`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00983
`Patent 8,155,012
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-1
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION & ASSIGNMENT
`
`1. My name is Vijay Madisetti, and I am a Professor of Electrical and
`
`Computer Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in
`
`Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner Chrimar Systems, Inc. to serve
`
`as a technical expert in this proceeding as well as in several district court
`
`litigations, including Chrimar Systems Inc. et al. v. Cisco Systems Inc., et. Al, Civil
`
`Action No. 4:13-cv-01300-JSW (N.D. Cal.); Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v.
`
`Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-163-JDL (E.D. Tex.); and
`
`Chrimar Systems Inc. et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action No. 6:15–CV–164–JDL
`
`(E.D. Tex.).
`
`3.
`
`I have been asked to evaluate and opine on certain limited aspects of
`
`the Petition for Inter Partes Review in connection with Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Response. Specifically, I have been asked to provide the following:
`
`a. an overview of the technology of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 (Ex.
`
`1001, “the ’012 Patent”);
`
`b. an overview of the technology of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 (Ex.
`
`1006, “De Nicolo ’468”);
`
`c. an overview of the technology of U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666 (Ex.
`
`1007, “De Nicolo ’666”); and
`
`
`
`1
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-2
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`d. a technical assessment as to whether I could create the proposed
`
`combination of De Nicolo ’468 with De Nicolo ’666 as described
`
`in the Petition, assuming for the sake of argument that the
`
`references include each claim element and could be combined.
`
`4.
`
`At this time, I have been asked to provide testimony only on the topics
`
`addressed in this declaration. Among other things, I have reviewed the Petition and
`
`its exhibits, including the declaration of Richard Seifert (Ex. 1002), the ’012
`
`Patent, De Nicolo ’468, and De Nicolo ’666, as well as orders from the district
`
`court litigations involving the ’012 Patent and Chrimar’s other patents in the light
`
`of my education, training and experience in the field.
`
`5.
`
`If the Board decides to institute this proceeding, and if asked to, I
`
`expect to offer additional opinions and analysis beyond those contained in this
`
`declaration.
`
`6.
`
` I am being compensated by Chrimar at the rate of $450 per hour for
`
`my time when working on this proceeding. My compensation is not tied in any
`
`way to the substance of my testimony or the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
`
`7.
`
`I received a Bachelor of Technology in electronics and Electrical
`
`Communications Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in
`
`1984. I received my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences
`
`
`
`2
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-3
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`(EECS) from the University of California, Berkeley in 1989. I am currently a
`
`tenured Professor in Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Georgia Institute
`
`of Technology (“Georgia Tech”), and I have been on the faculty of Georgia Tech
`
`since 1989.
`
`8.
`
`I have been elected a Fellow of the IEEE, for contributions to
`
`embedded computing systems. The Fellow is the highest grade of membership of
`
`the IEEE, a world professional body consisting of over 300,000 electrical and
`
`electronics engineers, with only one‐tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the IEEE
`
`membership being elected to the Fellow grade each year. Election to Fellow is
`
`based upon votes cast by existing Fellows in IEEE.
`
`9.
`
`I have authored or co-authored over 100 reference articles in the area
`
`of electrical engineering. I have also authored, co-authored, or edited several books
`
`in the areas of electrical engineering, communications, signal processing,
`
`communications, and computer engineering, including VLSI Digital Signal
`
`Processors (1995) and The Digital Signal Processing Handbook (First & Second
`
`Editions) (1998, 2012), and recently, Cloud Computing (2013).
`
`10.
`
`I have been involved in research and technology in the area of
`
`distributed computer and information systems since the late 1980s, and my work in
`
`this area has focused on secure and efficient distribution of information over
`
`
`
`3
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-4
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`networks, synchronization of updates across a distributed network, and
`
`multiprocessing systems and tools.
`
`11.
`
`I have authored, co-authored, or edited several books in the past 20
`
`years, as detailed in my attached CV. I have also been awarded the 2006 Frederick
`
`Emmons Terman Medal by the American Society of Engineering Education for
`
`contributions to Electrical Engineering, including authoring a widely used textbook
`
`in the design of VLSI digital signal processors. I was awarded VHDL International
`
`Best Ph.D. Dissertation Advisor Award in 1997 and the NSF RI Award in 1990. I
`
`was Technical Program Chair for both the IEEE MASCOTS in 1994 and the IEEE
`
`Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation in 1990. In 1989, I was
`
`recognized with the Ira Kay IEEE/ACM Best Paper Award for Best Paper
`
`presented at the IEEE Annual Simulation Symposium.
`
`12. Over the past 20 years, I have worked in and researched in the area of
`
`computer and communications networks and protocols in general, and in particular
`
`to LAN/Ethernet/WiFi/WAN/ IP networks, looking at the design of efficient
`
`protocols.
`
`13.
`
`I have been an active consultant to industry and various research
`
`laboratories (including Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Labs and
`
`Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory). My consulting work for
`
`MIT Lincoln Labs involved high resolution imaging for defense applications,
`
`
`
`4
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-5
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`where I worked in the area of prototyping complex and specialized computing
`
`systems. My consulting work for the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab (“APL”)
`
`mainly involved localization of objects in image fields, where I worked on
`
`identifying targets in video and other sensor fields and identifying computer
`
`architectures and circuits for power and space‐efficient designs.
`
`14.
`
`I have over 100 peer-reviewed publications issued from the early
`
`1980s to the present on topics related to computer engineering, computer sciences
`
`and wireless communications and digital system design.
`
`15.
`
`In sum, I have over 25 years of experience in research and
`
`development in the areas of computer engineering and electrical engineering as a
`
`professor, researcher and consultant.
`
`16. Exhibit 2016 is my recent and complete curriculum vitae, which
`
`details my educational and professional background and includes a listing of most
`
`of my publications.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY OF THE ’012 PATENT
`
`17. The ’012 Patent discloses inventions related to managing networked
`
`devices (e.g., computers) that connect to a wired network using existing network
`
`cabling. The patent disclosure “relates generally to computer networks and, more
`
`particularly, to a network management and security system for managing, tracking,
`
`
`
`5
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-6
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`and identifying remotely located electronic equipment on a network.” (’012 Patent,
`
`col. 1:23–26).
`
`18. Embodiments of the patent disclose 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” (’012
`
`Patent, col. 1:66 – 2:2). The patent refers to the remote device as a “remote
`
`module.” An asset (e.g., computer) can be managed, tracked, or identified by using
`
`the remote module in conjunction with network monitoring equipment, referred to
`
`as a “central module,” to convey information about the asset to the central module.
`
`(’012 Patent, cols. 4:53-60, 6:7-13 and 8:66 - 9:7). A basic overview is shown in
`
`Figure 4 of the ’012 Patent (omitting the external devices):
`
`
`
`19. This information about the remote piece of networked equipment can
`
`be communicated over the same pairs of wires that carry data during normal
`
`operation without interfering with normal-operation data transmission. (’012
`
`Patent, col. 2:26–30) (“More particularly, it is desirable to provide a means for
`
`identification that feasibly employs the same cable (and, if desired, the same wires
`
`
`
`6
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-7
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`in the cable) that normally carries high frequency data communications in an
`
`existing network.”), 4:56-60 (“The communication system 15 and 16 described
`
`herein is particularly adapted to be easily implemented in conjunction with an
`
`existing computer network 17 while realizing minimal interference to the computer
`
`network.”).
`
`20. The embodiments of the patent provide that the central and remote
`
`modules work together to communicate information about the remote equipment or
`
`object using, inter alia, different magnitudes of direct current. (’012 Patent, col.
`
`3:29–32) (“The power signal to the communication device may also be fluctuated
`
`to provide useful information, such as status information, to the communication
`
`device.”), 6:51–54 (“In the first embodiment current sourced from central module
`
`15 to remote module 16 is modulated within remote module 16 and then returned
`
`to central module 15.”), 8:51-56 (“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.).
`
`21. The embodiments described in the patent show ways of fluctuating the
`
`current to provide useful information from the remote module to the central
`
`module by, inter alia, either changing the impedance (’012 patent, col. 8:49-57) or
`
`changing the applied voltage V (’012 patent, col. 8:22-31) in the circuit.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-8
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`22. Notably, the patent describes embodiments where the central module
`
`works in conjunction with the remote module by providing the power necessary for
`
`the remote module to convey information. In the context of the first disclosed
`
`embodiment of the patent (’012 Patent, col. 4:44–6:47), the central module
`
`contains power source supply voltage V and the remote module provides the
`
`resistance R (col. 6:10–13 (“altering the total current draw of the remote
`
`module”)).
`
`23. The current I flows through pairs of wires in the Ethernet cabling that
`
`connects a remote module to the central module. In this embodiment, the central
`
`module and the remote module operate jointly such that the remote module can
`
`provide different magnitudes of current because the central module can alter the
`
`voltage V, while the remote module can present a selectable resistance or series of
`
`resistances, R, to the circuit. In this embodiment, the different magnitudes of
`
`current is controlled by the resistor value switched into the circuit at the remote
`
`module. The voltage supplied by the central module works together with the
`
`resistor used by the remote module to produce different magnitudes of current,
`
`which are used to provide information about the remote device.
`
`24. Claim 1 of the ’012 Patent, for example, states the following:
`
`1. An adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment
`comprising:
`an Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts; and
`
`
`
`8
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-9
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`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,
`wherein distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet
`data terminal equipment is associated to impedance within the at
`least one path.
`
`25. Figure 3 of the patent shows one embodiment of the invention in
`
`which a remote module (element 16, highlighted in blue) works together with a
`
`central module (element 15, highlighted in red) to convey information about “PC
`
`3a” to a central module over standard twisted pair Ethernet cabling.
`
`
`In this embodiment, the central module provides a DC power signal to
`
`26.
`
`the remote module from the signal modulator 7 to the isolation power supply 13
`
`
`
`9
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-10
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`inside the remote module, as denoted by the red line. Information about PC 3a is
`
`sent back via the blue line from the signal transmitter 12 to the signal receiver 6.
`
`The hub (element 1) and central module (element 15) are examples of centralized
`
`equipment, while the remote module (element 16) is attached to “remotely located
`
`electronic workstations” (e.g., elements 3a, 3b, 3c, or 3d). In Figure 3, the PCs are
`
`examples of what the claims refer to as “piece[s] of equipment” or “object[s].” The
`
`patent also discloses the integration of the central or remote modules into the
`
`respective central or remote equipment or object.
`
`27. As illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 7 below, the patent shows how
`
`the remote module (highlighted in blue) works together with a central module
`
`(highlighted in red) to convey information about a PC to a central module over
`
`standard twisted pair Ethernet cabling. This information is conveyed to the central
`
`module using impedance in a path in the remote module, which can then be used to
`
`alter the resulting current and/or voltage.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-11
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28. To accomplish this goal, the patent describes having a direct electrical
`
`connection between the central module and each remote module. The diagram
`
`below refers to the invention being used within an exemplary configuration
`
`consisting of a central module (CM) and four remote modules (RM):
`
`
`
`11
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-12
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`
`
`29. This arrangement is commonly referred to as a “star” or “hub and
`
`spoke” configuration. This diagram of a “star” or “hub and spoke” configuration
`
`illustrates the arrangement of the remote modules and central module as disclosed
`
`in the patent.
`
`30. The patent provides that the central and remote modules work
`
`together to communicate information about the remote equipment or “asset” by,
`
`using different magnitudes of current in one or more pairs of wires in the cable.
`
`For example, the patent discloses and claims a piece of remote equipment, such as
`
`a computer, having at least one path coupled across selected contacts of an
`
`Ethernet connector. Because the remote module may be wholly contained within
`
`the computer, the computer is configured to convey information about itself using
`
`an impedance in a path in the device (e.g., ’012 Patent, claim 1), which can be used
`
`even when that computer is without its operating power.
`
`31. Different magnitudes of current flow through pairs of wires in the
`
`Ethernet cabling that connects a remote module to the central module. The central
`
`
`
`12
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-13
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`module can alter the voltage V, while the remote module can present different
`
`impedances to the circuit, such as a selectable resistance or series of resistances, R.
`
`In certain embodiments, the different magnitudes of current are controlled by the
`
`resistor value switched into the circuit at the remote module (e.g., ’012 Patent, col.
`
`8:49-55). The voltage supplied by the central module works together with the
`
`resistor(s) used by the remote module to produce different magnitudes of direct
`
`current, which provides information about the asset (e.g., PC).
`
`32. Another key concept disclosed in the embodiments of the patent is
`
`that the system functions even when the remote equipment is powered off (i.e.,
`
`without its operating power). According to the patent, a central piece of equipment
`
`could be capable of identifying networked devices without operating power being
`
`applied to the remote equipment. (’012 Patent, col. 4:65-67 (“The asset aware
`
`patchpanel would then be capable of identifying the existence and location of
`
`network assets without power being applied to the assets.”)). The patent discloses
`
`that this ability of the system to function—even wen the piece of remotely located
`
`equipment is powered off—enables a range of applications for their inventions, as
`
`it notes that “other objects are within the scope of the invention, such as desks
`
`204b, monitors 204c, computer pointing devices, other computers (powered and
`
`unpowered), and clothing.” (’012 Patent, col. 13:22-25).
`
`
`
`13
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-14
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF DE NICOLO ’468
`
`33. De Nicolo ’468 is directed to indiscriminately and continuously
`
`providing operating power to multiple devices, such as IP phones, connected to an
`
`Ethernet network. “An Ethernet device power transmission system provides
`
`electrical power to devices such as Ethernet telephones and related equipment over
`
`a 4-wire Ethernet connection without any need for requiring premises having an
`
`existing 4-wire Ethernet system” (De Nicolo ’468, col. 2:30-32).
`
`34. Figure 3 of De Nicolo ’468, reproduced below, shows that a DC
`
`voltage from power supply 144 is provided to each connected device via lines 142
`
`and 146. There is no disclosure in De Nicolo ’468 of a separate or direct
`
`connection that is distinct and separate for each connected device from the power
`
`supply 144. Thus, each Ethernet device cannot provide information about itself,
`
`nor can work together with a central module to do so, on a path that also utilizes
`
`the Ethernet contacts and current magnitudes as per the requirements of the claims.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-15
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`
`
`35. Notably, the system described in De Nicolo ’468 assumes that all
`
`devices connected to the Ethernet cable (e.g., load 1 (98), load 2 (100), and load 3
`
`(102) in Figure 3) are designed to and can accept remote power via the Ethernet
`
`cable (line 102). De Nicolo ’468 further describes how power supply 144 is
`
`“preferably [] an uninterruptible power supply (UPS)” so that in the event of a
`
`power outage, the IP telephones can remain powered. (De Nicolo ’468, col. 3:36-
`
`39).
`
`36. De Nicolo ’468 assumes that the telephones (or other devices
`
`connected to the Ethernet wire link) are captive – that is, they are all of a known
`
`design and capable of receiving and managing remote power. As shown in Figure
`
`3, each Ethernet device includes a power processor 149 to “perform[] any DC-DC
`
`power conversion and filtering required.” (De Nicolo ’468, col. 3:47-50). Thus, the
`
`
`
`15
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-16
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`system described in De Nicolo ’468 has no need to determine any information
`
`about the Ethernet devices as it assumes that each connected device is capable of
`
`receiving and managing power over the Ethernet pairs.
`
`V.
`
`SUMMARY OF DE NICOLO ’666
`
`37.
`
` De Nicolo ’666 is directed to managing the power resources of a
`
`multi-card modular electronic system. Such modular systems typically include a
`
`housing and a plurality of removable electronic cards or boards. (See De Nicolo
`
`’666, col. 1:14-25). The housing of such systems have “a back plane having a
`
`plurality of connectors to which a number of line cards or processor cards are
`
`connected.” (De Nicolo ’666, col. 1:15-17). Such cards connect to the system and
`
`each other via the back plane. As stated in De Nicolo ’666, “[t]he back plane [of
`
`the housing] provides electrical interconnections to the process cards, such as data,
`
`power, ground and signaling.” (col. 1:19-21).
`
`38. As noted in De Nicolo ’666, “it is frequently a problem that an
`
`individual responsible for such systems may inadvertently place too high a power
`
`demand upon a particular power supply configuration of such a system through the
`
`additional of a particular process card to a previously functioning system.” (col. 1:
`
`36-41). In other words, such systems have a limited amount of power to supply, as
`
`governed by the housing power supplies, and the removable cards may demand
`
`
`
`16
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-17
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`more power than the housing has to offer. As a result, the system may shut down,
`
`become unable to start up, or actually damage the equipment. Col. 1, lines 41-42.
`
`39. To address this problem, De Nicolo ’666 discloses adding three
`
`components to an existing modular system: (1) a “power supervisor”; (2) circuitry
`
`in each modular card that will specify a maximum power requirement via an
`
`analog voltage signal; and (3) a dedicated query conductor line in the back plane so
`
`the power supervisor can read the power requirement of each inserted card before
`
`operational power is supplied to the card.
`
`40. Figure 1, reproduced below, shows the power supervisor 14
`
`(highlighted in yellow); circuitry in modular card 26 (highlighted in green); and
`
`query line 28 (highlighted in red).
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-18
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`41.
`
` As De Nicolo ’666 explains, power supervisor 14 is responsible for
`
`allocating the power resources of the system to determine if a newly inserted card
`
`will receive power. “The supervisor may then weigh existing power supply
`
`resources of the modular electronic system with existing current/power demand
`
`and make a decision to allow power-up of the card if sufficient overhead is
`
`available, or, alternatively, make a decision to deny power-up of the card if
`
`insufficient additional current/power resources are available.” Col. 1, line 60 – col.
`
`2, line 1. However, the power supervisor has no capability of providing operating
`
`power to any modular card—it is primarily a broker of sorts.
`
`42. Power supervisor obtains information about the available power
`
`resources from the system’s power supplies 18, 20, and 22 via link 16. “[E]ach
`
`power supply module 18, 20, 22 may have stored in it a relatively permanent
`
`memory having a three (or more) bit identification code that can be read by power
`
`supervisor 14 over communications link 16.” Col. 2, line 57-60.
`
`43. When a new card is inserted into the system, power supervisor, via
`
`query line 28, determines what the maximum power requirements are for the newly
`
`inserted card. If there are sufficient power resources available, power supervisor
`
`sends an “enable” signal via query line 28 to power circuit soft start 44 to turn on.
`
`“If microprocessor 24 decides that sufficient power resources are available to
`
`permit module 26 to be turned on with its now known maximum power
`
`
`
`18
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-19
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`requirement, then microprocessor 24 sends a signal ‘PWRUP’ on line 40 to a
`
`switch shown here as transistor Ql.” Col. 3, lines 63-67. The modular card then
`
`draws operating power from Vcc line 46 through power circuit soft start 44 as long
`
`as the “enable” signal is present. “Power circuit soft start 44 operates in a
`
`conventional manner, such as that shown in FIG. 2, to slowly turn on power
`
`available on line 46 and apply it to the power consuming circuitry of module 26
`
`denoted ‘A’ while the ENABLE signal is asserted on line 42.” (CITE) Power to the
`
`card is provided “ over line 74 from a backplane connection to Vcc 76. Prestart
`
`area 72’s circuitry is powered by connection to line 74, but the bulk of the power-
`
`consuming circuitry of module 66 remains unpowered until the prestart area 72
`
`receives instructions from power supervisor 64 to turn on module 66.” (Id.
`
`(quoting Ex. 1020, De Nicolo ’666, at 4:63-67).)
`
`VI. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED COMBINATION
`
`44.
`
`I have reviewed the petition and the declaration of Richard Seifert
`
`regarding Petitioner’s proposal of combining De Nicolo ’468’s teachings with De
`
`Nicolo ’666’s teachings. For the purposes of this declaration, I was not asked to
`
`evaluate whether the De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 references, taken alone
`
`or in combination, disclose the individual elements of the claims at issue. Should
`
`the Board institute this inter partes review, I expect to offer opinions that the De
`
`
`
`19
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-20
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`Nicolo references, whether viewed alone or in combination, fail to disclose,
`
`anticipate, or render obvious certain claims and/or claim elements.
`
`45. Mr. Seifert states that “De Nicolo ’468’s system in Figure 3 could
`
`include a single remote device (e.g., a device that includes load 98)” and that “[i]n
`
`this system, the skilled artisan could have included De Nicolo ’666’s power
`
`supervisor 14 (see Figure 1) into De Nicolo ’468’s power supply module 144 (see
`
`Figure 3) and included De Nicolo ’666’s electronic module 26 (see Figure 1) into
`
`De Nicolo ’468’s power processor 149.” Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 53.
`
`46.
`
`I was asked by Chrimar if I could replicate the system based on Mr.
`
`Seifert’s description in order to explain how it would operate. Based on the
`
`information provided by Mr. Seifert, I cannot replicate his proposed combination
`
`without significant experimentation and a number of engineering design decisions.
`
`Many of those design decisions would be heavily influenced by information that is
`
`not discussed in Mr. Seifert’s declaration and not disclosed in either of the De
`
`Nicolo references. In my opinion, it would require hindsight consideration of the
`
`’012 Patent itself in order to combine the De Nicolo references in a way that would
`
`result in the claimed inventions of the ’012 Patent (if such a combination could be
`
`done at all to result in the claimed inventions).
`
`47.
`
`In addition, it is not clear why any person skilled in the art would
`
`want to make the combination Mr. Seifert proposes. In my view, Mr. Seifert’s
`
`
`
`20
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-21
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`proposed combination is an attempt to use the ’012 Patent as a roadmap for
`
`combining two unrelated and divergent references (De Nicolo ’666 and De Nicolo
`
`’468) without sufficient explanation of how to make the combination or what the
`
`benefits would be in such a combination even if someone could figure out a way to
`
`combine the references.
`
`48. Below is a basic representation of Mr. Seifert’s alleged combination
`
`of adding the power supervisor (highlighted in yellow) of De Nicolo ’666 to the
`
`power supply of De Nicolo ’468, and adding the electronic module (highlighted in
`
`green) of De Nicolo ’666 to the power processor of De Nicolo ’468.
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-22
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`49.
`
` Circled in red are the open connections to the dedicated query line 28
`
`that is intended to run between the electronic module and the power supervisor; as
`
`well as the Vcc connection to line 46 from De Nicolo ’666 that is used to power
`
`the electronic module. Mr. Seifert does not provide any explanation as to how
`
`these connections can or will be made in his proposed combined system. There are
`
`several technical problems that render the proposed combination unworkable.
`
`50. Below is a demonstrative describing the incompatibility of De Nicolo
`
`’468 and De Nicolo ’666. As disclosed in De Nicolo ’468, power supply 144 is
`
`connected to all devices, and therefore, it is not possible for the power supervisor
`
`of De Nicolo ’666 to be able to turn on a particular supply for a particular device,
`
`without turning it on for all devices. This alone ensures that the combination will
`
`not work.
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-23
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`51. Mr. Seifert attempts to remedy this basic problem by stating that the
`
`De Nicolo ’468 system would be modified to only include one power supply and
`
`one device. But that proposal is contrary to the purpose of De Nicolo ’468, and
`
`even if the system were a one-to-one arrangement, there would be no reason to
`
`selectively operate the power supply as the single device would not draw more
`
`power than the supply can provide.
`
`52. Mr. Seifert simply states that “[t]his is a routine, common sense
`
`design choice that is well within the skilled artisan’s knowledge and capabilities.
`
`This modification would maintain the De Nicolo ’468 circuitry’s existing purpose
`
`and functionality—providing power and data over the Ethernet pairs 128 and
`
`powering the load 98 via the power processor 149. It would also enable the power
`
`processor 149 to power the load 98 in the selective manner that De Nicolo ’666
`
`teaches.” Id. I disagree.
`
`53. Mr. Seifert has not provided any details as to how the parts of these
`
`systems would be or could be combined. Mr. Seifert appears to state, in a
`
`conclusory fashion, that this is a mere simple substitution of known elements in a
`
`conventional manner. From Mr. Seifert’s declaration, I was unable to discern any
`
`facts or data supporting this proposition.
`
`54. Mr. Seifert does not identify the claimed “path” in De Nicolo ’468,
`
`nor does he provide any explanation as to how the claimed “path” could exist in
`
`
`
`23
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-24
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`the proposed combination. Further, Mr. Seifert does not explain how the electronic
`
`module of De Nicolo ’666 would be re-designed such that it could combine the
`
`query line (the dedicated analog communication line) and the Vcc line (which
`
`provides operational power to the electronic module card through the power circuit
`
`soft start). Nor does Mr. Seifert explain how these connections could be combined
`
`with the Ethernet connections in De Nicolo ’468 without disrupting the Ethernet
`
`data signals.
`
`55. Mr. Seifert also fails to explain how the power supply of De Nicolo
`
`’468 could be modified to include the power supervisor of De Nicolo ’666, which
`
`is explicitly separate from the power supplies of De Nicolo ’666. In fact, in both
`
`De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666, the power supplies are not selectively
`
`operable. Instead, the power supplies in both systems provide constant power. Mr.
`
`Seifert does not explain how or why one would modify the power supply of De
`
`Nicolo ’468 to make it selectively operable. In particular, Petitioner alleges that the
`
`combined system must be envisioned as having only one power supply and only
`
`one Ethernet device. If that is the case, then there would be no reason to provide a
`
`selectively operable power supply in De Nicolo ’468.
`
`56.
`
`In addition, Mr. Seifert does not explain, at any level, how or where
`
`the claimed “path” would exist in the combined system, such as to explain how the
`
`claimed “path” would be routed through the power processor and/or the load of De
`
`
`
`24
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`Exhibit 2015-25
`IPR2016-00983 USPN 8,155,012
`
`
`
`Nicolo ’468, and does not explain how the claimed “path” would then be modified
`
`to connect to the additional parts from De Nicolo ’666. These are non-trivial issues
`
`as there is nothing in De Nicolo ’468 to explain how the power supply would
`
`function if it is not supplying operational power to the connected devices.
`
`57.
`
`In summary, without further study or experimentation, neither I nor a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art can replicate his proposed combination. To create
`
`this type of system, I would have to engage in several engineering design decisions
`
`with the express purpose of designing a system to selectively power the load of De
`
`Nicolo ’468. To create this combined system, at a minimum, I would have to:
`
`a. re-design the power supply of De Nicolo ’468 to include some type
`
`logic circuitry or microprocessor so the power supply would be
`
`selectively operable as neither of the De Nicolo references
`
`discloses a selectively operable power supply;
`
`b. redesign the power supply architecture of De Nicolo ’468 so that
`
`each device is separately connected to a power supply that can be
`
`selectively operated;
`
`c. design new