IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`1/24
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Examiner: Christopher E. Lee
`
`Reexamination No.: 95/001,485
`
`Confirmation No.: 8636
`
`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
`
`REDACTED DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS A. BORS
`
`Sir:
`
`Douglas A. Bors, PE, declares as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Below I present a brief description of my background followed by a
`
`discussion of certain facts and my opinions regarding the features claimed in the '543
`
`patent. I also present my observations regarding the facts and opinions expressed by
`
`STI's declarants Michael Aucoin, KC Mares, Chris Hardin, and Carrel Ewing presented
`
`by STI in support of their response, including on the issue of commercial success.
`
`IPR Page 1
`
`Raritan v. Server Technology
`
`RARITAN EXHIBIT 1032
`
`

`
`2/24
`
`A. GENERAL BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`2.
`
`I am the President and Owner of Sophometrics Inc., a technology consulting,
`
`electrical engineering, facility planning, and business consulting company in Washington
`
`State. I founded Sophometrics in 2003 in order to extend my reach to include
`
`collaborative team making (in the area of architectural design), and business consulting
`
`including risk analysis, and reliability analysis.
`
`3.
`
`I was previously at Sparling, Inc., from 1980 to 2002. Sparling is an
`
`electrical engineering and technology consulting company in Seattle, Washington. I had
`
`built my career at Sparling and became Vice President of Technology Consulting and a
`
`member of the Board of Directors. I created the technology consulting group at Sparling
`
`beginning with my own consulting work and grew the technology consulting practice to
`
`include a force of 35 individuals. Also, I was the Director of Education at Sparling and
`
`developed and taught the majority of corporate classes for both the technology consulting
`
`group and for electrical engineering staff. As the principle technologist at Sparling, the
`
`largest electrical engineering firm in Seattle at the time, I was tasked to address many of
`
`the leading-edge industry problems spanning over two decades.
`
`4.
`
`I hold two Bachelor of Science degrees from MIT; one in electrical
`
`engineering and one in art and design (architecture). This combination of schooling,
`
`including engineering and design, plus professional engineering and design experience,
`
`and professional teaching, has fostered my ability to understand both the context and
`
`detail of design issues, construction problems, and application concerns in my fields of
`
`interest.
`
`5.
`
`I hold two patents, both are concerned with the efficiency and reliability of
`
`power transfer devices, especially transfer devices related to power supplies, power
`
`regulation, and conversion of power from direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC)
`
`or from AC to DC.
`
`B.
`
`BACKGROUND IN DATA CENTER DESIGN
`
`6.
`
`Over the course of my career, I have been involved in the design of data
`
`center installations and other critical computer facilities as project manager and principal
`
`IPR Page 2
`
`

`
`3/24
`
`in charge. My data center design work includes work for large companies such as
`
`Microsoft, Amazon, Starbucks, government organizations such as the State of
`
`Washington and the Navy, and collocation facility operators such as Exodus
`
`communications, among others. Over the course of my career, I have been the project
`
`manager for the design of over twenty data centers. My work includes design of the
`
`electrical equipment within data centers, as well as considerations such as the type of
`
`equipment used and the layout and power distribution for the data center. In addition to
`
`this design work, I also have performed forensics consulting work for critical facility
`
`electrical systems that have failed in unexpected ways to ascertain the cause of the
`
`failure.
`
`7. My work designing data centers includes design work in the 1999-2000 time
`
`frame. For example, beginning in 1998 I designed a series of large-scale data centers for
`
`Amazon.com. At the time, Amazon.com was a young growing company. I was asked to
`
`work to re-design their data center from an 800 square foot facility to a 5,000 square foot
`
`facility, and to triple the size of their data center within the succeeding two years. I was
`
`the project manager for this transition. In connection with my work for Amazon.com, I
`
`designed every major aspect regarding electrical distribution and server room layout of
`
`their new data center.
`
`8.
`
`As an another example, in 2003, I was asked to re-design and update the data
`
`center facility that Microsoft operated at Canyon Park, Washington, a high-density,
`
`mission critical data facility of over 30,000 square feet. The project required elimination
`
`of several aspects of automatically-controlled switching in the electrical distribution
`
`system that led to lowered reliability. Instead, we were tasked to add just enough manual
`
`control to improve the reliability of procedures required for yearly electrical system
`
`maintenance. At the time of our work, the data center was over four years old.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently President of the Northwest Chapter of the 7x24 Exchange.
`
`The 7x24 Exchange is a trade organization focused on the design, provisioning,
`
`maintenance, and management of data centers. The 7x24 Exchange is the leading
`
`knowledge exchange for those who design, build, use and maintain mission-critical
`
`IPR Page 3
`
`

`
`4/24
`
`enterprise information infrastructures, 7x24 Exchange's goal is to improve end-to-end
`
`reliability by promoting dialogue among these groups.
`
`10.
`
`In addition to my design work, I also am a teacher and presenter on topics
`
`relating to the design and reliability issues associated with data centers and other critical
`
`computer facilities.
`
`11.
`
`In late 1998 I was invited to teach a section for the IEEE Gold Book, focused
`
`on reliability calculations for electrical systems. This class was delivered in March 1999.
`
`While preparing for this class, I realized that the formal calculation method described in
`
`the IEEE Standard was useful for testing alternative data center electrical system
`
`topologies (i.e., testing various proposed arrangements of redundant electrical
`
`components). Thus, I applied the IEEE methods to my project and overlaid the results
`
`with the more common topologies used by practitioners in the critical facility design
`
`community in the Northwest. In this talk, I described how Amazon's particular
`
`arrangement for grouping computers to accomplish specific tasks suggested a modified
`
`layout of power circuits to the racks, especially, the layout of redundant individual
`
`branch-circuits. The improvement implied by the modification was nearly an order of
`
`magnitude reduction in predicted failures for data centers.
`
`12.
`
`In May 2000, I presented a talk for the 7x24 Exchange National meeting in
`
`San Francisco, CA, titled PRA (Probability Reliability Analysis) in Action. This talk
`
`described the application of probability reliability analysis techniques stemming from the
`
`IEEE Gold book and applied to data center design.
`
`13.
`
`In November, 2001, I presented a talk for the 7x24 Exchange National
`
`meeting in Scottsdale, AZ, titled Convergence of AC & DC Electrical Power
`
`Infrastructures. This talk described my experience with DC systems at Zama and the
`
`relationship of DC to AC in the topical areas of cost, reliability, and scalability.
`
`14.
`
`In June, 2002, I presented a paper for EPRI's PQA 2002 North America
`
`event in Portland, OR. This paper described the application of probability reliability
`
`analysis techniques related to data center design (similar to the May, 2000 presentation
`
`noted above).
`
`IPR Page 4
`
`

`
`5/24
`
`15.
`
`In addition to the above, I am currently a teacher for NEEA/BetterBricks.
`
`NEEA is the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, a consortium of power utilities in a
`
`four state region in the Northwest. NEEA funds BetterBricks to serve as a research and
`
`teaching arm to help architects and design engineers create more efficient buildings.
`
`About eight years ago, in mid-2003, NEEA became interested in energy effective data
`
`centers and I have helped them present several classes concerned with efficient electrical
`
`systems in critical environments, including data centers.
`
`16. As a result of my significant experience in data centers and other critical
`
`computer facilities I am intimately familiar with all aspects of the design and operation of
`
`data centers. I am also familiar with the needs and concerns of the owners and operators
`
`of data centers and other critical computer facilities. I am also intimately familiar with
`
`manufacturers of power distribution and other equipment that operates within such
`
`facilities, including American Power Conversion Corporation, Liebert, Eaton, Caterpillar,
`
`Cummings, MGE, and many others. Many of these manufacturers are suppliers of rack
`
`level power distribution units ("PDU") as well as other equipment used in data centers
`
`such as racks and enclosures, cooling and fire system equipment, environmental and
`
`power monitoring devices, larger floor mount PDUs, uninterruptible power supply units
`
`("UPS"), and generators. My familiarity with these aspects of the design and operation
`
`of data center and other critical computing facilities includes intimate familiarity with
`
`these aspects in the 1999-2000 time frame, as well as today.
`
`17.
`
`In light of my experience, I have been asked to consider the claims and
`
`disclosure of STI' s '543 patent from the perspective of one having experience in the
`
`design and operation of reliable data centers, and specifically in the context of data center
`
`development through the 1990's and up to about 2000.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that STI has asserted that one of skill in the art is a designer or a
`
`manufacturer of a PDU device. I also understand that STI has specifically asserted that
`
`such a person would have been unfamiliar with certain aspects of the operation of a data
`
`center and would be unfamiliar with certain needs of data center operators and
`
`technicians in and around 2000. Based on this assertion regarding the limitations of one
`
`IPR Page 5
`
`

`
`6/24
`
`skilled in the art, STI argues, for example, that a PDU manufacturer would not have
`
`thought to put a numeric or "digital" display on a PDU device and that the STI inventors
`
`were able to arrive at this design consideration through their own unique insights. As
`
`discussed below, I disagree with this conclusion. I also note that throughout this
`
`declaration, I offer my opinions based on my experience with data center design and
`
`operation not to challenge STI's assertion that one skilled in the art is appropriately
`
`considered to be a data center designer, but rather to challenge STI's conclusion that such
`
`a PDU designer would not have significant experience and familiarity with data center
`
`operations and with the needs of technicians within a data center.
`
`B.
`
`THE FEATURES CLAIMED IN THE '543 PATENT
`
`19.
`
`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.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed 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)
`
`(2)
`
`The MasterSwitchTM 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 MasterS witch TM VM Power Distribution Unit Installation and Quick
`Start Manual (the "MSVM Quick Start Manual," Exhibit C to the Request)
`and the PowerNet® SNMP Management Information Base (MIB) v3.1.0
`Reference Guide (the "MSVM PowerNet Guide," Exhibit D to the
`Request);
`
`the BayTech Literature, which includes downloads of www.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,
`
`IPR Page 6
`
`

`
`7/24
`
`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)
`
`(5)
`
`(6)
`
`Power Administrator™ 800 User Guide ("PA-800," Exhibit H to the
`Request);
`
`Lee, U.S. Patent No. 5,650,771 ("Lee," Exhibit J to the Request); and
`
`Liu, U.S. Patent No. 6,476,729 ("Liu," Exhibit K to the Request).
`
`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").
`
`21.
`
`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.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that various claims of the '543 patent are at issue in the
`
`reexamination and these claims include independent claims 1 and 15, in addition to a
`
`number of dependent claims. I also understand that these claims relate generally to
`
`power distribution units used at the rack level to provide power to loads (such as data
`
`servers) mounted within equipment racks. I also understand that these claims specifically
`
`relate to electrical power distribution plugstrips that include various features.
`
`Specifically, these features include a PDU with:
`
`(A)
`
`a vertical enclosure,
`
`(B)
`
`a power input,
`
`(C)
`
`a number of power outputs,
`
`(D)
`
`a number of power control relays,
`
`IPR Page 7
`
`

`
`8/24
`
`(E)
`
`a current related information display, and
`
`(F)
`
`a current reporting system associated with the vertical enclosure
`that is connectable to a remote network.
`
`I understand that claim 15 differs from claim 1 in that it is specifically limited to a
`
`"digital current information display," as opposed to merely a display.
`
`23. Based on my review of the claims and disclosure of the '543 patent, I would
`
`characterize the feature set recited in the claims of the '543 patent as the result of design
`
`choices from among a "kit of parts" for a rack level PDU. Many of the limitations recited
`
`in STI's claims are standard features required for the operation of a PDU, such as an
`
`enclosure, a power input, and a number of power outputs. Regarding other features such
`
`as a vertical enclosure, remote network monitoring and control capabilities including
`
`remotely switching outlets on or off with relays, and an on-unit display on the PDU itself.
`
`I would characterize STI's selection of these specific features for a PDU to be no more
`
`than a selection of features that were known at the time, the combination of which would
`
`have been apparent to one skilled in the art.
`
`24. Further, in my opinion, the claims ofSTI's '543 patent, appropriately
`
`considered as ofDecember 2000, reflect no more than the combination of(1) the then(cid:173)
`
`well-known feature of having a vertically-oriented PDU with a vertical housing, (2) the
`
`use of a remote network allowing a PDU to monitor and control power to the outlets
`
`through relays, which was also well known at the time, and (3) the known feature of
`
`having a PDU that could not only report current remotely, but could also report current
`
`information on the unit itself, in the form of either an LED or a numeric display. As I
`
`describe below, each of these features was available and well-known at the time for
`
`PDUs.
`
`25. First, by at least 1998, the use ofPDUs with remote control and monitoring
`
`over a network was widespread.
`
`26.
`
`I note first that the Power Administrator PDU described in Exhibit H to
`
`APC's Request is described as including the feature of remote monitoring and reporting
`
`IPR Page 8
`
`

`
`9/24
`
`of current and remote rebooting of outlets over a network (as well as a local "current
`
`meter" comprised of eight LED's). This document was known in the art as of 1996.
`
`27.
`
`In addition, the attached articles, "Rebooting Across the Net" published in PC
`
`Magazine May 5, 1998, and "Remote Control Equals Power" published in Teleconnect in
`
`February 2000, both confirm that this remote monitoring and control feature for PDUs
`
`was well known years before STI filed its patents. These articles mention APC, Best
`
`Power, E-comms, Liebert, Oneac, Opti_ UPS, Server Technology, Telco Research,
`
`Teltronics, and Tripp Lite. Each of the products in this list provides at least some
`
`assistance with remotely monitoring an electrical load. Most of these systems augment
`
`the information stemming from a UPS device. Server Technology brings the monitoring
`
`to a fine scale (individual circuits) via their DC product (only their DC product was
`
`mentioned in the article), Telco Research and Teltronics are focused on PBX's (telephone
`
`switching equipment). Several of these firms- Liebert, APC (monitoring service), Best
`
`Power (NetWatch client), Oneac (MopUPS), and Tripp Lite (PowerAlert Enterprise)(cid:173)
`
`were mentioned for creating management software to make monitoring more effective. In
`
`particular, Liebert is noted for the SiteScan program, at the time this was a well
`
`29. Second, by at least 1999, the use ofPDUs that were long and slender and
`
`intended to be mounted vertically within an equipment rack was also becoming a more
`
`common feature for PDUs.
`
`30. Examples of such PDUs include the MSVM described in Exhibits B-D of the
`
`original Reexamination Request ("Request"). Such PDUs also include the BayTech
`
`RPC-7 PDU and the BayTech RPC-21 PDU, both of which were vertical PDUs that were
`
`vertically mounted within an equipment rack as described in APC's Third Party
`
`Comments ("Comments") Exhibit E1 dated November 1999, for example, and in
`
`Exhibits E2 and E3, which is material submitted to the Examiner by APC. These
`
`IPR Page 9
`
`

`
`10/24
`
`disclosures in the art confirm my own personal experience that at that time, there was a
`
`recognizable advantage in many cases to maximizing the amount of available "U space"
`
`within a rack for servers and computers, as opposed to power distribution equipment, by
`
`providing a vertical PDU as opposed to a horizontal PDU. For example, the reference to
`
`"Zero U" in the BayTech documents (Exhibit E2 at 2), would have been understood by
`
`one of skill in the art to describe a benefit of vertical units is that they do not use
`
`horizontal rack space. This advantage to using a vertical PDU became more important in
`
`these situations as some data center operators expected to be able to fill their equipment
`
`racks with as many servers as possible, as opposed to using that space for power
`
`distribution equipment.
`
`IPR Page 10
`
`

`
`11/24
`
`IPR Page 11
`
`

`
`12/24
`
`IPR Page 12
`
`

`
`13/24
`
`IPR Page 13
`
`

`
`14/24
`
`IPR Page 14
`
`

`
`15/24
`
`(ii)
`
`PDU designers and manufacturers would be aware of the
`needs of their customers, such as the operator of a data center.
`
`49. STI also argues that PDU designers were not aware of a need for or
`
`advantage to a PDU that shows a numerical value of current at the PDU itself. According
`
`to STI, other PDU designers (other than STI in STI's view) were not aware of the needs
`
`of the users ofPDU products, such as data center operators who purchased these products
`
`for use in their facilities.
`
`50. According to STI's declarants, although operators of data centers would be
`
`aware of this need for a numerical display, PDU designers would have been incapable of
`
`perceiving any value for such a feature. (Mares ~20) ("For the manufacturers [ofPDUs],
`
`who were not familiar with day-to-day operations within a data center, I expect that the
`
`idea of providing both remote and local current reporting was probably counterintuitive,
`
`along with possibly including redundant local reporting by both local network reporting
`
`IPR Page 15
`
`

`
`16/24
`
`or other structure visible to the technician at the rack"); (Hardin ~17) ("unbeknownst to
`
`the plugstrip manufacturers, the technicians had problems due to absence of a local
`
`current reporting system that was readily visible on the vertical plugstrips to provide
`
`current readings. For the manufacturers, I expect it would have been counterintuitive to
`
`provide such redundancy because it would lead to additional manufacturing costs").
`
`STI's Carrel Ewing also states that "[p]ertinent problems for users of prior art power
`
`distribution systems were not obvious to the ordinary artisan much less disclosed in the
`
`prior art. I believe an ordinary artisan was a designer of power distribution systems for
`
`use in racks, not a user of these systems." (Ewing ~10).
`
`51. To the extent that STI's argument suggests that a PDU designer or
`
`manufacturer would not be intimately familiar with the needs of its customers - the users
`
`of PDU products -I strongly disagree. The designer of a PDU product would naturally
`
`be familiar with the needs of its customers. Indeed, in my own personal experience with
`
`manufacturers ofPDU equipment and other equipment used in data center applications
`
`(including American Power Conversion Corporation, Liebert, MGE, and Eaton, among
`
`others- all major suppliers ofPDUs and other data center equipment in 1999), such
`
`manufacturers would have had regular contact with their customers, and would seek out
`
`and obtain information about the specific needs of their customers to figure out how best
`
`to meet those needs. In addition, I note that many manufacturers ofPDU products
`
`manufacture not only PDU products, but racks, enclosures, sensors and environmental
`
`monitors, as well as other equipment and products for use in the data center, either for
`
`sale individually or as part of "package" data center solutions for their customers.
`
`52. Further in that regard, I note that Mares and Hardin both identify that the
`
`users ofPDUs were entirely aware of what STI calls a "need" for a numeric display that
`
`could provide current level readings at the PDU level in the rack itself. Given these
`
`views, it follows that a PDU manufacturer would also be aware of this "need" for a
`
`numeric display.
`
`53. Mares identifies the situation in which a data center technician would benefit
`
`from having a numerical readout of the level of current in a PDU when installing
`
`IPR Page 16
`
`

`
`17/24
`
`additional equipment in the rack, which would increase the level of current and be shown
`
`numerically on a display. Specifically, Mares states that at the relevant time "the
`
`technicians in the data centers desired an ability to accurately monitor relevant
`
`information locally at the racks themselves so, for example, they could accurately assess
`
`load conditions when installing an powering up new equipment in the rack, or when
`
`replacing equipment in the rack." (Mares ~20).
`
`54.
`
`In addition, STI declarant Hardin identifies the need to periodically perform a
`
`"power audit" of power consumption as one benefit to including a numeric display on the
`
`PDU. (Hardin ~14-18). According to Hardin, data center operators appreciated the
`
`potential value of a numeric display on the PDU itself in order to facilitate this power
`
`audit procedure. (Id.). Both declarants recognize that users ofPDUs would have
`
`appreciated the potential value of a numeric display, and, consistent with my conclusions
`
`above, to the extent this need or desire was felt by users ofPDUs, it would have been
`
`apparent not only to the users of the PDUs, but to the manufacturers of the PDUs as well.
`
`55. STI's declarants both go on further to conclude that PDU manufacturers were
`
`unaware of this need or how to meet this need for numeric display in their PU product
`
`offerings. Both of STI's declarants state: "Looking back now, it is now my view that[]
`
`this was the case in the industry in fact, and that the problems and advantage of such a
`
`local current display system were not perceived by, much less obvious to, the ordinary
`
`designers of PDU equipment for use in the rack environment." (Hardin ~17) (see also
`
`Mares ~20). Carrel Ewing states that among PDU manufacturers, only STI perceived the
`
`potential value of using a numeric display, and that the reason that STI was the first to do
`
`so, was because STI was uniquely attuned to the needs of its customers. In fact, Mr.
`
`Ewing states that it is STI's "attention to our customers' needs and our vast experience in
`
`the power distribution unit ("PDU") industry that has led us to discover our customers'
`
`problems even before thev do." (Ewing ~9, emphasis added).
`
`56. The conclusions offered in these declarations are inconsistent with my
`
`experience. In my experience, a typical PDU manufacturer and its customer would have
`
`regularly communicated, as articulated above. As a result, the value of a numeric readout
`
`IPR Page 17
`
`

`
`18/24
`
`would have been known not only to data center technicians (as STI's declarants
`
`recognize) but to PDU designers and manufacturers as well.
`
`57. Contrary to the opinions ofSTI's declarants, there were not simply a few
`
`individuals who had this issue on their minds but were not communicating to one
`
`another, in fact, many people were aware of this issue and it was in my experience well
`
`known. In that regard, below I offer my own personal experience in the late 1990s,
`
`evidencing the recognition of potential benefits to using a numeric display of the level of
`
`current at the individual branch circuit level, i.e., the amount of current being supplied to
`
`an individual rack.
`
`58. As a data center designer, I had several conversations with clients (at least
`
`both Amazon and Microsoft in 1998), during my work on the design phase of several
`
`data centers for these clients, wherein we discussed monitoring the power flow on each
`
`branch circuit connected to floor-mount-PDUs. Specifically, I discussed with my clients
`
`Amazon and Microsoft their desire to monitor each circuit via the application of a small
`
`current transformer (CT) and a recording device, for example, using a commercially
`
`available "E-mon D-mon" meter- a meter capable of being coupled to an electric power
`
`line and providing a numeric readout of electrical parameters, such as current. This
`
`application of "E-mon D-mon" meters would have served the same function as placing a
`
`meter in each rack, or in some cases placing several meters in each rack in situations
`
`where a rack was served by multiple or redundant branch circuits.
`
`59. The purpose of this proposed application of metering was two-fold. First, for
`
`economic reasons stemming from the use of wiring; the current limit on each branch
`
`circuit could be fully and safely utilized. Further, in projects near the end of the decade, a
`
`data center operator sometimes allocated individual branch circuits to tenants leasing rack
`
`space and the operator wanted to be able to lease a second circuit (and generate more
`
`revenue) when the first circuit approached its current capacity. Second, for management
`
`demands stemming from reliability, specifically for managing the current limit on a
`
`redundant branch circuit. The purpose of a redundant branch circuit is to allow an
`
`alternate branch circuit to fail and to accept the load just previously fed by the other
`
`IPR Page 18
`
`

`
`19/24
`
`circuit. The simplest concept for this approach is to serve a series of branch circuits from
`
`system A and a series branch circuits from system B. If both system A and Bare loaded
`
`to 1/2 capacity and each branch circuit feeding a set of server equipment is held to 1/2
`
`capacity, then the failure of one system will cause load to transfer to the other system,
`
`helping to maintain continuity of operation. Thus, a person managing for reliability might
`
`choose to monitor branch circuits to ensure each circuit was available to accept failure(cid:173)
`
`condition loads. Also, in cases where each computer is equipped with balanced power
`
`supplies, a monitored branch circuit that suddenly changes its reported load is an
`
`indication of a failure of one of the server power supplies on that system or on the
`
`redundant branch. These changes, if discovered, allow a failed component to be replaced
`
`before the redundant unit fails.
`
`60.
`
`In the early 1990s, monitoring each branch circuit for current was relatively
`
`expensive (as compared to the cost of the branch circuit). Nevertheless in the 1998
`
`timeframe, there was growing desire among data center operators to monitor,
`
`inexpensively, current at the branch circuit level and this was well-known in the design
`
`profession.
`
`(iii)
`
`STI's sales data does not show the commercial success of
`patented features of STI's '543 patent
`
`61.
`
`In his declaration, STI' s Carrel Ewing offers evidence, graphs, and opinion to
`
`advance his conclusion that STI's line of Switched Cabinet Distribution Unit products
`
`have enjoyed commercial success, and that this commercial success is attributable to the
`
`specific features recited in the claims of the '543 patent.
`
`62. Based on my review of this evidence, I disagree with Mr. Ewing's
`
`conclusion. I note at the outset that STI's evidence and argument regarding commercial
`
`success makes no effort to attribute the commercial success of its products to the
`
`presence of a numeric or "digital" display. Rather, the sole focus of STI's commercial
`
`success argument relates entirely to the vertical feature of some of STI' s products.
`
`IPR Page 19
`
`

`
`20/24
`
`63.
`
`I have reviewed Mr. Ewing's evidence and arguments regarding STI's sales
`
`and offer the following conclusions and observations, particularly with regard to the two
`
`charts included in Mr. Ewing' declaration.
`
`64. First, the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented in Mr. Ewing's
`
`declaration relate entirely to vertical products versus horizontal and other PDU products
`
`(i.e., those PDU products with a separate horizontal controller component). In that
`
`regard, I note that several vertical products were known in the art long before December
`
`2000, including as described in Exhibits B-D (the MSVM) and Exhibits E1-E3 (the
`
`BayTech RPC-21 and RPC-7), for example. Further, as stated above, this feature of
`
`PDUs was growing in popularity at the time. Thus, in my view, the evidence presented
`
`by Mr. Ewing merely confirms that there was a growing market for vertical products
`
`beginning in and around 1999 and (as Mr. Ewing's evidence shows) continuing through
`
`to the present.
`
`65.
`
`In his declaration, Mr. Ewing offers a graph that shows that STI's vertical
`
`products outsold its horizontal products.
`
`$45,000,000
`
`Horizontal and Vertical PDU Sales Compared __ _
`
`$40,000,000
`
`$35,000,000
`
`$30,000,000
`
`f - - - - -
`
`$25,000,000
`.S!
`~
`$20,000,000
`
`$15,000,000
`
`-til-Total Vertical
`
`-TOt<ll
`1-lorizont.:ll
`
`~--,}-,-·~TOTAL PDU
`Snlc5
`
`---·-···-·-
`
`$10,000,000
`
`------------------------- - - - - - - - - ·
`
`$5,000,000
`
`$-
`
`1998
`
`2000
`
`2002
`
`200~ear
`
`2006
`
`?008
`
`2010
`
`IPR Page 20
`
`

`
`21/24
`
`In response to this graph, I note that STI was not the first to design a vertical PDU, and
`
`that such PDU products were known in the art, including the MSVM. It is my opinion,
`
`based on my experience and on product information from APC circa 2000, that a market
`
`for vertical plugstrips of all sorts- including vertical PDU devices and very inexpensive
`
`plugstrips - had been growing since prior to 1999.
`
`66.
`
`It seems possible, and in fact likely, that the strong growth in vertical PDU
`
`sales for STI shown in the