IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Ewing et al.
`
`u.s. Patent No.: 7,043,543 B2
`
`Issue Date: May 9,2006
`
`Serial No.: 09/930,780
`
`Filing Date: August 15,2001
`
`Examiner: Jeffrey Pwu
`
`Real Party in Interest: American Power
`Conversion Corporation
`
`Title: VERTICAL-MOUNT ELECTRICAL
`POWER DISTRIBUTION PLUGS TRIP
`
`Mail Stop "Inter Partes Reexam"
`Attn: Central Reexamination Unit
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Examiner: Christopher E. Lee
`
`Reexamination No.: 95/001,485
`
`Confirmation No.: 8636
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARK HORENSTEIN
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`I, Mark Horenstein, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Boston University. A copy of my
`
`curriculum vitae and list of publications is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Background
`
`2.
`
`I have a Bachelor's of Science from the Massachusetts of Technology, a Master's
`
`of Science from the University of California at Berkley, and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts
`
`Institute of Technology, all in Electrical Engineering.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently a tenured professor at Boston University, in the Department of
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have been on the faculty of Boston University since
`
`1979, first as an Assistant Professor, then as an Associate Professor, and now as a full Professor.
`
`IPR Page 1
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`RARITAN EXHIBIT 1031
`
`

`
`I also served as Associate Department Chair for nine years, and as Associate Dean for Graduate
`
`Programs and Research for nine years after that. I have an active program in teaching and
`
`research in areas relevant to power switching technology. I am a Registered Professional
`
`Engineer (Electrical) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`4.
`
`Prior to my employment at Boston University, I worked for Spire Corporation in
`
`the areas of high voltage systems and pulsed power.
`
`5.
`
`As part of my work at Boston University, I have taught various courses for
`
`electrical engineering students over the years. These courses include, among others, introduction
`
`to engineering, electric circuit theory, introduction to operating systems, introduction to
`
`electronics, analog electronics, electromagnetic energy transmission, and modern active circuit
`
`design. I was also responsible for developing and teaching our first Senior Capstone design
`
`course, which I taught for 10 years over the period 1990 to 2000. The course, by my design,
`
`continues to be based on a "customer" model in which the students design a product or system
`
`for a real-world customer.
`
`6.
`
`A large part of my graduate training involved the study and design ofAC power
`
`distribution systems. I also have considerable experience in electrical wiring, having served as an
`
`apprentice to a Master Electrician during my college years. I have taught both undergraduate
`
`and graduate students. Since 1979 and until the present day, literally thousands of students under
`
`my tutelage have graduated from Boston University with Bachelor's and Master's degrees in
`
`electrical engineering. These students fulfilled their degree requirements in part by taking
`
`courses taught by me.
`
`7.
`
`As part of work as a professor at Boston University, I have engaged in outside
`
`research projects and interests. My research interests include, among others, experimental
`
`electromagnetics, electrostatics in industry, electrostatic safety, and power electronic
`
`applications. At least two current projects specifically involve the remote control of relays for
`
`power distribution via a serial-network communication system.
`
`8.
`
`I have authored two books that are used in teaching engineering students: Design
`
`Concepts/or Engineers, 4th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009; and
`
`lvficroelectrollic Circuits and Devices, 2nd Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. I
`
`have also authored chapters on electrostatics in two other books, and published numerous journal
`
`articles in the field of electrical engineering. In addition, I am named as an inventor on five
`
`2329999-4
`
`2
`
`IPR Page 2
`
`

`
`different patents, all of which are related in various ways to electrical engineering and
`
`electrostatics. A full list of my publications and patents is attached as part of Exhibit A.
`
`Work for APe
`
`9.
`
`I have been engaged by American Power Conversion Corporation ("APC"), to
`
`provide advice on technical issues relating to litigation between Server Technology, Inc. ("STI")
`
`and APC, and also this reexamination. I may testify in the litigation between STI and APC. I
`
`am being compensated for my time spent in connection with all of these matters.
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 B2 (the "'543 patent"), which I
`
`understand is being reexamined by the U.S. Patent Office ("PTO") in the present inter partes
`
`reexamination. I have also reviewed a number of the prior art references that I understand are
`
`being asserted by APC against the '543 patent in this reexamination, including: (1) The
`
`MasterSwitch™ VM ("MSVM") Literature, which includes the MasterSwitch™ VM User Guide
`
`(the "MSVM User Guide," Exhibit B to the APC's Detailed Request for Inter Partes
`
`Reexamination ("Request")), the MasterSwitch ™ VM Power Distribution Unit Installation and
`
`Quick Start Manual (the "MSVM Quick Start Manual," Exhibit C to the Request) and the
`
`PowerNef~ SNMP Management Infoffilation Base (MIB) v3.1.0 Reference Guide (the "MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide," Exhibit D to the Request); (2) the BayTech Literature, which includes
`
`downloads ofwvvVI'.BayTech.net from web.archive.org (the "BayTech Website," Exhibit E to the
`
`Request, and attached as separate documents as Exhibits E1-E3 to APC's Third Party
`
`Comments), an Owner's Manual for BayTech Remote Power Control Unit (the "BayTech
`
`Manual," Exhibit F to the Request), and M2 Communications Ltd., "BayTech," M2 Presswire,
`
`Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, U.S.A., November 19,1999 (the "BayTech Article," Exhibit G to the
`
`Request); (3) McNally et al., U.S. patent 6,741,442 ("McNally", Exhibit I to the Request); (4) the
`
`Power Administrato?M 800 User Guide ("PA-800," Exhibit H to the Request); (5) Lee, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,650,771 ("Lee," Exhibit J to the Request); and (6) Liu, U.S. Patent No. 6,476,729
`
`("Liu," Exhibit K to the Request).
`
`11.
`
`In addition, I have reviewed portions of the first Office Action in this
`
`reexamination, STI's Office Action Response ("OXR"), and the declarations STI submitted with
`
`its Response by Carrel W. Ewing ("Ewing"), Chris Hardin ("Hardin"), KC Mares ("Mares"), and
`
`B. Michael Aucoin ("Aucoin").
`
`2329999-4
`
`3
`
`IPR Page 3
`
`

`
`12.
`
`I have been told by counsel for APC that the relevant time frame for my
`
`comments is the years leading up to the priority date that the Examiner has determined is
`
`appropriate for the reexamined claims of the '543 patent, which I have been informed is
`
`December 8, 2000. I have confined my observations herein to that time frame.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`13.
`
`It is my understanding that STI has taken the position in this reexamination that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant time frame would have had bachelor's degree in
`
`electrical engineering with one to three years of experience in designing and making power
`
`distribution systems for use in racks. (OXR at 35). In other words, STI's position is that the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art was an electrical engineer who had recently entered the
`
`workforce. I have reservations regarding STI's description of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art, and also the way in which STI and its declarants apply that level (which I will discuss further
`
`below). That said, I believe that my position as a professor teaching electrical engineering
`
`students has given me an excellent understanding of what a person of ordinary skill in the art, as
`
`defined by STI, on December 8, 2000 would have known.
`
`14.
`
`In my positions at Boston University, I have been actively involved in
`
`determining what engineering students should be taught, in advising these students, and in
`
`teaching their courses. A core element of our student advising, as wen as the mode by which we
`
`train them, is a firm understanding of what electrical engineers entering the engineering
`
`profession after graduation must know to succeed in the workplace. I also have regular
`
`conversations with alumni and the directors of our Career Development Office to amplify my
`
`understanding of these issues.
`
`15.
`
`In my role as a professor, I have interacted with engineering students and have
`
`had many opportunities to observe what engineering students actually did and do know in
`
`preparation for assuming engineering jobs.
`
`16.
`
`As a specific example of both curriculum choices made to prepare students for
`
`jobs as electrical engineers and my interactions with these students, in 1990 we instituted in the
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Boston University a required capstone
`
`senior design project. The requirement for engineers to complete a senior design project has
`
`been retained as a graduation requirement continuously since then. Moreover, from the start I
`
`2329999-4
`
`4
`
`IPR Page 4
`
`

`
`designed the course based on a "customer" model, whereby the course instructors (me over the
`
`first decade of the course offering) solicit real world customers in need of a product or system to
`
`be designed. This model for the course is still in place as of today, and it also has been adopted
`
`by two other departments in the College of Engineering.
`
`17.
`
`Products of the type described in the '543 patent are conunensurate in complexity
`
`with some of the senior design projects of average difficulty performed by engineering students.
`
`Projects of this type would have been straight-forward and routine in the time frame of
`
`December 8, 2000. In fact, the very first project assigned to the class when the course began in
`
`1990 was a system for the remote monitoring of current consumption at duplex outlets, and the
`
`reporting back of the data to a computer via an RS-232 network. The latter, one of the state-of(cid:173)
`
`the-art digital communication technologies in 1990, would be considered a precursor to the
`
`Ethernet type of conununication that is the backbone of the current Internet
`
`18.
`
`Prior to December 8, 2000, an engineer having recently entered the work force
`
`would definitely have had the skills to design a product having outlets, switching components
`
`(such as relays), sensor elements (such as current sensors), input/output devices (such as
`
`electronic or numeric displays), control components (such as one or more processors) and
`
`communications components (such as a network interface). I understand that these elements are
`
`disclosed in the '543 patent. Using the communication components for remotely receiving
`
`information regarding operation of the product, or to supply conunands to control the product,
`
`was also within the skills of engineers entering the work force. This latter fact is evident given
`
`the project that I assigned to EE students as early as 1990.
`
`19.
`
`Furthermore, an engineer having recently entered the work force would have
`
`recognized that operation of the components that make up the product would not be influenced
`
`by the form-factor of the housing. Specifically, an engineer entering the work force would have
`
`expected the components to perform the same functions whether packaged in a vertical housing
`
`or a horizontal housing, or in a one-piece housing or a multi-piece housing. This fact regarding
`
`the horizontal-vertical equivalence of form factor - especially for a system for which gravity is
`
`irrelevant - is evident by the widespread availability, for example, of personal "desktop
`
`computers" that could be placed on a desktop in a horizontal position, or, with equal ease, placed
`
`on the floor in a vertical position.
`
`2329999-4
`
`5
`
`IPR Page 5
`
`

`
`20.
`
`One thing that I teach to engineering students, and which I know is taught to
`
`students throughout engineering curricula in the United States, is to consider numerous design
`
`options before committing to a finalized design. This process is built around the well-known
`
`principle of the iterative "design cycle." Engaging in this process forces design engineers to
`
`consider all obvious variants of a product, including its form factor. Another thing taught to
`
`engineering students is that, in designing a product, the requirements of the user of the product,
`
`as well as the environment in which the product may be used, are paramount and sacred. These
`
`requirements are a critical component of product design.
`
`Product Variations
`
`21.
`
`I understand that STI and its declarants assert that an electrical engineer having
`
`one to three years of industry experience would not have thought to package the components of a
`
`power distribution product in an integrated vertical housing because some power distribution
`
`products have housings in different form factors, such as more than one enclosure or a horizontal
`
`orientation. See OXR at 26-28, Hardin ~18, Mares ~21. I disagree with this position. Rather, in
`
`my opinion, such variation in packaging would be embraced as a matter of course in the iterative
`
`process of the design cycle. Whether to produce a vertically mounted or horizontally mounted
`
`plug strip (or both) and whether to integrate components or package them separately are
`
`examples of precisely the sort of design decisions that an electrical engineer, even one with only
`
`three years of undergraduate experience entering the senior design course, and certainly a recent
`
`graduate of any accredited EE program, and 1110st definitely such an engineer having one to three
`
`years of experience, would have both considered and implemented with fluidity as a matter of
`
`routine.
`
`22.
`
`The MasterSwitch VM Literature provides a good example of such a variation in
`
`packaging that would have been considered by such an electrical engineer. The MSVM product
`
`described in the MSVM Literature is a power distribution unit ("PDU") that includes eight
`
`independent relay-controlled outlets with a separate Controller. (MSVM Quick Start Manual at
`
`2). The Controller provides a network interface card to a lOBase-T network (MSVM User
`
`Guide at 1; MSv'M Quick Connect Guide at 11), which allows an Internet connection and remote
`
`control over the Internet using SNMP cOl1unands or via a web-based interface. (MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide at 33). However, in my opinion, one of skill in the art would not have been
`
`2329999-4
`
`6
`
`IPR Page 6
`
`

`
`deterred from considering other configurations. Rather, among the variations that would have
`
`been considered by an engineer, even one with one to three years of experience, would be to
`
`package the network interface card within the enclosure of the PDU rather than within a separate
`
`enclosure. This variation would have become more and more prevalent as the size of network(cid:173)
`
`base cards became smaller and smaller in the time frame leading up to December 8,2000. In
`
`fact, my understanding is that, not only was such a variation considered, it was actually
`
`implemented in products, for example the PA-800 and the BayTech RPC-7.
`
`23.
`
`I believe that an electrical engineer with one to three years experience in the
`
`industry would tmderstand how to package various power distribution product components
`
`together into a single, physically integral structure. This sort of compact packaging would
`
`represent the normal evolution of a electrical product toward smaller, more compact size as
`
`components such as integrated circuits and chip-mounted devices have become smaller and
`
`smaller. Many electronic products have undergone such size shrinking as a matter of course as
`
`the state of the art in integrated circuits and printed circuit board design has become smaller.
`
`24.
`
`This same point also applies to STI's contention that a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would not have understood how to, or would not have thought to, package the
`
`components together into a vertical enclosure. In 2000, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have been aware of all of the various other references that showed vertically-oriented
`
`power distribution products. For example, MSVM, BayTech, and McNally all showed vertical
`
`power strips. Moreover, outlet strips without relay control were commercially available for
`
`standard 19" (REMA-type) racks well before December 2000. I had one such power strip in my
`
`laboratory as early as 1982.
`
`25.
`
`Physically integrating the power distribution product components vertically poses
`
`no more difficulty for a person of ordinary skill in the art than packaging them together
`
`horizontally. And an electrical engineer with one to three years experience would also have been
`
`aware of the potential advantages of a vertical orientation. For example, BayTech' s sales
`
`literature states an advantage of a "Zero U" configuration. (BayTech RPC Series Webpage at 2).
`
`I understand "U" to refer to a measure of vertical height for equipment in a rack. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood this reference to "Zero U," when combined with
`
`the picture of a vertically-oriented BayTech product accessed via a link next to that reference, as
`
`2329999-4
`
`7
`
`IPR Page 7
`
`

`
`conveying the advantages of saving horizontal rack space by making a vertical power
`
`distribution unit.
`
`26.
`
`These facts apply equally to the other prior art references. For example, it is my
`
`opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to change the
`
`orientation of the components in PA-800, which were packaged together in a single horizontal
`
`enclosure, into a vertical orientation. Such a person of ordinary skill in the art also would have
`
`recognized the suggestion in Wiebe, particularly in light of the teachings already in the art
`
`mentioned in the prior paragraph, to change the orientation of those components.
`
`27.
`
`Simple variations in packaging, such as enclosing a controller in the same
`
`enclosure as the components being controlled, or making an enclosure vertically oriented rather
`
`than horizontally oriented, is the type of simple substitution that a trained engineer would
`
`consider in the course of designing a product such as a power distribution unit.
`
`28.
`
`An engineer would have understood the description in the BayTech Article to
`
`describe the benefits of packaging power distribution functionality in a vertical enclosure.
`
`(BayTech Article at 1). This would have been a simple task for an engineer and success would
`
`have been expected as a matter of nonnal business practice.
`
`29. More generally, as computer components and electronics have gotten more
`
`powerful over time, the trend in computer and electrical technology for many decades has been
`
`to make components smaller and to fit them together. One can see this trend in everything from
`
`telephones to iPods and cameras. The same trend has affected power distribution products. As
`
`power distribution electronics and components have gotten more powerful, more capacity to
`
`make them smaller and fit them together has developed. I have taught (and still teach) this
`
`evolutionary concept to my electrical engineering students. Though STI makes arguments about
`
`a unitary structure, I regard such a stmcture to be nothing more than the normal implications of
`
`this trend in the power-distribution product field. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art would have been aware of this trend. The person would have been motivated to see if one
`
`could fit all of the relevant (now smaller) components into a single enclosure.
`
`30.
`
`Similarly, I regard the use of numeric displays as pictured in Lee and Liu, in place
`
`of other mechanisms to visually present infonnation, to also be the type of variation that would
`
`have been routinely considered by an electrical engineer, even one with only one to three years
`
`of experience, in the late 1990s. My first use of a numeric display to replace another display
`
`2329999-4
`
`8
`
`IPR Page 8
`
`

`
`mechanism occurred in the early 1970s. Over the years, numeric displays became cheaper and
`
`more widely available such that by the late 1990s, the use of a numeric display, available as a
`
`conU1lOdity item sold by scores of vendors, would have been contemplated as part of product
`
`design for which information was to be output to a user. An electrical engineer, even one with
`
`one to three years of experience, would have expected that such a display could be successfully
`
`incorporated into a product using routine engineering skill. There is nothing about a vertical
`
`plugstrip that would have led such an engineer to conclude that such a common component could
`
`not be successfully integrated.
`
`What MSVM Literature Reveals Regarding Its Display
`
`31.
`
`The MSVM Literature indicates that the product included a display capable of
`
`displaying multiple current levels. This function is achieved by (a) an electronic system for
`
`measuring the current, and (b) an LED on the unit that has multiple states indicative of the level
`
`of current. The states of the LED on the MSVM consist of the following: LED turned off to
`
`indicate that the unit is off; green LED on and steady to indicate that the unit is operating under
`
`normal load conditions; green LED flashing to indicate that the unit is approaching its maximum
`
`load; and solid red LED to indicate that the unit has exceeded its maximum load. (MSVM User
`
`Guide at Fig. 1, Tables 1 & 4).
`
`32.
`
`An electrical engineer would have recognized that a current measuring system
`
`could interchangeably feed a numeric display, which a user might view to discern current levels
`
`constituting normal, overload or underload conditions, and LEDs programmed to take on
`
`different states to display these same current levels. In each case, a user is required to know
`
`what levels correspond to the display states. In one case, the user programs certain thresholds for
`
`the current state into the product, and LEDs change their state in relation to those thresholds. In
`
`the other case, the user knows the relevant thresholds and compares them to the information on
`
`the digital display. Because both display methods involve knowledge of the same current levels
`
`corresponding to the states, and both result in displaying the same information, these approaches
`
`would have been recognized as alternative approaches for implementing a display on a power
`
`distribution unit.
`
`33.
`
`The documents that have been discussed in this reexamination provide examples
`
`of components that display current or power information. These examples include the Load
`
`2329999-4
`
`9
`
`IPR Page 9
`
`

`
`Meter ofPA-800, the numeric displays of Lee and Liu, the LED ofMSVM, and the display as
`
`described in the McNally patent. Also, other types of displays we known, including analog
`
`meters. Engineering students would have been exposed to these types of devices as a result of
`
`their course work and laboratory classes, and other study prior to graduation, and would have
`
`found it reasonable to describe these devices as "displays."
`
`Other Aspects Revealed in the MSVM Literature
`
`34.
`
`The MSVM Literature reveals that the outlet enclosure of the MSVM product
`
`includes a current sensor that could measure current for current information for both display and
`
`reporting.
`
`35.
`
`It would have been readily apparent to one of skill in the art that the MSVM
`
`Literature disclosed that there was circuitry for cOlmnunications, current sensing and processing
`
`inside the vertical enclosure of the MSVM PDU The MSVM Literature makes clear that the
`
`MSVM PDU both responds to commands and generates information for communication over a
`
`1 OBase-T network, which may be an Ethernet LAN (or other network). The infoffilation and
`
`conmlands pass through a Controller that contains a network interface card, for connection to a
`
`1 OBase-T network (or other network). Connections between the PDU and the network interface
`
`card in the Controller are through an RJ-11 connector. Even though circuit schematics are not
`
`provided in the MSVM Literature, one of skill in the art would have understood certain basics of
`
`MSVM circuitry from the function and stnlcture that is disclosed. These basics were well known
`
`by persons skilled in the art in the time frame of December 8,2000.
`
`36.
`
`For example, an RJ-ll connector is an industry standard connector. There are not
`
`enough conductors in an RJ-11 connector for the cable connecting the Controller to the PDU to
`
`independently control all of the switched outlets in the PDU and to convey infoffilation back to
`
`the Controller such that it could be transmitted over the 1 OBase-T network. The impossibility of
`
`having all such circuitry in the Controller is further apparent from the configuration pictured
`
`below, (MSVM Quick Start Manual page 9). As shown, four PDUs can be networked together
`
`with one Controller, with the connections to that Controller made through one RJ-11 connector.
`
`2329999-4
`
`10
`
`IPR Page 10
`
`

`
`37.
`
`An electrical engineer, even one with only one to three years of experience, would
`
`have understood that, in the pictured architecture, the network interface card within the
`
`Controller was receiving commands over a 1 OBase-T network (or other network of similar type
`
`to which the Controller was connected) and generating conmlands that could be communicated
`
`through the RJ-II connector over the network of PDUs, as illustrated above. Processing
`
`circuitry within each PDU would necessarily receive such a command and detemline whether the
`
`command was directed to that PDU. If so, processing circuitry would generate signals to cause
`
`the relay-controlled outlets (or other component, as appropriate for the command) within the
`
`PDU to execute the command. Similarly, in reporting information for transmission over the
`
`1 OBase-T network (or other network to which the Controller was connected), processing
`
`circuitry within each PDU would necessarily receive a measurement from a current sensor (or
`
`other component, as appropriate for the type of information being reported) and then cause it to
`
`be transmitted over the network connecting the PDUs.
`
`38.
`
`Likewise, one of skill in the art would have recognized that the LED displaying
`
`information on each PDU was also being controlled by circuitry within the PDU based on
`
`current in the PDD. Thus, one of skill in the art would have recognized that, with the
`
`architecture described in the MSVM Literature, within each PDU there was at least circuitry to
`
`measure and report current information; to measure and display current information; and to
`
`process commands to control the outlets.
`
`2329999-4
`
`11
`
`IPR Page 11
`
`

`
`Interpretation of McNally
`
`39.
`
`Among other points relating to the McNally patent, I understand that STI has
`
`challenged whether McNally discloses a "current-related information reporting system" or
`
`"plugstrip current reporting system" as required by the claims of the '543 patent. (OXR at 43,
`
`55). In particular, I understand that one of STI's allegations is that the reporting system in
`
`McNally does not report actual current or current-related information.
`
`40.
`
`First, I note that the McNally patent explicitly discloses such a current-related
`
`infoffilation reporting system or current reporting system, including the disclosure of current or
`
`current-related information being transmitted by the system, as sllllllarized by the Examiner on
`
`pages 31-32 and 35 of his Office Action. The Examiner's various citations to McNally on this
`
`point in those pages appear to me to be correct.
`
`41.
`
`Second, even if McNally did not have such an explicit disclosure, what it does
`
`disclose about collecting and reporting current-related information is laid out such that one of
`
`skill in the art would have understood the unit of McNally to actually transmit current-related
`
`information, even without an express statement. In particular, the passage in column 6, lines 32
`
`through 54 of McNally describes how in one embodiment the micro-controller 62 embedded in
`
`the power management circuitry 50 receives data from current sensors and can then "bi(cid:173)
`
`directionally communicate" with other circuits. These two concepts appear very close to each
`
`other in the McNally specification; indeed, one appears right after the other. A person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and certainly an electrical engineer with one to three years experience in
`
`2000, would have understood this close coupling of thoughts to disclose - or at least strongly
`
`suggest - that the micro-controller was actually communicating current information, or could be
`
`configured to do so. Such two-way digital conmllllication was commonplace and routine in the
`
`time frame of December 2000.
`
`Routine Engineering Practices
`
`42.
`
`An aspect where I disagree with STI and its declarants on the ordinary skill in the
`
`art is on the issue of customer needs. It is my understanding that STI takes the position that,
`
`because it believes the person of ordinary skill in the art was a designer of power distribution
`
`systems, and not a user, that designer would not understand the problems of a user at a data
`
`center in the field. (OXR at 17,35,50; Ewing ~9; Hardin ~~22-23; Mares ~~ 25-26). STI
`
`2329999-4
`
`12
`
`IPR Page 12
`
`

`
`appears to allege that these customer needs would have included freeing up vertical space on
`
`racks, and providing power distribution units whose components were fully, physically
`
`integrated.
`
`43.
`
`This suggestion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be ignorant of his
`
`customer's needs is incorrect. A trained engineer with one to three years experience would know
`
`to investigate customer needs as part of designing a product. Indeed, without knowing customer
`
`needs there is virtually no way for a designer to determine what problems the product is
`
`supposed to solve, and what are the hurdles that must be overcome in order to solve it. This
`
`concept is elemental to our capstone senior design course and is covered within the first three
`
`weeks of class.
`
`44.
`
`One of the things I emphasize to my engineering students is that they need to
`
`understand the scope of a problem in order to have any chance of coming up with a workable
`
`solution. In the context of designing a product for a customer, I teach my students that they need
`
`to consult with the customer - repeatedly, if necessary - and understand the customer's problems
`
`as they design a solution. From speaking with alumnae of our program, I know that my students
`
`who go into industry do precisely that upon graduating and entry into the electrical engineering
`
`field. I also expect that, over the course of gaining one to three years practical experience in the
`
`industry, this lesson is simply driven home further. It does not make any sense to me, and defies
`
`common sense generally, that a power distribution system designer would willfully ignore her
`
`customers' needs.
`
`45.
`
`Another area in which I disagree is with regard to a plurality of "intelligent power
`
`sections" being a non-obvious invention over a PDU having a single such element. (OXR at 11).
`
`A person skilled in the art in the December 2000 time frame, would recognize that partitioning
`
`the circuitry tasked with controlling a number of relays could be accomplished in several ways.
`
`As part of the normal design process, a skilled person would consider a system in which the
`
`control function is performed centrally, by a single unit controlling all the relays. Altematively
`
`the control circuitry could be distributed into two, four, or even more subdivisions in which each
`
`subdivision of the circuitry controls some subset of the relays. Yet another system might involve
`
`a combination of centralized and distributed control. Each of these options would be
`
`contemplated by the skilled person as a nomlal part of the design process. Contemplation of
`
`2329999-4
`
`13
`
`IPR Page 13
`
`

`
`these design choices would be more than obvious - it would be a design requirement - to any
`
`engineer designing a power distribution unit.
`
`Teaching Away
`
`46.
`
`It is my understanding that STr has also taken the position that the prior art
`
`references "teach away" from its invention in the '543 patent. (OXR at 35). It appears to me
`
`that the evidence STI and its declarants cite on this point is, at most, an ar