Filed on behalf of Patent Owner Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc.
`
`By: Robert G. Mukai, Esq.
`Charles F. Wieland III, Esq.
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
`1737 King Street, Suite 500
`Alexandria, Virginia 22314-2727
`Telephone (703) 836-6620
`Facsimile (703) 836-2021
`robert.mukai@bipc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`AVAYA INC. and DELL INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-000711
`Patent 6,218,930
`Administrative Patent Judges Jameson Lee, Joni Y. Chang and Justin T. Arbes
`____________________
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. JAMES KNOX
`
`
`
`
`1
`IPR2013-00385 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`Expertise ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. Background to my opinions in this declaration ................................................. 2
`
`A. Assignment .............................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Approach ....................................................................................... 3
`
`2. Materials ........................................................................................ 3
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Understanding of the law .............................................................. 3
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................... 4
`
`III. Overview of Validity Findings .......................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`The ‘930 Patent ....................................................................................... 5
`
`B. Overview of Matsuno .............................................................................. 7
`
`C. Overview of De Nicolo ........................................................................... 9
`
`D. General Findings ..................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. Claim Constructions .......................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`“sensing a voltage level on the data signaling pair.” .............................. 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“low level current” .................................................................................. 28
`
`“data network” ......................................................................................... 41
`
`V. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are not anticipated by Matsuno ................ 45
`
`A. Matsuno does not disclose the claimed “low level current”
`and second step of Claim 6 ..................................................................... 45
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Reason 1: The current disclosed in Matsuno is
`sufficient to operate the access device .......................................... 46
`
`Reason 2: The current disclosed in Matsuno is not
`below a threshold that will not damage a device that is
`not capable of accepting remote power ........................................ 58
`
`B. Matsuno does not disclose the claimed “sensing a voltage
`level on the data signaling pair.” ............................................................. 60
`
`C. Matsuno does not disclose Claim 9 ......................................................... 69
`
`1.
`
`Reason 1: Matsuno does not teach anything about the
`“removal of the access device” when “power from the
`secondary power source” is being delivered ................................. 69
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Reason 2: Matsuno does not teach that the “voltage
`level drops on the data signaling pair.” ......................................... 78
`
`Reason 3: Had (a) Claim 9 been drafted differently
`(i.e., “across” rather than “on” the data signaling pair),
`and (b) Matsuno taught the removal of the access
`device when the secondary power is being delivered
`(it does not), Matsuno would not teach but rather
`would teach away from the voltage level dropping
`across the data signaling pair if the access device were
`removed ......................................................................................... 78
`
`Reason 4: The embodiment referenced by Petitioners
`as support for claim 9 teaches that if the voltage level
`between the TIP and RING wires increases (rather
`than drops), the power from the secondary power
`source decreases. Accordingly, Matsuno teaches
`away from claim 9 for this additional reason ............................... 81
`
`D. Matsuno does not disclose a “data network.” ......................................... 84
`
`VI. Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are not obvious over De Nicolo
`in view of Matsuno ............................................................................................ 87
`
`A.
`
`The Challenged Claims are not obvious over De Nicolo in
`view of Matsuno because neither reference teaches critical
`claim elements ......................................................................................... 87
`
`B.
`
`The art expressly taught away from claim 6 and claim 9 ....................... 88
`
`C. Matsuno is not analogous art ................................................................... 91
`
`D.
`
`Secondary objective factors demonstrate that claims 6 and 9
`are not obvious ........................................................................................ 94
`
`VII. Analysis of the Proposed Amended Claims ...................................................... 96
`
`A. Support in the original disclosure of the ‘930 Patent for the
`proposed amendments ............................................................................. 96
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Ethernet data network ................................................................... 96
`
`Ethernet data node ......................................................................... 98
`
`determining whether the access device is capable of
`accepting remote power based on the sensed voltage .................. 99
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
`B. The proposed amendments do not expand the scope of the
`claim ........................................................................................................ 101
`
`C. Each proposed amendment responds to a ground of
`patentability involved in this trial and further obviates the
`proposed grounds for rejection ................................................................ 101
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Anticipation by Matsuno ............................................................... 101
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“Method for remotely powering access
`equipment in an Ethernet data network,
`comprising” ......................................................................... 102
`
`“providing an Ethernet data node adapted for
`data switching” ................................................................... 103
`
`“determining whether the access device is
`capable of accepting remote power based on the
`sensed voltage” ................................................................... 103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Obviousness of Matsuno in light of De Nicolo ............................ 105
`
`D. Relationship of proposed amendments to known art .............................. 106
`
`VIII. Signature ............................................................................................................ 108
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
`List of Figures
`
`
`Figure A – Figure 1 of Matsuno…………………………………………..18, 26, 63
`Figure B – Figure 3 of De Nicolo…………………………………………………10
`Figure C – Figure 2 of the ‘930 Patent…………………………16, Attachment C, 1
`Figure D – Illustration of data flow………………………………...Attachment C, 3
`Figure E – Illustration of power feed circuit……………………….Attachment C, 4
`Figure F – typical Bob Smith Termination………………………………………..34
`Figure G – Figure 11 of Matsuno…………………………………………………49
`Figure H – Figure 6 of Matsuno………………………………………………50, 65
`Figure I – Figure 5 of Matsuno………………...………………………………….64
`Figure J – Figure 10 of Matsuno………………………………………………….72
`Figure K – Figure 6a of Chang……………………………………………………87
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
`
`I, James Knox, declare:
`
`1.
`
` I am making this declaration at the request of Network-1 Security
`
`Solutions, Inc. in the joined Inter Partes Reviews of U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`
`(the “‘930 Patent”):
`
` IPR2013-00071, initiated by petitioner Avaya, Inc., and
`
` IPR2013-00385 initiated by petitioner Dell, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioners”).
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Expertise.
`
`2.
`
` A copy of my Curriculum Vitae attached as Attachment A. I am
`
`qualified to render opinions on electronics, data communications, Ethernet
`
`networks, ISDN networks, the ‘930 Patent, and the references addressed in this
`
`declaration. I have over 40 years of professional experience in industry and
`
`academics relating to electronics, data communications, and the design of
`
`computer hardware and software, including the design of electrical
`
`communications circuits, microprocessors, and A/D (Analog to Digital) converters.
`
`3.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas in 1969, a Master’s degree in Computer Science from the
`
`University of Texas in 1971, and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of Texas in 1978.
`
`4.
`
`At the University of Texas, I studied and took courses in areas relating
`
`to computer networking and computer communications. I also studied and took
`
`numerous courses dealing with electronics, electronic components, and electrical
`
`circuits. I taught Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of
`
`Texas, including courses involving the design, use, and programming of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`microprocessors and embedded microprocessor systems. These courses included
`
`the techniques for communicating over memory and I/O channels to remote
`
`devices, as well as the design and use of localized components such as A/D
`
`converters and digital switches.
`
`5.
`
`After graduating from the University of Texas, my work experience in
`
`the computer hardware and software design field included the design and
`
`implementation of numerous electronic and data communication systems. I
`
`designed microprocessors at the transistor circuit level (including designing
`
`algorithmic structures within the microprocessor), and developed and implemented
`
`their use in land-based, sea-based, air-based, and deep space applications. I have
`
`designed many digital communication networks. I have analyzed and am familiar
`
`with the internal components of telecommunication networks (e.g., ISDN) and data
`
`networks (e.g., Ethernet networks). I have opined in several other legal cases
`
`involving power over Ethernet electronics, and been qualified as an expert and
`
`testified in court about such systems.
`
`6.
`
`I am currently the owner of a computer technology company called
`
`TriSoft, located in Austin, Texas. TriSoft is involved in the research and
`
`development of unique electronic systems and components. I consult in projects
`
`involving remote power delivery, embedded microprocessor system design, and
`
`data communications, to name a very small subset.
`
`
`
`II. Background to my opinions in this declaration.
`
`
`
`A. Assignment.
`
`7.
`
`I have been retained by Network-1 as a technical consultant. I am
`
`being compensated for my time at my standard consulting rate of $300 per hour.
`
`This declaration addresses the validity of claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 Patent.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Approach.
`
`8.
`
`To develop my opinions, I have read:
`
` the ‘930 Patent and its prosecution history;
`
` Avaya’s Petition for Inter Partes Review (which is essentially the same
`
`as Dell’s Petition for Inter Partes Review);
`
` the exhibits accompanying the Petitions, including the Declaration of Dr.
`
`George Zimmerman (“Dr. Zimmerman”) dated December 3, 2012;
`
` the Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review in the Avaya IPR, dated
`
`May 24, 2013 (the “Decision”);
`
` the Decision Instituting Inter Partes Review in the Dell IPR, dated July
`
`29, 2013 (the “Dell Decision”); and
`
` the testimony of Dr. Zimmerman dated July 9, 2013.
`
`In addition, I relied on my personal knowledge and experience with both research
`
`and development for electrical system and circuits and switching systems in
`
`particular.
`
`
`
`2. Materials.
`
`9.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I considered the materials identified in
`
`the text of this declaration and the materials that I identified as exhibits to this
`
`declaration.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Understanding of the law.
`
`10. My understanding regarding the law as applicable to this declaration
`
`is based on my discussions with counsel. A guide to the law on anticipation and
`
`obviousness is attached as Attachment B to my declaration. My understanding of
`
`3
`
`

`
`
`other areas of the law is included in this declaration where appropriate. I have also
`
`included in the text of my declaration quotations from or references to certain legal
`
`cases or statutes that were provided to me by counsel to provide me with an
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`understanding of the relevant law.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
`
`11. Through my education, experience and training, in academia and
`
`industry, and my analysis of the ‘930 Patent, I am familiar with the knowledge of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of the ‘930 Patent in the 1999 – 2001 time
`
`frame.
`
`12. For the purposes of this declaration, I am of the opinion that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ‘930 Patent is a person with an
`
`undergraduate degree in Electrical Engineering and three years of experience.
`
`13.
`
`In determining what would be the level of ordinary skill in the field as
`
`of the 1999 – 2001 time frame, considered are the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) The educational level of the inventors.
`
`My understanding is that the inventors’ education is as follows: Boris
`
`Katzenberg attended New York City Community College for two years studying
`
`electrical technology curriculum. Joseph Deptula received a Bachelors and
`
`Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering, both from the University of Connecticut.
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) The type of problems encountered in the art.
`
`Electrical engineering and networking problems generally involve choices in
`
`design. There are often numerous ways to address networking problems that
`
`achieve the same result. The design choices can include everything from physical
`
`structure, to algorithmic choices, to implementation details.
`
`
`
`
`
`(c) The prior art solutions to those problems.
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`The prior art asserted by Petitioners involve ISDN and Ethernet networking
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`solutions.
`
`
`
`
`
`(d) The rapidity with which innovations are made.
`
`Based on my observations over the past 20 plus years, major innovations in
`
`networking occur about every 3 to 5 years.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(e) The sophistication of the technology.
`
`Developing networking solutions is a moderately sophisticated technology.
`
`
`
`(f) The educational level of workers in the field.
`
`Workers in the field generally had some undergraduate training, although
`
`not necessarily a bachelor’s degree, in electrical engineering. Most would have
`
`acquired a portion of their knowledge through hands on experience.
`
`14. Based on these factors, it is my conclusion that a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time would have been a person with an undergraduate degree
`
`in Electrical Engineering and three years of experience.
`
`
`
`III. Overview of Validity Findings.
`
`
`
`A. The ‘930 Patent.
`
`15. Generally speaking, the ‘930 Patent teaches and claims a method in
`
`which an Ethernet data node (e.g., switch) performs what is known in the art as
`
`Non-Destructive Testing of a connected access device (e.g., VoIP telephone or
`
`wireless access point). This testing determines whether the connected access
`
`device is capable of accepting power over the Ethernet data transmission signaling
`
`pairs, what is referred to as “remote power.” ‘930 Patent, 1:41-43; Title
`
`(“Apparatus and method for remotely powering access equipment over a 10/100
`
`switched Ethernet Network.”). If this testing reveals that the access device is
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`Power over Ethernet (PoE)-enabled, then the data node provides phantom
`
`operating power over these same signaling pairs. Further, the data node may
`
`continue to monitor the power requirements of the access device and remove
`
`delivery of the phantom power if the access device is removed.
`
`16.
`
`The ‘930 Patent addresses the problem of detecting whether a device
`
`attached to Ethernet cables can accept remote power before sending remote power
`
`that might otherwise damage connected equipment:
`
`“It is therefore an object of the invention to provide methods and
`apparatus for reliably determining if a remote piece of equipment is
`capable of accepting remote power.”
`
`‘930 Patent, 1:41-43.
`
`“The invention more particularly relates to apparatus and methods for
`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.”
`
`‘930 Patent, 1:14-19.
`
`17.
`
`The ‘930 Patent describes and claims a system that can (a) detect
`
`whether a device is attached to the Ethernet cable and, in addition, (b) if a device is
`
`connected, determine whether the device can accept remote power:
`
`“[a] automatic detection of remote equipment being connected to the
`network; [b] determining whether the remote equipment is capable of
`accepting remote power in a non-intrusive manner.”
`
`‘930 Patent, 1:53-56.
`
`18.
`
`This is a central aspect of the invention of the ‘930 Patent because
`
`devices that can be connected to an Ethernet cable include both devices that can
`
`accept power and devices that cannot. For example, the connection depicted in the
`
`preferred embodiment of the ‘930 Patent, an “RJ45 connector” (‘930 Patent, 3:33-
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`34), is a standard connection that can be connected to both devices that can accept
`
`remote power through the Ethernet cables (e.g., certain VoIP telephones) and
`
`devices that cannot accept remote power (e.g., computers). Ethernet devices were
`
`originally designed with no expectation that power would be delivered over the
`
`Ethernet cable.2
`
`19. As set forth in claim 6 of the ‘930 Patent, the claimed invention
`
`makes these determinations by:
`
`‘930 Patent, 4:60-67 (claim 6). If the sensing reveals that the access device can
`
`accept remote power, then the data node controls the power by providing operating
`
`
`
`power over the data signaling pairs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Overview of Matsuno.
`
`20. As illustrated in Figure 1 of Matsuno (Exh. AV-1004), Matsuno
`
`
`2
`The original Ethernet was developed by the Palo Alto Research Center
`(PARC) in the mid-1970s. This original system used a coaxial cable in a “shared
`data” arrangement and did not strictly allow for any form of PoE (due to multiple
`devices all being attached to the same wires). The move from 10Base5 or 10Base2
`(both coax) to the more modern 10BaseT (“T” for twisted pair) occurred in the mid
`to late 1980s, with the standard being adopted as 802.3i in 1990. 10/100BaseT
`uses the now-common two-pair format, arranged in a star format, with
`transformers isolating the devices. Power was not originally provided over
`Ethernet, in part due to concerns about transformer saturation. The earliest
`phantom power PoE devices began to arrive on the market about 8 years later.
`
`7
`
`

`
`
`discloses a system involving an ISDN network that operates over standard
`
`telephone lines.
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`Figure A (Figure 1, Matsuno)
`
`
`
`The system disclosed in Matsuno increases the power to a device (e.g., DTE 3)
`
`connected to the telephone lines (12) if the local power supply (11) fails. The
`
`remote device (3) would ordinarily be powered using local power (11). When
`
`local power (11) is available to power the remote device (3), the voltage on the
`
`telephone line (12) is the standard -48 volts delivered over telephone lines.
`
`21.
`
`The current at -48 V is sufficient to power access devices connected
`
`to the ISDN. (I present a detailed discussion and calculations demonstrating this
`
`fact in ¶¶105-114 below). If the local power (11) were to fail, while the current
`
`generated by the -48 volts would be sufficient to operate equipment connected to
`
`the telephone subscriber line, the higher voltage provides additional power that
`
`may be used in certain circumstances, e.g., for longer subscriber loop lengths. (I
`
`also discuss these circumstances in ¶¶105-114 below). In particular, Matsuno
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`teaches that if the local power (11) to the device (3) stops, the voltage on the
`
`telephone line (12) increases to -120 volts. This increased voltage assures that all
`
`access equipment (including high-power equipment) can be powered under all
`
`circumstances (e.g., very long runs3) and communications during power outages
`
`will not be restricted.
`
`22. Because the system of Matsuno operates on a traditional telephone
`
`line rather than a data network (Zimmerman Decl. ¶¶ 17, 32 (“ISDN equipment
`
`enables both voice and data communication over telephone lines”)), it was
`
`expected that devices connected to the network (for example, NT1s and DTEs)
`
`would typically accept remote power via the telephone lines. As a result, Matsuno
`
`shows no awareness of the need for detecting whether a device connected to the
`
`telephone lines can accept remote power, and does nothing to address that need.
`
`More specifically, the only testing disclosed in Matsuno is detecting whether the
`
`remote NT1 needs the remote power (i.e., because the local power is not being
`
`provided) – not whether the remote device can accept it.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Overview of De Nicolo.
`
`23.
`
`Similar to the ‘930 Patent, De Nicolo (Exh. AV-1007) discloses a
`
`system for providing electrical power to Ethernet-based access devices over an
`
`Ethernet wire link.
`
`“An Ethernet device power transmission system provides electrical
`power to devices such as Ethernet telephones and related equipment
`
`
`3
`As I explain in detail below (¶¶105-114), under the worst case scenario, the
`system disclosed in Matsuno can power the disclosed access devices (combined
`NT1 and DTE installations) up to a subscriber line distance of 5,000 feet.
`However, the telco stations may also be required to power subscriber lines at even
`greater distances. It is these longer subscriber line distances, with the
`correspondingly higher subscriber line losses, that require the higher voltages for
`full combined NT1/DTE operations.
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
`over a 4-wire Ethernet connection.”
`
`De Nicolo, 2:30-32. Unlike the system claimed in the ‘930 Patent, however, the
`
`system disclosed in De Nicolo assumes that all devices connected to the Ethernet
`
`cable (e.g., load 1 (98), load 2 (100), and load 3 (102) in Figure 3 of Matsuno) are
`
`designed to and can accept remote power via the Ethernet cable (line 128).
`
`Figure B (Figure 3, De Nicolo)
`
`
`
`
`
`De Nicolo assumes that the telephones (or other devices connected to the Ethernet
`
`wire link) are captive – that is, they are all of a known design and capable of
`
`receiving remote power. It assumes that no devices will be connected that are
`
`unable to receive power.
`
`24. As a result, De Nicolo does not disclose a system that detects whether
`
`the device connected to the cable can accept power and thus, De Nicolo does not
`
`disclose a system that differentiates between devices that can accept remote power
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`and devices that cannot. Instead, De Nicolo teaches sending only a current over
`
`the line 128 which is at a level sufficient to operate the loads 98, 100, and 102
`
`connected to the network cable 128. De Nicolo teaches continuously sending
`
`power over the line 128 independent of whether (a) a device is connected to line
`
`128, and (b) the device can accept remote power. That is, De Nicolo teaches
`
`sending power to all devices, without considering whether the device is designed to
`
`or capable of receiving remote power.
`
`25. De Nicolo actually teaches away from detecting (using a “low level
`
`current” or other detection system) whether an access device can accept remote
`
`power by teaching that it is safe to attach any device (as long as the data channels
`
`are not shorted), including devices that are not capable of accepting remote power
`
`over the Ethernet wires:
`
`“In the system according to Figure 3, as long as the separate data
`channels are not shorted (which would not normally occur), any
`interface can be used on the load side of the network – whether it
`makes use of the power available there or not.”
`
`De Nicolo, 4:1-5.
`
`
`
`26. Because De Nicolo does not involve detecting whether a device
`
`connected to the Ethernet cable can accept remote power, De Nicolo does not
`
`teach, but teaches away, to one of ordinary skill in the art, from delivering the
`
`claimed “low level current” to an access device, and using that “low level current”
`
`to detect whether the access device can or cannot receive remote power.
`
`D. General Findings.
`
`27. Based on my analysis of:
`
`
`
`
`
`(a) the Avaya and Dell Petitions;
`
`(b) Dr. Zimmerman’s declarations and testimony;
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
`(c) the documents cited in the Petitions;
`
`(d) the Decision and the Dell Decision; and
`
`(e) the other documents referenced in my declaration,
`
`I am of the opinion that the claims of the ‘930 Patent challenged in the Petitions
`
`(claim 6 and claim 9) are valid based on the grounds at issue in this Inter Partes
`
`Review. Specifically, for the reasons and based on the analysis that I set forth
`
`below, I am of the opinion that:
`
`• claims 6 and 9 are not anticipated by Matsuno under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
`
`(Ground 1); and
`
`• claim 6 and claim 9 are not obvious over De Nicolo in view of Matsuno
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 (Ground 2).
`
`The information below presents the basis for my opinions that the challenged
`
`claims of the ‘930 Patent are valid.
`
`
`
`28. My opinions, and the basis for my opinions, are structured as follows.
`
`First, I address the constructions of three claim elements of the ‘930 Patent.
`
`Second, I address Ground 1 – that the challenged claims are not anticipated by
`
`Matsuno. Third, I address Ground 2 – that the challenged claims are not obvious
`
`based on the proposed combination of De Nicolo and Matsuno. Finally, I address
`
`the amendments to the claims proposed by Network-1 and demonstrate how they
`
`further distinguish the invention of the ‘930 Patent from the asserted references
`
`and the known art.
`
`
`
`IV. Claim Constructions.
`
` 29.
`
`In construing the claims, it is my understanding that:
`
` in this proceeding, the claims are interpreted using the broadest
`reasonable construction; and
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
` there is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
`customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`In conducting my analysis of the claim elements below, I apply this understanding.
`
`30.
`
`It is also my understanding that, for purposes of evaluating whether
`
`the Petitions in this Inter Partes Review satisfied an initial threshold, in its
`
`Decision and Dell Decision, the Board applied certain claim constructions in its
`
`analysis. Decision at 7 (“For purposes of this decision, we construe certain claim
`
`limitations as follows.”) The preliminary constructions identified by the Board
`
`are:
`
`“low level current”
`
`“data node adapted for
`data switching”
`
`“data signaling pair”
`
`“main power source” /
`“secondary power
`source”
`
`“sensing a voltage
`level on the data
`signaling pair”
`
`
`“a current (e.g., approximately 20 mA) that is
`sufficiently low that, by itself, it will not operate the
`access device” (Decision 7-10)
`
`“a data switch or hub configured to communicate data
`using temporary rather than permanent connections
`with other devices or to route data between devices”
`(Decision 10 – 12)
`
`“a pair of wires used to transmit data” (Decision 12 –
`13)
`
`“we do not interpret claim 6 as requiring the ‘main
`power source’ and ‘secondary power source’ to be
`physically separate devices” (Decision 13 – 14)
`
`“sensing a voltage at a point on the pair of wires used
`to transmit data” (Dell Decision 12)
`
`
`
`31.
`
`I address the construction of the following three claim elements
`
`because these three elements are relevant to my analysis:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“sensing a voltage level on the data signaling pair;”
`
`“low level current;” and
`
`13
`
`

`
`C.
`
`“data network.”
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`A.
`
`“sensing a voltage level on the data signaling pair.”
`
`32. The third step of claim 6 requires “sensing a voltage level on the data
`
`
`
`
`
`signaling pair.” Claim 9 also includes a related limitation: “… voltage level
`
`drops on the data signaling pair”.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`It is my understanding that neither Petitioners nor their expert, Dr.
`
`Zimmerman, provided a construction for this claim element – “on the data
`
`signaling pair” in their Petitions or in his declarations. Avaya Petition 8-10; Avaya
`
`Zimmerman Decl. ¶24. I am not able to infer what construction Petitioners and Dr.
`
`Zimmerman applied in their Petitions and declarations because Petitioners and Dr.
`
`Zimmerman did not address this claim limitation.
`
`
`
`Petitions:
`
`34.
`
`In addressing the third step of claim 6 (that includes the element “on
`
`the data signaling pair”), Petitioners stated: “Regarding the ‘sensing’ step,
`
`Matsuno detects a resulting voltage (loop detection part 4).” Avaya Petition at 21.
`
`Petitioners did not address the claim language “on the data signaling pair.”
`
`Petitioners did not explain in their Petitions what is required to satisfy this claim
`
`limitation and why they believe that Matsuno meets this requirement. As a result, I
`
`am not able to infer what construction of “on the data signaling pair” Petitioners
`
`were applying in their Petitions.
`
`
`
`
`
`Zimmerman Declaration:
`
`35.
`
`In addressing the third step of Claim 6 in his declaration (that includes
`
`the element “on the data signaling pair”), Dr. Zimmerman provided:
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2013-00071
`Declaration of Dr. James Knox
`
`
`
`Matsuno further describes how, in response to providing a low level
`current, such as -V2, it detects a resulting voltage or current and, based
`on that detected voltage or current, it then controls whether to provide a
`high voltage or a low voltage. Thus, Matsuno teaches the same general
`approach to controlling power as claim 6 in the ’930 Patent.
`
`
`
`Zimmerman Decl. at ¶40. While Dr. Zimmerman states that “it [without
`
`identifying what “it” refers to, e.g., what circuitry is detecting what] detects a
`
`resulting voltage,” Dr. Zimmerman did not reference the actual claim limitation
`
`“on the data signaling pair.” Dr. Zimmerman did not explain what is required to
`
`satisfy this claim limitation and why he believes that Matsuno meets this
`
`requirement. Again, I am unable to infer what construction of this claim element
`
`“on the data signaling pair” Dr. Zimmerman was applying in his declaration.
`
`36.
`
`It is my opinion that the phrase “sensing a voltage level on the data
`
`signaling pair” should have its ordinary and customary meaning. I understand that
`
`Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Zimmerman, agrees with my opinion. Zimmerman depo.
`
`55:11-16. The relevant claim language is “sensing a voltage l