Paper 102
`
` Entered: February 24, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AVAYA, INC., DELL INC., SONY CORP. OF AMERICA, and
`HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Case IPR2013-00385
`Case IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`____________
`
`Held: January 9, 2014
`____________
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and GLENN J. PERRY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER AVAYA, INC.:
`
`
`JONATHAN M. LINDSAY, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Crowell & Moring
`3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
`
`
`
`
`Irvine, California 92614-8505
`
`
`
`
`
` Entered: February 24, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`AVAYA, INC., DELL INC., SONY CORP. OF AMERICA, and
`HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00071
`Case IPR2013-00385
`Case IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`____________
`
`Held: January 9, 2014
`____________
`
`Before JONI Y. CHANG, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and GLENN J. PERRY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER AVAYA, INC.:
`
`
`JONATHAN M. LINDSAY, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Crowell & Moring
`3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
`
`
`
`
`Irvine, California 92614-8505
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DELL INC.:
`
`
`THOMAS M. DUNHAM, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Winston & Strawn, LLP
`
`
`1700 K Street, NW
`
`
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`GREGORY DOVEL, ESQUIRE
`
`
`Dovel & Luner, LLP
`
`
`201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600
`
`
`Santa Monica, California 90401
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday,
`January 9, 2014, commencing at 9:32 a.m., at the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
`
`
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
`JUDGE ARBES: Good morning, everyone. This is
`the oral hearing in Case IPR2013-00071 involving Patent
`6,218,930. Cases IPR2013-385 and 495 have been joined
`with this proceeding.
`Can counsel please state your names and who you
`represent for the record?
`MR. SANOK: Jeff Sanok for Avaya.
`MR. LINDSAY: Jonathan Lindsay for Avaya.
`MR. DUNHAM: Thomas Dunham for Dell and with
`me is Michael Scheer also for Dell.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`MR. DOVEL: Good morning, Your Honors. I'm
`Greg Dovel. I represent the Patent Owner Network-1. With
`me is Charles Wieland.
`MR. HAWKINS: Your Honors, good morning.
`Charles Hawkins with Petitioner Hewlett-Packard Company
`from the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery. With me is
`Raymond Gabriel.
`MS. WEISENBERGER: Your Honors, Theresa
`Weisenberger from Finnegan on behalf of Sony.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel for the Patent Owner, is
`lead counsel present for the hearing today?
`MR. DOVEL: Yes, that's --
`MR. MUKAI: I'm sorry, Robert Mukai.
`JUDGE ARBES: Thank you. Per the Board's Trial
`Hearing Order in this case, three parties will be presenting
`arguments today. Counsel for Avaya will have 60 minutes.
`Counsel for Dell will have 10 minutes and counsel for the
`Patent Owner will have 70 minutes.
`The order of the presentation today is that Avaya,
`as the Petitioner, will present its case first regarding the
`challenged claims. The Patent Owner will then respond to
`Avaya's case and present its own case on the motion to
`amend. If Avaya reserves time for rebuttal, it can use the
`rest of its time to respond to the Patent Owner's case on all
`issues, and then we will hear from Dell, and Dell can use its
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`time to respond to Avaya's -- the Patent Owner's
`presentation on all issues.
`And, finally, if the Patent Owner has reserved time
`for rebuttal, it can address issues raised by either Avaya or
`Dell regarding just the motion to amend.
`Counsel, do you have copies of the demonstratives
`that you can provide to the court reporter and the panel
`today?
`
`MR. DOVEL: Yes, we do, Your Honor, would you
`like us to hand those to you now?
`JUDGE ARBES: Yes, please. Thank you.
`MR. DOVEL: This is the complete slides that were
`
`filed.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: One note we will have for the
`record is that the parties did, when they filed their
`demonstratives in the PRPS system, did call -- I believe
`called them both demonstrative evidence. We would just
`note for the parties that the demonstratives are not evidence
`themselves. They're just merely trial aids for the attorneys
`doing presentations today, so we'll correct the dates -- the
`titles of the documents in PRPS. You don't need to worry
`about that.
`Counsel for Avaya, you may proceed first.
`Would you like to reserve time for rebuttal?
`MR. LINDSAY: Yes, we would.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: How much time would you like?
`MR. LINDSAY: We'll reserve approximately half
`of our time, 30 minutes.
`What we've given you there is a full set of the
`slides. We're going to be discussing probably not all of
`those, just a subset of those today, and we'll give you a copy
`of just the ones we discuss at the end. Thank you, Your
`Honors.
`So this is not a complex case that involves complex
`technology. It's about a scant patent that's barely three and
`a half columns in length and claims at issue without a single
`prior art rejection really. The Patent Owner cited a single
`reference during the prosecution process. It's called
`Jenneve, which is actually an ISDN reference, and we'll talk
`about that a little bit later.
`But as Judge Rich said, the name of the game is the
`claim, so we'd like to focus on the claim, Claim 6 in
`particular, and in particular what it requires, not what it
`might alternatively cover, which we might hear a lot about
`from the Patent Owner, but actually what it requires.
`The first thing it requires is providing a data node.
`This is a method claim. It requires providing certain
`components from a network, the data node, an access device
`and a data signaling pair that's connected to the two over
`which there's a transmission, data and power.
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`Well, Your Honors, that's exactly what Matsuno
`does, and what we're looking at here is Figure 5 from
`Matsuno. This is the third embodiment. Matsuno has about
`eight different embodiments that it describes, and this is one
`of them and we're going to focus on this one I think for the
`majority of our presentation today.
`Now, Matsuno provides those three network
`components. In particular, it has a data node right here.
`This is described as being a power supply circuit within the
`switching station, which is an ISDN switching station --
`JUDGE CHANG: Excuse me, counsel, just -- I'm
`sorry to interrupt you, but whenever you refer to your
`demonstrative, please on the record state the slide number so
`that way the transcript will be clear.
`MR. LINDSAY: Thank you. Thank you, Your
`Honor. Certainly. So we're looking at slide number 5. The
`previous slide is just an annotated version of the previous
`slide, which was slide 4.
`Okay. Now, the data node is connected to an access
`device, which is described as being a DTE, data terminal
`equipment 3 and NT1, network terminal 2. And connecting
`those two things is what Matsuno calls a subscriber line,
`which is a data signaling pair 12. So it's providing data
`node and access device connected with data signaling pair.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`That's all that claim -- the providing step that Claim 6
`requires.
`Well, what else does Claim 6 require? Well, in
`particular, it requires the delivering of a low-level current,
`and what's important here is what it does not require. It
`does not require that every access device or every
`component of this network might receive this low-level
`current, only that the access device receive the low-level
`current, and that's what Matsuno does.
`Now, again, what we're looking at here -- this is
`Figure 5 again, same figure, and some text that describes it
`and that's blown up so we can read it a little bit easier today.
`Okay. But what Matsuno does is when there's a loss of local
`power, contact breaker -- and this is slide 10, by the way.
`The contact breaker point 8 closes. When that closes -- this
`is the contact breaker point right there. When that closes,
`there's a DC loop formed, current flows. Current flows from
`the data node to the access device, just as in the delivering
`step.
`
`Now, Avaya believes that's a low-level current and
`we're going to drill down on that a little bit in a moment, but
`for right now we can say certainly it is a current and it is a
`low-level current.
`What else is required? Well, sensing. Sensing a
`voltage level on the data signaling pair. Again, what's
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`important here is what it does not require. It does not
`require sensing multiple voltage levels, although that may
`certainly be within the scope of the claims. It's not for us to
`decide here today. All it requires is a voltage level de-sense
`and that would be on the data signaling pair, and that's
`certainly what Matsuno does as well.
`Here we're looking at slide 11 and a description,
`again, on figure 5 a little further down where it talks about
`what happens after those breakers close. What happens after
`those breakers close is a subscriber line 12, a voltage is seen
`at both terminals of the constant current circuits. Okay.
`That's a voltage being sensed, and that is obviously on the
`subscriber line 12, which is, of course, the data signaling
`pair. So the sensing step is satisfied.
`Now, the terms there in red, we're going to talk
`about those in some more detail and what on the data
`signaling pair means. So Avaya's position is that it is
`satisfied as well.
`The next step, backing up one, is controlling power,
`controlling power based on a preselected condition of
`voltage level. Again, Matsuno does that. Now we're going
`to go to slide 12. Again, we're looking at figure 5 again,
`annotated version, showing some text that describes what
`happens.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`Well, what happens is once the voltage is at or
`above a set level, right, that is our preselected condition.
`The voltage detection parts detect that voltage and the
`contact breaker point controls power. It controls power by
`switching from a high-power source -- it switches to the
`high-power source from the low-power source. Totally the
`step is satisfied.
`Now, there are three terms up there in red, which
`we'd like to talk about briefly that have been the subject of
`some discussion in this proceeding. First is low-level
`voltage. So we can go and discuss the fact that Avaya and
`its expert, Dr. Zimmerman, have applied the Board's
`construction. The low-level current is sufficiently low that,
`by itself, will not operate the access device. The Patent
`Owner, however, Dr. Knox has refused to apply that
`construction and, instead, has proposed a much narrower,
`unsupported construction.
`What they believe you should add to their
`construction is that it will not operate the access device at
`any data signaling pair length. That's different, by the way,
`than any other construction that we've seen the Patent Owner
`argue in their papers that have been discussed in previous
`litigations. It's certainly the first time that we've seen that
`and it has nothing to do with the broadest reasonable
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`interpretation. That is a selected limitation for the sole
`purpose of avoiding Matsuno.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, how do we deal with a
`reference, like Matsuno, that does not disclose the length of
`a data signaling pair?
`MR. LINDSAY: Well, we look at the construction
`that the Board has selected and see if Matsuno satisfies that.
`Matsuno does satisfy that, because we know from what it
`tells us that it has to switch to the higher voltage power
`supply in order to provide minimal communications to the
`access device. So it's telling you it's not enough.
`JUDGE ARBES: But isn't it the case in Matsuno
`that at a certain data signaling pair length it may be
`sufficient and at another data signaling pair length it may
`not be as the Patent Owner argued?
`MR. LINDSAY: We don't believe that's what
`Matsuno supports and Dr. Zimmerman has explained that
`based on the amount of voltage drop that Matsuno tells us
`occurs when the high-voltage power supply is being applied.
`We can similarly expect to see the same voltage drop with
`the low-power supply and you would only get on the order of
`about eight volts available at the NT1 and DTE, which
`would be insufficient to power those access devices.
`JUDGE ARBES: And is that making a particular
`assumption as to what the length would be, then, or --
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`MR. LINDSAY: Well, it's reading the express
`voltage drops that Matsuno tells us. He tells us that when
`you apply the 120 volt, you only have on the order of 80 to
`85 volts available and then, of course, that drop is a function
`of two things. It's a function of the length of the subscriber
`lines. So implicit in that number is that subscriber line
`length and the efficiency of the power supply itself. So
`neither of those two things will change when you switch to
`the low-power supply, and that's why Dr. Zimmerman
`concludes that you would have on the order of eight volts.
`So why did this construction get selected? Well,
`Network-1 had to admit that there were at least some devices
`in Matsuno that could not operate at the negative 48-volt
`level. Not even Dr. Knox could construct a set of
`assumptions in which an ISDN subscriber loop that was out
`at the design length of, say 18,000 feet would be operable
`using these 48 volts.
`Now, of course, as we mentioned ago, Avaya
`believes based on Dr. Zimmerman's testimony that none of
`the devices, regardless of length, would be operable in that
`case, and we talked about the eight volts and that being
`available.
`But in order to avoid Matsuno in the face of that
`admission that there are at least some devices out there that
`might be operated -- that might not be operable, Network-1
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`had to add this limitation, basically requiring that every
`access device that's connected to the network be inoperable
`using that low-level current regardless of how far the device
`might be located, the implication being that Matsuno's closer
`devices are apparently inadvertently being operated with that
`low power, but there's no such requirement in the claims nor
`is there any support for that construction in the specification
`and, frankly, the Patent Owner wanted their claims to mean
`that, and if they believe there was support for that, they
`could have amended their claims to say that.
`Next, we're going to look at slide 22. Now, as we
`mentioned ago, Network-1 admits that there are at least
`some access devices that would not be operated using
`low-level power. This is in the Patent Owner response. One
`skilled in the art would understand the primary reason for
`the higher power would be to allow higher-power NT1s and
`DTEs to operate at full functionality over the long
`subscriber loop lengths.
`Again, their admission is at least some devices are
`being operated -- are not being operated with that low-level
`power. That admission alone is dispositive, because, as the
`Board noted, it's the specific current in Matsuno and a
`specific device in Matsuno which is pertinent to this
`analysis.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, if you can go back to
`slide 22 for a second, it seems to me that all the Patent
`Owner has admitted is that they would operate at full
`functionality. Is that -- how do we reconcile that with the
`Board's construction of just operation? Is there a difference
`between operation and operation at full functionality?
`MR. LINDSAY: There is no reason to suggest in
`Matsuno that there is and this is, again, the Patent Owner
`response and their position that there are some devices that
`are not going to be operated at these far distances. Dr. Knox
`has admitted that.
`Now, to the extent that there might be levels of
`functionality, again, we look at Matsuno what it's trying to
`do and it's trying to provide minimal communications, and
`we believe that, you know, that's what the dividing line
`really is, is whether it's being operated according to the
`minimal communication standard or not and Matsuno has to
`switch to that higher power at the end of the day in order to
`do that.
`
`JUDGE ARBES: So it's the Petitioners' position,
`then, that minimal communication is operation and
`everything below that is not operation.
`MR. LINDSAY: I think that's the way Matsuno is
`-- would be read fairly.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`So if there are no more questions on -- oh, actually
`I do want to talk about this slide briefly, and this is what
`Matsuno tells us about switching to the power supply. This
`is slide 20, paragraph 4 from Matsuno where it talks about
`switching to the aforementioned station power supply occurs
`-- again, the remote power -- occurs with the shutdown of
`local power and that power is sufficient to allow minimal
`communications to the terminal 103 and it's thus supplied.
`So it wasn't being supplied until you had that switch.
`So now we're going to take a look at a new figure.
`This is Figure 11 and this is paragraph 4, another part of
`paragraph 4 from Matsuno, and this is slide 15. Now, what
`we see here is we see this reference of a DC voltage of 40
`volts and there's been some discussion about whether that 40
`volts is sufficient to operate the access device, so I'd like to
`talk a little bit about that.
`Now, first of all, what this paragraph here is
`describing is that that 40 volts is a prescribed voltage. It's a
`converted voltage from the local power supply. This has
`nothing to do with the remote power supply. It's being
`applied down here by the local power supply 111 at the S/T
`point right there. Okay. So we -- it does not, however, have
`anything to do with the U point.
`Okay. The fact that 40 volts is being provided by
`the local power source at DTE tells us nothing about the
`
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`current. It also tells us nothing importantly about what
`voltage you have to see at the U point in order to get that 40
`volts. Because as Dr. Knox has testified, the NT1 itself
`consumes voltage. It consumes a minimum of 28 volts, and
`he has a series of calculations he goes through to get to the
`point where in his very generous assumptions he believes
`there's 41 volts available at the U point.
`Well, if there's 41 -- 41.2 volts to be specific, if he
`believes there's 41.2 volts available at the U point, the NT1
`is consuming power, we do not get 40 volts at the S/T point,
`which is what this 40 volt is being applied to.
`So I'm looking at slide 16 now, and this is a quote
`from the Board, indicating that Network-1 has not
`sufficiently explained the current that's being provided by
`that 40 volt. That position, that concern, remains
`unaddressed. We do not know what that is.
`JUDGE ARBES: Counsel, the statement that you
`point to there was in response to an argument that I believe
`they made in the preliminary response. How do we deal
`with at this point looking at that 40 volts, how do we
`determine if the current there is sufficient or not based on --
`it seems to us to be perhaps an apples to oranges comparison
`here where the reference only speaks about 40 volts. How
`do we determine if the current resulting from that is a
`low-level current or not?
`
`
`
`
` 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`MR. LINDSAY: Well, actually you don't have to.
`You don't have to because two reasons. One, Matsuno tells
`us that you have to switch to the high-power supply to power
`the access device, number one. Number two, what Matsuno
`is trying to do -- again, we are comparing apples to oranges
`in the sense that this is a local power supply, the implication
`being that it's providing power to both the NT1 and the DTE.
`When you're providing remote power and you want
`to provide minimal communications, you have to power both
`the NT1 and the DTE. So the current that may be provided
`by that 40 volt to just the DTE is not representative or
`significant for purposes of the analysis, because you have to
`provide a sufficient current for both the NT1 and the DTE in
`order to provide minimal communications.
`JUDGE ARBES: Okay. So you're saying, then, that
`the access device is the combination of both, then, rather
`than just one.
`MR. LINDSAY: So there's two issues, Your Honor.
`As the claim is drafted, an access device is extremely
`broadly worded. It is a device that's connected to a data
`node, engages in data transmission and receives power over
`the same lines.
`Under those terms, either the NT1 or the DTE will
`do that. It would be receiving power from the data node and
`it would have communications. In the case of NT1, it's a
`
`
`
`
` 16
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`pass-through device. But when you consider what Matsuno
`is trying to do and consider what he's trying to operate, he's
`trying to provide minimal communications.
`You have to power the DTE in order to do that.
`That's the communication device, if you will. The NT1 also
`has to be powered, however. Because if you're not powering
`it, you can't power -- you can't plug a DTE into an NT1 that
`itself is not plugged in, to use that term. You wouldn't be
`providing this minimal communications.
`So for purposes of determining what a low-level
`current is and whether it's insufficient or not to operate the
`device, you have to consider what you're trying to operate.
`In this case you're trying to operate the DTE, and that's a
`function of the construction. And, again, the breadth of the
`way the claim is drafted that leads one to see that an access
`device in the claim can be either, but for purposes of
`whether the low-level current is truly insufficient, one must
`consider both the NT1 and DTE.
`JUDGE ARBES: So the question then becomes
`whether that 40 volts is sufficient to power both devices,
`then. The parties obviously dispute that.
`MR. LINDSAY: Well, certainly it would be a
`question. First of all, we know that the 40 volts is coming
`out of the NT1 being provided to the DTE, right. The NT1
`itself is plugged in. It's receiving a local power supply of
`
`
`
`
` 17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`110 volts itself. So it is providing some potential that's
`driving a current to the DTE, but we don't -- but that current
`by itself, it says nothing about whether it's sufficient to also
`power the NT1, because the NT1's current is being received
`directly from the wall.
`So the next limitation that we have there in red that
`we'd like to talk about today is the on the data signaling pair
`limitation. This is slide 24. The Board has proposed a
`construction here for what it means and it means sensing a
`voltage at a point on a pair of wires used to transmit data.
`Now, Avaya and its experts have applied this
`construction to the claims and found that Matsuno
`anticipates claims. Network-1, however, and its expert,
`again, have refused to apply this construction. Rather,
`Network-1 argues that the voltage has to be the same on both
`wires and the current has to be delivered in common mode.
`This is a construction that's selected not with the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in mind, but, again, with a specific
`intent trying to avoid Matsuno, which they argue provides a
`current in differential mode as opposed to common mode.
`Well, the claim itself never restricts to how voltage
`is sensed nor is common mode ever used or discussed in the
`'930 patent. And as we talked about a moment ago with
`respect to low-level current, if the Patent Owner wanted its
`claims to say that, then they could have proposed an
`
`
`
`
` 18
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`amendment that would have said that, again, assuming they
`believed their support for that.
`Now, this is slide 25. This is, again, our Figure 5
`and an annotated version of it to show how the current is
`being sensed on the data signaling pair. I've highlighted the
`two sense points here and that that sense point -- well, here
`we have a voltage detection part. It's coupled here. We
`have voltages at both terminals of the constant current
`circuits, a terminal there, a terminal there. That voltage is
`the same as that voltage. So we are sensing a voltage on the
`data signaling pair. One wire is the other wire of the data
`signaling pair.
`JUDGE ARBES: But, counsel, those two voltages
`are different, right?
`MR. LINDSAY: Those two voltages in Matsuno
`would be different. This voltage would be different than
`that voltage, that's correct.
`JUDGE ARBES: So if we have a situation where a
`pair of wires and the voltages are two different voltages and
`the claim requires sensing a voltage level on the data
`signaling pair, which one would it be? How do you
`determine which one is the right one to sense a voltage level
`on the pair?
`MR. LINDSAY: You could use either and achieve
`the purpose of Matsuno as well as meet the limitations of the
`
`
`
`
` 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`claim, which only requires sensing a voltage level on the
`data signaling pair. In this case the voltage you sense would
`be relative to ground. In this case the voltage that you sense
`would be relative to some known reference. And either way
`you would have a meaningful voltage measurement that you
`could then use, as Matsuno does, to carry out the controlling
`step.
`
`So the next slide I'll look at here is a discussion of
`this sensing across and sensing on. This is slide 75 and it's
`some testimony from Dr. Zimmerman where he was asked
`about this concept of on versus across. So he was asked the
`ordinary customary meaning of sensing. On is different than
`sensing across, correct? And he said, as I said before -- he
`was asked this question many times -- across is a specific
`case of sensing on, in the ordinary customary meaning.
`Sensing on is the broader term. Sensing across is the
`narrower term.
`So even if you conclude that Matsuno senses across,
`which in Figure 5 is not the case -- I should mention here
`Matsuno has numerous different embodiments, some of
`which he is measuring voltage difference and some of which
`he's measuring on one wire or the other.
`And so we see here that this would meet the claim
`limitation, even if Matsuno was sensing across, and actually
`I'll point out here that on is not a technical word. There's a
`
`
`
`
` 20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`lot of technical meaning being implied into this word. It's a
`plain and ordinary word and one of ordinary skill in the art
`would know that you're trying to sense a voltage at a point
`on one of those wires.
`And also Dr. Knox himself told us there was
`nothing special about sensing a common-mode voltage,
`particularly when asked the question about, you know,
`nothing being inventive about differential mode versus
`common mode, and he said, one of ordinary skill in the art at
`the time would understand how to do that, that being
`measuring the voltage on either a common mode or a
`differential mode circuit. So this is really not about
`broadest reasonable interpretation. It's about avoiding
`Matsuno.
`The next term that we're going to talk about briefly,
`Your Honors, is the data network limitation. There's been
`some discussion about this as well. ISDN is a data network,
`integrated services digital network. Here is a diagram. This
`is slide 28. Here's a diagram taken from the book that Dr.
`Knox himself has described as being authoritative on the
`subject of ISDN.
`Okay. And the next slide is the annotated version
`of this and it's slide 29. And you see that this is an ISDN
`subscriber loop. You've got computers that are
`communicating here, and part of this integrated services
`
`
`
`
` 21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`digital network is a packet switched data network. ISDN is
`a data network in Matsuno's ISDN reference.
`So one other point to make here is Dr. Knox himself
`in previous litigation characterized the Jenneve reference --
`we mentioned this earlier -- is an ISDN reference. This is
`the one and only reference that they cited to the Patent
`Office, and in describing Jenneve, he said, Jenneve teaches a
`method for remotely powering access equipment in a data
`network. He described an ISDN reference himself as being a
`data network.
`The other part of ground one in this case is the
`anticipation of Claim 9 by Matsuno. So we look at Claim 9
`and what it requires. It requires a step, a step of continuing
`to sense voltage level and a decreased power from a
`secondary power source. A voltage drops on the data
`signaling pair. This indicates removal of the access devices.
`Now, that's exactly --
`JUDGE PERRY: Counsel, excuse me, why does
`that happen, why does the voltage drop when the device is
`removed?
`MR. LINDSAY: Well, the '930 patent does not
`explain why the voltage drops when the device is -- it
`provides very little disclosure on that point. We're left to
`largely guess as to what that might be. And if you open the
`circuit, if you remove a device that's otherwise plugged in
`
`
`
`
` 22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Cases IPR2013-00071, IPR2013-00385, IPR2013-00495
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`and you open a circuit, voltage would drop then on that
`circuit is what -- you know, is what would happen in the
`case of Dr. Zimmerman opining about Figure 5, for example.
`But, you know, it's a good question, Your Honor, because
`the patent is not clear on that point.
`JUDGE PERRY: So if you remove a load, the
`voltage goes up or down?
`MR. LINDSA
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
