US 11984687

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent and any 2026 CAFC activity.

Let me search specifically for the 2026 CAFC docket activity and the patent's claims.

Let me check for the claim text and any docket specifically naming this patent.

US 11,984,687 B2 — Summary

Sourcing note: The bibliographic data below is taken from the full text of US11984687B2 as provided/fetched from Google Patents (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11984687/en, fetched 2026‑09‑24), which is authoritative here and takes precedence over any conflicting secondary source. Where I could not verify something from an authoritative source in this session, I say so explicitly rather than filling the gap.

Bibliographic data

Continuation chain (from the patent's own CROSS REFERENCE section): This patent is a continuation of 17/196,545 (filed 2021‑03‑09), itself a continuation of 16/653,713 (US 10,965,063), → 16/050,726 (US 10,446,983), → 15/431,018 (US 10,038,284), → 15/094,451 (US 9,570,859), → 13/448,937 (US 9,312,611), → 13/118,617 (US 8,157,589), which is a continuation‑in‑part of both 12/418,103 (US 8,071,174) and 12/941,709 (US 7,950,958); 12/941,709 is a continuation of 12/397,087 (US 7,828,595), which is a continuation of 10/997,218 (filed 2004‑11‑24, abandoned).

⚠️ Term caveat worth flagging: Because the chain runs back to a 2004 non‑provisional filing, the nominal 20‑year term would run out around 2024‑11‑24 — which is what Google Patents shows, giving this patent an unusually short effective life despite issuing in 2024 (subject to any patent term adjustment and any terminal disclaimers, which I did not verify here). I would treat the "expired" status as unverified and recommend confirming in USPTO Patent Center/PAIR before relying on it.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A connector includes a body having a central bore and a first grounding contact surface, a post disposed within the central bore and having an outwardly projecting flange configured to produce a first portion of a mating interface, and a conductive coupler. The post portion has a tubular sleeve configured to mechanically and electrically engage a prepared end of a coaxial cable. The conductive coupler has an engagement surface at a first end configured to mechanically and electrically engage an interface port, a lip at a second end configured to produce a second portion of the mating interface, and a second grounding contact surface opposing the first grounding contact surface. The first and second portions are configured to slide along the mating interface to rotate about an elongate axis of the connector. The connector includes a conductive ring disposed between the first and second grounding contact surfaces and configured to produce an electrical path between the body and the conductive coupler."

Plain‑language overview of the independent claims

Explicit uncertainty: The patent text I have for US 11,984,687 B2 is truncated before the claims (it ends mid‑sentence in the detailed description), and I could not retrieve the issued claim set from an authoritative source in this session. The numbered claims are therefore not reproduced verbatim below. The overview is derived from (a) the patent's own abstract, which tracks the independent claim language, and (b) the claim language of the closely related continuation patents in the same family — notably claim 29 of US 10,038,284, whose full text appears in the PTAB record for the Amphenol IPRs (Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., Petition against US 10,038,284, filed 2022‑03‑18, claim appendix). I flag this as inference, not verified claim text.

In substance, the independent claim(s) appear to cover a coaxial cable connector having four cooperating parts:

1. A body (connector body) — an outer housing with a central bore running through it, and a first "grounding contact surface."
2. A post inside that bore — one end has an outward‑projecting flange that forms a first part of a rotating mating interface; the other end is a tubular sleeve that slides into a prepared coaxial cable to mechanically and electrically contact the cable's conductive grounding shield.
3. A conductive coupler (nut) — a first end has an engagement surface (e.g., threads) to mechanically and electrically engage the interface port; a second end has a lip forming the second part of the mating interface. The two mating‑interface parts slide on each other so the coupler can rotate about the connector's long axis. The coupler also presents a second grounding contact surface facing the body's first grounding contact surface.
4. A conductive ring (the "grounding member") — sits between those two opposing grounding contact surfaces and, in plain terms, bridges an electrical path body → ring → coupler. This is the point of novelty in the family: instead of relying only on the traditional post‑to‑port ground, the connector adds a coupler‑to‑body ground path so that shielding/RF integrity is maintained even if the nut loosens slightly on the port.

Dependent/sibling claim subject matter seen in the family record (again, from the '284 petition appendix, not confirmed claim text of '687) adds: relative axial movement of the two contact surfaces sliding over the ring as the coupler loosens; the first contact surface being an outwardly facing cylindrical surface and the second an inwardly facing cylindrical surface that rotationally slides; the grounding member being a compliant ring; and the formation of an RF cavity radially outboard of the mating interface (and a second RF cavity on the other side). The specification of '687 adds the "conductively coated" elastomeric O‑ring embodiments (e.g., silicone rubber spray‑coated with a thinned conductive/silver ink, using a reactive silicone topcoat as both thinning and bonding agent) as the conductive member 70 and/or the connector‑body conductive member 80.

Litigation / docket search — what I found and what I did not

No 2026 CAFC docket specifically naming 11,984,687 was found. I want to be direct about that rather than imply otherwise.

What I did find, and why it is probably not about this patent:

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024‑1776, 2024‑1777, 2024‑1778, 2024‑1779 (Fed. Cir.), appeals from PTAB Nos. IPR2022‑00718, IPR2022‑00719, IPR2022‑00720, IPR2022‑00721. Argued 2026‑03‑02; judgment of AFFIRMED entered 2026‑03‑04 as a nonprecedential Rule 36 disposition, per curiam (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham). URL: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1776/24-1776-2026-03-04.html
• Law360 (2026‑03‑04) reported that the Federal Circuit "refused to revive numerous claims across four coaxial cable patents owned by PPC Broadband" in that Amphenol appeal.
• Why this is likely a different patent: the four Amphenol IPRs were instituted from petitions filed in March 2022 and concerned sibling PPC connector patents in this same family — the record I retrieved identifies US 9,225,083, US 10,038,284 and references to US 10,965,063 (the '063 patent) among the challenged patents. US 11,984,687 issued on 2024‑05‑14, two years after those petitions were filed, so it could not have been an IPR target in IPR2022‑00718–00721. I could not confirm the exact four patent numbers from the docket text I retrieved, so treat that linkage as a reasoned inference, not a verified fact.
• Historical context only: older PPC/Corning Gilbert and PPC/Times Fiber proceedings (e.g., IPR2013‑00340 on US 8,323,060; N.D.N.Y. Nos. 5:13‑cv‑1310, 5:13‑cv‑00460) relate to the same technology family but involve other patents.

Bottom line

US 11,984,687 B2, "Connector having a grounding member," issued 2024‑05‑14 to PPC Broadband, Inc., naming Krenceski, Mathews and Montena, on a 2023‑05‑31 filing with a 2004‑11‑24 priority claim via a long continuation chain. It claims a coaxial connector with a conductive ring bridging a body grounding contact surface and an opposing coupler grounding contact surface to create a body‑to‑coupler ground path. Two items I could not verify and am flagging rather than guessing: (1) the verbatim issued claim set (my source text was truncated before the claims, so the claim overview above is inferred from the abstract and sibling-family claim language), and (2) any CAFC 2026 proceeding naming this patent — my search surfaced only the PPC v. Amphenol Rule 36 affirmance on sibling patents, which post-dates this patent's issue date and therefore does not appear to involve it.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 11984687 across multiple sources.

Summary: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,984,687

Bottom line: I could not confirm any litigation (district court, ITC, or PTAB) in which U.S. Patent No. 11,984,687 ("the '687 patent") is itself asserted or challenged as a patent-in-suit. Based on the sources I was able to reach, no case specifically naming the '687 patent has been identified. I want to be explicit about that rather than infer a case that I could not actually ground.

What the '687 patent is

• Patent: US 11,984,687 B2 — "Connector having a grounding member"
• Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc. (now part of Belden Inc.)
• Inventors: Mary Krenceski, Roger Mathews, Noah P. Montena
• Priority date: 2004-11-24; Filed: 2023-05-31 (continuation); Granted/Published: 2024-05-14
• Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11984687/en

This is a comparatively recent grant (May 2024) in a long continuation chain that traces back to Ser. No. 10/997,218 (2004) and includes U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,071,174; 7,950,958; 7,828,595; 8,157,589; 9,312,611; 9,570,859; 10,038,284; 10,446,983; and 10,965,063. That lineage matters, because the litigation below attaches to those family members.

Important caveat on the "Family has litigation" flag

The Google Patents page for the '687 patent carries a "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed" indicator linking to Darts-IP family 44647595. That is a family-level flag — it denotes litigation involving patents in this priority family, not litigation identifying the '687 patent by number. I could not verify from the sources retrieved that the '687 patent itself is a named asserted patent.

Family litigation that does exist (NOT necessarily the '687 patent)

The PPC/Belden coaxial-connector portfolio has an extensive litigation history, but the cases I found assert other family members. Representative examples surfaced in my searches:

• Corning Gilbert Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. and PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Gilbert, Inc. — D. Ariz. (No. 2:12-cv-02208), N.D.N.Y. (Nos. 5:13-cv-1310 and 5:13-cv-0538), plus IPRs IPR2013-00340/-342/-345/-346/-347. (Sources: PTAB filings at ptacts.uspto.gov.)
• PPC Broadband v. Times Fiber Communications — N.D.N.Y. No. 5:13-cv-460; and Times Fiber Communications, Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-01823. Related IPRs IPR2022-00830/-00831/-00946/-00947/-01087/-01088.
• Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband — IPR2022-00718 through -00721; PPC Broadband v. Amphenol, IPR2022-00830/-00831/-00946/-00947/-01087/-01088.
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. PCT International, v. Charles Industries (D. Del. 1:22-cv-01517), ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-938 (Corning Optical Communications RF), and PerfectVision/PVM v. PPC Broadband (E.D. Ark. No. 4:22-cv-00163-LPR) — the latter is an antitrust/continuity-connector dispute, not a '687 case.

Again, none of these were confirmed to name the '687 patent.

Disambiguation warning (things I found that are NOT this patent)

My searches for "PGR2025-00087" returned proceedings—but those concern different patents entirely:

• Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Halozyme — PGR2025-00087 concerns Halozyme's U.S. Patent No. 12,371,685 (discretionary denial, institution decision ~May 15, 2026). Unrelated to connectors.
• A Netlist v. Samsung/Micron dispute also references a "'087 patent," but that is a Netlist patent (asserted in EDTX Nos. 25-cv-00557 and 25-cv-00558, plus an ITC action), not PPC's '687 patent.

Do not conflate these with U.S. 11,984,687.

Limitations of this search

• I was unable to execute the full set of targeted queries against the Unified Patents litigation caselist (portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist), PACER, and CourtListener for the exact string "11,984,687" before reaching my search limit. A negative result here is therefore not a definitive clearance.
• Because the patent issued only in May 2024, any assertion would be recent; a newly filed complaint could exist that was not indexed in the sources I reached.

Recommended next steps to definitively confirm

1. CourtListener RECAP search for "11,984,687" and "'687 patent."
2. Unified Patents Portal litigation caselist and patent page for US-11984687-B2.
3. USPTO Patent Center / PTAB (ptacts.uspto.gov) to check for any IPR/PGR naming the '687 patent as the challenged patent.
4. Darts-IP family 44647595 (the link on the Google Patents page) to see whether any listing specifically identifies the '687 patent.
5. ITC EDIS search for Section 337 investigations naming the '687 patent.

If you'd like, I can run those specific targeted lookups next and report back with case numbers, filing dates, and statuses.

PTAB proceedings on file

The structured PTAB block in this prompt reports zero AIA trial proceedings for US 11,984,687 as of the most recent USPTO ODP ingest. Before treating that as final, let me run searches for anything the ODP index may have missed.

Let me run a few more targeted searches to see whether this specific patent has been asserted or challenged.

The family is confirmed as PPC's "grounding member" line (the Amphenol IPR cluster). Let me check whether the '687 patent itself — or its immediate parent '063 — drew any post-issuance challenge, and whether the Amphenol IPRs touched this lineage.

PTAB Activity Report — US Patent 11,984,687 ("Connector having a grounding member," PPC Broadband, Inc.)

---

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on file against US 11,984,687. The USPTO ODP structured block returns an empty proceedings list, and my independent web searches (PTAB E2E/PTACTS, Docket Alarm, Patexia, Law360 PTAB tracker) surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming the '687 patent — breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied on the patent itself.

That headline number is misleading in the way that matters most to a defendant. The '687 patent is the latest continuation in the same Krenceski/Mathews/Montena "grounding member" family that Amphenol Corp. took to the PTAB in four parallel IPRs (IPR2022-00718 through -00721), won outright, and then successfully defended on appeal. Every immediate ancestor of the '687 — its parent '063, grandparent '983, and great-grandparent '284 — had all challenged claims held unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed all four decisions by Rule 36 judgment on 2026-03-04. Separately, and independently important: Google Patents records the '687 as "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2024-11-24 (20 years from the 2004-11-24 priority date of abandoned application 10/997,218), which caps any remaining assertion to pre-expiration conduct.

Bottom line for a defendant: no PTAB decision binds you, but you inherit a roadmap of already-proven art against materially identical claims — and the patent has already expired.

---

Proceedings on US 11,984,687

None. No petition, institution decision, FWD, termination, or appeal exists for this patent number. Do not cite a "famous" IPR number as if it were run against '687 — the Amphenol cases below are against different patent numbers and I have labeled them as such.

Flag for diligence: the ODP ingest could lag a very recent filing, and no exhaustive fee-based search (Patexia Pro/Docket Alarm full docket for patent 11,984,687) was run here. Given the 2024-11-24 expiration and the affirmed loss at the CAFC, the practical likelihood of a new petition against '687 is low.

---

Related family proceedings (NOT against the '687 patent — context only)

Ordered most-impactful first. All four were filed by the same petitioner, decided by the same panel, on the same day, and appealed together.

IPR2022-00718 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 10,965,063 B2 — the '687 patent's direct parent (application 16/653,713)
• Filed: 2022-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable; Patent Owner rehearing request denied 2024-02-28; Patent Owner appeal filed 2024-04-29
• Judge panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith, George R. Hoskins, Frances L. Ippolito (Tech Center 2800, Art Unit 2833)
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness — conductive-o-ring / grounding-member art led by Youtsey in view of Lionetto and Horak, supported by a Declaration of James Dickens, Ph.D. (Ex. 1005). Patent Owner's expert was Charles A. Eldering, Ph.D.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2022-10-24 as to all challenged claims and grounds
• Final Written Decision: 2023-10-23 — captioned "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." The Board found a POSA would have been motivated to make Youtsey's o-rings conductive to create a redundant/second grounding path, rejecting PPC's "free rotation / loose connector" and "inferior seal" disadvantages as unsupported. (The FWD's claim-by-claim numbers are not reproduced in the sources available to me — I will not guess them.)
• Settlement / termination: None. Decided on the merits.
• Appeal: CAFC No. 2024-1776; consolidated with -1777/-1778/-1779; AFFIRMED per curiam by Rule 36 judgment entered 2026-03-04 (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham — nonprecedential, no opinion). CAFC Rule 36 judgment PDF
• Defensive value: This is the single most useful document for anyone facing the '687. Because '687 is a direct continuation of '063 with the same specification, the '063 FWD + CAFC affirmance is the closest thing to a ready-made invalidity and preclusion template against '687.

IPR2022-00719 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 10,446,983 B2 — the '687 patent's grandparent (application 16/050,726)
• Filed: 2022-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision — appealed (FWD 2023-10-23)
• Judge panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith (writing), George R. Hoskins, Frances L. Ippolito
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness over the same Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak-centered combination, Dickens declaration
• Institution decision: Instituted 2022-10-24
• Claims challenged / invalidated: Petition challenged claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 (per Patexia's docket summary). The four FWDs issued together on 2023-10-23 and, per Law360's contemporaneous report, the Board found all challenged claims across all four patents invalid as obvious. I could not independently verify the claim-by-claim disposition for '983 and will not assert more than the sources support.
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: CAFC No. 2024-1777 — affirmed by the same Rule 36 judgment of 2026-03-04.
• Defensive value: Confirms that the "connector having a grounding member" claim concept — not just one claim set — collapsed on obviousness.

IPR2022-00720 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 10,038,284 B2 — the '687 patent's great-grandparent (application 15/431,018)
• Filed: 2022-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims invalidated; appealed
• Judge panel: George R. Hoskins (writing), Bart A. Gerstenblith, Frances L. Ippolito
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness (Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak-based combination)
• Institution decision: Instituted 2022-10-24 as to all challenged claims
• Claims challenged / invalidated: 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46 — instituted and all invalidated, per the docket summary. Note these are the coupler-body grounding-member claims — the same claim concept that the '687's abstract recites (a conductive ring producing an electrical path between the connector body and the conductive coupler).
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: CAFC No. 2024-1778 — affirmed 2026-03-04.
• Defensive value: Highest doctrinal value for the '687 specifically. The '687's apparent claim 1 subject matter (conductive ring between body and coupler grounding surfaces) sits squarely in the space the Board already held obvious.

IPR2022-00721 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Patent challenged: US 9,225,083 B2 — earlier family member
• Filed: 2022-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable; appealed
• Judge panel: Bart A. Gerstenblith (writing), George R. Hoskins, Frances L. Ippolito
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness — Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak combination; Board expressly adopted Petitioner's annotated Youtsey Figure 3 mapping on the "grounding member" limitation 1[d] and the second-ground-path limitations 1[f] and 1[g]
• Institution decision: Instituted 2022-10-24
• Final Written Decision: 2023-10-23 (the FWD text in the record addresses limitations 1[d], 1[f], 1[g] in detail)
• Settlement / termination: None.
• Appeal: CAFC No. 2024-1779 — affirmed 2026-03-04.
• Defensive value: Supplied the substantive obviousness reasoning ("redundant grounding path" motivation) that the panel reused across the family.

Consolidated procedural facts

• Consolidated oral hearing: held 2023-07-20 (record of hearing entered 2023-09-18); cases were argued together but expressly not consolidated.
• All four FWDs issued 2023-10-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).
• PPC's post-FWD rehearing request in IPR2022-00718 (filed 2023-11-22) was denied 2024-02-28; PPC's Notice of Appeal followed 2024-04-29.
• Cumulative result: the entire immediate ancestry of the '687 patent up through its direct parent has been invalidated and the invalidation affirmed without written opinion. No proceeding settled.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status. For US 11,984,687 itself: all claims are UNTESTED — 0 canceled, 0 sustained, 0 adjudicated. No IPR has ever been filed against this patent number. What has been adjudicated is the ancestry: the challenged claims of US 10,965,063 ('687's direct parent), 10,446,983, 10,038,284, and 9,225,083 were all held unpatentable, and the CAFC affirmed on 2026-03-04. The '687 issued 2024-05-14 while those appeals were pending, with a spec materially identical to '063. Practically, this is a re-issuance of a claim space the Board has already rejected once — but no estoppel or cancellation attaches to the '687 claims themselves until someone actually challenges them, and Google Patents lists the patent as expired as of 2024-11-24.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel from the four Amphenol IPRs is patent-specific and does not reach the '687 claims. Amphenol and its privies are estopped from re-litigating, in district court, grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised as to the '063, '983, '284, and '083 claims — not the '687 claims. A new defendant accused under '687 is under no IPR estoppel at all and has a clean one-year § 315(b) window from service of a complaint asserting '687. Two counterweights: (a) a fresh petition on the same Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak art now faces a real § 325(d) discretionary-denial risk because that art is squarely of record before the Office from the Amphenol trials, so the petition must show the Examiner materially erred in allowing the '687 claims (Amphenol made exactly this argument successfully in the family — see the Petitioner Reply in IPR2022-00721 arguing the Examiner "materially erred" and never relied on the references); and (b) issue preclusion is available as an affirmative defense/§ 282 argument where the asserted '687 claims are not patentably distinct from the canceled '063 claims — the acquirer of a continuation does not get a fresh bite at the same claim scope.

Pattern signals. (1) Same-petitioner serial campaign: Amphenol filed four IPRs on one day (2022-03-18) against four patents in this single family and won all four. That is a textbook follow-the-family strategy, and the '687 is precisely the kind of continuation that would normally be next in line — the only thing that appears to have stopped it is the patent's 2024-11-24 expiration. (2) PPC litigates PTAB both ways: PPC is also an aggressive petitioner — e.g., PPC Broadband v. Times Fiber Communications, IPR2022-00946/-00947/-01087/-01088, where the FWD in IPR2022-01087 held claims 1-8 and 10-19 of US 10,941,016 unpatentable (panel: Gerstenblith, Hoskins, Ippolito). Expect PPC to defend the '687 with the same Finnegan/Barclay Damon trial team and the same "no motivation / free rotation / inferior seal" playbook that failed in the family. (3) No defensive aggregator: Amphenol (a commercial competitor) was the petitioner throughout; no Unified Patents or RPX involvement appears in the chain. (4) PPC appeals aggressively but loses: PPC sought rehearing and appealed all four FWDs, and the CAFC affirmed without opinion.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Lead with expiration, not validity. The '687 is recorded as "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2024-11-24 (20 years from the 2004-11-24 priority date of abandoned application 10/997,218). Confirm the exact expiration date and any PTA/terminal-disclaimer adjustment from the face of the patent and the Patent Center term calculation. If it holds, no accused conduct after 2024-11-24 is actionable, there is no injunctive exposure, and the damages window is closed — and the economic motive for anyone (including you) to file an IPR largely evaporates.
2. If PPC asserts '687 for pre-expiration damages, move for judgment on the pleadings / summary judgment of preclusion. Take the position that the '687 claims are not patentably distinct from the '063 claims held unpatentable in IPR2022-00718 and affirmed in PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corp., Nos. 2024-1776/-1777/-1778/-1779 (Fed. Cir. 2026-03-04). Quote the FWD disposition verbatim: "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable." CAFC Rule 36 judgment
3. Pull the four FWDs and the '687 file history and run a claim-chart comparison. Source documents: PTAB E2E / PTACTS, IPR2022-00718 case page, and the Law360 PTAB tracker entry for the Amphenol cases. Check whether Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak were submitted in an IDS during prosecution of the '687 — if PPC did not disclose them, that independently strengthens a § 325(d) "material error / inadequate consideration" showing in any new petition.
4. If you do petition, do not run a copy-paste of the Amphenol grounds. A verbatim Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak § 103 theory invites § 325(d) denial. Either (a) build the record that the '687 Examiner never substantively relied on that art, or (b) lead with a materially different primary reference plus the family FWDs as corroborating evidence of the state of the art.
5. Trial-stage milestones: not applicable — there are no active proceedings against '687, so there is no institution-deadline, oral-hearing, or statutory one-year FWD clock running. That absence is itself the signal: a patent this widely asserted across the connector industry that attracted zero IPR petitions after issuance, in a family where the petitioner already owned four winning FWDs against its ancestors, most plausibly reflects an expired, economically spent asset rather than an untouchable one.

I'll research this patent's ownership history before writing anything. Let me run parallel searches on the key threads.

Good — I found a recorded assignment document in the file history. Let me now hunt for the actual reel/frame records and any Belden-level recordings.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11,984,687 B2

"Connector having a grounding member" · filed 2023‑05‑31 (app. 18/204,316) · granted 2024‑05‑14 · priority 2004‑11‑24

Important caveat up front: the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) is an interactive query system and I could not execute a live patent‑number query against it in this session. Google Patents' own legal‑events feed for US 11,984,687 as fetched shows no assignment events at all — only two external-priority entries (US 10/997,218 and US 12/418,103) and the Darts‑IP "family has litigation" flag. What follows is grounded in (a) the combined assignment instrument that is physically part of this patent family's USPTO file wrapper and was reproduced as an exhibit in a PTAB proceeding, and (b) corporate/litigation records. I did not retrieve a verified reel/frame for the '687 patent itself and I am not inventing one.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check — NOT present. The classic red flag (all inventors leaving the original assignee within 12 months of filing, ahead of a portfolio sale) does not appear. The inventors executed a combined assignment to their employer and Montena's filing activity continues under PPC Broadband for two decades. This is a career‑inventor cohort at an operating manufacturer, not a departing founding team.

Original assignee

PPC Broadband, Inc. — a Delaware corporation, 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY 13057.

• Line of business: design and manufacture of coaxial, fiber, and category cable connectivity — F‑connectors, compression connectors (Snap‑N‑Seal, EXO), hardline connectors, cable payout bags/reels, hardware. Corporate HQ and the R&D/manufacturing hub for Belden's worldwide broadband business is East Syracuse, NY.
• Ships a product embodying the claims? Yes. PPC's own product literature and third‑party catalogs describe commercial connector lines; PPC's connector patents have been litigated against named competitor products, which is only possible where a practicing product exists.
• Corporate history / current status — operating. Predecessor John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. (JMA), d/b/a PPC; the entity was renamed PPC Broadband, Inc. around December 2012. Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC) acquired PPC; the deal is reported at approximately $515.7 million, closing December 2012 (some secondary sources say 2018 — the 2012 figure is the one reported by PPC's own corporate summary and by CBI/Lighthouse). PPC's IPR filings state plainly: "The real party‑in‑interest is PPC Broadband, Inc. PPC Broadband, Inc. is wholly owned by Belden, Inc." PPC's global patent filings are prosecuted/appointed by Belden's Chief IP Counsel, Christopher W. Day. Status: active, operating subsidiary — no bankruptcy, no dissolution.
• Litigation posture (relevant context): PPC/JMA is a long‑running two‑way patent litigant against industry competitors — as plaintiff against Corning Gilbert, Times Fiber, PCT International, PerfectVision, Amphenol, CommScope, International Communications Manufacturing, Pace Electronics; as defendant against Perfect 10 Antenna, Arrow Communication Laboratories, Arris, Times Fiber and CommScope; and as ITC complainant (Inv. Nos. 337‑TA‑650, 337‑TA‑938) and IPR petitioner/patent owner. This is competitor‑vs‑competitor litigation, not a licensing campaign.
• Term note: Google Patents records the priority date at 2004‑11‑24 and legal status as "Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2024‑11‑24 — i.e., 20 years from the earliest U.S. filing in the continuation chain. If accurate, the '687 patent expired roughly six months after it granted, making it of little standalone assertion value. Treat this as Google's assumption, not an adjudicated term.

Assignment timeline

I found one assignment instrument that is unambiguously part of this family's record, plus a fragmentary INPADOC entry on a sibling patent that I could not confirm for the '687 patent.

1. Combined Assignment, Declaration & Power of Attorney — inventors → PPC Broadband, Inc.

• Executed 2016‑05‑02 (per the signature blocks on the joint instrument; inventor declarations dated through 2016‑2017) / recorded 2017‑02‑13 — reel/frame not retrieved (filed through USPTO EPAS, receipt EPAS ID PAT4271893, "PATENT ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET," submission type NEW ASSIGNMENT, nature of conveyance ASSIGNMENT)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (combined with inventor declaration and power of attorney)
  • Assignors: Mary Krenceski (OCR "Krenecki"), Roger Mathews, Noah P. Montena
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc., "a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Delaware," 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY 13057. Fax (315) 425‑2701; phone 315‑425‑2700.
  • Correspondent: Barry F. Manna, Barclay Damon LLP (successor by the 2015 Hiscock & Barclay / Damon Morey merger), One Park Place, 300 South State Street, Syracuse, NY 13202; ipdocket@barclaydamon.com. — Recurrence flag: Barclay Damon / Manna is PPC's long‑standing Syracuse prosecution correspondent and appears on PPC's assignment recordations across the connector portfolio. Separately, Hiscock & Barclay (Denis J. Sullivan, Douglas J. Nash) handled PPC's 2013–2016 PTAB work and Finnegan (Cory C. Bell) handled the 2022 PPC IPRs. Three different firms = outsourced outside‑counsel rotation typical of a manufacturing company; not the single repeat‑player lawyer pattern that characterizes shell‑LLC NPE chains.
  • Property covered: The instrument expressly covers "the invention having Docket No. 1162AUS‑F45‑US.3072209, entitled 'CONNECTOR HAVING A GROUNDING MEMBER'" — U.S. App. 15/094,451, filed April 8, 2016 — and its continuing applications. U.S. App. 18/204,316 (the '687 patent) is a direct continuation in that chain (18/204,316 ← 17/196,545 ← 16/653,713 ← 16/050,726 ← 15/431,018 ← 15/094,451 ← 13/448,937 ← 13/118,617 ← 12/418,103 + 12/941,709 ← 12/397,087 ← 10/997,218).
  • Context: Routine employee‑inventor assignment to the operating employer. Source: the executed instrument is reproduced as Exhibit 1002 in the Amphenol IPR filings (ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1549313/…).

2. Fragmentary sibling‑patent entry — NOT verified for the '687 patent

• Effective 2013‑09‑26 / recorded 2014‑05‑21 — Reel 031791/0058 (and a second reference to Reel 032982/0020 dated 2014‑05‑21; further entry dated 2017‑07‑07)
  • Conveyance: "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST" per EPO INPADOC legal‑status (worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=8632360B2)
  • Parties: The INPADOC text names PPC Broadband, Inc. as the new owner and references BELDEN, INC., but the OCR is garbled as to which entity is assignor vs. assignee. I cannot resolve that from the available text and will not guess.
  • Context: Appears on US 8,632,360 — a different PPC connector patent in the same portfolio, not on the '687 patent. Most plausibly a post‑acquisition corporate/portfolio recordation in the PPC↔Belden structure; unconfirmed.

No post‑issuance assignment, no transfer to any third party, and no assignment to any licensing entity is recorded or evidenced for US 11,984,687. Per Google Patents' legal‑events feed, the only "events" are the two priority claims.

If the Assignment Center returns zero records for the '687 patent itself, that is the expected result and a finding in its own right: an actively litigating parent (PPC/Belden) has no reason to record a transfer — the patent simply remains with the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11984687
    2004 : Priority application filed
         : Original assignee John Mezzalingua
    2012 : PPC renamed from John Mezzalingua
         : Acquired by Belden Inc
    2013 : Sibling patent reel 031791 0058
         : Unverified for this patent
    2016 : Inventors execute combined assignment
    2017 : Assignment recorded to PPC Broadband
    2018 : Continuation filed in same family
    2021 : Continuation filed in same family
    2023 : App 18 204 316 filed by PPC
    2024 : US 11984687 granted to PPC
         : Anticipated term expiry recorded

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Additional datapoint cutting against an NPE reading: the '687 patent's anticipated expiration (2024‑11‑24, per Google Patents, measured from the 2004 priority) lands ~6 months after grant — a patent with virtually no remaining assertion runway. NPEs acquire for damages exposure; this family is litigated by an operating incumbent defending and expanding its product market position.

Verdict

Operating‑company assertion.

Justification: The chain contains exactly one recorded conveyance — the inventors (Krenceski, Mathews, Montena) assigning "CONNECTOR HAVING A GROUNDING MEMBER" to PPC Broadband, Inc., recorded via USPTO EPAS on 2017‑02‑13 with correspondent Barry F. Manna of Barclay Damon LLP, and 18/204,316 is a direct continuation of the assigned application 15/094,451. The current owner is a Delaware operating manufacturer at 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse NY, wholly owned by Belden Inc. (NYSE: BDC) per PPC's own 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 mandatory notices in IPR2022‑01523, and it asserts these connector patents against direct product competitors (Corning, Times Fiber, PCT International, PerfectVision, Amphenol, CommScope) while itself being sued and IPR'd — the textbook profile of an operating‑company assertion campaign. No shell‑entity transfer, no listed asserter, no cascading LLCs, no bankruptcy, no defensive aggregator terminus.

Verification links:

• USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Assignment Search (legacy UI): https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events for this patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11984687/en
• Belden ownership admission (IPR2022‑01523 Mandatory Notices): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1550284](/patent/1550284)/download-documents?artifactId=3u5aoNEj9ZfEq6UO6UZlxB8shVJEvgJLK8hLA9UcyTtYlB8ADPB0-_w
• Executed combined assignment exhibit (Amphenol IPR exhibit set): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549313](/patent/1549313)/download-documents?artifactId=SJSvL-33v9Ye8ew58Hh0IUVih8pefFBobLnJYsPeyLpjgejMJtwGLUU
• Belden Chief IP Counsel signature on PPC power of attorney (IPR2022‑00721): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549314](/patent/1549314)/download-documents
• INPADOC sibling‑patent assignment entry (reels 031791/0058, 032982/0020): https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadoc?CC=US&NR=[8632360B2](/patent/8632360B2)&KC=B2&FT=D

Residual uncertainty I am flagging rather than papering over: (1) I did not obtain the exact reel/frame for the 2017‑02‑13 EPAS recording of the combined assignment; (2) I could not determine whether Belden or PPC Broadband is the assignor on the sibling‑patent entries at reels 031791/0058 and 032982/0020; (3) some secondary sources date the Belden–PPC acquisition to 2018 rather than December 2012 — I have used the 2012 date because PPC's own corporate summary and the CBI/Lighthouse transaction record both state it, with the $515.7M figure. A manual Assignment Center query by patent number would close items (1) and (2) in a single search.

I'll research US 11984687 and its cited prior art references.

Let me get the specific citation list and details for this patent.

Let me pin down the exact "References Cited" list on the patent itself.

Prior Art Analysis — US 11,984,687 B2

1. The Reference Itself (interpreted literally, not auto-corrected)

Nature of the document. This is a continuation, not an original filing. The stated chain is:

18/204,316 (2023-05-31) ← 17/196,545 (2021-03-09) ← 16/653,713 (2019-10-15, now US 10,965,063) ← 16/050,726 (2018-07-31, now US 10,446,983) ← 15/431,018 (2017-02-13, now US 10,038,284) ← 15/094,451 (2016-04-08, now US 9,570,859) ← 13/448,937 (2012-04-17, now US 9,312,611) ← 13/118,617 (2011-05-31, now US 8,157,589) ← CIP of 12/418,103 (2009-04-03, now US 8,071,174) and 12/941,709 (2010-11-08, now US 7,950,958) ← 12/397,087 (2009-03-03, now US 7,828,595) ← 10/997,218 (2004-11-24, abandoned).

Two consequences matter for the § 102 question:

1. The patent is expired ("Expired – Lifetime," anticipated expiration 2024-11-24). Its independent claims are therefore unenforceable going forward regardless of validity.
2. Almost none of the documents in its own "Patent Citations" section are anticipatory art. They are either (a) the same-family continuations/parents (which are not generally § 102(a)/(b) art because they are not "by another"), or (b) references cited in the ancestral 2004 application's IDS and carried forward, which are mostly from unrelated fields.

---

2. The Cited References (the "Patent Citations" of the 11,984,687 family)

The examiner/applicant citation list for this specification (as it appears on the family record, e.g., US 9,570,859) is eight U.S. patent documents. I have reproduced each literally and assessed it against the claim set of US 11,984,687.

(a) Third-party references (unrelated-field art)

1. US 4,646,038 A

• Full citation: US 4,646,038 A — "Ceramic resonator filter with electromagnetic shielding" — Motorola, Inc.
• Filing date: 1986-04-07 · Grant date: 1987-02-24
• Description: A ceramic resonator filter package with a metal shield/can over the filter to suppress EMI.
• § 102 anticipation of US 11,984,687? No. Different field (filter packaging), no coaxial-cable connector body, post, tubular sleeve, coupler, mating interface, or conductive ring. Does not disclose any limitation of claim 1. Best characterized as general "EMI shielding" background.

2. US 5,710,400 A

• Full citation: US 5,710,400 A — "Rotary multiple capacitive switch" — Eaton Corporation
• Filing date: 1996-02-23 · Grant date: 1998-01-20
• Description: A rotary capacitive switch assembly.
• § 102 anticipation? No. Wholly unrelated art. Discloses no connector grounding structure.

3. US 6,262,374 B1

• Full citation: US 6,262,374 B1 — "Shielded cable connecting structure" — Yazaki Corporation
• Filing date: 1998-10-13 · Grant date: 2001-07-17
• Description: A structure for terminating/connecting a shielded cable so the shield is grounded to a housing (automotive-style shielded-cable termination).
• § 102 anticipation? No, for claim 1. It is generally in the "shield-to-ground termination" space, but it does not disclose a connector body with a central bore and a first grounding contact surface, an inserted post producing a portion of a rotatable mating interface, a conductive coupler with a lip producing the second portion, or a conductive ring between two opposed grounding contact surfaces. It would be, at most, weak § 103 background.

4. US 6,217,383 B1 (flagged with an asterisk on the Google Patents record, i.e., considered of particular relevance)

• Full citation: US 6,217,383 B1 — "Coaxial cable connector" — Holland Electronics, LLC
• Filing date: 2000-06-21 · Grant date: 2001-04-17
• Description: A coaxial cable connector (compression-type F-connector family) for attaching a prepared coaxial cable to a port.
• § 102 anticipation? Partially relevant, but not anticipatory of claim 1. This is the only third-party reference in the list that is in the same field. It shows the ordinary elements of a coaxial connector (nut, body, post, cable grip), which the preamble of claim 1 assumes. It does not disclose the distinguishing elements: (i) a post flange and a coupler lip cooperating to produce first/second portions of a mating interface that slide to allow rotation about the elongate axis, and (ii) a conductive ring disposed between first and second opposing grounding contact surfaces producing the electrical path between the body and the conductive coupler. Its realistic role is § 103 obviousness art, not § 102 anticipation.

5. US 6,862,181 B1

• Full citation: US 6,862,181 B1 — "Apparatus and method for shielding a circuit board" — Unisys Corporation
• Filing date: 2003-03-17 · Grant date: 2005-03-01
• Description: A circuit-board shielding apparatus/method.
• § 102 anticipation? No. Different field; discloses no connector structure.

(b) Same-family / self references (not § 102 "by another" art)

6. US 7,950,958 B2

• Full citation: US 7,950,958 B2 — "Connector having conductive member and method of use thereof" — John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. — priority 2004-11-24 · granted 2011-05-31
• Relationship: A parent application in the same continuation chain (12/941,709, which 13/118,617 was a CIP of).
• § 102 anticipation? No. It is not prior art "by another" against this patent; it is the same family/work. It also predates, and is superseded by, the very claims at issue.

7. US 8,157,589 B2 (asterisked)

• Full citation: US 8,157,589 B2 — "Connector having a conductively coated member and method of use thereof" — John Mezzalingua Associates, Inc. — priority 2004-11-24 · granted 2012-04-17
• Relationship: A direct parent (13/118,617).
• § 102 anticipation? No. Same family; this is the source specification for the "conductively coated O-ring" embodiments (element 70) described in the 11,984,687 text.

8. US 9,312,611 B2 (asterisked)

• Full citation: US 9,312,611 B2 — "Connector having a conductively coated member and method of use thereof" — PPC Broadband, Inc. — priority 2004-11-24 · granted 2016-04-12
• Relationship: A parent (13/448,937) in the continuation chain.
• § 102 anticipation? No. Same family.

De-duplication note: On the USPTO/Justia record for US 11,984,687 the "References Cited" section is much longer than the eight above (roughly 130 U.S. patent documents and numerous foreign documents, e.g., DE 2225764, DE 1515398, GB 1087228, GB 1401373, EP 0116157, WO 87/00351, WO 01/86756, among many others). That long list is the accumulated IDS of the 2004 ancestral application carried forward through the continuations — it is not a list of references examined against these particular claims. I flag that I could not independently re-verify every line of that cumulative list line-by-line in this session; treat the eight above as the operative citation set and the longer list as family-level background.

---

3. The Prior Art That Actually Matters Against This Family (litigation/PTAB record)

Because the cited-reference list is largely non-anticipatory, the substantive prior art for this patent family has come from inter partes review and reexamination, where third parties (notably Amphenol Corp.) challenged the earlier members of the chain (US 10,038,284; US 10,965,063) and the reexamined Mathews patent. These references are the ones that map onto the claim features of US 11,984,687:

Reported outcome for context (per the PTAB documents retrieved): the Board found substantially similar claims unpatentable over the Youtsey-led combination in the reexamination of the earlier patent, and instituted/analyzed the same Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak theory against the '284 claims. That is the strongest evidence that the "conductive ring between body and coupler" concept, standing alone, was known.

---

4. Bottom Line on § 102

• Of the patent's own eight listed citations, none anticipates any claim of US 11,984,687 under § 102:
  • Three (US 7,950,958; US 8,157,589; US 9,312,611) are same-family parents and are not "by another."
  • Four (US 4,646,038; US 5,710,400; US 6,862,181; US 6,262,374) are from unrelated fields and disclose no connector-body/post/coupler/conductive-ring combination.
  • One (US 6,217,383) is same-field coaxial-connector art, but it does not disclose the claim-1 characterizing elements and is at best § 103 material.
• The only references that plausibly approach § 102 on claim 1's "conductive ring between first and second grounding contact surfaces producing an electrical path between the body and the coupler" are the third-party references raised in the IPR/reexam record — principally Youtsey (US 6,042,422) alone, or Youtsey in view of Lionetto and Horak; and Schwartz for the conductive-elastomer-ring substitution teaching.
• Claim 1 additionally requires the post flange and coupler lip producing first/second portions of a mating interface that slide along one another to permit rotation about the elongate axis. No reference in the cited list discloses that slide-to-rotate mating interface; that is the element least likely to be met by any single one of the above.

---

5. Caveats I want on the record

1. No live USPTO/database query was available in this session — the citation set above is drawn from the Google Patents and Justia records for US 11,984,687 and its family. I did not independently re-fetch the USPTO PatentCenter "References Cited" block for US 11,984,687 line-by-line.
2. I have deliberately not supplied full patent numbers for Lionetto, Horak, Bell, Palinkas, Schwartz, and Tarrant where the retrieved sources truncated them. Fabricating numbers here would be worse than flagging the gap. The full numbers should be read off the IPR petitions (IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, -00721) and the '053/'284 reexamination record (Ex. 1007–1022).
3. Per your instruction, I have not auto-corrected any identifier: the "Expired – Lifetime" status with an anticipated expiration of 2024-11-24 and a 2024-05-14 grant date is reported exactly as the source lists it, even though that combination looks internally odd.
4. § 102 analysis requires the reference to qualify as prior art against the effective filing date. Because this patent claims 2004-11-24 through the continuation chain, all eight cited references are dated before that date, but family members (items 6–8) still fail the "by another" requirement.
5. This is a technical/analyst assessment, not a legal opinion on validity or infringement.

I'll research the '687 patent's claims and its cited prior art before conducting the § 103 analysis.

Let me find the '687 patent's issued claims and its cited prior art references.

Now let me pin down the specific prior art references and the IPR outcome for the parent '063 patent.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,984,687 ("Connector Having a Grounding Member")

Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc. · Inventors: Krenceski, Mathews, Montena
Priority: 2004‑11‑24 · Continuation filed: 2023‑05‑31 · Issued: 2024‑05‑14 · Anticipated expiration: 2024‑11‑24 (Google Patents status: "Expired – Lifetime")
Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11984687](/patent/US11984687)/en

---

0. Evidentiary basis and explicit caveats

Per the operating rules, I interpret all identifiers literally and flag anything I could not verify rather than inferring it.

(a) What I had and did not have. The fetched Google Patents text for US 11,984,687 contains the abstract, the full specification/figures commentary, and the priority chain, but it does not contain the front‑page "References Cited" list, the "Cited By" list, or the literal issued claim text. The "Prior Art section of this page" instruction therefore had to be executed by reconstructing the applicable art from (i) the patent's own classification footprint and (ii) the prior art of record in the PTAB and reexamination proceedings against the patents in this same continuation family. I could not retrieve the exact literal wording of '687 claim 1 from the sources reached, and I do not assert it verbatim.

(b) The abstract of '687 tracks the family claim language almost verbatim. Compare:

(Petition text quoted from https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549313](/patent/1549313)/…)

So the '687 is a continuation of '063 whose claim 1 appears to be of the same scope as the coupler‑body grounding claims that have already been litigated at the Board. This is the single most important fact for the § 103 analysis: the '687 claims are drafted against the same disclosure as '063, and '063 cannot be given new matter, so any claim of '687 is limited to subject matter that was already on the table in IPR2022‑00718.

(c) Search results vs. training data. The PTAB materials retrieved contradict any assumption that the PPC coupler‑body grounding claims are of untested validity. I treat the PTAB record as ground truth.

---

1. Level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art (POSA)

A POSA here is a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–4 years' experience designing coaxial cable connectors for the CATV/broadband industry, or equivalent education/experience enabling work with threaded port‑coupling connectors, tubular posts, O‑ring seals, and RFI shielding. This is consistent with the level adopted by the Board in the related IPRs (the Board's decisions incorporate the Petitioner's framing of a POSA familiar with CATV connector design and RFI fundamentals), and with the '687 specification, which assumes working knowledge of braided/foil shields, 75‑ohm CATV connectors, and threaded F‑type ports.

---

2. The claimed subject matter (as best reconstructable)

Independent claim 1 (per abstract/family mapping) requires, in substance:

• 1[a] a body member with a central bore and a first grounding member contact surface;
• 1[b] a post in the bore with an outwardly projecting flange producing a first portion of a mating interface, and a tubular sleeve engaging a prepared cable end;
• 1[c] a conductive coupling member with a port‑engagement surface, a lip producing a second portion of the mating interface (the two portions slide along the mating interface so the coupler rotates about the connector axis), and a second grounding member contact surface opposing the first;
• 1[d] a conductive grounding member comprising a compliant ring between the first and second contact surfaces, producing an electrical path between the body member and the coupling member.

Dependent-claim subject matter in this family, per the same petition record (claims 29–46 of '063 and their '687 counterparts, subject to verification), includes:

• the contact surfaces move axially relative to each other and slide over the ring as the coupler loosens (claim 30);
• the first surface is an outwardly facing cylindrical surface and the second an inwardly facing cylindrical surface (claim 31), with rotational sliding during tightening (claim 32);
• the surfaces produce a first RF cavity radially outboard of the mating interface (claim 33), with a second RF cavity on the other side (claim 36);
• a claim variant (claim 37) in which the grounding member produces the path when the coupler loosens relative to the interface port.

The '687 specification additionally describes conductively coated elastomeric O‑rings (silicone core sprayed with silver‑based conductive ink, thinned with a reactive silicone topcoat or organic solvent), and "means for conductively sealing and electrically coupling" language — i.e., a § 112(f) means‑plus‑function aspect whose corresponding structure is the O‑rings 70/80.

---

3. Prior art of record (the operative "Prior Art" set)

Family prosecution/validity history (context, not prior art): IPR2022‑00718 ('063), ‑00719 ('983), ‑00720 ('284), ‑00721 ('083) were filed 2022‑03‑18 by Amphenol (RPIs: Amphenol, Times Fiber, Holland Electronics). In IPR2022‑00718 the Board instituted 2022‑10‑24 and issued a Final Written Decision on 2023‑10‑23 determining all challenged claims unpatentable (§ 318(a)); rehearing was denied; the case is on appeal (Appeal No. 2024‑1777). (Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2022-00718 ; https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/shorturl-id-[162531](/patent/162531) ; Google/Docket Alarm links surfaced for IPR2022‑00718/‑00719/‑00721.)

---

4. Differences between the prior art and the claims

The only gap is the conductivity of a ring already physically located between body and coupler in Youtsey. That is the classic KSR "substitution of a known element to obtain a predictable result" posture. There is no missing structural element, no missing assembly step, and no change in the operating principle of the connector.

---

5. Grounds of rejection under § 103

Ground 1 — Youtsey in view of Lionetto and Horak

This is the strongest ground, and it has already been adjudicated. Claims 1–6, 10–17 and 20–21 of '063 were held unpatentable over exactly this combination in the FWD of IPR2022‑00718, and substantially the same claims were held unpatentable over the same combination in the '053 inter partes reexamination, which PPC abandoned. Because '687 is a continuation of '063 and cannot contain new matter, '687's claims of the same scope stand on the identical disclosure and are exposed to the identical art. The abstract‑to‑claim‑29 mapping in §0 shows the '687 independent claim is coterminous with '063 claim 29 in all material respects.

Motivation, articulated (KSR "rational underpinning"):

1. Known problem, known solution. Youtsey's grounding path runs post→nut→port. The loose‑connector problem — a coupler backing off the port, or cable movement separating the post flange from the nut lip — is old and well documented (Horak, 1975; Bence). Providing a redundant body‑to‑coupler ground that survives loosening is a predictable, recognized remedy. PPC itself conceded in its Patent Owner Response that the loose‑connector problem was well known.
2. Same physical locus, added function. Youtsey's O‑ring 84 already sits between the coupler 30 and the body 14. Converting that existing, already‑positioned dielectric seal into a conductive seal requires no redesign, no new part, and no change in connector geometry — the Board expressly so found.
3. Dual function is expressly taught. Horak teaches a conductive rubber ring compressed to seal against moisture and eliminate RFI simultaneously; Lionetto teaches that a conductive elastomer gasket ring produces continuous circumferential contact and RFI suppression. A POSA seeking to preserve Youtsey's moisture seal while also maintaining shield continuity at a moisture‑prone (and therefore RFI‑prone) crevice would look directly to these references.
4. Predictable result. Conductive elastomers/O‑rings were conventional; substituting one for a dielectric O‑ring of the same dimensions yields no unexpected property.

Ground 2 — Youtsey in view of Tarrant and Bell

Also pleaded in IPR2022‑00718 (Ground 2). Bell supplies the conductive resilient O‑ring between a body and an outlet/plug body — i.e., the express concept of an O‑ring grounding across a body‑to‑coupler interface. Tarrant supplies the F‑connector context of an O‑ring at the port/post interface. This ground is weaker than Ground 1 because PPC extracted a "teaching away" argument from Tarrant (see §7), but at minimum Bell corroborates that a conductive O‑ring between two connector shells to preserve a ground path was known.

Ground 3 — Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak + Bell (belt‑and‑suspenders)

Where a primary reference plus two secondaries is vulnerable to a teaching‑away argument, adding Bell's conductive body‑to‑body O‑ring supplies an independent, directly on‑point teaching of the precise claimed locus (body↔coupler). Nothing in Bell, Lionetto, or Horak suggests the combination is inoperable.

Ground 4 — Dependent limitations

• Axial separation/sliding (claim 30); cylindrical facing surfaces (31); rotational sliding during tightening (32): inherent in Youtsey's retained nut/post flange geometry and expressly described in the '687 spec as conventional contact behavior; no reference need be added beyond Ground 1 to render these obvious.
• RF cavities outboard of the mating interface (33, 36): the cavity formed between Youtsey's coupler lip/body and the port is a function of the same geometry; art on F‑connector "RF cavities"/gasket seals (Bell) is directly applicable.
• "When the coupler loosens" variant (claim 37 analogy): Horak's described purpose is precisely a ground that persists as conditions vary; the loose‑connector motive is the core of the ground.
• Conductively coated elastomeric ring / silicone core + silver‑based conductive ink: if any '687 dependent claim recites the conductive‑coating subject matter from the specification, additional art on conductive inks and spray‑coated conductive elastomeric gaskets would be combined with Ground 1 on the rationale of applying a known coating technique to a known substrate; the same conclusion would follow under "obvious to try" given the finite number of known conductive coatings (silver‑filled inks, metal‑filled elastomers).
• Means‑plus‑function aspects ("means for conductively sealing and electrically coupling"): under § 112(f), the corresponding structure is O‑ring 70/80; the prior‑art conductive O‑rings of Lionetto/Horak/Bell are structurally identical/equivalent to that disclosed structure, so the means claim adds no patentable weight.

---

6. Foreseeable Patent Owner (PPC) rebuttals, and why the record undercuts them

PPC advanced these arguments in the related IPRs; the Board rejected them in the '063 and '983 proceedings. A challenge to '687 should expect and pre‑empt them:

Secondary considerations. Expect PPC to assert commercial success, long‑felt need, industry praise, and copying. For the Board to weigh these, PPC must establish nexus to the claimed conductive‑ring‑between‑body‑and‑coupler feature. Given that the same feature had been described in prior art since at least 1975 (Horak) and the earlier '053 claims were cancelled, nexus will be difficult; and the Board has already characterized the pertinent evidence as insufficient in the parallel proceedings.

---

7. Priority‑date exposure (a second, independent § 103 lever)

'687 nominally claims 2004‑11‑24, but the coupler‑body grounding member limitations appear to have entered this family via the 2011 CIP (Ser. No. 13/118,617, filed 2011‑05‑31) and the 2012 continuation (Ser. No. 13/448,937, filed 2012‑04‑17) — not the 2004 application (Ser. No. 10/997,218). I could not verify from the fetched text which '687 claims are supported by the 2004 disclosure versus later filings. If the challenged claims rely on the CIP/continuation support, the effective filing date shifts to 2011 or 2012, which:

• widens the prior‑art window by up to eight years, and
• makes available intervening art on conductive elastomeric seals, conductive coatings, and "grounding member" connector designs.
  The burden to establish entitlement to the 2004 date sits with PPC (per Dynamic Drinkware‑type allocation of the § 102 burden), and a failure of proof on written‑description support in the 2004 application would move the critical date.

---

8. Procedural realities affecting how a § 103 case would actually be brought

• Expiration. The '687 patent's anticipated expiration is 2024‑11‑24 ("Expired – Lifetime"). An expired patent can still be invalidated (and can still be a § 271 damages target only for pre‑expiration conduct), but the practical remedies are limited, and the Board has applied Fintiv‑type considerations differently for expired patents.
• PGR is foreclosed. Issued 2024‑05‑14; the nine‑month § 321(c) PGR window closed on or about 2025‑02‑14.
• IPR timing. IPR is available, but a petitioner served with a complaint alleging infringement of '687 more than one year earlier is time‑barred under § 315(b); § 315(e) estoppel also attaches to Amphenol (and any RPI) from the '063/'983/'284/'083 FWDs.
• § 325(d). PPC will argue the reference set was before the Office. As before, the counter is that the examiner did not substantively consider the operative combination against these claims.

---

9. Bottom line

1. The independent claim is highly likely obvious under § 103. Youtsey discloses every structural element of the claimed connector except the conductivity of the compliant ring that Youtsey already places between the coupler and the body. Lionetto and Horak expressly teach conductive elastomeric/rubber rings in the very same body‑to‑post/coupler locus for the very same dual purpose (weather sealing and RFI suppression / redundant ground). The combination is a textbook substitution of a known element to achieve a predictable result, with multiple articulated rationales (known loose‑connector problem; duplicate function; finite set of known conductive seal materials).

2. This is not a novel conclusion — it is settled at the family level. Substantially the same claims of U.S. 10,965,063 were held unpatentable over Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak (IPR2022‑00718 FWD, 2023‑10‑23, all challenged claims, on appeal as No. 2024‑1777), and the same combination cancelled claims in the abandoned '053 reexamination. Because '687 is a continuation of '063 and cannot add matter, the '687 claims of the same scope inherit that exposure.

3. Dependent claims reciting axial sliding, facing cylindrical surfaces, rotational slide, and RF cavities are obvious over Youtsey alone (with Ground 1 supplying conductivity); the 112(f) "means" limitations add nothing because the corresponding structure is the same conductive O‑ring the prior art teaches.

4. Residual uncertainties I am flagging rather than papering over:

• I could not obtain the literal issued claim text of US 11,984,687; the element mapping rests on the patent's abstract (which is near‑verbatim to '063 claim 29) and on the PTAB element breakdowns. A verbatim claim comparison is essential before relying on this analysis.
• I could not verify the patent numbers for the "Youtsey," "Lionetto," "Horak," "Tarrant," and "Bell" references; I have cited them by name and by their PTAB exhibit numbers (Ex. 1007/1008/1009 in IPR2022‑00718).
• The '063 FWD is on appeal; a Federal Circuit reversal would materially change the strength of Ground 1, though the underlying art‑based reasoning would remain available de novo.
• I did not complete exhaustive PACER/CourtListener/Darts‑IP checks for litigation specifically naming '687; the earlier litigation summary correctly notes the Google Patents "Family has litigation" flag is a family‑level indicator, not proof that '687 itself was asserted.

Recommended verification steps: (1) pull the '687 issued claims verbatim from USPTO Patent Center; (2) pull the '687 front‑page "References Cited" and the corresponding IDS to see whether Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak were cited and substantively considered; (3) confirm the appeal status of the '063 FWD and the current status of IPR2022‑00719/‑00720/‑00721; (4) confirm written‑description support in the 2004 application for each challenged '687 claim.

This is a technical patentability/validity analysis, not a legal opinion or a conclusion of law.