NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BELDEN INC.,

Appellant

v.

BERK-TEK LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1676

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-

00058.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BELDEN INC.,

Appellant

v.

BERK-TEK LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1677

______________________ 
2 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-

00069.

______________________ 

Decided: April 17, 2015

______________________ 

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

MA, argued for appellant. Also represented by AARON W.

MOORE, MATTHEW A. AMBROS. 

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

argued for appellee. Also represented by BENJAMIN C.

HSING, DAVID SOOFIAN; NISHA AGARWAL, Palo Alto, CA; 

JOSEPH SOFER, GREGORY C. ANTRIM, Sofer & Haroun LLP, 

New York, NY.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

Belden Inc. (“Belden”) appeals from two related inter 

partes review decisions of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

(“Board”). In the first, Belden appeals from the Board’s 

decision cancelling claims 1–34 of U.S. Patent 7,977,575 

(“the ’575 patent”) as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 

and/or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.1 See Belden, Inc. v. 

Berk-Tek, LLC, IPR2013-00058, Paper No. 29 (P.T.A.B. 

Apr. 28, 2014) (“Board Decision I”). In the second, Belden 

1 Because the applications of the ’575 and ’061 patents were filed before March 16, 2013, the pre-LeahySmith America Invents Act versions of §§ 102 and 103 

apply. See Pub L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011); 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 (2006).

 
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 3

appeals from the Board’s decision cancelling claims 1–21 

of U.S. Patent 7,663,061 (“the ’061 patent”), the parent of 

the ’575 patent, as anticipated under § 102 or obvious

under § 103. See Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek, LLC, IPR 2013-

00069, Paper No. 24 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014) (“Board

Decision II”). Because the Board did not err, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Belden is the assignee of the ’575 and the ’061 patents 

(“the patents”), which relate to high performance data 

cables utilizing twisted pairs of conductors. According to 

the patents, high performance data cables must meet 

“exacting specifications” relating to data speed and electrical characteristics, such as controlling near-end crosstalk. ’575 patent col. 1 ll. 39–41.2 To overcome the cost 

and process constraints frustrating prior art attempts to 

satisfy those “exacting specifications,” e.g., individually 

shielded twisted pairs, the patents use “an interior support with grooves” that can “accommodate at least one 

signal transmission conductor.” Id. col. 2 ll. 1–3. The 

patents suggest that using an “interior support with 

grooves” imparts structural stability, improves near-end 

cross-talk control, and is “lighter, cheaper, and easier to 

terminate than [prior art] designs.” Id. col. 2 ll. 5–15. 

The claimed data cable incorporates an interior support 10 consisting of a central region 12 and a plurality of 

prongs 14 that extend along the length of the interior 

support 10 and radiate outward from the central region 

12. Id. col. 4 ll. 21–33; see id. fig. 1. Each pair of prongs 

14 defines a groove 22 that also extends along the length 

of the interior support 10. Id. col. 4 ll. 51–55; see id. fig. 4. 

Within each groove resides a twisted pair of conductors 34 

2 The patents share an identical specification, in 

relevant part. We therefore refer only to the ’575 patent 

when discussing the specification.

 

BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 5

non-conductive interior support to form the 

data communications cable, the outer jacket 

being formed of a non-conductive material;

wherein the outer jacket in combination 

with the non-conductive interior support 

maintains the plurality of twisted pair conductors within the channels defined by the 

surface of the non-conductive interior support; and 

wherein the unshielded data cable does not 

include a shield between the outer jacket 

and the twisted pair conductors and the 

non-conductive interior support.

Id. col. 6 l. 51–col. 7 l. 3 (emphases added). Claim 12, 

which is also representative and depends from claim 1, 

further requires “the plurality of twisted pair conductors 

and the non-conductive interior support [to be] twisted 

together about a common axis to close the cable.” Id. col. 7 

ll. 50–53 (emphasis added). 

Of the challenged claims of the ’061 patent, independent claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:

1. A communications cable comprising:

a plurality of twisted pairs that carry communications signals;

a pair separator disposed among the plurality of twisted pairs, the pair separator comprising a central body portion and a 

plurality of arms radially extending from 

the central body portion, each pair of adjacent arms defining a channel; 

a cable covering surrounding the plurality of 

twisted pairs and the pair separator along 

the length of the cable;
6 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

wherein at least one twisted pair of the plurality of twisted pairs is respectively located 

in the channel defined by each pair of adjacent arms; 

wherein the plurality of twisted pairs and 

the pair separator are helically twisted together along the length of the cable; and 

wherein the cable covering does not include 

an electrically conductive shield.

’061 patent col. 6 ll. 42–59 (emphases added). Claim 6, 

which depends from claim 1, requires “the communications cable [to be] about 0.300 to 0.400 is [sic] diameter.” 

Id. col. 7 ll. 3–5 (emphasis added). And claim 21, which 

depends from claim 7, further requires “the pair separator 

and the plurality of twisted pairs [to be] cabled in an S-Z 

configuration.” Id. col. 8 ll. 46–48 (emphasis added). 

In November 2012, Berk-Tek, LLC (“Berk-Tek”) filed 

a petition for inter partes review, challenging claims 1–34 

of the ’575 patent. One month later, Berk-Tek filed a 

second petition for inter partes review, challenging claims 

1–21 of the ’061 patent. The Board instituted the reviews 

and consolidated the oral hearings. Board Decision I at 2. 

The Board first construed the two claim limitations 

raised in the reviews:3 “channels” and “twisted together.”4 

3 The two Board decisions have a substantially similar claim construction analysis for each of the disputed 

terms. We therefore refer only to Board Decision I when 

discussing claim construction. 

4 The ’061 patent recites “helically twisted together,” but neither party suggests that adding “helically” 

makes any meaningful difference, and the Board ultimately construed the two limitations similarly. Compare

Board Decision I at 18, with Board Decision II at 17. 

 
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 7

It determined that “a channel, as a long gutter, groove, or 

furrow, is a type of open space defined by the interior 

support within which at least one of the plurality of 

twisted pairs is located.” Id. at 10. After noting that the 

specification neither defines nor uses the term “channels,” 

the Board relied on the term’s dictionary definitions and 

U.S. Patent 7,339,116 (“the ’116 patent”), the parent of 

the ’061 patent and the consequent grandparent of the 

’575 patent, which the patents incorporated by reference. 

Id. at 8–9. The Board then rejected Belden’s argument 

that “channels” had to be “substantially enclosed passages” defined by the interior support and the jacket as 

inconsistent with the ordinary meaning and the claims’ 

explicit requirement that only the contours of the interior 

support define the claimed “channels.” Id. at 12–13. In so 

doing, the Board dismissed Belden’s expert testimony as 

merely conclusory and irrelevant in light of the “unambiguous” intrinsic record. Id. at 14. 

The Board next determined that “twisted together” 

simply requires “the twisted pairs and the interior support twisted together about a common axis along the 

length of the cable. The claims are not limited to a structure produced by a certain method of manufacture.” Id. at

17. The Board thus rejected Belden’s argument that the 

claims recite a structure produced by a specific method, 

i.e., “twisted along with,” because the claims at issue are 

apparatus claims, not product-by-process claims. Id. The

Board further noted that Belden failed to produce evidence that “twisting the pairs along with the interior 

support,” rather than “separately twisting the components and [then] intertwining them,” generated different 

structures. Id. at 18. 

In light of those constructions, the Board found claims 

1–34 of the ’575 patent unpatentable under § 102 and/or 

§ 103. Id. at 35. First, the Board found claims 1–9, 12–

15, 17, 20, 21, 23, and 24 anticipated by Canadian Patent 

Application 2,058,046 (“Tessier”). The Board noted that 
8 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

Tessier, like the ’575 patent, discloses a data cable comprising three elements: twisted pairs of conductors, “a 

spacer means” defining “recess regions in which the 

conductors are disposed,” and an outer jacket. Id. at 19. 

The Board then found that Tessier’s “recess regions,” 

defined by the “spacer means,” satisfied the “open space 

defined by the interior support” construction of “channels” 

in the ’575 patent. Id. at 21. The Board further found 

that Tessier’s “projections 24 and thus the recesses 26 

extend in helical fashion along the core member 20 to 

allow the pairs 14 to lie within the recesses in stranded 

fashion,” satisfying the as-construed “twisted together” 

limitation of the ’575 patent. Id. at 20. 

The Board next concluded that claims 9–11, 16, 18, 

19, 22, 23, and 25–34 would have been obvious over 

Tessier and other references, for similar reasons. See id.

at 24–33 (stating that Belden only repeated its arguments 

relating to Tessier’s disclosure of the “channels” and 

“twisted together” limitations and failed to raise any 

additional challenges to the obviousness-based grounds). 

The Board lastly found claims 29, 31, and 33 anticipated

by Japanese Patent No. Sho43(1968)-15470 (“JP ’470”), 

noting that JP ’470 also discloses a data cable with twisted pair conductors lying disposed within channels, wherein the twisted pair conductors and the support are twisted 

together. Id. at 34. 

In its second decision, the Board found claims 1–21 of 

the ’061 patent unpatentable under either § 102 or § 103. 

Board Decision II at 25. The Board first found claims 1–

5 and 7–20 anticipated by Tessier, for the reasons noted 

above. Id. at 20–22. The Board then concluded that

claim 6 would have been obvious over Tessier and Canadian Patent Application 2,071,417 (“Meer”), which the 

Board found teaches “the desirability of minimizing the 

outside diameter” of data cables and specifically discloses 

a data cable with a diameter between 0.27 and 0.43 

inches. Id. at 23. The Board lastly concluded that claim
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 9

21 would have been obvious over Tessier and Japanese 

Patent No. Sho56(1981)-7307 (“JP ’307”), which the Board 

found “discloses S-Z stranding of cable components.” Id. 

at 24–25. 

Belden timely appealed from both decisions, and we 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, In re 

Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the 

Board’s factual findings underlying those determinations 

for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Substantial evidence . . . means 

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. 

v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 217 (1938). Anticipation is a 

question of fact, which we review for substantial evidence. 

In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334–35 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Obviousness, on the other hand, is a question of law based 

on underlying factual findings, including what a reference 

teaches. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012); Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1060–61 

(Fed. Cir. 2001).

During an inter partes review, the Board construes

disputed limitations according to their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re 

Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 

2015). We then review that construction according to the 

standard set forth in Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. 

Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015). Id. at 

1282. We review the ultimate construction de novo and 

the underlying factual determinations involving extrinsic 

evidence for substantial evidence. Id. at 1282–83. 

Belden fundamentally argues that the Board erred in 

construing “channels” and “twisted together,” and therefore erred in finding (1) claims 1–9, 12–15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 
10 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

and 24 of the ’575 patent anticipated by Tessier; (2) 

claims 9–11, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, and 25–34 of the ’575 

patent obvious over Tessier and other references; (3) 

claims 29, 31, and 33 of the ’575 patent anticipated by JP 

’470; and (4) claims 1–5 and 7–20 of the ’061 patent 

anticipated by Tessier. Belden also disputes the Board’s 

obviousness conclusions relating to claims 6 and 21 of the 

’061 patent on additional grounds. Belden does not contest, however, the anticipation findings or the obviousness 

conclusions based on the Board’s claim constructions. We 

address each of those arguments in turn. 

I 

Belden first argues that the Board erred by construing “channels” to mean “grooves.” According to Belden, 

the patents exclusively use the term “groove” to refer to 

the area between prongs, as shown in Figure 4, and the 

term “channels” to refer to the substantially enclosed 

spaces that form after the jacket envelops the prongs and 

twisted pairs, as shown in Figure 1. Belden contends that 

that distinction permeates the intrinsic record and, moreover, that the Board had no justifiable reason to ignore its

unrebutted expert testimony on that point. Belden further argues that the Board incorrectly relied on the ’116 

patent for a rationale that was neither presented in the 

petition for review nor addressed in the Board’s decision 

to institute.

Berk-Tek responds that the ordinary meaning and the 

intrinsic record compel the Board’s construction. BerkTek first notes that the specification does not recite, much 

less define, the term “channels.” Thus, according to BerkTek, the Board necessarily relied on dictionaries, provided 

by Belden, and correctly adopted the broadest reasonable 

interpretation. Berk-Tek further argues that the claims, 

which require the interior support to define the boundaries of the “channels,” also support the Board’s construction. Finally, Berk-Tek contends that the Board correctly 
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 11

relied on the ’116 patent because it is part of the prosecution history and the patents incorporate it by reference.

We agree with Berk-Tek that the Board correctly construed “channels” according to its ordinary meaning and

the intrinsic record. When construing claim terms, the 

Board may rely on dictionaries “so long as the dictionary 

definition does not contradict any definition found in or 

ascertained by reading the patent document.” Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc) (citations omitted). Here, the specification does not 

recite, much less define, “channels.” The dictionaries thus 

provide an adequate starting point, and simply define 

“channels” as “a long gutter, groove, or furrow.” Board 

Decision I at 8. Nothing in the intrinsic record conflicts 

with that ordinary meaning. 

Indeed, the specification and prosecution history only 

elaborate upon that understanding. The patents both 

derive from the ’116 patent, which describes the term 

“channel” as a type of “open space.” Because the Board 

should construe claims consistently across a family of 

related patents, NTP Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 

F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Board correctly 

understood “channels” to further mean an “open space.” 

Belden argues that the Board incorrectly relied on the 

’116 patent because it was neither raised in the petition 

for review nor addressed in the Board’s decision to institute. We find that argument unpersuasive. The ’116 

patent is the parent of the ’061 patent and the consequent 

grandparent of the ’575 patent, and the patents have 

incorporated it by reference. The ’116 patent is thus part 

of the prosecution history and the specification; the Board 

appropriately relied on it for guidance. 

Moreover, the Board’s construction is consistent with 

the claim language, which simply describes a channel as 

an open space defined by the interior support. See, e.g., 

’575 patent col. 6 ll. 55–57 (“[A] non-conductive interior 
12 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

support . . . having a surface that defines a plurality of 

channels.”); ’061 patent col. 6 ll. 53–54 (describing the 

channel as “defined by each pair of adjacent arms” of the 

interior support). Belden argues that “channels” should 

instead be substantially enclosed spaces defined by the 

interior support and the jacket. We find that argument 

unpersuasive, however. Not only does it contradict the 

plain language of the claims, see, e.g., ’575 patent col. 6 ll. 

64–67 (“[W]herein the outer jacket in combination with 

the conductive interior support maintains the plurality of 

twisted pair conductors within the channels defined by 

the non-conductive interior support.”) (emphases added), 

but it also ignores the specification, which offers no guidance to one of ordinary skill as to what “substantially 

enclosed” would mean. 

We also reject Belden’s argument that the Board 

should have accepted its expert testimony. As an initial 

matter, a tribunal is not required to accept expert testimony simply because it was not challenged and the declarant was not deposed. See Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. 

U.S. Surgical Corp., 147 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 

(“The fact that Applied Medical did not contest this point 

with testimony from one of its own experts no more resolves the factual question in Surgical’s favor . . . .”). 

Nonetheless, the Board correctly rejected Belden’s expert 

testimony proffered by the co-inventor, finding that it was

“conclusory” and “not supported by a citation to the Specification or an ordinary meaning,” Board Decision I at 14, 

as we have held that “conclusory, unsupported assertions 

by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not 

useful to a [tribunal],” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (citations omitted). 

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s construction that 

“a channel, as a long gutter, groove, or furrow, is a type of 

open space defined by the interior support within which 

at least one of the plurality of twisted pairs is located.” 
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 13

Belden additionally argues that Tessier does not disclose prongs extending far enough towards the jacket to 

create substantially enclosed channels, and thus it cannot 

anticipate or be used to render the claims obvious. That 

argument, however, relies exclusively on Belden’s proffered construction of “channels,” which we have rejected. 

Belden does not question the Board’s finding that Tessier 

teaches the “channels” limitation as construed by the 

Board. Accordingly, we do not disturb the Board’s anticipation findings and obviousness conclusions relying on 

that construction of “channels.” 

II

Belden next argues that the Board erred by allowing

“twisted together” to be achieved by any method. According to Belden, the structure required by the patents is the 

product of twisting the interior support along with the 

twisted pairs. That structure, Belden contends, necessarily differs from a cable derived from a preformed helix. 

Thus, Belden continues, Tessier, which only discloses 

preformed helixes, does not teach the “twisted together” 

limitation of the patents. Belden also argues that the 

Board erred in requiring Belden to prove that the resulting structures differ, and that the Board unjustifiably 

ignored its unrebutted expert testimony. 

Berk-Tek responds that the Board correctly recognized that “twisted together” is not the product of a specific method of manufacture. Rather, Berk-Tek argues, the 

claims are drawn to a twisted structure generally. Moreover, Berk-Tek notes, the patents do not disclose a method of twisting the interior support along with the twisted 

pairs of conductors, as Belden suggests. Berk-Tek also

contends that Tessier is not limited to preformed helixes, 

but instead generally discloses projections and recesses 

that extend in helical fashion along the core member. 

Finally, Berk-Tek argues that the record lacked evidence 

suggesting that the method of manufacture generates 
14 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

different resulting structures; that the Board correctly 

discounted Belden’s expert testimony; and that the Board 

did not incorrectly shift the burden to Belden—Belden 

simply failed to rebut the prima facie case. 

We agree with Berk-Tek and the Board that “twisted 

together” simply connotes a twisted structure; it does not 

further require twisting by a certain method of manufacture. As Berk-Tek notes, the claims are product claims 

drawn to a data cable. See, e.g., ’575 patent col. 6 ll. 51–

52; id. col. 8 ll. 3–5. They require several structural 

features, including twisted pair conductors and an interior support. See, e.g., id. col. 6 ll. 55–59. Some claims also

require the interior support and twisted pairs “twisted 

together” about a common axis.” See, e.g., col. 7 l. 53. Yet 

no claim recites a specific method by which the “twisted 

together” structure must be achieved. And as we have 

held, a product claim does not automatically become a 

product-by-process claim simply because a limitation 

recites a process characteristic, like “twisted together.” 

3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 

F.3d 1365, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, the specification does not purport to describe a specific method of 

twisting the support and the conductors to achieve the 

claimed “twisted together” structure. The Board was 

correct not to require one here. We therefore affirm the 

Board’s construction of “twisted together.” 

Belden then argues that, despite the Board’s construction, the claims nevertheless require the interior support 

to be twisted along with the twisted pairs, and that the 

resulting structure differs from that disclosed in Tessier. 

We find that argument unpersuasive. Again, the claims 

do not require a specific method of manufacture. Moreover, Belden’s argument presupposes that Tessier only 

discloses preformed helixes, and that a preformed helix 

necessarily imparts a different structure than a cable 

formed by Belden’s proposed twisted-along-with method. 

Tessier is not so limited. Rather, as the Board correctly 
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 15

found, Tessier recites that “the projections 24 and thus 

the recesses 26 extend in helical fashion along the core 

member.” ’575 Joint Appendix 187. It does not recite a 

two-step process, whereby the support is first formed into 

a helical structure and the conductors are then placed 

within the channels, as Belden contends. In fact, 

Tessier’s disclosure echoes that of the patents, where the 

“[prongs] extend helically along the length of the star 

separator.” ’575 patent col. 5 ll. 28–32. Furthermore, the 

Board correctly rejected Belden’s expert testimony as 

conclusory and unsupported, for the reasons noted above, 

and simply held that the record lacked evidence that the 

structures of a preformed helix and a twisted-along-with 

cable differ. The Board did not place a heavy burden on 

Belden; Berk-Tek simply established a prima facie case, 

which Belden failed to rebut. 

Belden only contests the Board’s anticipation findings 

and obviousness conclusions based on its proffered understanding of “twisted together,” which we have rejected. 

Accordingly, we do not disturb the Board’s anticipation 

findings and its obviousness conclusions relying on the 

Board’s correct construction of “twisted together.” 

III

Belden lastly argues that the Board erred in concluding that claims 6 and 21 of the ’061 patent would have 

been obvious. With respect to claim 6, Belden contends 

that the Board erred by failing to identify a reason to 

combine Tessier and Meer, and, moreover, by relying on a 

proposed combination of prior art references that was not 

raised in the petition or in the decision to institute. With 

respect to claim 21, Belden argues that the Board failed to 

appreciate that Tessier’s preformed core would not assume the S-Z stranded configuration disclosed in JP ’307.

Berk-Tek responds that, with respect to claim 6, Meer 

not only teaches the benefits of decreasing cable diameter, 

i.e., reducing cable congestion, but also discloses a cable 
16 BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC

with a diameter between 0.27 and 0.43 inches. Thus, 

according to Berk-Tek, the Board correctly concluded that 

it would have been obvious to apply the improvement of 

Meer to the cable of Tessier. In addition, Berk-Tek notes 

that its petition raised the proposed combination and, 

moreover, that Belden never argued otherwise before the 

Board. With respect to claim 21, Berk-Tek argues that 

Belden’s position presupposes that Tessier only teaches 

preformed helixes, which it does not. 

We agree with Berk-Tek that it would have been obvious to apply the improvement of Meer to the data cable of 

Tessier, and therefore sustain the Board’s conclusion that 

claim 6 would have been obvious. First, and contrary to 

Belden’s assertion, Berk-Tek raised the Tessier and Meer 

combination in its petition for review, see ’061 Joint 

Appendix (’061 J.A.) 76; Belden thus had ample opportunity to respond, and the Board did not err in relying on 

that combination to reject claim 6. Second, the Board’s 

findings regarding Meer’s disclosures are supported by 

substantial evidence. Meer recites that “cable congestion 

is presenting an ever increasing problem which is exacerbated by the large cable diameters,” ’061 J.A. at 200, and 

offers reducing cable diameter to between 0.27 and 0.43 

inches as the solution, see id. at 200–02. The Board thus 

correctly found that it was obvious to apply the improvement of Meer to the data cable of Tessier. Lastly, the 

Board found that Belden only recycled its “channels” and 

“twisted together” arguments, Board Decision II at 23, 

and thus failed to raise new arguments disputing the 

Meer-based obviousness rejection, see ’061 J.A. at 530 

(“[Belden] gives no independent argument for the validity 

of claim 6.”). For the reasons we noted above, the Board 

correctly rejected those arguments again here. We therefore conclude that the Board did not err in holding that 

claim 6 would have been obvious over Tessier and Meer. 

We also agree with Berk-Tek that the Board correctly 

concluded that claim 21 would have been obvious over 
BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC 17

Tessier and JP ’307. First, the Board’s finding that JP 

’307 discloses S-Z stranding of cable components is supported by substantial evidence. ’061 J.A. at 188 (“Herein, 

the rotation direction of rotation frame 12 is reversed, and 

synchronized with wire storing length l of wire storing 

component 13; thus, SZ stranded wire in which stranded 

part S and stranded part Z are alternated, is fed from 

stranding component 11 at every length of l.”). Second, as 

with the Tessier and Meer rejection, the Board noted that 

Belden only recited its “channels” and “twisted together” 

arguments to dispute the JP ’307-based rejection. Board 

Decision II at 24. Compare ’061 J.A. at 480–82, with id.

at 483. We again find that the Board correctly rejected 

those arguments. Lastly, we agree with Berk-Tek that 

Belden’s argument assumes that Tessier only teaches 

preformed helixes. As we noted above, however, Tessier 

is not so limited. We therefore find that argument unpersuasive. Accordingly, the Board correctly held that claim 

21 would have been obvious over Tessier and JP ’307. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the remaining arguments, but we 

find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the 

Board’s decisions cancelling claims 1–34 of the ’575 patent 

and claims 1–21 of the ’061 patent are affirmed. 

AFFIRMED.