`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`AVAYA INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2013-00071
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`____________________
`
`Before the honorable Jameson Lee, Joni Y. Chang, and Justin T. Arbes
`____________________
`
`
`
`AVAYA’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`In the “Decision on Institution of Inter Parties Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108”
`
`
`I.
`
`(Paper 18, May 24, 2013) (“Decision”), Grounds 2, 4 and 5 were denied, while
`
`Grounds 1 and 3 were granted. Petitioner respectfully requests only a limited
`
`rehearing as to Ground 5 based on the combination of Chang (AV-1006) and De
`
`Nicolo (AV-1007) (Decision at 24-29).
`
`Accordingly, this Request for Rehearing (“Request”) moves for rehearing of
`
`the Board’s decision to deny the Petition as to Ground 5 and for an order which
`
`expands the trial to include Ground 5 as a basis invalidating claims 6 and 9 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,218,930 (“the ’930 Patent”).1
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Chang delivers a low level current in the form of its presence request signal
`
`to detect whether a remote terminal (access device) is present. If detected, Chang
`
`then controls power (current) to the access device. The Patent Owner agrees that
`
`
`1 Separately, Petitioner notes an apparent typographical error in the Decision
`as to the claim construction of “low level current,” in which an incorrect
`exemplary current level of approximately “2 mA” is stated at times (Decision at
`10, 17 and 23) rather than the correct “20 mA” disclosed in the ‘930 Patent and
`noted in the Decision at other times. (Decision at 9 (lines 6 and 26)). Clarification
`is requested.
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`
`“Chang actually addresses the problem addressed by the ’930 Patent . . . .”2 Even
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`if Chang is read to do so by using different wire pairs than are used for data
`
`transmission in an Ethernet environment, De Nicolo, in such an Ethernet
`
`environment, teaches one skilled in the art how current can be supplied to an
`
`Ethernet access device over the same wire pairs used for data transmission. As
`
`such, it would be obvious to modify Chang’s Ethernet network connections to
`
`supply Chang’s low level current and operational power (current) to an Ethernet
`
`access device over the same wire pairs used for data transmission based on De
`
`Nicolo’s teachings. One simple motivation is the savings in wire connections.
`
`The above is the essence of Petitioner’s Ground 5, which was amply
`
`supported in the Petition and by the declarant, Dr. Zimmerman, as will be
`
`discussed below. The Decision erred in denying Ground 5 by not applying
`
`De Nicolo in a manner consistent with its own application of De Nicolo with
`
`respect to granted Ground 3, which was based on the combination of De Nicolo
`
`(AV-1007) in view of Matsuno (AV-1004) (Decision at 18-22). In granting
`
`Ground 3, the Board agreed that one reference, Matsuno, could teach the “low
`
`level current” limitation found in the “delivering” step of claim 6 (as does Chang),
`
`while another reference, De Nicolo, could teach the delivery of current “over the
`
`2 Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, page 42.
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`
`same data signaling pair” limitation also found in the “delivering” step of claim 6.
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`(Decision at 21). In combination, De Nicolo and Matsuno met the “delivering”
`
`step of claim 6.
`
`In parallel fashion, the Petitioner argues in Ground 5 that the combination of
`
`Chang and De Nicolo renders claims 6 and 9 obvious, with one reference (Chang)
`
`being relied upon for disclosing the “low level current” limitation of the
`
`“delivering” step and the second reference (De Nicolo) being relied upon for
`
`generally disclosing the delivery of current (albeit operational current)3 over the
`
`same data signaling pair, such that Chang and De Nicolo in combination also teach
`
`the “delivering” step of claim 6.
`
`De Nicolo, in fact, picks up exactly where Chang left off by disclosing a
`
`particular approach that would have been obvious to use in order for Chang to
`
`deliver both its presence request signal (low level current) and its operational
`
`power (perhaps a higher level current) to Ethernet-based devices over the same
`
`twisted pair lines used for data transmission. Petitioner’s Ground 5 thus modified
`
`Chang with the teachings of De Nicolo showing that “current” generally—whether
`
`
`3 De Nicolo supplies operational power to the Ethernet access devices over
`the same wire pairs used for data transmission. Power (P), by definition is a
`function of current, as it is the product of voltage (V) and current (I): P=VI.
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`
`of a low or high level—may be supplied from Chang’s network hub to an
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`additional type of remote access device (i.e., an Ethernet-based device) in a manner
`
`which makes efficient use of the same twisted pair lines that are used to provide
`
`data. Petitioner respectfully submits that Ground 5, under the same logic applied
`
`by the Board with respect to granted Ground 3, should also be included in the trial.
`
`III. ARGUMENTS
`A. The Decision Erred In Finding That The Combination Of Chang
`And De Nicolo Does Not Teach The ‘Delivering’ Step of Claim 6
`
`The Board concluded that the Petitioner had not met its burden with respect
`
`to Ground 5 for two reasons. First, the Board stated that:
`
`that Chang
`“Petitioner has not demonstrated
`teaches the claim step of ‘delivering a low level current
`from said main power source to the access device over
`said data signaling pair.’ Petitioner also does not argue
`in the Petition that De Nicolo teaches the missing
`limitation.”
`
`(Decision at p. 28, lines 6-9) (emphasis added).
`
`Second, the Board stated that “Petitioner gives no explanation in the Petition
`
`. . . as to why the “delivering” step of claim 6 (missing from Chang) would be
`
`obvious based on the combination of Chang and De Nicolo . . . .” (Decision at 28).
`
`However, as set forth below, the Petitioner did in fact expressly argue that Chang
`
`and De Nicolo teach, in combination, the “delivering” step of claim 6, as well as
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`
`why it would have been obvious to combine their teachings. Therefore, the denial
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`of Ground 5 was in error.
`
`1.
`
`The Petition Expressly Argues That De Nicolo Teaches The
`Use Of The Same Data Signaling Pair To Deliver Current
`As Well As To Transmit Data
`
`The element of claim 6 that is in question is “delivering a low level current
`
`from said main power source to the access device over said data signaling pair,”
`
`where the “data signaling pair” is separately recited as also being “arranged to
`
`transmit data” between the recited data node and the access device. This
`
`“delivering” step actually consists of two distinct sub-limitations: (1) a “low level
`
`current” delivered to the access device; and (2) a “data signaling pair” that is used
`
`to carry both the “low level current” and data between the data node and the access
`
`device. While these two separate sub-limitations may have been conflated in the
`
`arguments advanced by the Patent Owner, there is no requirement that both sub-
`
`limitations be found in a single prior art reference when the ground advanced for
`
`unpatentability is based on obviousness in view of a properly motivated prior art
`
`combination, as is the case here with Ground 5.
`
`While the Petition does argue that, under a broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, Chang could be reasonably interpreted as disclosing the entire
`
`“delivering” step of claim 6, both the Petition and the supporting Declaration of
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Zimmerman (AV-1011) also expressly advance the position that Chang
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`satisfies the sub-limitation of providing a “low level current” at least in the form of
`
`its “presence detection signal 619,” 4 and that it would have been obvious to do so
`
`over the same data signaling pairs that are used to provide data, as is expressly
`
`taught by De Nicolo. In setting forth Ground 5, the Petition states that:
`
`De Nicolo also discloses the recited “data signaling pair.”
`See supra § V.C.3, claim element 6(a3); see also Ex.
`AV-1011, ¶ 66.
` A PHOSITA would have been
`motivated to combine features from De Nicolo relating to
`power over data lines with the network set forth in
`Chang, thereby forming the claimed combination of the
`’930 Patent. See id. at ¶¶ 80-81.
`
`(Petition at 49-50) (emphasis added).
`
`Moreover, in Section V.C.3 of the Petition, which is specifically referenced
`
`in the above-cited passage, the Petition states that:
`
`De Nicolo discloses the claimed step of “delivering . . .”
`since its center tapped transformers on the data node side
`of the system deliver power to the load devices over the
`Ethernet
`link, which
`is a “data signaling pair.”
`
`4 While the Patent Owner has argued that Chang’s “presence detection signal
`619” is not a “low level current,” this argument is predicated on two different
`claim constructions, neither of which were adopted by the Board. The fact is that
`Chang’s “presence detection signal 619” is a modulated form of an electrical
`current flowing through a wire that, by itself, will not operate an access device.
`See Decl. of Dr. Zimmerman, ¶ 82.
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`Therefore, current is provided from the main power
`source to the access device over the data signaling pair.
`
`(Petition at 39) (emphasis added).
`
`The claim chart accompanying the arguments for Ground 5, spanning pages
`
`53 to 57 in the Petition, further specifically identify how Chang and De Nicolo are
`
`being relied upon for teaching the various limitations of claim 6. In particular, for
`
`each element that Chang is relied upon, the claim chart includes detailed citations
`
`to various teachings in Chang that are relevant to those particular elements. And
`
`for each element on which De Nicolo is additionally being relied upon, the claim
`
`chart includes a reference back to Section V.C.3 (done for the sake of brevity in the
`
`chart) where the detailed citations to various relevant teachings in De Nicolo can
`
`be found.
`
`With respect to the “data signaling pair,” for example, the Ground 5 claim
`
`chart cites to the corresponding claim mapping for De Nicolo found in Section
`
`V.C.3. In particular, the “data signaling pair” (which is actually addressed when it
`
`first appears in the claim in element 6(a3), rather than in element 6(b)), is
`
`described in the claim mapping of Section V.C.3 as being disclosed by De Nicolo
`
`by virtue of the following teachings:
`
`Ethernet link 128 couples first and second secondaries
`130, 132 of first transformer 112 to first and second
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`primaries 134, 136 of second transformer 118. Ethernet
`link 128 preferably comprises a pair of twisted pair
`conductors 128a and 128b wherein twisted pair 128a
`connects first secondary 130 to first primary 134 of the
`twisted pair 128b connects second secondary B2 to
`several primary 136.” AV-1007, Col. 3:25-31; Fig. 3;
`Abstract; Cols. 1:50-2:8, 2:20-24, 2:30-34; Claims 1-3, 6-
`8, 11-16; Fig. 1.
`
`(Petition at page 42, element 6(a3)).
`
`
`
`Moreover, specifically-identified passages in De Nicolo clearly disclose the
`
`transmission of power and Ethernet data over the same wire pairs. For example,
`
`Column 2, lines 30 – 34, which is one of the passages specifically identified in the
`
`claim mapping section for De Nicolo, states that:
`
`An Ethernet device power transmission system provides
`electrical power to devices such as Ethernet telephones
`and related equipment over a 4-wire Ethernet connection
`without any need for rewiring premises having an
`existing 4-wire Ethernet system.
`
`(De Nicolo (AV-1007), col. 2, lines 30-34) (emphasis added).
`
`Therefore, Ground 5, as set forth in the original Petition, expressly includes
`
`the argument that, with respect to the “delivering” step of claim 6, Chang satisfies
`
`sub-limitation (1)5, i.e., the delivery of low level current, and that De Nicolo
`
`
`5 In attempting to distinguish Chang, the Patent Owner finds itself in a pickle
`trying to take the position that Chang’s detection signal is not data when arguing
`(continued…)
`
`
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`
`satisfies sub-limitation (2), i.e., doing so over the same data signaling pair.
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`Therefore, the combination of Chang and De Nicolo clearly teaches the entire
`
`“delivering” step of claim 6.
`
`2.
`
`The Petition Does Provide Support For Why It Would Have
`Been Obvious To Combine The Teachings of Chang And De
`Nicolo
`
`As noted above, in denying Ground 5, the Board further found that the
`
`Petitioner had made only a “bare assertion” regarding the motivation to combine
`
`Chang and De Nicolo. And, that the “Petitioner gives no explanation in the
`
`Petition, however, as to why the “delivering” step of claim 6 (missing from Chang)
`
`would be obvious based on the combination of Chang and De Nicolo, nor does
`
`Petitioner provide any facts or reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious in spite of the missing
`
`limitation.” (Decision at 28). For the reasons set forth below, however, this finding
`
`is incorrect.
`
`(continued…)
`
`that Chang does not satisfy the claimed “data signaling pair,” while later having to
`take the opposite position that Chang’s detection signal is data (i.e., a data signal)
`when trying to argue that it is not a “low level current.” See Patent Owner’s
`Preliminary Response, pages 43-44 (arguing that Chang does not disclose the
`‘data signaling pair’ because the detection signal is sent over a different line than
`the data) and pages 45-50 (arguing that Chang does not disclose a ‘low level
`current’ because the detection signal is a data signal). Surely the Patent Owner
`cannot have it both ways.
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, the particularly-cited passage alleged to represent the
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s “bare assertion” is, in fairness, merely an introductory paragraph in the
`
`Petition to the overall section in which the arguments in support of Ground 5 are
`
`set forth. Even then, that paragraph expressly includes a citation to thirteen (13)
`
`separate paragraphs in Dr. Zimmerman’s declaration that specifically discuss how
`
`a PHOSITA would interpret the teachings of Chang and De Nicolo, and why there
`
`would have been a motivation to combine their respective teachings.
`
`In fact, at least two of the paragraphs in Dr. Zimmerman’s declaration that
`
`are referenced in the introductory paragraph specifically address the combination
`
`of Chang’s “low level current” with De Nicolo’s “data signaling pair.” In
`
`particular, Dr. Zimmerman explains that:
`
`With respect to the recited “data signaling pair” in the
`claims of the ’930 Patent, in connection with the
`substitution to the well known Ethernet networking
`protocol of De Nicolo, it would have correspondingly
`been obvious to similarly adopt the wire pair connection
`of De Nicolo.
`
`(Decl. of Dr. Zimmerman (AV-1011) at 80) (emphasis added).
`
`It would have similarly been obvious to, in utilizing the
`wire pair connection of De Nicolo, adopt De Nicolo’s
`feature of using the same lines to supply power and
`transmit signals since doing so would simplify the
`network connections and reduce the complexity of the
`network structure.
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`
`(Decl. of Dr. Zimmerman (AV-1011) at 81) (emphasis added).
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`In addition, however, Ground 5 of the Petition includes a separate
`
`“Motivation to combine” section which identifies the similarities between Chang
`
`and De Nicolo, as both being designed to supply power and data to remote devices
`
`in a network environment, and how the combination would involve no more than
`
`the routine substitution of one known networking protocol for another, particularly
`
`since Chang itself discloses Ethernet adapters. See Petition, Section V.E.4, pages
`
`58-59. Additional citations to Dr. Zimmerman’s Declaration are also provided
`
`therein. The Petition further notes that even the ’930 Patent provides motivation
`
`by acknowledging that “[t]he desire to add remotely powered devices to a data
`
`network is being pushed by the convergence of voice and data technologies.” ’930
`
`Patent (AV-1001), col. 1, 1ines 33-35.
`
`Thus, Ground 5, as set forth in the original Petition, expressly includes
`
`support for why a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the teachings
`
`regarding the “low level current” in Chang with the “data signaling pair” in De
`
`Nicolo. And, such a combination meets all of the limitations of claims 6 and 9.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing on the
`
`denial of Ground 5, and requests the trial be expanded accordingly.
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`Avaya’s Request for Rehearing
`IPR2013-00071
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /Jeffrey D. Sanok, Reg. No. 32,169/
`Jeffrey D. Sanok, Reg. No. 32,169
`Jonathan M. Lindsay, Reg. No. 45,810
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004-2595
`Telephone No.: (202) 624-2500
`Facsimile No.: (202) 628-8844
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 7, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DCACTIVE-23463979.6
`
`Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`
`I hereby certify that on this 7th day of June 2013, a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing “AVAYA’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING” was served, in
`
`accordance with the parties’ electronic service agreement, by electronic mail upon
`
`the following lead and backup counsel of record for the Patent Owner:
`
`Robert G. Mukai, Lead Counsel
`Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney P.C.
`1737 King St., Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Service E-mail: Robert.Mukai@BIPC.com
`
`Charles F. Wieland III, Back-up Counsel
`Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney P.C.
`1737 King St., Suite 500
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Service E-mail: Charles.Wieland@BIPC.com
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`June 7, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DCACTIVE-23571487.1
`
`
` /Jonathan M. Lindsay/
`Jonathan M. Lindsay, Reg. No. 45,810
`(Back-up Counsel)
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`Intellectual Property Group
`1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004-2595