IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RARITAN AMERICAS, INC. D/B/A RARITAN COMPUTER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC., Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-0159701596
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,5437,702,771
`Title: Vertical-Mount Electrical Power
`Distribution Plugstrip Filed: August 15,
`2001Device Having a Current Display
`Filed: October 11, 2006 Issued: May 9, 2006April 20, 2010
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARK HORENSTEIN IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,043,5437,702,771
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RARITAN AMERICAS, INC. D/B/A RARITAN COMPUTER, INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC., Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2015-0159701596
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,5437,702,771
`Title: Vertical-Mount Electrical Power
`Distribution Plugstrip Filed: August 15,
`2001Device Having a Current Display
`Filed: October 11, 2006 Issued: May 9, 2006April 20, 2010
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARK HORENSTEIN IN SUPPORT
`OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,043,5437,702,771
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 1
`
`
`
`RARITAN EXHIBIT 1030
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 2
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. MARK HORENSTEIN
`
`I, Mark Horenstein, hereby declare as follows:
`
`Petitioner Raritan Americas, Inc. d/b/a Raritan Computer, Inc. has retained
`
`me to provide my opinions in support of their Petition for Inter Partes Review of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543. I also provided a declaration in support of their recent
`
`Petition for Inter Partes review of the closely related U.S. Patent No. 7,702,771
`
`on July 15, 2015 (Case IPR2015-01596).7,702,771. I am being compensated for
`
`my time at my standard rate of $290 per hour. I have no interest in the outcome of
`
`this proceeding.
`
`I.Background and Qualifications
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the Massachusetts Institute
`
`of Technology, a Master of Science degree from the University of California at
`
`Berkeley, 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. I also served as Associate Chair for
`
`1
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 3
`
`
`
`Undergraduate Programs in the ECE department for a total of twelve years (1990-
`
`1998; 2012-2015), and as Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Research for
`
`nine years (1999-2008). I have an active program in teaching and research in areas
`
`Undergraduate Programs in the ECE department for a total of twelve years (1990-
`
`1998; 2012-2015), and as Associate Dean for Graduate Programs and Research for
`
`nine years (1999-2008). 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 to electrical engineering students over the years. These courses have
`
`included, among others, introduction to engineering, electric circuit theory,
`
`introductory and advanced electronics, electromagnetics, modern-active circuit
`
`design, and power electronics. I was also responsible for developing and teaching
`
`our department’s 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 an outside
`
`company or customer.
`
`6.
`
`A large part of my graduate training involved the study and design of
`
`2
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 4
`
`
`
`AC 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
`
`3
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 5
`
`
`
`7.
`
`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.
`
`8.
`
`As part of my work as a professor at Boston University, I have
`
`engaged in various research projects and outside interests. My research projects
`
`have included such areas as experimental electromagnetics and electrostatics,
`
`electrostatic safety, power-electronics applications, solar energy, and micro-
`
`electromechanical systems.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored two books that are used by engineering students:
`
`Design Concepts for Engineers, 5th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
`
`2015; and Microelectronic Circuits and Devices, 2nd Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ:
`
`Prentice Hall, 1996. I have also authored chapters on industrial applications of
`
`electrostatics in two reference books, and I have published numerous journal
`
`articles in the field of electrical engineering. In addition, I am named as an inventor
`
`on five different patents, all of which are related in various ways to electrical
`
`engineering.
`
`II.Materials Considered
`
`10.
`
`In forming my opinions, I have considered my knowledge, my
`
`experience, and the following documents, which I understand are exhibits to the
`
`accompanying Petition for Inter Partes Review, as well as the other materials cited
`
`4
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 6
`
`
`
`herein and/or in the Petition:
`
`11.
`
`accompanying Petition for Inter Partes Review, as well as the other materials cited
`
`herein and/or in the Petition:
`
`!
`!
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 to Ewing (Ex. 1001);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,702,771 to Ewing (Ex. 1001);
`
`5
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 7
`
`
`
`!
`!
`!
`
`!
`
`!
`
`!
`!
`
`!
`
`!
`
`!
`!
`!
`!
`!
`
`!
`
`!
`!
`!
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 to Ewing (Ex. 1002);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974 to Ewing (Ex. 1012);
`MasterSwitch VM Power Distribution Unit User Guide, December
`1999 (“MSVM User Guide”) (Ex. 1013);
`MasterSwitch VM Power Distribution Unit Installation and Quick
`Start Manual, December 1999 (“MSVM Quick Start”) (Ex. 1014);
`PowerNet SNMP Management Information Base (MIB) v3.1.0
`Reference Guide, November, 1999 (“MSVM PowerNet Guide”) (Ex.
`1015);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,741,442 to McNally (Ex. 1017);
`Baytech Remote Power Control Unit Owner’s Manual, BayTech
`Manual Publication #U140E125-05, January 2000 (“Baytech
`Manual”) (Ex. 1018);
`Baytech Vertical-Mount Data Center Power Control Press Release,
`October 13, 1999 (“Baytech Press Release”) (Ex. 1019);
`Download of Baytech RPC Series Webpage from web.archive.org,
`capturing webpage as of October 6, 2000 (“Baytech Webpage”) (Ex.
`1020);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,650,771 to Lee (Ex. 1022);
`U.S. Patent No. 6,476,729 to Liu (Ex. 1023);
`U.S. Patent No. 5,595,494 to Wiebe (Ex. 1024);
`U.S. Patent No. 4,853,619 to Paulsen (Ex. 1025);
`Systems Enhancement Corporation PA-800 Manual, October 1, 1996
`(Ex. 1026);
`Systems Enhancement Corporation PA-800 Manual, October 31, 1996
`(Ex. 1027;
`APC Symmetra User’s Manual, rev. October, 1997 (Ex. 1028);
`APC PowerStruXure User’s Manual, November 2001 (Ex. 1029); and
`Materials from the prosecution history and reexaminations of STI
`patents and the litigation between STI and APC.
`
`12.
`
`I am also familiar with many of the issues relevant to this IPR
`
`6
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 8
`
`
`
`13.
`request because of my prior consulting work on behalf of American Power
`
`Conversion Corp. related to the patents of Server Technology, Inc.
`
`Specifically,
`
`on May 16, 2011, I provided a declaration on behalf APC in an inter partes
`
`reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,043,543 (Reexam Control No. 95/001,485). I
`
`have also served as an expert witness on behalf of APC in its ongoing litigation with
`
`STI involving both the ‘543771 and ‘771543 patents (District of Nevada, Case No.
`
`06-00698-LRH-VRP). I testified in the jury trial in this litigation on May 21, 2014
`
`and prepared a report, dated May 27, 2011, regarding the invalidity of the ‘543771
`
`and ‘771543 patents.
`
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`14.
`
`In forming my opinions as presented in this declaration, I have applied
`
`the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art before the time frame of the
`
`‘543771 patent. I believe that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
`
`someone who had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`engineering plus approximately one to three years of industrial experience in the
`
`field of either intelligent-power distribution devices or electrical-power distribution
`
`units (or equivalent). I understand that the time frame of invention that is to be
`
`applied to the ‘771 patent is before August 15, 2001, the filing date of the related
`
`‘543 patent. I also understand that the Patent Owner may contend that the time of
`
`invention must be before December 8, 2000, the filing date of an earlier STI patent.
`7
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 9
`
`
`
`15.
`
`applied to the ‘543 patent is before August 15, 2001, its filing date. I also understand
`
`that the Patent Owner may contend that the time of invention must be before
`
`December 8, 2000, the filing date of an earlier STI patent. My opinions do not
`
`change if I apply the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at this earlier time
`
`around the year 2000.
`
`16.
`
`Furthermore, I believe that my position as a professor who teaches,
`
`and has previously taught, students of electrical and computer engineering has
`
`given me an excellent understanding of what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would have known before the time of invention.
`
`17.
`
`In my positions at Boston University, particularly as the Associate
`
`Chair for Undergraduate Programs, I have been actively involved in determining
`
`what courses and concepts should be taught to engineering students. I have also
`
`advised these students and taught their courses. A core foundation of our student
`
`advising, as well as the mode by which we train students, involves a firm
`
`understanding of what electrical and computer engineers must know before
`
`entering the engineering profession upon graduation in order 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.
`
`18.
`
`In my role as a professor, I have interacted with many engineering
`
`8
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 10
`
`
`
`students, and I have had many opportunities to observe what engineering students
`
`actually know following graduation as they enter the engineering workplace. I had
`
`this same understanding before the time frame of the ‘771 patent.
`
`19.
`
`As a specific example of both the curriculum choices made to
`
`actually know following graduation as they enter the engineering workplace. I had
`
`this same understanding before the time frame of the ‘543 patent.
`
`15.As a specific example of both the curriculum choices made to prepare students
`
`for jobs as electrical and computer engineers, and my interactions with these
`
`students, I note that in 1990, the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`Engineering at Boston University instituted a required Senior Capstone Design
`
`project course. The task of developing this course was assigned to me. The
`
`requirement for engineers to complete a senior design project has been retained as a
`
`graduation requirement continuously ever since. In designing this course, I chose to
`
`base it on a customer model, whereby the course instructors 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 other departments in the
`
`College of Engineering.
`
`20.
`
`Products of the type described in the ‘543771 patent are
`
`commensurate in complexity with some of the senior design projects that I have
`
`supervised over the years. Projects of this type would have been straightforward and
`
`routine before the time of invention. In fact, the very first project that I assigned
`9
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 11
`
`
`
`when the course began in 1990 was a system for the remote monitoring of AC
`
`electrical power consumption and current at outlet points, and the reporting back of
`
`the data to a computer via an RS-232 network. RS-232 communication can be
`
`considered a precursor to the Ethernet type of communication that is the backbone
`
`of the current Internet.
`
`Prior to the time of invention, an engineer having recently entered the
`
`21.
`22.
`precursor to the Ethernet type of communication that is the backbone of the current
`
`Internet.
`
`10
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 12
`
`
`
`17.Prior to the time of invention, an engineer having recently entered the work force
`
`would definitely have had the skills to design a product with 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 or logic units) and communications components (such as a
`
`network interface). The use of communication components for both the remote
`
`receiving of information regarding operation of the product and the supplying of
`
`commands to control the product was also well within the skill set of an engineer
`
`entering the work force before the time frame of the ‘543771 patent. This latter fact
`
`is evident given the project that I assigned to ECE students as early as 1990.
`
`23.
`
`I further note that an engineer who had recently entered the work force
`
`in the time frame of the ‘543771 patent would have recognized that operation of the
`
`components that make up the disclosed invention would not be affected 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 similarity of horizontal vs. vertical form factors for
`
`electrical devices ∀ particularly for devices in which gravity is an irrelevant
`
`parameter ∀ is evident in a variety of electrical and electronic devices that were in
`
`widespread use in the time frame of the invention. Early (pre-laptop)
`11
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 13
`
`
`
`form factors for electrical devices ∀ particularly for devices in which gravity is an
`
`irrelevant parameter ∀ is evident in a variety of electrical and electronic devices that
`
`were in widespread use in the time frame of the invention. Early (pre-laptop)
`
`personal computers, for example, could be placed on a desk in either a horizontal or
`
`vertical position with equal ease, and would function the same irrespective of
`
`orientation. (As of today, in fact, I have two desktop computers in two offices; one is
`
`oriented vertically, and the other horizontally.) The same was true for unintelligent
`
`plugstrips which, I observed, were mounted both horizontally (on lab benches) or
`
`vertically (inside panel racks).
`
`24.
`
`One concept that is taught consistently to engineering students in
`
`engineering curricula throughout the United States is that it’s important to consider
`
`numerous design options before committing to the final design of a product. The
`
`foundation of this process is the well-known, iterative “design cycle,” depicted in
`
`the figure below taken from my book Design Concepts for Engineers. Engaging in
`
`the design cycle forces design engineers to consider all possible design options for a
`
`product under development, including its form factor and features. Another thing
`
`taught routinely to engineering students is the concept that, in designing a product,
`
`the requirements of the end user, as well as the environment in which the product
`
`will be used, are very important considerations. While some users may insist on a set
`
`of product specifications that include certain features from the list of possible
`
`12
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 14
`
`
`
`choices, others may insist on a different set of specifications, in whole or in part,
`
`from the same list. Meeting customer needs and specifications is a critical
`
`component of product design.
`
`25.
`
`choices, others may insist on a different set of specifications, in whole or in part, from
`
`the same list. Meeting customer needs and specifications is a critical component of
`
`product design.
`
`13
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 15
`
`
`
`Figure: “The Design Cycle”
`
`IV.Intelligent Processing Circuitry in PDU Products
`
`26. Although the MSVM Literature and Baytech RPC-7 Literature do not
`
`describe in detail all of the processing circuitry contained in their associated PDU
`
`products, one of skill in the art would have understood certain basics of the circuitry
`
`from the functions and structures that are disclosed in the product documentation.
`
`One of skill would have appreciated that the MSVM Literature and Baytech RPC-7
`
`Literature reflect that each of the associated PDU products contained intelligent
`
`processing circuitry related to the current measuring and reporting systems and the
`
`ability of the PDUs to respond to commands.
`14
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 16
`
`
`
`27.
`
`and Baytech RPC-7 Literature reflect that each of the associated PDU products
`
`contained intelligent processing circuitry related to the current measuring and
`
`reporting systems and the ability of the PDUs to respond to commands.
`
`28.
`
`For example, the MSVM Literature teaches that the MSVM PDU
`
`included an LED display of information related to the current measured by a
`
`current sensor in the PDU. (See, e.g., MSVM User Manual at 11.) One of skill in
`
`the art would have readily understood the LED display to have been controlled by
`
`intelligent circuitry within the PDU. The data signals provided by the current
`
`sensor would also have been processed by intelligent circuitry within the PDU.
`
`Without such circuitry, including the intelligent portion, the PDU could not
`
`measure, display, or report current information as described in the MSVM
`
`Literature. For example, in order to determine which LED state to display in a PDU
`
`such as the MSVM (e.g., green, flashing green, or red) the PDU must first
`
`demarcate the range of currents into discernible ranges, then measure and digitize
`
`the actual PDU current, and then make a choice as to which LED state to display.
`
`The PDU circuitry must then implement the chosen LED state. These operations
`
`require intelligence on the part of the circuitry attached to the current sensor. Given
`
`that the plugstrip portion of the MSVM had its own LED display, a skilled person
`
`would understand this intelligent circuitry to reside inside the PDU.
`
`15
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 17
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Further, one of skill in the art -- even one having only one to three
`
`years of industry experience -- would have understood that, in the architecture
`
`pictured in the MSVM Literature, the network interface card within the Controller
`
`was receiving commands over a 10Base-T network (or other network) and
`
`16
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 18
`
`
`
`30.
`
`years of industry experience -- would have understood that, in the architecture
`
`pictured in the MSVM Literature, the network interface card within the Controller
`
`was receiving commands over a 10Base-T network (or other network) and
`
`generating commands that could be communicated through the RJ-11 connectors
`
`over the network to one or more PDUs. Processing circuitry within each PDU
`
`would necessarily receive such a command and determine whether the command
`
`was directed to that PDU. If so, processing circuitry inside the PDU would generate
`
`signals to cause the relay-controlled outlets (or other component, as appropriate for
`
`the command) within the PDU to execute the command. Also, in reporting
`
`information for transmission over the 10Base-T network (or other network),
`
`processing circuitry within each PDU would necessarily acquire a measurement
`
`from a current sensor (or other component, as would have been appropriate for the
`
`type of information being reported) and then cause it to be transmitted over the
`
`network connecting the PDUs.
`
`31.
`
`Similarly, given the current reporting and outlet control capabilities
`
`described in the MSVM Literature, it also would have been readily apparent to one
`
`of skill in the art that the MSVM PDU contained intelligent circuitry for
`
`communications, control, and processing. The MSVM Literature makes clear that
`
`the MSVM PDU plugstrip both responded to commands and generated information
`
`17
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 19
`
`
`
`for communication with the controller via its RJ-11 cable. Additionally, multiple
`
`plugstrips could be networked in a daisy-chained fashion using the RJ-11
`
`connections. For example, the figure shown below, found in the MSVM Literature
`
`(MSVM Quick Start at 10), shows four PDUs networked together to one
`
`18
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 20
`
`
`
`32.
`
`plugstrips could be networked in a daisy-chained fashion using the RJ-11
`
`connections. For example, the figure shown below, found in the MSVM Literature
`
`(MSVM Quick Start at 10), shows four PDUs networked together to one
`
`Controller, with the connections to the Controller made via RJ-11 connectors only.
`
`A skilled person would know that the industry-standard RJ-11 connector has
`
`(typically) four, or a maximum of six, conductors.
`
`33.
`
`As evidence that each MSVM plugstrip contained its own
`
`microprocessor, I note that the MSVM Literature indicates several on/off cycling
`
`operations and delayed start operations that could be performed on individual
`
`outlets inside the PDU. (MSVM User Guide at 6-10.) A skilled person would know
`
`that these operations would require a microcontroller to be inside the plugstrip, with
`
`commands and information related to individual outlets transmitted as addressed
`
`digital packets over the RJ-11-connected cable. Without a microcontroller inside
`
`each PDU, it would be necessary to connect each outlet’s relay and each current
`
`sensor via dedicated wires to the Controller. There are simply not enough
`19
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 21
`
`
`
`conductors in an RJ-11 connector and its cable to allow such connections to be
`
`made and to facilitate performing such operations upon command by having
`
`dedicated wires from each outlet going to the Controller.
`
`34.
`
`simply not enough conductors in an RJ-11 connector and its cable to allow such
`
`connections to be made and to facilitate performing such operations upon
`
`command by having dedicated wires from each outlet going to the Controller.
`
`20
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 22
`
`
`
`Thus, it would have been evident to a skilled person that the addressing, status, and
`
`command signals would have been sent to and from the PDU via its RJ-11-
`
`connected cable, with the local operations inside each plugstrip executed by a
`
`microprocessor or microcontroller1. A skilled person would know that it would not
`
`be possible for each of the current sensors and outlet relays in the PDU to be
`
`connected directly to the Controller via the RJ-11 connector and cable.
`
`35.
`
`I also note that the MSVM Literature teaches that the MSVM PDU
`
`could access a network via the RJ-11 modular port either with or without the
`
`Controller portion. (See MSVM Quick Start at 10.) One of skill would have
`
`understood from the MSVM Literature that the MSVM PDU could connect to a
`
`network through the Controller associated with the device when connected via the
`
`RJ-11 connector. Because the RJ-11 connector was a standard connector well before
`
`the time of invention, one of skill in the art would also have appreciated that the
`
`MSVM PDU could connect to any device having a compatible RJ-11 connector. For
`
`example, any of a family of devices designed to connect to a network could be
`
`interconnected in this way. One of skill would also have known that the MSVM
`
`PDU could connect to a network through a standard computer modem via the RJ-11
`
`connector, thus eliminating the need for the Controller.
`
`
`1 For the purposes of this declaration, the terms “microcontroller” and “microprocessor” can be
`considered interchangeable.
`
`21
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 23
`
`
`
`that the MSVM PDU could connect to a network through a standard computer
`
`modem via the RJ-11 connector, thus eliminating the need for the Controller.
`
`Furthermore, the MSVM PDU could also connect through a server or a
`
`workstation capable of sending information to a network, or other equivalent
`
`component or device. Such modem, server, and workstation network
`
`configurations were common before the time frame of the ‘543771 patent. Given
`
`these configurations, one of skill would also have known from the MSVM
`
`Literature that one could remotely manage the MSVM PDU using the Telnet
`
`network protocol. (See also MSVM User Guide at 12.)
`
`36.
`
`For similar reasons, one of skill in the art would have understood that
`
`the Baytech RPC-7 Literature reflects the fact that the RPC-7 device had intelligent
`
`circuitry, e.g. a microcontroller, within the PDU. One of skill would have realized
`
`from the Baytech RPC-7 Literature that intelligent circuitry existed inside the
`
`RPC-7 PDU for the purpose of communications and processing; this fact would be
`
`evident given the network and outlet management capabilities described in the
`
`Baytech RPC-7 Literature. One of skill would also have understood from reading
`
`the Baytech RPC-7 Literature that information obtained via the current
`
`measurement circuitry would have been processed by intelligent circuitry. (See,
`
`e.g., Baytech Manual at 59; Baytech Press Release; Baytech Webpage at 3.) The
`
`Baytech RPC-7 Literature describes a “completely integrated device” with all of
`22
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 24
`
`
`
`the components contained inside the PDU, including the microcontroller and
`
`network controller. (See Baytech Press Release.) Without
`
`device” with all of the components contained inside the PDU, including the
`
`microcontroller and network controller. (See Baytech Press Release.) Without
`
`intelligent circuitry, the RPC-7 PDU would not have been capable of being a
`
`“completely integrated device” with measuring and reporting of current
`
`information as is described in the Baytech RPC-7 Literature.
`
`V.
`
`Multiple Intelligent Power Sections/Modules
`
`37.
`
`A person skilled in the art in the time frame of the ‘543771 patent
`
`would have recognized that partitioning the circuitry tasked with controlling a
`
`number of relays, such as an intelligent-power section/module as described in the
`
`‘543771 patent, could be accomplished in several ways. As part of the normal
`
`design process, a skilled person would have considered a system in which the
`
`control function is performed centrally by a single unit controlling all the relays.
`
`Alternatively, the control circuitry could have been distributed into two, four, or
`
`even more subdivisions or sections in which each subdivision of the circuitry
`
`controlled some subset of the relays. Yet another system might involve a
`
`combination of centralized and distributed control. Each of these options would
`
`have been contemplated by the skilled person as a normal part of the design
`
`process. Contemplation of these design choices would have been more than
`
`23
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 25
`
`
`
`obvious ∀ it would have been expected as a normal part of the design process for
`
`any engineer designing a power distribution unit to meet a set of specifications.
`
`38.
`
`Furthermore, I note that the prior art in existence long before the time
`
`of ‘771 patent, including the prior-art Ewing ‘974 patent, illustrates the well-
`
`24
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 26
`
`
`
`39.
`
`28.Furthermore, I note that the prior art in existence long before the time of ‘543
`
`patent, including the prior-art Ewing ‘974 patent, illustrates the well- known nature
`
`of intelligent power sections/modules. Ewing ‘974 broadly teaches “[p]rior art
`
`SNMP network management uses embedded microprocessor in almost every
`
`inter-networking device to support two-way inter computer communications with
`
`TCP/IP, of which SNMP is a member of the TCP/IP protocol suite.” (Ewing ‘974 at
`
`col. 2:50-54, Figs. 1, 3-4.) Ewing ‘974 also teaches that it was well known to
`
`distribute power control into multiple intelligent power sections/modules. (See,
`
`e.g., Ewing ‘974 at col. 6:1-24, Figs. 1, 3; see also id. at col. 5:38-53, 8:28-31.)
`
`VI.Reasons to Use A Digital/Numeric Display in a PDU
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, the choice to use widely-available digital/numeric
`
`displays, such as those pictured in the Lee and Liu patents, would have been
`
`considered as part of the design process by an engineer tasked with developing a
`
`means to present visual information related to current in a PDU. Given that the
`
`principles of design cycle and choice would have been taught in the engineering
`
`curricula of persons of skill, this routine understanding would have been known
`
`even to an engineer having just one to three years of industrial experience in the
`
`late 1990s or early 2000s. In my own case, as a student in the mid-1970’s, I first
`
`used a numeric display to replace an analog display mechanism (e.g., older
`
`“needle” type of meter). In the intervening years leading up to the time frame of
`25
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 27
`
`
`
`the ‘771 patent, numeric displays became cheaper and more widely available, so
`
`that by the late 1990s, the choice of using numeric displays, available as
`
`26
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 28
`
`
`
`41.
`
`the ‘543 patent, numeric displays became cheaper and more widely available, so that
`
`by the late 1990s, the choice of using numeric displays, available as commodity
`
`items sold by scores of vendors, would have been contemplated routinely as part of
`
`the design of a product which had to meet the requirement of presenting
`
`current-related information to a user. An electrical or computer engineer, even one
`
`having only one to three years of industrial experience, would have known that such
`
`a display could be successfully incorporated into a product using routine
`
`engineering principles and techniques. Given the various sizes available for
`
`numerical display devices in the time frame of the ‘543771 patent, there is nothing
`
`about the form factor of either a vertical or a horizontal plugstrip that would have led
`
`such an engineer to conclude that such a common component could not be
`
`successfully integrated into either form factor in a straightforward and predictable
`
`way. The purpose of a digital current display is to show numerical information, and
`
`putting a digital current display in a PDU would do just that.
`
`42.
`
`A person of skill would have recognized that a current-measuring
`
`system, such as the one described in the MSVM Literature, the Baytech RPC-7
`
`Literature, and the McNally and Ewing ‘974 patents, could interchangeably feed a
`
`numeric display or an LED display (or even an analog meter). Regarding the first
`
`two choices, a user might consult a numerical display to discern current levels
`
`27
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`Server Tech Exhibit 2003
`IPR page 29
`
`
`
`constituting normal, overload or underload conditions. Another user might prefer
`
`one or more LEDs programmed to take on different states to display these same
`
`current-level thresholds. Given the choice of selecting LED indicators, a user
`
`one or more LEDs programmed to take on different states
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
