UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AMX, LLC,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00573
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review ............................... 1
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ......................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .......................... 1
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................... 1
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) .................................. 2
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................ 2
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’838 Patent ........................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 3
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’838 Patent ...................... 3
`
`Priority Claims in the ’838 Patent ......................................................... 5
`
`Priority Date of the ’838 Patent............................................................. 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to the April 10,
`1998 filing date of the ’279 provisional. ..................................... 6
`
`Inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier
`invention date as a matter of law. ............................................. 10
`
`The Boenke letters do not establish an invention date. ............ 10
`
`IV. State of the Art ...............................................................................................10
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................12
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT” ............................................................................................... 13
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ............................13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`A. Ground 1: The challenged claims are invalid based on
`Katzenberg. .......................................................................................... 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Katzenberg ................................................................................ 14
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“A central piece of network equipment” ........................ 18
`
`“at least one Ethernet connector comprising
`first and second pairs of contacts used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals” ........................................................................... 21
`
`“the central piece of network equipment to
`detect different magnitudes of DC current
`flow via at least one of the contacts of the
`first and second pairs of contacts” .................................. 23
`
`“[the central piece of network equipment] to
`control application of at least one electrical
`condition to at least one of the contacts of
`the first and second pairs of contacts in
`response to at least one of the magnitudes of
`the DC current flow” ...................................................... 26
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow are part of a detection protocol” ................ 28
`
`Dependent Claim 7: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to provide at least one DC current
`via at least one of the contacts of the first and second
`pairs of contacts and to detect distinguishing
`information within the DC current via the at least one of
`the contacts of the first and second pairs of contacts” .............. 29
`
`Dependent Claim 26: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to distinguish one end device from
`at least one other end device based on at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow” ......................................... 32
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claim 29: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to distinguish one network object
`from at least one other network object based on at least
`one of the magnitudes of the DC current flow” ........................ 33
`
`Dependent Claim 38: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment comprises at least one DC supply” ........... 33
`
`Dependent Claim 40: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to control application of the at least
`one DC power signal” ............................................................... 34
`
`Dependent Claim 47: “wherein the at least one
`electrical condition comprises at least one voltage
`condition” .................................................................................. 35
`
`10. Dependent Claim 55: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow comprise a first magnitude followed
`by a second magnitude” ............................................................ 35
`
`11. Dependent Claim 69: “wherein the at least one
`magnitude of DC current flow is used by the central
`piece of network equipment to control application of at
`least one DC power signal” ....................................................... 36
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The challenged claims are invalid based on the De
`Nicolo references. ................................................................................ 36
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`De Nicolo References ............................................................... 36
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References ....................... 36
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 39
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“A central piece of network equipment” ........................ 39
`
`“at least one Ethernet connector comprising
`first and second pairs of contacts used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals” ........................................................................... 40
`
`“the central piece of network equipment to
`detect different magnitudes of DC current
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`d.
`
`flow via at least one of the contacts of the
`first and second pairs of contacts” .................................. 42
`
`“[the central piece of network equipment] to
`control application of at least one electrical
`condition to at least one of the contacts of
`the first and second pairs of contacts in
`response to at least one of the magnitudes of
`the DC current flow” ...................................................... 44
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow are part of a detection protocol” ................ 46
`
`Dependent Claim 7: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to provide at least one DC current
`via at least one of the contacts of the first and second
`pairs of contacts and to detect distinguishing
`information within the DC current via the at least one of
`the contacts of the first and second pairs of contacts” .............. 47
`
`Dependent Claim 26: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to distinguish one end device from
`at least one other end device based on at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow” ......................................... 49
`
`Dependent Claim 29: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to distinguish one network object
`from at least one other network object based on at least
`one of the magnitudes of the DC current flow” ........................ 50
`
`Dependent Claim 38: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment comprises at least one DC supply” ........... 50
`
`Dependent Claim 40: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to control application of the at least
`one DC power signal” ............................................................... 51
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Dependent Claim 47: “wherein the at least one
`electrical condition comprises at least one voltage
`condition” .................................................................................. 52
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`11. Dependent Claim 55: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow comprise a first magnitude followed
`by a second magnitude” ............................................................ 53
`
`12. Dependent Claim 69: “wherein the at least one
`magnitude of DC current flow is used by the central
`piece of network equipment to control application of at
`least one DC power signal” ....................................................... 53
`
`VII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Number Short Name
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`’760 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`’760 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`’107 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`’107 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`’838 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`’838 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`’019 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`
`’019 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,049,019
`
`Seifert Decl.
`
`Seifert CV
`
`Declaration of Richard Seifert
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Rich Seifert
`
`Seifert Materials
`
`List of Materials Reviewed by Rich Seifert
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`’760 Actions
`
`1013
`
`’107 Actions
`
`1014
`
`’838 Actions
`
`1015
`
`’019 Actions
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`
`1016
`
`’260 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Number Short Name
`
`Description
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`Murphy
`
`Lee
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,822,519
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,200,686
`
`De Nicolo ’468
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468
`
`De Nicolo ’666
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666
`
`Bloch
`
`Puvogel
`
`Bell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,733,389
`
`U.S. Patent No. 244,426
`
`DP83840 Data
`Sheet
`
`National Semiconductor DP83840 Technical
`Data Sheet
`
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3-1993
`
`’279 Provisional
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279
`
`Baxter Dist. Ct.
`Decl.
`
`Seifert Dist. Ct.
`Decl.
`
`Declaration of Les Baxter, dated December 17,
`2015
`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert, dated January 21,
`2016
`
`1030
`
`H4000 Manual
`
`1031
`
`Gigabit Ethernet
`
`Excerpt from “H4000 Ethernet Transceiver
`Technical Manual” (1982)
`
`Excerpt from Gigabit Ethernet, R. Seifert
`(1998)
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`
`
`Comm. Engineering Excerpt from Communication Engineering, W.
`L. Everitt and G. E. Anner (1956)
`
`Baxter Dep.
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Leslie Baxter
`
`Patel
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,883,894
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Number Short Name
`PCnet-FAST
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`Agilent Application
`Note
`
`Description
`Am79C971 PCnet™-FAST Hardware User’s
`Manual
`
`An Overview of the Electrical Validation of
`10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, and 1000BASE-T
`Devices, Application Note, Agilent
`Technologies
`
`Katzenberg
`
`Katzenberg
`Provisional
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930
`
`U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
`60/123,688
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioner AMX, LLC
`
`respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 40,
`
`47, 55, and 69 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 (“the ’838
`
`patent”), which is attached to this Petition as Exhibit 1005. USPTO assignment
`
`records indicate that the applicants of the ’838 patent assigned their rights to
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”). (Ex. 1006.)
`
`II. Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`1.
`The real parties-in-interest are Harman International Industries and its
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary AMX, LLC.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`2.
`The ’838 patent is also the subject of 42 civil actions filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan, Eastern District of Texas, and Northern District of California.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1014 is a list identifying each of these civil actions. These
`
`cases may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`3.
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Brent Hawkins (Reg. No. 44,146)
`bhawkins@mwe.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP
`227 West Monroe
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 984-7764
`Fax: (312) 984-7700
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Amol A. Parikh (Reg. No. 60,671)
`amparikh@mwe.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP
`227 West Monroe
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 984-6477
`Fax: (312) 984-7700
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`also consents to electronic service by email.
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The undersigned authorizes the PTO to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-0417. Review of 10 claims
`
`is requested. The undersigned authorizes payment for additional fees that may be
`
`due with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that it has standing to request, and is not barred from
`
`requesting, an IPR of the ’838 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315. Neither
`
`Petitioner nor any privy of Petitioner has filed any civil actions challenging the
`
`validity of any claim of the ’838 patent or previously requested IPR of the ’838
`
`patent. Petitioner certifies that it files this petition for IPR less than one year after
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`the date on which Petitioner or any privy of Petitioner was served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’838 patent.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’838 Patent
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in the design of
`
`network communication products. Specifically, such a person would be familiar
`
`with, inter alia, data communications protocols, data communications standards
`
`(and standards under development at the time), and the behavior and use of
`
`common data communications products available on the market. (Ex. 1009, Seifert
`
`Decl., at ¶¶ 36-37.)
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’838 Patent
`
`The claims of the ’838 patent are directed to a central piece of network
`
`equipment comprising an Ethernet connector with first and second pairs of
`
`contacts, and functional limitations that the central piece of network equipment
`
`detect different magnitudes of DC current flow via at least one of the contacts of
`
`the first and second pair and control application of an electrical condition to a
`
`contact of the first and second pairs of contacts in response to a magnitude of DC
`
`current flow. (See Ex. 1005, ’838 patent, at 17:13-23.) The ’838 patent claims to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`incorporate by reference U.S. Patent 5,406,260 (also assigned to the Patent
`
`Owner), which discloses a current loop including a portion passing through a pair
`
`of contacts. (Ex. 1016, ’260 patent, at 3:37-52, Fig. 2.) The ’838 patent states that
`
`the ’260 patent already disclosed:
`
`a means of detecting the unauthorized removal of a networked device
`by
`injecting a
`low current power signal
`into each existing
`communications link. A sensor monitors the returning current flow
`and can thereby detect a removal of the equipment. This method
`provides a means to monitor the connection status of any networked
`electronic device thus providing an effective theft detection/deterrent
`system.
`
`(Id. at 2:19-25.)
`
`The ’838 patent then states the desire to “provide a further means in which a
`
`networked device may also be identified by a unique identification number using
`
`the existing network wiring or cabling as a means of communicating this
`
`information back to a central location.” (Ex. 1005, ’838 patent, at 2:26-30.) The
`
`’838 patent discloses a modulation scheme for this purpose:
`
`[A] communication system is provided for generating and monitoring
`data over a pre-existing wiring or cables [sic] that connect pieces of
`networked computer equipment to a network. The system includes a
`communication device or remote module attached to the electronic
`equipment that transmits information to a central module by
`impressing a low frequency signal on the wires of the cable. A
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`receiver in the central module monitors the low frequency data to
`determine the transmitted information from the electronic equipment.
`The communication device may also be powered by a low current
`power signal from the central module. The power signal to the
`communication device may also be fluctuated to provide useful
`information, such as status information, to the communication device.
`
`(Id. at 3:24-37.)
`
`C.
`
`Priority Claims in the ’838 Patent
`
`The ’838 patent issued from Application No. 13/615,734 (“the ’734
`
`application), which was filed on Sept. 14, 2012. The ’734 application is a
`
`continuation of Application No. 12/239,001 filed Sep. 26, 2008, now U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,155,012 issued Apr. 10, 2012, which is a continuation of Application No.
`
`10/668,708 filed Sep. 23, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,457,250 issued Nov. 25, 2008,
`
`which is a continuation of Application No. 09/370,430 filed Aug. 9, 1999, now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,622 issued Nov. 18, 2003, which is a continuation-in-part
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 120 of International Application PCT/US99/07846,
`
`filed Apr. 8, 1999. On its face, the ’838 patent also purports to claim the benefit of
`
`Provisional Patent Application No. 60/081,279, filed Apr. 10, 1998.
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date of the ’838 Patent
`
`A priority date analysis is limited to the four corners of the priority
`
`document. To provide sufficient disclosure for a later-filed application, the priority
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`document must “actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” PowerOasis,
`
`Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Obviousness
`
`simply is not enough; the subject matter must be disclosed to establish possession.”
`
`Id. (emphasis added). That standard is not met here.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date or date of invention
`
`before April 8, 1999, which is the filing date of priority PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/US99/07846. In co-pending litigation, Patent Owner contends that the claims
`
`are entitled to an earlier priority date or date of invention based on (i) U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/081,279
`
`(“the
`
`’279 provisional”);
`
`(ii)
`
`uncorroborated testimony of named inventors Marshall Cummings and John
`
`Austermann; and (iii) letters from third-party Clyde Boenke to Marshall
`
`Cummings (“the Boenke letters”). None of these establishes an earlier priority date
`
`or invention date.
`
`1.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to the April 10, 1998
`filing date of the ’279 provisional.
`
`The ’279 provisional does not support the claim requirement that the central
`
`piece of network equipment “control application of at least one condition . . . in
`
`response to at least one of the magnitudes of the DC current flow.” It fails to
`
`disclose how that equipment can control application of an electrical condition in
`
`response to one magnitude.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`In the ’279 provisional, the only equipment that could correspond to the
`
`claimed “central piece of network equipment” is identification receiver 15, which
`
`is shown in Figure 2, provided below. (Ex. 1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 117.)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1027, ’279 provisional, at FIG. 2 (annotation added).) Receiver 15 provides an
`
`encoded power signal to transmitter 16. (Ex. 1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 118 (citing
`
`Ex. 1027, ’279 provisional, at 4:8-11, 5:9-21).) Transmitter 16 then sends an
`
`identification number to receiver 15 as a Manchester-encoded signal. (Id. at ¶ 119
`
`(citing Ex. 1027, ’279 provisional, at 5:22-6:7).) In receiver 15, signal receiver 6
`
`receives the Manchester-encoded signal, Manchester decoder 5 decodes it, and
`
`firmware kernel 4 may then pass the decoded information to external device 19 or
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`provide a blocking signal to blocking circuit 20. (Id. at ¶ 121 (citing Ex. 1027, ’279
`
`provisional, at 6:11-16).) The important point is that every signal that receiver 15
`
`receives is Manchester-encoded and passes through Manchester decoder 5. (Id. at ¶
`
`122 (citing Ex. 1027, ’279 provisional, at FIG. 2, 6:3-7, 6:11-13).)
`
`This is significant because a single magnitude of a Manchester-encoded
`
`signal provides no meaningful information. (Id. at ¶¶ 120, 122.) By definition, a
`
`Manchester-encoded signal has different magnitudes, as shown below. (Id. at ¶
`
`120.)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1031, Gigabit Ethernet, at 226 (Fig. 12-3 in-part).) Manchester encoding uses
`
`transitions between a high level and low level of current (or voltage) to represent
`
`data, so there are always two magnitudes representing a single bit of data. (Ex.
`
`1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 120.) Thus, when signal receiver 6 receives a Manchester-
`
`encoded signal, Manchester decoder 5 must evaluate the signal’s transitions, each
`
`transition being composed of multiple magnitudes, in order to identify any useable
`
`information. (Id. at ¶ 122.) Without this information, firmware kernel 4 does not
`
`perform any controlling function. (Id. (citing Ex. 1027, ’279 provisional, at 6:13-
`
`14).) Therefore, without evaluating multiple magnitudes of the Manchester-
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`encoded signal, receiver 15 does not control anything. (Id.) Because Manchester is
`
`the only encoding scheme that the ’279 provisional discloses, the provisional
`
`application fails to disclose that the central equipment controls application of an
`
`electrical condition in response to one magnitude. (Id. at ¶ 120.)
`
`To fill this gap, Patent Owner might try to rely on (1) the provisional
`
`application’s attempt to incorporate by reference U.S. Patent No, 5,406,260 (Ex.
`
`1027, ’279 provisional, at 2:5-11); and (2) a single paragraph describing the ’260
`
`patent (id.). Neither provides written description support. As a matter of law, the
`
`incorporation by reference is insufficient because the ’279 provisional neither
`
`“identifies with ‘detailed particularity’ the specific materials in the patent[]
`
`asserted to be incorporated by reference” nor “‘clearly indicates’ where the
`
`material is found in the incorporated patent[], as required to incorporate material
`
`by reference.” IGB Automotive Ltd. v. Gentherm GmbH, IPR2014-00664, Paper 8
`
`at 15 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) (quoting Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F.3d
`
`1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The ’279 provisional’s single-paragraph description
`
`of the ’260 patent is also insufficient because it is silent about the claim
`
`requirement that the central equipment control an application of an electrical
`
`condition in response to at least one magnitude of DC current flow. (Ex. 1009,
`
`Seifert Decl., at ¶¶ 123-24.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`2.
`
`Inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier
`invention date as a matter of law.
`
`Inventor testimony cannot establish an earlier invention date. See In re NTP,
`
`Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Nor can inventor testimony be used “to
`
`authenticate a document offered to corroborate the inventor’s testimony.”
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc., IPR2013-00292, Paper 93 at 16 (P.T.A.B. Oct.
`
`14, 2014).
`
`3.
`
`The Boenke letters do not establish an invention date.
`
`The Boenke letters do not establish that the named inventors disclosed the
`
`subject matter of the letters to others before the critical date. See Microsoft,
`
`IPR2013-00292, Paper 93 at 15 (emphasis added). To the contrary, Boenke’s
`
`letters show that Boenke, not the named inventors, conceived the subject matter
`
`disclosed in those letters. The Boenke letters also cannot establish an earlier date of
`
`invention because they do not disclose every limitation of any challenged claim.
`
`See Iron Dome LLC v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, Paper 16 at 8 (P.T.A.B.
`
`Aug. 4, 2014).
`
`Therefore, as a matter of law, Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`showing a priority date or date of invention prior to April 8, 1999.
`
`IV. State of the Art
`The challenged claims recite well-known structural elements: “central piece
`
`of network equipment” and “Ethernet connector.” (Ex. 1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`21.) These are well-known elements of Ethernet communication systems in the
`
`prior art. (Id.)
`
`For example, the following illustration comes from a 1996 hardware user’s
`
`manual of the AMD PCnet-FAST board.
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1035, PCnet-FAST, at 3-1.) This figure depicts a network hub connected to
`
`several pieces of data terminal equipment (“DTE”). (Ex. 1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶
`
`22.) Each DTE with the installed PCnet-FAST board can connect to the network
`
`hub over an Ethernet network using the on-board RJ-45 jack for either 10BASE-T
`
`or 100BASE-TX operation. (Id.) In this illustration, the network hub constitutes a
`
`central piece of network equipment. (Id.)
`
`30. An Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts was also
`
`known in the prior art. (Id. at ¶ 23.) In fact, Ethernet connectors comprising a
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`plurality of contacts existed long prior to the 10BASE-T system. (Id.) For example,
`
`the Ethernet Version 1 specification, published on September 30th, 1980 teaches
`
`two different Ethernet connectors, each comprising a plurality of connectors. (Id.)
`
`31. Patent Owner’s expert also concedes that an Ethernet connector
`
`comprising a plurality of contacts was well-known:
`
`Q: Okay. So this figure is known, an Ethernet connector
`comprising a plurality of contacts is known, correct?
`
`A: Yes.
`
`(Ex. 1033, Baxter Dep., at 113.)
`
`V. Claim Construction
`A claim in IPR is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Under this standard,
`
`“claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`
`disclosure.” Nuvasive v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR2013-00206, Paper No. 17
`
`at 6 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2013). This meaning applies unless the inventor, as his
`
`own lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term in the specification.
`
`Id. Under this standard, the following term of the ’838 patent should be construed
`
`as proposed below.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT”
`
`The challenged claims recite “BaseT Ethernet communication signals.”
`
`“BaseT” should be construed as “10BASE-T.” The ’838 patent consistently uses
`
`the term “BaseT” only as part of the larger phrase “10BASE-T.” (Ex. 1005, ’838
`
`patent, at 12:19-28.) Similarly, the ’279 provisional and the ’260 patent, both of
`
`which the ’838 patent claims to incorporate by reference, only use the term “Base-
`
`T” in the phrase “10Base-T.” (Ex. 1027, ’279 provisional, at 3:9-11, Abstract; Ex.
`
`1016, ’260 patent, at Abstract, 3:35, 5:53, 7:13, 8:50.)
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged
`
`claims of the ’838 patent based on the following grounds:
`
`• Ground 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or § 103(a), the challenged claims are
`
`invalid based on U.S. Patent No. 6,218,930 (“Katzenberg”) (Ex. 1037).
`
`• Ground 2: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the challenged claims are invalid based
`
`on U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 (“De Nicolo ’468”) (Ex. 1019) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,134,666 (“De Nicolo ’666”) (Ex. 1020) (collectively, “the De Nicolo
`
`references”).
`
`Ground 1 is not redundant to Ground 2. Petitioner anticipates that Patent
`
`Owner will challenge the prior art status of Katzenberg. While Katzenberg is prior
`
`art to every challenged claim, Petitioner submits Ground 2, based on the De Nicolo
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`references, should the Board find otherwise. Petitioner requests that the Board
`
`institute on both grounds.
`
`A. Ground 1: The challenged claims are
`Katzenberg.
`1. Katzenberg
`
`invalid based on
`
`Katzenberg was not substantively addressed during the prosecution of the
`
`application that issued as the ’838 patent.
`
`Katzenberg is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because the filing date of its
`
`priority provisional application (March 10, 1999) predates the earliest possible
`
`priority date of the ’838 patent’s claims (April 8, 1999). Katzenberg is entitled to
`
`the provisional application’s filing date as its prior art date because the provisional
`
`application provides written description support for Katzenberg’s claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. This is shown in the following table. For the Board’s reference,
`
`Petitioner provides Katzenberg’s priority provisional application as Exhibit 1038.
`
`Claim
`Claim Language of Katzenberg
`
`Element (Ex. 1037)
`
`1a
`
`1b
`
`
`
`Exemplary § 112 ¶ 1 Support
`in Katzenberg’s Provisional
`(Ex. 1038)
`
`1. Apparatus for remotely powering Figs. 1-3, 1:1-7, 2:8-14, 2:18-
`
`access equipment in a data network, 20, 3:5-7.
`comprising:
`
`a data node adapted for data switching,
`
`Fig. 1 (elements 14 & 22), Fig.
`2
`(element 34), Fig. 3
`(elements 68 & 70), 3:11-13,
`4:25-5:1, 6:1-4.
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Claim
`Claim Language of Katzenberg
`
`Element (Ex. 1037)
`
`1c
`
`1d
`
`1e
`
`1f
`
`1g
`
`1h
`
`an access device adapted
`transmission,
`
`Exemplary § 112 ¶ 1 Support
`in Katzenberg’s Provisional
`(Ex. 1038)
`
`for data Fig. 1 (element 10), Fig. 3
`(elements 62 & 64), 3:5-7,
`5:23-6:1.
`
`
`at least one data signaling pair connected Fig. 1 (element 12), Fig 2
`
`between the data node and the access (elements 36, 40, 42, 43, 44,
`
`device and arranged to transmit data 48, 50), Fig 3 (element 66),
`therebetween,
`3:13-20, 4:25-5:13, 5:23-6:6.
`
`
`a main power source connected to supply Fig. 1 (element 16), 3:17-20,
`power to the data node,
`5:10-13.
`
`
`a secondary power source arranged to Fig. 2 (ele