`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1005
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; AXIS COMMUNICATIONS AB; AXIS
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,218,930
`Case IPR: Unassigned
`
`DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY O. THOMPSON
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`I, Geoffrey O. Thompson, hereby declare as follows:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I am presently a Member Emeritus of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN
`
`Standards Executive Committee and the Principal at GraCaSI Standards Advisors,
`
`which has its principal place of business at 158 Paseo Court, Mountain View, CA
`
`94043-5286.
`
`2.
`
`I have prepared this Declaration on behalf of Sony Corporation of
`
`America, Axis Communications AB, Axis Communications, Inc., and Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co. in connection with the Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,218,930 (the “’930 patent”), which is to be filed concurrently with this
`
`Declaration.
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`A.
`
`3.
`
`Educational Background and Employment
`
`I was awarded a bachelors degree in electrical engineering from
`
`Purdue University in 1964.
`
`4.
`
`From 1964 to 1965 I worked at the Walbridge Test Center of Ohio
`
`Bell Telephone as a Manager. My responsibilities included managing and
`
`supervising operation of a local telephone test and repair center for 1/3 of a
`
`metropolitan area comprising approximately 300,000 people.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`5.
`
`I became employed by Xerox Corporation beginning in 1965. My
`
`
`
`first position at Xerox was Associate Engineer. Between 1965 and 1973 I was
`
`promoted to Engineer and to Senior Engineer. In 1973 I became a Senior Member
`
`of the Research Staff at Xerox PARC and held that title until 1981, when I became
`
`a Consulting Member of the Engineering Staff for Systems Development at Xerox.
`
`6.
`
`Beginning in 1998 I held various staff positions at SynOptics
`
`Communications, Bay Networks, and Nortel Networks. In these positions I was
`
`responsible for working with the IEEE 802.3 standards and providing technical
`
`analyses relating to the standards. I became a Distinguished Member of the
`
`Technical Staff at Nortel Networks in 2008.
`
`7.
`
`In 2009 I left Nortel Networks to begin work at GraCaSI Standards
`
`Advisors as the Principal.
`
`B.
`
`8.
`
`Standards Work
`
`I have worked with the IEEE 802.3 standards Working Group since
`
`1983. My early work included promoting the Ethernet standard as a U.S. delegate
`
`in international standards forums. Beginning in 1983, I also served as a technical
`
`contributor and chairperson of various task forces for IEEE 802.3 standards
`
`projects, including the Chair of the Maintenance Task Force.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`9.
`
`From 1991 to 1993 I served as Vice Chairman of the IEEE 802.3
`
`
`
`Working Group and was responsible for procedures, membership, technical
`
`maintenance, and working group management assistance, in addition to technical
`
`contributions.
`
`10. From 1993 to 2002 I was the Chair of the IEEE Working Group
`
`responsible for Ethernet standards in Layer 1 and the Media Access Controller
`
`portion of Layer 2 (per the ISO 7 layer reference model). In this position, I
`
`supervised 14 standards projects covering the development of Ethernet using
`
`speeds from 100 Mb/s, 1 Gb/s, and 10 Gb/s, as well as various other projects such
`
`as switching/full duplex, auto-negotiation, management, virtual local area
`
`networks, Power over Ethernet, and link aggregation.
`
`11.
`
`In 2002 I became the 1st Vice Chairman of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN
`
`Standards Executive Committee. In this role, I supported the Chair of the
`
`Committee and assisted in governance of the Committee. I also advocated IEEE
`
`802.3 standards in interactions with IEEE Standards Association staff and higher
`
`level governance.
`
`12. From 2010 to 2011, I was the Chair of the 802.23 Emergency Services
`
`Working Group.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`13.
`
`I became a Member Emeritus of the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards
`
`
`
`Executive Committee in 2002. I returned to that position in 2011 and continue to
`
`hold this title today. I also remain a voter and active participant in the IEEE 802.3
`
`Working Group.
`
`C.
`
`Patents Awarded
`
`14. Through my years of work in the communications and networking
`
`industry, I have been awarded at least 12 U.S. patents.
`
`15. Several of these patents deal with local area networks, Ethernet
`
`implementations, indicating power over Ethernet connections, data switching in
`
`network environments and techniques for virtual LAN identification.
`
`D. Other Awards
`
`16. At Nortel, I received the title of Distinguished Member Technical
`
`Staff in 2008. Also at Nortel, I received the Significant Patent Award in September
`
`2000.
`
`17. Through my work with the IEEE, I received the IEEE-SA Standards
`
`Board Distinguished Service Award in 2006. I also received the IEEE Standards
`
`Medallion in 1996.
`
`E. Qualifications
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`18. Based on my industry experience and key role in various IEEE 802.3
`
`
`
`standards projects as described above, including the project that standardized
`
`Power over Ethernet as IEEE 802.3af (2003), I consider myself to be an expert in
`
`the field of networking systems and equipment.
`
`19.
`
`I believe that I am qualified to provide an opinion as to what a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art would have understood, known, or concluded
`
`during the timeframe of 1998-2000 (hereinafter, a “PHOSITA”). Such a person
`
`would have (i) a bachelors degree in electrical or electronics engineering, including
`
`studies related to the field of communications or (ii) 3-5 years of comparable work
`
`experience.
`
`III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`20.
`
`In the course of preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the ’930
`
`patent and its file history, as well as the prior art references and related documents
`
`discussed below.
`
`21.
`
`I have also reviewed the Petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’930
`
`Patent (“the Petition”) and claim charts that are being submitted concurrently with
`
`this Declaration.
`
`22.
`
`In addition, I have reviewed the Decision on Institution of Inter Partes
`
`Review in Case IPR2013-00092 dated May 24, 2013 (“the Sony-Axis IPR
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Decision”) (Ex. 1020) and the Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review in
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`Case IPR2013-00071 dated May 24, 2013 (“the Avaya IPR Decision”) (Ex. 1019).
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE ’930 PATENT
`
`23. The ’930 patent purports to have a filing date of March 7, 2000, and
`
`claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/123,688, filed on March 10,
`
`1999. Because the prior art references I discuss below predate the asserted March
`
`10, 1999 date, I have not assessed whether the ’930 patent is in fact entitled to such
`
`a priority date.
`
`24. The ’930 patent generally relates to delivering power and data to an
`
`access device over a data signaling pair. According to the “Field of the Invention”
`
`section of the ’930 patent, “[t]he invention more particularly relates to apparatus
`
`and 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 in a reliable non-intrusive way.” Ex.
`
`1001, ’930 patent, 1:14-19.
`
`25. The “Background of the Invention” section of the patent indicates
`
`several objectives. One stated objective is “to add remotely powered devices to a
`
`data network.” Id. at 1:33-35. Another objective is to “have a centrally powered
`
`system that can be protected during a power outage.” Id. at 1:39-40. A further
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`objective is “to provide methods and apparatus for reliably determining if a remote
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`piece of equipment is capable of accepting remote power.” Id. at 1:41-43. A final
`
`stated objective is “to provide methods and apparatus for delivering remote power
`
`to remote equipment over 10/100 switched Ethernet segments and maintain
`
`compliance with IEEE 802.3 standards.” Id. at 1:44-47. Although this objective
`
`refers to 10/100 switched Ethernet segments, claims 6, 8, and 9 of the ’930 patent
`
`do not require any particular communications protocol. Indeed, the only recitation
`
`of “Ethernet” in the claims is found in claim 4, which depends from claim 1.
`
`26. The ’930 patent describes a remote access device 10, which “requires
`
`power to carry out its operation and includes an internal dc-dc switching supply.”
`
`Id. at 2:36-44. The remote access device may be a telephone 62, as shown in
`
`Figure 1. Id. at 3:60-66. Cable 12, which can be Category 5 wire, connects the
`
`remote access device 10 to a network data node 14. Id. at 2:44-51. While the
`
`example of cable 12 given in the specification is Category 5 wire, claims 6, 8, and
`
`9 of the ’930 patent require only a “data signaling pair.”
`
`27. A power source 16, which “may be the same as the conventional main
`
`power supply used to power the node 14,” is connected to cable 12 to supply a
`
`“power level sensing potential to the remote access equipment 10 over one of the
`
`cable conductors.” Id. at 2:52-57. A remote power detector 22 operates a detection
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`circuit consisting of a resistor 26 with shunting switch 28 connected in parallel to a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`resistor 30, which provides a path to ground. Id. at 2:59-65.
`
`28. Detection of remote equipment is performed by delivering a “low
`
`level current (approx. 20 ma) to the network interface and measuring a voltage
`
`drop in the return path.” Id. at 2:66-3:2. According to the ’930 patent, “[t]here are
`
`three states which can be determined: no voltage drop, a fixed level voltage drop or
`
`a varying level voltage drop.” Id. at 3:2-4. The first two states indicate that the
`
`access devices is unable to accept remote power. Id. at 3:4-11. The third state, a
`
`varying voltage level, indicates that the access equipment is capable of accepting
`
`remote power. Id. at 3:12-27.
`
`29.
`
`“Once the remote equipment is operating and confirmed as a known
`
`remote power enabled device,” the removal of the device or a fault condition may
`
`be detected. Id. at 3:49-52. If the voltage level drops, this indicates removal of the
`
`remote equipment. Id. at 3:52-55.
`
`V.
`
`BRIEF BACKGROUND ON REMOTE POWERING OF DEVICES
`
`30. The ’930 patent correctly acknowledges that “[a] variety of
`
`telecommunications equipment is remotely powered today,” i.e., prior to the
`
`alleged invention of the ’930 patent. Id. at 1:22-24. Nevertheless, the patent is
`
`incorrect in stating that remote powering techniques had “not migrated to data
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`communications equipment.” Id. at 1:24-27. Below, I provide some brief
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`background on remote powering of devices, in both telecommunications and data
`
`communications environments, which would have been available to a PHOSITA.
`
`31. Telecommunications equipment has been remotely powered since the
`
`earliest telegraphs. Early dial telephones received power from a central office
`
`battery as the means to power the customer premises telephone instrument. An
`
`example of such a system is shown in U.S. Patent No. 447,918, to Strowger, dated
`
`1891 (Ex. 1023). The Strowger system also used a remote detection technique. In
`
`particular, picking up the receiver placed a low impedance resistor across the wire
`
`pair which in turn activated a relay in the central office and connected the phone to
`
`dial activated call routing equipment.
`
`32. When AT&T started using digital transmission equipment for
`
`telephone systems in the 1960s, the first system to be deployed was the T-1 Carrier
`
`System (Bell Laboratories Record, November, 1962), which was used to increase
`
`the capacity of voice trunk circuits between telephone central offices. Such a T-1
`
`system used two voice wire pairs and required a repeater approximately every
`
`6,000 feet. The repeaters were mounted on telephone poles or placed in manholes
`
`and were remotely powered from a central office. The power was provided over
`
`the twisted pairs via a phantom circuit.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`33. Years later, customer demand for high speed digital service directly
`
`
`
`from customers’ premises led to T-1 service actually being terminated at a user
`
`interface in the customers’ premises, where it continues to this day in many areas.
`
`34.
`
`In the mid 1980s, there was a major move to migrate analog telephone
`
`services to a digitally based service that would include provision for data
`
`connectivity and well as digital voice. This was the Integrated Services Digital
`
`Network (ISDN), which was ultimately standardized by ITU-T in the I (Eye) series
`
`of recommendations. There were several means proposed to power user terminals
`
`(e.g., ISDN telephones) via the cable and the eight-pin modular jack commonly
`
`known as an RJ-45. ISDN was not a big success, especially in the United States,
`
`but the cabling and connectors for it were adapted for local area network (LAN)
`
`use in general, and Ethernet (10BASE-T) use in particular. The ISDN specification
`
`options for providing power over the data cabling are called out in ITU-T I.430-
`
`1988.
`
`35. LANs were invented in the 1970s (see, e.g., U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,063,220, to Metcalfe, dated 1977) and moved into the product and standards
`
`arena in the 1980s. Many LAN implementations had portions of their equipment
`
`that were remotely powered over the data cabling. In Ethernet, the transceiver or
`
`Media Access Unit (MAU) clamped to the coaxial cable linear bus that was the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`core medium of the LAN. The transceiver was connected to its computer by up to
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`50 meters of twisted-pair cable. That cable provided power from the computer to
`
`the transceiver albeit on a separate pair of the “AUI Cable.” U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,733,389, to Puvogel, dated 1988 (Ex. 1024), described how to reduce the number
`
`of pairs needed in an AUI cable from four to two by putting both power and the
`
`collision signal onto a phantom circuit formed by the transmit and receive pairs.
`
`36.
`
`In other LAN technology, Token Ring (IBM, IEEE Std., 1985)
`
`computers provided a power signal over a phantom circuit on the twisted pairs of
`
`the cable called out by the IBM Cabling System. The power was used by the
`
`Token Ring Hub to detect that a station was plugged in and powered up. The low
`
`power was used to switch a relay which rerouted the wiring of the ring from bypass
`
`to pass through the attached station. The same power arrangement was later used
`
`in the CDDI standard and in Ethernet over IBM cabling (e.g., in LattisNet STP by
`
`SynOptics Communications). The same scheme was also used as a link integrity
`
`signal by SynOptics in its broadly deployed precursor to 10BASE-T, marketed as
`
`LattisNet UTP.
`
`37. Thus remote powering was well known by PHOSITAs in both the
`
`telephony and data networking fields by the time LAN speeds were high enough,
`
`and silicon integration was advanced enough, to enable Ethernet-based voice over
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Internet Protocols (VoIP) telephones, well before the claimed priority date of the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`’930 patent. The introduction of telephones as Ethernet-based instruments called
`
`for power over the signal cord to match customer expectations associated with
`
`legacy (POTS) and ISDN telephones.
`
`VI. VALIDITY ANALYSIS
`
`38.
`
`I have been asked to provide opinions addressing whether claims 6, 8,
`
`and 9 of the ’930 patent are valid based on the prior art references discussed below.
`
`Specifically, those references include: U.S. Patent No. 5,345,592 to Woodmas (Ex.
`
`1011) (“Woodmas”); U.S. Patent No. 5,982,456 to Smith et al. (Ex. 1012)
`
`(“Smith”); Television Production, by Ron Whittaker (1993) (Ex. 1013) (“Television
`
`Production”); U.S. Patent No. 6,473,608 to Lehr et al. (Ex. 1014) (“Lehr”), as well
`
`as the provisional application (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/115,628) to
`
`which Lehr claims priority (Ex. 1018) (“Lehr Provisional”); Japanese Unexamined
`
`Patent Application No. H10-13576 to Matsuno (Ex. 1015, 1016) (“Matsuno”); and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,449,348 to Lamb et al. (Ex. 1017) (“Lamb”).
`
`39.
`
`In my analysis, I have relied on certain claim constructions that were
`
`provided in the Sony-Axis IPR Decision (Ex. 1020) and the Avaya IPR Decision
`
`(Ex. 1019) issued by the Patent Office. I have formed no independent opinion as
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`to the correctness of the claim constructions. In particular, I have relied on the
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`following claim constructions in my analysis:
`
`a.
`
`“low level current”: a current (e.g., approximately 20 mA) that
`
`is sufficiently low that, by itself, it will not operate the access device.
`
`b.
`
`“data node adapted for data switching”: a data switch or hub
`
`configured to communicate data using temporary rather than permanent
`
`connections with other devices or to route data between devices.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“data signaling pair”: a pair of wires used to transmit data.
`
`“main power source” and “secondary power source”: not
`
`necessarily physically separate devices.
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, each and every element of claims 6, 8, and 9 of the
`
`’930 patent is disclosed in the prior art references discussed below. Specifically,
`
`the prior art discloses the subject matter of claims 6, 8, and 9 as arranged in those
`
`claims. The prior art references also explain and present the subject matter of
`
`claims 6, 8, and 9 so as to enable a PHOSITA to make and use the claimed
`
`methods.
`
`A. Woodmas in View of Smith and/or Television Production
`
`41. Based on my review of Woodmas, Smith, and Television Production, it
`
`is my opinion that a PHOSITA would have regarded claims 6, 8, and 9 of the ’930
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`patent as obvious based on the teachings of Woodmas combined with the teachings
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`of Smith and/or Television Production in view of the ordinary knowledge possessed
`
`by a PHOSITA. It is also my opinion that the teachings of Woodmas in view of
`
`Smith and/or Television Production would have been sufficient to enable a
`
`PHOSITA to make and use the methods of claims 6, 8, and 9.
`
`42.
`
` I have reviewed the Petition and accompanying claim chart which
`
`explain in detail how Woodmas as combined with Smith and/or Television
`
`Production teaches each and every element of claims 6, 8, and 9 as arranged in
`
`those claims. In my opinion, the Petition and claim chart demonstrate that these
`
`references disclose every element of claims 6, 8, and 9 as arranged in those claims
`
`and render those claims obvious.
`
`43. Woodmas is directed to remotely powering equipment over a two-
`
`conductor cable, such as a coaxial cable. Ex. 1011, Woodmas, Abstract. According
`
`to Woodmas, a control station module includes a power delivery unit for delivering
`
`power to the conductors, and a remote station module includes a power reception
`
`unit for receiving power from the conductors. Id. at 2:3-17. The camera station
`
`module 28 described in Woodmas is coupled with components 18-24, which
`
`include a DC-powered video camera 18, talent earpiece 20, camera operator
`
`intercom headset 22, and talent microphone. Id. at 2:50-53; 2:56-61. Camera
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`station module 28, camera station 16, and components 18-24, when considered
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`alone or in combination, disclose an “access device adapted for data transmission”
`
`as recited in claim 6 of the ’930 patent, because each is able to send and receive
`
`data (e.g., audio-video data or control signals) and receive power by means of a
`
`data signaling pair, cable 30, as further discussed below.
`
`44. Woodmas discloses a two-conductor cable, which may be a coaxial
`
`cable, that is used to connect control station 26 to camera station module 28. Id. at
`
`5:3-10. As Woodmas explains, cable 30 is capable of handling both bi-directional
`
`signaling and power delivery. Id.; see also id. at 2:54-61; 5:3-6. Both the coaxial
`
`embodiment described in Woodmas and the “two wire pair” embodiment involve a
`
`pair of conductors. Id. at 9:47-49. Accordingly, cable 30 in Woodmas satisfies the
`
`construction of “data signaling pair,” because it comprises a pair of wires used to
`
`transmit data.
`
`45. Various types of power sources are disclosed in Woodmas. For
`
`example, Woodmas teaches a power supply 38, which draws power from a
`
`conventional 120 volt AC power source, which would be a wall outlet or generator.
`
`Id. at 3:26-33. This conventional AC power source is illustrated in Figure 2.
`
`Woodmas also discloses a power delivery unit 34, which includes the power supply
`
`38. Id. at 3:17-25. A PHOSITA would understand that the power that operates
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`control station 14, control station module 26, and power delivery unit 34 is a
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`conventional AC power source. Power from this source is in turn used by power
`
`delivery unit 34 and power supply 38 to supply a current to cable 30, which is
`
`transmitted to camera station module 28. Id. at 3:12-17. Camera station module
`
`28 is able to separate the power and deliver it to the components at camera station
`
`16 that require power, such as camera 18, earpiece 20, intercom headset 22, and
`
`microphone 24. Id.; see also id. at 2:50-53; 5:32-35. Therefore, the conventional
`
`AC power source described in Woodmas, as well as the power delivery unit 34 or
`
`DC power supply 38, disclose the “main power source” and “secondary power
`
`source” recited in claim 6 of the ’930 patent. This is also consistent with the claim
`
`constructions provided for “main power source” and “secondary power source” in
`
`the Sony-Axis IPR Decision and the Avaya IPR Decision, which do not require the
`
`two power sources to be physically separate.
`
`46. According to Woodmas, before full power is provided to connected
`
`devices, a low level voltage, with a current limited to 15 mA, is delivered. Id. at
`
`6:45-47; 7:24-26. Woodmas explains that this 15 mA current is applied “when
`
`power delivery unit 34 is initially energized.” Id. at 3:50-52. This current of 15
`
`mA discloses the limitation of a “low level current” recited in claim 6. In fact, this
`
`current level is lower than the example of 20 mA given in the ’930 patent. See Ex.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`1001, ’930 patent, 2:66-3:2. This current level in Woodmas is also consistent with
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`the claim constructions given in the Sony-Axis Decision and the Avaya Decision,
`
`which require the current to be sufficiently low that, by itself, it will not operate the
`
`access device. Woodmas teaches exactly this concept, because it explains that the
`
`15 mA current is applied to cable 30 “before full operating power is imposed.” Ex.
`
`1011, Woodmas, 7:24-26 (emphasis added).
`
`47. Upon receiving voltage from power delivery unit 34, a voltage
`
`controlled oscillator 88 within the power reception unit 76 generates a power status
`
`signal as a frequency modulated signal based on the voltage received. Id. at 6:16-
`
`23. The frequency of the power status signal represents the voltage as delivered by
`
`cable 30 to camera station module 28. Id. at 6:23-26. The power status signal
`
`generated by oscillator 88 is sent via cable 30 back to power delivery unit 34. Id.
`
`at 6:32-40; 7:44-52. For example, because the power status signal is an oscillating
`
`voltage, it is similar to the “varying voltage level” described in the ’930 patent,
`
`which is described as the voltage parameter that identifies a DC-DC switching
`
`supply in the remote equipment. Ex. 1001, ’930 patent, 3:12-17. The power status
`
`signal is thus “representative of the low level voltage” delivered from delivery unit
`
`34. Ex. 1011, Woodmas, 7:44-50. Woodmas then “asks whether the power status
`
`signal is present as detected” and provides the power status signal to
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`microcontroller 54 if detected. Id. at 7:39-52. By delivering this low level current
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`of 15 mA before full operating power is supplied and looking for a return voltage
`
`representative of the low level current, “both the presence and functionality of
`
`power delivery unit 76 are checked before full power is imposed on cable 30.” Id.
`
`at 7:50-52. Sensing this power status signal returned to power delivery unit 34
`
`corresponds to the requirement in claim 6 of sensing a voltage level on the data
`
`signaling pair in response to the low level current, because the power status signal
`
`is in response to, and representative of, the 15 mA current delivered by power
`
`delivery unit 34.
`
`48. Woodmas teaches controlling power in response to the power status
`
`signal in three ways. First, Woodmas teaches that if a short circuit is detected
`
`across cable 30 (e.g., due to cable 30 becoming pinched, cut, or incorrectly
`
`connected), the voltage level will drop below 10 volts, indicating a short circuit is
`
`present. Id. at 6:52-60; 7:24-30. If a short circuit is detected, power delivery is
`
`controlled because a decision is made not to deliver full power from delivery unit
`
`34; instead, an “alarm subroutine” is initiated. Id. at 7:34-35; Fig. 4A. Second,
`
`Woodmas teaches supplying full power if the power status signal is received and a
`
`short circuit is not detected. Id. at 7:39-50; 8:7-17. Third, once power is delivered,
`
`if fluctuations in the power draw at the camera station 16 occur, the power status
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`signal will change, causing the power delivery unit 34 to supply more or less
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`power to “compensate.” Id. at 6:26-31; see also id. at Abstract (“The delivery unit
`
`controls the delivered voltage in accordance with the status signal in order to
`
`maintain the received voltage at the camera station at a desired level in order to
`
`compensate for cable voltage drop.”). Each of these techniques for controlling
`
`power supplied from delivery unit 34 correspond to controlling power supplied by
`
`said secondary power source to said access device in response to a preselected
`
`condition of said voltage level, as recited in claim 6.
`
`49. According to Woodmas, the low level current of 15 mA is supplied
`
`from the power delivery unit 34 to confirm that the reception unit 76 is “present
`
`and operational.” Id. at 7:44-52. Both the “presence” and “functionality” of
`
`reception unit 76 are checked in this manner before full power is supplied. Id.
`
`When the corresponding power status signal is received, Woodmas teaches
`
`displaying the message “camera unit present.” Id. at 7:53-54; Fig. 4A. By
`
`providing a low level current of 15 mA and confirming the presence and
`
`functionality of the camera unit in this manner before supplying full operational
`
`power, Woodmas teaches polling the access device to identify it and confirm that it
`
`is capable of accepting remote power, as recited in claim 8 of the ’930 patent.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`50. As discussed above, Woodmas also teaches supplying power from
`
`
`
`power delivery unit 34 to camera station module 28 and its power reception unit 76
`
`based on the power status signal received at power delivery unit 34. Woodmas
`
`teaches that, during operation, the power draw at camera station may vary, which
`
`in turn may affect the power status signal. Id. at 6:26-31. Power delivery unit 34
`
`is designed to “compensate” in such a situation by delivering more or less power
`
`based on the fluctuations in power draw at the camera station. Id. In addition, as
`
`discussed above, Woodmas teaches detecting short circuits, which may result from
`
`disconnected equipment, when the sensed voltage level drops below 10 volts. Id.
`
`at 6:52-60. Therefore, by teaching that the power delivery unit 34 compensates for
`
`changes detected in the power status signal and can detect when a short circuit is
`
`present, Woodmas discloses 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 as recited in claim 9 of the ’930
`
`patent.
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine
`
`the capability of supplying remote power via a phantom circuit and power
`
`control/qualification via a low level current, as described in Woodmas, with the
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`“digital video production switcher 10” disclosed by Smith and/or the “production
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`switcher” disclosed by Television Production, as discussed below.
`
`52. Woodmas, Smith, and Television Production each expressly teach
`
`“production switchers.” According to Woodmas, control station 14 includes
`
`“conventional television production equipment well known to those skilled in the
`
`art such as the production switcher. . . .” Id. at 2:44-50. Woodmas teaches that
`
`such a conventional “production switcher” is used in conjunction with other
`
`production equipment, including “video and audio transmitters, camera monitors,
`
`preview monitors, program monitors, director’s intercom, control signal
`
`generators, and control signal receivers.” Id. Similarly, Smith teaches a “digital
`
`video production switcher” used in a “production environment.” Ex. 1012, Smith,
`
`Abstract. Also, similar to the “preview monitors” in Woodmas, Smith teaches a
`
`“monitor 20,” which is used to display selected video signals. Id. at 3:55-57.
`
`Likewise, Television Production includes an entire chapter (Chapter 9) that focuses
`
`on video control and production switchers. Ex. 1013, Television Production, 232-
`
`56. Just like the production switchers in Woodmas and Smith, the production
`
`switchers in Television Production are used in a production environment
`
`comprising multiple video input sources and multiple preview monitors. Id. at
`
`234-35.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Declaration of Geoffrey O. Thompson
`
`53. A PHOSITA would have considered it obvious to combine elements
`
`
`
`from Smith and/or Television Production with Woodmas because each reference
`
`relates to the same field of endeavor (audio-video production and signal switching)
`
`and each discloses similar components as discussed above, including well-known
`
`production switchers. Combining the production switcher functionality of Smith
`
`and/or Television Production with the production switcher and remote phantom
`
`powering functionality of Woodmas wou