As of 4/19/2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 6:08cv030-LED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS,
`INC., a Delaware corporation,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California
`corporation; CISCO-LINKSYS, L.L.C., a
`California Limited Liability Company;
`ADTRAN, INC., a Delaware corporation;
`ENTERASYS NETWORKS, INC., a
`Delaware corporation; EXTREME
`NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
`FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; NETGEAR, INC., a Delaware
`corporation; 3COM CORPORATION, a
`Delaware corporation;
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Expert Report of
`Dr. James M. Knox:
`Rebuttal Report to Report of Dr. Mercer
`
`
`_________________________
`
`
`Signed
`
`
`
`NOTICE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS INFORMATION
`CONSIDERED HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – FOR OUTSIDE
`COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 19, 2010
`
`Date
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`Table of Contents
`
` 1
`
`Expertise and background ....................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`
`
`2 Background to my opinions in this report
`............................................................... - 2 -
`
`2.1
`Assignment
` ..................................................................................................... - 2 -
`
`2.2
`Approach
` ......................................................................................................... - 2 -
`
`2.3 Materials
` ......................................................................................................... - 2 -
`
`2.4
`Understanding of the law
` ................................................................................ - 2 -
`
`2.5
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
` .................................................................... - 3 -
`
`3 Overview of validity findings
` ................................................................................. - 3 -
`
`3.1
`The ‘930 patent
` ............................................................................................... - 3 -
`
`3.2
`
`Claim construction .......................................................................................... - 3 -
`
`3.3
`General findings
` .............................................................................................. - 3 -
`
`Pervasive problems with Dr. Mercer’s analysis of prior art
` ................................... - 5 -
`
`4.1
`Failure to apply the claim language and the Court’s constructions
` ................ - 5 -
`
`4.2
`Dr. Mercer’s “to the extent” placeholders do not provide a basis for an opinion
` -
`5 -
`
` ...................................................................................... - 8 -
`Undisclosed opinions
`4.3
`Low level current contrasted with data signal
` ........................................................ - 9 -
`5.1
`“low level current”
` .......................................................................................... - 9 -
`5.2
`The data signals used for detection in other art is not a powering current
` ... - 11 -
`5.3
`Significant differences between the “low level current” approach and the prior
`art thinking
` ................................................................................................................ - 13 -
`5.3.1 The data signal paradigm
` .......................................................................... - 13 -
`5.3.2 Load-driving currents are not used to carry information
` .......................... - 17 -
`5.3.3 The need to avoid power
` ........................................................................... - 17 -
`Introduction to analysis of references
` ................................................................... - 18 -
`Primary references
` ................................................................................................ - 18 -
`Chang (5,991,885)
` ........................................................................................ - 18 -
`7.1
`
`7.1.1 Overview of Chang ................................................................................... - 18 -
`7.1.2 Significant aspects of Chang
` ..................................................................... - 21 -
`7.1.3 Comparison of Chang to claim elements
` .................................................. - 30 -
`7.2
`Treiber (4,254,305)
` ....................................................................................... - 37 -
`7.2.1 Overview of Treiber
` .................................................................................. - 37 -
`7.2.2 Significant aspects of Treiber
` ................................................................... - 38 -
`7.2.3 Comparison of Treiber to claim elements
` ................................................. - 43 -
`Cafiero (6,762,675)
` ....................................................................................... - 51 -
`7.3
`7.3.1 Overview of Cafiero
` ................................................................................. - 51 -
`7.3.2 Significant aspects of Cafiero
` ................................................................... - 52 -
`7.3.3 Comparison of Cafiero to claim elements
` ................................................ - 55 -
`7.4
`Rakshani (6,571,181)
` .................................................................................... - 60 -
`7.4.1 Overview of Rakshani
`............................................................................... - 60 -
`7.4.2 Significant aspects of Rakshani
` ................................................................ - 61 -
`7.4.3 Rakshani is not prior art
` ............................................................................ - 61 -
`7.4.4 Comparison of Rakshani to claim elements
` .............................................. - 62 -
`7.5 McCormack (6,535,983)
` ............................................................................... - 67 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`7.5.1 Overview of McCormack ......................................................................... - 67 -
`
`
`7.5.2 McCormack is not prior art ....................................................................... - 68 -
`7.5.3 Comparison of McCormack to claim elements
` ........................................ - 69 -
`8 Additional references
` ............................................................................................ - 71 -
`8.1
`De Nicolo (6,115,468)
` .................................................................................. - 71 -
`
`8.1.1 Overview of De Nicolo ............................................................................. - 71 -
`
`8.1.2 Significant aspects of De Nicolo............................................................... - 73 -
`8.1.3 Comparison of De Nicolo to claim elements
` ............................................ - 76 -
`8.2
`Fisher (5,994,998)
` ......................................................................................... - 82 -
`8.2.1 Overview of Fisher
` ................................................................................... - 82 -
`8.2.2 Significant aspects of Fisher
` ..................................................................... - 83 -
`8.2.3 Comparison of Fisher to claim elements
` .................................................. - 85 -
`8.3
`Shibata (5,396,555)
` ....................................................................................... - 90 -
`8.3.1 Overview of Shibata
` ................................................................................. - 90 -
`8.3.2 Significant aspects of Shibata
` ................................................................... - 91 -
`8.3.3 Comparison of Shibata to claim elements
` ................................................ - 92 -
`8.4
`Potega (6,459,175)
` ........................................................................................ - 97 -
`8.4.1 Overview of Potega
`................................................................................... - 97 -
`8.4.2 Significant aspects of Potega
` .................................................................... - 98 -
`8.4.3 Comparison of Potega to claim elements
`.................................................. - 99 -
`8.5
`Gallagher (5,396,636)
` ................................................................................. - 109 -
`8.5.1 Overview of Gallagher
` ............................................................................ - 109 -
`8.5.2 Significant aspects of Gallagher
` ............................................................. - 110 -
`8.5.3 Comparison of Gallagher to claim elements
` ........................................... - 115 -
`8.6
`Lupatin (4,090,228)
` .................................................................................... - 120 -
`8.6.1 Overview of Lupatin
` ............................................................................... - 120 -
`
`8.6.2 Significant aspects of Lupatin ................................................................. - 121 -
`8.6.3 Comparison of Lupatin to claim elements
` .............................................. - 122 -
`8.7
`Shambroom (5,368,041)
` ............................................................................. - 127 -
`8.7.1 Overview of Shambroom
` ........................................................................ - 127 -
`8.7.2 Significant aspects of Shambroom
`.......................................................... - 129 -
`8.7.3 Comparison of Shambroom to claim elements
` ....................................... - 132 -
` ....................................... - 134 -
`8.7.4 main power source / secondary power source
`8.8
`Comparison of Jenneve to Gallagher and Lupatin
` ...................................... - 139 -
`8.8.1 Overview of Jenneve
`............................................................................... - 139 -
`8.8.2 Response to Dr. Mercer
` .......................................................................... - 140 -
`9 Analysis of obvisouness issues
` ........................................................................... - 143 -
`9.1
`The scope and content of the prior art
` ........................................................ - 143 -
`9.1.1 Treiber ‘305, Shibata ‘555, and Lupatin ‘228 are not analogous art
` ...... - 144 -
`9.1.2 Shambroom ‘041 is not analogous art
` .................................................... - 146 -
`9.1.3 Potega ‘175 is not analogous art
` ............................................................. - 147 -
`9.1.4 Gallagher ‘636 is not analogous art
` ........................................................ - 147 -
`9.2
`Obviousness B: Chang ‘885
`....................................................................... - 148 -
`9.2.1 Fundamental problems
` ............................................................................ - 148 -
`9.2.2 Power and detection over the data signaling pair
` ................................... - 149 -
`
`9.2.3 Claim 9 .................................................................................................... - 151 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` .... - 153 -
`Obviousness C: Chang ‘885 in combination with Group 1 References
`9.3
`9.3.1 Fundamental problems
` ............................................................................ - 153 -
`9.3.2 Providing power over a data signaling pair
` ............................................ - 155 -
`9.3.3 Main power source and physically separate secondary power source
` .... - 158 -
`9.3.4 Low level current
` .................................................................................... - 161 -
`
`9.3.5 Claim 9 .................................................................................................... - 164 -
`9.4
`Obviousness D: Treiber ‘305 in combination with Group 2 references
` .... - 168 -
`9.4.1 Fundamental problems
` ............................................................................ - 168 -
`9.4.2 Main power source and physically separate secondary power source
` .... - 171 -
`9.4.3 Low level current
` .................................................................................... - 173 -
`
`9.4.4 Claim 9 .................................................................................................... - 176 -
`9.5
`Obviousness E: Cafiero ‘675 in combination with Group 3 references
` .... - 182 -
`9.5.1 Fundamental problems
` ............................................................................ - 182 -
`9.5.2 Main power source and physically separate secondary power source
` .... - 184 -
`9.5.3 Low level current
` .................................................................................... - 189 -
`9.6
`Obviousness F: Rakshani ‘181 and McCormack ‘983 in combination with
`Group 4 references.
` ................................................................................................. - 194 -
`
`Obviousness G: Shambroom ‘041 in combination with Group 5 references
` ..... -
`9.7
`195 -
`
` ............................................................................ - 195 -
`9.7.1 Fundamental problems
`9.7.2 Main power source and secondary power source
` ................................... - 196 -
`
`9.7.3 Claim 9 .................................................................................................... - 200 -
`Obviousness H: De Nicolo ‘468 or Fisher ‘998 in combination with Group 6
`9.8
`references
` ................................................................................................................ - 200 -
`9.8.1 Fundamental problems
` ............................................................................ - 201 -
`9.8.2 Additional problems with combining Fisher / De Nicolo with Treiber
` .. - 203 -
`9.8.1 Additional problems with combining Fisher / De Nicolo with and
` ................................................................................................. - 204 -
`Shambroom ‘041
`
`9.8.2 Additional problems with combining Fisher / De Nicolo with Potega ‘175
` ... -
`205 -
`
`........................................................................................ - 206 -
`Unexpected result
`9.9
`9.9.1
`low level current
` ..................................................................................... - 206 -
`9.9.2 claim 9
` ..................................................................................................... - 208 -
`
`9.10 Teaching away ............................................................................................ - 209 -
`9.11 Fourth Graham Factor: objective evidence of non-obviousness.
`................ - 211 -
`9.11.1
`Long felt but unmet need
` .................................................................... - 212 -
`Failure of others.
` ................................................................................. - 215 -
`9.11.2
`9.11.3
`
`Teaching away .................................................................................... - 216 -
`9.11.4 Unexpected results or properties of the invention
` .............................. - 216 -
`9.11.5
`Skepticism, misgivings, or disbelief in the industry that the invention
`would work
` ......................................................................................................... - 217 -
`9.11.6 Commercial success
` ............................................................................ - 219 -
`9.11.7
`Licenses showing industry respect.
`..................................................... - 222 -
`
`10 Support for the asserted claims in the provisional application ........................... - 222 -
`10.1
`Introduction
` ................................................................................................. - 222 -
`10.2
`
`“secondary power source” .......................................................................... - 223 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`a source of power connected to provide power between the data node and
`10.2.1
`the access device using the data signaling pair
` ................................................... - 223 -
`
`10.2.2
`secondary power source is physically separate from the main power source
`
`- 227 -
`
`sensing element [c] and continuing to sense element [9] ........................... - 229 -
`
`10.3
`10.3.1
`Introduction
` ......................................................................................... - 229 -
`10.3.2
`support for the sensing voltage level on a data signaling pair elements in
`
`claims 6 and 9. .................................................................................................... - 229 -
`10.4 Dr. Mercer’s arguments
` .............................................................................. - 231 -
`11 Additional enablement and written description issues
` ........................................ - 234 -
`11.1
`
`“secondary power source” .......................................................................... - 235 -
`11.2
`“controlling power supplied by said secondary power source to said access
`device in response to a preselected condition of said voltage level”
` ...................... - 236 -
`11.3
`“at least one data signaling pair”
` ................................................................ - 238 -
`11.4
`“sensing a resulting voltage level” and “continuing to sense voltage level” on
`the “data signaling pair.”
`......................................................................................... - 241 -
`12 Best mode
`............................................................................................................ - 242 -
`Inventorship
` ........................................................................................................ - 247 -
`13
`13.1 The Merlot project.
` ..................................................................................... - 248 -
`13.2 Who should be named as inventors
` ............................................................ - 248 -
`13.2.1 Katzenberg and Deptula are inventors
` ................................................ - 248 -
`13.2.2
`Evans is not an inventor
` ...................................................................... - 248 -
`
`13.2.3 Caceres is not an inventor ................................................................... - 250 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As of 4/19/2010
`
`
` v
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`List of Figures
`
` ...................................................................................... - 20 -
`Figure 1 – Figure 6a of Chang
`
`Figure 2 – Figure 6a of Chang ...................................................................................... - 23 -
`
`Figure 3 – Table 1 of Chang ......................................................................................... - 24 -
`Figure 4 – Figure 6a of Chang
` ...................................................................................... - 28 -
`Figure 5 – Figure 1 of Treiber
`....................................................................................... - 48 -
`Figure 6 – Figure 4 of Cafiero
` ...................................................................................... - 51 -
`Figure 7 – Figure 4 of Cafiero
` ...................................................................................... - 58 -
`Figure 8 – Figure 1 of Rakshani
` ................................................................................... - 60 -
`Figure 9 – Figure 2 of McCormack
` .............................................................................. - 68 -
`Figure 10 – Figure 3 of De Nicolo
` ................................................................................ - 72 -
`Figure 11 – Figure 1 of De Nicolo (Prior Art)
` .............................................................. - 78 -
`
`Figure 12 – Figure 1 of Fisher ...................................................................................... - 83 -
`
`Figure 13 – Figure 1 of Shibata .................................................................................... - 90 -
`Figure 14 – Figure 5a of Potega
` .................................................................................. - 102 -
`Figure 15 – Figure 4 of Gallagher
`............................................................................... - 110 -
` ........................................................................... - 128 -
`Figure 16 – Figure 1 of Shambroom
` ................................................................................. - 140 -
`Figure 17 – Figure 1 of Jenneve
`Figure 18 – Figure 4 of Gallagher
`............................................................................... - 142 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` vi
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`18
`
`Exhibits
`
`
`Resume
`Understanding of the law – obviousness and anticipation
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 (Chang)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,254,305 (Treiber)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,762,675 (Cafiero)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,571,181 (Rakshani)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,535,983 (McCormack)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 (De Nicolo)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,994,998 (Fisher)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,555 (Shibata)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,459,175 (Potega)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,636 (Gallagher)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,090,228 (Lupatin)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,368,041 (Shambroom)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,144,544 (Jenneve)
`Court’s Order construing the certain claim terms of the ‘930 patent dated
`February 16, 2010 (“Markman Order”).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (Katzenberg)
`Amendment and Response to Office Action, August 2, 2005, 10/855,212
`[N11222-12236]
`
`
`
` vii
`
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
` 1
`
` EXPERTISE AND BACKGROUND
`
`A copy of my resume is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
` I
`
` am qualified to render opinions on electronics, data communications, Ethernet
`networks, the ‘930 patent, and Defendants’ products. 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.
`
` 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. 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 – including the design and use
`of microprocessors and A/D converters.
`
` I
`
` taught Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Texas,
`including courses involving the design, use, and programming of 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.
`
`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 there 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 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.
`
` 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.
`
`All opinions and facts stated in this report are true and correct to the best of my
`knowledge. If called upon to testify, I could and would testify to the truth of the
`following.
`
`
` - 1 -
`
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
` 2
`
` BACKGROUND TO MY OPINIONS IN THIS REPORT
`
`2.1 Assignment
`
`I have been retained by the Plaintiff in this lawsuit, Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., as
`a technical consultant. I am being compensated for my time at my standard consulting
`rate of $230 per hour.
`
` previously (on March 15, 2010) submitted an infringement report (my “Initial Report”).
`In my Initial Report, I evaluated the Defendants’ accused products to determine whether
`they infringe certain claims of Network-1’s U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (the “‘930
`patent.”)
`
`The present report relates to issues of the validity of the ‘930 patent. Specifically, I have
`been asked to review the analysis of the ‘930 patent made by Defendants’ technical
`consultant Dr. Melvin Ray Mercer (“Dr. Mercer”) in his expert report dated March 15,
`2010 and to provide my analysis and opinions in response. I do so below.
`
`2.2 Approach
`
` I
`
`To carry out the assignment, I have read the ‘930 patent and its prosecution history,
`including the provisional application to which the ‘930 patent claims priority.
`
` have read the parties’ discovery responses and disclosures, depositions, and certain
`Court documents, including specifically the Court’s claim construction order.
`
`Primarily, I have read the expert report of Dr. Mercer and the references and documents
`(including patents and related documents) cited in his report and identified in his list of
`materials reviewed.
`
`In addition, I relied in many cases on my personal knowledge and experience with both
`research and development for electrical system and circuits and switching systems in
`particular.
`
`2.3 Materials
`
` I
`
`In preparing this report, I have considered the materials identified in the text of this report
`and the materials identified as exhibits to this report. I have worked with counsel to
`create a complete and accurate list, but it is possible I have inadvertently overlooked an
`item or two.
`
`2.4 Understanding of the law
`
`My understanding regarding the law as applicable to this report is based on my
`discussions with counsel. A guide to the law on anticipation and obviousness is attached
`as Exhibit 3 to my report. My understanding of other areas of the law is included in this
`
` - 2 -
`
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`report where appropriate. I have also included in the text of my report quotations from or
`references to certain cases or statutes that were provided to me by counsel to provide me
`with an understanding of the law.
`
`
`2.5 Person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`As set forth in my Initial Report, 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.
`
`
` 3
`
` OVERVIEW OF VALIDITY FINDINGS
`
`
`3.1 The ‘930 patent
`
`Generally speaking, the ‘930 patent teaches and claims a method in which an Ethernet
`data node (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. If this testing reveals that the access device is
`PoE-enabled, then the data node provides phantom 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
`or otherwise becomes inoperative.
`
`
`3.2 Claim construction
`
`It is my understanding that the Court construed certain claim terms of the asserted claims
`of the ‘930 patent in the Markman Order attached as Exhibit 16 to this report. Applied
`are the Court’s claim constructions of certain terms. The terms, as construed by the
`Court in its Markman Order, are summarized in my Initial Report with respect to each
`step of claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 patent (“the asserted claims”). These constructions are
`referenced below when appropriate with respect to the applicable step of each asserted
`claim.
`
` I
`
` reserve the right to modify or supplement my analysis in this report if the Court changes
`its constructions or construes additional claim terms.
`
`
`3.3 General findings
`
`Based on my analysis of the report of Dr. Mercer and the documents cited in the report, I
`am of the opinion that each asserted claim of the ‘930 patent (claim 6 and claim 9) is
`valid. Specifically, for the reason set forth below, I am of the opinion that:
`
` - 3 -
`
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`• no prior art reference anticipates claim 6 and claim 9 of the ‘930 patent;
`
` claim 6 and claim 9 are not obvious in light of any prior art or combination of
`prior art;
`
` •
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• claim 6 and claim 9 are enabled and satisfy the written description requirement;
`
`• the inventors (Boris Katzenberg and Joseph Deptula)1
` disclosed their best mode
`of practicing the invention claimed in claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 patent; and
`
`• the named inventors are the proper inventors of the claims in the ‘930 patent.
`
`
`The information below presents the basis for my opinions that the asserted claims of the
`‘930 patent are valid. My opinions, and the basis for my opinions, are structured in the
`following format:
`
`First, I address three persuasive problems with Dr. Mercer’s approach used in his report.
`
`Second, I address one particular claim element – the “low level current” – and outline the
`differences between the claimed “low level current” and a data signal found in certain
`prior art references.
`
`Third, I address each reference addressed by Dr. Mercer. With respect to each reference
`identified in Dr. Mercer’s report, provided is the detailed basis for my opinions which
`includes:
`
`
`(a) an overview of the reference;
`(b) an outline of significant aspects of the reference in relation to the asserted
`claims of the ‘930 patent; and
`(c) a comparison of the reference to the steps and elements of the asserted claims.
`
`
`
`Fourth, I address obviousness and the specific combinations of references proposed by
`Dr. Mercer.
`
`Fifth, I address issues relating to enablement and the written description requirements.
`
`Sixth, I address issues relating to the best mode requirement.
`
`
`Finally, I address the issue of whether the named inventors are the proper inventors of the
`‘930 patent.
`
`
`
`1
`Although the ‘930 patent has two inventors, I will often refer to the two inventors
`collectively as “Katzenberg,” the name of the first-named inventor.
` - 4 -
`
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox – Rebuttal Report
`
`

`

`As of 4/19/2010
`
`4 PERVASIVE PROBLEMS WITH DR. MERCER’S ANALYSIS OF PRIOR
`ART
`
`Dr. Mercer’s analysis of prior art references suffers three overarching problems that are
`repeated throughout. Each is explained below.
`
`4.1 Failure to apply the claim language and the Court’s constructions
`
`To properly analyze the claims and the prior art, it is necessary to apply the actual claim
`language and constructions of that language provided by the Court. In particular, the
`Court’s constructions identify significant elements or features of the claim terms.
`
`In his report, however, Dr. Mercer frequently addresses claim elements without making
`any reference to the Court’s constructions. In such instances, Dr. Mercer does not
`mention the claim language or make any attempt to apply it to what is disclosed in the
`prior art. In such instances, because the claim constructions are not mentioned or
`applied, Dr. Mercer fails to provide any analysis, rea