`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`U.S. Class: 340/310.01
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`PER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b)(1)
`
`
`))))))))))))))))))
`
`In re Post-Grant Review of:
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 C1
`
`
`Issued: April 17, 2001
`Reexam. Cert. Issued: October 14, 2014
`
`Inventors: Boris Katzenberg et al.
`
`Application No. 09/520,350
`
`Filed: March 7, 2000
`
`For: APPARATUS AND METHOD
`FOR REMOTELY POWERING
`ACCESS EQUIPMENT OVER A
`10/100 SWITCHED ETHERNET
`NETWORK
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S.P.T.O.
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`PETITION FOR POST-GRANT REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321 AND
`§ 18 OF THE LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS ACT
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 321 and § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`(“AIA”) and pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.300 et seq., Sony Corporation of America
`
`(“Petitioner”) hereby requests post-grant review of claims 6 and 8–23 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,218,930 (“the ’930 patent,” attached as Petition Exhibit 1001), now purportedly
`
`assigned to Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”).
`
`

`

`An electronic payment in the amount of $31,100.00 for the post-grant review
`
`fee specified by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(b)(1), 42.15(b)(2), 42.15(b)(4)—comprising the
`
`$12,000.00 request fee and $19,100.00 post-institution fee (including $1100.00 for two
`
`claim in excess of 15)—is being paid at the time of filing this petition. If there are any
`
`additional fees due in connection with the filing of this paper, please charge the
`
`required fees to our deposit account no. 06-0916.
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ........................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ......................................................................................... 2
`
`Related Matters ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information .................................. 3
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’930 PATENT AND ITS HISTORY ............................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Claim ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Specification ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Conventional data node, access device, data signaling pair,
`main power source, and secondary power source ............................ 5
`
`Delivering a low level current, sensing a voltage level,
`controlling power supplied ................................................................... 6
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History ........................................................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Original Prosecution History ............................................................... 7
`
`Prosecution History of the ’401 Proceeding ...................................... 8
`
`Inter Partes Review ................................................................................ 8
`
`D.
`
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Originally issued claims ......................................................................... 9
`
`Amended claims ................................................................................... 10
`
`IV. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ............................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`At Least One Challenged Claim Is Unpatentable ....................................... 11
`
`The ’930 Patent Is a Covered Business Method Patent ............................. 11
`
`i
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The illustrative claim is broad enough to cover a financial
`product or service ................................................................................ 13
`
`The illustrative claim covers a large number of PoE devices
`used in retail services ........................................................................... 14
`
`The illustrative claim covers a large number of PoE devices
`used in banking and financial services .............................................. 18
`
`C.
`
`The ’930 Patent Is Not Directed To a “Technological Invention” ......... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`At least one claim of the ’930 patent fails to recite a novel
`and nonobvious technological feature .............................................. 20
`
`At least one claim of the ’930 patent does not solve a
`technical problem using a technical solution ................................... 23
`
`D.
`
`Petitioner Has Been Sued for Infringement and Is Not Estopped ......... 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Estoppel applies on a claim-by-claim basis and new claims
`10-23 were not challenged in any prior proceeding ........................ 24
`
`Grounds based on Hunter could not reasonably have been
`raised because it was only recently discovered based on
`amendments in the reexamination that occurred after the
`prior petitions were filed. .................................................................... 24
`
`Grounds raised in this Petition could not have reasonably
`been raised before because the Board would not permit
`them to be raised .................................................................................. 25
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED .......................................................................................... 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested ....................................................... 27
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge .................................................................... 27
`
`Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 27
`
`1.
`
`Broadest Reasonable Construction ................................................... 27
`
`VI. CLAIMS 6 AND 8–23 OF THE ’930 PATENT ARE
`UNPATENTABLE .................................................................................................... 30
`
`ii
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Claims 6, 8, 9, 12–17, 19, and 22 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §
`102 as Anticipated by Woodmas ...................................................................... 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`A data node adapted for data switching ........................................... 30
`
`An access device ................................................................................... 31
`
`At least one data signaling pair ........................................................... 32
`
`Main power source and secondary power source ........................... 33
`
`Delivering a low level current ............................................................ 34
`
`Sensing a voltage level in response to a low level current ............. 35
`
`Controlling power supplied ................................................................ 35
`
`Claim Chart ........................................................................................... 36
`
`B.
`
`Claims 6 and 8–23 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`Rendered Obvious by Woodmas and Hunter ................................................. 55
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A data node adapted for data switching and an access
`device adapted for data transmission ................................................ 56
`
`At least one data signaling pair ........................................................... 57
`
`3. Woodmas discloses the steps of delivering a low level
`current, sensing a voltage level on the data signaling pair,
`and controlling power supplied ......................................................... 57
`
`4. Woodmas and Hunter each relates to the same field of
`endeavor, thus a person skilled in the art would have been
`motivated to combine Woodmas and Hunter ..................................... 58
`
`C.
`
`Claims 6, 8, 9, 12–17, 19, and 22 Are Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §
`103 as Rendered Obvious by Woodmas and TELEVISION
`PRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 69
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of Woodmas .......................................................................... 69
`
`A data node adapted for data switching ........................................... 70
`
`iii
`
`

`

`3. Woodmas and TELEVISION PRODUCTION relate to the same
`field of endeavor, so a person skilled in the art would have
`been motivated to combine them ...................................................... 71
`
`D.
`
`Claim 22 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
`of Matsuno. ......................................................................................................... 72
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`A data node adapted for data switching ........................................... 72
`
`An access device ................................................................................... 72
`
`Delivering a low level current ............................................................ 73
`
`Sensing a voltage level in response to a low level current ............. 73
`
`Controlling power supplied ................................................................ 74
`
`E.
`
`Claims 20, 21, and 23 Are Rendered Obvious by Matsuno and
`Hunter. ................................................................................................................ 78
`
`VII. CONCLUSION........................................................................................................... 80
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Google Inc., v. Simpleair, Inc.,,
`CBM2014-00170, Paper 13 at 6 (P.T.A.B. January 22, 2015) .............................. 13, 14
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Avaya, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-70 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Axis Comm. AB,
`No. 6:13-cv-80 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., et al.,
`No. 6:08-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 7, 2008) .......................................................... 3
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. D-Link Corp. et al.,
`No. 6:2005-cv-00291 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................... 3, 17
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Dell, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-71 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 6:13-cv-72 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Huawei Tech. Co.,
`No. 6:13-cv-73 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-74 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-76 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co.,
`No. 6:13-cv-77 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Shoretel, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-78 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,
`No. 6:13-cv-79 ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`v
`
`

`

`Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:11-cv-492-LED (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 15, 2011) ................................ passim
`
`PowerDsine, Inc. v. Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc.,
`No. 1:2004-cv-02502 (S.D.N.Y.) ....................................................................................... 3
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc.,
`CBM2012-00001, Paper 36 at 22 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2013) ..................................... 12, 20
`
`USPS v. Return Mail,
`CBM2014-00116, Paper 11 at 12 (P.T.A.B. 2014) ........................................................ 17
`
`Volusion, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc.,,
`CBM2013-00018, Paper 8 at 6 (P.T.A.B. October 24, 2013) ..................................... 16
`
`Wash. Inventory Serv. v. RGIS, LLC,
`CBM2014-00158, Paper 12 at 7 (P.T.AB. 2014) ........................................................... 16
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 18(d)(1) .................................................................................................... 11, 12, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................ 11, 27, 29
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b)............................................................................................................. 55, 69
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) .................................................................................................................... 80
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................................... 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) .................................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) .................................................................................................................... 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ........................................................................................................ 23, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 321 ......................................................................................................................... 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ......................................................................................................................... 80
`
`35 U.S.C. § 324(a) .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b) .............................................................................................................. 26
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b) .............................................................................................................. 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301 ............................................................................................................ 12, 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b) .............................................................................................................. 19
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a) ............................................................................................................... 23
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.302(b) .............................................................................................................. 23
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,735 (Aug. 14, 2012) ....................................................................... 12
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,763–64 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................................. 20
`
`Other Authorities
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1375 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) ................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Petition Exhibit 1001:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`
`Petition Exhibit 1002: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:11-cv-492-LED (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 15, 2011)
`(original complaint)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1003: Avaya Inc. v. Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., IPR2013-
`00071, Paper 18 (P.T.A.B. May 24, 2013). Decision
`
`Petition Exhibit 1004: Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`Petition Exhibit 1005: Notice of Allowability
`
`Petition Exhibit 1006:
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination Office Action
`
`Petition Exhibit 1007: Network-1 Response in 401 proceeding
`
`Petition Exhibit 1008:
`
`Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Petition Exhibit 1009: Deposition Transcript of James Knox
`
`Petition Exhibit 1010:
`
`XProtect® Retail
`
`Petition Exhibit 1011:
`
`Sony Camera’s supported by XProtect® Retail
`
`Petition Exhibit 1012:
`
`Cisco Point-of-Sale Video Auditing Solution
`
`Petition Exhibit 1013:
`
`PoE Credit Card Reader
`
`Petition Exhibit 1014:
`
`IEEE - DTE Power Via MDI - 5 Criteria
`
`Petition Exhibit 1015:
`
`IEEE 802.3 DTE Power via MDI Study Group
`
`Petition Exhibit 1016:
`
`IEEE 802.3 - DTE Power over MDI Working Group
`
`Petition Exhibit 1017: Network-1 - Powever over Ethernet News
`
`Petition Exhibit 1018: NetworkWorld - Power over Ethernet: One cable fits all
`
`Petition Exhibit 1019: Network-1 - Application for Power over Ethernet
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Petition Exhibit 1020: D-Link - PoE Applications
`
`Petition Exhibit 1021:
`
`Cisco Universal Power Over Ethernet - Unleash the Power
`of your Network White Paper
`
`Petition Exhibit 1022: Network-1 Licensing
`
`Petition Exhibit 1023:
`
`Congressional Record
`
`Petition Exhibit 1024:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,345,592 to Woodmas (“Woodmas”)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1025:
`
`International Application Publication No. WO 96/23377
`to Hunter et al. (“Hunter”)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1026:
`
`Ron Whittaker, TELEVISION PRODUCTION (Lansing Hays
`et al. eds., 1993) (“TELEVISION PRODUCTION”)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1027:
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application No. H10-13576
`to Matsuno (Original)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1028:
`
`Japanese Unexamined Patent Application No. H10-13576
`to Matsuno (“Matsuno”) (English)
`
`Petition Exhibit 1029:
`
`Excerpt from Network-1’s argument in the ’401 proceeding
`regarding new claims 10–23
`
`Petition Exhibit 1030:
`
`Cisco PoE Solutions
`
`ix
`
`

`

`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The ’930 patent is a covered business method patent because the claims recite
`
`technologies used in the practice and administration of financial services. The claims
`
`broadly cover various kinds of products used to perform financial activities, such as
`
`point-of-sale devices, products for transaction data analysis, and financial trader
`
`turrets. Moreover, the IEEE standard, Network-1’s own disclosure, and Network-1’s
`
`licensees’ activities all suggest that PoE is used in conducting financial activities.
`
`While the patent relates to detecting whether a remote device connected to a
`
`data network can receive power before sending remote power that might otherwise
`
`damage the connected device, it claims no new technology. Indeed, remote powering
`
`dates back to Alexander Graham Bell’s 1877 telephone networks that transmitted
`
`power to telephones from a central station. While more networks have advanced over
`
`the last century, the basic concept of providing data and power over a data connection
`
`has not changed. In its own words, the ’930 patent acknowledges that prior art
`
`telecommunications equipment, such as telephones and network repeaters, provided
`
`power and data over the same wires. Ex. 1001, 1:22–24. Thus, claims 6 and 8–23 are
`
`not novel and nonobvious. Specifically, (1) Woodmas anticipates claims 6, 8, 9, 12–17,
`
`19, and 22; (2) Hunter combined with Woodmas alternatively renders claims 6 and 8–23
`
`obvious; (3) TELEVISION PRODUCTION combined with Woodmas renders claims 6, 8, 9,
`
`12–17, 19, and 22 obvious; (4) Matsuno renders claim 22 obvious; and (5) Hunter
`
`combined with Matsuno renders claims 20, 21, and 23 obvious.
`
`
`
`

`

`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`Sony Corporation of America is the real party-in-interest for this Petition. Sony
`
`Electronics Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America. Sony
`
`Corporation of America is an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation.
`
`B. Related Matters
`In the pending lawsuit, Network-1 Tech., Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., et al., Case
`
`No. 6:11-cv-492-LED, Network-1 sued twenty-six different companies, including
`
`Sony, for allegedly infringing the ’930 patent by selling devices compliant with the
`
`IEEE 802.3af and 803at Power-over-Ethernet (PoE) standards (PoE standards define
`
`a protocol by which Ethernet equipment may be remotely powered). Ex. 1002 at 1.
`
`The court severed the defendants into multiple lawsuits but consolidated all the
`
`independent cases for pretrial issues. The severed lawsuits include: Network-1 Sec.
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. Avaya, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-70; Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No.
`
`6:13-cv-71; Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 6:13-cv-72; Network-1
`
`Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Huawei Tech. Co., No. 6:13-cv-73; Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v.
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-74; Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., No.
`
`6:13-cv-76; Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., No. 6:13-cv-77; Network-1
`
`Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Shoretel, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-78; Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Sony
`
`Corp., No. 6:13-cv-79; and Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Axis Comm. AB, No. 6:13-cv-
`
`2
`
`

`

`80. The consolidated suit was stayed pending inter partes review, Case No. IPR2013-
`
`00071. Since the decision on the inter partes review, the stay has been lifted.
`
`Three prior litigations also involved the ’930 patent: (1) PowerDsine, Inc. v.
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc., No. 1:2004-cv-02502 (S.D.N.Y.); (2) Network-1 Sec.
`
`Solutions, Inc. v. D-Link Corp. et al., No. 6:2005-cv-00291 (E.D. Tex.); and (3) Network-1
`
`Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., et al., No. 6:08-cv-00030 (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 7,
`
`2008).
`
`Avaya Inc. filed an inter partes review of the ’930 patent (Case No. IPR2013-
`
`00071). The PTAB instituted that proceeding, Ex. 1003, and issued a final written
`
`decision (IPR2013-00071, paper 103), which is currently on appeal to the Federal
`
`Circuit, (IPR2013-00071, paper 107).
`
`Petitioner concurrently filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the ’930
`
`patent.1
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`C.
`Lead Counsel—Lionel M. Lavenue, Reg. No. 46,859; Finnegan, Henderson,
`
`Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Two Freedom Sq., 11955 Freedom Dr., Reston,
`
`VA 20190; Tel: 571.203.2750; E-mail: Sony-Network-1-CBM@finnegan.com.
`
`Backup Counsel—Theresa Weisenberger, Reg. No. 65,559; Finnegan,
`
`Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 3500 SunTrust Plz., 303 Peachtree St.
`
`
`1 Sony requests that this petition takes priority over the ex parte reexamination.
`
`3
`
`

`

`NE, Atlanta, GA 30308; Tel: 404.653.6400; E-mail: Sony-Network-1-
`
`CBM@finnegan.com.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE ’930 PATENT AND ITS HISTORY
`A.
`The ’930 patent, titled “Apparatus and Method for Remotely Powering Access
`
`Priority Claim
`
`Equipment Over a 10/100 Switched Ethernet Network,” issued based on Appl. No.
`
`09/520,350, filed March 7, 2000, and claimed priority to Provisional Appl. No.
`
`60/123,688 (filed March 10, 1999).
`
`Specification
`
`B.
`The ’930 patent relates to “automatically determining if remote equipment is
`
`capable of remote power feed and if it is determined that the remote equipment is
`
`able to accept power remotely then to provide power in a reliable non-intrusive way.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:14–18. The ’930 patent admits that remotely powering communications
`
`equipment, such as telephones, was generally known in the prior art, but incorrectly
`
`asserts that doing so had “not migrated to data communications equipment” due to
`
`various purported problems, such as the high power levels required by data
`
`communications equipment. Id. at 1:22–32; Ex. 1004 at ¶¶ 34–42. The patent asserts a
`
`need in the art to power communications equipment remotely and to “reliably
`
`determin[e] if a remote piece of equipment is capable of accepting remote power.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:41–43.
`
`4
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Conventional data node, access device, data signaling pair,
`main power source, and secondary power source
`
`The claims of the ’930 patent require a data node, an access device, at least one
`
`data signaling pair, a main power source, and a secondary power source, all of which
`
`are well known, conventional components readily available in a data network. Figure
`
`3, reproduced below, shows all the elements necessary to practice its product.
`
`
`
`“The network data node” could be a conventional “8 port Ethernet switch” 68.
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:44–47, 3:66–4:1. The remote access device is “a telephone” 62 found on
`
`customer’s desktop “equipped to handle data communications as well as voice.” Id. at
`
`3:61–62. The telephone connects to an access node at the customer’s premises, and
`
`the access node connects to one of the ports of Ethernet switch via wiring 66. Id. at
`
`3:60–66. The wiring between the Ethernet switch and the access node is “preferably”
`
`a conventional Ethernet cable such as “a Category 5 Ethernet 100BaseX cable.” Id. at
`
`5
`
`

`

`2:44–46, 3:64. And the power sources “may be the same as the conventional main
`
`power supply” 70 used to power the Ethernet switch. Id. at 2:52–54, 3:67–4:1.
`
`2.
`
`Delivering a low level current, sensing a voltage level,
`controlling power supplied
`
`To deliver remote (phantom) power to the access device, independent claim 6
`
`recites “delivering a low level current,” “sensing a voltage level,” and “controlling
`
`power supplied.” But none of these steps are novel. For example, Woodmas described
`
`these steps at least four years prior to the ’930 patent. Infra at VI.A.5–VI.A.7.
`
`According to the specification of the ’930 patent, the system “deliver[s] a low
`
`level current (approx. 20 ma)” over the Ethernet cable and “measure[s] a voltage drop
`
`in the return path.” Id. at 2:66–3:2, 3:44–48. Dr. Knox, Network-1’s declarant,
`
`admitted that Woodmas discloses “a low-level current within the board’s construction”
`
`(ex. 1009 at 402), and describes “a low-level current that’s applied” and “a low-level
`
`voltage that’s sensed.” Id. at 424.
`
`In addition, claim 6 recites a final step of “controlling power supplied” to the
`
`access device. Woodmas also discloses this step. In Woodmas, the system senses the low-
`
`level voltage delivered to the reception unit and produces the power status signal
`
`representative of the low-level voltage. Then Woodmas controls the power supplied
`
`based on this power status signal. According to Dr. Knox, Woodmas “will only apply
`
`full power if he gets back a correct power status signal” and that “in any other case he
`
`would not apply full power.” Id. at 425.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Therefore, the “delivering a low level current,” “sensing a voltage level,” and
`
`“controlling power” were well known components of delivering remote power to
`
`remote equipment, undermining any allegations that the claimed data node, access
`
`device, data signaling pairs, or power supplies are novel. See also infra VI.A.
`
`Furthermore, claim 20 further recites “determining whether the access device is
`
`capable of accepting remote power based on the sensed voltage level” Ex. 1008. The
`
`subject matter as claimed, however, is also disclosed by Woodmas. According to Dr.
`
`Knox, Woodmas checks the functionality of the various components in power
`
`reception unit 76 before full power is imposed by sensing the voltage level and
`
`producing a status signal. Compare Ex. 1009 at 416–417 with Ex. 1024 at 5:16–21; 7:4–
`
`52. Specifically, Dr. Knox described how if certain components in power reception
`
`unit 76 “were hit with a hammer such that it no longer functioned as it was designed
`
`to, . . . he might get a presence but not functionality out of it.” Id. at 416–417.
`
`Therefore, well before the ’930 patent, Woodmas discloses “delivering a low level
`
`current” and “sensing a voltage level” in order to determine if the reception device
`
`has the proper functionality before applying full power to the device.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History
`1.
`The Examiner allowed the application for the ’930 patent in the first action. Ex.
`
`Original Prosecution History
`
`1005. The Examiner’s limited review—only six prior art references were of record—
`
`only included one patent cited by the Applicants. Id. at 6–7. The Examiner’s statement
`
`7
`
`

`

`of reasons for allowance concluded that the few references considered did not
`
`disclose “all subject matter[]” of independent claim 1, id. at 3, but failed to identify any
`
`feature of the claims that the prior art lacked (id. at 3–4) and failed to consider any of
`
`the prior art presented in this Petition. Compare id. at 6–7 with infra VI.
`
`2.
`The Office granted an ex parte reexamination proceeding of the ’930 patent,
`
`Prosecution History of the ’401 Proceeding
`
`No. 90/012,401. Ex. 1006. The First Office Action rejected claims 6, 8, and 9 based
`
`on four new prior art references. Id. The Office did not consider any of the prior art
`
`presented in this Petition, see Ex. 1006; 1007, and issued a reexamination certificate
`
`allowing claims 6, 8, and 9 and adding new claims 10–23. Ex. 1008.
`
`3.
`The Board previously instituted an inter partes review of the ’930 patent, No.
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2013-00071. Ex. 1003. But limited the instituted grounds to Japanese Unexamined
`
`Patent Application Publication No. H10-13576 (“Matsuno”), Patent No. 6,115,468
`
`(“De Nicolo”), Patent No. 5,754,644 (“Akhteruzzaman”), and Patent No. 5,991,885
`
`(“Chang”). Id. The final written decision did not cancel any claims, but is on appeal.
`
`During the inter partes review, Avaya deposed Network-1’s declarant, Dr. Knox.
`
`During the deposition, the parties specifically addressed the disclosure of Woodmas,
`
`although Woodmas was not considered in the proceeding. Dr. Knox admitted that
`
`Woodmas discloses the steps in illustrative claim 6. For example, Dr. Knox admitted
`
`that Woodmas’s low current “would be insufficient to operate the camera equipment
`
`8
`
`

`

`and the other devices that are attached.” Ex. 1009 at 402. Dr. Knox further agreed
`
`that “the 15 milliamp current that’s recited in [Woodmas] would be a low-level current
`
`within the board’s construction.” Id.
`
`When discussing the paragraph in Woodmas regarding sensing the voltage level
`
`and determining the functionality of the components of the reception unit 76 before
`
`applying full power, Dr. Knox described how if power reception unit 76 “were hit
`
`with a hammer such that it no longer functioned as it was designed to, . . . he might
`
`get a presence but not functionality out of it.” Id. at 416–417. Dr. Knox also agreed
`
`that “power status signal which is representative of the low-level voltage is used to
`
`determine the presence and functionality” of the device. Dr. Knox also stated that
`
`Woodmas “will only apply full power if he gets back a correct power status signal” and
`
`“[i]n any other case he would not apply full power.” Id. at 425.
`
`D. Challenged Claims
`The ’930 patent includes twenty-three claims (claims 1, 6, and 20–23 are
`
`independent). Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 6 and 9–23.
`
`1.
`The original patent contained nine claims, claims 1–9, of which claims 1 and 6
`
`Originally issued claims
`
`are independent. Claim 6 illustrates the subject matter of the challenged claims:
`
`6. Method for remotely powering access equipment in a data network,
`comprising,
`providing a data node adapted for data switching, an access device
`adapted for data transmission, at least one data signaling pair
`
`9
`
`

`

`connected between the data node and the access device and
`arranged to transmit data therebetween, a main power source
`connected to supply power to the data node, and a secondary
`power source arranged to supply power from the data node via
`said data signaling pair to the access device,
`delivering a low level current from said main power source to the access
`device over said data signaling pair,
`sensing a voltage level on the da