`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1020
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`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,
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
