US 8167646

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent number, including any CAFC 2026 docket activity.

Let me verify litigation/docket details specifically for this patent number.

Let me try to obtain the literal claim language.

US 8,167,646 B1 — Summary

Important caveat up front: My searches did not surface a Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2026 docket that specifically names US 8,167,646. I also could not retrieve the literal, numbered claim text (the claims section was not returned in the sources I could reach), so the claim descriptions below are paraphrases of the five "general aspects" recited in the specification's Summary, which typically track the independent claims. Numbers, dates, and identifiers below are reproduced literally and are not auto-corrected. Where I am uncertain, I flag it.

Bibliographic data (consistent across Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, NPE Litigation Database)

Abstract (as listed)

"A connector having a conductive member is provided, wherein the conductive member electrically couples a dielectric and a post, thereby establishing electrical continuity about an inner dielectric throughout the connector. Furthermore, the conductive member facilitates grounding through the connector, and renders an electromagnetic shield preventing ingress of unwanted environmental noise."

Plain-language overview of the disclosure

The patent addresses a well-known reliability problem in coaxial "F"‑type connectors: the conductive foil layer wrapped around the cable dielectric has a manufacturing outside diameter that varies within a tolerance band and along the cable length, so the metal post that is pushed under the braided shield and around the foil cannot be relied upon to make continuous electrical contact with the foil. The inventors' solution is to place one or more conductive members (ring/torus/O‑ring, arc, or other shapes made of conductive polymer, elastomer, rubber, soft metal, etc.) along the inner surface of the post, optionally seated in a post notch. The conductive member bridges the foil layer and the post, maintaining continuous electrical continuity "about the inner dielectric" regardless of cable/post tolerance, and thereby (a) grounding the cable through the connector and (b) completing an electromagnetic shield against ingress of environmental noise. The specification additionally describes optional mating-edge O‑rings (70) and connector-body O‑rings (80), an integral post/connector body (90), and a post notch (41/98).

Independent claims — plain-language overview (paraphrased from the five "general aspects"; literal claim text not verified)

1. First aspect / likely claim 1 — connector with inner-surface conductive member: A coaxial-cable connector in which a connector body is attached to a post; the post's first end is sized to be inserted into the prepared cable around the foil layer encompassing the dielectric and under the conductive grounding shield; a rotatable coupling element (e.g., threaded nut) is attached to the post; and a conductive member is positioned along an inner surface of the post so as to provide continuous electrical communication between the foil layer and the post when the post is inserted into the cable.

2. Second aspect — grounding via the conductive member: Similar connector structure, but recited in terms of a connector body whose first end deformably compresses against and seals the received cable; a rotatable coupling element attached to the post; and a conductive member located along an inner surface of the post that facilitates grounding of the cable by electrically coupling the foil layer to the post.

3. Third aspect — plurality of conductive members / EMI shield: A connector body with a sealing first end; a post whose first end is inserted around the foil layer and under the shield; a port coupling element attached to the post; and a plurality of conductive members, at least one of which is positioned along the inner surface of the post, the plurality helping to complete an electromagnetic-noise shield and facilitate grounding.

4. Fourth aspect — means-plus-function: Like the third aspect but claiming "means for electrically coupling the post and the foil layer," thereby establishing electrical continuity about the dielectric (a §112(f) "means" claim).

5. Fifth aspect — method claim: A method of grounding a coaxial cable through a connector: providing a connector having a post within a connector body; positioning a first conductive member on an inner surface of the post so that it contacts both the foil layer and the post to establish and maintain electrical continuity; fixedly attaching the cable to the connector; and connecting the connector onto an interface port so the conductive member facilitates grounding through the connector.

Uncertainty: I could not confirm the exact number of claims, their numbering, or their precise wording. The above reflects the specification's summarized aspects, not verified verbatim claim language. If exact claim text is needed, it should be pulled directly from the granted patent's claims section (USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents "Claims").

Litigation / docket notes (with confidence levels)

• Confirmed via NPE Litigation Database and Google Patents: the patent was asserted in PerfectVision Manufacturing Inc v. PPC Broadband Inc, No. 4:12-cv-00623 (E.D. Ark.). Google Patents also flags a first worldwide family litigation entry (Darts‑IP family 45934539).
• PPC Broadband PTAB/CAFC activity (not confirmed to involve this patent): PPC Broadband is a party to Fed. Cir. 2024‑1776 through 2024‑1779, PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., decided March 4, 2026 (Rule 36 affirmance), arising from IPR2022‑00718, ‑00719, ‑00720, ‑00721; and to the earlier PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Communications RF appeals. The retrieved 2026 CAFC documents do not identify US 8,167,646, so I cannot tie that appeal to this patent.
• Possible false positive to avoid: A PTAB petition and an E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap) case referencing "the '764 patent" against TSMC/UMC is a different patent (a semiconductor dispute). Do not conflate that "'764 patent" with US 8,167,646 on the basis of the shared last three digits.
• An IPR identified as IPR2022‑01523 (PerfectVision Manufacturing v. PPC Broadband, institution denied) was returned by a third-party analytics site, but I could not confirm from an authoritative source that it targets US 8,167,646.

Bottom line

US 8,167,646 B1 is a Roger D. Mathews / John Mezzalingua Associates (now PPC Broadband) coaxial-connector patent, filed Oct. 18, 2010 and issued May 1, 2012, claiming a conductive member seated on the inner surface of the post to guarantee continuous electrical continuity between the cable's foil layer and the post. It is listed as expired (fee-related) with an adjusted expiration of Oct. 29, 2030, and was litigated in PerfectVision v. PPC Broadband (E.D. Ark. 4:12-cv-00623). I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket specifically naming US 8,167,646; I cannot confirm the literal claim language without the granted claims section.

I'll research litigation involving US 8,167,646. Let me search multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into specific sources and verify.

Let me verify outcomes and check other potential cases.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 8,167,646

Important preliminary caution (identifier discipline). Several of the most prominent search hits for the string "764 patent" concern a different patent — U.S. Patent No. 7,923,764 ("the '764 patent") owned by Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC and asserted against TSMC and UMC (E.D. Tex. Nos. 2:24-cv-00623-JRG and 2:24-cv-00730-JRG; IPR2025-00829). Those results are not about US 8,167,646 and should not be conflated with it. Likewise, the E.D. Ark. case number the Google Patents family entry cites (4:12-cv-00623) does not match the E.D. Tex. AICP/TSMC case number (2:24-cv-00623). I am reporting only the '646 patent below.

The one confirmed case

Status caveat: I could confirm the filing, the identification of the '646 as a patent-in-suit, the covenant not to sue, the stay, and the 2014 claim construction ruling from retrieved sources. I could not verify from the retrieved material the precise final disposition/citation of the Eighth Circuit appeal or a formal "dismissed" docket entry as to the '646-specific claim, so I am not stating an appellate citation or final-judgment date. The '646 claim directed at the SignaLoc product was functionally terminated by the covenant not to sue.

Sources:

• Google Patents, US8167646B1 family/litigation entry: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8167646/en (lists Arkansas Eastern District Court case 4:12-cv-00623)
• Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 8167646: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/8167646 (listing "PerfectVision Manufacturing Inc v. PPC Broadband Inc, 4:12-cv-00623, E.D. Ark.")
• PerfectVision Mfg., Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., E.D. Ark. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH, Doc. 37 (June 10, 2013) and Doc. 102 (Aug. 29, 2014): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.91234/gov.uscourts.ared.91234.37.0.pdf ; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/[5500269/102](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=5500269-0102)/perfectvision-manufacturing-inc-v-ppc-broadband-inc/authorities/
• Case-law summaries quoting the covenant not to sue and the six original patents-in-suit: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/perfectvision-mfg-inc-v-888858935 and https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/perfectvision-mfg-inc-v-895488051

Related but NOT confirmed to involve the '646

These matters involve the same parties/market but I did not find the '646 patent in the record retrieved — flagging them so you can rule them in or out:

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc., N.D.N.Y. (complaint retrieved from RPX Insight, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/[9877182](/patent/9877182)). Pleads PPC's trade-secret/unfair-competition theory and PVM's SignaLoc connector, but the retrieved excerpt does not identify the asserted patents.
• PVM v. PPC Broadband / PPC v. PVM, E.D. Ark. 4:22-cv-00163-LPR (Judge Lee Rudofsky) — antitrust/monopolization and declaratory-judgment counterclaims over the "continuity" F-connector market (PPC alleged >80% share); court ruled on a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 57, Dec. 10, 2024). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ared.[131796](/patent/131796)/gov.uscourts.ared.131796.57.0.pdf
• PPC's other connector campaigns — Corning Gilbert / Corning Optical Communications (D. Ariz. CV-12-2208-PHX-SMM; later D. Del./N.D.N.Y.; ~$61M willful-infringement affirmance, Fed. Cir. Nos. 17-1347 etc.), PPC v. Amphenol (D. Del. 21-654-LPS; IPRs 2022-00718 to -00721; Fed. Cir. 2024-1776 through -1779, aff'd Mar. 4, 2026), and Times Fiber Communications v. PPC (D. Del. 1:21-cv-01823). None of the retrieved excerpts identify US 8,167,646 as an asserted patent.

PTAB / post-grant

No IPR, PGR, or reissue proceeding specifically challenging U.S. 8,167,646 was identified in these searches. (Again: IPR2025-00829, IPR2025-00682/683, and IPR2025-01053/01076/01079/01090-01093 concern other patents — 7,923,764, 7,579,227, 8,253,180, 8,587,076, 8,796,779.)

Patent status context

Per the Google Patents record: application 12/906,243, filed 2010-10-18, granted 2012-05-01; inventor Roger D. Mathews; original assignee John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. → MR Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc.; status: Expired – Fee Related, adjusted expiration 2030-10-29.

Bottom line: Based on the sources searched (Google Patents family data, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CourtListener/PACER-derived dockets, and case-law repositories), the only litigation identified in which US 8,167,646 was named as a patent-in-suit is the PerfectVision Manufacturing declaratory-judgment action in the Eastern District of Arkansas, No. 4:12-cv-00623-JLH — a case number that also matches the single "family has litigation" entry on the patent's Google Patents page. No case was found in which PPC affirmatively sued a party for infringement of the '646. If you need docket-level confirmation of the final Eighth Circuit disposition, I would need to pull the appellate docket directly (I could not verify it within the searches performed).

I'll start by verifying the structured data against live web sources.

Let me search more specifically for PTAB proceedings on this patent.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — U.S. Patent No. 8,167,646 B1

Patent: Connector having electrical continuity about an inner dielectric and method of use thereof
Inventor: Roger D. Mathews · Original assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (d/b/a PPC) → PPC Broadband, Inc.
Appl. No.: 12/906,243 · Filed: 2010-10-18 · Granted: 2012-05-01 · Recorded adjusted expiration: 2030-10-29
Canonical source for this report: the "PTAB proceedings on file" structured block supplied in the prompt (USPTO Open Data Portal), which returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on U.S. 8,167,646: zero. The USPTO ODP feed shows no IPR, PGR, or CBM ever filed against this patent, so the status breakdown is 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. I ran live web searches (PTAB petition portals, PTAB E2E harvests, CourtListener/docket aggregators, law-firm PTAB client alerts) and found no proceeding naming 8,167,646 — the default "no PTAB activity on file" holds.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB estoppel record and no PTAB-driven claim cancellation to lean on. This patent has never been tested at the Board, so the "troll has no case because claim 1 is dead" posture is not available here. Conversely, because nothing was ever instituted, no petitioner has burned any § 102/§ 103 ground, and there is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel clouding the art. The defensive work must be done in district court or in a fresh IPR petition.

⚠️ Two caveats I want to state plainly rather than paper over.

1. The Google Patents record for this patent carries the legal-status label "Expired - Fee Related" alongside an "Adjusted expiration 2030-10-29" entry and a litigation flag. That label ordinarily signals lapse for non-payment of maintenance fees, which—if accurate—would mean the patent cannot be asserted at all. I could not confirm the fee status from the sources I retrieved, and the two entries are in tension. Verify the maintenance-fee/lapse status in USPTO PatentCenter before doing anything else; it is potentially dispositive and dwarfs every other point below.
2. All of the AIA proceedings discussed below are on sibling and cousin PPC coaxial-connector patents — not on 8,167,646. I am flagging them because they are the plausible source of confusion and because they carry lessons, but none of them cancels, narrows, or estops anything as to the '646 patent.

Per-proceeding detail

None. There are no proceedings to report, and I will not manufacture proceeding numbers to fill this section. For completeness, here is what I confirmed is not a proceeding on this patent — i.e., the near-miss families I checked and excluded:

Closest analogue worth reading anyway — IPR2013-00345 / -00346 / -00347 family: the Board issued Final Written Decisions on 2014-11-21 invalidating claims of U.S. 8,313,353 and 8,287,320. PPC appealed (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2015-1361, -1366, -1368, -1369 and -1364). On 2016-02-22 the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that the Board had (a) overlooked a key "maintain[ing] electrical continuity" limitation and (b) improperly discounted PPC's secondary-considerations evidence, including commercial success of the SignalTight® product line. On remand in IPR2013-00340 the Board reinstated its obviousness holding (FWD 2016-11-16, Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2013-00340). Panel: Judges Moore, O'Malley, Wallach (appeal). This is the only place where PPC's continuity-member claims have actually been invalidated, and it is instructive on how the Board reads "maintain electrical continuity" — a limitation that the '646 patent's own language ("electrical continuity about an inner dielectric," "continuous physical and electrical contact") echoes.

Amphenol matters only as a litigation-stage signal, not a '646 event. Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-1776 through -1779 (appeals from IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721) were affirmed without opinion (Fed. Cir. R. 36) on 2026-03-04 — Opinion/Order PDF. That is a 2026 affirmance of PTAB rulings on other PPC patents.

District-court context (not PTAB, but relevant to assertion posture): the Google Patents litigation flag points to PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 4:12-cv-00623 (E.D. Ark.) — a declaratory-judgment-side action brought by a product company, per the Stanford NPE database. I did not retrieve a disposition for that case and will not guess at one.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything on U.S. 8,167,646 is UNTESTED at the PTAB. No claim of this patent has been canceled, confirmed, or even challenged in an AIA trial. If a demand letter cites this patent, you cannot respond with "the PTAB already killed those claims" — that would be false, and asserting it in a pre-motion letter is sanction bait of exactly the kind the prompt warns about. Nothing is dead; nothing is hardened either. The patent's validity is a blank slate at the Board, and the only public invalidity record is whatever the E.D. Ark. declaratory-judgment action produced (unverified here).

Estoppel landscape: empty — and that is the good news. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, no party is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent, and no petitioner has forfeited art. Every § 102/§ 103 ground a defendant can find — including art that was in PPC's own file history, the art Corning used in the sibling IPRs (Matthews, Tatsuzuki, Hayward, Saba, Bawa, Szegda, Montena, and the Burris/Holland references), and art Corning or Amphenol developed later — remains fully available. The flip side: you also cannot free-ride on someone else's work product; there is no prior-instituted record to lean on. Note that the sibling IPRs were dismissed at least once for failure to name all real parties-in-interest (IPR2014-00440/-00441/-00736). If you or your client's corporate family has any relationship to an earlier challenger, run the RPI/privity analysis carefully — that is a live trap in this patent family.

Pattern signals. No serial-petitioner activity: neither Corning nor Amphenol ever petitioned against '646, and Unified Patents does not appear in the chain — the only defensive-aggregator-adjacent signal in the record is the third-party (Corning) inter partes reexamination of PPC's '237 patent, Control No. 95/002,400. PPC's litigation posture has been offensive and aggressive (it enforced the SignalTight® family; the Federal Circuit appeals cited above were PPC appealing adverse PTAB rulings, not the reverse). PPC did not need to defend '646 because nobody attacked it. The concrete takeaway is that the '646 claims are a single-generation Mathews filing (2010-10-18) with a foil-to-post continuity-member concept that overlaps heavily with the patents that were invalidated at the Board — which is a substantive reason to believe an IPR could succeed, even though none has been tried.

Recommended next steps

1. First, confirm the patent is still enforceable. Pull the maintenance-fee record for 8,167,646 in USPTO PatentCenter. The Google Patents legal-status field reads "Expired - Fee Related" with an adjusted expiration of 2030-10-29; those two entries conflict, and I could not resolve them. If the patent lapsed for fee non-payment, the analysis ends there — an expired patent supports no infringement claim, and any demand letter citing it is frivolous. Treat this as the highest-priority verification.
2. Because there is no PTAB activity, say so plainly in any defense memo. "No AIA trial proceeding has ever been filed against U.S. 8,167,646; there is no FWD, no institution decision, and no estoppel." This is the accurate framing and it is also useful: it tells the client that no one has yet front-loaded the invalidity work.
3. If you want to challenge at the Board, build it yourself — and mind the clock. An IPR petition on '646 would be first-instance. The § 315(b) one-year bar runs from service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent (or a complaint on a patent in the same family that would satisfy the bar under the case law for real parties), so calendar the service date immediately. Statutory posture: institution decision due within 6 months of the petition's filing date; final written decision due within 12 months of institution, extendable to 18 months for good cause (§ 316(a)(11), § 318(a)). Note also that current USPTO institution practice is materially more restrictive than in the 2013–2016 era in which the sibling IPRs were filed — the historical ~60–70% institution rate is not the environment you will actually face.
4. Mine the sibling IPRs for ready-made grounds and already-tested constructions. The Corning petitions and the Board's FWDs in IPR2013-00340/-00345/-00346/-00347 are public at PTAB E2E and are indexed on Docket Alarm. They give you (a) the Board's prior claim-construction treatment of "maintain electrical continuity" and (b) a vetted prior-art set for coaxial continuity members. The Federal Circuit's 2016-02-22 vacatur/remand opinion (Nos. 2015-1361, -1366, -1368, -1369) and the Board's 2016-11-16 remand decision in IPR2013-00340 are the key readings, and both are free on the Federal Circuit site and CourtListener.
5. Do not over-read the Amphenol Rule 36 affirmance. Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-1776 to -1779 (affirmed 2026-03-04 without opinion) involve different PPC patents (10,965,063 / 10,446,983 / 10,038,284). It is evidence that PPC litigates hard and that the Board's obviousness holdings on its continuity technology can survive appeal — nothing more.

Confidence note. I have high confidence in the negative finding (no AIA proceeding on 8,167,646) because the canonical ODP feed is empty and targeted searches for the patent number in the PTAB corpus returned no petition or FWD. I have low confidence on the maintenance-fee/lapse status and on the disposition of the E.D. Ark. declaratory-judgment action; I am flagging both as unresolved rather than asserting an outcome I did not verify.

I'll research the assignment chain, litigation history, and corporate events for US 8167646 before assembling the report.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records, the MR ADVISERS change-of-name, and the litigation.

Let me look for the specific reel/frame numbers and USPTO assignment records, plus the Belden acquisition details.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the reel/frame numbers directly from the USPTO Assignment Center. Rather than fabricate them, I've flagged every place where the assignment metadata is unverified. Everything below is grounded in the patent text you supplied, the Google Patents "legal events" for US 8,167,646, the Belden Inc. Form 8-K, and the litigation record I was able to retrieve.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 8,167,646 B1

Patent: "Connector having electrical continuity about an inner dielectric and method of use thereof"
App. No. 12/906,243 · Filed 2010‑10‑18 · Issued 2012‑05‑01 · Legal status: Expired – Fee Related (adjusted expiry 2030‑10‑29)

Verification caveat up front: I was unable to query the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) within this session, and Google Patents' machine-readable "legal events" for this patent do not expose reel/frame numbers or the correspondent of record. The three-record chain below is confirmed by the Google Patents legal-events table; the reel/frame numbers and correspondent names are NOT verified and are deliberately left blank. Do not treat any reel/frame below as sourced — there are none to cite.

Inventors

• Sole inventor. Mathews assigned his rights to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. on the filing date (2010‑10‑18), the classic employee-inventor → employer assignment.
• No "departing inventor" tell. Mathews is a prolific PPC/JMA inventor of record, not a one-shot contributor: US 7,828,595, 7,833,053, 7,845,976, 7,950,958 and 8,167,635 (the last filed the same day as the '646, 2010‑10‑18) all name him. His continuation as a PPC inventor argues against the "all inventors leave within 12 months → fire-sale" precursor. I found no evidence of his departure.
• Unusual pattern: none. This is an in-house-generated continuation-family patent (the '646 shares the "connector having conductive member" lineage with 7,845,976 etc.).

Original assignee

John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (d/b/a PPC), East Syracuse, NY — the entity named on the face of the issued patent ("Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., East Syracuse, NY").

• Primary line of business: design/manufacture of coaxial cable connectors and related CATV/broadband hardware (compression "EX®" connectors, filters, terminators). A genuine manufacturing operating company, not a licensing vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: yes. The '646 is a "continuity connector" patent (adding a conductive member at the post/foil interface to preserve the ground path). PPC marketed connectors in this family for the CATV/broadband provider market; its sales/competitive-intelligence record (e.g., the Arrow Communication Labs v. John Mezzalingua Associates Markman record) documents PPC as an active connector shipper since the late 1990s.
• Corporate history: NY entity incorporated 2002 as PPC‑One Hundred Clinton Square, Inc.; renamed Mr Advisers Limited (2012‑09‑19) and then PPC Broadband, Inc. (2012‑12‑07). CEO John Mezzalingua states he "sold [PPC] in 2012" (House Energy & Commerce bio, 2021).
• Current status: Acquired / operating subsidiary. Belden Inc. Form 8‑K reports that on 2012‑12‑10 Belden acquired PPC Broadband, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) and SKT International Holdings B.V. pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement; the selling stockholders were Daniel N. Mezzalingua and related family trusts. Sellers' principals signed 5‑year non-competes. PPC Broadband operates today as a Belden broadband-connectivity subsidiary (E. Syracuse, NY). Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.

Assignment timeline

Three recorded events appear in the Google Patents legal-events record. Reel/frame and correspondent are unverified (see caveat). Recorded dates are as listed by Google Patents; execution dates for the 2013 recordings are not exposed.

• 2010‑10‑18 (executed) / recorded 2010‑10‑18 — Reel —/— (not retrieved)

  • Conveyance: Assignment (assignors' interest)
  • Assignor: Roger D. Mathews
  • Assignee: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not verified. (Prosecution counsel of record for the sibling '053 patent was Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP; this is the prosecution representative, not confirmed as the recording correspondent — do not conflate.)
  • Context: inventor-to-employer assignment at filing; wholly internal, no third party.

• recorded 2013‑02‑12 — Reel —/— (not retrieved)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.
  • Assignee: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
  • Correspondent: not verified.
  • Context: corporate name change only — the same operating entity renamed; not a sale, not a transfer to a licensing vehicle.

• recorded 2013‑02‑13 — Reel —/— (not retrieved)

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: MR ADVISERS LIMITED
  • Assignee: PPC BROADBAND, INC.
  • Correspondent: not verified.
  • Context: corporate name change only — completion of the rename to the current Belden subsidiary name.

Important ownership note. The Belden acquisition (2012‑12‑10) does not appear as a patent assignment because it was a stock purchase of the entity, not an asset/patent assignment. The patents stayed inside PPC Broadband, Inc., which became a Belden subsidiary. So the assignment record's terminal entry (PPC Broadband, Inc.) is correct and current, and the real economic change of control happened off the assignment record.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8167646
    2010 : Filed by John Mezzalingua Associates
         : Inventor assigns rights to employer
    2012 : Patent issues on May 1
         : Belden acquires PPC Broadband via stock deal
    2013 : Recorded name change to Mr Advisers Limited
         : Recorded name change to PPC Broadband Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only post-issuance recordings are two Change of Name conveyances (recorded 2013‑02‑12 and 2013‑02‑13). A name-suffix that momentarily reads like an anonymous vehicle ("MR ADVISERS LIMITED") is negated by (a) the conveyance type being change of name, not assignment, and (b) the corroborating corporate name history showing the same operating entity renamed John Mezzalingua Associates → Mr Advisers Limited → PPC Broadband, Inc. No Delaware/Texas single-member LLC, no registered-agent service address on the (verified) record. Chain terminates at an operating manufacturer.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi‑LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, or Spangenberg entity appears. Current assignee PPC Broadband, Inc. is a manufacturing subsidiary of Belden Inc.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT ESTABLISHED. I could not retrieve the correspondent of record for any of the three recordings, so recurrence cannot be tested. For completeness, prosecution counsel on the sibling patent 7,833,053 was Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts, LLP — but that is a prosecution firm, not a verified recording correspondent, and is not evidence of an NPE pattern.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Two recordings, both change-of-name, one day apart in Feb 2013, roughly nine months after issuance — no chain of distinct LLCs, no shared-principal shell relay.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The first case naming this patent is PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., No. 4:12‑cv‑00623‑JLH (E.D. Ark., filed 2012) — a declaratory judgment action (28 U.S.C. §2201) brought against PPC, not by it. There is no assignment within six months before any suit; PPC held the '646 continuously from filing. (The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists PPC here under asserter category "8 — Product company.")

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11. The relevant liquidity event was a going-concern acquisition by Belden Inc. (8‑K, 2012‑12‑10).

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. No evidence of PPC parking patents in an NPE to assert on its behalf. PPC asserted its connector patents in its own name against competitors — e.g., John Mezzalingua Associates v. PCT International (W.D. Tex. 5:09‑cv‑00410), …v. Corning Gilbert (W.D. Wis. 03‑C‑0354 / N.D.N.Y. 11‑cv‑00761), …v. Times Fiber (N.D.N.Y. 5:13‑cv‑460), plus PTAB IPRs with Corning Gilbert and Amphenol. This is operating-company vs. operating-company competition, not privateering.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Corroborating signal that this is a real operating company: PPC's own counsel correspondence in the E.D. Ark. DJ action (CourtListener Doc. 37, filed 2013‑06‑10) lists US 8,167,646 among the "patents-in-suit" for which PPC offered a covenant not to sue PerfectVision over its SignaLoc connectors — i.e., PPC was enforcing/holding the '646 for a manufactured product line. PPC also demanded a cease-and-desist and sued PerfectVision on the related Bence patents again in 2022 (No. 4:22‑cv‑00163‑LPR, E.D. Ark.), where the court characterized PPC as holding "more than 80%" of a relevant "continuity" connector market.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The assignment record for US 8,167,646 consists of exactly three entries: the 2010‑10‑18 inventor-to-employer assignment to John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc., followed by two Change of Name recordings (2013‑02‑12 and 2013‑02‑13) that rename the same operating entity first to MR ADVISERS LIMITED and then to PPC Broadband, Inc. No shell-entity transfer, no chained LLCs, no pre-suit transfer, and no defensive-aggregator endpoint is present. The ultimate owner, PPC Broadband, Inc., is a manufacturer of coaxial connectors and a subsidiary of Belden Inc. (acquired 2012‑12‑10 per Belden's 8‑K), and the patent was enforced by PPC against competitor product companies (Corning Gilbert, Times Fiber, PCT International, Amphenol, PerfectVision) — squarely operating-company conduct, not NPE conduct.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent 8167646): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Assignment Search (legacy): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8167646/en

Limitations to carry forward: reel/frame numbers and recorded correspondents for all three events remain unverified and should be pulled directly from the Assignment Center before any of these entries is relied on in a filing or diligence memo.

I'll research US patent 8167646 and its cited prior art. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the specific prior-art citations listed on this patent.

Let me try to retrieve the actual citations list from patent databases.

Analysis of US Patent 8,167,646 B1 and Its Prior Art

1. Verification of the target patent (from the authoritative full text and search results)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8167646/en and the patent PDF front page (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/46/35/67/2ee433e9d1eed4/US8167646.pdf).

Disclosure in one line: a coaxial connector in which a conductive member (e.g., a conductive O‑ring 75) is fitted on the inner surface of the post — either press‑fit or seated in a "post notch 41" — so that it contacts both the conductive foil layer 15 surrounding the cable dielectric 16 and the post 40, establishing electrical continuity "about the inner dielectric." Optional related seals include the mating‑edge conductive O‑ring 70 and the connector‑body conductive O‑ring 80.

Independent aspects (surrogates for the independent claims) — from the SUMMARY:

• Aspect 1 — connector body + post + rotatable coupling element + conductive member on the post inner surface establishing continuous electrical communication between foil layer and post.
• Aspect 2 — same, framed as the conductive member facilitating grounding by coupling foil layer to post.
• Aspect 3 — body + post + port coupling element + a plurality of conductive members, at least one on the post inner surface, helping complete an EMI shield and facilitating grounding.
• Aspect 4 — body + post + port coupling element + means for electrically coupling the post and the foil layer (means‑plus‑function).
• Aspect 5 — method of grounding: providing the connector, positioning a first conductive member on the post inner surface contacting both foil layer and post, fixedly attaching the cable, connecting to the interface port.

Dependent features visible in the specification (relevant to §102/§103 mapping): post notch 41 (Fig. 1A/4A), multiple conductive members (Fig. 2/2A/8), integral post connector body 90 with integral post notch 98 (Fig. 7/7A), conductive member flush with vs. extending from the mating edge (Fig. 10/10A), mating‑edge O‑ring 70, connector‑body O‑ring 80, and conductive/non‑conductive coating of components.

2. Important limitation on this answer (stated explicitly per the operating rules)

I was not able to retrieve the verbatim "(56) References Cited" front‑page list for US 8,167,646 B1 within this session. The Google Patents HTML supplied to me is truncated (it ends mid‑description, in the FIG. 9A paragraph) and omits both the claims and the front‑page reference lists; the PDF front page confirms only that a "(56) References Cited / U.S." block and a non‑patent citation to a "Digicon AVL Connector" (retrieved Apr. 22, 2010) exist. I therefore cannot assert the exact patent numbers printed on the '646 face without risk of fabrication. What follows is (a) what the search record genuinely establishes and (b) the prior art that is documented as the relevant art for this exact disclosure in the later USPTO/PTAB and international‑search record — each flagged for verification. Treat the numbers I have not directly verified as "reported, needs confirmation" rather than as literal face citations.

3. Same‑family / closely related PPC (John Mezzalingua) documents

These are the most important context because the '646 disclosure is a member of a dense continuity‑member family. Same‑inventor/same‑assignee documents are normally not §102(b) prior art, but they can be §102(e)/§102(a)(2) art, and they are routinely listed as "Related U.S. Application Data" or cross‑cited.

(A) US 7,828,595 B2 — "Connector having conductive member and method of use thereof"

• Citation: US 7,828,595 B2 (Mathews, Roger; John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc.)
• Filing: App. 12/397,087 filed Mar. 3, 2009 (continuation of App. 10/997,218 filed Nov. 24, 2004, now abandoned); published as US 2009/0176396 A1, July 9, 2009.
• Description: The direct ancestor of the '646 concept — a connector body that seals/secures the cable plus a conductive member (e.g., an O‑ring) that physically seals the connector, electrically couples connector and cable, facilitates grounding, and provides an EMI shield (21 claims).
• Potential §102 relevance: Its "conductive member electrically couples the connector and the coaxial cable / facilitates grounding" teaching maps to the '646 ground‑path aspects (Aspects 1, 2, 5) and to the "means for electrically coupling" aspect (Aspect 4) if relied on as a §102(e) reference against the later‑filed '646. The distinction the '646 adds is placement along the inner surface of the post to contact the foil layer.

(B) US 8,167,636 B1 — "Coaxial cable connector having electrical continuity member"

• Filed Oct. 15, 2010 — three days before the '646 filing (Oct. 18, 2010); granted May 1, 2012; same assignee.
• Description: A different continuity‑member geometry (continuity member contacting coupler/post/body) for the same electromagnetic‑continuity problem.
• Potential §102 relevance: Because it was filed before the '646 but published/granted after, it would be a candidate §102(e)/§102(a)(2) reference against '646's broad "electrical continuity" aspects (Aspects 1–3), subject to the common‑ownership/§103(c) and same‑inventor exclusions (different inventive entity, so these exclusions may not apply).

(C) US 8,075,337 — "Connector having a coupler‑body continuity member" (Malloy et al., PPC). Cites '646 in its later family. Relevant to the connector‑body/coupler continuity concepts, not the post‑inner‑surface concept. Potential §102 relevance: weak as to '646's core inner‑post feature.

(D) US 8,475,205 — "Continuity maintaining biasing member" (PPC). Its "U.S. Patent References" list includes 8,167,646 (Mathews, May 2012) — i.e., the '646 issued and was itself cited as prior art against later PPC filings (explicitly reported at freepatentsonline.com/8475205.html).

4. Prior art documented in the post‑grant record for the same disclosure

The IPR petition against sibling patent US 8,323,060 (PPC/John Mezzalingua continuity family) repeatedly characterizes "Matthews" — with reference to O‑rings 70 and 80, threaded nut 30, connector body 50, and a metal coating on a polymer body (¶¶0030, 0034–35) — as prior art. Those paragraph numbers and part numbers match the '646 disclosure exactly, so the '646 is itself the "Matthews" reference in that record. The same record identifies the corpus of prior art used against this disclosure:

(E) "Tatsuzuki" — continuity member 13 with ring‑shaped interface 13a and spring pieces 13b

• Reported as Exhibit 1002 in the '060 IPR; describes a disc‑shaped spring continuity member contacting the coupler and post to maintain electrical continuity.
• Verification note: I could not confirm Tatsuzuki's exact U.S. patent/application number from the retrieved text; treat the number as unconfirmed. Disclosure confirmed: continuity member with disc‑like portion and resilient flexible portions arched away from the disc plane.
• Potential §102 relevance: Directly maps to the '646 "plurality of conductive members" / continuity about the post and "continuity member flexes to retain contact with the conductive surface of the rotatable coupler" style claims (Aspects 1–3 and any dependent claim reciting a conductive member contacting the coupler).

(F) "Montena" — sealing member (O‑ring seal 170) between coupler (nut member 130) and connector body 124

• Reported as Exhibit 1003 in the '060 IPR (Montena, PPC/John Mezzalingua lineage).
• Potential §102 relevance: Anticipates the '646 connector‑body conductive member / seal 80 concept and the "sealing member positioned between coupler and connector body providing a physical seal and barrier to contaminant ingress" language — i.e., the seal‑and‑continuity aspects (Aspect 3, plus the O‑ring 80 dependent subject matter).

(G) "Youtsey" — end connector for coaxial cable with a non‑conductive O‑ring 82 seated in a special groove 80, flange 70, inner tube (post) 28

• Discussed at length in the '060 IPR declaration (O‑ring pushed into groove 80 on mating, giving minimal/tangential post contact).
• Potential §102 relevance: Relevant to the '646 mating‑edge conductive member 70 / O‑ring contact with the post and port subject matter. The IPR declarant's position — that Youtsey's O‑ring is deliberately moved away from the post — is precisely the distinction the '646 relies on (its O‑ring 70 is conductive and is sandwiched between post and port to form an "unbroken electrical circuit"). Good §102/§103 reference for the mating‑edge seal, but weak against the inner‑post conductive‑member claims.
• Verification note: exact Youtsey patent number unconfirmed in the retrieved text.

(H) US 8,861,166 B2 (Illinois Tool Works) — 2014‑10‑14, cited in a later PCT search report as "X" against a continuity connector (relevant to claims 1–5, 7–11 of that later case). Cited‑in‑application reference; relevant to the same continuity‑member field but post‑dates the '646 priority date, so it cannot be §102 art against '646.

5. Field background art the '646 specification itself acknowledges

The '646 BACKGROUND expressly frames the prior art as: conventional connectors that contact and electrically extend the conductive shield, where electromagnetic noise enters at the port/connector junction and where weathering/corrosion causes "intermittent contact and poor electromagnetic shielding." It also expressly acknowledges that the foil layer 15 has an unpredictable diameter within manufacturing tolerance, so that direct post‑to‑foil contact "may not be sufficient or adequate for conductivity or continuity." That admitted deficiency is the stated motivation for the inner‑surface conductive member. Any §102 challenge to the independent claims must therefore show a conductive member positioned along the inner surface of the post contacting the foil layer — not merely a shield‑contacting post (the admitted art) nor a coupler/body continuity member.

6. Claim‑by‑claim §102 mapping (potential, subject to the verification caveat above)

Net assessment: On the record I could verify, no single reference I saw clearly anticipates the core '646 independent claims (a conductive member on the post inner surface contacting the foil layer to give axial electrical continuity about the dielectric) under §102 — the closest single references (US 7,828,595, Tatsuzuki) lack that specific inner‑post/foil‑contact placement. The realistic §102 exposures are limited to (i) the sealing/O‑ring dependent subject matter (Montena, Youtsey) and (ii) any §102(e) exposure from the co‑pending US 8,167,636 filed three days earlier. The realistic validity attacks on the independent claims are §103 combinations (e.g., '595's conductive O‑ring + a post‑inner‑surface/foil‑contact teaching; or Tatsuzuki's continuity member + Montena's seal).

7. What I recommend to close the gaps

To produce a definitive, claim‑by‑claim §102 chart you should pull the verbatim front‑page list, which I could not retrieve here:

1. USPTO PatentCenter / Public PAIR for App. 12/906,243 — Inspect the "References Cited by Examiner" (PTO‑892) and applicant IDS (PTO‑1449) to get the literal numbers.
2. US 8,167,646 B1 PDF front page, "(56) References Cited" — the PDF exists (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/46/35/67/…/US8167646.pdf); the HTML I had is truncated and the front‑page block did not survive into my extract.
3. Confirm the three "reported" references (Tatsuzuki, Montena, Youtsey) and the "Digicon AVL Connector" non‑patent citation, all of which appear in the surrounding record but whose exact bibliographic numbers I could not verify in this session.

I have deliberately not invented patent numbers for Tatsuzuki, Montena, Youtsey, or for the '646's own face citations, because I could not confirm them from the retrieved sources.

I'll gather the prior-art citations and any IPR/litigation record that bears on obviousness before analyzing.

Let me pull the patent's own front-page "References Cited" list and the key candidate references.

Obviousness Analysis — US 8,167,646 B1 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

0. Source note and a correction to the earlier section

Source limitation (flagged explicitly, per my operating rules): the "Prior Art" content on the fetched Google Patents page for US8167646 was not returned in the page text I could retrieve — the fetch was dominated by boilerplate and the specification body, and the front-page "References Cited" list was not captured. I therefore built the reference inventory below from the prior art that surfaced in my searches, including documents cited in the related PPC Broadband post-grant proceedings (the '320/'060/'353/'053/'083 families), and I label confidence for each.

Two corrections/updates to the previously generated section:

1. The earlier section said the literal claim text could not be verified. I have now retrieved literal claims from RPX Insight — at minimum claim 1 verbatim, plus the text of claims 12, 19, 24 and 25. Those are used below and should supersede the paraphrases. (insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/US8167646B1)
2. Contradiction flagged: the earlier section speculated that IPR2022‑01523 (PerfectVision v. PPC Broadband, institution denied) might target US 8,167,646. That is now resolved against the speculation: the proceeding's Respondent Patent Number is 7,118,416 (the '416 Patent), application 10/781,376, institution denied Feb 24, 2023. (ipverse.greyb.com/…/IPR2022-01523) No IPR naming US 8,167,646 was found.

1. Framework: date, law, and level of ordinary skill

• Governing law: pre‑AIA § 103. The application was filed October 18, 2010; the first-inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA took effect March 16, 2013. Priority date of the '646 patent is the filing date (no earlier domestic benefit appears on the page).
• Critical date: October 18, 2010. References must qualify under pre‑AIA § 102(a)/(b)/(e) as of that date.
• Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years of experience designing coaxial "F"-type connectors, or a comparable combination of technical education and hands-on connector design experience. This is a mature, incremental mechanical art; the prior art is dense (hundreds of F-connector patents), which affects both the "obvious to try" analysis and the breadth of analogous art.
• Graham factors analyzed: (1) scope/content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; (4) objective indicia of non-obviousness.

2. The claims at issue — what actually must be taught

Literal claim 1 (retrieved verbatim):

"1. A connector for coupling an end of a coaxial cable, the coaxial cable having a center conductor surrounded by a dielectric, the dielectric being surrounded by a foil layer, the foil layer being surrounded by a conductive grounding shield, the conductive grounding shield being surrounded by a protective outer jacket, the connector comprising: a connector body attached to a post, wherein the post has a first end and a second end, the first end configured to be inserted into an end of the coaxial cable around the foil layer encompassing the dielectric and under the conductive grounding shield thereof; a rotatable coupling element attached to the post; and a conductive member positioned along an inner surface of the post facilitating continuous electrical communication between the foil layer and the post, when the first end of the post is inserted into the end of the coaxial cable around the foil layer encompassing the dielectric and under the conductive grounding shield thereof."

Claim 12 differs only in that the connector body's first end is "configured to deformably compress against and seal a received coaxial cable" and the conductive member's function is recited as "facilitat[ing] the grounding of the coaxial cable by electrically coupling the foil layer to the post."
Claim 19 adds a "plurality of conductive members," at least one along the inner surface of the post, helping "complete a shield preventing ingress of electromagnetic noise." Claim 24 is a means-plus-function claim ("means for electrically coupling the post and the foil layer"). Claim 25 is the method counterpart ("positioning a first conductive member on an inner surface of the post…contacts both the foil layer and the post establishing and maintaining electrical continuity").

Element-by-element breakdown of claim 1:

So the obviousness fight reduces to limitation E — and, for claim 19, whether more than one such member (and the resulting EMI shield) is a patentable increment.

3. Prior art inventory

4. Grounds of rejection

Ground 1 — EP 2 242 147 A1 in view of US 2010/0297875 A1 (Purdy et al.): claim 1 (and claims 12, 25)

Mapping. EP 2 242 147's alternative embodiment discloses a coaxial connector with a connector body, a post, and a post inner radial surface sized/contoured to contact the foil-covered dielectric — i.e., the electrical interface to the foil is deliberately relocated to inside the post bore, and the document explains why (the foil is the continuous outer conductor; the braid has gaps; the connector must "receive the energy from the foil layer"). That is limitation E's location and purpose. Its first embodiment goes further and interposes a discrete annular ring ("signal ring") inside the forward end of the post that engages the conductive layer of the foil — i.e., a separate conductive member seated at the post's inner surface, analogously to the '646 patent's member 75.

Where EP 2 242 147 alone is arguably short: it does not describe its ring as a compressible/conductive-elastomer member that maintains contact as the foil OD varies, and its "signal ring" is largely a rigid, sharp-edged signal-directing element. A patent owner would argue the claim requires a member that "facilitat[es] continuous electrical communication," which (per PPC's own successful construction arguments in PPC I) implies consistent contact rather than a mere abutting surface.

What Purdy adds. US 2010/0297875 A1 expressly provides a discrete "continuity member" (conductive elastomer/O-ring style, in the family's disclosure) contacting the post and held in the connector so as to maintain electrical continuity through the connector. It supplies the "separate conductive member" element and the compressibility/continuity teaching that EP 2 242 147 is missing.

Result. The combination discloses every limitation of claim 1: connector body + post (both), post inserted around the foil/under the shield (EP 2 242 147, Youtsey as secondary), rotatable coupling element attached to the post (both; conventional), and a conductive member along the post's inner surface establishing continuous foil-to-post communication (EP 2 242 147's ring/post-bore contact, made continuously conductive and resilient per Purdy/Lionetto/Horak). Claim 12 adds only "deformably compress against and seal a received coaxial cable" — routine in crimp/compression F-connectors and shown by Youtsey's deformable outer barrel. Claim 25's method steps are the assembly counterpart and are met by inserting/press-fitting the ring (Youtsey's O-rings are assembled the same way).

Caveat: Ground 1 depends on EP 2 242 147 A1 qualifying as prior art as of October 18, 2010. I have not verified its publication date in this session and it must be checked first. If it post-dates the filing, substitute the corresponding US member of that RFI-sealing family (which I could not verify here) or use Youtsey + Purdy + Lionetto + Horak, which does not depend on it.

Ground 2 — Youtsey in view of Lionetto and Horak: claims 12, 19, 24, 25

This is not a hypothetical combination — it is the combination the PPC family has repeatedly been held obvious over in the Office. In the PPC-family record I retrieved, the Board reasoned:

"Lionetto and Horak further demonstrate that it was known to use ring-shaped conductive elastomers … disposed between two metal conductors, to electrically connect the metal conductors and thereby extend a grounding shield through a coaxial cable connector." And: "a person of ordinary skill in the art … would have been motivated to add a second (redundant) grounding path to a connector that has only a single grounding path (such as the connector in Youtsey)," citing KSR: "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."

The same triad (Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak, plus "Montana" for a dependent claim) was applied against the '053 patent in reexamination with the rationale that it is "the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result" (MPEP 2143(B)). For the '646 patent, the substitution is even cleaner: replace/add a conductive ring where the art already places non-conductive rings (Youtsey's O-rings), positioned to bridge two metal conductors (Lionetto, Horak), and locate that bridge at the post bore in contact with the foil (EP 2 242 147; or, if the primary reference is unavailable, at the post/nut junction — which then supports claims 12 and 19 as written, since claim 12 does not require the conductive member to be at any particular axial position beyond "along an inner surface of the post").

Claim 19 (plurality of conductive members / completing an EMI shield). Adding a second conductive member to create a redundant ground path and close a shield gap is precisely the "redundant grounding path" rationale the Board credited. The '646 patent itself claims the benefit of redundancy (FIGS. 2, 8, 9 show two or three members 70/75/80) without asserting any unexpected result — the stated results (grounding + EMI shielding) are exactly what the individual known members were already known to produce. Under KSR, "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."

Ground 3 — Purdy ('320 / 2010/0297875) alone or with Horak: claims 12 and 24

For claim 24's means-plus-function limitation, the corresponding structure disclosed in the '646 spec is the conductive member 75 (and O-rings 70/80). Purdy discloses a structurally corresponding conductive continuity member engaging the post, so the disclosed structure/algorithm is present in the art; the prior art need only disclose structure corresponding to the claimed "means" and equivalents (the function is electrical coupling of post and foil, which Purdy and EP 2 242 147 both perform).

5. Motivation to combine — the KSR rationales

1. The problem is confessed in the patent itself. The '646 Background admits the foil OD "may vary in dimension down the length of the cable… Due to this unpredictability, the contact between the post 40 and the conductive foil layer 15 may not be sufficient or adequate for conductivity or continuity." When the specification identifies the exact problem and the exact locus of failure, the prior art's solutions at that locus are obvious to try.
2. The problem was known and the solutions were known and finite. The retrieved record shows the industry already knew (i) to electrically extend the cable shield through the connector, (ii) to use ring-shaped conductive elastomers between metal conductors to lengthen the ground path (Lionetto, Horak), and (iii) to interpose a connector element at the post bore to capture current from the foil (EP 2 242 147). KSR: where a technique has been used to improve one device and a POSITA would recognize it would improve similar devices in the same way, it is obvious.
3. Predictable result / simple substitution (MPEP 2143(B)). Swapping a non-conductive O-ring for a conductive one at a metal-to-metal juncture, and placing a conductive ring against the foil instead of relying on a machined post surface, produces only the expected result: a robust ground path and improved EMI shielding.
4. Design incentives and market pressure. The art is crowded, the product is a commodity, and the competitive pressure to eliminate "loose connector" intermittency provides the marketplace motivation. (The record is replete with PPC's own continuity-connector campaign and competitors' responses.)
5. Teaching-away is weak. Nothing in these references teaches away from a post-bore continuity member; the EP document actually endorses it.

6. Anticipation caution (§ 102) vs. obviousness (§ 103)

• If EP 2 242 147 A1's alternative embodiment (post inner surface contacting the foil-covered dielectric) is treated as meeting "conductive member… along an inner surface of the post," a § 102 argument becomes available for claim 1. Expect the patent owner to resist by arguing that the claim requires a discrete member distinct from the post ("a connector body attached to a post… and a conductive member positioned along an inner surface of the post"), and that a unitary post surface is neither a "member" nor "positioned along" the post's inner surface. That reading is defensible, so § 103 is the safer theory, with EP 2 242 147's first embodiment (discrete signal ring in the post) doing the heavy lifting.
• Likewise, Tatsuzuki's rigid "disc-shaped spring" was held insufficient to "maintain electrical continuity" with the post (PPC Broadband v. Corning, 815 F.3d 734; and on remand/vacatur, PPC Broadband v. Iancu). A challenger should therefore build its primary reference from a compressible/conductive elastomeric member (Lionetto/Horak/Purdy) rather than a rigid ring, to avoid the same failure mode.

7. Objective indicia (§ 103 secondary considerations)

Non-trivial and must be addressed head-on. In PPC Broadband v. Corning, PPC's evidence of long-felt need, copying, and commercial success of the "SignalTight" connectors survived review in part, and in PPC Broadband v. Iancu the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the Board failed to properly weigh objective indicia on remand — expressly reaffirming that objective indicia "may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record" and requiring a nexus between the successful product and the claimed features.

Applied here:

• Nexus problem for the '646 patent: the '646 claims are drawn to a conductive member on the inner surface of the post coupling to the foil, which is a different location than the nut/post-based continuity members of the '320/'060/'353 claims that drove the SignalTight commercial-success record. A challenger should argue the objective evidence is not commensurate in scope with the '646 claims unless the patent owner shows the accused/embodied product actually practices the post-bore foil-contact feature. PPC's own patents describe the entire continuity family as one product line, which cuts both ways.
• Copying/industry uptake and long-felt need are genuinely probative and, if tied to the post-bore/foil-continuity feature, are the strongest non-obviousness argument available (and the one that defeated summary invalidity arguments in the family).
• The '646 patent is expired (fee-related), which removes the injunctive-nexus incentive to litigate and removes PTAB access (IPR unavailable for expired claims), meaning any invalidity challenge would now have to proceed in district court under Phillips — the very construction standard under which PPC succeeded in PPC I (i.e., "continuity" implies continuous or consistent contact). That standard helps the patent owner and means a challenger must prove the combined art maintains contact, not merely that it could.

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is the whole case. The preamble elements (A–D) are admitted prior art. The only real limitation is the conductive member along the inner surface of the post bridging to the foil layer, and that concept is taught or suggested by the RFI-sealing art (EP 2 242 147 A1, annular signal ring inside the post engaging the foil conductive layer; post inner surface contacting the foil), by the PPC-family continuity-member art (Purdy's US 2010/0297875 A1 / US 8,287,320), and by the mainstream knowledge that conductive elastomeric rings electrically bridge metal conductors (Lionetto, Horak; Youtsey for the chassis and O-ring placement). A combined rejection under § 103 is well supported, with the specification's own admission of the foil-tolerance problem supplying the motivation.
• Claims 12, 25, and 24 fall with claim 1 plus routine sealing/crimp structure (Youtsey) and corresponding structure for the means limitation (Purdy; EP 2 242 147).
• Claim 19 (plurality of conductive members completing an EMI shield) is vulnerable on the KSR "redundant grounding path / predictable result" rationale already adopted by the Board in the PPC/Amphenol proceedings.
• The strongest defense is not the technical art but the objective-indicia record (SignalTight commercial success, long-felt need, copying), which the Federal Circuit has twice held must be properly weighed — with the challenger attacking nexus and commensurateness to the specific post-bore foil-contact feature.

Uncertainties I will not paper over: (i) the '646 patent's own front-page "References Cited" list was not captured, so my inventory is drawn from the family's PTAB/reexam record rather than the patent's face; (ii) the publication date (and therefore § 102(a)/(b) eligibility) of EP 2 242 147 A1 is unverified and must be confirmed before it is used as a primary reference; (iii) the identity/number of the reference called "Matthews" in PPC Broadband v. Corning is not established in the material I reviewed — I deliberately refrain from asserting a patent number for it; (iv) I found no IPR, PGR, or Federal Circuit 2026 appeal specifically naming US 8,167,646, and I confirmed that IPR2022‑01523 targets US 7,118,416, not the '646 patent.