throbber
Paper 25
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`Entered: August 10, 2016
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AMX, LLC and DELL INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`_______________
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`AMX, LLC and Dell Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition
`(Paper 3, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 31, 37, 58,
`59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’760 patent”). Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed
`a Preliminary Response (Paper 17, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter
`partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 31, 37,
`58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent.
`Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 31, 37, 58,
`59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent on the grounds
`specified below.
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’760 patent is the subject of several
`district court cases. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 2–3; Ex. 1012.
`B.
`The ’760 Patent
`The ’760 patent relates to a system for managing, tracking, and
`identifying remotely located electronic equipment. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–
`30. According to the ’760 patent, one of the difficulties in managing a
`computerized office environment is keeping track of a company’s electronic
`assets. Id. at col. 1, ll. 32–57. Previous systems for tracking electronic
`assets suffered from several deficiencies. Id. at col. 1, ll. 62–65. For
`example, previous systems could not determine the connection status or
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`physical location of the asset and could only track those assets that were
`powered-up. Id. at col. 1, l. 65–col. 2, l. 2.
`To address these deficiencies, the ’760 patent describes a system for
`tracking an electronic asset using existing network wires. Id. at col. 2, ll. 3–
`6, col. 3, ll. 23–27. The system includes a central module and a remote
`module. Id. at col. 3, ll. 27–30. The remote module attaches to the
`electronic asset and transmits information to the central module by
`impressing a low frequency signal on the existing network wires. Id. A
`receiver in the central module monitors the information transmitted by the
`remote module. Id. at col. 3, ll. 30–32. The central module can determine if
`the location of the electronic asset changes, and a database can be updated
`accordingly. Id. at col. 3, ll. 37–40.
`C.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 73 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment;
`a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment;
`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, the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment having at least one DC supply, 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, the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment
`to detect at least two different magnitudes of the current flow
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`through the loop and to control the application of at least one
`electrical condition to at least two of the conductors.
`Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 16–36.
`D.
`Evidence of Record
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration (Pet. 11–
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1019
`
`12):
`Reference or Declaration
`Declaration of Rich Seifert (“Seifert Declaration”)
`De Nicolo, U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 (issued Sept. 5, 2000)
`(“De Nicolo ’468”)
`De Nicolo, U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666 (issued Oct. 17,
`2000) (“De Nicolo ’666”)
`National Semiconductor, DP83840 10/100 Mb/s Ethernet
`Physical Layer (1996) (“DP83840 Datasheet”)
`The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
`IEEE Std 802.3u-1995 (1995) (“IEEE 802.3u-1995”)
`The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
`IEEE Std 802.3-1993 (1993) (“IEEE 802.3-1993”)
`Patel et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,883,894 (issued Mar. 16,
`1999) (“Patel”)
`Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti (Ex.
`2015) to support some of the arguments in the Preliminary Response. We
`note that, for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review,
`any genuine issue of material fact created by Dr. Madisetti’s testimony will
`be viewed in the light most favorable to Petitioner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c).
`E.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds (Pet. 11–12):
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`Ex. 1025
`
`Ex. 1026
`
`Ex. 1034
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Claim(s)
`1, 31, 37, 58, 59,
`69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and
`145
`1, 31, 37, 58, 59,
`69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and
`145
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Reference(s)
`De Nicolo ’468 and
`De Nicolo ’666
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Patel, DP83840 Datasheet,
`IEEE 802.3u-1995, and
`IEEE 802.3-1993
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–45 (2016). On this record and for purposes of this
`decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.
`B.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1.
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and 145 Over De Nicolo ’468 and
`De Nicolo ’666
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112,
`134, 142, and 145 would have been obvious over De Nicolo ’468 and
`De Nicolo ’666. Pet. 11. We have reviewed the parties’ assertions and
`supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1,
`31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 would have been
`obvious over De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment” and “a
`piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 17–18.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that De Nicolo ’468 teaches a piece
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`of central Ethernet equipment comprising a power supply, ports, and an
`Ethernet connection. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1019, col. 2, ll. 60–62, Fig. 3).
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that De Nicolo ’468 teaches a piece
`of Ethernet terminal equipment comprising a load, power processor, and an
`Ethernet connection. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1019, col. 3, ll. 9–20, Fig. 3).
`Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have known that the Ethernet connection taught by
`De Nicolo ’468 could have been used to carry BaseT Ethernet
`communication signals. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 67).
`
`Claim 1 recites “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.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 19–25.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that De Nicolo ’468 teaches an
`Ethernet link comprising two twisted pair conductors physically connected
`between the central Ethernet equipment and the Ethernet terminal
`equipment. Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1019, col. 3, ll. 9–12, col. 3, ll. 26–32,
`Fig. 3). As discussed above, Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the Ethernet
`link could have been used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals.
`Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 67).
`
`Claim 1 recites “the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment having
`at least one DC supply, the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`having at least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow from
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`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.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 26–32. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating
`that the central Ethernet equipment in De Nicolo ’468 includes a DC power
`supply. Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1019, col. 3, ll. 33–43). Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that the Ethernet terminal equipment in De Nicolo ’468
`draws different magnitudes of DC current from the DC power supply
`through a loop formed by the two twisted pair conductors. Pet. 21–22
`(citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 75–76; Ex. 1019, Abstract, col. 3, ll. 47–50, Fig. 3).
`Claim 1 recites “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.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 32–36. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that De Nicolo ’666 teaches a power supervisor that
`detects different magnitudes of DC current flow in order to determine the
`maximum power requirement of an electronic device. Pet. 23–25 (citing Ex
`1009 ¶¶ 77–81; Ex. 1020, col. 3, l. 40–col. 4, l. 9, Fig. 1). Petitioner also
`identifies evidence indicating that the power supervisor in De Nicolo ’666
`decides whether to supply power to the device based on whether there is
`sufficient power available to satisfy the device’s maximum power
`requirement. Pet. 25 (citing Ex 1009 ¶ 82; Ex. 1020, col. 3, ll. 63–67).
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine the cited
`teachings of De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666. Pet. 13–15. Specifically,
`Petitioner points out that De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 both relate to
`techniques for powering devices. Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 34). Petitioner
`argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`the devices being powered in De Nicolo ’468 have power requirements, and
`that it would have been desirable to use the teachings in De Nicolo ’666 to
`ensure that the devices in De Nicolo ’468 receive their power requirements.
`Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 35). Petitioner also argues that combining the
`cited teachings of De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 would have been
`within the capability of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that the
`combination would maintain the preexisting purpose and functionality of the
`circuits in De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1009
`¶ 37).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reason for combining the cited
`teachings of De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 is not relevant “because
`providing maximum power was not the problem facing the inventors of the
`’760 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 28. According to Patent Owner, the relevant
`question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art facing the problem
`discussed in the ’760 patent (i.e., controlling costs associated with a
`company’s electronic assets) would have looked to and combined the cited
`teachings of De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666. Id. at 30–31. Patent
`Owner’s argument is not persuasive. “[T]he problem motivating the
`patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter.”
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). Thus, “[u]nder the
`correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the
`time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
`combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reason for combining the cited
`teachings of De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 “does not make sense.”
`Prelim. Resp. 28–29. According to Patent Owner, because the power supply
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`in De Nicolo ’468 is connected to all the devices, the power supervisor in
`De Nicolo ’666 would not be able to turn the power supply on or off for a
`single device in De Nicolo ’468, without doing so for all the other devices.
`Id. (citing Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 47, 50). Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive.
`On this record, the evidence indicates that the power supervisor in
`De Nicolo ’666 can turn a power supply on or off for a single device, even
`when additional devices are drawing power from the same power supply.
`Ex. 1020, col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 1, col. 2, ll. 29–48. Thus, at this stage of the
`proceeding, we are persuaded that combining the functionality of the power
`supervisor in De Nicolo ’666 with the power supply in De Nicolo ’468
`would provide the benefit of ensuring that all the devices in De Nicolo ’468
`receive a signal that satisfies their power requirements.
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not explain specifically how
`a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the power
`supervisor and electronic module in De Nicolo ’666 with the system in
`De Nicolo ’468. Prelim. Resp. 31–33. According to Patent Owner, the
`combination proposed by Petitioner “would require significant
`experimentation and a number of design decisions that are not described in
`the Petition or disclosed in the references.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2015
`¶¶ 46, 54–56). Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because it focuses
`on whether the circuitry in De Nicolo ’666 could have been physically
`incorporated into the circuitry in De Nicolo ’468. Prelim. Resp. 35. The
`relevant inquiry for obviousness is “not whether the references could be
`physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered
`obvious by the teaching of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d
`852, 859–60 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`Patent Owner lastly argues that Petitioner does not “contend that a
`
`person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that
`combining the De Nicolo references would result in the apparatus claimed
`by the ’760 Patent.” Prelim. Resp. 36–37. Patent Owner’s argument is not
`persuasive. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that the proposed
`combination would have been “well within the skilled artisan’s knowledge
`and capabilities.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 37). On this record, Petitioner
`has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`had a reason to combine the cited teachings of De Nicolo ’468 and
`De Nicolo ’666, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in
`combining those teachings.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious
`over De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666. Claim 73 recites limitations
`similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Pet. 34; Ex. 1001,
`col. 21, ll. 37–52. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above,
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`claim 73 would have been obvious over De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666.
`Claims 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 depend from
`claim 1 or claim 73. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that the
`combination of De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 teaches the limitations
`in claims 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145. Pet. 26–35.
`Therefore, on this record, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142,
`and 145 would have been obvious over De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and 145 Over Patel, DP83840 Datasheet,
`IEEE 802.3u-1995, and IEEE 802.3-1993
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112,
`134, 142, and 145 would have been obvious over Patel, DP83840 Datasheet,
`IEEE 802.3u-1995, and IEEE 802.3-1993. Pet. 11–12. We have reviewed
`the parties’ assertions and supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed
`below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`in showing that claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and
`145 would have been obvious over Patel, DP83840 Datasheet, IEEE 802.3u-
`1995, and IEEE 802.3-1993.
`Claim 1 recites “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.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 19–23.
`Petitioner cites to Patel as teaching this limitation of claim 1. Pet. 43–44.
`Figure 1 of Patel is reproduced below.
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 1 of Patel is a block diagram of a network including an intermediate
`device with a shared auto-negotiation logic unit. Ex. 1034, col. 3, ll. 53–55.
`Petitioner argues that network intermediate device 100 in Figure 1 of
`Patel is a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment, and end station 107-0
`is a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment. Pet. 39, 41. Petitioner
`further argues that link 106-0 between network intermediate device 100 and
`end station 107-0 comprises “two pairs of twisted pair telephone wire.” Pet.
`43–44 (citing Ex. 1034, col. 1, ll. 23–26). Petitioner, however, does not
`specify which conductors in Patel are the claimed “first pair” and which
`conductors in Patel are the claimed “second pair.” Pet. 43–44.
`
`Claim 1 also recites “the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`having at least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow from
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`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.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 27–32. Petitioner argues that, in Patel, “[a] loop
`is formed over at least one conductor of the first pair and at least one
`conductor of the second pair.” Pet. 49 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 119). Again,
`though, Petitioner does not specify which conductors in Patel are the
`claimed “first pair” and which conductors in Patel are the claimed “second
`pair.” Pet. 48–49. Petitioner also does not explain specifically how Patel
`teaches the claimed “loop.” Id. at 49. In fact, the only supporting evidence
`identified by Petitioner is Mr. Seifert’s verbatim recitation of Petitioner’s
`argument that “[a] loop is formed over at least one conductor of the first pair
`and at least one conductor of the second pair.” Ex. 1009 ¶ 119. Thus, on
`this record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Patel teaches the above
`limitation of claim 1.
`
`Petitioner argues that DP83840 Datasheet also teaches the above
`limitation of claim 1. Specifically, Petitioner argues that DP83840
`Datasheet teaches that a DP83840 chip supports 10BASE-T, and, thus, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the DP83840 chip
`supports a “Category 3 twisted pair cable.” Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1009
`¶ 116; Ex. 1024, 1; Ex. 1026 § 7). Petitioner further argues that DP83840
`Datasheet teaches that TXU- and TXU- are twisted pair outputs, and RXI-
`and RXI+ are twisted pair inputs. Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1024, 7). In other
`words, Petitioner identifies the transmit outputs as a first pair of conductors,
`and the receive inputs as a second pair of conductors. Pet. 45. Thus, to
`show that DP83840 Datasheet teaches the above limitation of claim 1,
`Petitioner would need to show that there is a loop over at least one of the
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`conductors of the transmit pair (TXU- or TXU-) and at least one of the
`conductors of the receive pair (RXI- or RXI+).
`Petitioner, however, does not provide a specific explanation or
`identify specific evidence indicating that DP83840 Datasheet teaches a loop
`formed over at least one of the conductors of the transmit pair and at least
`one of the conductors of the receive pair. Pet. 49–53. Petitioner identifies
`evidence that, at best, indicates a loop is formed over the conductors of the
`receive pair. Pet. 49 (“For example, as shown by the annotation below, there
`is a path coupled across pins RD+ and RD- of the RJ-45 connector.”).
`Petitioner does not argue specifically that the loop includes at least one of
`the conductors of the transmit pair. Id. Thus, on this record, Petitioner has
`not shown sufficiently that DP83840 Datasheet alone, or in combination
`with Patel, teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner does not demonstrate a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been
`obvious over Patel, DP83840 Datasheet, IEEE 802.3u-1995, and IEEE
`802.3-1993. Claim 73 recites limitations similar to those discussed above
`with respect to claim 1. Pet. 59; Ex. 1001, col. 21, ll. 37–52. Petitioner’s
`arguments and evidence regarding claim 73 do not remedy the deficiencies
`discussed above with respect to claim 1. Pet. 59. Therefore, Petitioner does
`not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim
`73 would have been obvious over Patel, DP83840 Datasheet, IEEE 802.3u-
`1995, and IEEE 802.3-1993.
`Claims 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 depend
`from claim 1 or claim 73. Petitioner’s arguments and evidence regarding
`claims 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 do not remedy the
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`deficiencies discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 73. Pet. 54–59.
`Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142,
`and 145 would have been obvious over Patel, DP83840 Datasheet, IEEE
`802.3u-1995, and IEEE 802.3-1993.
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112,
`134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent. At this stage in the proceeding, we
`have not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of any
`of the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent on the following grounds:
`Claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 as
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over De Nicolo ’468 and
`De Nicolo ’666;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter
`partes review of the ʼ760 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified, and no other grounds are authorized.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2016-00574
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Brent A. Hawkins
`Amol A. Parikh
`MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP
`bhawkins@mwe.com
`amparikh@mwe.com
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Justin S. Cohen
`THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
`justin.cohen@tklaw.com
`
`Richard W. Hoffman
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`hoffmann@reising.com
`
`16
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket