UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`AMX, LLC and
`Dell Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 8,902,760
`
`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 (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................... 1
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)) .................................................... 1
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (§§ 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)) ..................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’760 Patent ........................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 3
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’760 Patent ...................... 4
`
`Priority Claims in the ’760 Patent ......................................................... 5
`
`Priority Date of the ’760 Patent............................................................. 6
`
`IV. State of the Art ................................................................................................. 8
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT” ............................................................................................... 11
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ............................11
`
`A. Ground 1: The challenged claims are obvious based on the De
`Nicolo references. ................................................................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The De Nicolo References ........................................................ 12
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References ....................... 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`3.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 15
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`“A BaseT Ethernet system” ............................................ 15
`
`“a piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ...................................................................... 17
`
`“a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment” ...................................................................... 18
`
`“data signaling pairs of conductors
`comprising first and second pairs used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals
`between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment and the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment, the first and second
`pairs physically connect between the piece
`of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ...................................................................... 19
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment having at least one DC supply” .................... 20
`
`“the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow from
`the at least one DC supply through a loop
`formed over at least one of the conductors of
`the first pair and at least one of the
`conductors of the second pair” ....................................... 21
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to detect at least two different
`magnitudes of the current flow through the
`loop and to control the application of at least
`one electrical condition to at least two of the
`conductors” ..................................................................... 23
`
`4.
`
`Dependent Claim 31: “wherein the BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment comprises a controller coupled to
`the at least one path” ................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claim 37: “wherein one or more magnitudes
`of the current flow through the loop represent
`information about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment” ................................................................................ 28
`
`Dependent Claim 58: “wherein the piece of central
`BaseT Ethernet equipment to detect current flow
`through the loop via voltage” .................................................... 30
`
`Dependent Claim 59: “wherein at least one of the
`different magnitudes of current flow through the loop is
`part of a detection protocol” ..................................................... 31
`
`Dependent Claim 69: “wherein the piece of central
`BaseT Ethernet equipment to distinguish the piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one
`other piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ................. 32
`
`Dependent Claim 72: “wherein the piece of BaseT
`Ethernet terminal equipment is a powered-off piece of
`BaseT Ethernet equipment” ...................................................... 33
`
`10.
`
`Independent Claim 73 ............................................................... 34
`
`11. Dependent Claims 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 ....................... 35
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The challenged claims are obvious based on the
`Auto-Negotiation references. .............................................................. 35
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Auto-Negotiation References.................................................... 35
`
`Reasons to Combine the Auto-Negotiation References ........... 36
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 38
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“A BaseT Ethernet system” ............................................ 38
`
`“a piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ...................................................................... 39
`
`“a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment” ...................................................................... 41
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`“data signaling pairs of conductors
`comprising first and second pairs used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals
`between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment and the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment, the first and second
`pairs physically connect between the piece
`of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ...................................................................... 43
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment having at least one DC supply” .................... 46
`
`“the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow from
`the at least one DC supply through a loop
`formed over at least one of the conductors of
`the first pair and at least one of the
`conductors of the second pair” ....................................... 48
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to detect at least two different
`magnitudes of the current flow through the
`loop and to control the application of at least
`one electrical condition to at least two of the
`conductors” ..................................................................... 53
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 31: “wherein the BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment comprises a controller coupled to
`the at least one path” ................................................................. 54
`
`Dependent Claim 37: “wherein one or more magnitudes
`of the current flow through the loop represent
`information about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment” ................................................................................ 55
`
`Dependent Claim 58: “wherein the piece of central
`BaseT Ethernet equipment to detect current flow
`through the loop via voltage” .................................................... 56
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claim 59: “wherein at least one of the
`different magnitudes of current flow through the loop is
`part of a detection protocol” ..................................................... 57
`
`Dependent Claim 69: “wherein the piece of central
`BaseT Ethernet equipment to distinguish the piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one
`other piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ................. 57
`
`Dependent Claim 72: “wherein the piece of BaseT
`Ethernet terminal equipment is a powered-off piece of
`BaseT Ethernet equipment” ...................................................... 58
`
`10.
`
`Independent Claim 73 ............................................................... 59
`
`11. Dependent Claims 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 ....................... 59
`
`VII. Conclusion .....................................................................................................60
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`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
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`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
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`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
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioners AMX, LLC
`
`and Dell Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) respectfully request inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72 (across 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, and 69), 73,
`
`106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 (across 73, 106, 112, 134, and 142) (“the challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 (“the ’760 patent”), which is attached to this
`
`Petition as Exhibit 1001. USPTO assignment records indicate that the applicants of
`
`the ’760 patent assigned their rights to ChriMar Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`(Ex. 1002.)
`
`II. Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`1.
`The real parties-in-interest are (1) Harman International Industries; (2) its
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary AMX, LLC; and (3) Dell Inc.
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`2.
`The ’760 patent is also the subject of 43 civil actions filed in the Eastern
`
`District of Michigan, Eastern District of Texas, and Northern District of California.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1012 is a list identifying each of these civil actions. These
`
`cases may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceedings.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`3.
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (§§ 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
`Gilbert A. Greene (Reg. No. 48,366)
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
`LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 474-5201
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney accompany 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 13 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`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 ’760 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 ’760 patent or previously requested IPR of the ’760
`
`patent. Petitioner certifies that it files this petition for IPR less than one year after
`
`the date on which Petitioner or any privy of Petitioner was served with a complaint
`
`alleging infringement of the ’760 patent.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’760 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 ¶¶ 27-28.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’760 Patent
`
`The claims of the ’760 patent are directed to a BaseT Ethernet system
`
`comprising a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment, a piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment, data signaling pairs of conductors, a DC supply, and a path,
`
`with several functional limitations: (1) to draw different magnitudes of current
`
`flow from the DC supply through a loop formed over the conductors, (2) to detect
`
`two different magnitudes of the current flow through the loop, and (3) to control
`
`the application of at least one electrical condition to at least two conductors. (See
`
`Ex. 1001, ’760 patent, at 17:15-36.) The ’760 patent claims to incorporate by
`
`reference (but does not claim priority to) 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 ’760
`
`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.)
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`The ’760 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. 1001, ’760 patent, at 2:26-30.) The
`
`’760 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
`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.) The specification emphasizes modulation techniques by which the
`
`variation in current transmits identifying information. (Id.) In contrast, certain
`
`challenged claims recite that a single magnitude of DC current is sufficient to
`
`represent information about the claimed device. (Id. at 19:52-55, 24:3-6.)
`
`C.
`
`Priority Claims in the ’760 Patent
`
`The ’760 patent issued from Application No. 13/615,755 (“the ’755
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`application), which was filed on Sept. 14, 2012. The ’755 application is a
`
`continuation of Application No. 13/370,918, filed Feb. 10, 2012, which 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 App. PCT/US99/07846, filed Apr.
`
`8, 1999, designating the United States. On its face, the ’760 patent also purports to
`
`claims the benefit of Provisional Application No. 60/081,279, filed Apr. 10, 1998.
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date of the ’760 Patent
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date or date of invention
`
`earlier than 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; (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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`First, the ’760 patent’s claims are not entitled to the April 10, 1998 filing
`
`date of the ’279 provisional application. Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`establishing that the ’279 provisional application provides written description
`
`support for every limitation of the challenged claims. For example, the ’279
`
`provisional application does not provide written description support for the
`
`limitation “the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment to detect at least two
`
`different magnitudes of the current flow through the loop,” which is recited in
`
`every challenged claim. Nor does the ’279 provisional application provide written
`
`description support for the limitations added by dependent claims 37, 58, 59, 69,
`
`72, 112, 134, 142, and 145.
`
`Second, inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier invention date
`
`as a matter of law. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Moreover, inventor testimony cannot 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).
`
`Finally, the Boenke letters do not establish an earlier invention date. Those
`
`letters do not establish that the named inventors disclosed the subject matter of the
`
`letters to others before the critical date. See id. at 15 (emphasis added). To the
`
`contrary, the Boenke letters, at best, show that Boenke, not the named inventors,
`
`conceived the subject matter disclosed in those letters. The Boenke letters also
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`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). For example, the letters do not
`
`describe “the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment to detect at least two
`
`different magnitudes of the current flow through the loop,” which is recited in
`
`every challenged claim, nor do the Boenke letters disclose the limitations added by
`
`dependent claims 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145.
`
`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 BaseT
`
`Ethernet equipment,” “BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment,” “data signaling pairs
`
`of conductors,” “a DC supply,” and “a path.” (Ex. 1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 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 Ethernet interface board. (Id. at ¶ 22.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`(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 an Ethernet
`
`network using the on-board RJ-45 jack for either 10BASE-T or 100BASE-TX
`
`connection. (Id.) In this illustration, the network hub constitutes central BaseT
`
`Ethernet equipment, the DTEs are pieces of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment,
`
`each piece of equipment necessarily includes a DC supply, and each twisted pair
`
`cable comprises data signaling pairs of conductors. (Id.) When the network hub is
`
`connected to a DTE, the connection provides a path through which current can
`
`flow. (Id.)
`
`It was also well-known that magnitudes of DC current can convey
`
`information about a device. (Id. at ¶ 23.) In fact, this is a simple application of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Ohm’s law (Current (I) = Voltage (V) ÷ Resistance (R)). (Id.) For example, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 2,822,519 (“Murphy”) disclosed an apparatus incorporating in paths
`
`“known values of resistors and a meter with a source of direct current to identify
`
`circuits that have been connected.” (Id. (quoting Ex. 1017, Murphy, at 1:20-22).)
`
`Murphy uses multiple contacts and twisted pairs. (Id.) In the context of evaluating
`
`how much power to send to a device, the same concept was recognized as well-
`
`known prior art in U.S. Patent No. 5,200,686 (“Lee”) (Ex. 1018), in which the
`
`resistance in a path (measured using Ohm’s law and a known voltage or current)
`
`was associated with the power charging requirements for the device. (Ex. 1009,
`
`Seifert Decl., at ¶ 23.)
`
`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 Inc. 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 ’760 patent should be construed
`
`as proposed below.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT”
`
`The challenged claims recite “BaseT” as part of the larger phrases “BaseT
`
`Ethernet system,” “central BaseT Ethernet equipment,” “BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment,” and “BaseT Ethernet communication signals.” “BaseT” should be
`
`construed as “10BASE-T.” The ’760 patent consistently uses the term “BaseT”
`
`only as part of the larger phrase “10BASE-T.” (See, e.g., ’760 patent at 12:22:26.)
`
`Similarly, the ’279 provisional and the ’260 patent, both of which the ’760 patent
`
`incorporates 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 ’760 patent based on the following grounds:
`
`• Ground 1: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the challenged claims are
`
`obvious 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 2: Under § 103(a), the challenged claims are obvious based on U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,883,894 (“Patel”) (Ex. 1034), National Semiconductor
`
`DP83840 Technical Datasheet (“DP83840 Datasheet”) (Ex. 1024), IEEE
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Standard 802.3u-1995 (“IEEE 802.3u-1995”) (Ex. 1025), and IEEE
`
`Standard 802.3-1993 (“IEEE 802.3-1993”) (Ex. 1026) (collectively, “the
`
`Auto-Negotiation references”).
`
`Ground 1 is not redundant to Ground 2. Petitioner anticipates that the Patent
`
`Owner might try to swear behind the De Nicolo references. While those references
`
`are prior art to every challenged claim, Petitioner submits Ground 2, based on the
`
`Auto-Negotiation references, should the Board find otherwise. Petitioner requests
`
`that the Board institute on both grounds.
`
`A. Ground 1: The challenged claims are obvious based on the De
`Nicolo references.
`The De Nicolo References
`1.
`
`De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`because their filing dates (March 26, 1998 and March 12, 1998, respectively),
`
`predate the earliest possible priority date of the ’760 patent’s claims (April 8,
`
`1999).1 Neither of the De Nicolo references was substantively addressed during the
`
`prosecution of the application that issued as the ’760 patent.
`
`
`1
`The De Nicolo references also predate the filing date of the provisional
`
`application to which the ’760 patent on its face claims priority.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`2.
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined De Nicolo ’468
`
`and De Nicolo ’666. (Ex. 1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 33.) Both references disclose
`
`techniques for powering a controlled device. (Id. at ¶ 34.) In De Nicolo ’468, for
`
`example, a power supply 144 provides power via two twisted pairs 128a, 128b to a
`
`power processor 149, which, in turn, provides power to a portion of an Ethernet
`
`device 98. (Id. (citing Ex. 1019, De Nicolo ’468, at FIG. 3).) Similarly, in De
`
`Nicolo ’666, a power supervisor 14 provides power via a query conductor 28 to a
`
`power circuit soft start 44, which, in turn, provides power to power consuming
`
`circuitry. (Id. (citing Ex. 1020, De Nicolo ’666, at FIG. 1).) De Nicolo ’666
`
`discloses that “multiple query conductors could also be used, if more convenient.”
`
`(Id. (quoting Ex. 1020, De Nicolo ’666, at 5:34-38.)
`
`In addition, De Nicolo ’468’s disclosure would have motivated a skilled
`
`artisan to incorporate De Nicolo ’666’s teachings with those of De Nicolo ’468.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 35.) For example, like De Nicolo ’666, De Nicolo ’468 discloses “[a]
`
`system for supplying DC power to a remote device.” (Id. (quoting Ex. 1019, De
`
`Nicolo ’468, at claim 6).) De Nicolo ’468 shows a system with multiple devices
`
`(associated with loads 98, 100, and 102) in Figure 3. (Id.) De Nicolo ’468 also
`
`provides that such a system can have one remote device. (Id. (citing Ex. 1019, De
`
`Nicolo ’468, at claim 6).) A skilled artisan would have understood that the remote
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`device has a maximum power requirement and that it would have been desirable to
`
`provide that remote device with a power signal that satisfies the device’s power
`
`requirement. (Id.) With that understanding, a skilled artisan would have
`
`incorporated De Nicolo ’666’s technique of determining the remote device’s
`
`maximum power requirement by way of a resistor (or other component) into De
`
`Nicolo ’468’s system. (Id.)
`
`In other words, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use
`
`De Nicolo ’666’s principle of operation together with De Nicolo ’468’s Ethernet-
`
`based system. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Moreover, because both references name Maurilio
`
`Tazio De Nicolo as their sole inventor, a skilled artisan reviewing one of the De
`
`Nicolo references would have reviewed other references naming De Nicolo as an
`
`inventor to gain a better understanding of the disclosed teachings. (Id.)
`
`Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to
`
`combine De Nicolo 468’s teaching with De Nicolo 666’s teachings. (Id. at ¶ 37.)
`
`For example, De Nicolo ’468’s system in Figure 3 could include a single remote
`
`device (e.g., a device that includes load 98) as described, for example, in claim 16
`
`of De Nicolo ’468. (Id. (citing Ex. 1019, De Nicolo ’468, at claim