`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:08cv030-LED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXPERT REPORT OF DR. MELVIN RAY MERCER
`REGARDING INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,218,930
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Background............................................................................................................................ 1
`II. Summary Of Report.............................................................................................................. 1
`III. Qualifications and Professional Experience........................................................................ 1
`IV. Understanding Of The Law.................................................................................................. 3
`V. Materials Reviewed ............................................................................................................... 8
`VI. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art........................................................................................ 8
`VII. Claim Constructions Used In This Expert Report. ............................................................ 8
`VIII. Background Technology ................................................................................................. 9
`A. Background on Selectively Powering Remote Devices...................................................... 9
`B. Background on Multiple Power Sources .......................................................................... 11
`C. Background on Detection of Powerable Remote Devices................................................ 12
`IX. Summary of the ‘930 Patent ............................................................................................... 13
`A.
`‘930 Patent Background.................................................................................................... 13
`B.
`‘930 Patent Detailed Description...................................................................................... 14
`C.
`‘930 Patent Asserted Claims............................................................................................. 18
`1. Claim 6 ............................................................................................................................ 18
`2. Claim 9 ............................................................................................................................ 19
`D. Provisional Application No. 60/123,688 and ‘930 Patent File History ............................ 19
`X. Network-1’s Claimed Priority Date................................................................................... 20
`XI. Network-1’s Claimed Conception and Reduction to Practice Dates .............................. 21
`XII. The Uncited Prior Art Anticipates the Asserted Claims of the ‘930 Patent .................. 26
`A. U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 (Claims 6, 9)........................................................................... 27
`1. Description of ‘885 Patent............................................................................................... 27
`2. Opinions Regarding ‘885 Patent ..................................................................................... 31
`B. U.S. Patent No. 4,254,305 (Claim 6) ................................................................................ 33
`1. Description of ‘305 Patent............................................................................................... 33
`2. Opinions Regarding ‘305 Patent ..................................................................................... 36
`C. U.S. Patent No. 6,762,675 (Claims 6, 9)........................................................................... 36
`1. Description of ‘675 Patent............................................................................................... 36
`2. Opinions Regarding ‘675 Patent ..................................................................................... 40
`D. U.S. Patent No. 6,571,181 (Claim 6) ................................................................................ 40
`1. Description of ‘181 Patent............................................................................................... 40
`2. Opinions Regarding ‘181 Patent ..................................................................................... 43
`E. U.S. Patent No. 6,535,983 (Claims 6, 9)........................................................................... 44
`1. Description of ‘983 Patent............................................................................................... 44
`2. Opinions Regarding ‘983 Patent ..................................................................................... 46
`XIII. The Uncited Prior Art Renders Obvious the Asserted Claims of the ‘930 Patent .. 46
`A. Additional Prior Art References ....................................................................................... 47
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`1. Description of U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,468........................................................................... 47
`2. Description of U.S. Pat. No. 5,994,998........................................................................... 49
`3. Description of U.S. Pat. No. 5,396,555........................................................................... 53
`4. Description of U.S. Pat. No. 5,396,636........................................................................... 54
`5. Description of U.S. Pat. No. 4,090,228........................................................................... 56
`6. Description of U.S. Pat. No. 6,459,175........................................................................... 57
`7. Description of U.S. Pat. No. 5,368,041........................................................................... 60
`B. U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,885 (All Claims) ............................................................................... 64
`C. U.S. Pat. No. 5,991,885 in Combination with Various Prior Art References (All Claims)
`........................................................................................................................................... 68
`1. Providing Power Over a “Data Signaling Pair” (Claim 6).............................................. 68
`2. “Main Power Source” and “Secondary Power Source” (Claim 6).................................. 70
`3. “Low Level Current” (Claim 6) ...................................................................................... 74
`4. “Continuing to Sense Voltage Level and to Decrease Power…” (Claim 9) ................... 77
`D. U.S. Pat. No. 4,254,305 in Combination with Various Prior Art References (All Claims)
`........................................................................................................................................... 80
`1. “Main Power Source” and “Secondary Power Source” (Claim 6).................................. 81
`2. “Low Level Current” (Claim 6) ...................................................................................... 83
`3. “Continuing to Sense Voltage Level and to Decrease Power…” (Claim 9) ................... 85
`E. U.S. Pat No. 6,762,675 in Combination with Various Prior Art References (All Claims)
`........................................................................................................................................... 88
`1. “Main Power Source” and “Secondary Power Source” (Claim 6).................................. 89
`2. “Low Level Current” (Claim 6) ...................................................................................... 91
`F. U.S. Pat. No. 6,571,181 and/or U.S. Pat. No. 6,535,983 in Combination with Various
`Prior Art References (All Claims) .................................................................................... 93
`1. “Main Power Source” and “Secondary Power Source” (Claim 6).................................. 94
`2. “Low Level Current” (Claim 6) ...................................................................................... 96
`3. “Continuing to Sense Voltage Level and to Decrease Power…” (Claim 9) ................... 98
`G. U.S. Pat. No. 5,368,041 in Combination with Various Prior Art References (All Claims)
`......................................................................................................................................... 101
`1. “Main Power Source” and “Secondary Power Source” (Claim 6)................................ 102
`2. “Continuing to Sense Voltage Level and to Decrease Power…” (Claim 9) ................. 103
`H. U.S. Pat. No. 6,115,468 and/or U.S. Pat. No. 5,994,998 in Combination with Various
`Prior Art References (All Claims) .................................................................................. 107
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness............................................................. 108
`1. Commercial Success...................................................................................................... 109
`2. Teaching Away.............................................................................................................. 110
`3. Acceptance in the Industry (Accolades)........................................................................ 110
`4. Skeptical Statements...................................................................................................... 111
`5. Licenses Showing Industry Respect.............................................................................. 112
`6. Long Felt Need.............................................................................................................. 113
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`7. Independent Invention by Others Supports Obviousness.............................................. 114
`XIV. References Considered by the U.S. Patent Office..................................................... 116
`XV. The Uncited Prior Art References Are Closer than the Prior Art Before the USPTO120
`XVI. The ‘930 Patent Is Invalid for Failure to Comply with the Written Description and
`Enablement Requirements ............................................................................................... 122
`A. “Main Power Source” and “Secondary Power Source” (All Claims)............................. 122
`B. Controlling “Power Supplied by Said Secondary Power Source to Said Access Device in
`Response to a Preselected Condition of Said Voltage Level” (All Claims)................... 126
`C. “At Least One Data Signaling Pair Connected Between the Data Node and the Access
`Device and Arranged to Transmit Data Therebetween” and “Arranged to Supply Power
`from the Data Node Via Said Data Signaling Pair to the Access Device” (All Claims) 129
`D. “Sensing a Resulting Voltage Level” (All Claims) and “Continuing to Sense Voltage
`Level” (Claim 9) on the “Data Signaling Pair” .............................................................. 131
`The ‘930 Patent Is Invalid for Failure to Comply with the Best Mode
`XVII.
`Requirement....................................................................................................................... 133
`XVIII.
`The ‘930 Patent Is Invalid Due to Improper Inventorship .............................. 136
`A.
`Inventors Named on Provisional Application No. 60/123,688 and the ‘930 Patent....... 136
`B. Mr. Evans Made Contributions to the Alleged Invention of the ‘930 Patent ................. 139
`C. Mr. Caceres Made Contributions to the Alleged Invention of the ‘930 Patent .............. 142
`XIX. Trial Exhibits. .............................................................................................................. 144
`XX. Compensation .................................................................................................................... 145
`XXI. Previous Testimony ..................................................................................................... 145
`XXII.
`Supplementation of Opinions.............................................................................. 145
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an expert in this case by counsel for the Defendants. I
`
`expect to testify at trial regarding the matters set forth in this report, if asked about these matters
`
`by the Court or by the parties’ attorneys.
`
`II.
`
`Summary Of Report
`
`2.
`
`I understand that the plaintiff in this proceeding, Network-1 Security Solutions,
`
`Inc. (“Network-1”), has asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 to Katzenberg et al. (“the ‘930
`
`patent”), entitled “Apparatus and Method for Remotely Powering Access Equipment Over a
`
`10/100 Switched Ethernet Network,” against Defendants. I have been informed that Network-1
`
`is asserting claims 1, 2, 6, and 9 of the ‘930 patent against Defendants. I have also been
`
`informed that the Court has found claims 1 and 2 of the ‘930 patent indefinite, thus leaving
`
`claims 6 and 9 in this case.1
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked for my expert opinion concerning whether the remaining
`
`asserted claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 patent are valid. In my opinion, asserted claims 6 and 9 of
`
`the ‘930 patent are invalid, for the reasons stated below.
`
`III. Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`4.
`
`I have more than 40 years of industrial and academic experience in Electrical
`
`Engineering and Computer Engineering. I received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas
`
`Tech University in 1968. From 1968 until 1973, I was a Research/Development Engineer at
`
`General Telephone and Electronics Sylvania in Mountain View, California, and I received an
`
`M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University in 1971. From 1973 until 1977, I was a
`
`1 See Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:08CV30-LED, Memorandum
`Opinion and Order dated February 16, 2010, pp. 18-23 (holding that the “control means” term in independent claim
`1 (and also dependent claim 2) is indefinite).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Member of Technical Staff at Hewlett-Packard’s Santa Clara Division and later at Hewlett-
`
`Packard Laboratories in Palo Alto, California. In the Spring of 1977, I was a Lecturer at Kilgore
`
`Junior College in Kilgore, Texas. Among other courses I taught there was an introductory
`
`course in Electrical Networks. This material relates directly to the issues in this case. From
`
`1977 until 1980, I was a Lecturer in the Division of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer
`
`Science at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and I received a Ph.D. in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980. From 1980 until 1983, I was a
`
`Member of Technical Staff at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.
`
`5.
`
` In 1983, I was appointed Assistant Professor of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1987, I was promoted to Associate
`
`Professor, and in 1991 to full Professor. In 1995, I was appointed Professor of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering, Leader of the Computer Engineering Group, and Holder of the Computer
`
`Engineering Chair in Electrical Engineering at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas.
`
`In September 2005, I retired, and the Regents of the Texas A&M University System appointed
`
`me as Professor Emeritus of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Texas A&M University.
`
`During this entire period, I did research that involved timing issues in analog and digital circuits.
`
`This material relates directly to the issues in this case.
`
`6.
`
`Since 1984, I have been an independent consultant and provided private
`
`consultation and advice in Electrical and Computer Engineering to numerous companies and
`
`entities including IBM, Rockwell International, Motorola Semiconductor, AT&T, Teradyne,
`
`Lockheed, and Sematech. I also have been hired by a number of law firms to provide expert
`
`consultation and expert testimony in patent infringement litigation related to Electrical and
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Computer Engineering.2 Several of these cases involved concepts directly related to the issues in
`
`this case.
`
`7.
`
`I have been actively involved in numerous professional organizations including
`
`the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”), and I was recognized as an IEEE
`
`Fellow in 1994. I was the Program Chairman for the 1989 International Test Conference, which
`
`is an IEEE-sponsored annual conference with more than 1,000 attendees and over 100 submitted
`
`papers. I won the Best Paper Award at the 1982 International Test Conference for a paper
`
`relating to the estimation of testing difficulty of digital devices. I also won a Best Paper Award
`
`at the 1991 Design Automation Conference, an annual conference with more than 10,000
`
`attendees and 500 submitted papers related to the design of integrated circuit based systems. The
`
`topic in this paper related to integrated circuit design issues and their impact on timing aspects of
`
`electronic circuits. These issues relate directly to the technical aspects of this case. I also won a
`
`Best Paper Award at the 1999 VLSI Test Symposium, an annual conference related to the testing
`
`of integrated circuits. The data presented in that paper were collected in collaboration with
`
`Texas Instruments in Dallas, Texas. I am the inventor on two United States patents that relate to
`
`the design of integrated circuits and special characteristics of those designs that assure that
`
`almost all manufactured chips delivered to customers will function properly. I was selected as a
`
`National Science Foundation Presidential Investigator in 1986.
`
`8.
`
`A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`IV. Understanding Of The Law
`
`9.
`
`I am not an attorney. For the purposes of this report I have been informed about
`
`certain aspects of the law that are relevant to my analysis and opinions.
`
`2 A list of the cases in which I have provided testimony as an expert witness during the last four years is attached
`to this report as Exhibit 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`10.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be invalid under
`
`anticipation. I have been informed that anticipation requires that each element of the claim at
`
`issue is found, either expressly described or under the principles of inherency, in a single prior
`
`art reference or that the claimed invention was previously known or embodied in a single prior
`
`art device or practice.
`
`11.
`
`I have been informed that anticipation may be proved by showing that an
`
`invention was patented or described in a printed publication more than one year prior to the
`
`application date of the patent at issue.
`
`12.
`
`I have been informed that anticipation may further be proved by showing that an
`
`invention was described in a printed publication before the invention date claimed by the
`
`patentee.
`
`13.
`
`I have been informed that anticipation may further be proved by showing that a
`
`patent granted on an application for a patent was filed in the United States before the invention
`
`date claimed by the patentee.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that anticipation may be proved by showing that an
`
`invention was conceived by another prior to the date claimed by the patentee and either reduced
`
`to practice prior to the date the patentee reduced the invention to practice, or diligently reduced
`
`to practice at a time following reduction to practice by the patentee. In either instance, the
`
`invention cannot have been abandoned, suppressed, or concealed by the other. Conception refers
`
`to the formation in the mind of the inventor of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and
`
`operative invention, as it is thereafter to be applied in practice.
`
`15.
`
`I have been informed that conception can be shown in a number of different
`
`ways. For example, I have been informed that conception can be shown by documentation
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`describing the invention. I have also been informed that conception can be shown by the oral
`
`testimony of the inventors along with corroborating evidence -- which can include
`
`documentation describing the invention and/or the testimony of a non-inventor witness. I have
`
`further been informed that a “rule of reason” analysis is applied that weighs the corroborated
`
`evidence to determine the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.
`
`16.
`
`I have been informed that, under the principle of inherency, if the prior art
`
`necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes, a patent claim’s limitation, then that prior
`
`art meets that limitation.
`
`17.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim can be invalid under
`
`obviousness. I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences
`
`between it and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art. I have
`
`been informed that factors relevant to the determination of obviousness include the scope and
`
`content of the prior art; the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention;
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness.
`
`18.
`
`I have been informed that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. I
`
`have been further informed that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each
`
`performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would
`
`expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed that a patent claim composed of several elements is not
`
`proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`the prior art. Hindsight reasoning is not an appropriate basis for combining references to form an
`
`obviousness combination. I have been further informed that it can be important to identify a
`
`reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
`
`elements in the way the claimed new invention does.
`
`20.
`
`I have further been informed and understand that when performing an
`
`obviousness analysis, one must consider secondary considerations or, as I understand they are
`
`sometimes called, objective indicia of nonobviousness. These secondary considerations include
`
`the invention’s commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs, the failure of others,
`
`skepticism by experts, praise by others, teaching away by others, recognition of a problem, and
`
`copying of the invention by competitors. I have also been informed and understand that
`
`simultaneous invention by others can be evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed and understand that information not cumulative to
`
`information already of record in the application was material to the examination of an application
`
`if it established, by itself or in combination with other information, that a claim is unpatentable.
`
`I have also been informed and understand that information is cumulative if it is duplicative of
`
`prior art already of record in the application.
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed further and understand that a patent is presumed valid, and
`
`that a challenger to the validity of a patent must show the invalidity of the patent by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. Further, I have been informed that to prove something by “clear and
`
`convincing” evidence, the party with the burden of proof must convince the trier of fact that it is
`
`substantially more likely than not that the assertion is in fact true. For example, when a patent is
`
`invalid for reasons of obviousness or lack of novelty, the prior art relied upon must show each
`
`feature recited in the claim clearly and convincingly. I have also been informed and understand
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`that the examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office” or
`
`“USPTO”) is presumed to have reviewed and understood all the prior art that was made of record
`
`during prosecution of a patent and that the patent is presumed to be valid over all of that prior art.
`
`23.
`
`I have been informed further and understand that a patent specification must
`
`contain a written description of the invention. I also have been informed and understand that the
`
`patent specification must describe the manner and process of making and using the claimed
`
`invention, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
`
`invention. I further understand that a patent claim is invalid if the patent specification does not
`
`satisfy the written description and enablement requirements for the invention claimed in that
`
`claim.
`
`24.
`
`I have been informed further and understand that a patent claim must particularly
`
`point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that is regarded as the invention. I further
`
`understand that a patent claim is invalid if the claim does not satisfy the definiteness
`
`requirement.
`
`25.
`
`I have been informed further and understand that a patent specification must set
`
`forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. I further
`
`understand that a patent claim is invalid if the patent specification does not satisfy the best mode
`
`requirement for the invention claimed in that claim.
`
`26.
`
`With respect to the issue of inventorship, I have been informed and understand
`
`that the issuance of a patent creates a presumption that the named inventors are the true and only
`
`inventors. I have further been informed and understand that in order to rebut this presumption,
`
`the party challenging patent validity for omission of an inventor must present clear and
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`convincing corroborating evidence that the alleged omitted individual was a co-inventor. I have
`
`been informed and understand that a person is an inventor if that person contributed to the
`
`conception of the invention as claimed.
`
`V. Materials Reviewed
`
`27.
`
`Among the materials I have reviewed in forming my opinions are the ‘930
`
`patent, its prosecution file history, the prior art cited to the USPTO during the prosecution of the
`
`‘930 patent, the provisional application to which the ‘930 patent claims priority, related prior art,
`
`and any document cited in this expert report. A full list of materials that I have reviewed relating
`
`to this case is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`VI.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, based on the materials and information I have reviewed, and on
`
`my experience in the technical areas relevant to the ‘930 patent at about the time of the invention
`
`described and claimed in the ‘930 patent, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related technical
`
`area, or equivalent training and experience, and roughly 3-5 years of experience in designing and
`
`developing electronic systems, subsystems, and circuits. Further, a deficiency in one of these
`
`criteria could be compensated for by more experience or a higher degree.
`
`VII. Claim Constructions Used In This Expert Report.
`
`29.
`
`I have used the claim constructions adopted by the Court in its order dated
`
`February 16, 2010 and for which the parties have an agreed-upon claim construction. For those
`
`claim terms for which the Court did not advance a construction or for which the parties do not
`
`have an agreed-upon construction, I have given those terms the ordinary and plain meaning that a
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand each term to mean. A list of the Court’s
`
`claim constructions and the parties’ agreed-upon claim construction are attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`VIII. Background Technology
`
`A.
`
`30.
`
`Background on Selectively Powering Remote Devices
`
`I understand the invention of the ‘930 patent relates generally to the adaptive
`
`powering of remote devices.
`
`31.
`
`Systems for generally powering remote devices were well known long before the
`
`alleged invention of the ‘930 patent. These known systems for powering remote devices
`
`included systems involving computers, the Universal Serial Bus (USB), the IEEE 1394 High
`
`Speed Serial Bus (FireWire), and medical equipment. By the early 1990s, it was known to
`
`provide for computer systems that provided remote power to peripheral equipment.3 For
`
`example, it was known to provide for a data processing system that provided power and
`
`signaling to a peripheral device via a USB cable or FireWire.4 In addition, by the early 1990s, it
`
`was further known to provide for medical equipment that provided remote power to medical
`
`devices. For example, it was known to provide for an EEG monitor that provided power and
`
`data to a portable data acquisition module via a cable.5
`
`32.
`
`Systems for powering remote devices over a data network were also well known
`
`long before the invention of the ‘930 patent. These known systems for powering remote devices
`
`included telephone systems, computer network systems, and Ethernet network systems. For
`
`example, telephone service has provided both power and data over the same lines for decades.
`
`By the late 1970s, it was known to provide for telephone systems having a telephone central
`
`
`3 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,396,636 (“the ‘636 patent”), col. 1:10-16.
`4 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,884,086 (“the ‘086 patent”), Abstract (describing remote powering over a USB cable);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,675,813 (“the ‘813 patent”), Abstract (describing remote powering from a bus powered hub);
`IEEE 1394 (describing remote powering over FireWire).
`5 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,368,041 (“the ‘041 patent”), Abstract.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`office that adaptively provided remote power to telephone subscriber sets over signal
`
`transmission lines.6 In addition, as early as 1997, it was further known to provide for Ethernet
`
`network systems having a network hub that provided remote power to remote terminals or
`
`network devices supporting the Ethernet protocol.7
`
`33.
`
`These known remote power systems included data nodes that adaptively and
`
`remotely provided power to access devices. The data nodes could be, for example, central
`
`offices, computers, EEG monitors, radio transceivers, network hubs, network switches,
`
`gateways, routers, bridges, or repeaters.8 The access devices could be any remotely powered
`
`devices including, for example, telephone subscriber sets, peripheral equipment, data acquisition
`
`modules, remote telemeters, computers, Internet phones, or Ethernet-based telephones.9 The
`
`data nodes and access devices could also support network communications including, for
`
`example, the Ethernet protocol.10
`
`34.
`
`In these known adaptive and remote powering systems, the data nodes could
`
`remotely power access devices in one of two ways: (1) over lines different from, or (2) the same
`
`as, the lines used to transmit data. For example, the background section of the ‘885 patent
`
`recognized that prior art systems could provide electrical power and signals over a common wire
`
`or over dedicated wires.11 As another example, the invention of the ‘675 patent provided power
`
`through the same set of wires used for transmitting Ethernet data or through a separate set of
`
`
`6 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 4,254,305 (“the ‘305 patent), col. 2:19-24; U.S. Patent No. 4,961,222 (“the ‘222
`patent”), Abstract.
`7 See, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 (“the ‘885 patent”), Abstract, col. 13:36-42; U.S. Patent No. 5,994,998 (“the
`‘998 patent”)