`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