`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`6:15-CV-163-JDL
`LEAD CASE
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`ALCATEL-LUCENT S.A., ET AL.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`My name is Les Baxter and I declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by Plaintiffs to provide opinions as one of ordinary skill in the art in
`this matter regarding the meaning of certain terms in the four Patents-in-Suit, namely
`United States Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (“the ’012 Patent”); 8,942,107 (“the ’107 Patent”);
`8,902,760 (“the ’760 Patent”); and 9,019,838 (“the ’838 Patent”).
`
`PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
`2.
`I was employed at Bell Laboratories where I was a Member of the Technical Staff,
`Technical Manager, and Director in the network cable systems, optical fiber solutions,
`customer switching systems, and optical networking business units from 1977 through
`2001. Since 2001, I have been the Principal of Baxter Enterprises which provides
`consulting, engineering, and expert witness services specializing in structured cabling
`systems, local area networks and residential networks.
`During my thirty-five year career in the networking field I acquired extensive technical
`expertise and experience in structured cabling (copper and fiber-optic) and physical layer
`networking in the enterprise, network, and residential markets; local area networks, data
`communication/networking, protocols (particularly IEEE 1394/FireWire and IEEE
`802.3/Ethernet), including connectors; systems engineering (network architecture,
`product and system specifications and requirements); optical networking; standards
`strategy and development; switching systems (circuit, packet and optical); prototyping
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` Dell Inc.
` Exhibit 1010
`
`
`
`and product development (hardware and firmware); and commercializing new technology
`to create successful products and systems.
`I was named an IEEE fellow in 2009 for my “contributions to high-speed digital
`communication networks.” I am a registered professional engineer in New Jersey and
`coauthor of the book Premises Cabling (Thomson Delmar Learning, 3rd ed. 2006) and
`author of the book Residential Networks (Delmar Thompson Learning, 2006).
`In June 1972, I received an Associate of Arts and Science degree in Electronic
`Technology from Delaware Technical Community College. In June 1975, I received the
`degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the Rochester Institute of
`Technology. In June 1977, I received the degree of Master of Science in Electrical
`Engineering from the University of Delaware.
`I have participated in numerous standards-setting committees under the auspices of the
`Electronic Industries Association (EIA); Telecommunications Industries Association
`(TIA); the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and the International
`Standards Organization (ISO). I am currently Chair of the IEEE 1394 Committee relating
`to High Performance Serial Buses and am a member of the IEEE 802.3 Working Group
`on Ethernet LANs. I am a member of the IEEE Standards Association, TIA, BICSI,
`NSPE, and the 1394 Trade Association.
`I have published more than 30 articles in technical and trade journals and have made
`presentations at technical conferences on five continents. I am an inventor of eight U.S.
`Patents.
`Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of my current CV which lists all publications that I
`authored in the previous 10 years and lists all other cases in which, during the previous 4
`years, I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
`I am being compensated at the rate of $250 per hour for my study and testimony in this
`case. My compensation is based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity
`related to this case and is in no way affected by any opinions that I render or the outcome
`of the litigation.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 2
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`10.
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art with respect to the Patents-in-
`Suit would have an undergraduate degree or the equivalent in the field of electrical
`engineering or a related ancillary field, and one to three years of experience with Ethernet
`networks. Alternatively, a greater length of experience could replace the degree
`requirement.
`I am one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`11.
`
`13.
`14.
`
`15.
`
`THE USE OF THE INFINITIVE “TO ___”
`12.
`I understand that Defendants have asked the Court to construe the infinitive “to” in the
`following claims to mean that the “[t]he action claimed must occur to meet the limitation:
`’107 Patent: claims 1, 43, 104, and 111
`’760 Patent, claims 1, 58, 69, 73, and 142
`’838 Patent, claims 1, 7, 26, 29, 40, and 69
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction of the infinitive “to.”
`Defendants’ proposed construction of the term “to” is incorrect because it would be
`improperly transforming apparatus claims into hybrid apparatus-method claims.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the term “to” such that it
`needs no construction. Further, I note that Defendants are not proposing a construction
`for the word “to,” but seeking to require that the function following the word “to” must
`be actually performed in order to infringe each claim identified above.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history, would understand that the infinitive “to” as used in these claims means that
`the claimed apparatus or structure is “configured to” or “designed to” perform the
`function recited in the claim.
`For example, claim 1 of the ’107 Patent states the following:
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`A piece of Ethernet terminal equipment comprising:
`
`an Ethernet connector comprising first and second pairs of contacts
`used to carry Ethernet communication signals,
`
`at least one path for the purpose of drawing DC current, the at least
`one path coupled across at least one of the contacts of the first pair
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 3
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`of contacts and at least one of the contacts of the second pair of
`contacts, the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment to draw
`different magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one path,
`the different magnitudes of DC current flow to result from at
`least one condition applied to at least one of the contacts of the
`first and second pairs of contacts, wherein at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow to convey information about
`the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`23.
`
`24.
`
`For example, that the claimed “Ethernet terminal device” is configured to “draw different
`magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one path” as recited in claim 1 of the ’107
`Patent. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this
`means that the equipment is configured or designed to draw different magnitudes of (DC)
`current flow.”
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`language itself.
`Claim 1 of the ’107 Patent, like all of the claims identified above associated with the
`word “to” is an apparatus claim, not a method claim.
`Nothing in claim 1 of the ’107 Patent, or any of the other claims identified above,
`requires the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment to actually draw current in the context
`of this apparatus claim.
`Each claim identified above recites a structural component.
`Defendants’ proposal is also problematic as the word “to” appears in other places where
`it would not make sense that some action must occur. For example, in claim 1 of the ’107
`Patent, “an Ethernet connector comprising first and second pairs of contacts used to carry
`Ethernet communication signals.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`this means that the Ethernet connector includes pairs of contacts that are configured to
`carry Ethernet communication signals—not that the Ethernet connector was actually
`carrying those signals.
`As detailed below, I disagree with Defendants that where the infinitive “to” is used that
`an action must occur:
`
`“to detect at least two different magnitudes of the current flow” (‘760 Patent,
`claims 1, 73)
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 4
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the BaseT Ethernet equipment is configured or designed to detect at least two different
`magnitudes of the current flow.
`
`“to detect current flow” (‘760 Patent, claim 58)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the BaseT Ethernet equipment is configured or designed to detect current flow.
`
`“to detect different magnitudes of DC current flow” (‘838 Patent, claim 1)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to detect different magnitudes of DC
`current flow.
`
`“to detect distinguishing information within the DC current” (‘838 Patent, claim
`7)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to detect distinguishing information
`within the DC current.
`
`“to distinguish one end device from at least one other end device” (‘838 Patent,
`claim 26)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to distinguish one end device from at
`least one other end device.
`
`“to distinguish one network object from at least one other network object” (‘838
`Patent, claim 29)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to distinguish one network object from
`at least one other network object.
`
`“to distinguish the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one other
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment” (‘107 Patent, claim 43)
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 5
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the the network equipment is configured or designed to convey information about the
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment.
`
`“to distinguish the powered-off end device from at least one other end device”
`(‘107 Patent, claim 111)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to distinguish the powered-off end
`device from at least one other end device.
`
`“to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one
`other piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” (‘760 Patent, claims 69, 112)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the central BaseT Ethernet equipment is configured or designed to distinguish the piece
`of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one other piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment.
`
`“to control application of at least one electrical condition” (‘760 Patent, claim 1; ‘838
`Patent, claim 1)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the central BaseT Ethernet equipment (‘760) or central network equipment (‘838) is
`configured or designed to control application of at least one electrical condition.
`
`“to control application of the at least one DC power signal” (‘838 Patent, claim 40)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the context
`of claim 40 of the ‘838 Patent, this means that the central piece of network equipment is
`configured or designed to control application of the at least one DC power signal.
`
`“the at least one magnitude of DC current flow is used by the central piece of network
`equipment to control application of at lest one DC power signal” (‘838 Patent, claim
`69)
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 6
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the context
`of claim 69 of the ‘838 Patent, this means that the central piece of network equipment is
`configured or designed to control the application of the at least one DC power signal.
`
`“to convey information about the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment” (‘107 Patent,
`claim 1)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to convey information about the piece
`of Ethernet terminal equipment.
`
`“to convey information about the powered-off end device” (‘107 Patent, claim 104)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to convey information about the
`powered-off end device.
`
`“to provide at least one DC current” (‘838 Patent, claim 7)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the central piece of network equipment is configured or designed to provide at least one
`DC current.
`
`“to result from at least one condition applied to” (‘107 Patent, claims 1, 104)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`the network equipment is configured or designed to draw different magnitudes of DC
`current flow in response at least one electrical condition applied to at least one of the
`contacts.
`
`“AT LEAST ONE [ELECTRICAL, VOLTAGE, IMPEDANCE] CONDITION”
`41.
`I understand that Defendants have asked the Court to construe the phrases “at least one
`condition” and “at least one condition applied” in the following claims:
`’107 Patent, claims 1, 104, and 107;
`’760 Patent, claim 1; and
`’838 Patent, claims 1 and 47.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 7
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`I understand that Defendants contend that the term “condition,” without a modifier such
`as voltage, is indefinite.
`I also understand that Defendants contend that the term “applying a voltage condition”
`means applying a voltage. However, the phrase “applying a voltage condition” does not
`appear in any of these claims.
`I disagree that the term “condition,” without a modifier such as electrical, voltage, or
`impedance, is indefinite. I also disagree that these terms need any construction.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history, would understand that these terms would have their plain and ordinary
`meaning. In the context of these claims, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`“condition” is an electrical condition (e.g., a voltage or an impedance condition).
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`language itself.
`For example, claim 1 of the ’107 Patent states that “the piece of Ethernet terminal
`equipment to draw different magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one path, the
`different magnitudes of DC current flow to result from at least one condition applied to
`at least one of the contacts of the first and second pairs of contacts.”
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading this claim, would understand that the
`“condition” that would be applied to at least one of the contacts must be an electrical
`condition such a voltage or an impedance, since the claim requires that the Ethernet
`terminal equipment must be configured to draw different magnitudes of current in
`response to such an electrical condition.
`Additional support can be found in the specification of the Patents-in-Suit. For example:
`
`Although the encoded signal in the present embodiment transmits
`the encoded signal from the remote module 16a, it is within the
`scope of the invention to source current from the central module
`and alter the flow of current from within the remote module 16a by
`changing the impedance of a circuit connected across the data
`communication link 2A. Examples of such circuits include an RC
`network connected directly to the data link 2A and reflecting an
`impedance change across an isolation transformer. in the ’012
`Patent, 8:49-57
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 8
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Further, the dependent claims add additional support. For example, claim 22 of the ’107
`Patent states “wherein the at least one condition comprises a voltage condition,” thus
`confirming that the “condition” is an electrical condition, and one type of electrical
`condition is a voltage condition.
`In other words, claim 22 demonstrates that the claimed “piece of Ethernet terminal
`equipment” of claim 1 is configured to “draw different magnitudes of DC current flow
`via the at least one path” in response to a voltage “applied to at least one of the contacts
`of the first and second pairs of contacts.”
`Claim 23 of the ’107 Patent specifies that the “condition” is an “impedance condition.”
`Thus, claim 23 shows that the claimed “piece of Ethernet terminal equipment” of claim 1
`is configured to “draw different magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one path”
`in response to an impedance “applied to at least one of the contacts of the first and second
`pairs of contacts.”
`The other dependent claims of the ’107, ’760, and ’838 Patents further support the same
`conclusion regarding the meaning of the term “condition” as meaning an electrical
`condition, such as a voltage or an impedance condition.
`
`“CURRENT” AND “CURRENT FLOW”
`54.
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the term “current” and “current flow” mean
`different things, and therefore the following claims referring to both “current” and
`“current flow” are indefinite as they have improper antecedent basis:
`
`’107 Patent, claims 1, 31, 53, 70, 72, and 104;
`’760 Patent, claims 1, 37, 58, 59, 73, 112, and 134; and
`’838 Patent, claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 55, and 69
`
`55.
`
`I disagree that the terms “current” and “current flow” mean different things. Also, I note
`that Defendants have not provided separate constructions for these terms, and therefore I
`cannot analyze their proposed constructions. Should the Defendants provide separate
`constructions for these terms, I reserve the right to address those constructions at a later
`time.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 9
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history, would understand that the terms “current” and “current flow” mean the same
`thing and have their plain and ordinary meaning, namely a flow of electric charge.
`The term “current” is a common electrical engineering term to describe the flow of
`electric charge. While less commonly used, the term “current flow” describes the same
`thing, namely the flow of electric charge.
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`language itself.
`Notably, in every instance where the terms “current” and “current flow” are mentioned, it
`is with respect to direct current (“DC”), as opposed to alternating current (“AC”).
`Because these terms have the same meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, I
`disagree that there is an issue of indefiniteness due to improper antecedent basis.
`For example, claim 1 of the ’107 Patent recites “at least one path for the purpose of
`drawing DC current,” and also recites that “the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment to
`draw different magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one path.” Where terms
`“current” and “current flow” are used, it is with respect to “DC” or direct current. Given
`that each term is preceded by DC, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`both “current” and “current flow” are talking about direct current.
`In every instance in the claims identified above where the terms “current” and “current
`flow” appear, they are being used in connection with direct current or “DC.”
`Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms “current” and
`“current flow” to mean the same thing in the context of these claims, namely a flow of
`electric charge.
`I also note that “current” and “current flow” are not claimed structure elements of any of
`these claims. Instead, where the terms “current” and “current flow” are used, they are
`being used merely to describe how the claimed structural elements or apparatus is
`configured or designed to operate.
`For example, claim 1 of the ’107 Patent claims “at least one path for the purpose of
`drawing DC current.” Claim 1 of the ’107 Patent does not require current to be flowing
`through the path in order to infringe claim 1. Instead, claim 1 merely requires a path that
`is configured to draw DC current.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 10
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`66.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the
`specification and file history, would understand that the terms “current” and “current
`flow” mean the same thing and have their plain and ordinary meaning, namely a flow of
`electric charge.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
` “DETECTION PROTOCOL” / “PART OF A DETECTION PROTOCOL”
`67.
`I understand that Defendants contend that the terms “detection protocol” and “part of a
`detection protocol” as used in the following claims are indefinite:
`’012 Patent, claim 35;
`’107 Patent, claims 72 and 123;
`’760 Patent, claim 59; and
`’838 Patent, claim 2.
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the terms “detection protocol,” and “part
`of a detection protocol,” are indefinite.
`I disagree that the terms “detection protocol,” and “part of a detection protocol,” are
`indefinite. In my opinion, these terms are readily understandable by one of ordinary skill
`in the art and have their plain and ordinary meanings.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history, would understand that the “detection protocol,” and “part of a detection
`protocol,” have their plain and ordinary meaning, namely a “detection scheme, rule, or
`procedure,” or a part thereof, respectively.
`The specification supports this definition of detection protocol by providing a detection
`scheme, rule or procedure. Support for this can be found in Plaintiffs' 4-3 Disclosures.
`All of the claims using this term are dependent claims which refer to either the magnitude
`of the current (flow) or the impedance in the path as being part of a detection protocol.
`In plain English, detection means to detect, discover, or determine the existence of
`something. And protocol means a procedure, scheme, or set of rules. Thus, a detection
`protocol is a procedure, scheme, or set of rules for detecting, discovering, or determining
`the existence of something.
`In the context of these claims, “detection protocol” means that the equipment is
`configured or designed so that the magnitude of the current (flow) or the impedance in
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 11
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`
`
`the path allow it to detect or determine some information about the equipment at the other
`end of the path.
`
`“LOOP FORMED OVER”
`75.
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the term “loop formed over,” means “a
`complete circuit that includes [at least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least
`one of the conductors of the second pair].”
`The phrase “loop formed over” occurs in the following asserted claims:
`
`76.
`
`’760 Patent, claims 1 and 73.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`I disagree that the term “loop formed over” means a complete circuit that includes [at
`least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least one of the conductors of the
`second pair].
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history, would understand that the phrase “loop formed over” would have its plain
`and ordinary meaning, which is a round trip path formed over [at least one of the
`conductors of the first pair of conductors and at least one of the conductors of the second
`pair of conductors].
`Claim 1 of the ’760 Patent states that “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.”
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this language of
`claim 1 of the ’760 means that the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment has a path
`and is configured to draw different magnitudes of current through a loop (e.g., a round
`trip path) formed over the recited conductors.
`Defendants’ proposed construction is incorrect because it adds the limitation of a
`complete circuit that is connected.
`Nothing in the patent specification or claims requires the further limitation of a circuit,
`much less a complete circuit that is connected. Rather, the claim merely requires the
`claimed device be configured to draw different magnitudes of current flow through a
`loop. The only limitation on the loop as stated in the asserted claims is that the loop is
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 12
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`
`
`formed over at least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least one of the
`conductors of the second pair when the first and second pairs are physically connected
`between the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and the piece of central BaseT
`Ethernet equipment.
`This is further supported by claim 71, which depends from claim 1.
`The term loop is used in the specification. See, e.g, Plaintiffs' 4-3 disclosures providing
`support. The specification does not redefine loop to be a complete circuit.
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history would recognize that the term loop is not limited to a complete circuit as
`Defendants suggest.
`
`83.
`84.
`
`85.
`
`“PATH COUPLED ACROSS”
`86.
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the phrase “path coupled across” means “an
`electrical connection between [first contact and second contact]” as used in the following
`claims:
`’012 Patent, claim 31; and
`’107 Patent, claims 1 and 104.
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction of the phrase “path coupled across.”
`The word “connection” is a much more restrictive term than “coupled” as used in the
`claim and would add unnecessary limitations to this phrase. Neither the intrinsic or
`extrinsic evidence supports making this restriction.
`For example, the McGraw Hill Electronics Dictionary (page 100, cited by Defendants)
`defines “coupling” as follows:
`
`87.
`88.
`
`89.
`
`A mutual relationship between two circuits that permits energy
`transfer from one to the other. Coupling can be direct through a
`wire, resistive through a resistor, inductive through a transformer
`or choke, or capacitive through a capacitor.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`In other words, a connection (such as through a wire) is a special case of the more general
`term coupling.
`This is an important distinction for devices using DC current, like Power over Ethernet
`(“PoE”) equipment. For example, a DC voltage can be applied to the center tap of a
`transformer and current is coupled through the transformer to the contacts of a connector.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 13
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`In such an example, the DC source is not directly connected to the contacts of the
`connector, but still electrically coupled. Defendants’ proposed construction of “an
`electrical connection between” would improperly limit these claims to direct electrical
`connections, thus eliminating certain types of electrically coupled circuits, such as
`through a transformer.
`Transformer coupling is disclosed in the specifications of the Patents-in-Suit. For
`example, transformer coupling is disclosed in at least Figures 6 and 10 of the ’012 and
`’107 Patents and show isolation transformers being used with the receiver and transmitter
`circuits, respectively.
`
`95.
`96.
`
`“BASET”
`94.
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the term “BaseT” means “10BASE-T,
`which requires communication over twisted pair cabling at 10 Mb/s,” as used in the
`following claims:
`’012 Patent, claims 36, 56, and 60;
`’107 Patent, claim 5;
`’760 Patent, claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145; and
`’838 Patent, claim 1.
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction.
`Defendants’ proposed construction is improper because it would limit the claims to only
`one speed of BaseT Ethernet, namely Base-T Ethernet at 10 Mb/s (megabits per second).
`Nothing in the intrinsic record shows that the claims are limited to one speed of BaseT
`Ethernet.
`Notably, everywhere that the term “BaseT” is used, it is used together with “Ethernet” as
`“BaseT Ethernet.”
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history, would understand that the term “BaseT” as used each claim is actually BaseT
`Ethernet and has its plain and ordinary meaning, namely “twisted pair Ethernet per the
`IEEE 802.3 Standards (e.g. 10BaseT/IEEE 802.3i, 100BaseTX/IEEE 802.3u, and
`1000BaseT/IEEE 802.3ab).”
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 14
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`
`
`99.
`
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`language itself.
`100. None of the asserted claims are limited to 10BaseT Ethernet, which is the subject of
`10BaseT/IEEE 802.3i standard and one speed of BaseT Ethernet.
`101. While one claim, Claim 31 originally filed with the '012 Patent (See file history of the
`'012 patent, application filed 9/26/2008 at p. 40) had a limitation that identified
`specifically 10BaseT, no issued claim was ever limited to 10BaseT.
`102. During prosecution, the “10” in front of “BaseT” was removed.
`103. None of the asserted claims are limited to 10BaseT and in fact each recites BaseT
`Ethernet.
`104. BaseT Ethernet is known and is described in at least the IEEE 802.3 Standards (e.g.
`10BaseT/IEEE 802.3i, 100BaseTX/IEEE 802.3u, and 1000BaseT/IEEE 802.3ab)
`105. A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history would recognize that the term BaseT Ethernet is not limited to 10BaseT
`which requires communication over twisted pair cabling at 10Mb/s.
`
`“POWERED OFF”
`106.
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the terms “powered off,” “powered off
`Ethernet terminal equipment,” and “powered-off end device” as used in the following
`claims mean that no power is applied to the claimed equipment/device.
`
`’107 Patent, claims 103, 104, 107, 111, 123, 125; and
`’760 patent, claims 72, 145.
`
`107. Defendants’ proposed construction of these “powered off” terms is incorrect because it
`implies that the device has absolutely no power at all applied to it, which is incorrect in
`light of the specification and file history.
`108. A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`file history, would understand that the terms “powered off” as used in the claims would
`mean “Ethernet terminal equipment without its operating power” and “end device
`without its operating power.”
`109. This construction is proper because, as the claims and specification contemplate, the
`claimed equipment being configured to draw different magnitudes of current flow
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`
`
`PAGE 15
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`
`
`without the equipment having its operating power. See, e.g. Col. 3 ll. 33-37 of both
`
`patents, and Col. 61]. 7-12 ofboth patents Col. ll 1. 16-25 ofthe ‘I07 Patent and Col. 11
`
`11. 18-27 of the '760 Patent. Further support for this can be found in Plaintiffs P.R. 4-3
`
`disclosure.
`
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`None of the asserted claims says that no po