Patent Owner Network-1’s Demonstratives
`Exhibit N1-2030
`
`1
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`Exhibit N1-2030
`
`1
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Topics:
`
`1. Ground 1: anticipation
`
`2. Ground 2: obviousness
`
`3. Proposed Amendment
`
`2
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Elements Missing from Matsuno
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Response, Table of Contents (Paper 42)
`
`‘930 Patent (Exh. 1001)
`
`3
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`Matsuno
`
`evidence that the
`current is not
`sufficient
`
`Avaya Decision at 17 (Paper 18)
`
`Dell Decision at 16 (Paper 16)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 12 (Paper 42); Patent Owner Response at 10 (Paper 42)
`
`4
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`Matsuno
`
`10 What you identified as the access device in
`11 Matsuno was the DTE or the NT1 or a combination of both;
`12 is that right?
`13 A. That is correct.
`
`Zimmerman 28:10-13 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 5 (Paper 42); Avaya Decision at 17 (Paper 18)
`
`5
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`Matsuno
`
`Zimmerman ¶40 (Exh. 1011)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response at 14 (Paper 14) [Dell IPR2013‐000385]; Patent Owner
`Preliminary Response at 18 (Paper 16); Patent Owner Response at 32 (Paper 32):
`
`6
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Response at 4 (Paper 42)
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`no express disclosure
`
`6 Q. Does Matsuno disclose that the 48 volts would
`7 be insufficient to operate the NT1?
`8 A. He doesn't discuss that at all.
`Zimmerman 39:6-8 (Exh. 2016)
`
`24 Does Matsuno anywhere expressly state that the
`25 48 volts is insufficient to operate a DTE that requires
`1 40 volts?
`2 A. Matsuno does not expressly state that 48 volts
`3 delivered at the U interface point would be insufficient.
`Zimmerman 36:24-37:3 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 6 (Paper 42)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`-48 V power source
`
`8
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`that
`Inherent anticipation requires
`characteristic is necessarily present.
`
`the missing
`
`Glaxo Group Ltd v. Apotex, Inc.,
`376 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 4 (Paper 42); Patent Owner Response at 6 (Paper 42)
`
`9
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`no inherent disclosure
`
`needed: “voltage of 40 V”
`
`Matsuno (0004) (Exh. 1004)
`
`4 Q. Is it the case that the only voltage identified
`5 in Matsuno that would be potentially needed by a
`6 subscriber terminal, a DTE, is the 40 volts that's in
`7 Paragraph 4?
`8 A. I believe that is the case.
`Zimmerman 32:4-8 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 8 (Paper 42)
`
`10
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`no inherent disclosure
`
`Matsuno (0026) (Exh. 1004)
`
`4 Is it your understanding that in the Matsuno
`5 reference, it discloses that the 48-volt low-level
`6 current will provide 48 volts to the subscriber at his
`7 home?
`8 A. It says "approximately 48 volts," but yes.
`
`Zimmerman 28:4-8 (Exh. 2016)
`
`needed: “voltage of 40 V”
`
`available:
`“approximately 48 V”
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 8 ‐9 (Paper 42)
`
`11
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low level current:”
`
`no inherent disclosure
`
`20 Q. Is it the case that, if we have a relatively
`21 short subscriber line, that 48 volts would be sufficient
`22 to power a DTE?
`23 A. Not necessarily. And Matsuno doesn't really
`24 speak to that at all.
`
`Zimmerman 42:20-24 (Exh. 2016)
`
`4 Q. Does Mat -- does Matsuno disclose, one way or
`5 the other, whether, if we have 48 volts and a relatively
`6 short subscriber line, that it would be -- the 48-volt
`7 current would be sufficient to operate a DTE?
`8 A. I do not believe it does.
`Zimmerman 43:4-8 (Exh. 2016)
`
`needed: “voltage of 40 V”
`
`available:
`“approximately 48 V”
`
`Matsuno Fig. 3 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 6‐7 (Paper 42)
`
`12
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ remaining arguments fail
`
` Are approximately 48 volts available?
`
` “120 V is the minimum for minimal communications”
`
`Patent Owner Response at 9 (Paper 42); For the top bullet, see slides 14 – 21;
`Knox Decl. ¶120 (N1‐2015); for the bottom bullet, see slides 22 – 24.
`
`13
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Matsuno (0026) (Exh. 1004)
`
`available:
`approximately 48 V
`
`about 8 V
`
`Matsuno Fig. 5 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 8 ‐ 9 (Paper 42); Knox Decl. ¶275 (N1‐2024)
`
`Avaya’s Reply at 5 (Paper 56)
`
`14
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`40
`120 - __ = 80
`40 V drop
`line resistance
`
`Matsuno (0027) (Exh. 1004)
`
`higher voltage (‐120V) supply
`
`For Figure 3 of Matsuno, see Notes to Slide 16 (citing
`Knox Decl. ¶276 (N1‐2024)); Knox Decl. ¶277 (N1‐2024);
`Knox Decl. ¶275 (N1‐2024); Knox Decl. ¶280 (N1‐2024)
`
`15
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`For left half, see Notes to slide 15 (citing Knox Decl. ¶275 (N1‐2024)); Knox Decl. ¶276 (N1‐2024): Knox Decl. ¶275 (N1‐2024)
`
`48 - 40 = __8
`
`40
`120 - __ = 80
`40 V drop
`line resistance
`
`higher voltage (‐120V) supply
`
`lower voltage (‐48V) supply
`
`16
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`Matsuno (0027) (Exh. 1004)
`
`48 - 40 = __8
`16 Q. That's with the assumption that the 40-volt
`17 drop is due entirely to the loop resistance and not to
`18 the transistors; right?
`19 A. That is correct.
`
`Zimmerman 273:16-19 (Exh. 2025)
`
`higher voltage (‐120V) supply
`
`For Figure 3 of Matsuno, see Notes to Slide 16 (citing Knox Decl. ¶276
`(N1‐2024)); Knox Decl. ¶277 (N1‐2024): Knox Decl. ¶277 (N1‐2024)
`
`17
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`1
`2
`
`Matsuno (0027) (Exh. 1004)
`
`1 Q. Does Matsuno say that the reason for the
`2 voltage drop from 120 to 80 is because of the voltage
`3 drop of the digital subscriber line 12 and the voltage
`4 drop of the transistors 24a and 24b?
`5 A. That is what it says.
`6 Q. And do you agree that that's what Matsuno
`7 discloses, is the basis for the voltage drop from 120 to
`8 80?
`9 MR. LINDSAY: Objection. Cumulative.
`10 THE WITNESS: I would agree with that.
`Zimmerman 225:1-10 (Exh. 2025)
`
`21
`
`higher voltage (‐120V) supply
`
`For left half, see Notes to Slide 17 (citing Knox Decl. ¶277
`(N1‐2024)); Knox Decl. ¶277 (N1‐2024)
`
`18
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Knox Decl. ¶276 (N1‐2024)
`
`higher voltage (‐120V) supply
`
`lower voltage (‐48V) supply
`
`19
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`13 Q. Is it the case that if we're using the 48-volt
`14 power supply, then the voltage drop attributable to this
`15 circuit that includes 24a and 24b -- that voltage drop
`16 would not be present; right?
`17 MR. LINDSAY: Objection. Cumulative.
`18 THE WITNESS: That voltage drop would not be
`19 present; that is correct.
`
`Zimmerman 243:13-19 (Exh. 2025)
`
`For right half, see Notes to Slide 19 (citing Knox Decl.
`¶276 (N1‐2024)); Knox Decl. ¶277 (N1‐2024)
`
`lower voltage (‐48V) supply
`
`20
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`48 - __ = approximately 48 volts
`
`Matsuno (0026) (Exh. 1004)
`
`available:
`approximately 48 V
`
`For Fig. 3, see Notes to Slide 19 (citing Knox Decl. ¶276 (N1‐2024));
`Patent Owner Response at 8 ‐9 (Paper 42); Knox Decl. ¶276 (N1‐2024)
`
`lower voltage (‐48V) supply
`
`21
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Deleted
`
`22
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Cite to
`evidence?
`
`Avaya’s Reply at 3 (Paper 56)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 11 (Paper 42);
`Patent Owner Response at 7 (Paper 42) 23
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Petitioners: Matsuno says applying 120V is the minimum
`necessary to operate an access device.
`
`Matsuno (0004) (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 8 (Paper 42); Knox Decl. ¶120 (N1‐2015); Knox Decl. ¶278 (N1‐2024)
`
`Matsuno (0006) (Exh. 1004)
`
`24
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`data signaling pair
`
`sensing “on”
`
`ground
`
`11 Q. One of ordinary skill in the art would
`12 understand that if somebody referred to "sensing a
`13 voltage level on a wire," that would be sensing the
`14 voltage level with respect to ground; right?
`15 A. Yes.
`16 Q. That's what "on" means?
`17 A. Yes.
`
`Zimmerman 76:11-17 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 16 (Paper 42)
`
`25
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`voltage level on both wires
`
`same voltage level
`
`same voltage level
`sensing “on”
`
`ground
`
`9 Q. If a data signaling pair has the same voltages
`10 on each wire, then measure -- we could measure -- we
`11 could sense the voltage level on the data signaling pair
`12 by measuring the voltage on one of the wires with respect
`13 to ground; right?
`14 A. Yes. If they had the same voltage on each of
`15 them, then the two individual measurements become one.
`
`Zimmerman 77:9-15 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 25 (Paper 42)
`
`26
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`one wire
`
`120 volts
`
`40 volts
`
`sensing “on”
`
`ground
`
`4 Q. It would tell you a voltage on one wire of a
`5 data signaling pair; right?
`6 A. That is correct.
`7 Q. It wouldn't tell you the voltage on the data
`8 signaling pair; right?
`9 A. That is correct.
`
`Zimmerman 60:4-9 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 26 (Paper 42); Patent Owner Response at 25 (Paper 42)
`
`27
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`one wire
`
`data signaling pair
`
`Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all ‘claims their broadest reasonable
`construction’ …, this court has instructed that any such construction be ‘consistent with the
`specification, . . . and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
`interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’ In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
`(quoting In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (emphasis added). The PTO's
`construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest-construction rubric
`coupled with the term ‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims
`to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be
`read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`28
`
`Patent Owner Response at 17 (Paper 42); Patent Owner Preliminary Response 20 (Paper 16)
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`data signaling pair
`
`15 Q. Now, if we take that reasonable interpretation,
`16 one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`17 the '930 patent teaches sensing a voltage level on a data
`18 signaling pair by sensing the voltage on a lead that
`19 connects to a center tap and gives us the voltage level
`20 on both wires of that pair; right?
`21 MR. SANOK: Objection. Foundation.
`22 THE WITNESS: It gives us a voltage level from
`23 both wires of the pair, yes.
`
`Zimmerman 142:15-23 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Although the PTO emphasizes that it was required to give all ‘claims their broadest reasonable
`construction’ …, this court has instructed that any such construction be ‘consistent with the
`specification, . . . and that claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be
`interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’ In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
`(quoting In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (emphasis added). The PTO's
`construction here, though certainly broad, is unreasonably broad. The broadest-construction rubric
`coupled with the term ‘comprising’ does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims
`to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always be
`read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying patent.
`In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`
`See slide 28 for bottom half; Patent Owner Response at 25 (Paper 42)
`
`29
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Avaya Reply (Paper 56) at 6
`
`same voltage
`
`data signaling pair
`
`data
`node
`
`current
`
`current
`
`non-data signaling pair (“spare pair”)
`
`access
`device
`
`Knox Decl. ¶57 (N1‐2015)
`
`Knox Decl. ¶57 (Exh. 2015)
`
`30
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`the claim language “on the data
`signaling pair” does not appear
`in Zimmerman's Declaration.
`
`Zimmerman ¶40 (Exh. 1011)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 31‐32 (Paper 42)
`
`31
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Matsuno
`
`senses the voltage across the
`constant current circuit 21b
`
`senses the voltage across the
`constant current circuit 21a
`
`Knox Decl. ¶133 (Exh. 1015)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 5 (Exh. 1004)
`
`32
`
`Patent Owner Response at 30 (Paper 42); Knox Decl. ¶133 (N1‐1015)
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`one wire
`
`Matsuno
`
`17 Q. If one were to attach a lead to one wire of the
`18 data signaling pair in Matsuno and then measure the
`19 voltage on that wire with respect to some reference, that
`20 would not tell you the voltage on the data signaling
`21 pair; right?
`22 A. No, it would not. That is correct.
`
`Zimmerman 60:17-22 (Exh. 2016)
`
`4 Q. It would tell you a voltage on one wire of a
`5 data signaling pair; right?
`6 A. That is correct.
`7 Q. It wouldn't tell you the voltage on the data
`8 signaling pair; right?
`9 A. That is correct.
`
`Zimmerman 60:4-9 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Matsuno Fig. 5 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 24 (Paper 42)
`
`33
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`1 2 3
`
`removal
`
`access access
`access
`
`devicedevice
`device
`
`<
`
`<
`
`secondary
`power
`source
`
`Patent Owner Response at 33 (Paper 42); Patent Owner Response at 33‐34 (Paper 42)
`
`34
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Avaya Petition at 26
`(Paper 1)
`
`Fig. 10: eighth embodiment
`
`Fig. 6: fourth embodiment
`
`Patent Owner Response at 37‐38 (Paper 42); Knox Decl. ¶146 (N1‐2015)
`
`Zimmerman Decl. ¶28 (Exh. 1011)
`
`35
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Avaya Petition at 26
`(Paper 1)
`
`Fig. 10: eighth embodiment
`
`Fig. 6: fourth embodiment
`
`Dell Decision at 17‐18 (Paper 16); Patent Owner Response at 37‐38 (Paper 42):
`
`Dell Decision at 17-18 (Paper 16)
`
`36
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Avaya Petition at 26
`(Paper 1)
`
`Fig. 10: eighth embodiment
`
`voltage level increases, not drops
`
`Patent Owner Response at 41 (Paper 42)
`
`37
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Avaya Petition at 26
`(Paper 1)
`
`Fig. 10: eighth embodiment
`
`17 Q. You haven't reached a conclusion one way or the
`18 other yet?
`19 A. For the record, I'm looking at Claim 9 of the
`20 '930 patent.
`21 Maybe. I didn't look at -- I did not look at
`22 Matsuno for what it didn't say.
`23 It's implying here that the actual things that
`24 are sensed are the voltages. In the case of -- in the
`25 case of 51a, it's voltage relative to a -- relative to a
`1 constant voltage source; and it does not expressly
`2 discuss physical removal of the device, but does discuss
`3 removal of the device from -- from power. But it's a
`4 little bit of a stretch.
`5 There's a reason I didn't use -- didn't use 53
`6 in my -- in my Declaration. It's more directed
`7 towards -- towards fault conditions.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 37‐38 (Paper 42)
`
`Zimmerman 179:17-180:7 (Exh. 2016)
`
`38
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Avaya Petition at 26
`(Paper 1)
`
`Fig. 6: fourth embodiment
`
`voltage level increases, not drops
`
`21 Q. In Figure 6, if we're supplying power from the
`22 secondary power source and the NT1 is removed, what
`23 happens to the voltage level that's measured by voltage
`24 detection part 34?
`25 A. If we're supplying power from the secondary
`1 power source and the NT1 is removed, the voltage at
`2 voltage detection part 34 would increase.
`3 Q. Does the fourth embodiment in Figure 6 teach
`4 something that is the opposite of what Claim 9 requires?
`5 MR. SANOK: Objection. Foundation.
`6 THE WITNESS: Well, if I'm right, in the
`7 offhand circuit analysis I did, it may.
`
`Patent Owner Response at 41‐42 (Paper 42)
`
`Zimmerman 114:21-115:7 (Exh. 2016)
`
`39
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Avaya Petition at 26
`(Paper 1)
`
`Fig. 10: eighth embodiment
`
`Fig. 6: fourth embodiment
`
`Avaya Reply:
`
`Fig. 5: third embodiment
`
`11 In the description of Figure 5 in Matsuno, does
`12 it teach a situation where we have a drop in the sensed
`13 voltage that then is used to trigger a reduction in the
`14 secondary power?
`15 A. No, it does not.
`
`Zimmerman Depo. 164:11-15 (Exh. 2016)
`
`See slides 35 – 39 for top half; Patent Owner Response at 43‐44 (Paper 42)
`
`40
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`1
`
`9 Q. As you understand Claim 9, for a prior-art
`10 reference to anticipate, it's going to have to have this
`11 Claim 9 situation occur while the secondary power is
`12 being applied; right?
`13 A. Yes.
`14 Q. In particular, removal of the access device
`15 would have to take place while secondary power is being
`16 applied; right?
`17 A. Yes, it would.
`
`Zimmerman 154:9-17 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 35 (Paper 42)
`
`41
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`1
`
`8 Does Matsuno teach a circumstance where, when
`9 power is being supplied from the secondary power source,
`10 120 volts, then that is followed by removal of an access
`11 device?
`12 MR. SANOK: Objection. Form.
`13 THE WITNESS: I don't believe I saw that in
`14 Matsuno. One of ordinary skill would be able to look at
`15 these circuits, similar to the way we've done, and
`16 understand how that would work.
`
`Zimmerman 117:8-16 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Q. Okay. But you would agree, sir, that it’s not
`4
`5 necessary – not necessarily the case that the only time
`6 access devices are removed is when they are undergoing
`7 secondary power; right?
`8
`A. Yes.
`
`Zimmerman 156:4-8 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 33‐34 (Paper 42); Patent Owner Response at 35‐ 36 (Paper 42)
`
`42
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`3
`
`removal
`
`access access
`access
`
`devicedevice
`device
`
`secondary
`power
`source
`
`Zimmerman Decl. ¶41 (Exh. 1011)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 39 (Paper 42); See Slide 34 for removal
`
`43
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`3
`
`removal
`
`access access
`access
`
`devicedevice
`device
`
`secondary
`power
`source
`
`7 Q. Does Matsuno, either inherently or expressly,
`8 disclose the physical removal of the access device while
`9 secondary power is being provided?
`10 A. No, it does not.
`
`Zimmerman 121:7-10 (Exh. 2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 35 (Paper 42); See Slide 34 for removal
`
`44
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`3
`
`removal
`
`access access
`access
`
`devicedevice
`device
`
`secondary
`power
`source
`
`secondary power
`
`turn off remote power
`secondary
`power
`source
`
`access
`device
`
`data still being transmitted
`
`Patent Owner Response at 39 (Paper 42); Knox Decl. ¶155 (N1‐2015); See Slide 34 for removal
`
`45
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Elements Missing from Matsuno
`
`Petitioners
`(have the burden of proof)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`6 Q. Does Matsuno disclose that the 48 volts would
`7 be insufficient to operate the NT1?
`He doesn't discuss that at all.
`8 A. He doesn't discuss that at all.
`
`Zimmerman 39:6-8 (Exh. 2016)
`
`7 Q. It wouldn't tell you the voltage on the data
`8 signaling pair; right?
`9 A. That is correct.
`Zimmerman 60:4-9 (Exh. 2016)
`
`I don't believe I saw that in Matsuno.
`
`Zimmerman 117:8-16 (Exh. 2016)
`
`See Slides [8], [33], and [42] above; Patent Owner Response, Table of Contents (Paper 42):
`
`46
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`missing elements
`
`Petitioners Argument:
`
`combine elements from Matsuno and De Nicolo
`
`Petition at Table of Contents (Paper 1)
`
`Petition, at Table of Contents (Paper 1)
`
`47
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`missing elements
`
`De Nicolo
`
`18 Q. Does De Nicolo disclose the steps of providing
`19 a low-level current, sensing a voltage on the data
`20 signaling pair, and then controlling power in response to
`21 that?
`22 A. No. Those were the elements I combined with
`23 Matsuno for.
`
`Zimmerman 189:18-23 (N1-2016)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 48 (Paper 42)
`
`48
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`missing elements
`
`Matsuno
`
`De Nicolo
`
`1 2
`
`3
`
`See Slide 48 for right half; See Slide 46 for left half
`
`49
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Chang reference:
`
` use a data signal (not a low level
`current) for detection
`
`use spare pair (not data
`signaling pair) for detection
`
`use spare pair (not data
`signaling pair) for delivering
`powering current
`
`spare pairs
`
`Chang Fig. 6a (Exh. 1006)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 50 (Paper 42); Patent Owner Reply at 5 (Paper 65); Patent Owner Preliminary Response at 42 (Paper 16)
`
`50
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Initial skepticism followed by industry recognition
`
`Licenses:
`
`Cisco
`Linksys
`3Com Corp.
`Enterasys
`Extreme
`Adtran
`
`SEC 1 Form (Exh. 1043)
`
`Patent Owner Response at 56‐57 (Paper 42); Petitioners’ Reply at 15 (Paper 42)
`
`51
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Proposed Amendment
`
`Motion to Amend at 2‐3 (Paper 43)
`
`52
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`For Matsuno: Reply / Motion to Amend at 3 (Paper 65) last paragraph; Patent Owner Motion to Amend at 9 (Paper 43) last paragraph; For
`Woodmas: Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend at 4 (Paper 65) first full paragraph; Knox Decl. ¶286; id. ¶288; for De Nicolo, Patent Owner
`Response at 48 (Paper 42) second full paragraph; For Chang: Motion to Amend at 15 (Paper 43) second paragraph; Patent Owner Preliminary
`Reponses at 50 (Paper 16) second paragraph
`Ethernet
`Telco
`
`De Nicolo
`
`
`
`XXXX
`
`Ethernet
`data network
`determining step
`low level current step
`sensing step
`controlling step
`
`Chang
`
`
`
`XXXX
`
`Ethernet
`data network
`determining step
`low level current step
`sensing step
`controlling step
`
`53
`
`Matsuno
`
`X
`Ethernet
`
`determining step
`
`Television
`Woodmas
`
`X
`Ethernet
`X
`data network
`
`determining step
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
` currently needs remote power
`
`Zimmerman 2nd Decl. ¶ 78-79 (Exh. 1041)
`
`21
`
`Patent Owner Reply / Motion to Amend at 3 (Paper 65)
`
`54
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
` currently needs remote power
`
`‘930 Patent 3:23-27 (Exh. 1001)
`
`not designed to accept
`remote power
`
`detection system
`
`Reply Motion to Amend at 3; Knox Decl. ¶248 (N1‐2024); Knox Decl. ¶250 (N1‐2024)
`
`designed for
`remote power
`
`55
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
` currently needs remote power
`
`‘930 Patent 3:23-27 (Exh. 1001)
`
`‘930 Patent 3:1-13 (Exh. 1001)
`
`Patent Owner Reply at 3 (Paper 65)
`
`56
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
`Matsuno
`16 THE WITNESS: Well, as I stated before, Matsuno
`17 did not -- does not, to my recollection, talk about
`18 devices that are not capable of accepting remote power.
`
`Zimmerman Depo. 47:16-18 (Exh. 2016)
`
`designed to accept
`remote power
`
`designed to accept
`remote power
`
`detection
`system
`
`not designed to
`accept remote power
`
`designed to accept
`remote power
`
`Motion to Amend at 11 (Paper 43); Reply / Motion to
`Amend at 3 (Paper 65); Knox Decl. ¶248 (N1‐2024)
`
`57
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
`
`switch closes
`
`22
`
`33
`
`remote power delivered
`
`11
`
`power stops
`
`Fig. 1 (Exh. 1004)
`
`Motion to Amend at 11 (Paper 43): Knox Decl. ¶263 (N1‐2024): Knox Decl. ¶279 (N1‐2024)
`
`Matsuno Abstract (Exh. 1004)
`
`58
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
`Woodmas
`always designed to
`accept remote power
`
`Woodmas Fig. 1 (Exh. 1040)
`
`Reply / Motion to Amend at 4 (Paper 65); Knox Decl. ¶248 (N1‐2024);
`Knox Decl. ¶294 (N1‐2024)
`
`detection
`system
`
`not designed to
`accept remote power
`
`designed to accept
`remote power
`
`59
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
`Woodmas
`always designed to
`accept remote power
`
`Woodmas Fig. 1 (Exh. 1040)
`
`Knox Decl. ¶294 (Exh. 2024)
`
`See slide 59; Knox Decl. ¶294 (N1‐2024)
`
`detection
`system
`
`not designed to
`accept remote power
`
`designed to accept
`remote power
`
`60
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
`Woodmas
`always designed to
`accept remote power
`
`Woodmas Fig. 1 (Exh. 1040)
`
`Knox Decl. ¶294 (Exh. 2024)
`
`See Slide 59; Knox Decl. ¶294 (N1‐2024)
`
`detection
`system
`
`not designed to
`accept remote power
`
`designed to accept
`remote power
`
`61
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
`
`always designed to
`accept remote power
`
`11
`
`device connected
`
`22
`
`remote power delivered
`
`Woodmas Fig. 1 (Exh. 1040)
`
`Reply / Motion to Amend at 4 (Paper 65): Knox Decl. ¶294 (N1‐2024)
`
`62
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`combinations still have missing elements
`Telco
`
`Ethernet
`
`Matsuno
`
`X
`Ethernet
`
`determining step
`
`Television
`Woodmas
`
`X
`Ethernet
`X
`data network
`
`determining step
`
`See notes to Slide 53 for cites covering all but the title of the slide; For
`the title of the slide, see Motion to Amend at 12 – 13 (Paper 43)
`
`De Nicolo
`Ethernet
`data network
`determining step
`low level current step
`sensing step
`controlling step
`
`
`
`XXXX
`
`Chang
`
`
`
`XXXX
`
`Ethernet
`data network
`determining step
`low level current step
`sensing step
`controlling step
`
`63
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`references should not be combined
`
`Field
`
`‘930 Patent 1:11-14 (Exh. 1001)
`
`Zimmerman Decl. ¶32 (Exh. 1011)
`
`‘930
`(Ethernet)
`
`Matsuno
`(Telco)
`
`Woodmas
`(Television)
`
`Reply / Motion to Amend at 5 (Paper 65); Knox Decl. ¶311 (N1‐2024); Knox Decl. ¶183 (N1‐2015); Knox Decl. ¶284 (N1‐2024)
`
`64
`
`Woodmas 1:6-8 (AV-1040)
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`references should not be combined
`
`Problem addressed
`
`‘930
`(Ethernet)
`
`determine which
`devices can accept
`remote power
`
`deliver safe voltages
`when not using
`remote power
`
`Matsuno
`(Telco)
`
`Woodmas
`(Television)
`
`maintain voltage
`at desired level
`
`‘930 Abstract (Exh. 1001)
`
`Matsuno Abstract (Exh. 1004)
`
`Reply – Motion to Amend at 5 (Paper 65); Motion to Amend at 6 (Paper 43); Knox
`Decl. ¶185 (N1‐2024); Knox Decl. ¶279 (N1‐2024); Knox Decl. ¶248 (N1‐2024)
`
`65
`
`Woodmas Abstract (Exh. 1040)
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Deleted
`
`66
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
` designed to accept remote power
`
`Woodmas 7:44-52 (Exh. 1040)
`
`no discussion of:
`• “capable of accepting remote power”
`• “designed to accept remote power”
`
`Reply Motion to Amend at 4 (Paper 65); Zimmerman Decl. ¶¶ 93‐97 (AV‐1041)
`
`Zimmerman ¶¶ 93-97 (Exh. 1041)
`
`67
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`a power status signal
`
`Avaya’s Opposition at 10 (Paper 57)
`
`Reply / Motion to Amend at 4 (Paper 65); Knox Decl. ¶296 (N1‐2024):
`
`Knox Decl. ¶296 (Exh. 2024)
`
`68
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Deleted
`
`69
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Reply at 4‐5 (Paper 65);
`See Slide 50 for diagram of Chang.
`
`Avaya’s Opposition at 8 (Paper 57)
`
` use a data signal (not a low
`level current) for detection
`
`Chang Fig. 6a (Exh. 1006)
`
`70
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. at 48767
`
`Trial Practice Guide 77 Fed. Reg. at 48767; Patent Owner Preliminary Response at 18‐19 (Paper 16)
`
`71
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`Not obvious over Matsuno in light of De Nicolo
`
` missing elements
`
` teaching away
`
` secondary factors
`
`Patent Owner Response, Table of Contents (Paper 42)
`
`72
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`references should not be combined
`Telco
`
`Matsuno
`
`Ethernet
`
`De Nicolo
`
`Knox Decl. ¶¶304; 181-187 (Exh. 2015)
`Knox Depo. 253:2-254:5 (Exh. 2029)
`
`Chang
`
`Reply / Motion to Amend at 5 (Paper 65);
`Response to Observations at 9‐10 (Paper 90)
`
`73
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`references should not be combined
`
`Ethernet
`
`De Nicolo
`
`Television
`Woodmas
`
`Chang
`
`Knox Decl. ¶¶ 310-314
`
`no evidence
`Zimmerman Decl. ¶______
`
`Reply / Motion to Amend at 5 (Paper 65); Knox Decl. ¶310 (N1‐2024)
`
`74
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
`
`“low power level”
`
`“power status signal”
`(data signal)
`
`Woodmas Fig. 1 (Exh. 1040)
`
`Reply / Motion to Amend at 4 (Paper 65); Knox Decl. ¶296 (N1‐2024)
`
`Avaya Observation 8 at 6 (Paper 80)
`
`75
`
`IPR2013-00071 Network-1's Demonstrative Exhibits, Exhibit N1-2030
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
