`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 21
`Entered: May 24, 2013
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS
`AB; and AXIS COMMUNICATIONS INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`Sony Corporation of America, Axis Communications AB, and Axis
`
`Communications Inc. (“Petitioners”) filed a Petition (“Pet.”) to institute an
`
`inter partes review of claims 6, 8, and 9 of Patent 6,218,930 (the “’930
`
`patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. Patent Owner Network-1
`
`Security Solutions, Inc. filed a preliminary response (“Prelim. Resp.”) to the
`
`Petition. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. For the reasons that
`
`follow, the Board has determined not to institute an inter partes review.
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a):
`
`THRESHOLD – The Director may not authorize an inter partes
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the
`information presented in the petition filed under section 311
`and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with
`respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 6, 8, and 9 of the ’930 patent as
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e), and as obvious under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 8. We deny the Petition as discussed below.
`
`
`
`A. The ’930 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ’930 patent, entitled “Apparatus and Method for Remotely
`
`Powering Access Equipment Over a 10/100 Switched Ethernet Network,”
`
`issued on April 17, 2001 based on Application 09/520,350, filed March 7,
`
`2000, which claims priority to Provisional Application 60/123,688, filed
`
`Mar. 10, 1999.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`The ’930 patent relates to “the powering of 10/100 Ethernet
`
`compatible equipment,” specifically “automatically determining if remote
`
`equipment is capable of remote power feed and if it is determined that the
`
`remote equipment is able to accept power remotely then to provide power in
`
`a reliable non-intrusive way.” Col. 1, ll. 13-19. The patent describes how it
`
`was generally known in the prior art to power telecommunications
`
`equipment, such as telephones, remotely, but doing so had not “migrated to
`
`data communications equipment” due to various problems, such as the high
`
`power levels required by data communications equipment. Col. 1, ll. 22-32.
`
`The patent describes a need in the art to power data communications
`
`equipment remotely and to “reliably determin[e] if a remote piece of
`
`equipment is capable of accepting remote power.” Col. 1, ll. 42-44.
`
`Figure 3 of the patent is reproduced below:
`
`Figure 3 depicts a remote telephone 62 capable of receiving and transmitting
`
`both voice and data. Col. 3, ll. 60-66. Telephone 62 is connected to access
`
`node 64 at the customer’s premises, and access node 64 is connected to one
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`of the ports of Ethernet switch 68 via wiring 66 comprising “a Category 5
`
`Ethernet 100BaseX cable of 4 sets of unshielded twisted pairs.” Id.
`
`Ethernet switch 68 comprises an automatic remote power detector 22
`
`(shown in Fig. 1) and remote power supply 34 (shown in Fig. 2). Col. 4, ll.
`
`1-4.
`
`The preferred embodiment described in the ’930 patent operates as
`
`follows. A remote access device, such as the telephone shown in Figure 3, is
`
`normally powered by “an ac transformer adapter plugged in to the local 110
`
`volt supply,” but may or may not be capable of being powered remotely.
`
`Col. 2, ll. 40-44. The system detects whether the access device is capable of
`
`being powered remotely by “delivering a low level current (approx. 20 ma)”
`
`over existing twisted pairs of an Ethernet cable used for data signaling and
`
`“measuring a voltage drop in the return path.” Col. 2, l. 66-col. 3, l. 2; col.
`
`3, ll. 44-48. If there is no voltage drop or a fixed voltage level is detected,
`
`the device is not capable of accepting remote power. Col. 3, ll. 2-11. If a
`
`varying or “sawtooth” voltage level occurs (caused by the access device
`
`repeatedly beginning to start up but being “unable to sustain the start up”
`
`due to the low current level), the device is capable of accepting remote
`
`power. Col. 3, ll. 12-22. The system then increases the power being
`
`supplied remotely to the access device. Id. Once the access device is
`
`operating under remote power, the system looks for removal of the access
`
`device and decreases the power being supplied when the device is no longer
`
`connected. Col. 3, ll. 49-58.
`
`
`
`B. The Challenged Claims
`
`Claims 6, 8, and 9 of the ’930 patent recite:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`6. Method for remotely powering access equipment in a
`data network, comprising,
`
`providing a data node adapted for data switching, an
`access device adapted for data transmission, at least one data
`signaling pair connected between the data node and the access
`device and arranged to transmit data therebetween, a main
`power source connected to supply power to the data node, and a
`secondary power source arranged to supply power from the data
`node via said data signaling pair to the access device,
`
`delivering a low level current from said main power
`source to the access device over said data signaling pair,
`
`sensing a voltage level on the data signaling pair in
`response to the low level current, and
`
`controlling power supplied by said secondary power
`source to said access device in response to a preselected
`condition of said voltage level.
`
`8. Method according to claim 6, including the step of
`polling the access device to identify it and confirm that it is
`capable of accepting remote power.
`
`9. Method according to claim 6, including the step of
`continuing to sense voltage level and to decrease power from
`the secondary power source if voltage level drops on the data
`signaling pair, indicating removal of the access device.
`
`
`
`C. The Prior Art
`
`Petitioners rely on the following prior art:
`
`1. Patent 5,991,885, filed June 11, 1997, issued Nov. 23,
`1999 (“Chang”) (Ex. 1003);
`
`2. Patent 5,345,592, issued Sept. 6, 1994 (“Woodmas”)
`(Ex. 1005);
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`3. Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication
`No. 6-189535, published July 8, 1994 (“Satou”) (Ex. 1007);1
`and
`
`4. Patent 5,994,998, filed May 29, 1997, issued Nov. 30,
`1999 (“Fisher”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`
`Petitioners challenge claims 6, 8, and 9 of the ’930 patent on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Claims 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e) as being
`
`anticipated by Chang;
`
`Claims 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Fisher in view of Chang;
`
`Claims 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Woodmas; and
`
`Claims 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Satou.
`
`
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`
`Consistent with the statute and legislative history of the America
`
`Invents Act (AIA), the Board will interpret claims using “the broadest
`
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`
`
`1 We refer to “Satou” as the English translation (Ex. 1007) of the original
`reference (Ex. 1006). Petitioners provided an affidavit attesting to the
`accuracy of the translation. See Ex. 1007; 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(b).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`There is a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its ordinary
`
`and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d
`
`1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, a “claim term will not receive its
`
`ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly
`
`set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or
`
`prosecution history.” Id. “Although an inventor is indeed free to define the
`
`specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with
`
`reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
`
`1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Also, we must be careful not to read a
`
`particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the claim if
`
`the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See In re Van Geuns,
`
`988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[L]imitations are not to be read into
`
`the claims from the specification.”).
`
`We note that the ’930 patent previously was involved in a number of
`
`patent infringement actions, including Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v.
`
`D-Link Corporation, et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:05-cv-00291-LED (the “D-
`
`Link litigation”), and Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc. v. Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc., et al., E.D. Tex. Case No. 6:08-cv-00030-LED (the “Cisco litigation”).
`
`In the Cisco litigation, the district court issued an order interpreting certain
`
`terms of claim 6. See Memorandum Opinion and Order, Ex. 2004. The
`
`parties reference the district court’s Order and Patent Owner’s earlier claim
`
`interpretation positions in their papers. See, e.g., Pet. 11-13; Prelim. Resp.
`
`30-31.
`
`For purposes of this decision, we construe certain claim limitations as
`
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`1. “Low Level Current” (Claim 6)
`
`Claim 6 recites “delivering a low level current from said main power
`
`source to the access device over said data signaling pair.” Patent Owner
`
`argues that “low level current” is a term of degree and means “a current at a
`
`level that is sufficiently low that it will not (a) operate the access device, or
`
`(b) damage an access device that is not designed to accept power through the
`
`data signaling pair.” Prelim. Resp. 30. Petitioners do not propose a
`
`definition for “low level current,” but rather cite Patent Owner’s proposed
`
`interpretations from the earlier litigations. See Pet. 11-12 (citing Exs. 1011,
`
`1012). In the D-Link litigation, Patent Owner proposed “a detection current
`
`too small to sustain operation of the access device.” Ex. 1011 at 4, 9. In the
`
`Cisco litigation, Patent Owner proposed the same interpretation it is
`
`proposing now. Ex. 1012 at 30, 41. The district court in the Cisco litigation
`
`interpreted the term to mean “a current sufficient to cause the access device
`
`to start up, but not sufficient to sustain the start up.” Ex. 2004 at 16.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that “low level current” in the context of
`
`claim 6 is a term of degree. Such terms require a standard for measuring the
`
`degree; otherwise the scope of what is claimed cannot be determined. See
`
`Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 908 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010) (“[‘Substantially flattened surface’] is clearly a comparative term.
`
`Comparison requires a reference point. Therefore, to flatten something, one
`
`must flatten it with respect to either itself or some other object.”); Young v.
`
`Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (finding that a figure of
`
`the asserted patent “provides a standard for measuring the meaning of the
`
`term ‘near’”); Exxon Res. & Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371,
`
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (terms of degree require determining “‘whether the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring that degree’”)
`
`(citation omitted). For example, a person may be “small” relative to the size
`
`of a skyscraper, but may not be “small” when compared to another
`
`individual of similar height.
`
`We look to the Specification of the ’930 patent for the proper standard
`
`for measuring the “low level current” in claim 6. The Specification
`
`describes methods for “automatically determining if remote equipment is
`
`capable of remote power feed and if it is determined that the remote
`
`equipment is able to accept power remotely then to provide power.” Ex.
`
`1001, col. 1, ll. 14-19. It is therefore an object of the invention to provide
`
`power to a remote device once it is determined that the device is capable of
`
`being powered remotely. The Specification explains how this is
`
`accomplished as follows:
`
`Automatic detection of remote equipment being
`connected to the network is accomplished by delivering a low
`level current (approx. 20 ma) to the network interface and
`measuring a voltage drop in the return path. There are three
`states which can be determined: no voltage drop, a fixed level
`voltage drop or a varying level voltage drop. . . .
`
`If a varying voltage level is detected, this identifies the
`presence of dc-dc switching supply in the remote equipment.
`The varying level is created by the remote power supply
`beginning to start up but the low current level is unable to
`sustain the start up. This cycle continues to be repeated
`creating a “sawtooth” voltage level in the return path. When
`this cycle is confirmed, switch S1 is closed which increases the
`power output to the remote equipment. When the power to the
`remote equipment reaches the proper level the remote power
`supply turns on and the remote equipment becomes active. . . .
`
`. . .
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`Once the remote equipment is operating and confirmed
`as a known remote power enabled device, the logic circuit
`shown in FIG. 1 begins to look for removal of the remote
`equipment or an overload fault condition. . . .
`
`Id., col. 2, l. 66-col. 3, l. 52 (emphasis added). The Specification gives an
`
`example of a low level current (approximately 20 mA) and explains how, if
`
`a remote access device is determined to be capable of receiving remote
`
`power, the power being supplied remotely to the device is increased and the
`
`device “becomes active.” In other words, the device does not operate based
`
`on just the low level current used for detection, but does operate when the
`
`power is increased by a certain amount. The Specification therefore
`
`indicates that the “low level current” is sufficiently low that, by itself, it will
`
`not operate the access device.
`
`We disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation to the extent
`
`it requires the “low level current” to be sufficiently low to not damage an
`
`access device not designed to accept remote power. See Prelim. Resp. 29-
`
`30. Patent Owner’s only support for this aspect of its interpretation is the
`
`description in the Specification of determining whether remote equipment is
`
`capable of accepting remote power in a “non-intrusive manner,” which
`
`according to Patent Owner means a manner that will not damage the
`
`equipment. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 54-56; see Prelim. Resp. 29-30. The
`
`Specification, however, does not use the word “damage” and does not
`
`clearly tie the low level current to any measurement standard based on
`
`damage. Thus, we do not include any standard based on damage in our
`
`interpretation of “low level current.”
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of
`
`the Specification, we interpret “low level current” to mean a current (e.g.,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`approximately 2 mA) that is sufficiently low that, by itself, it will not
`
`operate the access device.
`
`
`
`2. “Data Node Adapted for Data Switching” (Claim 6)
`
`Patent Owner argues that “data node” means either an “Ethernet
`
`switch or hub” or a “data switch or hub,” and argues that “data switching”
`
`means “the ability to switch data from one device connected to the data node
`
`to another device connected to the data node, which requires the ability to
`
`transfer data among the associated data ports in the node.” Prelim. Resp. 47-
`
`48. As support, Patent Owner cites the following technical dictionary
`
`definition of “switching”:
`
`A communications method that uses temporary rather than
`permanent connections to establish a link or to route
`information between two parties. In the dial-up telephone
`network, for example, a caller’s line goes to a switching center,
`where the actual connection is made to the called party. In
`computer networks, message switching and packet switching
`allow any two parties to exchange information. In both
`instances, messages are routed (switched) through intermediary
`stations that together serve to connect the sender and the
`receiver.
`
`Ex. 2010, Microsoft Computer Dictionary at 505 (5th ed. 2002). Petitioners
`
`do not propose a definition for “data node adapted for data switching,” but
`
`instead cite Patent Owner’s proposed interpretations from the earlier
`
`litigations. See Pet. 11-12 (citing Exs. 1011, 1012). In both the D-Link and
`
`Cisco litigations, Patent Owner proposed that “data node” means an
`
`“Ethernet switch or hub.” Ex. 1011 at 1, 9; Ex. 1012 at 7, 41. The district
`
`court in the Cisco litigation interpreted “data node” to mean a “data switch
`
`or hub.” Ex. 2004 at 6.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`The dictionary definition cited by Patent Owner is indicative of the
`
`ordinary meaning of “data switching” to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and is consistent with the Specification, which describes a well-known
`
`“switched Ethernet network” comprising an “Ethernet 8 port switch card.”
`
`See Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 44-46; col. 3, ll. 28-31. We also interpret the phrase
`
`“adapted for” as “configured for” given how the phrase is used in the claims
`
`and in the Specification, which describes the actual transmission of data over
`
`a switched network. Id., col. 2, ll. 48-51; see Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v.
`
`Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“In common
`
`parlance, the phrase ‘adapted to’ is frequently used to mean ‘made to,’
`
`‘designed to,’ or ‘configured to,’ but it can also be used in a broader sense to
`
`mean ‘capable of’ or ‘suitable for.’”).
`
`Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of
`
`the Specification, we interpret “data node adapted for data switching” to
`
`mean a data switch or hub configured to communicate data using temporary
`
`rather than permanent connections with other devices or to route data
`
`between devices.
`
`
`
`3. “Data Signaling Pair” (Claim 6)
`
`Petitioners and Patent Owner do not specifically define “data
`
`signaling pair.” Patent Owner, however, argued in the D-Link litigation that
`
`the term means “a pair of wires used to transmit data between the data node
`
`and the access device,” and in the Cisco litigation that the term means “a
`
`pair of wires used to transmit data.” Ex. 1011 at 1, 8; Ex. 1012 at 17, 41.
`
`Petitioners express no disagreement with these interpretations and only
`
`argue that Patent Owner “should not be allowed to assert a narrower
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`construction.” Pet. 12-13. We conclude that the latter interpretation is the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the surrounding language
`
`of claim 6, which requires “at least one data signaling pair connected
`
`between the data node and the access device and arranged to transmit data
`
`therebetween,” and the Specification. See Ex. 1001, Abstract (“delivering
`
`the phantom power to the remote equipment over the same wire pairs that
`
`deliver the data signals”); col. 1, ll. 51-59 (“delivering the power to remote
`
`equipment over the same wire pairs that deliver the data signals”); col. 3, ll.
`
`60-66 (“Category 5 Ethernet 100BaseX cable of 4 sets of unshielded twisted
`
`pairs”). Thus, giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light
`
`of the Specification, we interpret “data signaling pair” to mean a pair of
`
`wires used to transmit data.
`
`
`
`4. “Main Power Source” and “Secondary Power Source” (Claim 6)
`
`Petitioners argue that Patent Owner took the position in litigations
`
`where the ’930 patent has been asserted that the “main power source” and
`
`“secondary power source” in claim 6 need not be physically separate
`
`devices, and therefore the terms should be interpreted the same in this
`
`proceeding when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. Pet. 11-13
`
`(citing Exs. 1011-13). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioners’
`
`proposed interpretation in its preliminary response. The district court in the
`
`Cisco litigation interpreted the terms such that the main power source and
`
`secondary power source must be “physically separate.” Ex. 2004 at 8-14.
`
`We conclude that Petitioners’ proposed interpretation is broad but
`
`reasonable in light of the surrounding language of the claim and the
`
`Specification. Claim 6 does not specify a relationship between the “main
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`power source” and “secondary power source” (e.g., one providing power to
`
`the other), but instead only describes how they are arranged. The “main
`
`power source” is “connected to supply power to the data node” and the
`
`“secondary power source” is “arranged to supply power from the data node
`
`via said data signaling pair to the access device.” Figure 1 of the
`
`Specification also depicts a single “power source 16.” See Ex. 1001, col. 2,
`
`ll. 52-57; Fig. 1. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
`
`claim in light of the Specification, we do not interpret claim 6 as requiring
`
`the “main power source” and “secondary power source” to be physically
`
`separate devices.
`
`
`
`5. Other Terms
`
`All other terms in claims 6, 8, and 9 are given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning and need not be further construed at this time.
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`We turn now to Petitioners’ asserted grounds of unpatentability and
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments in its preliminary response to determine whether
`
`Petitioners have met the threshold standard of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`
`A. Whether the Petition Should be Denied for Failure to Propose a
`Specific Interpretation for “Low Level Current” and Other Terms
`
`As an initial matter, Patent Owner argues in its preliminary response
`
`that the Petition should be denied because it does not comply with 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.104(b), which requires a petition to state “[h]ow the challenged claim is
`
`to be construed” and “[h]ow the construed claim is unpatentable.” Prelim.
`
`Resp. 1-2, 11-19. According to Patent Owner, Petitioners were required to
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`provide an interpretation for “low level current” and other terms. Id. We
`
`need not reach this issue, however, as we conclude that Petitioners have not
`
`established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one
`
`challenged claim on the merits for the reasons explained below.
`
`
`
`B. Grounds Based on Chang (Ex. 1003)
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 6, 8, and 9 are anticipated by Chang
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e). Pet. 18-26. We conclude that Petitioners
`
`have not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their assertion
`
`that claims 6, 8, and 9 are anticipated for the reasons explained below.
`
`Chang discloses a system that “detects the presence of a remote
`
`terminal connected to a network and determines the functional protocol of
`
`the remote terminal.” Chang, Abstract. If, for example, the remote terminal
`
`is an infrared adapter, a network hub provides power to the adapter and
`
`thereafter monitors for the presence of the adapter. Id. If the adapter is
`
`removed, the network hub stops providing power. Id. Figure 2 of Chang,
`
`reproduced below, depicts a network hub 202 in communication with
`
`infrared adapter 206 and computers 212 via twisted-pair cables 205:
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`Network hub 202 includes a device presence detector 414, which
`
`communicates with remote terminal 602-1 (an infrared adapter 206), as
`
`shown in Figure 6a of Chang reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`
`
`Chang detects the presence of an infrared adapter by sending a presence
`
`request signal 619 over the wire connected to pin 7 and receiving a feedback
`
`signal over the wire connected to pin 8. Id., col. 11, 1-32. When the
`
`feedback signal indicates that the infrared adapter is connected, electrical
`
`power supply 640 starts supplying power to the adapter over the wires
`
`connected to pins 4 and 5. Id., col. 11, ll. 37-67. Petitioners identify
`
`presence request signal 619 in Chang as the claimed “low level current” and
`
`twisted-pair cable 205 as the claimed “data signaling pair.” Pet. 17, 23.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Chang does not disclose “delivering a low
`
`level current from said main power source to the access device over said
`
`data signaling pair” as recited in claim 6. Prelim. Resp. 22-26. Patent
`
`Owner contends that the wires connected to pins 7 and 8 in Chang, which
`
`are used to provide presence request signal 619 and return a feedback signal,
`
`are not used to transmit data and therefore cannot be a “data signaling pair.”
`
`Id. We agree. As explained above, we interpret “data signaling pair” to
`
`mean a pair of wires used to transmit data. Table 1 of Chang, reproduced
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`below, indicates how the eight wires (i.e., four pairs) of the twisted-pair
`
`cable are used:
`
`
`
`Chang, col. 9, ll. 45-55. Data is transmitted and received over the wires
`
`connected to pins 1, 2, 3, and 6 when using a 10 Base-T Interface or 100
`
`Base-TX Interface, and the wires connected to pins 3, 4, 5, and 6 when using
`
`a Token Ring Interface. Id.; col. 9, ll. 18-25 (lines 1, 2, 3, and 6 “carry
`
`signals,” and lines 4, 5, 7, and 8 are “unused”). As shown in Figure 6a
`
`above, presence request signal 619 (the claimed “low level current”
`
`according to Petitioners) is sent over line 7 and a corresponding feedback
`
`signal is received over line 8. These lines are not used to transmit data.
`
`Indeed, Chang discloses that “to perform detection that is continuous and
`
`does not interfere with the normal transmit and receive, the device presence
`
`detector 414 does not connect to the signal lines – twisted-pair cable line 1,
`
`2, 3, 6 in Ethernet protocol nor connect to line 3, 4, 5, 6 in Token Ring
`
`protocol.” Id., col. 10, ll. 3-7 (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with Patent
`
`Owner that Chang does not disclose “delivering a low level current from
`
`said main power source to the access device over said data signaling pair.”
`
`We also note that, even if lines 7 and 8 in Chang could be considered
`
`a “data signaling pair,” claim 6 requires that the low level current delivered
`
`to the access device be over the same “said data signaling pair” as power
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`supplied from the data node to the access device. Petitioners point to
`
`presence request signal 619 (provided using lines 7 and 8) as the claimed
`
`low level current, and power supplied by electrical power supply 640 (using
`
`lines 4 and 5) as the claimed power supplied from the data node. Pet. 22-25.
`
`Because different wire pairs are used, the same “said data signaling pair”
`
`does not perform both functions and the claim language is not met by
`
`Chang. For the reasons explained above, Petitioners have not shown a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on their assertion that claim 6, as well as
`
`claims 8 and 9 which depend from claim 6, are anticipated by Chang.2
`
`Petitioners also contend that, to the extent any element of claims 6, 8,
`
`and 9 is not disclosed by Chang, “explicitly or implicitly, the addition of that
`
`element is a predictable variation that could have been implemented by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.” Pet.
`
`18. Petitioners, however, do not identify with any particularity which
`
`limitations may not be disclosed or provide any facts or reasoning as to why
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the claimed subject
`
`matter obvious based on Chang alone or in combination with any other
`
`reference. Petitioners therefore have failed to present a sufficient
`
`obviousness challenge based on Chang. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`Based on the information presented in the Petition, we conclude that
`
`Petitioners have not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`their assertion that claims 6, 8, and 9 are anticipated by Chang under 35
`
`
`2 Because Petitioners have not met their burden for the reasons explained
`above, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments regarding other
`aspects of Petitioners’ proposed ground of anticipation based on Chang. See
`Prelim. Resp. 26-34.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(a) or (e).
`
`
`
`C. Grounds Based on Fisher (Ex. 1004)
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable over
`
`Fisher in view of Chang under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pet. 43-52. We conclude
`
`that Petitioners have not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`their assertion that claims 6, 8, and 9 are unpatentable for the reasons
`
`explained below.
`
`Petitioners rely on Fisher as teaching the “providing” step of claim 6,
`
`including the claimed structures of a data node, access device, data signaling
`
`pair, and power sources. Pet. 44-49. Petitioners rely on Chang as teaching
`
`the remaining “delivering,” “sensing,” and “controlling” steps of claim 6, as
`
`well as the “polling the access device” and “continuing to sense” steps of
`
`claims 8 and 9. Id. at 49-52. As explained above and as argued by Patent
`
`Owner, Petitioners have not demonstrated that Chang teaches the step of
`
`“delivering a low level current from said main power source to the access
`
`device over said data signaling pair” recited in claim 6. See supra Section
`
`II.B; Prelim. Resp. 38-41. Petitioners also do not argue that Fisher teaches
`
`the missing limitation. Thus, Petitioners have not shown that all of the
`
`limitations of claim 6 are taught by the cited references.
`
`Similar to their argument with respect to Chang individually,
`
`Petitioners make the bare assertion that, to the extent any claim element is
`
`not disclosed by either Fisher or Chang, “explicitly or implicitly, the
`
`addition of that element is a predictable variation that could have been
`
`implemented by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention.” Pet. 43. Petitioners give no explanation in the Petition,
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`however, as to why the “delivering” step of claim 6 (missing from Chang)
`
`would be obvious based on the combination of Fisher and Chang, nor do
`
`Petitioners provide any facts or reasoning as to why a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have found the claimed subject matter obvious in spite
`
`of the missing limitation. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b).
`
`Based on the information presented in the Petition, we conclude that
`
`Petitioners have not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`their assertion that claim 6, as well as claims 8 and 9 which depend from
`
`claim 6, are unpatentable over Fisher in view of Chang under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103(a).
`
`
`
`D. Grounds Based on Woodmas (Ex. 1005)
`
`Petitioners contend that claims 6, 8, and 9 are anticipated by
`
`Woodmas under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 26-34. We conclude that
`
`Petitioners have not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on
`
`their assertion that claims 6, 8, and 9 are anticipated for the reasons
`
`explained below.
`
`Woodmas discloses a television production system that “provides both
`
`signaling and power over a single coaxial cable between a television control
`
`station and a remote camera station.” Woodmas, Abstract. Figure 1 of
`
`Woodmas is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00092
`Patent 6,218,930
`
`
`
`
`Control station signal unit 32 of control station module 26 communicates
`
`audio and video with camera station 16, including video camera 18, talent
`
`earpiece 20, camera operator intercom heads