UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`AVAYA INC., DELL INC., SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2013-00071
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`____________________
`
`Before the Honorable Joni Y. Chang, Justin T. Arbes, and Glenn J. Perry
`____________________
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. GEORGE A. ZIMMERMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_______________________________
`
`AVAYA INC., DELL INC., SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
`and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`CASE IPR2013-00071
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`____________________
`
`Before the Honorable Joni Y. Chang, Justin T. Arbes, and Glenn J. Perry
`____________________
`
`SECOND DECLARATION OF DR. GEORGE A. ZIMMERMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, George A. Zimmerman, do hereby declare as follows:
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`On December 3, 2012, I submitted an initial declaration (“First
`
`Declaration”) accompanying a Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,218,930 (“the Petition”). I understand that the First Declaration was assigned the
`
`exhibit number of AV-1011. I provided a summary of my qualifications and
`
`experience in that First Declaration, and therefore I will not repeat them here.
`
`2.
`
`On August 6, 2013, Dr. James Knox submitted a declaration (N1-
`
`2015) (“Knox Declaration”) responding to certain opinions expressed in my First
`
`Declaration, and also taking additional positions with respect to the ’930 Patent
`
`and the prior art that was relied upon in the Petition and discussed in my First
`
`Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`In rendering opinions in this second declaration, in addition to the
`
`materials I considered in connection with my First Declaration, I have considered
`
`the (i) Knox Declaration, (ii) Network-1’s Patent Owner Response, (iii) the Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Amend, and (iv) the other documents referenced herein.
`
`4.
`
`In my analysis, I have relied on certain claim constructions that were
`
`provided in the Avaya IPR Decision (IPR2013-00071, Paper 18) and in the Dell
`
`IPR Decision (IPR2013-0385, Paper 16) issued by the Board, both of which relate
`
`to the claims of the ’930 patent. I have formed no opinion as to the correctness of
`
`Page 2 of 43
`
`
`
`
`the claim constructions, but have instead relied upon the Board’s constructions in
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`my analysis, including the following constructions:
`
`“low level current”: a current (e.g., approximately 20 mA) that is
`
`sufficiently low that, by itself, it will not operate the access device.
`
`“data node adapted for data switching”: a data switch or hub configured
`
`to communicate data using temporary rather than permanent connections
`
`with other devices or to route data between devices.
`
`“sensing a voltage level on the data signaling pair”: sensing a voltage at a
`
`point on the pair of wires used to transmit data.
`
`II.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`“data network”
`
`5.
`
`I understand that Dr. Knox has taken the position that an ISDN
`
`network is not a “data network,” as that term is used in the claims. I do not agree
`
`with that position.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that the term “data network” has been interpreted by the
`
`Board in this IPR Proceeding as being “a data switch or hub configured to
`
`communicate data using temporary rather than permanent connections with other
`
`devices or to route data between devices.” Avaya IPR Decision (IPR2013-00071,
`
`Paper 18) at 10 – 12. In my opinion, an ISDN network would certainly satisfy this
`
`definition.
`
`Page 3 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`7.
`
`An ISDN is a versatile network that includes a packet data channel
`
`and provides access to packet-switched networks that transmit digital voice and
`
`data over media, including traditional telephone copper wires. The American
`
`National Standards Institute (ANSI) has adopted the ANSI T1.601 standard
`
`governing the interface between the NT1 and the network. According to the ANSI
`
`T1.601 Standard (AV-1026), under the definition of ISDN, it states, “[a] variety of
`
`implementation configurations is supported, including circuit-switched, packet-
`
`switched, and nonswitched connections and their concatenations.” See T1.601i3
`
`draft, (AV-1026), p.3, Sec 3.6.
`
`8.
`
`ISDNs further define channels for carrying not only data, but the
`
`specific “packet data” to which Dr. Knox attempts to narrow the definition of data
`
`networks. For example, the ANSI T1.601 Standard defines the ISDN B-channel as
`
`“[a] 64-kbit/s channel that carries customer information, such as voice calls, circuit
`
`switched data, or packet-switched data.” Id. at p.2, Sec 3.2. Similarly, it defines
`
`the D channel as the capability of carrying “packetized telemetry and data.” See id.
`
`at p.3, Sec 3.3.
`
`9.
`
`I understand that Dr. Knox has relied on and regards as authoritative
`
`the reference book by Nick Burd, entitled “The ISDN Subscriber Loop” (“Burd
`
`Reference Book”). I have reviewed portions of that reference, including Figs.
`
`Page 4 of 43
`
`
`
`
`1.2(a) and 1.2(b) reproduced below, and believe it clearly supports the position that
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`an ISDN network is a data network.
`
`
`
`10. With reference to the Figs. 1.2(a) and 1.2(b) above, before ISDN was
`
`introduced, access to telephone networks had to be separate from access to packet-
`
`switched data networks. However, after the introduction of ISDN, access to
`
`telephone networks, packet-switched data networks, telex networks and signaling
`
`Page 5 of 43
`
`
`
`
`networks were all integrated through an ISDN exchange. See Pages 10-11 from
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`Burd Reference Book (AV-1027). Thus, the Burd Reference Book clearly
`
`supports the position that ISDN networks are “data networks.” I understand that
`
`Dr. Knox was apparently unfamiliar with this figure despite the fact that he relied
`
`upon other portions of the Burd Reference Book in support of his declaration. See
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Knox (AV-1028) at 64:15 – 65:12.
`
`11.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 5,144,544 (“Jenneve”) (AV-1029),
`
`which describes a power feed system in the context of ISDN. Jenneve particularly
`
`describes the feed link 4, shown in FIG. 1, as being an ISDN link, and further
`
`describes the terminal 1 as being an ISDN terminal. Other than ISDN, Jenneve
`
`mentions no other network environment or networking protocol. It is my opinion
`
`that Jenneve is first and foremost an ISDN reference and that its teachings apply
`
`specifically to ISDN networks and ISDN equipment.
`
`12.
`
`Jenneve uses the phrase “telephone and/or information technology
`
`terminals.” This is consistent with the fact that ISDN is designed to connect both
`
`ISDN telephones and data terminals, as is disclosed in the Burd Reference Book.
`
`Since Jenneve discloses an ISDN link 4, and the terminal 1 is an ISDN device, it
`
`follows that the phrase “telephone and/or information technology terminals” is
`
`naturally intended to cover the range of possible ISDN device types.
`
`Page 6 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`13.
`
`In a prior litigation involving the ’930 patent, I understand that Dr.
`
`Knox has described Jenneve as disclosing “a method for remotely powering access
`
`equipment in a data network.” Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox: Rebuttal
`
`Report to Report of Dr. Mercer, April 19, 2010 (AV-1030), page 141. I agree with
`
`that statement – Jenneve does disclose a system for remotely powering access
`
`equipment in a data network, where an ISDN network is disclosed as a form of a
`
`data network.
`
`14.
`
`In a prior litigation involving the ’930 patent, I understand that Dr.
`
`Knox adopted the following definition for a “data network”:
`
`A data network is a network in which data is transmitted
`and received within the network. A network is “[a] group
`of devices that communicate back and forth using a set of
`rules or a set of protocols (called a protocol stack in data
`communications). The medium
`that
`the devices
`communicate through can be copper wire (UTP), fiber
`optic, coax, fiber optic, air/vacuum (radio), or light
`(infrared).” McGraw-Hill Illustrated Telecom Dictionary,
`4th Ed. (2001) at 408.
`
`Expert Report of Dr. James M. Knox, March 14, 2010 (AV-1031), page 14. In my
`
`opinion, an ISDN network falls within this definition, as well as the definition
`
`adopted by the Board.
`
`Page 7 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`15.
`
`I understand that Dr. Knox has taken the position that the current
`
`provided by the low voltage power supply V2 is sufficient to operate the access
`
`devices that Matsuno discloses. See Knox Declaration (N1-2015) at ¶ 21. For at
`
`least the reasons set forth below, I do not agree with that opinion.
`
`Subscriber loop length
`
`16.
`
`In forming my opinion that Matsuno does disclose a “low level
`
`current,” as recited in the ’930 patent, I applied the Board’s broadest reasonable
`
`construction. Avaya IPR Decision (IPR2013-00071, Paper 18) at 7 – 10. In
`
`contrast, in coming to the conclusion that Matsuno does not disclose a “low level
`
`current,” as recited in the ’930 patent, Dr. Knox applied a construction of that term
`
`that I would consider to be narrower than the broadest reasonable construction
`
`applied by the Board.
`
`17.
`
`In particular, Dr. Knox’s conclusions are based on a low level current
`
`which is (i) “low enough such that it is insufficient to operate the access device at
`
`all reasonable data signaling pair lengths contemplated by the disclosed system,”
`
`and (ii) “sufficiently low that it will not damage a device that is not capable of
`
`accepting remote power . . . .” Knox Declaration (N1-2015) at ¶¶ 63 – 64; see also
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Knox (AV-1028) at 17:19 – 19:19. In my opinion,
`
`Dr. Knox’s definition is narrower than what the broadest reasonable meaning of
`
`the term “low level current” would mean to one of ordinary skill in the art. In any
`
`Page 8 of 43
`
`
`
`
`event, I understand that the Board declined to adopt the second part (ii) of Dr.
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`Knox’s definition in its construction, and also did not adopt the entirety of the first
`
`part (i) of Dr. Knox’s definition which precluded operation of devices over all
`
`reasonable data signaling pair lengths. Dell Decision (IPR2013-0385, Paper 16) at
`
`8 – 10. With respect to the first part (i) of Dr. Knox’s definition and the further
`
`requirement in the second part (ii) relating to all reasonable data signaling pair
`
`lengths, I see no language in the claims or in the specification of the ’930 patent
`
`that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to impose such a dramatic
`
`restriction.
`
`18. Dr. Knox’s opinion regarding Matsuno’s ability to operate access
`
`devices using the low voltage power supply V2 appears to be based on several
`
`incorrect assumptions. In particular, Dr. Knox’s assumptions regarding reasonable
`
`subscriber loop lengths, lines resistances and device power requirements are all
`
`inaccurate.
`
`19. With respect to subscriber loop length, Dr. Knox calculates that the
`
`low voltage power V2 of Matsuno would be able to operate over 8,000 ISDN
`
`access devices at a distance of nearly 5,000 feet from the switching station. See
`
`Knox Declaration (N1-2015) at ¶ 114. This calculation, however, is based on an
`
`unreasonable line resistance of 247 ohms and an unrealistic available voltage of
`
`41.2 volts.
`
`Page 9 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`20. The ANSI T1.601 standard specifies 12 mandatory test loops which
`
`are representative of the subscriber loop lengths in North America. See Pages 123-
`
`124 from Burd Reference Book, (AV-1032). Those test loops require all
`
`compliant ISDN equipment to operate at a distance of 18,000 feet from the
`
`switching station. That is, the design loop distance for ISDN equipment is 18,000
`
`feet.
`
`21. Using the equation for the area of a circle, the 4,945 feet used by Dr.
`
`Knox would only cover about 7.5% of the actual subscriber area that is mandated
`
`by the ISDN standard. Thus, even if the rest of Dr. Knox’s assumptions were
`
`correct (which they are not as discussed below), only a very small percentage of
`
`the standard-mandated service area would receive a current that is sufficient to
`
`operate a device in that area.
`
`22. According to the ANSI ISDN standard, the design resistance for an
`
`ISDN subscriber loop is 1,300 ohms for 99% coverage, which is over 5 times the
`
`resistance that Dr. Knox uses in his calculations. See T1.601i3 draft, (AV-1026),
`
`p.4, Sec 5.1.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that Dr. Knox did not consider what the design loop
`
`length (or average loop lengths) in Japan would have been at the time Matsuno was
`
`filed, but that he believes they would have been shorter than in the United States
`
`and therefore his estimates would be conservative as compared to Japan. Even if
`
`Page 10 of 43
`
`
`
`
`the design subscriber loop lengths in Japan were shorter than the 18,000 feet that
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`applies in the United States, at least as of the late 1990s Japan predominately used
`
`26AWG wire, which would have a higher resistance than the 24AWG that Dr.
`
`Knox uses in his calculations, resulting in even less of the subscriber service area
`
`receiving a current that can be alleged to be an operating current even using Dr.
`
`Knox’s assumptions.
`
`Power Consumption
`
`24.
`
`In addition to the fact that Dr. Knox’s example would only cover a
`
`small percentage of the actual subscriber area mandated by the ISDN standard, the
`
`access device power requirement assumptions used by Dr. Knox are understated in
`
`other ways. Specifically, Dr. Knox’s calculations are based on a theoretical
`
`operating power of 1.1 watts and on one of the lowest power consuming DTEs that
`
`are currently available.
`
`25. The device used by Dr. Knox in his calculations is the Cisco Unified
`
`IP Phone 6945, which appears to have been introduced sometime in 2011, a full 15
`
`years after Matsuno was filed. See generally, AV-1033. Around the time of its
`
`introduction, this phone was marketed by Cisco as being “the lowest-power
`
`consumption IP phone to save energy and support your green initiatives.” See
`
`Cisco Unified IP Phone 6945 Data Sheet (2011), AV-1034. To get to the
`
`theoretical operating powering of 1.1 watts (with the NT1 consuming 500 mW of
`
`Page 11 of 43
`
`
`
`
`power), Dr. Knox appears to assume the operating power for the Cisco Unified IP
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`Phone 6945 to be 600 mW (for a total of 1.1 watts), despite the fact that the
`
`maximum power is 3.84 watts. See Knox Decl. (N1-2015) at ¶¶109 – 111. Thus,
`
`Dr. Knox assumes that the operating power for the access device is less than 17%
`
`of the maximum power. As will be discussed below, that is not a realistic
`
`assumption.
`
`26. Dr. Knox’s assumption
`
`that
`
`the combined NT1/DTE power
`
`requirement is 1.1 W is unrealistic and, in any event, based on a misreading of the
`
`Burd Reference Book. First, the Burd Reference Book is clear that, in emergency
`
`power conditions, it is the power consumption of only the NT1 that is allowed to
`
`rise to 1.1 W. See Burd Reference Book (AV-1035) at 126. In other words, Dr.
`
`Knox erroneously concludes that the Burd Reference Book is referring to both the
`
`NT1 and the DTE, and thus his estimate of 1.1 W is unrealistic.
`
`27. The power consumption requirements for Ethernet devices is defined
`
`in the 802.3af standard by class, as shown in the Table 1 below, which is
`
`reproduced from a Cisco white paper entitled, “Cisco Unified IP Phones: Conserve
`
`Energy with Intelligent Power Allocation” (2011) (AV-1036) (hereinafter “Cisco
`
`White Paper”)
`
`Page 12 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`
`
`28. While the classes are defined with respect to their maximum power
`
`requirements, rather than their actual operating power requirements, one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that higher class devices require
`
`more power to operate than lower class devices. Dr. Knox appears to agree with
`
`this statement since he concludes that a Class 1 device would be powered using the
`
`low voltage power supply of Matsuno at a distance of 4,945 feet from the
`
`switching station in Matsuno, but that a Class 2 device is not guaranteed to operate.
`
`See Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Knox (AV-1028) at 54:12-24.
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, the 600 mW of the 1.1 W provided to NT1/DTE,
`
`which Dr. Knox assumes is available to the DTE, would not operate a Class 2
`
`device, and may not even operate many Class 1 devices. For example, Cisco has
`
`published the amount of power its devices consume when idle, as shown in Table 2
`
`below, which is reproduced from the Cisco White Paper. See Cisco White Paper
`
`(AV-1036) at 3.
`
`Page 13 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`
`
`30. As can be seen from this table, even the lowest power consuming
`
`Class 2 device requires more than double the amount of power assumed by Dr.
`
`Knox just so that it can remain idle. See Cisco Unified IP Phone 7911G Data Sheet
`
`(AV-1037). Some Class 2 devices would require more than 3 times the amount
`
`assumed by Dr. Knox in order to remain idle, while Class 3 devices would require
`
`more than six times the amount of power used by Dr. Knox. Thus, even under Dr.
`
`Knox’s significantly understated assumptions for subscriber loop length and line
`
`resistance, none of Cisco’s Class 2 or Class 3 devices could be provided with even
`
`an idle current level using the low level voltage source in Matsuno.
`
`31. Of course, at the time that Matsuno was filed, average power
`
`consumption for ISDN access devices was likely much higher than it would be for
`
`later-introduced device, including the Cisco Unified IP Phone 6945. In general,
`
`power needs of networking equipment tends to decrease over time and as
`
`technology matures. Dr. Knox agrees that, for devices with comparable
`
`Page 14 of 43
`
`
`
`
`functionality, their power consumption requirements would tend to decrease over
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`time. See Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Knox (AV-1028) at 207:2-7.
`
`Voltage Applied v. Voltage Received
`
`32.
`
`In addition to Dr. Knox’s grossly underestimated assumptions for
`
`subscriber loop length and power requirements, the most glaring error in Dr.
`
`Knox’s calculations is his assumption regarding the voltage that would be received
`
`at the NT1/DTE once local power is lost. At the core of Dr. Knox’s calculations
`
`and assumptions regarding why he believes Matsuno’s low voltage power source (-
`
`48 volts) would provide a current sufficient to operate the device in Matsuno is the
`
`assumption that 41.2 volts are available at the input to the NT1. See Transcript of
`
`Deposition of Dr. Knox (AV-1028) at 33:17-22; see also Knox Declaration (N1-
`
`2015) at ¶ 104. However, Matsuno itself tells us otherwise. In particular, Matsuno
`
`discloses that there is on the order of 40 volts of potential lost across the digital
`
`subscriber line 12 when providing the high voltage power. See Matsuno (AV-
`
`1004), ¶¶[0020] and [0027]. Since that amount of voltage drop is a function of
`
`power supply efficiency (in the NT1) and the resistance seen on the line, a
`
`correspondingly high amount of potential would be similarly lost when only the
`
`low voltage power source (-48 volts) is applied. Thus, what Matsuno tells us is
`
`that only on the order of about 8 V of potential would be available to the
`
`NT1/DTE, which I believe would be well below any level of voltage that could
`
`Page 15 of 43
`
`
`
`
`operate such an NT1/DTE, and certainly well below the 41.2 volts that Dr. Knox’s
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`calculations rely on, and would provide insufficient power to operate the device.
`
`33. Matsuno’s disclosure of a 40V drop from the 120 V supply defines the
`
`product of the current necessary to operate the access device and the loop
`
`resistance. The product of the remaining voltage (80V) and the current is the
`
`current required to operate the device and, over Dr. Knox’s loop assumptions,
`
`would deliver approximately 13 Watts of power for operation. If the same current
`
`were provided from the 48V supply, the remaining voltage (8V) would require 10
`
`times the current to provide the same power. Since increasing the current on the
`
`same loop resistance increases the voltage drop and correspondingly decreasing the
`
`voltage remaining, this is not a feasible solution. Even if the loop resistance is the
`
`unreasonably low 247 ohms that Dr. Knox suggests, the power which he calculates
`
`can be delivered (1.1 Watts maximum) is far less than that specified in Matsuno by
`
`the voltage drop. It is my opinion that based on these disclosures in Matsuno
`
`alone, the 48 Volt supply could not provide current sufficient to operate the
`
`specific devices over the loop resistances implied by the voltage drop discussed in
`
`Matsuno itself, and instead, provides only a low current that meets the Board’s
`
`construction for “low level current.”
`
`34. Dr. Knox has further taken the position that paragraph [0026] of
`
`Matsuno discloses that the full 48 volts provided by the low voltage power source
`
`Page 16 of 43
`
`
`
`
`(-48 volts) is somehow actually available to the NT1/DTE inside the subscriber’s
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`home. See Knox Decl. (N1-2015) at ¶ 103. Not only would that be physically
`
`impossible, but it is a complete mischaracterization of what Matsuno actually says.
`
`The exact language at issue is the following sentence:
`
`“The voltage to ground or the line voltage of the digital
`subscriber line 12 that runs into the home of the
`subscriber is thus at approximately 48 V, allowing safety
`to be ensured.”
`
`Matsuno (AV-1004), ¶ [0026].
`
`35. While Dr. Knox characterizes the above sentence to mean that the
`
`applied line voltage of 48V is actually available and usable in the home of the
`
`subscriber, Matsuno is clearly describing the situation when the breakers 8 are
`
`open so only minimal current flows. When local power is lost and the breakers 8
`
`close, however, Matsuno teaches us that only about 8 V would be available at the
`
`NT1/DTE. See supra, ¶¶ 32-33.
`
`36. Dr. Knox has taken the position that Matsuno provides the high
`
`voltage power in order to provide power for the devices that require higher power
`
`or for devices that were further away. See Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Knox at
`
`214:16 – 215:4.
`
` However, Matsuno discloses that “[s]witching to the
`
`aforementioned station power supply occurs with shutdown of the commercial AC
`
`power supply, and power sufficient to allow minimal communication on the digital
`
`Page 17 of 43
`
`
`
`
`subscriber terminal 103 is thus supplied.” Matsuno ¶ [0004] (emphasis added).
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to mean that, if the high
`
`voltage power were capable of providing only “minimal communication,” then the
`
`low voltage power source (which is two and a half times smaller), would be
`
`insufficient to operate the access device, as it was intended to be operated.
`
`37.
`
`In addition to that clear statement regarding providing “minimal
`
`communication” by the high power source (-120 volts), Matsuno several times
`
`indicates that it switches to the high voltage power to “allow[] the desired power to
`
`be supplied.” Matsuno (AV-1004) ¶ [0035]; see also Matsuno (AV-1004) ¶¶
`
`[0019], [0020] and [0031]. Moreover, Matsuno is immensely concerned with
`
`safety. Matsuno ¶¶ [0001], [0005], [0006], [0018], [0020] [0026], [0035] and
`
`[0056]. In view of that concern, it is unreasonable to believe that Matsuno is
`
`inadvertently already providing an operating current using only the low voltage
`
`power supply (-48 volts), yet nonetheless decides to switch to a power source that
`
`increases the amount of voltage applied by two and half times (-120 volts).
`
`38. Matsuno discloses that it immediately switches to high voltage power
`
`upon stoppage of local power supply. “During local power supply, low voltage
`
`power is supplied to the digital subscriber line 12, and, when local power supply is
`
`stopped, high voltage power supply is provided. Safety is thus improved by
`
`decreasing the voltage of the digital subscriber line 12 that is run into the home of
`
`Page 18 of 43
`
`
`
`
`the subscriber, and conversion to high voltage power supply is carried out
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`immediately upon stoppage of local power supply, providing the advantage that
`
`the prescribed power can be supplied to the network terminal device 2 by the
`
`station power supply.” Matsuno (AV-1004), ¶[0048] (emphasis added).
`
`“sensing a voltage level”
`
`39.
`
`I understand that the Board has constructed the term “sensing a
`
`voltage level on the data signaling
`
`pair” in the ’930 patent to mean
`
`“sensing a voltage at a point on the
`
`pair of wires used to transmit data.”
`
`Dell Decision (IPR2013-0385, Paper
`
`16) at 12. Moreover, I understand that
`
`the Board has rejected Dr. Knox’s
`
`construction of the claims as requiring
`
`a common mode voltage, i.e., that the
`
`voltage on each of the two wires of the
`
`Sense
`Point on
`TIP wire
`
`Sense
`Point on
`RING wire
`
`data pair has to be the same. Id. Other than the apparent error in omitting “voltage
`
`level,” I agree with the Board’s construction for the “sensing step.” Neither the
`
`claims nor the specification mention the notion of common mode voltage, and one
`
`Page 19 of 43
`
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would not understand all of the various voltages
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`discussed in the specification as all having to be common mode voltages.
`
`40. At least in Fig. 5 and the accompanying description in paragraphs
`
`[0034] – [0036], Matsuno clearly discloses the recited sensing step of Claim 6.
`
`Specifically, the annotated and reproduced Fig. 5 on this page shows how Matsuno
`
`measures a voltage level at a point on the pair of wires used to transmit data. As
`
`shown, the voltage detection part 31b is connected to the top wire of the data
`
`signaling pair 12 and measures the voltage at the indicated point, while voltage
`
`detection part 31a is connected to the bottom wire of the data signaling pair 12 and
`
`correspondingly measures the voltage at that indicated point. While the claim does
`
`not indicate that the “voltage level” to what the voltage must be relative, in the
`
`case of the voltage detection part 31b, the figure indicates that the measured
`
`voltage would be relative to ground. In the case of the voltage detection part 31a,
`
`the measured voltage would be relative to either ground or a known DC voltage
`
`from the supply. As such, Matsuno clearly discloses measuring a voltage level at a
`
`point on the pair of wires used to transmit data.
`
`41. Dr. Knox agrees that there is nothing inventive about measuring a
`
`voltage in either common mode or differential mode and that “measuring a voltage
`
`with a volt meter is known, and measuring it, one skilled in the art at the time of
`
`the patent would understand how to do that on either a common-mode or a
`
`Page 20 of 43
`
`
`
`
`differential-mode circuit.” See Transcript of Deposition of Dr. Knox (AV-1028) at
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`92:12-16. I agree and believe that no special significance should be attached to the
`
`word “on” in the claims as a result. There is nothing inventive or significant about
`
`common mode voltage versus differential more voltage.
`
`42. Dr. Knox confirms my opinion that “[t]he way you measure the
`
`voltage is determined by the information you're trying to obtain.” See Transcript of
`
`Deposition of Dr. Knox (AV-1028) at 93:14-16. The ’930 patent is trying to
`
`determine if there is a particular voltage level that is caused in response to the “low
`
`level current.” Whether that same condition exists on one wire or two wires is
`
`irrelevant to the ’930 patent so long as it can measure a resulting voltage level,
`
`which is exactly how Matsuno functions.
`
`Common mode voltage over a single data signaling pair
`
`43.
`
`I understand that Dr. Knox has taken the position that the ’930 patent
`
`could supply a common mode voltage over a single data signaling pair. Knox
`
`Declaration, Appendix D at D1 – D3. To illustrate how that would be possible, Dr.
`
`Knox has prepared hypothetical circuit diagrams, which he suggests would be
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a way of providing a common mode
`
`voltage over a single data signaling pair. Based on the teachings of the ’930
`
`patent, I do not agree that Dr. Knox’s hypothetical circuit diagrams would have
`
`been obvious.
`
`Page 21 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`44. The diagram below is the diagram from page 6 of Appendix D from
`
`Dr. Knox’s declaration, as it was further annotated in red ink by Dr. Knox during
`
`his deposition. See AV-1038. I understand that during Dr. Knox’s deposition he
`
`was asked to indicate where the sensing circuitry, Detector 22, would be located,
`
`as well as to indicate the location of lines 18 and 20 from FIG. 1 of the ’930 patent.
`
`I understand that the annotations in red link to the diagram below indicate his
`
`responses to those questions.
`
`
`
`Page 22 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`45. While
`
`the modified diagram above (including
`
`its additional
`
`modification adding the sensing circuitry) certainly depict a possible circuit, the
`
`circuit that is depicted is not supported by the teachings of the ’930 patent.
`
`46.
`
`In connection with this hypothetical diagram, Dr. Knox has described
`
`two possibilities for the flow of current. First, in his declaration, Dr. Knox states
`
`that the added wire is the “return path.” See Knox Declaration (N1-2015) at ¶ 57 &
`
`Appendix D. However, the ’930 patent clearly teaches that the sensing of the
`
`voltage level occurs on the “return path.” ’930 patent (AV-1001), col. 2, line 57 to
`
`col. 3, lines 2. Yet, the sensing circuitry added by Dr. Knox during his deposition
`
`is on the data signaling pair, not on the single-wire “return path,” as he refers to it
`
`in his declaration.
`
`47.
`
`In contrast to what was indicated in his declaration, Dr. Knox testified
`
`during his deposition that the single-wire added to the modified schematic is
`
`actually not the return path, as it was called in his declaration, but rather can be
`
`regarded as the path over which the current is being provided. See Transcript of
`
`Deposition of Dr. Knox (Av-1028) at 217:18 – 218:17. In that case, however, the
`
`low level current of the ’930 patent would not be delivered to the access device
`
`over the data signaling pair, as recited in Claim 6, since the added wire is not a data
`
`signaling pair.
`
`Page 23 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review of US 6,218,930
`Second Declaration of Dr. George Zimmerman
`
`48. Thus, regardless of which direction current flows, the circuitry of Dr.
`
`Knox’s modified diagram is simply not supported by the ’930 patent, and I do not
`
`believe one of ordinary skill in the art would have the teachings of the ’930 patent
`
`support the concept of providing a common mode voltage over a single data
`
`signaling pair. If one of ordinary skill in the art interested in providing power over
`
`a single data signaling pair, it would have been far more obvious to use a
`
`differential voltage rather than a common mode voltage.
`
`49. Even if the claims were somehow limited to sensing a common mode
`
`voltage, the combination of De Nicolo and Matsuno would inherently and
`
`necessarily result in the vo
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
