`
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA AND
`THE HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
`Petitioners
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________________
`
`CASE IPR: (cid:55)(cid:82)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:71)
`
`_____________________________
`
`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 SH-1011
`
`
`
`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
`
`