UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Dell Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,155,012
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00983
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for U.S. Patent
`No. 8,155,012
`
`’260 patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260
`
`’279 provisional
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279
`
`De Nicolo ’468
`
`De Nicolo ’666
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666
`
`Baxter Depo.
`
`Deposition transcript of Leslie Baxter
`
`Dist. Ct. Markman
`Order
`
`Claim Construction Order in Chrimar Systems,
`Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-
`00163-JDL, Dkt. 123 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016).
`
`Baxter Dist. Ct.
`Decl.
`
`Seifert Dist. Ct.
`Decl.
`
`De Nijs
`
`Chaudhry
`
`District Court Declaration of Les Baxter, dated
`December 17, 2015
`
`District Court Declaration of Rich Seifert, dated
`January 21, 2016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,568,525
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,790,363
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993 Standard
`
`IEEE 802.3l-1992
`
`IEEE 802.3l-1992 Standard
`
`IEEE 802.3r-1996
`
`IEEE 802.3r-1996 Standard
`
`Ethernet V1
`
`The Ethernet: A Local Area Network (1980)
`
`i
`
`Number Short Name
`
`’012 patent
`
`Seifert Decl.
`
`’012 Actions
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Number Short Name
`
`Description
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`Chrimar MSJ Opp. Chrimar Opposition to Motion for Summary
`Judgment in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-00880-JDL, Dkt. 90
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2014)
`
`Gigabit Ethernet
`
`Excerpt from Gigabit Ethernet, R. Seifert (1998)
`
`Joystick Pinout
`
`Joystick PC Gameport Connector Pinout - All-
`Pinouts
`
`Seifert CV
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Rich Seifert
`
`Seifert Materials
`
`List of Materials Reviewed by Rich Seifert
`
`’012 Amendment
`
`Chrimar’s November 11, 2008, February 27,
`2009, and March 25, 2011 ’012 Patent Claim
`Amendments
`
`Standler
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,586,104
`
`IEEE 802.3-2000
`
`IEEE 802.3-2000 Standard
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review ............................... 1
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ......................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) ........................................... 1
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)) .................................................... 1
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) .................................................. 2
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................ 2
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’012 Patent ........................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 3
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’012 Patent ...................... 3
`
`Priority Claims in the ’012 Patent ......................................................... 5
`
`Priority Date of the ’012 Patent............................................................. 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to the April 10,
`1998 filing date of the ’279 provisional. ..................................... 6
`
`Inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier
`invention date as a matter of law. ............................................... 8
`
`The Boenke letters do not establish an invention date. .............. 8
`
`IV. State of the Art ................................................................................................. 9
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“BaseT” ............................................................................................... 10
`
`“path coupled across” .......................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`C.
`
`“wherein distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet
`data terminal equipment is associated to impedance within the
`at least one path” ................................................................................. 12
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ............................ 15
`
`A. Ground 1: The challenged claims are obvious based on the De
`Nicolo references. ................................................................................ 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The De Nicolo References ........................................................ 16
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References ....................... 17
`
`Independent Claim 31 ............................................................... 19
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“An adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment” ...................................................................... 19
`
`“an Ethernet connector comprising a
`plurality of contacts” ...................................................... 21
`
`“at least one path coupled across selected
`contacts, the selected contacts comprising at
`least one of the plurality of contacts of the
`Ethernet connector and at least another one
`of the plurality of contacts of the Ethernet
`connector” ....................................................................... 21
`
`“wherein distinguishing information about
`the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment is associated to impedance within
`the at least one path” ....................................................... 23
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 35: “wherein the impedance within
`the at least one path is part of a detection protocol” ................. 24
`
`Dependent Claim 36: “wherein the piece of Ethernet
`data terminal equipment is a piece of BaseT Ethernet
`data terminal equipment” .......................................................... 25
`
`Dependent Claim 40: “wherein the at least one path
`comprises at least one resistor” ................................................. 25
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claim 43: “wherein the at least one path
`comprises a controller” ............................................................. 26
`
`Dependent Claim 52: “wherein the impedance within
`the at least one path is a function of voltage across the
`selected contacts” ...................................................................... 27
`
`Dependent Claim 56: “wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication” ................ 29
`
`10. Dependent Claim 59 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and 52):
`“wherein the selected contacts are at least some of the
`same contacts used for normal network
`communication” ........................................................................ 30
`
`11. Dependent Claim 60: “wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication” ................ 30
`
`12. Dependent Claim 65 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and 52):
`“wherein the at least one path permits the use of the
`selected contacts for Ethernet communication” ....................... 31
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The challenged claims are obvious based on de Nijs
`and Chaudhry. ..................................................................................... 32
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`De Nijs and Chaudhry ............................................................... 32
`
`Reasons to Combine de Nijs and Chaudhry ............................. 32
`
`Independent Claim 31 ............................................................... 34
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“An adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment” ...................................................................... 34
`
`“an Ethernet connector comprising a
`plurality of contacts” ...................................................... 35
`
`“at least one path coupled across selected
`contacts, the selected contacts comprising at
`least one of the plurality of contacts of the
`Ethernet connector and at least another one
`of the plurality of contacts of the Ethernet
`connector” ....................................................................... 36
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`d.
`
`“wherein distinguishing information about
`the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment is associated to impedance within
`the at least one path” ....................................................... 36
`
`Dependent Claim 35: “wherein the impedance within
`the at least one path is part of a detection protocol” ................. 37
`
`Dependent Claim 36: “wherein the piece of Ethernet
`data terminal equipment is a piece of BaseT Ethernet
`data terminal equipment” .......................................................... 38
`
`Dependent Claim 40: “wherein the at least one path
`comprises at least one resistor” ................................................. 39
`
`Dependent Claim 43: “wherein the at least one path
`comprises a controller” ............................................................. 40
`
`Dependent Claim 56: “wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication” ................ 41
`
`Dependent Claim 59 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, and 43):
`“wherein the selected contacts are at least some of the
`same contacts used for normal network
`communication” ........................................................................ 42
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Dependent Claim 60: “wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication” ................ 43
`
`11. Dependent Claim 65 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, and 43):
`“wherein the at least one path permits the use of the
`selected contacts for Ethernet communication” ....................... 43
`
`C.
`
`Ground 3: The challenged claims are obvious based on the
`IEEE 802.3 Standard references. ......................................................... 44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The IEEE 802.3 Standard References ....................................... 44
`
`Reasons to Combine the IEEE 802.3 Standard
`References ................................................................................. 45
`
`Independent Claim 31 ............................................................... 46
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“An adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment” ...................................................................... 46
`
`“an Ethernet connector comprising a
`plurality of contacts” ...................................................... 47
`
`“at least one path coupled across selected
`contacts, the selected contacts comprising at
`least one of the plurality of contacts of the
`Ethernet connector and at least another one
`of the plurality of contacts of the Ethernet
`connector” ....................................................................... 49
`
`“wherein distinguishing information about
`the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`equipment is associated to impedance within
`the at least one path” ....................................................... 50
`
`Dependent Claim 35: “wherein the impedance within
`the at least one path is part of a detection protocol” ................. 53
`
`Dependent Claim 36: “wherein the piece of Ethernet
`data terminal equipment is a piece of BaseT Ethernet
`data terminal equipment” .......................................................... 54
`
`Dependent Claim 40: “wherein the at least one path
`comprises at least one resistor” ................................................. 54
`
`Dependent Claim 43: “wherein the at least one path
`comprises a controller” ............................................................. 55
`
`Dependent Claim 56: “wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication” ................ 55
`
`Dependent Claim 59 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, and 43):
`“wherein the selected contacts are at least some of the
`same contacts used for normal network
`communication” ........................................................................ 56
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Dependent Claim 60: “wherein the normal network
`communication is BaseT Ethernet communication” ................ 57
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`11. Dependent Claim 65 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, and 43):
`“wherein the at least one path permits the use of the
`selected contacts for Ethernet communication” ....................... 57
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 58
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Bungie, Inc. v. Worlds Inc.,
`IPR2015-01269, Paper 13 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2015) ......................................... 19
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
`460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Assocs., Inc.,
`IPR2014-00725, Paper 27 (P.T.A.B. July 27, 2015) .......................................... 15
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2015) ......................................... 46
`
`HTC Corp. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC,
`IPR2014-01155, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2014) ........................................... 19
`
`IGB Auto. Ltd. v. Gentherm GmbH,
`IPR2014-00664, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) ............................................. 8
`
`Iron Dome LLC v. E-Watch, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00439, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2014) ............................................. 9
`
`Ex Parte Keum Nam Kim,
`Appeal 2011-005480, 2014 WL 663955 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014) ................... 14
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 18, 34
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00292, Paper 93 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) ............................................ 8
`
`Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`699 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 19
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Nuvasive Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00206, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2013) ......................................... 10
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 6
`
`In re Schreiber,
`128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 12
`
`ZTE Corp. v. IPR Licensing, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00525, Paper 48 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 14, 2015) ......................................... 47
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................ 17, 33, 45
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................. 15, 16
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Dell Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, 52,
`
`56, 59 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and 52), 60, and 65 (across 31, 35, 36, 40, 43, and
`
`52) (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 (“the ’012 patent”),
`
`which is attached to this Petition as Exhibit 1001. USPTO assignment records indi-
`
`cate that the applicants of the ’012 patent assigned their rights to ChriMar Systems,
`
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`II. Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`1.
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`The real party-in-interest is Dell Inc.
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`2.
`The ’012 patent is the subject of 23 civil actions pending in the Eastern Dis-
`
`trict of Texas and Northern District of California. Ex. 1003, ’012 Actions. In addi-
`
`tion, there are four pending inter partes review proceedings, AMX, LLC v. Chrimar
`
`Systems, Inc., IPR2016-00569, IPR2016-00572, IPR2016-00573, IPR2016-00574,1
`
`that challenge the validity of Chrimar’s patents related to the ’012 patent.2 These
`
`
`1 Dell is a co-petitioner in the IPR2016-00569 and IPR2016-00574 proceedings.
`
`2 The patents challenged in the four inter partes reviews are U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`cases may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service In-
`formation (§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Gilbert A. Greene (Reg. No. 48,366)
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
`LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 474-5201
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Back-up Counsel
`James G. Warriner (Reg. No. 72,833)
`jim.warriner@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Stephanie N. DeBrow (Reg. No.
`63,555)
`stephanie.debrow@nortonrosefulbright.
`com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
`LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 474-5201
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this Pe-
`
`tition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`also consents to electronic service by email.
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The undersigned authorizes the PTO to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-1212. Review of 21 claims
`
`is requested. The undersigned authorizes payment for additional fees that may be
`
`due with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`8,902,760, 8,942,107, 9,019,838, and 9,049,019.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`C. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that it has standing to request, and is not barred from re-
`
`questing, an IPR of the ’012 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315. Petitioner has not
`
`filed any civil actions challenging the validity of any claim of the ’012 patent or
`
`previously requested IPR of the ’012 patent. Petitioner certifies that it files this pe-
`
`tition for IPR less than one year after the date on which Petitioner was served with
`
`a complaint alleging infringement of the ’012 patent.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’012 Patent
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering or computer sci-
`
`ence, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience designing network
`
`communication products. Specifically, such a person would be familiar with, inter
`
`alia, data communications protocols and standards (and standards under develop-
`
`ment at the time), and the behavior and use of common data communications
`
`products available on the market. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶¶ 43-44.
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’012 Patent
`
`The ’012 patent generally claims Ethernet data terminal equipment compris-
`
`ing an Ethernet connector with a plurality of contacts and at least one path coupled
`
`across selected contacts, and distinguishing information about the Ethernet data
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`terminal equipment associated to impedance within the path. See Ex. 1001, ’012
`
`patent, at 18:62–19:5. The ’012 patent claims to incorporate by reference (but does
`
`not claim priority to) U.S. Patent 5,406,260 (also assigned to the Patent Owner),
`
`which discloses a current loop including a portion passing through a pair of con-
`
`tacts. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 72; Ex. 1004, ’260 patent, at 3:37-52, Fig. 2. The
`
`’012 patent states that the ’260 patent already disclosed:
`
`a means of detecting the unauthorized removal of a networked device
`by injecting a low current power signal into each existing communica-
`tions link. A sensor monitors the returning current flow and can there-
`by detect a removal of the equipment. This method provides a means
`to monitor the connection status of any networked electronic device
`thus providing an effective theft detection/deterrent system.
`
`Ex. 1001,’012 patent, at 2:15-21.
`
`The ’012 patent then states the desire to “provide a further means in which a
`
`networked device may also be identified by a unique identification number using
`
`the existing network wiring or cabling as a means of communicating this infor-
`
`mation back to a central location.” Id. at 2:22-26; Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 73.
`
`The ’012 patent discloses a modulation scheme for this purpose:
`
`[A] communication system is provided for generating and monitoring
`data over a pre-existing wiring or cables [sic] that connect pieces of
`networked computer equipment to a network. The system includes a
`communication device or remote module attached to the electronic
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`equipment that transmits information to a central module by impress-
`ing a low frequency signal on the wires of the cable. A receiver in the
`central module monitors the low frequency data to determine the
`transmitted information from the electronic equipment. The commu-
`nication device may also be powered by a low current power signal
`from the central module. The power signal to the communication de-
`vice may also be fluctuated to provide useful information, such as
`status information, to the communication device.
`
`Ex. 1001,’012 patent, 3:19-32; Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 74. The specification
`
`emphasizes modulation techniques by which the variation in current transmits
`
`identifying information, including altering the flow of current by changing the im-
`
`pedance of a circuit connected across the path. Ex. 1001,’012 patent, at 8:49-57;
`
`Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 75. In contrast, certain challenged claims recite that a
`
`single magnitude of impedance is sufficient to represent information about the
`
`claimed device. Ex. 1001,’012 patent, at 19:3-5.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Claims in the ’012 Patent
`
`The ’012 patent issued April 10, 2012 from U.S. Application No.
`
`12/239,001 (“’001 app.”), filed September 26, 2008. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at
`
`¶ 87. The ’001 app. is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/668,708, filed
`
`September 23, 2003, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 09/370,430,
`
`filed August 9, 1999, which is a continuation-in-part of International Application
`
`No. PCT/US99/07846, filed April 8, 1999 and designating the United States. Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`The ’012 patent also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`60/081,279 (“’279 provisional”), filed April 10, 1998. Id.
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date of the ’012 Patent
`
`A priority date analysis is limited to the four corners of the priority docu-
`
`ment. To provide sufficient disclosure for a later-filed application, the priority doc-
`
`ument must “actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” PowerOasis, Inc.
`
`v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That standard is not
`
`met here.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date or date of invention
`
`earlier than April 8, 1999, which is the filing date of priority PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/US99/07846. In co-pending litigation (to which Petitioner is not a party), Pa-
`
`tent Owner apparently contends that the claims are entitled to an earlier priority
`
`date or date of invention based on (i) the ’279 provisional; (ii) uncorroborated tes-
`
`timony of named inventors Marshall Cummings and John Austermann; and (iii)
`
`letters from third-party Clyde Boenke to Marshall Cummings (“the Boenke let-
`
`ters”). None of these establishes an earlier priority date or invention date.
`
`1.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to the April 10, 1998
`filing date of the ’279 provisional.
`
`First, the ’012 patent’s claims are not entitled to the April 10, 1998 filing
`
`date of the ’279 provisional application. Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`establishing that the ’279 provisional application provides written description sup-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`port for every limitation of the challenged claims. See Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 87-91. For example, the ’279 provisional application does not provide written
`
`description support for the limitation “wherein distinguishing information about
`
`the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment is associated to impedance within
`
`the at least one path,” which is recited in independent claim 31, and every remain-
`
`ing challenged claim depends from this claim.3 Id. at ¶ 89. Nor does the ’279 pro-
`
`visional application provide written description support for the limitations added
`
`by dependent claims 35, 40, and 52. Id.
`
`To fill this gap, Patent Owner might try to rely on the following from the
`
`’279 provisional application: (1) an attempt to incorporate by reference U.S. Patent
`
`No, 5,406,260 (Ex. 1005, ’279 provisional, at 2:5-11); and (2) a single paragraph
`
`describing the ’260 patent (id.). Neither provides written description support. As a
`
`matter of law, the attempted incorporation by reference is insufficient, because the
`
`’279 provisional neither “identifies with ‘detailed particularity’ the specific materi-
`
`als in the patent[] asserted to be incorporated by reference” nor “‘clearly indicates’
`
`where the material is found in the incorporated patent[], as required to incorporate
`
`3 Furthermore, the “wherein distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet
`
`data terminal equipment is associated to impedance within the at least one path”
`
`limitation is not disclosed by the ’012 patent’s specification. See Ex. 1002, Seifert
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 92-95.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`material by reference.” IGB Auto. Ltd. v. Gentherm GmbH, IPR2014-00664, Paper
`
`8 at 15 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) (quoting Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460
`
`F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The ’279 provisional’s single-paragraph de-
`
`scription of the ’260 patent is also insufficient, because it is silent about claim 31’s
`
`requirement that distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet equipment
`
`is associated to impedance within the path. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 89.
`
`2.
`
`Inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier inven-
`tion date as a matter of law.
`
`Second, inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier invention date
`
`as a matter of law. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Nor
`
`can inventor testimony be used “to authenticate a document offered to corroborate
`
`the inventor’s testimony.” Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc., IPR2013-00292, Pa-
`
`per 93 at 16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014).
`
`3.
`
`The Boenke letters do not establish an invention date.
`
`Finally, the Boenke letters do not establish an earlier invention date. Those
`
`letters do not establish that the named inventors disclosed the subject matter of the
`
`letters to others before the critical date. See id. at 15 (emphasis added). To the con-
`
`trary, the Boenke letters show that Boenke, not the named inventors, conceived the
`
`subject matter disclosed in those letters. The Boenke letters also cannot establish
`
`an earlier date of invention, because they do not disclose every limitation of any
`
`challenged claim. See Iron Dome LLC v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, Paper 16
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`at 8 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2014).
`
`Therefore, as a matter of law, Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of show-
`
`ing a priority date or date of invention prior to April 8, 1999.
`
`IV. State of the Art
`The challenged claims recite well-known structural elements: “Ethernet data
`
`terminal equipment,” “Ethernet connector,” “path across contacts,” “resistor,” and
`
`“controller.” See Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶¶ 21-29. These are well-known ele-
`
`ments of Ethernet communication systems in the prior art. Id.
`
`It was also well-known that magnitudes of impedance (or resistance) can
`
`convey information about a device. Id. at ¶ 37. In fact, this is a simple application
`
`of Ohm’s law (Impedance (Z) = Voltage (V) ÷ Current (I)). Id. at ¶ 39. For exam-
`
`ple, the IEEE 802.3 standard describes using different impedances to distinguish
`
`10BASE-T implementations from the prior 10BASE5 standard. Id.
`
`An Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts was also known in
`
`the prior art. Id. at ¶¶ 22-24. In fact, Ethernet connectors comprising a plurality of
`
`contacts existed long prior to the 10BASE-T system. Id. at ¶ 22. For example, the
`
`Ethernet Version 1 specification, published on September 30, 1980, teaches two
`
`different Ethernet connectors, each comprising a plurality of connectors. Id. at
`
`¶¶ 22-23; Ex. 1017, Ethernet V1 at §§ 7.2.3, 7.3.1.2.
`
`Patent Owner’s expert in co-pending litigation (to which Petitioner is not a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`party) also concedes that an Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts
`
`was well-known. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 28.
`
`Q: Okay. So this figure is known, an Ethernet connector
`comprising a plurality of contacts is known, correct?
`A: Yes.
`Ex. 1008, Baxter Depo., at 113:18-21.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`A claim in an IPR is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`
`the specification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Under this standard,
`
`“claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be under-
`
`stood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclo-
`
`sure.” Nuvasive Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR2013-00206, Paper 17 at 6
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2013). This meaning applies unless the inventor, as his own
`
`lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term in the specification. Id.
`
`Under this standard, the following terms of the ’012 patent should be construed as
`
`proposed below.
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT”
`
`Claims 36, 56, and 60 recite “BaseT” as part of the larger phrases “BaseT
`
`Ethernet data terminal equipment” and “BaseT Ethernet communication.” “Ba-
`
`seT” should be construed as “10BASE-T.”4 The ’012 patent consistently uses the
`
`4 In co-pending litigation regarding the ’012 patent (to which Petitioner is not a
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`term “BaseT” only as part of the larger phrase “10BASE-T.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001,
`
`’012 patent at 12:13-17. Similarly, the ’279 provisional and the ’260 patent, both
`
`of which the ’012 patent incorp