baxter’s evidence submitted with Berk-Tek’s Reply, 

in that it granted every request Belden made for consideration of the issue. Belden did not seek to file a surreply, 

to file additional observations on its cross-examination, to 

make arguments in those observations, or to have the 

Board waive any other regulations that it believed prevented it from adequately responding to Mr. Baxter’s 

declaration. With no Board denial of concrete, focused 

requests before us, we are not prepared to find that 

Belden was denied a meaningful opportunity to respond

to the grounds of rejection, and we find no basis for disturbing the Board’s denial of Belden’s motion to exclude. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s 

determinations that claims 1–4 of the ’503 patent would 

have been obvious, reverse the Board’s determination that 

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 29 Filed: 11/05/2015
30 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

claims 5 and 6 would not have been obvious, and affirm 

the Board’s denial of Belden’s motion to exclude.

No costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART

Case: 14-1576 Document: 5-2 Page: 30 Filed: 11/05/2015