US 9351051

I'll search for authoritative information on US 9351051 and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me run more targeted searches for litigation and CAFC docket activity on this specific patent.

Let me search for the actual claim set and any recent Federal Circuit activity.

US Patent 9,351,051 — Summary

Important caveats up front: My searches surfaced no CAFC docket (2026 or otherwise) that names U.S. 9,351,051, and I found no dedicated USPTO/CAFC record for it beyond the patent's own file. Also note the full text supplied to me is truncated before the numbered claims section, so my claim summaries below are drawn from the specification's Summary-of-the-Invention passages rather than verbatim claim language. Where I'm inferring, I say so.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative full text at patents.google.com/patent/US9351051B2)

It is a continuation-in-part of Ser. No. 12/704,833 (filed Feb. 12, 2010; "CATV Entry Adapter and Method Utilizing Directional Couplers for MoCA Signal Communication"), which is itself a CIP of Ser. No. 12/255,008 (filed Oct. 21, 2008; issued as US 8,286,209), and is also a CIP of Ser. No. 13/688,420 (filed Nov. 29, 2012). It incorporates Ser. No. 12/250,229 (ingress-noise mitigation).

Abstract (verbatim)

"A cable television (CATV) entry adapter connects to a CATV network and serves as a hub in an In-Home Entertainment (IHE) network. IHE signals may be communicated between passive and active ports of an embodiment of the entry adapter through a pair of directional couplers which allow an IHE-enabled embedded multimedia terminal device (eMTA) at the passive port to communicate with multimedia devices of the IHE network connected to the active ports. An IHE frequency rejection filter is used in some embodiments to confine IHE signal to a single subscriber premise. In some embodiments a bidirectional IHE bandpass filter is used to enable IHE signals to pass between the passive and active ports of the CATV entry adapter."

Plain-language overview

The patent is about a "drop amplifier"/entry device at the point where the cable company's line enters a home. It does two jobs at once: (1) it distributes conventional CATV signals (upstream ~5–42 MHz, downstream ~54–1002 MHz) to subscriber equipment, splitting them into a passive path (no amplifier — for "lifeline" eMTA/VOIP telephone gear that must work during a power outage) and an active path (amplified, feeding multiple active ports); and (2) it acts as the hub of an in-home entertainment (IHE)/MoCA network (typically 1125–1675 MHz) so multimedia devices on different outlets can talk to each other.

Two core problems it solves:

• Privacy/isolation: IHE signals must not leak back out onto the CATV network to a neighbor's premises. The patent places an IHE frequency rejection filter inside the housing, between the splitter/combiner and the CATV entry port, so this can't be defeated by tampering or omission of an external filter.
• Extending the IHE network to the passive port: IHE signals normally cannot pass through the active path's filters/amplifier. The patent routes IHE signals around the active circuitry using a pair of directional couplers (an active-side and a passive-side coupler) whose coupled ports are tied together, so an IHE-enabled eMTA on the passive port can join the IHE network without a third tuned filter path and without power (directional couplers are passive).

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Based on the Summary-of-the-Invention language (not verbatim claim text; treat as interpretive):

1. Apparatus claim (splitter/combiner + internal rejection filter). A CATV entry adapter in a housing with: a CATV entry port; a passive port; multiple active ports; an internal bidirectional splitter/combiner having a common terminal coupled to the entry port, a first leg coupled to the active port(s), and a second leg coupled to the passive port (handling CATV downstream, CATV upstream, and IHE bands); an IHE frequency rejection filter formed inside the housing and connected directly between the splitter/combiner and the CATV entry port; an active CATV signal path with an active component (amplifier, filters) between the first leg and the active ports; and an IHE signal path between the first leg and the active ports. IHE signals traverse the splitter/combiner between the first and second legs.

2. Apparatus claim (dual directional-coupler version). Same general port structure, but using a first bidirectional splitter/combiner plus an active-side directional coupler (main leg between the first splitter leg and the active port) and a passive-side directional coupler (main leg between the second splitter leg and the passive port), where the two couplers' coupled ports are electrically connected together so IHE signals travel between the passive and active ports through the coupled/directional legs. An IHE frequency rejection filter inside the housing sits between the splitter's common terminal and the entry port, blocking IHE but passing CATV. A second bidirectional splitter/combiner feeds the active ports, and the downstream/upstream paths include bandpass filtering and (optionally) an ingress-noise mitigation circuit.

3. Method claim (transmitting IHE signals between active and passive ports). Conducting CATV downstream/upstream between the network and a passive port through the entry port; conducting IHE signals (in a distinct IHE band) between an active port and the passive port; and preventing the IHE signals from being conducted back onto the CATV network through the entry adapter — implemented by directly connecting an IHE rejection filter to the entry port and directly connecting the bidirectional splitter/combiner to that filter, with the coupler main legs between splitter legs and the active/passive ports and the couplers' coupled ports connected together.

4. Method claim (entry adapter used as an IHE hub). A CATV entry adapter with multiple ports carries CATV signals between the network and subscriber equipment while simultaneously acting as an IHE network hub: passive CATV signals go through a passive communication path to the passive port; active downstream/upstream CATV signals go through active paths to/from the active ports; IHE signals from the active ports travel in an IHE path that bypasses the active downstream and upstream paths to reach the passive port; and IHE interface devices are connected at the passive port and at least one active port. Optionally, conduction of IHE signals onto the entry port/CATV network is prevented.

Litigation noted in search results (not CAFC)

The patent number appears in the patent-in-suit lists of several District of Delaware PPC Broadband cases (reported to the USPTO Commissioner):

• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al., No. 1:20-cv-01148 (D. Del., filed Aug. 28, 2020) — asserted patents listed as 8,510,782; 9,167,286; 9,351,051; 9,516,376; 9,860,591. (dockets.justia.com)
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00305 (D. Del., filed Feb. 26, 2021) — same patent list. (unicourt.com; Google Patents family-litigation link: portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware District Court/case/1:21-cv-00305)
• PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al., No. 1:21-cv-00654 (D. Del., filed May 6, 2021; flagged STAYED). (docketalarm.com)

These are 2020–2021 district-court filings; my searches found no 2026 CAFC appeal docket naming 9,351,051, and no PTAB proceeding specifically on the '051 patent. (The one recent appellate item that surfaced — a Federal Circuit rehearing petition — was about treadmill patents, and a Chinese-language item citing a "935号" patent referred to Philips' U.S. 7,944,935, a different patent; both are unrelated to 9,351,051.)

Uncertainty flags

• I could not locate an authoritative, verbatim claim set in the tools available; the independent-claim descriptions above are paraphrases of the specification's summary language and should be verified against the issued claims.
• Assignee history is complicated (John Mezzalingua Associates → MR Advisers Ltd. → PPC Broadband, Inc.; related entities Evolution Broadband, LLC appear in assignments), so "current assignee" may differ from the Google Patents listing.
• I have no verified 2026 CAFC activity for this patent; absence in my search is not proof that none exists.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9351051 across the sources you mentioned.

Let me search more specifically for the cases referenced in the patent's litigation data and for CommScope-related suits.

Let me verify the second Delaware case (1:20-cv-01148) and check for any other assertions of this specific patent.

I've reached my tool-call limit, so here's my analysis based on the searches completed. I'll be explicit about what is directly confirmed versus what requires further verification.

Litigation Involving US Patent 9,351,051

Important framing: US 9,351,051 ("CATV entry adapter and method for distributing CATV and in-home entertainment signals"), assigned to PPC Broadband, Inc., is a member of a large patent family with a 2008 priority date. Its Google Patents page carries a "Family has litigation" flag and lists two US cases in the District of Delaware:

• 1:21-cv-00305 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A21-cv-00305)
• 1:20-cv-01148 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A20-cv-01148)

Case 1 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. CommScope, Inc.

This is the case that directly names 9,351,051 in the docket reporting, so it is the clearest assertion of this patent against accused CATV/MoCA entry-adapter products.

Case 2 — PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Amphenol Corporation et al.

Caveats and Confidence

• High confidence: US 9,351,051 was asserted by PPC Broadband against CommScope in D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-00305, filed 2021-02-26 (docket-reported patent list confirms it).
• Lower confidence: The specific role of 9,351,051 in the 2020 Amphenol case (No. 1:20-cv-01148). It is flagged in the patent's family-litigation data, but I could not retrieve the complaint to confirm the asserted patent numbers. Do not treat this as established without pulling the Delaware complaint (D.I. 1) and its patent report (D.I. 3).
• Outcomes: I could not confirm final dispositions for either case from the sources retrieved. Delaware patent cases of this type frequently end by stipulated dismissal/settlement, but I have no document establishing that here.
• Watch for same-number confusion: My searches also surfaced unrelated patents (e.g., Philips' 7,944,935; NuVasive's 6,936,051; a 9,536,051). These are different patents and are not litigation on 9,351,051 — per your instruction I did not treat them as matches.

Recommended next steps to finalize

1. Pull the PACER docket and D.I. 1/D.I. 3 for 1:21-cv-00305-LPS to confirm the full asserted-patent list and the final disposition (look for a stipulation of dismissal or judgment).
2. Pull the PACER docket and complaint for 1:20-cv-01148-LPS to confirm whether 9,351,051 was asserted and why it terminated within ~4 months.
3. Check the PTAB for any IPR/PGR petitions against 9,351,051 (the PPC/Belden vs. CommScope IPR activity — e.g., IPR2022-00718/-00719/-00720/-00721 and PPC's IPR2022-series — suggests the parties litigated validity, though those IPRs concerned other patents).

Would you like me to attempt those confirmations in a follow-up, focusing first on the 1:21-cv-00305 docket and any PTAB challenge to 9,351,051?

I'll search for any AIA trial proceedings involving this patent, since the structured ODP block indicates none.

Let me dig deeper with targeted queries on PTAB dockets and the parallel litigation.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 9,351,051 B2

"CATV entry adapter and method for distributing CATV and in-home entertainment signals" (PPC Broadband, Inc.)

Verification note: I re-ran targeted searches against PTAB dockets, the PTO Litigation Center filings lists, and general web/Google Patents data for trial numbers keyed to U.S. Pat. 9,351,051. I found no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition naming this patent. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returns zero AIA trial proceedings, and nothing in the search results contradicts that. Per the operating rule — do not invent proceeding numbers — I am reporting zero proceedings rather than constructing sections for proceedings that do not exist.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,351,051: 0 (zero). Breakdown by status: 0 active, 0 with claims invalidated, 0 with claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied.

Bottom line for a defendant: There is no PTAB record to work with — no claim of the '051 patent has been canceled, and no claim has been adjudicated patentable by the Board. The patent stands as issued. That is materially different from the "patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened" scenario in one respect and worse in another: you get no free invalidity roadmap, no Board claim construction, and no estoppel tailwind — but you also get no § 315(e)(2) estoppel, so every § 102/§ 103 ground and every prior-art reference remains open to you. The absence is itself a signal: two Delaware district court cases on this family are of record, yet no defendant has (as of this writing) taken the '051 patent to the Board. If your client is now being asserted against, you may be the first party with both the incentive and the § 315(b) window to file.

Per-proceeding sections

None. No IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding exists on US 9,351,051 as of 2026-10-01. I will not populate proceeding headers with numbers I cannot verify.

Flagged but unverified

• I could not locate any petition via public search, and the ODP structured data confirms none. If a very recently filed petition exists that ODP has not yet ingested, it would not yet be public at PTAB E2E either; re-check PTAB E2E by patent number before relying on this memo in a filing.

Adjacent record (same patent owner, different patents — not grounds or estoppel for '051)

PPC Broadband is a frequent PTAB respondent, just on the connector side of its portfolio, not the CATV entry-adapter family:

• Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc. — a batch of IPRs on PPC's coaxial-connector patents (U.S. Pat. 8,313,353; 8,232,060; 8,323,060; 8,287,320), including IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00343, -00345, -00346, -00347. (deposition transcript caption, IPR2013-00345)
• Corning Optical Communications RF LLC / Corning Inc. v. PPC Broadband — further IPRs filed 2016-08-09, including IPR2016-01570 (U.S. Pat. 8,075,338) and IPR2016-01572/-01573/-01575 (U.S. Pat. 8,366,481). (PTO Litigation Center Report, Aug. 10, 2016)
• PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc. v. PPC Broadband — IPR on U.S. Pat. 7,118,416 (claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11), § 102/§ 103. (petition record)
• PPC Broadband as petitioner — e.g., IPR2022-00946, PPC v. Times Fiber Communications on U.S. Pat. 10,988,342. (petition record)

Why this matters (and why it is not precedent for '051): it establishes that PPC's counsel litigates at the Board, that PPC has both defended and filed IPRs, and that challengers exist in this industry. But a prior IPR on a coaxial-connector patent creates no estoppel and supplies no institution template for the entry-adapter claims. I am expressly not claiming any of these proceedings involved the '051 patent.

District court litigation on file for this family (context, not PTAB)

Google Patents' family-litigation data lists two Delaware District Court matters:

• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A21-cv-00305
• https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A20-cv-01148

I did not independently confirm party names, docket contents, or whether the '051 patent is an asserted patent (as opposed to another family member) in those cases — treat that as unverified. What is verifiable from the structured data: the patent is Active, filing date 2013-04-16, granted 2016-05-24, priority date 2008-10-13, with an adjusted expiration of 2029-02-16.

Strategic summary

Claim status. With zero PTAB proceedings, every claim of the '051 patent remains as issued — none canceled, none adjudicated by the Board. There are no "surviving claims" and no "dead claims" to catalog because nothing has been narrowed administratively. I cannot list surviving-vs-canceled claims here without fabricating, and I will not state the exact issued claim set for '051 beyond what the record shows. Practically: any claim the patent owner asserted in the Delaware cases (or asserts against your client) is still fully available to it, and there is no cancellation ruling you can put in a Rule 12 motion or an invalidity contention chart as an admission.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone on this patent — no party has been a petitioner, real party in interest, or privy to an IPR that reached a final written decision. That is the single biggest tactical upside of the empty docket: you face no "raised or reasonably could have raised" bar and may bring any § 102/§ 103 ground based on patents and printed publications. Two structural constraints to plan around:

• § 315(b): the petition clock is one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement. If your client has already been served in either Delaware case (or another suit) more than a year ago, the IPR door may be closed — check service dates first.
• AIA regime: with a 2008-10-13 priority date, the '051 patent is pre-AIA, so the challenges run under pre-AIA §§ 102/103. PGR is unavailable (not a first-inventor-to-file patent), and CBM has sunset (statutory window closed 2020-09-16), so IPR is the only AIA trial vehicle — and it cannot reach § 101 or § 112. Eligibility/enablement/written-description attacks must stay in district court.

Pattern signals. Same patent owner has been a serial PTAB participant (Corning and PerfectVision petitions above; PPC itself as petitioner in IPR2022-00946), so this is not an owner that is structurally averse to the Board or inexperienced defending there. There is no evidence of a defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain on the '051 patent itself — the Unified Patents entry in the structured data is the litigation portal link for the Delaware case, not a Unified-filed IPR. No pattern of multiple IPRs on this patent by the same petitioner exists, because no IPRs exist at all.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not cite an FWD — there isn't one. If opposing counsel or a demand letter suggests the patent is "PTAB-tested," that is inaccurate as to the '051 patent. Conversely, do not argue the patent is "hardened" because it survived IPRs; it has simply never been challenged at the Board.
2. Diarize the § 315(b) date immediately. Pull the Delaware dockets (1:20-cv-01148 and 1:21-cv-00305) on CourtListener or PACER and confirm (a) your client's service date, and (b) whether '051 or a sibling (e.g., 9,167,286; 9,781,472; 10,154,302; 10,197,685; 10,319,819) is the asserted patent. The one-year bar is jurisdictional in practice — it will decide whether an IPR is even an option.
3. If the window is open, the absence of any prior Board construction is an advantage: file early, keep the petition ground-clean (patents/printed publications only), and preserve room for a district-court § 112/§ 101 parallel attack that IPR cannot reach. Note the family is heavily continuation-laden, so priority/§ 112 support for the '051 CIP claims is a live district-court lever that IPR cannot fully explore.
4. Re-verify zero activity before finalizing. Confirm against PTAB E2E, the USPTO Patent Center for US 9,351,051, and a CourtListener docket search, since a very recent petition may not yet appear in ODP.
5. If there is truly no PTAB activity and no pending litigation risk, say so plainly in your client memo: the absence of AIA trials on a patent that has been asserted in two Delaware cases is an unusual signal, and it often means defendants chose district-court invalidity, settled, or are mid-way through the § 315(b) clock — not that the patent is unusually strong.

Uncertainty flags (stated as required): I could not confirm the parties, docket contents, service dates, or which specific claims (of '051 or a sibling) are asserted in the Delaware matters; I did not confirm the exact issued claim set of '051; and I cannot rule out an as-yet-unindexed petition. Everything asserted above about this patent's PTAB history is limited to the verified fact of zero AIA trial proceedings on file.

I'll research the assignment/ownership record for US 9,351,051 through the USPTO Assignment Center and related sources.

Let me dig into the specific assignment records and the corporate history of the entities in the chain.

Let me research Evolution Broadband, LLC and try to locate the actual assignment records with reel/frame data.

I found the key resource — plainsite.org hosts the actual USPTO assignment records. Let me pull the specific ones for this patent.

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 9,351,051 specifically, building on the summary and litigation sections already generated.

Let me search for the specific prior-art references cited in US 9,351,051 (its "References Cited" section).

Let me pull the "References Cited" (prior-art citations) for US 9,351,051 directly from its Justia and FreePatentsOnline records.

Prior Art Analysis — US 9,351,051 B2

0. Retrieval status and a critical caveat (read first)

I was asked to "look at each patent citation for 9351051." I must be explicit about what I could and could not obtain, per my operating rules:

• What I could not obtain: the verbatim, front-page "References Cited" list printed on US 9,351,051 itself. The authoritative full text supplied for this patent begins at the "Definitions"/specification and does not include the front-page citations. My web tools did not surface a directly-served "References Cited" table for the '051 number (Justia/FPO/Google Patents citation tabs for '051 specifically were not retrievable before I hit my tool-call limit).
• What I did obtain: (a) the "Referenced Cited" list of a companion patent in the same family, US 9,516,376, which shares the assignee, the examiner art and most of the specification; and (b) Google Patents "Cited By" back-links confirming that US 9,351,051 specifically cites several of the same foreign references and publications. The overlap between (a) and (b) is strong but not proof of identity.
• Therefore: the reference list below is drawn from the family/companion record and is cross-validated where possible. I flag every item as [verified as cited by '051], [family-proxy, unverified for '051], or [analytical candidate]. I have not fabricated citation numbers.

A secondary caveat: the supplied full text of US 9,351,051 is truncated before the numbered claims, and the earlier "Patent summary" section correctly flagged this. So my § 102 mapping is to the claim groups described in that earlier section (splitter + internal rejection filter; dual-directional-coupler; method of IHE transfer with network blocking; method of hub with IHE bypass), not to verified claim numbers. Treat claim-number references as descriptive labels.

1. The reference itself (confirmed, from authoritative full text)

The AIA/priority nuance matters for § 102: references published before the effective filing date of the claim at issue are § 102(a)(1) art; U.S. patents/applications effectively filed before that date are § 102(a)(2) art. Much of the same-assignee art is also potentially removable under § 102(b)(2)(C) (common ownership).

2. Patent citations associated with the '051 family

2A. U.S. patents — most pertinent subset

Dates are the issue dates as listed in the family record. "Verified" = confirmed cited-by-'051 via Google Patents back-links; otherwise family-proxy.

Additional U.S. patents appearing in the companion record (numbered list, family-proxy, generally more remote): US 2,662,217; 3,790,909; 3,939,431; 4,027,219; 4,306,403; 4,344,499; 4,512,033; 4,520,508; 4,648,123; 4,677,390; 4,715,012; 4,961,218; 4,982,440; 5,010,399; 5,126,686; 5,126,840; 5,214,505; 5,231,660; 5,245,300; 5,369,642; 5,485,630; 5,548,255; 5,557,319; 5,557,510; 5,604,528; 5,719,792; 5,740,044; 5,745,838; 5,831,etc.; 5,899,024; 5,937,330; 5,950,111; 5,970,053; 6,012,271; 6,014,547; 6,049,693; 6,069,960; 6,094,211; 6,101,932; 6,128,040; 6,129,187; 6,173,225; 6,185,432; 6,205,138; 6,229,375; 6,348,837; 6,348,955; 6,373,349; 6,377,316; 6,388,539; 6,425,132; 6,430,904; 6,495,998; 6,498,925; 6,518,902; 6,546,705; 6,550,063; 6,560,778; 6,570,928; 6,587,012; 6,622,304; 6,640,338; 6,678,893; 6,683,513; 6,725,462; 6,728,968; 6,737,935 (Shafer); 6,757,910; 6,758,292; 6,804,828; 6,843,044; 6,845,232; 6,868,552; 6,877,166; 6,920,614; 6,928,175; 6,942,595; 7,003,275; 7,029,293; 7,049,106; 7,127,734; 7,254,827; 7,283,479; 7,399,255; 7,404,355; 7,416,068; 7,454,252; 7,464,526; 7,505,819; 7,508,284; 7,530,091; 7,592,883; 7,675,381; 8,179,814. (I list these only as the family-proxy set; I have not individually verified each against '051.)

2B. U.S. patent publications (family-proxy)

US 2001/0016950 (Matsuura); 2002/0069417 (Kliger); 2002/0141347 (Harp); 2002/0144292 (Uemura); 2002/0166124 (Gurantz); 2002/0174423 (Fifield); 2003/0005450 (Smith); 2003/0084458 (Ljungdahl); 2004/0147273 (Morphy); 2004/0172659 (Ljungdahl); 2004/0229561 (Cowley); 2005/0034168 (Beveridge); 2005/0047051 (Marland); 2005/0144649 (Bertonis); 2005/0183130 (Sadja); 2005/0210977 (Yan); 2005/0283815 & 2005/0289632 (Brooks); 2006/0015921 (Vaughan); 2006/0041918 (Currivan); 2006/0117371 (Margulis); 2006/0191359 (Tarasinski); 2006/0205442 (Phillips); 2006/0241838 (Mongiardo); 2006/0282871 (Yo); 2007/0024393 (Forse); 2007/0288981; 2007/0288982 (Donahue); 2008/0001645 (Kuroki); 2008/0022344 (Riggsby); 2008/0040764 (Weinstein); 2008/0120667 (Zaltsman); 2008/0127287 (Alkan); 2008/0157898 (Palinkas); 2008/0168518 (Hsue); 2008/0247401 (Bhal); 2008/0247541 (Cholas); 2008/0271094 (Kliger); 2008/0313691 (Cholas); 2009/0031391 (Urbanek); 2009/0047917 (Phillips); 2009/0077608 (Romerein); 2009/0153263 (Lin); 2009/0165070 (McMullin); 2009/0180782 (Bernard); 2009/0217325 (Kliger); 2009/0320086 (Rijssemus); 2010/0017842 (Wells); 2010/0095344 (Newby); 2010/0100918 (Egan); 2010/0125877 (Wells); 2010/0146564 (Halik); 2010/0162340 (Riggsby); 2010/0194489 (Kearns); 2010/0225813 (Hirono); 2011/0010749 (Alkan); 2011/0051014 (Wang); 2011/0069740 (Cowley); 2011/0072472 (Wells); 2011/0181371 (Alkan); 2011/0258677 (Shafer) [verified cited by '051]; 2012/0054805 (Shafer); 2012/0054819 (Alkan); 2012/0081190 (Rijssemus); 2012/0159556 (Alkan); 2012/0331501 (Shafer); 2013/0081096 (Wells).

2C. Foreign patent documents — several verified cited by '051

Google Patents "Cited By" back-links confirm US 9,351,051 cites at least these (they appear as the citing document on the referenced pages):

Additional foreign docs in the family-proxy set (unverified for '051): CN 200941620; CN 201048432; JP 55-080989; JP 55-132126; JP 58-99913; JP 57-091055; JP 58-101582; JP 59026709; JP 05-191416; JP 07-038580; JP 2001-177580; JP 2004-080483; JP 2005-005875; JP 2007-166110; WO 0024124; WO 0172005; WO 0233969; WO 02091676.

2D. Non-patent literature (family-proxy)

• Office Action Summary dated 2012-01-23, U.S. Appl. No. 12/250,229 (ingress-noise application).
• Office Action Summary dated 2011-11-11/22, U.S. Appl. No. 12/255,008.
• International Search Report dated 2011-05-31, PCT/US2010/049568.
• Wells, "Cable Television Entry Adapter," U.S. Appl. No. 13/245,510 (2011-09-26).
• Office Action Summary dated 2012-03-06, U.S. Appl. No. 12/563,719.

2E. Applicant's own family (context, generally not § 102 art)

US 12/704,833→9,429,695; 12/255,008→8,286,209; 12/250,229; 12/563,719→8,356,322; 13/688,420→9,167,286. These are parents/companions and are usually disqualified as prior art by common ownership (§ 102(b)(2)(C)), though they define the family landscape.

3. Most relevant prior art and § 102 mapping (by claim group)

Reminder: claim numbers are not verified; the labels map to the claim groups in the earlier "Patent summary" section.

Claim Group 1 — Apparatus: splitter/combiner + internal IHE rejection filter

• US 8,286,209 (Egan); US 8,356,322 (Wells) — disclose a multi-port entry adapter dividing downstream signals at a bidirectional splitter/combiner to a passive port and active ports. § 102(a)(2)-type relevance for the splitter/passive/active architecture, but they are same-family/common-ownership and their MoCA paths are splitter-based rather than a discrete "IHE rejection filter directly between splitter and entry port." Weak anticipation; better as § 103 combination art.
• US 7,783,195 (Riggsby) — home-network coax distribution separating a network band from the CATV band. Potential § 102(a)(1) for the generic "filter to block an in-home band from the external network" concept, but not the specific internal-filter-at-entry-port + splitter topology.

Claim Group 2 — Apparatus: dual directional couplers (coupled ports tied together)

• US 8,429,695 B2 (Halik et al.) — the single most relevant reference: it expressly teaches directional couplers used to communicate MoCA signals in a CATV entry adapter. If any claim is not entitled to the '833 priority date (i.e., relies on '051's new matter), the '695 patent could be § 102(a)(2) art for the dual-coupler limitations. As a parent, it is otherwise removed. Highest-value reference; also the natural § 103 starting point.
• US 7,454,252 / US 7,505,819 (El-Sayed) — bypass/directional routing of premises signals; candidate § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art for the "main leg vs. coupled leg" coupler architecture.

Claim Group 3 — Method: IHE transfer between active and passive ports + prevent IHE to network

• US 7,783,195 (Riggsby); US 7,454,252 / 7,505,819 (El-Sayed) — combining a passive CATV path with a separate in-home-network path that is kept off the external network. § 102(a)(1) candidates for individual method steps; the combination (rejection filter directly connected to entry port + splitter/coupler routing) is likely novel over each alone → § 103.
• US 2011/0258677 (Shafer) [verified cited by '051] — upstream bandwidth conditioning in a CATV entry device; relevant to the active upstream path but not anticipatory.

Claim Group 4 — Method: entry adapter as IHE hub with IHE path bypassing active paths

• US 8,286,209 (Egan) — entry adapter acting as a MoCA hub; § 102-type relevance to the "hub" concept.
• US 8,429,695 (Halik) — bypass of the active/amplifier path for MoCA using couplers. Most on-point, subject to the priority/common-ownership caveats.

Foreign references (verified cited): JPH1169334A, JP2007-166109A, JPS61157035A relate to headend modulators, transmission-system branch devices, and impedance matching respectively. These are § 102(a)(1)-eligible (all published well before 2008) but describe supporting/distribution components rather than the claimed entry-adapter topology — background art, unlikely to anticipate individually.

Bottom line on anticipation

On the record I can retrieve, no single reference appears to anticipate all limitations of any one claim group. The strongest § 102 candidate is the parent US 8,429,695 (Halik) against the dual-coupler claims only if those claims are not entitled to the parent's priority date; otherwise the family art is § 103 fodder and the foreign/NPL art is background. The novel core — an IHE frequency rejection filter internal to the housing, directly between the splitter/combiner and the CATV entry port, combined with coupled-port-tied directional couplers — is what distinguishes '051 from the family art.

4. Contradictions, confidence, and verification steps

• No contradiction with the earlier "Patent summary" or "Litigation summary." Both correctly noted the truncated claim set; this section shares that limitation.
• High confidence: bibliographic data; that '051 cites US 2011/0258677, JPH1169334A, JP2007-166109A, JPS61157035A (Google Patents back-links); the identity of the parent/companion patents.
• Medium confidence: that the family-proxy "Referenced Cited" list closely matches '051's own front-page list (supported by back-link overlap).
• Low confidence / explicitly unverified: the verbatim enumerated "References Cited" on the face of US 9,351,051, and the exact numbered claims to which each reference was applied during prosecution.

To finalize, pull (in order): (1) the front-page "References Cited" of US 9,351,051 at USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents "Patent Citations" tab; (2) the file-wrapper "Notice of References Cited" / examiner's Form PTO-892 and any § 103 rejections in App. 13/863,693; (3) confirm which claims were accorded the '833 priority date (affects whether US 8,429,695 is § 102 art). I recommend against relying on the family-proxy list above for any § 102/§ 103 assertion without those three confirmations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,351,051 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Source note / caveat on the "Prior Art section." The full text supplied for US 9,351,051 on patents.google.com is truncated before the numbered claims, and it does not contain a discrete "Prior Art" citation list. The only prior-art metadata actually visible in that text is: Prior art keywords — "catv, signals, ihe, port, active" and Prior art date — 2008-10-13. Because of that gap, I have built this § 103 analysis from (i) those keywords/date, (ii) the expressly cross-referenced family members that the '051 identifies in its own Cross-Reference section, and (iii) the references that surfaced in the searches as cited/citing art in the same family. I flag every place where I am reasoning from a family member rather than from a formal prior-art-of-record list. Do not treat this as an examiner-quality statement of the art of record without pulling the '051 file wrapper (Application 13/863,693) and its PTO-892.

1. Threshold issue that drives everything: what is the effective date of the '051 claims?

This is a continuation-in-part, so § 103 cannot be run until priority is resolved.

• Application 13/863,693 was filed April 16, 2013 — i.e., after the March 16, 2013 AIA changeover. For any claim whose subject matter is not entitled to pre-AIA priority, AIA §§ 102/103 apply (no § 102(b) "publication more than one year before filing" simplification; instead § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) with the AIA grace-period and common-ownership rules).
• The '051 states it is a CIP of Ser. No. 12/704,833 (filed Feb. 12, 2010; now US 8,429,695, "CATV Entry Adapter and Method Utilizing Directional Couplers for MoCA Signal Communication"), itself a CIP of Ser. No. 12/255,008 (filed Oct. 21, 2008; now US 8,286,209, "Multi-Port Entry Adapter, Hub and Method for Interfacing a CATV Network and a MoCA Network"), and also a CIP of Ser. No. 13/688,420 (filed Nov. 29, 2012; US 9,167,286). It incorporates Ser. No. 12/250,229 (ingress-noise mitigation).
• The Google listing shows a "priority date" of 2008-10-13, but that is the family/earliest date. The claims of the '051 are only entitled to a given parent's date to the extent the parent provides § 112 written-description support for each claimed combination.

This matters because the two most damaging references are the '051's own parents:

If the '051's independent claims are fully supported by the Feb. 12, 2010 '833 disclosure, they get the 2010 date and the '695/'209 are not § 102/§ 103 art (same family, same inventive entity). If the '051 claims rest on new matter first added in the 2013 CIP — e.g., the specific IHE-enabled eMTA cooperation at the passive port, the "IHE" (1125–1675 MHz) labeling, or any structural detail not in '695 — then the '209 (published 2010-04-22) and '695 (published 2010-06-10) are printed publications under AIA § 102(a)(1), and the combination analysis below applies directly. A challenger (IPR petitioner or accused infringer) will attack exactly this priority question; it is the single most important validity lever here.

I proceed on the assumption that a defendant would argue the 2013 filing date, making '209 and '695 available as art. I also flag where the combination works even on the earlier date (because third-party art exists).

2. The references and what they actually teach (grounded citations)

R1 — US 8,286,209 / US 2010/0100918 A1 ("Multi-Port Entry Adapter, Hub and Method…") — primary reference

Confirmed claim text (via RPX/Justia copy of US 8,286,209 B2):

• Claim 1 recites, in relevant part: "a signal bidirectional splitter/combiner formed internal to the housing and connected between the CATV entry port and to the CATV active downstream signal communication path, the CATV active upstream signal communication path and the CATV passive signal communication path"; and "a MoCA signal frequency rejection filter formed internal to the housing and directly connected between the signal bidirectional splitter/combiner and the CATV entry port … operatively preventing conduction of MoCA signals in the MoCA frequency band from passing from the signal bidirectional splitter/combiner onto the CATV network, but allowing the CATV active upstream signal, the CATV passive downstream signal and the CATV passive upstream signal to pass without impairment."
• Claim 1 further recites a MoCA signal communication path "for conducting MoCA signals … between the active ports and the signal bidirectional splitter/combiner while bypassing MoCA signals conducted around the CATV active downstream and the CATV active upstream signal communication paths," and that "the MoCA signals traverse the signal bidirectional splitter/combiner between the MoCA signal communication path and the CATV passive signal communication path to enable conduction … to … any MoCA interface devices connected to the passive port."
• Claim 13 (method) recites conducting MoCA signals "from the plurality of active ports in a MoCA signal communication path which bypasses the CATV active downstream and the CATV active upstream communication paths through the CATV entry adapter to the passive port," "connecting MoCA interface devices to the passive port and at least one of the active ports," and "preventing the conduction of MoCA signals from within the CATV entry device onto the entry port and the CATV network."

→ R1 discloses nearly the entirety of '051 claim 1 and claim 4, and the entry-port rejection-filter element of claim 2 and claim 3, with "MoCA" substituted for "IHE."

R2 — US 8,429,695 / US 2010/0146564 A1 ("…Utilizing Directional Couplers for MoCA Signal Communication") — primary reference for the coupler claims

• Claim 1 recites a first bidirectional splitter/combiner (common terminal to entry port; first and second legs), a second bidirectional splitter/combiner (separate legs to the active ports), an active-side directional coupler (input port, through port, "relatively-lower signal-attenuation main leg," coupled port, "relatively-higher signal-attenuation directional leg"), and a passive-side directional coupler; with "the main leg of the passive-side directional coupler … operatively connected between the passive port and the first leg of the first splitter/combiner," "the main leg of the active-side directional coupler … operatively connected between the input port of the second splitter/combiner and the second leg of the first splitter/combiner," and "the coupled ports of the passive-side and active-side directional couplers … operatively connected together to conduct MoCA signals between the passive and active ports through the taps legs of both directional couplers."
• Claim 2: "a MoCA signal frequency rejection filter connected between the common terminal of the first signal splitter/combiner and the CATV entry port."
• Claim 15: "a housing; a MoCA frequency rejection filter within the housing connected to the entry port; and a pair of directional couplers within the housing…" — the main leg of one coupler between the rejection filter and the passive port, the main leg of the other between the active side.
• Claim 9 (method): conducting passive CATV signals through a main leg of a passive-side directional coupler, active CATV signals through a main leg of an active-side directional coupler, and MoCA signals between the passive and active ports through connected directional legs; plus "preventing the conduction of MoCA signals … onto the CATV network."
• Specification: "MoCA frequency rejection filter 120 connected between the splitter/combiner 76 and the CATV network entry port 44"; "the MoCA signal bypass path comprises a pair of directional couplers"; "use of the directional couplers avoids the frequency tuning related cost and complexity of adding a MoCA signal frequency specific signal communication path in parallel to frequency-specific CATV upstream and downstream signal communication paths."

→ R2 discloses '051 claim 2 and claim 3 almost element-for-element.

R3 — US 8,510,782 B2 / US 2010/0125877 A1 ("…Preventing Interference with eMTA Equipment from MoCA Signals")

• Discloses multiple MoCA frequency rejection filters 90, 104, 108, including filter 108 "connected between the common terminal of the splitter/combiner 76 and the CATV network entry port 44," to prevent MoCA leakage to the CATV network and to protect the lifeline eMTA device on the passive port. Directly supports the "privacy/confine-to-premises" and "protect passive-port eMTA" rationale.

R4 — US 8,350,641 B2 (Halik; John Mezzalingua/PPC), "Band Selective Isolation Bridge for Splitter," issued Jan. 8, 2013

• Claims a splitter device with first/second output legs, first/second conductive paths to user ports, and "a bridge circuit operatively coupled between the first conductive path and the second conductive path… configured to propagate a home network bandwidth from the first user port to the second user port and isolate the provider bandwidth from the home network bandwidth." Background explains splitters are "essentially directional couplers designed to isolate splitter outputs," requiring a low-isolation bridge in the home-network band.
• → An independent (third-party-ish, though same-assignee) teaching that the home-network band should be routed around splitter isolation and isolated from the CATV band, dated before the '051 filing.

R5 — Other art appearing in the family citations (support/context only)

From the face of related PPC cases: WO 02/33969 A1; WO 02/091676 A1; WO 01/72005 A1; WO 00/24124 A1; WO 2005/062611 A1; JP 2007-166110 A; also US 2004/0172659 A1 ("Arrangement for the reduction of noise transmitted from a local cable TV network," WO 03/009596) and US 9,699,516 (bi-directional RF amplifier with a directional coupler splitting active/passive paths plus a MoCA diphlexer/rejection filter supporting MoCA between active and passive RF ports). These are context references; R5 is not load-bearing for the combinations below.

3. Claim-by-claim obviousness mapping

Independent claim 1 (housing + bidirectional splitter/combiner + internal entry-port IHE rejection filter + active path + IHE path)

Obvious over R1 alone (and arguably anticipated). R1 claim 1/claim 8 supply every structural element: housing; entry port; passive port; plural active ports; a bidirectional splitter/combiner internal to the housing with common terminal at the entry port and legs to the active path and passive path; an internal rejection filter directly connected between the splitter/combiner and the entry port that passes CATV and blocks the higher (MoCA/IHE) band; an active downstream path containing an active electronic component; and a high-band signal path to the active ports that bypasses the active CATV paths ("MoCA signal communication path"). The only "difference" is nomenclature — the '051 calls the higher band "IHE" and cites 1125–1675 MHz, whereas R1 uses "MoCA" at 1125–1525 MHz. Recasting a known circuit's frequency band is a design choice / predictable variation (KSR v. Teleflex; In re Peterson). No motivation gap: R1's stated purpose is to make the entry adapter a hub for the in-home network while confining high-band signals.

Claim 2 (directional-coupler species + entry-port rejection filter + second splitter + bandpass paths + optional ingress-noise circuit)

Obvious over R2, which is on all fours: first and second bidirectional splitters/combiners; active-side and passive-side directional couplers with coupled ports connected together to carry MoCA between passive and active ports; and (claim 2/claim 15) an in-housing MoCA rejection filter between the splitter common terminal and the entry port. The "second bidirectional splitter/combiner between the active-side coupler input port and the active ports" is R2's splitter/combiner 94. The band-limited active downstream/upstream paths (filters 84/88/98/102) are the standard diplexed amplifier path disclosed in R1/R2. The optional ingress-noise mitigation circuit is taught by the incorporated Ser. No. 12/250,229 (Newby) and by R1/R2's own upstream conditioning; adding a known ingress-noise filter in the upstream path is an obvious use of a known element for its known function.

If claim 2 were instead measured against R1 + R2, the combination is just as clean: R1 gives the splitter + internal rejection filter + passive/active architecture; R2 gives the coupler-pair bypass and expressly motivates it (see §4). One of ordinary skill would substitute R2's passive, power-free directional-coupler bypass for R1's bandpass-filter bypass.

Claim 3 (method — conducting + preventing IHE conduction via filter-at-entry-port + splitter)

Obvious over R2's method claim 9 (main-leg conduction through passive-side and active-side couplers; MoCA between ports through the directional legs) combined with R2 claim 2 / R1 claim 13's "preventing conduction onto the network." The "directly connecting an IHE rejection filter to the CATV entry port; directly connecting a bidirectional splitter/combiner to the filter" steps are performed by R2's filter 120 + splitter 76 arrangement and by R1's filter-at-entry-port. Adding the coupler main legs between the splitter legs and the respective ports is R2.

Claim 4 (method — entry adapter as IHE hub; IHE path bypasses active paths to the passive port; connect IHE interface devices at passive and active ports)

Obvious over R1's method claim 13 (and arguably anticipated by it): R1 already claims "conducting the MoCA signals … from the plurality of active ports in a MoCA signal communication path which bypasses the CATV active downstream and the CATV active upstream communication paths … to the passive port"; "connecting MoCA interface devices to the passive port and at least one of the active ports"; and "preventing the conduction of MoCA signals … onto the entry port and the CATV network." That is the whole of claim 4 in MoCA vocabulary.

Net: every independent claim, and the dependent features (ingress-noise mitigation, second splitter, bandpass paths, eMTA at the passive port), is either expressly disclosed in the parents or is an obvious substitution/combination of them.

4. Why a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine (the § 103 "articulated reasoning")

1. Same field, same problem, same actors. R1 and R2 are, by the '051's own Cross-Reference section, the '051's ancestor applications; same inventors (Wells, Egan, Halik, Newby), same assignee (John Mezzalingua Associates / PPC Broadband), same problem statement (make a passive/active CATV entry adapter function as a hub for the in-home coaxial network without leaking high-band signals to the CATV plant). The Federal Circuit treats common ownership/common inventors/same field with a strong presumption of combinability.

2. Express "known-technique" motivation in R2. R2's background identifies R1's bandpass-filter bypass as the prior approach and states that the parallel bandpass filter causes "additional and time-consuming tuning of the filters in the parallel signal communication paths," "more extensive, complex and costly filters," and adds "risk of failure." R2 then positions directional couplers as the improvement, noting they "avoid[] the frequency tuning related cost and complexity of adding a MoCA signal frequency specific signal communication path in parallel." This is a textbook KSR "known technique to improve similar device in the same way" fact pattern: the artisan would apply R2's coupler bypass to the R1 architecture because both are directed to the identical device.

3. Independent filter-at-the-port rationale. R1/R3 both teach placing the rejection element inside the housing between the splitter/combiner and the entry port expressly so that it cannot be defeated by "unauthorized removal, tampering, forgetfulness in original installation, and physical exposure" of an external filter. A PHOSITA designing an IHE/MoCA entry adapter therefore had a concrete, articulated reason to keep a rejection filter in-housing at the entry port and to add a low-loss high-band bypass to the passive port — the two features address independent, known problems (privacy/leakage vs. passive-port reachability) and do not interfere with each other.

4. Predictable results / mere design choice. Directional couplers are "readily available components," require no power (important for an entry device that must survive power loss for lifeline service), and their main-leg/directional-leg attenuation behavior (≲1–2 dB vs ~10–20 dB) is a documented, predictable property. Placing a rejection filter in series at the entry port to block a known out-of-band band is likewise a predictable use of a known filter for its known function. Per KSR, "a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."

5. No teaching away. R2's criticism of the parallel bandpass-filter bypass is not a teaching away from the claimed combination, because the '051 avoids exactly that criticized structure: the IHE bypass uses couplers (no filter in the bypass), and the rejection filter sits in series at the entry port, not in a third parallel band-limited path. If anything, R2's criticism of the three-parallel-filter approach reinforces the obviousness of solving the problem with couplers (R2) while handling leakage with a single series filter at the port (R1/R3).

6. Design need / market pressure. The entry-device market needed a single SKU that (a) serves lifeline eMTA on a passive port during power loss and (b) still lets an IHE/MoCA device on that passive port participate in the in-home network. R1 and R2 each state this objective in their "problems-solved" sections. A PHOSITA had a defined problem and a finite set of known solutions.

5. Possible rebuttals and how they fare

• "Same family — parents aren't prior art." This is the strongest nonobviousness argument and it is a priority argument, not a merits argument. It fails if any '051 claim element (e.g., the eMTA-at-passive-port interaction, the 1125–1675 MHz framing with the specific claim wording) is not supported by § 112 in the Feb. 12, 2010 '833 disclosure. Expect this to be litigated.
• "The '695 teaches away because it disparages parallel filter paths." Rejected above — the '051 does not add a third band-limited parallel path; it uses a coupler bypass plus a series port filter.
• Secondary considerations (Nexus). PPC could point to industry adoption and to the family's extensive enforcement (PPC Broadband v. CommScope, D. Del. 1:21-cv-00305; PPC Broadband v. Amphenol, D. Del. 1:20-cv-01148 / 1:21-cv-00654) as evidence of value. But commercial success and copying must be tied by a nexus to the claimed combination, not to the general MoCA-entry-adapter market. I found no evidence in the retrieved sources establishing such a nexus, and I found no IPR/PGR on the '051 in these searches — absence of a validity challenge is not evidence of validity.

6. Bottom line

• Claim 1 and claim 2 are, on the retrieved record, the most vulnerable: R1 discloses claim 1's architecture essentially verbatim (in MoCA terms), and R2 discloses claim 2's coupler-pair + in-housing entry-port rejection filter essentially verbatim. Each is obvious over a single reference alone, and a fortiori over R1 + R2.
• Claims 3 and 4 (methods) are obvious over R1's method claim 13 and R2's method claim 9, again one reference each, with the coupler main-leg/entry-port-filter steps from R2.
• The decisive variable is priority: whether the '051's independent claims are entitled to the Feb. 12, 2010 (or Oct. 21, 2008) parent date. If they are, the parents drop out and a challenger must rebuild the case from third-party art (R4/R5 plus e.g. the WO/JP references), which is materially harder. If they are not, R1 and R2 are printed publications and the § 103 case is strong.
• Motivation is explicit and documented (R2's own criticism of R1's filter-based bypass and its stated reason for the coupler approach; R1/R3's stated tamper-resistance rationale for the in-housing port filter; the long-recognized need to serve a lifeline eMTA on the passive port while extending the in-home network to it).

Confidence: High that R1 discloses the claim-1/claim-4 subject matter and R2 discloses the claim-2/claim-3 subject matter (verified against issued-claim text in the retrieved copies of US 8,286,209 and US 8,429,695). Medium on the priority question, which I could not resolve from the retrieved materials. I could not verify a "Prior Art" of-record list for the '051, so treat the specific reference set above as family-derived and confirm against the '051's file wrapper (PTO-892 / IDS) before relying on it in a filing.