United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`________________________________________________
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`________________________________________________
`
`
`
`Dell Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`________________________________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`________________________________________________
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Response to the Petition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . vi
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
`I. Introduction and Summary of Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`II. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 2
`A. Status of Related Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`B. The ’760 Patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`3
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
`III. Arguments and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
`A. Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 9
`1. Legal Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`a. Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`10
`b. Written-Description Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`c. Corroboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`2. The ’279 Provisional Application fully discloses
`the inventions claimed by the ’760 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`3. The inventors of the ’760 Patent conceived
`their invention before the priority dates of the
`De Nicolo references and diligently reduced it
`practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
`a. Chrimar and EtherLock I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`b. Conception of the New Inventions—
`EtherLock II and ELID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`c. Diligence in Reduction to Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
`4. The inventors’ testimony is fully corroborated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
`5. Clyde Boenke is not an inventor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`B. Claim Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`1. Prior Claim Constructions from the District
`Court Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`17
`17
`
`13
`
`– ii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`2. Prior Claim Constructions from the Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`C. The challenged claims are not obvious in view of
`the De Nicolo references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`1. Legal Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`2. The De Nicolo References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
`a. De Nicolo ’666 discloses a method and
`apparatus for allocating power among
`processor cards in a closed, modular system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
`b. De Nicolo ’468 discloses a system for
`powering Ethernet-based telephones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
`3. Petitioner has not shown a motivation to
`combine the De Nicolo references. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
`a. There was no motivation to combine the De
`Nicolo references to solve the problem
`facing the inventors of the ’760 Patent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
`a. There was no motivation to combine the De
`Nicolo references to solve the hypothetical
`problem posed by Petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
`i. There would have been no reason to
`determine the maximum power
`requirement of remote devices in De
`Nicolo ’468. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
`ii. Neither of the De Nicolo references
`teaches using a unique power signal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`iii. De Nicolo ’468 teaches away from
`selectively powering Ethernet devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
`iv. Both of the De Nicolo references already
`include power management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`4. Petitioner has not shown that a person of
`ordinary skill would have had a reasonable
`expectation of success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
`
`– iii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`51
`
` 57
`
`5. Petitioner’s proposed De Nicolo combination
`does not meet every limitation of the challenged
`claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
`a. Claim 1: the proposed De Nicolo
`combination does not disclose at least two
`limitations of claim 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`i. The proposed De Nicolo combination
`does not disclose “at least one path
`coupled across at least one of the
`contacts of the first pair of contacts and
`at least one of the contacts of the second
`pair of contacts.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`ii. The proposed De Nicolo combination
`does not disclose a piece of central BaseT
`Ethernet equipment that “detect[s] at
`least two different magnitudes of current
`flow.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`b. Claim 37: The proposed De Nicolo
`combination does not disclose “the BaseT
`Ethernet system of claim 1 wherein one or
`more magnitudes of the current flow
`through the loop represent information
`about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
`c. Claim 58: The proposed De Nicolo
`combination does not disclose “the BaseT
`Ethernet system of claim 1 wherein the piece
`of central BaseT Ethernet equipment to
`detect current flow through the loop via
`voltage.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
`d. Claim 72: The proposed De Nicolo
`combination does not disclose “the BaseT
`Ethernet system according to any one of the
`claims 1 . . . wherein the piece of BaseT
`
` 60
`
`– iv –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment is a powered-
`off piece of BaseT Ethernet equipment.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
`e. Claims 73, 112, and 145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
`IV. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
`63
`Certificate of Compliance with Word Count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
`Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– v –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
` Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`12, 13
`
`Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc.,
`745 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`AMX, LLC v. Chrimar Sys., Inc.,
`IPR2016-00569, Paper No. 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`Brown v. Barbacid,
`436 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc.,
`339 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee,
`799 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
`Drone Techs., Inc. v. Parrot S.A.,
`838 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc.,
`800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`HG Corp. v. NFC Tech., LLC,
`IPR2014-01198, Paper 56 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended–Release Capsule Patent Litig.,
`676 F.3d 1063 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
`In re Kahn,
`441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 32, 33, 34, 46
`In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd.,
`829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 33
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`— F.3d —, 2016 WL 2620512 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . 35, 50
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33, 45
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`– vi –
`
`

`
`13
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.,
`679 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
`Monsanto Co. v. Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc.,
`261 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Neste Oil OYJ v. Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC,
`IPR2013-00578, Paper 54 (PTAB March 12, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`Olympus Am., Inc. v. Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00233, Paper 56 (PTAB June 8, 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1186 (Fed. Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
`Perfect Surgical Techs., Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc.,
`— F.3d —, 2016 WL 6694956 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016) . . . . . . 10, 12, 13, 25
`Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`Securus Techs., Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp.,
`IPR2015-00155, Paper No. 30 (Apr. 7, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc.,
`192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`Tyco Healthcare Grp. v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Utter v. Hiraga,
`845 F.2d 993 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`Wowza Media Systems, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc.,
`IPR2013-00054, Paper No. 12 (Apr. 8, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 46
`Zoltek Corp. v. U.S.,
`815 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`13
`
`– vii –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Statutes
`32
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .
`35 U.S.C. § 112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 11
`Rules
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
`
`28
`
`– viii –
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
` Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2051
`
`2052
`2053
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order denying AMX’s
`motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of
`the ’012 Patent, Dkt. No. 96, Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al.
`v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order construing certain
`terms of the ’012 Patent, Dkt. No. 105, Chrimar Sys.,
`Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-
`881-JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order construing certain
`terms of the ’012 Patent and denying AMX’s motion
`for summary judgment of indefiniteness regarding the
`“distinguishing” terms of the ’012 Patent, Dkt. No.
`108, Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order denying AMX’s
`motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness
`regarding certain claims of the ’012, ’107, and ’760
`Patents, Dkt. No. 122, Chrimar Sys., Inc., et al. v.
`AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-164-JDL,
`Eastern District of Texas
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 123, filed
`in Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`Declaration of Marshall B. Cummings (Nov. 22,
`2016)
`Declaration of John F. Austermann (Nov. 22, 2016)
`Declaration of G. Gregory Schivley (Nov. 22, 2016)
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`11/22/16
`
`– ix –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`2054
`
`2055
`2057
`2059
`2060
`2061
`
`2063
`
`2064
`
`2065
`
`2066
`
`2067
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`2071
`
`2072
`
`2083
`
`Declaration of Dr. Madisetti in Support of Patent
`Owner Response to the Petition (Nov. 22, 2016)
`Materials Considered by Dr. Madisetti
`Seifert Depo June 10
`Seifert Depo Oct 14 (IPR Depo)
`Seifert Combination Diagrams
`Deposition of Clyde Boenke (Jan. 29. 2015)
`Letter from Gregory Schivley (attorney with Harness,
`Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.) to Marshall Cummings (Jan.
`23, 1998)
`Confidential Information and Inventions Agreement
`(Independent Contractor) between ChriMar Systems
`Inc. and American Broadband, Inc. (Feb. 3, 1998)
`Letter from Clyde Boenke (President of American
`Broadband) to Marshall Cummings (Feb. 10, 1998)
`Letter from Clyde Boenke to Marshall Cummings
`(Mar. 6, 1998)
`Letter from Clyde Boenke to Marshall Cummings
`(Mar. 11, 1998)
`Notes dated March 13, 1998
`Letter from Clyde Boenke to Marshall Cummings
`(Mar. 17, 1998)
`Draft provisional patent application (Apr. 9, 1998)
`Secrecy and Invention Agreement between CMS
`Technologies and Wisne Design (Apr. 13, 1998)
`Verdict Form from ALE Trial
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`11/22/16
`11/22/16
`11/22/16
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`
`
`11/22/16
`
`– x –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Chrimar
`System, Inc.
`Exhibit No.
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Date Filed
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order on ALE’s motion
`to construe certain claim terms of the ’012 and ’760
`Patents, Dkt. No. 318, filed in Chrimar Systems, Inc.,
`et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-164-
`JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`Response to Office Action
`Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination
`Certificate
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`11/22/16
`
`2085
`
`2086
`
`2087
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`– xi –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`I. Introduction and Summary of Arguments
`
`Petitioner contends the ’760 Patent is obvious in view of the De Nicolo
`
`references—the ’468 and ’666 Patents—each of which was before the examiner
`
`during prosecution of the ’760 Patent.1 Both of the De Nicolo references are
`
`directed to providing operating powering to devices. For at least the following
`
`reasons, Petitioner has failed to show that the claims at issue are invalid as obvious
`
`in view of the De Nicolo references.
`
`First, the De Nicolo references are not prior art to the ’760 Patent. The
`
`inventors of the ’760 Patent conceived their invention before the priority dates of
`
`the De Nicolo references and diligently reduced it to practice.
`
`Second, the De Nicolo references are not directed to the subject matter
`
`disclosed in the ’760 Patent—i.e., a system for managing multiple remote assets in
`
`a network, even when the assets are without operating power—and Petitioner has
`
`not provided a basis for assuming that a person of ordinary skill would have been
`
`motivated to combine them to create such a system.
`
`
`1 Specifically, Petitioner challenges the following claims: independent claim 1
`
`and its dependent claims 5, 31, 43, 53, 58, 70, 72, 75, 83, 84, 103; and independent
`
`claim 104 and its dependent claims 107, 111, 123, 125.
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`Third, a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine
`
`the De Nicolo references to solve the hypothetical problem posed by Petitioner—
`
`i.e., finding a way to selectively power an Ethernet device based on its maximum
`
`power requirement.
`
`Fourth, Petitioner has not shown that its proposed combination would have
`
`had a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`Fifth, the combined De Nicolo references do not meet or disclose many of the
`
`limitations of the claims at issue.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should reject Petitioner’s arguments and refuse to find
`
`the claims at issue unpatentable.
`
`
`
`II. Background
`
`A. Status of Related Litigation
`
`The ’760 Patent is one of four related patents asserted against Petitioner in
`
`litigation pending in the Eastern District of Texas, which is set for a jury trial on
`
`January 3, 2017.2 The ’760 Patent is also asserted against Alcatel–Lucent
`
`Enterprise USA Inc. (“ALE”) in litigation pending in the Eastern District of
`
`2 Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. ADTRAN, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-618.
`
`The four related patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,902,760 (Ex. 1001); 8,942,107 (Ex.
`
`1003); 9,019,838 (Ex. 1005); and 8,155,012.
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Texas.3 A jury trial was held against ALE the week of October 3, 2016, resulting in
`
`a jury verdict in favor of Chrimar. The ’760 Patent is also asserted in four cases
`
`pending in the Northern District of California, all four of which are currently
`
`stayed.4 The ’760 Patent is also the subject of two other petitions for Inter Partes
`
`Review.5 The court in the Eastern District of Texas construed certain terms of the
`
`’760 Patent.
`
`B. The ’760 Patent
`
`The ’760 Patent is directed to methods and systems for managing devices
`
`connected in a star-wired Ethernet network. The claims “relate[] generally to
`
`computer networks and, more particularly, to a network management and security
`
`system for managing, tracking, and identifying remotely located electronic
`
`
`3 Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent S.A., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-
`
`163.
`
`4 See Ex. 1012 regarding Defendants Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless,
`
`Inc., NETGEAR, and Fortinet, Inc.
`
`5 IPR2016-01399 and IPR2016-01759 (which was filed by Aerohive Networks,
`
`Inc., which seeks to join this proceeding).
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`equipment on a network.”6 The “invention is particularly adapted to be used with
`
`an existing Ethernet communications link or equivalents thereof.”7
`
`More specifically, the patent discloses identifying an “asset,” such as a
`
`computer, “by attaching an external or internal device to the asset and
`
`communicating with that device using existing network wiring or cabling.”8 The
`
`remote device is referred to as a “remote module.”9 An asset can be managed,
`
`tracked, or identified by using the remote module to communicate information
`
`about the asset to network monitoring equipment, referred to as a “central
`
`module.”10
`
`The basic configuration of an embodiment of the system claimed by the patent
`
`is illustrated in Figure 4, reproduced below with highlights and annotations.
`
`
`
`
`6 Ex. 1001: ’760 Patent at 1:27–30.
`
`7 Id. at 3:41–43.
`
`8 Id. at 2:4–6.
`
`9 Id. at 3:27–30.
`
`10 Id. at 3:27–31; 6:7–12; 8:65–9:5.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`High-frequency data in an Ethernet network propagates between a hub (1) and
`
`
`
`a PC (3a) over two pairs of conductive lines—a pair of transmit lines, highlighted in
`
`green (conductors 1 & 2), and a pair of receive lines, highlighted in red (conductors
`
`3 and 6). A central module (15a) and a remote module (16a) are placed between the
`
`hub and the PC, with the high-frequency data propagating through them. What’s
`
`novel about the system is that the remote module can convey information about the
`
`PC to the central module wherein the information is carried by different
`
`magnitudes of DC current flowing through the same conductive lines as the high-
`
`frequency data without adversely affecting the high-frequency data. This is
`
`generally represented in the figure above by the black arrows between the central
`
`and remote modules. The different magnitudes of DC current convey information
`
`about the PC, and this can happen even when the PC is powered off.
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
` The central module has a direct connection to the remote module via a
`
`conventional Ethernet cable. More importantly, the central module can be
`
`connected independently to multiple remote modules. The diagram below shows
`
`an exemplary configuration consisting of a central module connected to four
`
`remote modules.
`
`
`This arrangement is commonly referred to as being part of a “star” or “hub
`
`and spoke” configuration, in which the central module has a direct connection to
`
`the remote modules, allowing it to identify, communicate with, and manage each of
`
`the assets—as opposed to a “bus” configuration where communication lines (and
`
`thus the connection) are shared among several devices.11
`
`
`11 Ex. 2054: Declaration of Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti (Nov. 22, 2016) (“Madisetti
`
`Dec.”) ¶¶ 46, 47.
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`This system allowed the patentees to solve a number of problems associated
`
`with prior-art asset-management systems. As the patent explains:
`
`[The prior art was] generally incapable of detecting the electrical
`
`connection status of equipment[;] it cannot detect the physical
`
`location of equipment, the identifying name of equipment is not
`
`permanent, and the monitored assets must be powered-up.
`
`Therefore, a method for permanently identifying an asset by
`attaching an external or internal device to the asset and
`communicating with that device using existing network
`wiring or cabling is desirable. . . . It would also be desirable to
`communicate with the device without requiring the device or
`the asset to be connected to alternating current (AC) power.
`
`Such a device would allow a company to track its assets, locate
`
`any given asset, and count the total number of identified assets at
`
`any given time, thus significantly reducing its [total cost of
`ownership] of identified assets.12
`
`In short, the patentees were looking for a way to identify, communicate with,
`
`and manage distributed assets in a network, over existing network wires, even when
`
`the assets are powered off. The innovative devices, methods, and systems
`
`described and claimed by the ’760 Patent achieve each of these goals. Specifically,
`
`
`12 Ex. 1001: ’760 Patent at 1:65–2:15 (emphasis added).
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`they are able to: (1) convey information about assets—e.g., a company’s
`
`computers—over the same lines already being used to convey high-frequency data
`
`communications to the assets, without substantially interfering with the high-
`
`frequency data communications13; and (2) convey information about the assets
`
`even when the assets are powered off.14
`
`C. Person of Ordinary Skill
`
`The Parties appear to agree that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`with respect to the ’760 Patent as of April 1998 would have an undergraduate
`
`degree or the equivalent in the field of electrical engineering or a related field, and
`
`one to three years of experience with Ethernet networks. Alternatively, a greater
`
`
`13 See, e.g., Ex. 1001: ’760 Patent at 12:6–8 (“The system transmits a signal
`
`over pre-existing network wiring or cables without disturbing network communi-
`
`cations . . . .”).
`
`14 See, e.g., Ex. 1001: ’760 Patent at 5:4–6 (describing an embodiment of the
`
`invention “capable of identifying the existence and location of network assets
`
`without power being applied to the assets.”); id. at 12:57–59 (“[T]he system
`
`provides a means for permanently identifying the location of network assets
`
`without applying power to the assets.”).
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`length of experience could replace the degree requirement, and an advanced degree
`
`in electrical engineering could replace the experience requirement.15
`
`
`
`III. Arguments and Authorities
`
`A. Priority
`
`The ’760 Patent claims priority to Provisional Patent Application No.
`
`60/081,279 (Ex. 1027; the “’279 Provisional Application”), which was filed on
`
`April 10, 1998. The priority dates for the De Nicolo references are March 26, 1998
`
`(De Nicolo ’468) and March 12, 1998 (De Nicolo ’666). Petitioner contends the De
`
`Nicolo references are prior art because their priority dates predate the filing of the
`
`’279 Provisional Application by a few weeks. As set forth below, however, the
`
`inventors of the ’760 Patent conceived their invention before the priority dates of
`
`the De Nicolo references and diligently reduced it to practice. Further, contrary to
`
`Petitioner’s arguments, the ’279 Provisional Application discloses each of the
`
`limitations of the ’760 Patent claims at issue, the testimony regarding diligence is
`
`15 See Ex. 2054: Madisetti Dec. ¶ 33; Ex. 2059: Deposition of Rich Seifert
`
`[Petitioner’s technical expert] (Oct. 14, 2016) (“Seifert IPR Dep.”) at 52
`
`(testifying that there are no substantive differences between Dr. Madisetti’s
`
`definition of a person of ordinary skill and his own—“I think they are almost
`
`identical”).
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`fully corroborated, and the named inventors on the patent art the only true
`
`inventors. For at least these reasons, the De Nicolo references are not prior art to
`
`the ’760 Patent.
`
`1. Legal Standards
`a. Burden
`
`In an IPR, the petitioner always shoulders the burden of persuasion, by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, to establish that the challenged claims are not
`
`patentable. See In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). When a patent owner attempts to antedate an alleged prior-art reference, the
`
`patent owner must meet a burden of production—i.e., a burden to produce some
`
`evidence establishing prior conception and diligent reduction to practice. See
`
`Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015); see also Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375–76. The Board has repeatedly
`
`recognized that a patent owner bears no more than a burden of production in this
`
`context, and the petitioner must ultimately meet its burden of proof to show that an
`
`alleged prior-art reference in fact qualifies as prior art. See, e.g., Neste Oil OYJ v.
`
`Reg Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-00578, Paper 54 at 17 (PTAB March 12, 2015);
`
`Olympus Am., Inc. v. Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc., IPR2014-00233, Paper 56 at 15
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`(PTAB June 8, 2015); HG Corp. v. NFC Tech., LLC, IPR2014-01198, Paper 56 at
`
`22–23 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2016).
`
`b. Written-Description Requirement
`
`“The purpose of the written description requirement is to assure that the
`
`public receives sufficient knowledge of the patented technology, and to
`
`demonstrate that the patentee is in possession of the invention claimed.” Zoltek
`
`Corp. v. U.S., 815 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[W]ritten description is about
`
`whether the skilled reader of the patent disclosure can recognize that what was
`
`claimed corresponds to what was described; it is not about whether the patentee
`
`has proven to the skilled reader that the invention works, or how to make it work,
`
`which is an enablement issue.” Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 745 F.3d
`
`1180, 1191 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To meet this standard, “[a]n applicant is not required
`
`to describe in the specification every conceivable and possible future embodiment
`
`of his invention.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001).16 Likewise, “[a] specification may, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112
`
`
`16 See also, e.g., Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339 F.3d 1352, 1364 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003) (“The disclosure as originally filed does not . . . have to provide in haec
`
`verba support for the claimed subject matter at issue.”).
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`para. 1, contain a written description of a broadly claimed invention without
`
`describing all species that [the] claim encompasses.” Utter v. Hiraga, 845 F.2d 993,
`
`998 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`c. Corroboration
`
`Under pre-AIA § 102(g), a patent owner can antedate an alleged prior-art
`
`reference by showing earlier conception and reasonable diligence in reducing to
`
`practice. Perfect Surgical Techs., Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., — F.3d —, 2016 WL
`
`6694956, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2016). “Reasonable diligence must shown
`
`throughout the entire critical period, which begins just prior to the competing
`
`reference’s effective date and ends on the date of the invention’s reduction to
`
`practice.” Id. Further, an inventor’s testimony regarding his reasonable diligence
`
`must be corroborated by evidence. Brown v. Barbacid, 436 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006). “A ‘variety of activities’ may corroborate an inventor’s testimony of
`
`reasonable diligence and such corroborating evidence is considered ‘as a whole’
`
`under a rule of reason.” Perfect Surgical, 2016 WL 6694956, at *2 (citing Barbacid,
`
`436 F.3d at 1380).
`
`As the Federal Circuit recently held, [a] patent owner need not prove the
`
`inventor continuously exercised reasonable diligence throughout the critical
`
`period; it must show there was reasonably continuous diligence.” Perfect Surgical,
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`2016 WL 6694956, at *3 (emphasis in original) (citing Tyco Healthcare Grp. v.
`
`Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 774 F.3d 968, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Monsanto Co. v.
`
`Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc., 261 F.3d 1356, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Likewise, “an
`
`inventor is not required to work on reducing his invention to practice every day
`
`during the critical period.” Id. (citing Monsanto, 261 F.3d at 1369). “And periods of
`
`inactivity within the critical period do not automatically vanquish a patent owner’s
`
`claim of reasonable diligence.” Id. In Monsanto, for example, the Federal Circuit
`
`upheld a jury’s presumed finding that an inventor was reasonably diligent where
`
`there was no corroborating evidence of any activity for a series of months.
`
`Monsanto, 261 F.3d at 1370.
`
`The Federal Circuit explained that this is the standard because “the point of
`
`the diligence analysis is not to scour the patent owner’s corroborating evidence in
`
`search of intervals of time where the patent owner has failed to substantiate some
`
`sort of activity.” Rather, the point is “to assure that, in light of the evidence as a
`
`whole, ‘the invention was not abandoned or unreasonably delayed.’” Perfect
`
`Surgical Techs., 2016 WL 6694956, at *3 (quoting Barbacid, 436 F.3d at 1379).
`
`2. The ’279 Provisional Application fully discloses the inventions claimed
`by the ’760 Patent.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’760 Patent recites (emphasis added):
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`
`Case No. IPR2016-00574
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`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 con