UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`DELL INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`CASE IPR: IPR2013-00385
`
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GEORGE A. ZIMMERMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`DELL INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`CASE IPR: IPR2013-00385
`
`_____________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. GEORGE A. ZIMMERMAN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`I, George A. Zimmerman, do hereby declare as follows:
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I am currently the President and Principal Consultant at CME
`
`Consulting, Inc., specializing in wireline communications. I have prepared this
`
`Declaration on behalf of Dell Inc. in connection with a Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (“the ‘930 Patent”) (Exhibit DE-1001).1 I
`
`previously prepared a similar Declaration on behalf of Avaya Inc. in support of its
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ‘930 Patent (IPR2013-00071).
`
`2.
`
`I have summarized in this section relevant aspects of my educational
`
`background, career history, publications, and other relevant qualifications.
`
`A. Educational Background
`In 1985 I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
`3.
`
`Engineering from Stanford University. In 1988, I received a Master of Science
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology. In
`
`1990, I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of
`
`Technology.
`
`B. Career History
`From 1985 to 1995, I held systems engineering, digital design, and
`4.
`
`engineering management positions as a Member of Technical Staff at Jet
`
`1 I have been provided with an Exhibit List which I am told will accompany the
`Petition for Inter Partes Review. For consistency purposes, I will refer to
`documents by the designation given on the Exhibit List.
`Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. From 1989 to 1995, I was an
`
`independent consultant in the areas of communications and signal processing
`
`analysis. Between 1992 and 1994, I was a lecturer at the California Institute of
`
`Technology.
`
`5.
`
`From May 1995 through June 2000, I was Chief Scientist at PairGain
`
`Technologies. PairGain was a pioneering firm in the DSL and broadband
`
`networking space and made line-powered broadband access products including
`
`chipsets.
`
`6.
`
`From January 2001 through May 2011, I was the founder and Chief
`
`Technical Officer of Solarflare Communications, a leading provider of 10 Gigabit
`
`Ethernet server adapters and silicon.
`
`7.
`
`From May 2011 to date, I have been the principal consultant at CME
`
`Consulting, specializing in wireline communications.
`
`C.
`8.
`
`Publications
`
`I have written and/or edited numerous technical publications, many of
`
`which focus on networking technology. Exemplary publications include:
`
`IEEE P802.3an Task Force
`G. Zimmerman, “Power Backoff,”
`Zimmerman_1_0305.pdf,
`Contributions:
`Zimmerman_1_0205.pdf,
`Zimmerman_2_0305.pdf, February & March 2005.
`
`to CSA-Reach Single-Pair HDSL,”
`G.A. Zimmerman, “Approaches
`PairGain contribution, T1E1.4/96-160, March 1995.
`
`G.A. Zimmerman, “Achievable rates vs. operating characteristics of local
`loop transmission: HDSL, HDSL2, ADSL and VDSL,” Signals, Systems &
`Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`the Thirty-First Asilomar
`Computers, 1997. Conference Record of
`Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Volume 1, 2-5 Nov. 1997
`Pages: 573-577 vol. 1.
`
`9.
`
`I am also the named inventor on numerous patents and patent
`
`applications in networking technology, including high-speed networking devices.
`
`10. Accordingly, I consider myself to be an expert in the field of
`
`networking systems and equipment, and believe I am qualified to provide an
`
`opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood,
`
`known, or concluded during the timeframe of 1998-2000.
`
`D. Materials Considered
`In my analysis, I considered the ‘930 Patent and its file history, as
`11.
`
`well as the prior art references and related documentation discussed below. I have
`
`also reviewed in detail the claim charts that are to be included within the Petition
`
`for Inter Partes Review of the ‘930 Patent (“the Petition”) to which this declaration
`
`relates.
`
`II. THE ‘930 PATENT
`12. According to its face, the ‘930 Patent issued from U.S. patent
`
`application No. 09/520,350, filed on March 7, 2000, and claims priority to
`
`provisional patent application No. 60/123,688, filed on March 10, 1999. The ‘930
`
`patent issued on April 17, 2001.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`13. The ‘930 Patent generally relates to powering remote equipment over
`
`a network. In particular, it relates to a method for automatically determining if
`
`remote equipment is capable of receiving a remote power feed and, if it is
`
`determined that the remote equipment is able to accept power remotely, then to
`
`provide power. See ‘930 Patent (DE-1001), col. 1:14-19.
`
`14. More particularly, the ‘930 Patent makes reference to an apparatus for
`
`remotely powering access equipment over a 10/100 switched Ethernet network
`
`with a phantom power supply and added circuitry for detecting the remote
`
`equipment, determining whether the remote equipment is capable of accepting
`
`remote power, and delivering the phantom power to the remote equipment over the
`
`same wire pairs that deliver the data signals. See ‘930 Patent (DE-1001), Abstract.
`
`15. While the ‘930 Patent refers to the powering of 10/100 Ethernet
`
`compatible equipment, claims 6 and 9 are devoid of any such language. Rather,
`
`claim 6 recites “providing a data node adapted for data switching,” an “access
`
`device adapted for data transmission,” where the “data node” and “access device”
`
`are connected and “arranged to transmit data therebetween.” In other words, the
`
`claims do not require the recited equipment to be Ethernet-compatible or the data
`
`transmission to comply with any Ethernet specification.
`
`16. While the ‘930 Patent purports to claim priority to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/123,688, I did not consider whether or not the claims of the
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`‘930 Patent should in fact be entitled to this earlier priority date since the prior art
`
`references I was asked to consider predate even the ‘930 Patent’s provisional
`
`application.
`
`III. BACKGROUND OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY
`Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) is a set of communication
`17.
`
`standards for the simultaneous transmission of voice and digital data over a
`
`traditional Public Switched Telephone Network (“PSTN”). ISDN was defined in
`
`1988 by the Telephone and Telegraph Consultative Committee in the “Red Book.”
`
`18. An ISDN is a circuit-switched 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.
`
`19. Ethernet, in its original form, was invented between 1973 and 1974 at
`
`XEROX PARC labs, and was designed as a multipoint communications method.
`
`Around 1986, Ethernet began using transmission over segments of twisted pair
`
`wiring, known as “BASE-T”, but was still a multipoint communications method.
`
`20. Early BASE-T Ethernet networks were designed to convey signals
`
`across the network by repeating the signals from one twisted pair wiring segment
`
`onto all other twisted pair segments to which a device was connected.
`
`21. Largely as a result of increased network congestion caused by
`
`repeating signals onto all of the network wiring segments, in 1989 Ethernet
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`incorporated the concept of switching, which had been generally well known and
`
`used notably in PSTNs. Under this approach, transmitted packets would only be
`
`sent out onto the wiring segments of their specific destinations.
`
`22. By the mid 1990s, the practice of repeating signals across an Ethernet
`
`network was being phased out, while switches of all scales became common.
`
`Today’s Ethernet operates with those same basic switching principles.
`
`23. Ethernet is standardized in the IEEE Standard 802.3. While the first
`
`Power-Over-Ethernet standard of IEEE 802.3af was not published until 2003, there
`
`were several proprietary approaches for providing power over Ethernet cabling
`
`which would predate the ‘930 Patent. One of those early proprietary approaches for
`
`providing power and data over Ethernet cabling was developed and disclosed by
`
`Cisco Technology, Inc., which is described in the De Nicolo reference. (DE-
`
`1007).
`
`IV.
`
`INVALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`24.
`
`In construing the claims, I have considered what one skilled in the art
`
`would regard as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms. I have
`
`also considered the proposed constructions offered by Network-1 Security
`
`Solutions, Inc. (the “Patentee”) in previous litigations with respect to the recited
`
`“main power source” and the “secondary power source.” See DE-1008 & DE-
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`1009. In my analysis I have included exemplary citations to the references, but I
`
`have not necessarily repetitively cited to every disclosure.
`
`25. The scope and content of the prior art at the time of alleged invention
`
`in the 1998 to 2000 timeframe would have broadly included networking systems
`
`and equipment, including fields such as telephony, security systems, line powering
`
`and protocols relating to any of the aforementioned, and network operations such
`
`as remote presence detection and type determination.
`
`26. As I discuss below, the method described in claims 6 and 9 of the
`
`‘930 Patent can be found and are disclosed in the prior art described herein. There
`
`are no material differences between the claims at issue and several specific systems
`
`and references found in the prior art and discussed herein, including under the
`
`Patentee’s own application of the claims to the accused Dell products.
`
`A.
`
`Japanese Patent Publication H10-13576 (“Matsuno”) Discloses
`Each Element of Claims 6 and 9
`
`27. After studying Matsuno in detail, it is my opinion that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would view Matsuno as disclosing each and every one of the claim
`
`elements of claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 Patent.
`
`28.
`
`I have reviewed the claim chart included in the Petition which cites to
`
`certain portions of Matsuno that correspond to the various elements of claims 6 and
`
`9 of the ‘930 Patent. It is my opinion that this claim chart, in view of the general
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`knowledge in the art at the time, shows that each and every one of the elements of
`
`claims 6 and 9 are fully disclosed in Matsuno.
`
`29. One skilled in the art could have readily practiced the method of
`
`claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 Patent using only the teachings of Matsuno, in light of
`
`the general knowledge that would have been available in the art at the time.
`
`30. Matsuno discloses an ISDN network in which a data node engages in
`
`data communication with access devices. In paragraph [0016], Matsuno describes a
`
`“power supply circuit 1” which is in a “switching station.” Therefore, the power
`
`supply circuit of Matsuno must be contained in a communications switching
`
`station.
`
`31. The switching station in Matsuno, in which the power supply circuit is
`
`contained, is a data switch. See Matsuno (DE-1004), ¶[0002]. As noted above and
`
`further discussed below, ISDN was generally known as a “service that uses digital
`
`transmission and switching technology to support voice and digital data
`
`communications.” See U.S. Patent No. 5,189,663 (“the ‘663 Patent”) (DE-1013),
`
`col. 11:29-32. Therefore, the switching station of Matsuno would have been
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be “a data node adapted for
`
`switching.”
`
`32.
`
`ISDN equipment enables both voice and data communication over
`
`telephone lines. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,216,704 (“the ‘704 Patent”) (DE-
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`1012), which was filed in 1991, describes in detail how ISDN was a known means
`
`for combining voice and data over telephone lines. See ‘704 Patent (DE-1012), col.
`
`1:15-21 and col. 4:27-29; see also ‘663 Patent (DE-1013), col. 11:29-32.
`
`33. As disclosed in the ‘704 Patent, “[a]t the subscriber location 14, a
`
`conventional telephone 24 and a data terminal or processing device 26 are
`
`interfaced to ISDN modem 18 wherein ISDN modem 18 converts the analog voice
`
`signal generated by telephone 24 to a digital signal which is combined with the
`
`information data signal used by data terminal or processing device 26.” ‘704 Patent
`
`(DE-1012), col. 4:55-61. The ‘704 Patent is particularly relevant to the ‘930 Patent
`
`since it relates to maintaining communications in a voice and data communications
`
`system during power fail conditions. See ‘704 Patent (DE-1012), col. 3:57-61.
`
`34. Thus, one skilled in the art would readily consider Matsuno’s ISDN
`
`“switching station” as being a “data node adapted for data switching, as recited in
`
`claim 6. The ISDN switching station of Matsuno would have been designed to
`
`engage in data transmissions, as described in the ‘704 Patent, in accordance with
`
`the ISDN protocol. Moreover, as a switching station in an ISDN environment, it
`
`would have performed “data switching.” See ‘663 Patent (DE-1013), col. 11:29-32.
`
`35. Matsuno uses the designation of “DTE” to refer to its subscriber
`
`terminals, which is generally understood to refer to “data terminal equipment.”
`
`Matsuno’s “network terminal device (NT1) 2,” either alone or in combination with
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`its “subscriber terminal (DTE 3),” is an “access device adapted for data
`
`transmission,” as recited in claim 6.
`
`36. Matsuno discloses a “main power source,” as recited in claim 6. It
`
`would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the “power supply
`
`circuit 1” would be connected to a power supply of the switching station in order to
`
`perform its intended function, and would have been provided with a standard -48V
`
`supply which is used to power the switching station in which the “power supply
`
`circuit 1” is contained, e.g., -V2 in Fig. 1, ‘-48V’ in Figs. 2 – 10.
`
`37. Matsuno also discloses a “secondary power source,” as recited in
`
`claim 6. In particular, the “power supply circuit 1” applies current to the connected
`
`terminal equipment as shown in each of Figures 2 – 10, for example. The network
`
`terminal device 2 and the subscriber terminal 3 are provided with power from a
`
`secondary power source (-120V), as shown in each of Figures 2 – 10. See also
`
`Matsuno (DE-1004), ¶ (0017).
`
`38.
`
`I understand that the Patentee has taken the position in previous
`
`litigations that the claims are limited to Ethernet data. However, the claims of the
`
`‘930 Patent do not limit the nature of the “data transmission” to satisfying any
`
`particular protocol or specification. It is my opinion that one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would regard ISDN transmissions and ISDN equipment, as described in
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`Matsuno, as being a type of “data transmission,” “data node” and “access device,”
`
`and therefore would fall within the scope of the claims of the ‘930 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`In any event, prior to 1997, Ethernet data was already being provided
`
`over ISDN equipment. See e.g., CPA-900 End-of-sale Announcement describing
`
`the end of life for the CPA-900, which was an ISDN Primary Rate Interface (PRI)
`
`Ethernet router.2
`
`40. Matsuno further describes how, in response to providing a low level
`
`current, such as -V2 , it detects a resulting voltage or current and, based on that
`
`detected voltage or current, it then controls whether to provide a high voltage or a
`
`low voltage. See e.g., Matsuno (DE-1004), ¶¶ (0018) – (0020), (0033), (0035),
`
`(0036) and (0039). Thus, Matsuno teaches the same general approach to
`
`controlling power as claim 6 in the ‘930 Patent.
`
`41. Claim 9 of the ‘930 Patent further claims that power from the
`
`secondary power source is decreased if the sensed voltage level drops, thereby
`
`indicating removal of the access device. Claim 9 is silent, however, on the degree
`
`or amount of such decrease. Since claim 9 suggests that there is no longer an
`
`access device to power and, in any event, does not further limit the degree of the
`
`
`2 Available at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/routers
`/ps2367/prod_end-of- life_notice0900aecd80294a6a.pdf (last visited on November
`26, 2012).
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`voltage decrease, one skilled in the art would read the claim as including a
`
`decrease to zero.
`
`42.
`
`If
`
`the “network
`
`terminal device (NT1)2”
`
`in Matsuno were
`
`disconnected or otherwise removed, the circuit would be open and no current
`
`would flow. The voltage would correspondingly drop to zero. The disconnection or
`
`removal of the terminal device would be understood to result in the voltage
`
`decreasing to zero, which would indicate the removal of equipment, as recited in
`
`claim 9 of the ‘930 Patent.
`
`43. Therefore, it is my opinion that Matsuno fully discloses each and
`
`every element of claims 6 and 9.
`
`B.
`
`Section IV. B (Including Paragraphs 44-59) Is Intentionally
`Omitted
`
`Paragraphs 44-59 in my earlier declaration filed in IPR2013-00071 relate to
`
`grounds of unpatentability not being asserted by the present Petitioner Dell. In
`
`order to maintain consistency of the paragraph numbering of the present
`
`Declaration with my earlier declaration, paragraphs 44-59 have been intentionally
`
`omitted.
`
`44. OMITTED
`
`45. OMITTED
`
`46. OMITTED
`
`47. OMITTED
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`48. OMITTED
`
`49. OMITTED
`
`50. OMITTED
`
`51. OMITTED
`
`52.
`
` OMITTED
`
`53. OMITTED
`
`54. OMITTED
`
`55. OMITTED
`
`56. OMITTED
`
`57. OMITTED
`
`58. OMITTED
`
`59. OMITTED
`
`C. Claims 6 and 9 Are Obvious in Light of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468
`(“De Nicolo”) and Matsuno
`
`60. After studying De Nicolo (mentioned above in paragraph 23) in view
`
`of Matsuno (discussed above in Section IV.A), it is my opinion that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would regard claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 Patent as being
`
`obvious over De Nicolo in view of the teachings of Matsuno.
`
`61.
`
`I have reviewed the claim chart included in the Petition which cites to
`
`certain portions of De Nicolo and Matsuno and that correspond to the various
`
`elements of claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 Patent. It is my opinion that this claim chart,
`Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`in view of the general knowledge in the art at the time, shows that each and every
`
`one of the elements of claims 6 and 9 are fully disclosed in the combination of De
`
`Nicolo and Matsuno in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the art to readily
`
`practice the claimed method.
`
`62. De Nicolo specifically discloses a method for remotely powering
`
`access equipment in a data network. De Nicolo uses an Ethernet power
`
`transmission system to provide electrical power to devices, such as Ethernet
`
`telephones.
`
`63. De Nicolo makes power available at every port to be used if needed,
`
`which would not be the case if the Ethernet telephone (“access device”) were being
`
`locally powered.
`
`64. De Nicolo accomplishes its remote powering function using center
`
`tapped transformers to provide a phantom power feed, which is the same general
`
`technique as that disclosed in the ‘930 Patent. See De Nicolo (DE-1007), FIG. 3.
`
`65. De Nicolo discloses a multiport “data node” which consists of
`
`multiple data ports and associated circuitry that is remote from the load devices.
`
`See De Nicolo (DE-1007), FIG. 3. Since De Nicolo is implemented in an Ethernet
`
`network, its multiport “data node” would be understood at the time to be an
`
`Ethernet switch and, therefore, also be “adapted for data switching,” as recited in
`
`claim 6.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 22
`
`
`
`66. At least in FIG. 3, De Nicolo discloses data signaling pairs connected
`
`between the data node and the access devices and arranged to transmit data.
`
`67. De Nicolo also discloses the use of a “main power supply” and
`
`“secondary power supply” including, for example, the power supply 144 and the
`
`inherent power source that would be needed to supply power to the overall
`
`Ethernet data node.
`
`68. While De Nicolo may not explicitly discuss how power to its access
`
`devices is to be controlled, Matsuno does teach the same general approach to
`
`controlling power as claim 6 in the ‘930 Patent, as discussed above in Section
`
`IV.A.
`
`69.
`
`It is my opinion that one skilled in the art would be fully motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of De Nicolo and Matsuno, as both are designed to supply
`
`power and data to remote devices in a network environment.
`
`70. To one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to
`
`combine
`
`the power control features from Matsuno
`
`into Ethernet power
`
`transmission system of De Nicolo in order to provide data and power, in a
`
`controlled fashion, to Ethernet telephones.
`
`71.
`
`In addition, one skilled in the art would readily be able to take the
`
`approach of controlling provided current, as disclosed in Matsuno and discussed
`
`above, with the Ethernet environment of De Nicolo such that the network of De
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 22
`
`
`
`Nicolo would similarly provide current to access equipment in a safer and more
`
`energy efficient manner.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Section IV. D (Including Paragraphs 72-75) Is Intentionally
`Omitted
`
`Paragraphs 72-75 in my earlier declaration filed in IPR2013-00071 relate to
`
`grounds of unpatentability not being asserted by the present Petitioner Dell. In
`
`order to maintain consistency of the paragraph numbering of the present
`
`Declaration with my earlier declaration, paragraphs 72-75 have been intentionally
`
`omitted.
`
`72. OMITTED
`
`73. OMITTED
`
`74. OMITTED
`
`75. OMITTED
`
`E. Claims 6 And 9 Are Obvious in Light of U.S. Patent No.
`5,991,885 (“Chang”) and De Nicolo
`
`76. After studying Chang and De Nicolo in detail, it is my opinion that
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would regard claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 Patent as
`
`being obvious over Chang in view of the additional teachings of De Nicolo.
`
`77.
`
`I have reviewed the claim chart included in the Petition which cites to
`
`certain portions of Chang and De Nicolo that correspond to the various elements of
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 22
`
`
`
`claims 6 and 9 of the ‘930 Patent. It is my opinion that this claim chart, in view of
`
`the general knowledge in the art at the time, shows that each and every one of the
`
`elements of claims 6 and 9 are fully disclosed in the combination of Chang and De
`
`Nicolo in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the art to readily practice the
`
`claimed method.
`
`78.
`
`It is my opinion that one skilled in the art would be fully motivated to
`
`combine the teachings of Chang and De Nicolo, as both designed to supply power
`
`and data to remote devices in a network environment.
`
`79. Additionally, the combination would be obvious to make as it would
`
`involve the routine substitution of one known networking protocol for another,
`
`particularly since Chang by itself discloses Ethernet adapters. In doing so, De
`
`Nicolo would effectively provide the means by which Chang would be able to
`
`provide power to Ethernet adapters, for example.
`
`80. With respect to the recited “data signaling pair” in the claims of the
`
`‘930 Patent, in connection with the substitution to the well known Ethernet
`
`networking protocol of De Nicolo, it would have correspondingly been obvious to
`
`similarly adopt the wire pair connection of De Nicolo.
`
`81.
`
`It would have similarly been obvious to, in utilizing the wire pair
`
`connection of De Nicolo, adopt De Nicolo’s feature of using the same lines to
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 22
`
`
`
`supply power and transmit signals since doing so would simplify the network
`
`connections and reduce the complexity of the network structure.
`
`82. With respect to Chang, the network hub 302 of Chang inherently
`
`would be supplied with power from a “main power source.” This “main power
`
`source” would be used to provide, for example, the “presence request signal 619”
`
`to a remote terminal 602-1, as described in Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would understand the “presence request signal 619” to fall within the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term “low level current,” which is not further
`
`limited in any way by the claims. A signal transmitted over a wire, such as the
`
`“presence request signal 619” in Chang is, in its broadest sense, a modulated form
`
`of an electrical current flowing through that wire, particularly given the fact that
`
`the “presence request signal 619” is described as a “symmetric clock signal with
`
`approximately a 50% duty cycle.” Chang (DE-1006), col. 10:21-23.
`
`83. Chang discloses a “secondary power source” in the form of “electrical
`
`power supply circuit 640.” Specifically, Chang describes how the “presence
`
`request signal 619” is used to set the “presence signal 638,” and that “[w]hen the
`
`presence signal 638 is set, the device presence detector 414 starts to supply
`
`electrical power to the remote terminal 602-1 by activating output enable signal
`
`644 of the electrical power supply 640.” See Chang (DE-1006), col. 11:43-46.
`
`
`
`Page 19 of 22
`
`
`
`84. Moreover, the “electrical power supply 640” which supplies power to
`
`the remote device would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to be
`
`different from any “main power supply” that may be powering Chang’s network
`
`hub or providing the “presence request signal 619,” in light of the schematic
`
`diagrams provided in Chang which show the “electrical power supply 640” as
`
`being located within the “device presence detector 414,” yet separate from the
`
`signal generator 608 and the feedback analyzer 610. See e.g., Chang (DE-1006),
`
`Figs. 6a – 6b.
`
`85. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the
`
`twisted pair conductors 128a and 128b of De Nicolo could be used to supply
`
`phantom power from a secondary power source, such as “electrical power supply
`
`640,” to the access device in any data network, such as the data network disclosed
`
`in Chang.
`
`86. Rather than modifying the IR adapter of Chang to be an Ethernet
`
`adapter, as discussed above, it would also have been obvious to use the center-
`
`tapped transformers of De Nicolo in Chang in order to electrically isolate the IR
`
`adapter, e.g., from static discharge. This could readily be accomplished by
`
`modifying Chang’s Figure 6a so that De Nicolo’s transformers are applied across
`
`Chang’s lines 4 and 5, and 7 and 8, respectively, with Chang’s power supply 640
`
`being connected between the center taps rather than lines 4 and 5.
`
`
`
`Page 20 of 22
`
`
`
`87. With respect to claim 9, Chang is explicit in disclosing that the
`
`voltage level continues to be sensed, and when the voltage level drops, power is
`
`removed. See Chang (DE-1006), col. 11:59-67 and Figure 7. Further, Chang states
`
`that such power is removed in response to the removal of the infrared adapter. See
`
`Chang (DE-1006), Abstract.
`
`88. Therefore, it is my opinion that Chang and De Nicolo render obvious
`
`claims 6 and 9.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`In conclusion, as explained above, each and every element of claims 6
`89.
`
`and 9 of the ‘930 Patent is disclosed in the above-described prior art references,
`
`arranged as claimed. Furthermore, the prior art sets forth the elements of claims 6
`
`and 9 in a sufficient manner such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
`
`have readily made and used the claimed method.
`
`90.
`
`In signing this Declaration, I recognize that the Declaration will be
`
`filed as evidence in a contested case before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office. I also recognize that I may be
`
`subject to cross-examination in the case and that cross-examination will take place
`
`within the United States. If cross-examination is required of me, I will appear for
`
`cross-examination within the United States during the time allotted for cross-
`
`examination.
`
`
`
`Page 21 of 22
`
`
`
`91.
`
`I hereby declare that all
`
`statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are
`
`believed to be true and further that these statements were made with the knowledge
`
`that WillfiJl false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: June23, 2013
`
`Page 22 of 22
`
`
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
