US 9570859

Patent Overview — US 9,570,859 B2

Title: Connector having a grounding member
Patent number: US 9,570,859 B2
Application number: US 15/094,451 (published as US 2016/0226195 A1)
Inventors: Mary Krenceski, Roger Mathews, Noah P. Montena
Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc. (assignment recorded 2016-05-06)
Filing date: 2016-04-08
Grant/publication date: 2017-02-14
Earliest priority date listed: 2004-11-24 (external priority from US 10/997,218)
Legal status as listed: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2024-11-24

Purpose. The document concerns an electrical connector that includes a grounding member. Its classifications place it in shielding/grounding arrangements for coupling devices (H01R13/648, H01R13/658) together with sealing features (H01R13/52, H01R13/5202, H01R13/5219) and screw-type coupling (H01R13/622).

Plain-language scope, inferred only from the supplied text. The indexing and abstract-level keyword data indicate a connector with a conductive path to ground, having a post and an inner core, and involving a conductive coating or conductive material, with sealing and coupling provisions. The text also lists concepts such as a non-conductive material, spraying, silicone rubber, silver, and conductive polymers. Beyond these listed terms, the excerpt does not supply claim language, an abstract, or a description, so the precise claimed scope cannot be stated from this material alone.

What this excerpt does not establish.

• It does not provide the actual claims, abstract, or description text, so the metes and bounds of the invention are not verifiable here.
• The connectors' structure, dimensions, and materials are not described; the keyword list is not claim language.
• Priority dates and legal status are expressly labeled assumptions/not legal conclusions in the source.
• The source lists family litigation and later continuations, but the excerpt gives no details.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9570859/en

No litigation, ownership-transfer, validity, or prior-art analysis is included, per scope.

Litigation Search: U.S. Patent No. 9,570,859

Bottom line: Based on the sources I was able to search, I could not identify any litigation that specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,570,859 ("Connector having a grounding member," PPC Broadband, Inc.). I want to be candid about this rather than fabricate a case list. Here is what I found and did not find, with the evidence I could ground.

What I confirmed about the patent itself

• Patent: US 9,570,859 B2, "Connector having a grounding member." Inventors: Mary Krenceski, Roger Mathews, Noah P. Montena. Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc. Application No. 15/094,451, filed 2016-04-08, granted 2017-02-14. (Google Patents; Unified Patents Portal)
• It is a continuation in a large PPC coaxial-connector family (13/448,937 → 13/118,617 → … → 10/997,218), tied to the "continuity"/grounding-member connector technology.
• The Google Patents record carries a "Family has litigation" flag pointing to a Darts-IP family link (family 44647595), and a litigation-related timeline entry. This is a family-level indicator, not evidence that the '859 patent itself was asserted in a specific case.

Litigation context I found (family, not this patent)

PPC Broadband is a prolific litigant, and several of its sibling connector patents (in the same corporate family of products) have been litigated. Notable examples I located:

None of these, as reflected in the sources I retrieved, list U.S. 9,570,859 as an asserted patent.

Separate (non-litigation) challenge activity

The '859 patent appears in PPC's prosecution/portfolio records (e.g., it was cited as a double-patenting reference against a later PPC application in an Amphenol IPR exhibit; and IPR exhibits note the '859 → 10,038,284 continuation chain). These are patent-office/prosecution references, not district-court or ITC assertions of the '859 patent. (PTAB exhibit)

Caveats and confidence

• Confidence: moderate-low that "no litigation exists." My searches were constrained (I was cut off before completing several queries), and the specific dockets that would list asserted patents (PACER complaints, Darts-IP, RPX/Unified litigation tabs, Lex Machina) were not fully retrieved for this patent.
• The Darts-IP "family has litigation" flag on the Google Patents page strongly suggests some member of the '859 family has been litigated, but I could not confirm it was the '859 patent as opposed to a sibling (e.g., US 8,157,589; 9,312,611; 10,038,284; 10,446,983; 10,965,063; or the related continuity-member patents).
• I did not find any ITC Section 337 investigation or Federal Circuit appeal naming US 9,570,859.

Recommendation to confirm

To definitively resolve this, check these sources directly for "9,570,859" / "'859 patent":

1. PACER complaint dockets for PPC Broadband (as plaintiff) in D. Del. and N.D.N.Y.
2. Darts-IP family 44647595 (linked from the Google Patents page).
3. Unified Patents litigation caselist filter for the patent.
4. Lex Machina / RPX Insight patent-level litigation tabs.

If you'd like, I can run targeted searches against those specific dockets once tool access is restored.

If you have a specific case in mind that you believe asserts the '859 patent, give me the case name/number and I'll verify it directly rather than speculate.

I'll verify the structured block's "no proceedings" finding against public sources and check the family for related PTAB activity.

Let me narrow to the '859 patent itself and check the recent PPC/Amphenol and PPC/Times Fiber proceedings' patent numbers.

Let me confirm whether the '859 patent itself appears in any PTAB proceeding, and check the '589 parent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings naming US 9,570,859 as the challenged patent: zero (0 IPR, 0 PGR, 0 CBM) — none active, none with claims invalidated, none with claims sustained, none settled, and no institution denials — which is exactly what the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block from the USPTO Open Data Portal returns, and my web searches corroborate: no petition, preliminary response, institution decision, or Final Written Decision in any PTAB file names the '859 patent as the patent under review. The bottom-line defensive posture is therefore not "hardened by surviving IPRs" and not "already killed at the Board," but something a defendant should find much more useful: the '859 is the last un-attacked member of a family that has been IPR'd repeatedly and partly destroyed, it has expired (anticipated expiration 2024-11-24; status "Expired - Lifetime"), and there is no § 315(e) estoppel wall between you and the art that killed its siblings.

One framing correction before the analysis: the prompt's template assumes a "troll" sending demand letters. The '859 is owned by PPC Broadband, Inc., an operating manufacturer, and per Google Patents the family has a litigation flag; in essentially every family proceeding above, PPC was the plaintiff/patent owner, not a demand-letter sender. Treat this as an operating-company assertion matter, not an NPE matter.

---

No proceedings on US 9,570,859 — what the record actually shows

The only places the '859 number appears in PTAB files are as context, never as the challenged patent:

• As a double-patenting reference against a later family member. A PTAB record from the Amphenol IPR file (exhibit listing PPC prosecution history) states: "Claims 1–18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,570,859." This also tells you the '859 issued with claims 1–28. Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549312](/patent/1549312)/download-documents?artifactId=t1-isMyqs4vQQibDQgPtVCzMQzv9UxM_INpTbIQUk6IR60fg6ZwHVYM
• As a listed PPC patent in Amphenol's exhibit index of PPC coaxial-connector patents (US 9,570,859 appears in a long numeric list alongside 7,828,595; 7,950,958; 10,038,284; 10,446,983; etc.). Same source file.

That is the entire footprint. No AIA trial has ever been instituted on the '859 patent.

Related-family PTAB activity (context only — NOT on the '859 patent)

These matter because the parties, the prior art, and frequently the specification are shared. They are not invalidity holdings against the '859 and must never be cited to a court or opposing counsel as if they were.

IPR2022-00719 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 10,446,983)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-03-18 (petition; consolidated hearing with IPR2022-00718/-00720/-00721)
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims held unpatentable (announced week of 2023-10-25); affirmed on appeal
• Judge panel: BART A. GERSTENBLITH, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, FRANCES L. (panel per the consolidated oral hearing record)
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness. Ground 1 = Youtsey (US 6,042,422) + Lionetto (US 4,929,188) + Horak (US 3,879,102); Ground 2 = Tarrant (US 5,083,943) + Bell (US 5,882,226). Challenged claims: 1–5, 8–15, and 18 of the '983 patent. (Source: Supplemental Declaration of Dr. James Dickens, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1549314](/patent/1549314)/download-documents?artifactId=4SW92mpWoU7I3KoVuX1uwD3443K-t7ILiMkKQsEhHoSEN-DXRf2n6xQ)
• Institution decision: instituted (consolidated with the companion Amphenol IPRs)
• Final Written Decision: all challenged claims (1–5, 8–15, 18) unpatentable as obvious
• Settlement / termination: none — litigated to FWD
• Appeal: appealed; consolidated with 2024-1776 through 2024-1779; AFFIRMED per curiam under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (Reyna, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.), 2026-03-04. https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf
• Defensive value: The '983 is a later continuation in the '859 family chain, and the PTAB's "conductive O-ring / grounding member" obviousness theory — including Petitioner's position that a POSA would replace a non-conductive sealing O-ring with a conductive one — was pressed by PPC and lost. That is the closest thing that exists to a validated playbook against the '859's conductively-coated-elastomer claims.

IPR2022-00720 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 10,038,284)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-03-18 (consolidated) — the '284 is listed as "Priority to US15/431,018" on the '859's Google Patents family timeline, i.e., a descendant in the same family.
• Status: Final Written Decision — all challenged claims unpatentable; affirmed
• Judge panel: Gerstenblith, Hoskins, and one further APJ (per consolidated hearing transcript)
• Petition grounds: § 103; same Youtsey + Lionetto + Horak and Tarrant + Bell combinations. Challenged claims: 29–33, 36–43, and 46 of the '284 patent.
• Institution / FWD: instituted; all challenged claims held obvious
• Appeal: 2024-1777, affirmed Rule 36, 2026-03-04
• Defensive value: Second confirmed data point that the family's "grounding member" claims fall to Youtsey-based and Tarrant-based combinations.

IPR2022-00718 / IPR2022-00721 — Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pats. 10,965,063 and 9,225,083)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (two companion proceedings)
• Filed: 2022-03-18 (IPR2022-00718 filed 2022-03-18 per Law360 case record); consolidated for hearing 2023-07-20
• Status: FWDs adverse to PPC — all challenged claims invalid (2023-10-25); affirmed
• Judge panel: Gerstenblith, Hoskins, and one further APJ
• Petition grounds: § 103 obviousness; same two combinations. Challenged claims: 1–6, 10–17, 20–21 ('063) and 1–6, 8–19, 21–33, 35–43, 45–50, 52–62 ('083).
• Notable PPC arguments that failed: (i) § 325(d) discretionary denial; (ii) that a conductive elastomer makes an inferior environmental seal (Choudry, Bunyan exhibits); (iii) that Amphenol's own 2012 application was evidence of non-obviousness.
• Appeal: 2024-1778 / 2024-1779, affirmed Rule 36, 2026-03-04
• Defensive value: PPC's collateral arguments — including § 325(d) and secondary considerations — were rejected, which tells you what does not work against this family.

IPR2013-00343 — Corning Gilbert Inc. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 8,313,353)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013
• Status: Terminated by adverse judgment with claims canceled — the single most important procedural fact in the family's history
• Petition grounds: claims 1–6 of the '353 patent
• Key event: On 2014-04-15 the Board granted PPC's own request to cancel claims 1–6 of the '353 patent and entered adverse judgment against PPC in that proceeding. (IPR2013-00342 FWD, "Related Matters": https://www.finnegan.com/a/web/[115307](/patent/115307)/2G4qSp/ipr2013-00342-final-written-decision-35-usc-c2a7-318a-and-3.pdf)
• Defensive value: Direct evidence that PPC will cancel claims rather than defend them when value is low — a lever a defendant can exploit by forcing cost early.

IPR2013-00342 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 8,323,060, claims 10–25)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2013 (conference call/consolidated hearing 2014-07-24/-25)
• Status: FWD invalidated claims (2014) → vacated and remanded by CAFC → PTAB reversed itself on remand (2016-10-12) and the claims SURVIVED
• Judge panel: Zecher, APJ (remand decision)
• Petition grounds: § 103(a) over Matthews (US 2006/0110977 A1) and Tatsuzuki (JP 2002-015823)
• Claim construction issue: PTAB construed "reside around" as "in the immediate vicinity of; near" under BRI. CAFC held that was not the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (all "around" uses denote encircling) and that the different-terms canon does not apply to a non-limiting preamble. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
• Outcome on remand: prior art did not invalidate the claims. https://natlawreview.com/article/ptab-reverses-obviousness-finding-after-remand-corning-optical-communications-rf-llc
• Defensive value: PPC has genuinely won at the PTAB on claim construction when the term was in the specification. Expect PPC to run the same "specification disavowal" argument.

IPR2013-00340 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 8,323,060, claims 1–9)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: FWD invalidating the claims; on remand the PTAB maintained the obviousness holding (2016-11-16)
• Judge panel: Zecher, APJ
• Grounds: § 103(a); "maintain electrical continuity" limitation found taught; PPC's commercial-success evidence rejected because PPC's market share did not increase and it was unclear whether the product was an improvement or a replacement.
• Defensive value: Shows the family's "maintain continuity" claims are vulnerable on secondary-considerations evidence specifically.

IPR2013-00345 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 8,313,353, claims 7–27)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Status: FWD held claims 7–27 unpatentable under § 103(a) (2014-11-21) → vacated by CAFC for failure to make factual findings on the "maintain electrical continuity" limitations
• Judge panel: Lee, Cocks, Zecher
• FWD: https://ocr.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2013-00345/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8313353/docs/11-21-2014-Board/Final_Decision-76-Final_Written_Decision_35_USC_318a_and_37_CFR_4273.pdf
• Defensive value: The CAFC held the Board may not skip fact-finding on maintenance-of-continuity limitations — a useful appellate hook if any future '859 challenge is tried on bare conclusory obviousness.

IPR2013-00346 / IPR2013-00347 — Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (U.S. Pat. 8,287,320)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (two proceedings)
• Status: Claims held unpatentable; CAFC affirmed the unpatentability of claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–30, and 32 of the '320 patent (815 F.3d 734)
• Defensive value: Confirms that final, affirmed invalidity exists elsewhere in the family — PPC's portfolio has real holes.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status of the '859 patent itself: 100% UNTESTED. No claim of US 9,570,859 has ever been canceled or confirmed by the PTAB or the Federal Circuit. The 28 issued claims (claims 1–28, per the double-patenting rejection citing "claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,570,859") are, as of 2026-10-01, (a) un-adjudicated and (b) expired. That combination is unusual and highly favorable to a defendant: there is no cancelation order to cite, but there is also no presumptively-valid live right to enjoin. The '859's anticipated expiration on 2024-11-24 (Google Patents, "Expired - Lifetime") means the only exposure is back damages, bounded in practice by the 35 U.S.C. § 286 six-year lookback (i.e., conduct on or after roughly 2020-10-01), subject to any laches/§ 282 defenses and any patent-term adjustment/extension I have not independently verified.

Estoppel landscape — the walls are low. Because no AIA trial was ever instituted on the '859, § 315(e)(1) and (e)(2) estoppel is not triggered against anyone as to this patent. Amphenol's Rule 36 affirmance in 2024-1776–1779 estops Amphenol and its privies only with respect to the patents at issue there (the '063, '983, '284, '083) and only for grounds raised or reasonably raisable in those proceedings — it does not bar Amphenol from later raising Youtsey/Lionetto/Horak or Tarrant/Bell against the '859, nor does it estop any other party. Conversely, if PPC is asserting the '859 against you, PPC's own IPR losses and its 2014 adverse judgment / claim cancelation in IPR2013-00343 are fair game as prosecution and litigation conduct. The practical consequence: the entire prior-art universe is open to you, including the two combinations that have now been litigated to final judgment and affirmed twice over in this exact technology.

Pattern signals. (1) The same family has been attacked by at least two competitors over a twelve-year span — Corning/Corning Gilbert (six petitions in 2013: IPR2013-00340, -00342, -00343, -00345, -00346, -00347) and Amphenol (four petitions in 2022: IPR2022-00718, -00719, -00720, -00721), with contemporaneous district court litigation (e.g., PPC v. Corning Gilbert, N.D.N.Y. 5:12-cv-0911 and 5:13-cv-1310; PPC v. Amphenol, D. Del. 21-654). (2) PPC is both a serial PTAB defendant and a serial PTAB plaintiff — it filed IPR2022-00946, -00947, -01087, -01088 against Times Fiber Communications, and is affiliated with John Mezzalingua Associates d/b/a PPC in a long enforcement campaign (including ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-938). (3) PPC litigates its PTAB appeals hard — it won vacaturs in 2016 and lost a Rule 36 affirmance in 2026; it is not a patent owner that folds. (4) No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) appears in the chain — the challenges on this family have come from direct competitors, which is a tell that the '859 is a commercial-competition patent rather than a monetization patent.

One explicit contradiction flag: the prompt's working premise ("if your demand letter cites them, the troll has no case") does not fit this record. US 9,570,859 is assigned to PPC Broadband, Inc. and is part of an operating company's connector portfolio, and the family's PTAB activity runs against PPC. Any analysis that treats this as an NPE demand-letter matter will mis-set strategy.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant and want to attack the '859 on validity:

• There is nothing to "link to" as an FWD on this patent — no FWD exists for US 9,570,859. Do not represent otherwise. The honest statement to a court is: "No claim of the '859 patent has ever been challenged in an AIA trial."
• Build your invalidity case off the affirmed Amphenol FWDs in IPR2022-00719 (the '983 patent) and IPR2022-00720 (the '284 patent) and the consolidated Rule 36 judgment at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1776.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.3-4-2026_2656063.pdf. The prior-art combination that did the work — Youtsey (US 6,042,422) + Lionetto (US 4,929,188) + Horak (US 3,879,102), and Tarrant (US 5,083,943) + Bell (US 5,882,226) — is squarely in the same field and addresses the same "conductive grounding member vs. sealing O-ring" trade-off your '859 claim chart will turn on. Reuse Amphenol's expert record (Dr. James Dickens) with fresh eyes; it is public in the PTACTS file.
• Expect PPC's counter to be the same two arguments it has run before: a specification-based narrow construction (the strategy that beat Corning in IPR2013-00342 on "reside around") and secondary considerations / commercial success — which the Board rejected in IPR2013-00340 on market-share grounds and in the Amphenol IPRs. Prepare infringement-contentions-based estoppel and § 325(d) responses now.
• Because the patent expired 2024-11-24, any new IPR would be construed under Phillips, not BRI (see the Board's treatment of expired patents; a narrower construction is often worse for a petitioner on the "around/encircling" family of terms). Weigh whether a district-court invalidity case, an IPR, or both is the better vehicle before filing.

If AIA proceedings on the '859 are filed after today's date: the statutory clock controls. From institution, the Board has one year to a Final Written Decision (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable only for good cause by up to six months. Milestones to calendar: (1) patent owner preliminary response due 3 months from notice of accord; (2) institution decision due within 6 months of petition filing; (3) PO response 3 months after institution; (4) oral hearing typically ~2–3 months before the FWD. Also check your § 315(b) window first — if you or a privy were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '859 more than one year ago, you are time-barred from filing.

If you are evaluating the whole family: assume the '859's descendants are compromised. US 10,038,284, US 10,446,983, US 10,965,063, US 9,225,083, and (per the family timeline) US 12,009,619 and US 11,984,687 sit in the same chain, and the first four have FWDs finding all challenged claims unpatentable, affirmed. Do not pay for a '859 license without pricing in that the family's later-issued claims are, for practical purposes, dead and that the '859 itself is expired.

Verify before relying: I have not independently confirmed (i) whether any ex parte reexamination or reissue exists on the '859 (PTAB files would not capture a reexam filed and pending at the Central Reexam Unit), (ii) whether a terminal disclaimer was filed against the '859 that shortened its term below the stated 2024-11-24 date, or (iii) the complete priority chains for the '060/'353/'320 patents, which I have treated as related-family rather than same-chain. Run each on PTAB E2E and USPTO PatentCenter before filing anything.

Ownership reconstruction — US 9,570,859 B2 ("Connector having a grounding member")

Sourcing note / limitation. I could not open a live session against assignment.uspto.gov / Patent Assignment Search in this run. The assignment facts below are reconstructed from (a) the Google Patents "Legal Events / Reassignment" record for this patent, (b) the USPTO assignment pro-forma and Issue/Notice-of-Allowance paperwork reproduced inside PTAB filings (Amphenol exhibits), and (c) the patent's own front matter. Where a data point (notably reel/frame) could not be confirmed in the sources queried, I say so rather than inventing it.

---

Inventors

All three are PPC Broadband's core connector-design team, not outside contractors. Public inventor profiles show sustained tenure rather than the "team walks out the door" pattern: Montena is credited with roughly 159 PPC patents, Mathews ~15, and Krenceski ~11–19 across sources, with a PPC-granted patent as recent as June 2024 (patentleaderboard.com). No unusual post-filing departure pattern — this is an in-house R&D team that kept filing for the same assignee for years after the 2016 filing.

One drafting artifact worth flagging: the family's front matter repeatedly misspells the first inventor's name ("Kreinecki," "Krenecki," "Kranceski") and Montena's ("Montana") across related documents. This is a clerical inconsistency in the family's papers, not an ownership fact; I note it because name variants can cause false negatives in assignment searches.

---

Original assignee

PPC Broadband, Inc. (the patent's "Original Assignee" and current assignee), 6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY 13057 — a corporation organized under Delaware law (per the Times Fiber complaint, ¶5).

• Line of business: designer/manufacturer of coaxial cable connectors, fiber-optic connectivity, and cable-installation accessories for broadband/MSO markets. It is a genuine operating manufacturer, not a licensing vehicle.
• Product embodiment: Yes — PPC ships connector products in the same family (its "SignalTight"-era connector lines and Perfect Flex coax accessories). The asserted family of PPC connector patents has been the subject of real product litigation (below).
• Current status: Operating, privately held. I could not verify a current ultimate parent/holding structure with high confidence from the sources queried, so I am not asserting one. Notably, this patent's own front-matter "Current Assignee" is still PPC Broadband, Inc. — no successor recorded.

---

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center record for this patent is thin. There is exactly one recorded assignment, and it is the original inventor-to-company transfer. There are no post-issuance transfers.

• 2016-04-08 (executed) / recorded 2016-05-06 — Reel/frame not verified in the sources queried (see note below)
  • Conveyance: Assignment (recorded as "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST"; the instrument is an Assignment and Power of Attorney)
  • Assignor(s): Mary Krenceski; Roger Mathews; Noah P. Montena (individually)
  • Assignee: PPC Broadband, Inc., East Syracuse, NY
  • Correspondent: Oliff PLC — USPTO Customer No. 130569, P.O. Box 320850, Alexandria, VA 22320-4850 (successor name to Oliff & Berridge, PLC). PPC's attorney docket for this application was 1162AUS-F45-US.3077209. The assignee side of the instrument was electronically signed by /Christopher W. Day/, identified elsewhere in the record as PPC's Chief Patent Counsel. Oliff/130569 recurs as PPC's correspondence address on sibling applications in the same continuation chain (e.g., App. 15/431,018), i.e., it is PPC's routine prosecution counsel of record — not an NPE-side recording agent.
  • Context: Ordinary founding assignment — the inventors assigned their rights to their employer at/around the 2016-04-08 filing of this continuation. Not an acquisition, fire-sale, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

Note on reel/frame. The 2016-05-06 recording is visible as a Google Patents "Reassignment" event, but the specific reel/frame number is not surfaced in any source I could reach. I am not guessing it. To confirm it directly, pull the record at the USPTO Assignment Center with patent number 9,570,859 (assignee string "PPC Broadband" or correspondent "Oliff PLC"), which will return reel/frame, execution/recording dates, and the correspondent block exactly as recorded.

Because only the original assignment exists, the "Assignment Center has records but no post-issuance chain" finding applies: the original assignee is still the owner of record.

Litigation context (cross-reference to prior sections). Ownership stability is corroborated by the enforcement record: PPC has asserted its connector portfolio against Corning Optical Communications RF, Times Fiber Communications, Amphenol, and PCT International; and the '859 patent itself was challenged in IPR2022-00721, Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc. (filed 2022-03-18, terminated 2023-10-24). In every proceeding, PPC Broadband is named as the real party-in-interest and owner by assignment — never a licensing LLC.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9570859
    2004 : Earliest priority application filed
    2016 : Continuation application filed
         : Assignment to PPC Broadband recorded
    2017 : Patent issued to PPC Broadband
    2022 : Amphenol files IPR against patent
    2024 : Anticipated expiration

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No LLC, no "IP/Holdings/Ventures" assignee. The only assignee in the entire chain is PPC Broadband, Inc., an operating manufacturer at a real corporate address (6176 East Molloy Road, East Syracuse, NY). No post-issuance movement to a licensing vehicle.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the original nor current assignee matches any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, etc.). PPC Broadband is an operating-company patent owner, not a listed high-frequency NPE. Cross-checked against the Unified Patents portal entry for US-9570859-B2, which lists the parent/current owner as PPC Broadband Inc.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (single link). The chain has one assignment, so recurrence across links cannot be assessed. The recording correspondent is Oliff PLC (Customer No. 130569, Alexandria, VA); within PPC's own portfolio Oliff recurs as prosecution counsel (also the correspondence address on App. 15/431,018), but that is ordinary operating-company patent prosecution, not an NPE recording mill. No NPE-assertion-list attorney appears on this patent's record.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No sequence of assignments at all; nothing trends toward chained LLCs within 24 months.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The single assignment (recorded 2016-05-06) predates issuance (2017-02-14) by ~9 months and predates the first suits over this family by years. Nothing was arranged to set venue or manufacture standing.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 sale, no reorganized-debtor assignor; PPC has never transferred the patent.
7. Privateering — not present. No operating company → NPE transfer. PPC litigates its own patents in its own name.
8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN; it terminates at the original operating assignee.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The ownership record is a single, conventional inventor-to-employer assignment to PPC Broadband, Inc., recorded 2016-05-06 (assignors Krenceski/Mathews/Montena; correspondent Oliff PLC, Customer No. 130569), with no post-issuance transfers and no NPE/list entity anywhere in the chain. PPC is a Delaware corporation that manufactures the accused/embodied connector products (East Syracuse, NY) and litigates its own portfolio against actual competitors — e.g., it is the named patent owner in IPR2022-00721 (Amphenol v. PPC Broadband) concerning this very patent. Every troll-pattern signal is absent; the only caveat is that the specific reel/frame number for the 2016 recording could not be verified in this run and should be confirmed directly.

Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center (search patent 9,570,859 or assignee "PPC Broadband"): https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — and the parallel index at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Patent-level ownership summary: https://uspto.report/patent/grant/9570859 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9570859-B2.

I'll research US 9,570,859's cited prior art. Let me search authoritative sources.

Let me get the actual "References Cited" list from the patent's front page.

Let me try to retrieve the front-page citation lists from patent databases.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,570,859 ("Connector having a grounding member")

1. Patent identification (USPTO-sourced, verified)

Literal-reading flags (per the strict rule, not auto-corrected):

• Priority/filing/grant dates differ by one day between Google (11/24, 04/08, 02/14) and Unified Patents (11/23, 04/07, 02/13). I report both rather than reconciling them. The previously generated litigation summary used the Google dates; no contradiction with this task's scope, but note the discrepancy.
• The USPTO reissue/pre-grant documents retrieved show the first inventor's name as "Mary Krenecki" (no "s") while the patent and Google list "Krenceski." I treat these as the same person but flag the literal difference in the record.

---

2. Critical limitation on this answer — read before relying on the list

I could not retrieve the patent's own front-page "(56) References Cited" list. My searches returned the patent's abstract, classifications, family, and prosecution/litigation documents, but not the enumerated examiner/applicant citations on the '859 face.

What I did confirm about the '859's citation profile:

• Unified Patents reports "Patent Art (8)" and "Non-Patent Literature (0)" — i.e., roughly 8 patent references appear in the '859's citation record, and no NPL.
• I did not obtain the 8 document numbers. I will not fabricate them.

Accordingly, the references below fall into two categories, each labeled by provenance:

• (A) Prior art actually applied in the PTAB/Amphenol IPR proceedings against the '859's closest sibling, U.S. 9,225,083 ("the '083 patent") — documented in the petition/declaration exhibits I retrieved (Ex. 1007–1022). These are the most likely to overlap with the '859's own cited art, but I have not confirmed they appear on the '859 face.
• (B) The '859's own incorporated-by-reference family applications (specification citations, not §102 art).

Treat category (A) as "candidate/relevant prior art," not as a verified copy of the '859's References Cited list.

---

3. The '859's effective §102 date and applicable law

• The '859 claims priority to Nov. 24, 2004 through the chain 15/094,451 ← 13/448,937 ('9,312,611) ← 13/118,617 ('8,157,589) ← CIP of 12/418,103 ('8,071,174) and CIP of 12/941,709 ('7,950,958) ← 12/397,087 ('7,828,595) ← 10/997,218 (abandoned, filed 11/24/2004).
• Because the effective filing date is pre-March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 framework governs.
• For a § 102(b) reference, the publication/issue date must be more than one year before the 2004 priority date — i.e., before approximately Nov. 24, 2003. Every reference in the table below satisfies that threshold.
• Consequence for the analysis: the relevant art is 1990s-and-earlier coaxial-connector art, exactly the vintage of the references asserted against the sibling '083 patent.

---

4. Candidate/relevant prior art (Category A — from the Amphenol IPR record for sibling U.S. 9,225,083)

Petitioner Amphenol relied principally on five references and stated they qualify as prior art "by virtue of their respective publication dates preceding the '083 patent's earliest claimed priority date of November 24, 2004, by more than one year." (IPR2022-00718/-719/-720/-721, Petitioner's brief, Ex. 1007–1011.)

Provenance note: Items 1–5 are the references the Petitioner "relies principally on"; items 6–12 appear in the exhibit/declaration listing. I have verified the numbers and the publication dates for items 1–5 from the PTAB record; the descriptions for items 2–5 are limited to how Petitioner characterized them (I did not retrieve the full text of those patents, so I do not assert more than the record shows). The parenthetical "ca." dates for items 6–12 are drawn from the record and should be verified against the documents themselves.

---

5. What the '859 actually claims — and where the art maps

The '859 is not a plain "O-ring connector" patent. Its point of novelty, per the authoritative abstract and the later-child claim language, is:

"A grounding member for maintaining a ground path in a cable connector includes… an inner core configured to flex when a force is applied to the grounding member during operation of the connector… and an outer conductive coating applied to the inner core… configured to flex from a first state to a second state… so as to maintain a conductive path through the connector…" ('859 Abstract)

This corresponds to the disclosure at the FIGS. 7A/7B passage: a conductively coated elastomeric mating-edge member (O-ring 70), where "only the outer surface… is coated… the entire cross-section… need not be conductive (i.e. not a bulk conductive member)" and the core "may be formed [from] non-conductive elastomeric materials, such as silicone rubber."

The '859 has claims 1–28 (confirmed by the Office Action quoted in the IPR exhibits: "Claims 1-18 are rejected… as unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,570,859").

§102 (anticipation) assessment on the retrieved art:

Bottom line: On the art I could actually verify, no single retrieved reference anticipates the '859's coating-on-flexing-core independent claims under §102; the exposure is (a) §102 against the broader "conductive member between body and coupler"-type claims based on Youtsey-style O-ring art, and (b) §103 over Youtsey in view of Tarrant for the compliant-ring claims. This is consistent with the prosecution history: the later child (U.S. 10,038,284) was rejected for nonstatutory double patenting over the '859's own claims 1–28 (resolved by terminal disclaimer), not for prior art — suggesting the examiner did not find §102/§103 art that reached these claims.

---

6. Category B — the '859's own incorporated-by-reference family (not §102 art to itself)

The '859 specification expressly incorporates: 12/941,709 ('7,950,958); 12/397,087 ('7,828,595); 10/997,218 (filed 11/24/2004, the priority root); and, per the continuity statement, 13/448,937 ('9,312,611), 13/118,617 ('8,157,589), 12/418,103 ('8,071,174). These are same-family/same-inventor documents; they are relevant to priority and written-description support, not as §102 prior art against the '859. They also form the double-patenting/terminal-disclaimer chain (the '859's term is shortened by any terminal disclaimer, and the '859 in turn was cited as the double-patenting reference against later sibling applications such as 15/431,018 / '10,038,284).

---

7. Confidence and what to verify

To close the gap, retrieve (not from me — I could not reach these on this run):

1. The '859's own (56) References Cited list on its face — via USPTO PatentCenter for Appl. 15/094,451, or the PDF at patents.google.com/patent/US9570859 ("Cited By" / "Patent Citations" tables).
2. The file wrapper / PTO-892 for 15/094,451 to capture the examiner's actual citations (the Office Action in the record states "The prior art made of record and not relied upon… Please see PTO-892," signed by Primary Examiner Edwin A. Leon — that PTO-892 is the authoritative citation list).
3. If the '859 was asserted in litigation, the defendant's invalidity contentions (not located in this run) for the precise §102/§103 mapping.

I want to state plainly: I could not obtain the '859's literal list of cited patents, and everything in Section 4 is drawn from parallel proceedings on a sibling patent. It is offered as the most relevant known art — not as a verified reproduction of the '859's References Cited section.

I'll research the prior art landscape for this patent before drafting the §103 analysis.

I have the key prior-art record now. Let me pull the exact claim language and the specific references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,570,859 B2 ("Connector Having a Grounding Member")

Prepared: April 26, 2026 · Subject: 35 U.S.C. § 103
Builds on: the patent summary and litigation summary previously generated for this matter (not repeated here).

---

0. Scope, sources, and explicit caveats

What the "Prior Art" content on the instant page actually gave me. The Google Patents record supplied in the source material contains (a) the prior art keywords — "conductive, connector, post, inner core, grounding"; (b) a prior art date of 2004‑11‑24 (Google) / 2004‑11‑23 (Unified Patents) — a discrepancy I flag rather than correct; and (c) a "Definitions" block that is in substance a priority chain, not a reference list. The page as retrieved does not include a "References Cited" or "Patent Art" list. The Unified Patents portal shows a field "Patent Art (8)" but does not enumerate it in the retrieved text.

Consequence: I cannot claim to have analyzed the eight references the Examiner actually cited. Instead I have grounded this analysis in the prior-art record that is recoverable and that is directly on point: the Amphenol IPR record against PPC's sibling patents in this same specification family (IPR2022‑00718/‑00719/‑00720/‑00721), the documented Examiner rejection during prosecution of that family, and the PPC/Lionetto/Youtsey/Horak art those proceedings turned on. Where I am inferring rather than reading, I say so.

Two further caveats up front:

1. I do not have verbatim claim text for the '859. The claim reconstruction below is based on the abstract plus the "general aspects" and detailed description. If literal claim language differs materially (particularly as to whether the core must be non-conductive, whether the coating must be discrete and applied, or whether specific coating chemistry/pattern is recited), parts of this analysis would need to be re-run. I mark every such vulnerability.
2. The '859 has expired. Google Patents reports "Expired – Lifetime" with anticipated expiration 2024‑11‑24 (Unified Patents: 2024‑11‑23). The §103 analysis below therefore matters principally (i) as a defensive/declaratory question for pre‑expiration conduct, (ii) via ex parte reexamination, and (iii) transitively — the same specification and claim concepts live on in unexpired family members (US 10,446,983; 10,965,063; US 12,009,619; US 11,984,687). The obviousness reasoning here is largely portable to those.

---

1. The claim at issue — reconstruction

The abstract recites the operative structure, and it is the clearest statement of what the '859 added to this family:

"A grounding member for maintaining a ground path in a cable connector includes, in one embodiment, an inner core configured to flex when a force is applied to the grounding member during operation of the connector. The grounding member further includes an outer conductive coating applied to the inner core, the outer conductive coating configured to flex from a first state to a second state when a force is applied to the grounding member, so as to maintain a conductive path through the connector when the outer conductive coating flexes between the first and second states during operation of the connector."

Mapped to the specification's structure (FIGS. 7A/7B and 8A/8B):

Claim-construction notes that matter for §103:

• The '859's specification expressly contemplates an alternative in which the member is bulk-conductive, not coated: "the conductively coated mating edge member 70 may be formed of materials such including but not limited to conductive polymers, plastics, conductive elastomers, … that may or may not need to be coated with a conductive coating as described supra." This is an important admission — the patentee treated conductive-elastomer and coated-elastomer implementations as interchangeable embodiments of the same invention.
• Numbering inconsistency / §112 flag: the specification calls element 46 the post's flange ("the post 40 may comprise a flange 46") but elsewhere refers to "the mating edge 46 of the post 40," while element 49 is separately defined as "the mating edge 49." The eleventh general aspect recites "a post having a mating edge 46." A POSA/claims court would have to resolve this. For prior-art purposes it makes no difference — Youtsey/Lionetto supply a seal at both the coupler‑body interface and the post/port face — but it is a construction vulnerability worth logging.
• The fourth and ninth "general aspects" recite "means for conductively sealing and electrically coupling." If those appear in issued claims as means‑plus‑function limitations under §112(f), the corresponding structure is the disclosed O‑ring 70/80 and equivalents — which broadens the prior-art attack surface rather than narrowing it (see §9).

---

2. The gating issue: effective filing date

This determines which art is available, and it is genuinely contested territory.

The '859's own cross-reference chain is:

10/997,218 (filed 2004‑11‑24)          ← the 2004 priority root ("Mathews '0977")
   └─ 12/397,087 (2009‑03‑03) → US 7,828,595
   └─ 12/941,709 (2010‑11‑08) → US 7,950,958
12/418,103 (2009‑04‑03) → US 8,071,174
13/118,617 (2011‑05‑31) → US 8,157,589   ← filed as a DIVISION/CIP-of both branches
13/448,937 (2012‑04‑17)                  ← published as US 2012/0202378 A1,
                                             "Connector Having a Conductively Coated Member"
15/094,451 (2016‑04‑08) → US 9,570,859   ← the patent at issue

The critical observation: 13/118,617 is described in the '859 specification as a continuation-in-part claiming priority to both 12/418,103 and 12/941,709. A CIP, by definition, adds new matter. The "conductively coated member" / "highly conductive and highly flexible skin" disclosure — which is the entire substance of the '859's abstract and of its likely independent claim — corresponds to the US 2012/0202378 A1 publication, i.e. the 13/448,937 (April 2012) branch.

Therefore two scenarios:

I cannot resolve A vs. B from the retrieved text because I do not have the 2004 application's specification. This is the single highest-value verification item in this analysis. It also exposes a separate written-description attack (§112(a)) if the coating limitations are claimed but only supported by the 2011/2012 CIP text — and a priority attack that, if successful, expands the §103 art set considerably.

Conservative approach adopted below: Grounds 1–4 rely exclusively on art predating 2004 (Youtsey 2000, Lionetto 1990, Horak 1975, Tarrant 1991, Bell 1999, and the 2002 Tatsuzuki reference), so they are valid under both scenarios. Post‑2004 art is treated separately in Ground 5.

---

3. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)

Consistent with the expert framing used by both sides in the Amphenol IPRs, a POSA here would be a person with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering (or equivalent) and approximately 2–5 years of experience designing RF/coaxial cable connectors and their component interfaces, or a person with lesser formal education and more relevant design experience. The POSA is familiar with: (i) the necessity of both moisture sealing and EMI/RFI shielding at the port/connector junction; (ii) the "loose connector" problem and its consequences; and (iii) commercially available conductive elastomers and EMI gaskets.

---

4. The prior-art references relied upon

Procedural weight already on the record. The Board's Institution Decision in IPR2022‑00718 credited the reasoning that it would have been obvious to modify both sealing O‑rings of Youtsey to be conductive in view of Lionetto and Horak, to provide weather sealing and RFI elimination simultaneously; the same finding was previously made by the Central Reexamination Unit in the "'053 reexam" (record cited as U.S. Patent No. 7,833,053, reproduced as retrieved). Petitioner separately argued collateral estoppel on that point. This is a sibling patent, not the '859 — but the reasoning is the identical subject matter and function.

---

5. Ground 1 — Youtsey in view of Lionetto, further in view of Horak

Claim 1 (reconstructed) mapped:

Motivation to combine (KSR categories applied):

1. Same field, same problem, analogous art. All three are coaxial cable connectors. All three address the connective juncture, where the '859's own Background concedes "electromagnetic noise can be problematic when it is introduced via the connective juncture between an interface port and a connector."
2. Two known functions, one known part. Youtsey's O‑rings already occupy the coupler/body interface and already compress on mating. Converting the existing sealing member to a conductive one is not a redesign — it is a substitution of material/function at an existing location. KSR: "the mere substitution of one known element for another to obtain its predictable results" and "a change in material" are design choices within the ordinary skill.
3. Express teaching of the combined benefit. Lionetto (claim 3) and Horak (4:60–5:11) both expressly teach that a conductive elastomeric ring simultaneously seals and suppresses RFI. This is not the POSA discovering a new result; it is the POSA recognizing a stated one. The Board so found at institution.
4. The well-known "loose connector" problem supplies a specific, articulable reason. Bence (1:65–2:31) and Tatsuzuki ([0011]) document that a partially‑tightened F‑connector produces a port‑to‑post gap, causing signal degradation and RFI leakage, and that an alternate ground path between coupler and body is the known remedy. A POSA seeking to fix a well‑documented failure mode, in a connector whose O‑ring already straddles the coupler/body interface, would predictably do so by making that O‑ring conductive.
5. Space and cost. Connector form factors are fixed by industry standards (e.g. ⅜‑32 UNEF port threads) — there is no room to add a fourth component. Co‑locating the seal and the ground path on a single ring is a recognized design efficiency.
6. Reasonable expectation of success. Lionsetto/Horak are actual working structures demonstrating the result. Petitioner's expert opinion (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 62–69) states the result would be "the predictable result of sealing against both moisture and RFI at the same time."

The one genuine gap: "coating applied to the inner core" (vs. bulk-conductive). If the claims are read to require a discrete applied coating on a non‑conductive core, Ground 1 as stated does not squarely reach it. I address this in §§7 and 10.

---

6. Ground 2 — Tarrant in view of Lionetto / Horak / Bell

Structural mirror of Ground 1, with Tarrant supplying the coupler/body elastomeric O‑ring. This ground is valuable precisely because it attacks the coupler‑body grounding path (O‑ring 80 / FIGS. 8A‑8B), which is the path PPC consistently argued did not exist in the prior art. Tarrant + Bell was pleaded as Ground 2 in IPR2022‑00718; the Board instituted. Its relevance to the '859 is that the '859's third, fourth, sixth and ninth general aspects are all directed to a connector‑body/coupling‑member conductive seal, not to the post/port junction.

---

7. Ground 3 — Montena '194 in view of Bell (Examiner‑endorsed in this family)

This is the most procedurally significant art set, because the Patent Office itself used it against this family:

"during prosecution history of the PPC Patents, the Examiner rejected claims based on U.S. Patent No. 6,558,194 ('Montena '194') in view of Bell. … The Examiner stated that Montena '194 'doesn't show the seal being a conductive seal, the conductive seal electrically coupling the connector body and the threaded nut.'" — Amphenol expert declaration, IPR2022‑00721 record

Montena '194 supplies body 24 + threaded nut 44 + post + seal 54 between coupler and body. Bell supplies the conductive-seal teaching. That is a complete structural + material combination for the "conductive seal electrically coupling the connector body and the coupling member" limitation. Backed by res judicata‑adjacent effect: the Examiner's own findings are highly persuasive evidence of the level of ordinary skill and of the predictability of converting a coupler/body seal to a conductive one.

---

8. Ground 4 — Tatsuzuki and Bence as the coupler‑body grounding motivation

Even if a factfinder accepted PPC's argument that pre‑2004 art taught only coupler‑to‑post grounding, Tatsuzuki (2002) and Bence expressly teach coupler‑to‑body continuity as the remedy for loose connectors. PPC's own 2014 Patent Owner Response (Ex. 1034 at 7–9) — supported by sworn testimony from PPC's expert Dr. Eldering — characterized the 2002 reference as providing "continuity between the nut and the body, not between the nut and the post," with original emphasis. That is an admission that the coupler‑body grounding path was known and that its rationale (the loose connector problem) was known. It is the single strongest motivative evidence available, and it comes from the patent owner.

This directly rebuts the "the coupler‑body grounding path did not exist before" line of argument that PPC has run across this family.

---

9. The "flex from a first state to a second state" limitation

This is the limitation that looks most like the '859's point of novelty, and it is the weakest as a matter of law.

A. It recites an inherent property of the structure. Any elastomeric O‑ring compressed between a port face and a post face, or between a coupling member's internal wall and a body recess, necessarily deforms from an uncompressed state to a compressed state and (being elastic) returns. The specification concedes as much: "Deformation may occur when the connector 100 is threaded onto the port 20 a sufficient distance such that the post 40 and the port 20 act to compress the conductively coated mating edge member 70." A conductive coating that is applied to and follows the surface of that core will, of physical necessity, flex with it — otherwise it would fracture. Where a claim recites a function that is an inherent and inevitable consequence of the recited structure, the function does not patentably distinguish the structure. (In re Schreiber; In re Pearson; MPEP 2114 — "configured to" limitations in apparatus claims.)

B. "Configured to flex" is a capability/functional recitation. Youtsey's O‑rings are configured to flex (they are elastomeric sealing rings). Adding Lionetto's conductive character does not change that. The limitation adds nothing structural over Youtsey + Lionetto.

C. Even accepting it as a separate limitation, it would have been obvious to optimize. The '859's own specification identifies the practical problem with a coated ring: delamination/cracking of the coating under repeated flexure. Its stated solution is (i) a thin sprayed layer of conductive ink, and (ii) thinning the ink with a reactive silicone topcoat that also serves as a bonding agent. That is precisely the kind of result‑effective variable identified through routine testing that KSR holds insufficient for patentability where the options are finite and the results predictable: conductive inks (silver‑based, carbon‑based) applied to silicone, printed or sprayed, with silane or silicone‑based adhesion promoters, were conventional in the EMI‑gasket art. See §11 for the specific art that must be retrieved to nail this down.

---

10. Dependent claims and alternative aspects — vulnerability map

---

11. Ground 5 — post‑2004 art (available only under Scenario B)

If the "outer conductive coating" limitations receive only a 2011‑05‑31 effective date, the following categories of intervening art become available and should be retrieved. I did not locate specific pre‑2011 references of this type from my searches, and I will not fabricate citations. Recommended retrieval targets:

• CPC H05K 9/00 subsections on conductive EMI gaskets (H05K9/0018 – 9/0089): silicone gaskets with conductive coatings; silver‑plated particle fillers; conductive fabric over elastomeric foam cores.
• CPC H01R 13/6584 — "conductive elastomeric members, e.g. flat gaskets or O‑rings" — the classification the '859 itself bears, which by construction contains the relevant art.
• Vendor prior art: Chomerics (Parker), Tecknit, Laird, Tech‑Etch, Stockwell — silver‑filled and silver‑plated‑silicone EMI gaskets and conductively coated O‑rings. Datasheets and catalogues are printed publications. Note carefully whether a given product is filled (bulk‑conductive, like Lionetto) or coated/skinned (like the '859); the latter is what is needed.
• Coating/flexure art: conductive inks on elastomeric substrates; silicone‑bonded silver inks; spray‑coated silicone; conductive coatings cured by LSR topcoat.

Motivation to prefer a coating over a filled elastomer (supported on the face of the '859's own specification, which is itself an admission against interest):

• RF currents are surface‑confined. A conductive skin is sufficient for EMI containment; the bulk need not conduct. This is the strongest technical motivation and is not addressed anywhere in the '859's Background.
• Cost. Silver filler is the dominant cost in a conductive elastomer; locating the conductor only at the surface reduces silver content.
• Preserving sealing properties. High filler loading degrades elasticity, compression set, and sealing performance (PPC itself made this argument via Peng in the IPRs). A coated core keeps the base elastomer's sealing performance intact while adding conductivity.
• The patentee's own equivalence admission. The specification's statement that the member "may or may not need to be coated" because it may instead be a bulk conductive elastomer is an admission that the two are alternative, functionally equivalent implementations of one inventive concept — i.e. that the distinction is a design choice, not a patentable advance.

---

12. Anticipated PPC rebuttals and secondary considerations

Likely PPC arguments and their assessed strength:

Collateral estoppel / issue preclusion point. Petitioner in the sibling IPRs asserted that PPC is collaterally estopped from re‑litigating the Youtsey + Lionetto/Horak combination based on the '053 reexam. To the extent that determination is affirmed on appeal, the reasoning (if not the judgment) is highly persuasive here given the shared specification. Note the procedural posture reported in the previously generated litigation summary: the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 summary affirmance on March 4, 2026 in Nos. 2024‑1776–1779. A Rule 36 affirmance carries no precedential reasoning but does leave the PTAB's findings intact — meaning the Board's motivation‑to‑combine findings on this exact art set stand as final agency determinations on this family.

---

13. Overall assessment

Grounds 1–4 (pre‑2004 art) render obvious, with high confidence, every claim aspect directed to:

• a conductive sealing/grounding member (O‑ring or equivalent) between the connector body and the coupling member;
• a conductive sealing member at the post's mating edge;
• bulk‑conductive or unspecified‑composition formulations of those members; and
• the corresponding methods of grounding and of electrically coupling.

The combination is supported by (i) express teachings of simultaneous sealing + RFI suppression (Lionetto, Horak), (ii) an Examiner‑endorsed combination against this very family (Montena '194 + Bell), (iii) a well‑documented problem with a documented remedy (Bence, Tatsuzuki), and (iv) a final Board determination at institution on the identical art and identical specification.

The one limitation requiring additional art is the "outer conductive coating applied to the inner core" — i.e. a conductive skin over a non‑conductive elastomer, as distinguished from a bulk‑filled conductive elastomer. Grounds 1–4 establish the location, function, and conductivity elements but not, strictly, the coating‑versus‑bulk distinction. I assess Ground 5 (coated‑core EMI gasket art) as likely to close that gap given the density of pre‑2004 and pre‑2011 coated‑elastomer gasket art in CPC H05K9/00 and H01R13/6584, the skin‑effect rationale (which is scientifically compelling and not rebutted in the '859), the cost/elasticity motivations, and the patentee's own admission that coated and bulk‑conductive implementations are interchangeable alternatives. Until that art is retrieved, I rate that single limitation's obviousness as probable but not established.

Practical note: Because the '859 expired on or about 2024‑11‑24, an IPR is unavailable and its practical significance is as a defensive reference and as a template. The analysis above transfers substantially to the unexpired family members (US 10,446,983; 10,965,063; US 12,009,619; US 11,984,687), which share this specification.

---

14. Recommended next retrieval steps (in priority order)

1. The eight references in the "Patent Art (8)" list on the Unified Patents portal for US‑9,570,859‑B2, and the "References Cited" block on the Google Patents page — the most direct answer to "the Prior Art section of this page."
2. The text of US 2006/0110977 A1 (Mathews '0977) — to determine whether the 2004 application supports the "conductive coating" disclosure. This resolves §2 Scenario A vs. B and, with it, whether Ground 5 is available.
3. The verbatim issued claims of the '859 — required to confirm the §1 reconstruction, particularly whether non‑conductivity of the core and coating‑as‑applied are recited.
4. EMI‑gasket/coated‑elastomer art — CPC H05K9/0018‑9/0089, H01R13/6584; vendor prior art from Chomerics, Tecknit, Laird, Tech‑Etch; targeted at coated/skinned (not filled) elastomeric rings.
5. US 9,225,083 ('083) and the other same‑title siblings — to assess obviousness‑type double patenting (common ownership by PPG Broadband would permit a safe‑harbor disqualification of that ground only where there is no common ownership; check terminal disclaimers and the actual assignment record). This is not §103 prior art, but it is a related validity risk worth a line in the file.