UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`9737256
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107
`
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`9737256
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ........................................................ 1
`
`Relevant Background on the '107 Patent ..................................................... 3
`
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the '107 Patent ................... 3
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ..................................................................... 5
`
`III. Claim Construction ...................................................................................... 5
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood That the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ........................ 6
`
`A. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on
`Hunter in View of Bulan. .................................................................. 7
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan .................................... 8
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Reasons to Combine Hunter and Bulan ...................... 10
`
`The Combined System of Hunter and Bulan .............. 14
`
`Operation of Bulan's Current Control
`Apparatus .................................................................... 15
`
`Hunter in View of Bulan: Step-by-Step ..................... 21
`
`2.
`
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan .............................. 24
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................... 24
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ..................................................... 33
`
`Dependent Claim 31 ................................................... 33
`
`Dependent Claim 43 ................................................... 35
`
`Dependent Claim 70 ................................................... 36
`
`Dependent Claim 72 ................................................... 38
`
`9737256
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Page
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`Dependent Claim 74 ................................................... 38
`
`Dependent Claim 75 ................................................... 39
`
`Dependent Claim 83 ................................................... 39
`
`Dependent Claim 103 (across 1, 5, 31, 43, 70,
`72, and 75) .................................................................. 39
`
`Independent Claim 104 ............................................... 41
`
`Dependent Claim 111 ................................................. 42
`
`m. Dependent Claim 123 ................................................. 42
`
`n.
`
`Dependent Claim 125 (across 104, 111, and
`123) ............................................................................. 42
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are obvious based on
`Bloch in view of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3. ................................... 42
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ...................................................................................... 43
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Overview of Bloch ...................................................... 43
`
`Overview of Huizinga ................................................ 48
`
`Overview of IEEE 802.3 (IEEE-93 and IEEE-
`95) ............................................................................... 49
`
`The Combined System of Bloch, Huizinga, and
`IEEE 802.3 (-93 & -95) .............................................. 51
`
`Reasons for Combinability ......................................... 52
`
`2.
`
`Application of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ...................................................................................... 54
`
`a.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................... 54
`
`9737256
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Page
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ..................................................... 59
`
`Dependent Claim 31 ................................................... 59
`
`Dependent Claim 43 ................................................... 60
`
`Dependent Claim 70 ................................................... 61
`
`Dependent Claim 72 ................................................... 62
`
`Dependent Claim 74 ................................................... 63
`
`Dependent Claim 75 ................................................... 63
`
`Dependent Claim 83 ................................................... 63
`
`Dependent Claim 103 (across 1, 5, 31, 43, 70,
`72, and 75) .................................................................. 64
`
`Independent Claim 104 ............................................... 65
`
`Dependent Claim 111 ................................................. 65
`
`m. Dependent Claim 123 ................................................. 66
`
`n.
`
`Dependent Claim 125 (across 104, 111, and
`123) ............................................................................. 66
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................. 66
`
`
`
`9737256
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Number
`
`Short Name
`
`Description
`
`'107 patent, or '107 U.S. Patent 8,942,107 to Austerman, III et al.
`
`Crayford
`
`Hunter
`
`Bulan
`
`Bloch
`
`IEEE-1993
`
`Declaration of Ian Crayford
`
`WO 96/23377 to Hunter
`
`U.S. Patent 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`
`U.S. Patent 4,173,714 to Bloch et al.
`
`IEEE International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-
`3: 1993
`
`IEEE-1995 (part 1)
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
`
`IEEE-1995 (part 2)
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
`
`Huizinga
`
`Blacharski
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`10071
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`U.S. Patent 4,046,972 to Huizinga et al.
`
`Dan Blacharski, "Maximum Bandwith: A
`Serious Guide to High-Speed Networking",
`Que Corporation (1997)
`
`Randy H. Katz, "High Performance Network
`and Channel-Based Storage", Report
`UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent
`8,942,107
`
`1011
`
`Katz
`
`Related Matters
`
`Crayford C.V.
`
`Resume of Ian Crayford
`
`
`1 IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995 has been separated into Exhibits 1007 and
`
`1008 to comply with file size limitations for Exhibits. Exhibits 1007 and 1008 are
`
`continuously paginated, from 1-200, and 201-415, respectively.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Number
`
`1014
`
`Short Name
`IEEE Press Release
`
`1015
`
`Complaint
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`'058 patent
`
`'152 patent
`
`Description
`
`IEEE Standards Association News & Events:
`Press Releases "IEEE 802.3 Standard for
`Ethernet Marks 30 Years of Innovation and
`Global Market Growth"
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Juniper
`Networks, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00630
`(N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,058 to Miller et al.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,865,152 to Luhmann
`
`9737256
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. ("Juniper" or "Petitioner") requests inter partes
`
`review ("IPR") of claims 1, 5, 31, 43, 70, 72, 74, 75, 83, 103, 104, 111, 123, and
`
`125 ("the Challenged Claims") of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107 ("the '107 patent"),
`
`which is attached to this Petition as Exhibit 1001.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)): Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)): The '107 patent is the subject of 51 civil
`
`actions filed in the Eastern District of Michigan, Eastern District of Texas, and
`
`Northern District of California. Attached as Exhibit 1012 is a list identifying each
`
`of these civil actions, which includes Chrimar Systems Inc., et al. v. Juniper
`
`Networks, Inc., Case No 3:16-cv-005581-SI (N.D. Cal.). The '107 patent is also
`
`the subject of pending IPR2016-00569. IPRs have also been filed on related U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,902,760, 8,115,012, and 8,019,838. IPR2016-00569, IPR2016-
`
`00983, IPR2016-00573 and IPR2016-0115. These cases may affect, or be affected
`
`by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`Standing (§ 4.104(a)): Juniper certifies that this patent is eligible for inter
`
`partes review and that it is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes
`
`review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`(§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)):
`
`Lead Counsel
`Nima Hefazi Reg. No. 63,658
`nhefazi@irell.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Fax: (949) 760-5200
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Jonathan Kagan, pro hac vice pending
`jkagan@irell.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Fax: (310) 203-71992
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney accompany this
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel.
`
`Petitioner also consents
`
`to electronic
`
`service by email at
`
`Juniper-
`
`ChrimarIPR@irell.com.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103): The undersigned
`
`authorizes the PTO to charge the required fees to Deposit Account No. 09-0946,
`
`referencing Docket No. 159291-0071 ('107 IPR).
`
`
`2 Petitioner requests authorization to file a motion for Jonathan Kagan and
`
`Talin Gordnia to appear pro hac vice, as Mr. Kagan and Ms. Gordnia are
`
`experienced attorneys who are counsel for Juniper in the concurrent litigation and
`
`have established familiarity with the subject matter at issue.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`II. Relevant Background on the '107 Patent
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the '107 Patent
`The '107 patent issued from Application No. 13/370,918 which was filed on
`
`Feb. 10, 2012. The '107 patent claims the benefit of Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/081,279, filed Apr. 10, 1998. Ex. 1002 ("Crayford") ¶ 42.
`
`The '107 patent explains that it is directed to equipment networked over
`
`"pre-existing wiring or cables that connect pieces of networked computer
`
`equipment to a network." '107 3:23-27, 4:62-66. The '107 patent acknowledges
`
`that at the time of the alleged invention, "existing Ethernet communications" and
`
`equivalents thereof were known. '107 3:40-42, 5:20-24 ("Ethernet, Token Ring, or
`
`ATM"). The '107 patent provides examples of networked equipment including
`
`personal computers and telephones connected to a hub in a network. '107 4:66-
`
`5:3. The equipment would be connected over "conventional multi-wire cables that
`
`include a plurality of transmit and receive data communication links."3 '107 5:12-
`
`19, 5:26-31 ("a pair of transmit wires"; "a pair of receive wires"). Crayford ¶ 44.
`
`The specification discloses a central module on the network that has a DC
`
`power supply where the voltage provided by the power supply is modulated to
`
`provide "both status information and power" across the transmit and/or receive
`
`lines to a remote module on the network. '107 5:64-67. The specification discloses
`
`3 Emphasis added to quotes unless otherwise indicated.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`that a remote module can send information to the central module by altering the
`
`total current draw by the remote module. '107 6:16-19. Crayford ¶ 46.
`
`The specification discloses embodiments that purport to provide an
`
`improved system for "asset tracking and management," including monitoring and
`
`identifying "asset movement" and "theft." '107 1:20-3:14. Patent Owner,
`
`however, is attempting to apply the claims of the '107 patent as covering scope
`
`beyond asset tracking and management and the disclosed embodiments. For
`
`instance, Patent Owner has taken the position that the claims of the '107 patent
`
`read on the 802.3af Power over Ethernet ("PoE standard"). See Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 17-
`
`18; Ex. 1012. Patent Owner has filed various lawsuits—including against
`
`Petitioner—interpreting the Challenged Claims of the '107 Patent to broadly cover
`
`network switches that deliver power to a remote device over Ethernet. Id.
`
`Crayford ¶ 47.
`
`As will be shown in this Petition, the basic concepts of supplying power
`
`from a DC power supply over the same conductors over which data is
`
`communicated, known as "phantom" powering, was well known decades before
`
`the alleged invention of the '107 patent. See Ground 2 (discussing Bloch patent,
`
`issued in 1979). And by the time of the alleged invention, providing DC power in
`
`this manner over the same conductors used for Ethernet communication was also
`
`well known. See Ground 2 (discussing Hunter International Patent application,
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`published in 1996, and IEEE specifications from 1993 and 1995). It was also well
`
`known at the time of the alleged invention to convey information from one piece
`
`of equipment to another by modulating the voltage provided by the DC power
`
`supply or by modulating the current drawn from the power supply over the same
`
`conductors used for normal network communication, such as Ethernet. See
`
`Ground 1 (Hunter and Bulan references), Ground 2 (Bloch patent). Crayford ¶ 48.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`B.
`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
`
`science, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in the design of
`
`network communication products. Crayford ¶ 49-51
`
`III. Claim Construction
`A claim in IPR is given the broadest reasonable interpretation ("BRI") in
`
`light of the specification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Tech., LLC v. Lee, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3927 (2016).
`
`"powered off"; "powered-off Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment";
`
`"powered-off end device" ('107 Patent, Claims 103, 104, 111, 123, 125): The
`
`BRI of this term is "without operating power" because claim 104 recites "the
`
`powered-off end device to draw different magnitudes of DC current flow"
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`indicating that "powered-off" does not mean entirely removed from the
`
`application of power. Crayford ¶ 52-55.
`
`"BaseT" (claim 5): Claim 5 recites "BaseT Ethernet communication
`
`signals." "BaseT" should be construed as "10BASE-T and 100BASE-T." The '107
`
`patent consistently uses the term "BaseT" as part of the larger phrase "10BASE-
`
`T." '107 12:19-29. The '107 patent references "existing Ethernet communications"
`
`and equivalents thereof, which would include 100BASE-T at the time of the
`
`purported invention. '107 3:40-42, Ex. 1007 (IEEE-95) at 2 ("Type 100BASE-T").
`
`Crayford ¶ 54.
`
`Petitioner notes that claim construction in inter partes review is broader
`
`than in litigation. Thus, nothing in this Petition should be taken as an assertion
`
`regarding how the claims should be construed in litigation. Moreover, nothing
`
`should be construed as expressing any position as to whether the claims constitute
`
`patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or whether they satisfy the
`
`definiteness, enablement, best mode, or written description requirements of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112.
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood That the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of the Challenged
`
`Claims of the '107 patent based on the following grounds:
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`•
`
`Ground 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Challenged Claims are
`
`obvious based on WO 96/23377 ("Hunter") (Ex. 1003) in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,089,927 ("Bulan") (Ex. 1004).
`
`•
`
`Ground 2: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Challenged Claims are obvious
`
`based on U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 ("Bloch") (Ex. 1005) in view of
`
`U.S. Patent 4,046,972 ("Huizinga") (Ex. 1009) and IEEE 802.3 (1993
`
`and 1995) (Exs. 1006-1008).
`
`Ground 1 is not redundant to Ground 2. In Ground 1, Hunter (1996)
`
`discloses phantom power over an Ethernet network, which when combined with
`
`the current control apparatus of Bulan satisfies the claim limitations. In Ground 2,
`
`the Bloch (1979) reference, teaches a system that closely tracks the preferred
`
`embodiment of the '107 patent, including the current modulation technique
`
`discussed above in Section II.A. It does so, however, in a telephone network
`
`rather than Ethernet (which was developed four years later, in 1983). When
`
`combined with the teachings of the Ethernet specifications (1993 and 1995), it
`
`reads on the embodiment of the specification of the '107 patent. Crayford ¶ 62.
`
`A. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Hunter
`in View of Bulan.
`
`The Challenged Claims are obvious over Hunter in view of Bulan for the
`
`reasons below. Crayford ¶ 63. Hunter and Bulan are prior art because their filing
`
`dates (January 26, 1996 and October 12, 1989, respectively) predate the earliest
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`possible priority date of the '107 patent. Hunter is cited on the face of the '107
`
`patent but not was not discussed during prosecution. Bulan does not appear to
`
`have been cited or discussed during prosecution.
`
`1. Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan
`Hunter discloses a system for supplying DC "phantom power" over an
`
`Ethernet cable from a central piece of networking equipment (hereafter "Hub") to
`
`a remote piece of terminal equipment (hereafter "TE"). Hunter Abstract, 37:20-28
`
`("10Base-T" Ethernet), 51 ("Ethernet®"; "100Base-T" Ethernet; "isoEthernet®").
`
`The phantom power is supplied over the same twisted-pair conductors in the
`
`Ethernet cable that are used to carry data between the Hub and the TE. Hunter
`
`37:20-28. The Hub includes a "protective device 213" (such as "a thermistor or
`
`polyfuse") to protect against "overcurrents" in the DC current flow from the Hub
`
`to the TE. Hunter 38:12-19. Crayford ¶ 64.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`PETITION FIGURE 1
`
`
`
`Hunter Fig. 2 (markings added), 31:9-11("phantom powering subsystem"), 32:5-
`
`15 ("hubs"). Crayford ¶ 65.
`
`Bulan discloses an improved protective device ("current control apparatus")
`
`for use in phantom-powered network systems like Hunter, and this device would
`
`replace the existing protective device of Hunter. Bulan 1:65-2:26, Abstract
`
`("effective overcurrent protection"), 4:2-10 ("well known phantom power feed
`
`arrangement"). Crayford ¶ 66.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`PETITION FIGURE 2
`
`
`
`Bulan Fig. 2 ("current control apparatus"), 4:20-42 (circuit).
`
`a.
`Bulan is directed to systems for phantom powering network terminal
`
`Reasons to Combine Hunter and Bulan
`
`equipment, and Hunter discloses such a system. Hunter Abstract ("[P]ower
`
`subsytem and method for providing phantom power … via a computer network
`
`bus"), 36:12-15 ("[P]ositive and negative outputs … of the power supply ... are
`
`coupled to the center taps 224, 234 of the windings ... of the first and second
`
`transformers"), Fig. 2; Bulan 4:7-10 ("Power terminals ... are connected to centre
`
`taps 16 and 17 of the transformer windings 11 in a well known phantom power
`
`feed arrangement."), 4 Fig. 1. Hunter and Bulan disclose similar terminal
`
`equipment that could be phantom powered, and similar levels of DC voltage.
`
`Hunter 23:19-21 (TE may be "an Integrated Services Terminal Equipment ('ISTE')
`
`device" that is "compatible with ISDN standards"), 23:9 ("power is supplied at
`
`
`4 Emphasis added to quotes here and below unless otherwise indicated.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`about 48V"); Bulan Abstract ("Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
`
`terminal equipments (TEs)"), 1:49-50 ("power source, at a potential of about 50
`
`volts"). Crayford ¶ 67.
`
`Bulan is intended to provide a superior replacement for the "typical current
`
`limiting circuit" in such phantom powering systems, and Hunter employs just such
`
`a current limiting circuit: i.e., its "protective device 213." Bulan 1:65-2:14; Hunter
`
`38:12-15. Hunter's protective device 213 is "preferably a thermistor or polyfuse"
`
`that protects from "overcurrents that may damage" the "power supply 210 and the
`
`bus." Hunter 38:15-19. Crayford ¶ 68.
`
`Bulan criticizes the "typical current limiting circuit" as "inappropriate for
`
`operation throughout the whole current load regime" because it fails to distinguish
`
`between two conditions: (1) overcurrents resulting from "unintended operational
`
`faults, for example ... short circuits"; and (2) "a normal power up event in a TE"
`
`that contains a "DC to DC converter" (hereafter "DC-DC"). Bulan 1:26-31, 1:52-
`
`2:1. To "initiate operation of the typical DC to DC converter" in a TE, a "surge of
`
`current" is required that "may exceed an ampere for as much as ten milliseconds,"
`
`and this normal surge of current may "mimic" an operational fault. See Bulan
`
`1:52-65, Abstract. Crayford ¶ 69.
`
`Because the "typical current limiting circuit" applies the same current limit
`
`to both conditions, it either sets the limit so low that "there will be insufficient
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`current for start up of the DC to DC converter," or sets the limit so high that "a
`
`fault may be permitted to draw current for a period of time sufficient to seriously
`
`jeopardize the operations of ... the line power source circuits [in the Hub]"). Bulan
`
`1:66-2:8. Crayford ¶ 70.
`
`Hunter's protective device 213 suffers from this same deficiency, because a
`
`"thermistor or polyfuse" cannot respond differently to the two conditions. See
`
`Hunter 38:12-19; Crayford ¶ 71.
`
`Bulan's "current control apparatus" solves this dilemma in the typical
`
`current limiting circuit (such as Hunter's) by distinguishing between operational
`
`faults and DC-DC startups. Bulan 1:28-29, 1:57-2:23. When the Bulan apparatus
`
`detects an overcurrent condition, it switches a high impedance resistor into the
`
`path to protect the circuitry: this forces the current down to a safe "trickle" level.
`
`Bulan 4:20-25 ("current sensor 26"; "current path switch 25"), 4:35-40, 4:63-68
`
`("small trickle of current"). If the overcurrent was caused by an operational fault,
`
`current will continue to be drawn at this "trickle" level indefinitely until the fault
`
`is resolved—and the high impedance will continue to remain in place to protect
`
`the circuitry. See Bulan 6:44-46. If, however, the overcurrent was caused by a
`
`DC-DC trying and failing to start up, the resulting "open circuit" condition will be
`
`detected by the absence of "trickle" current. Bulan 6:43-51. Hence the Bulan
`
`apparatus can detect the failure of the DC-DC to start up, and it switches the high
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`impedance resistor out of the path so the TE's DC-DC can resume starting up.
`
`Bulan 6:47-58, 7:7-13. The operation of Bulan's current control apparatus is
`
`discussed in greater detail below. See Overview(c-d) 5; Crayford ¶ 72.
`
`A PHOSITA would recognize that the Hunter system could be used to
`
`supply phantom power to TE's containing DC-DC's, and would conclude the
`
`Bulan current control apparatus would be a superior alternative to Hunter's
`
`protective device 213. Bulan 1:52-65 ("A typical TE includes a ... DC to DC
`
`converter" which requires a "surge of current" to "initiate operation"); Hunter
`
`39:5-8 (similarly indicating the presence of a DC-DC in the TE: "DC-DC
`
`converters … readily commercially available."). Crayford ¶ 73.
`
`Replacement of Hunter's protective device 213 with Bulan's "current
`
`control apparatus" would be a particularly straightforward task for a PHOSITA
`
`with a more than reasonable expectation of success, since the Bulan appartus is
`
`intended to simply replace prior art current limiting circuits without further
`
`modification. See Bulan 2:23-26 ("The current control apparatus is for connection
`
`in series between the power source and the transmission line"); Hunter Fig. 2
`
`(protective device 213 in series between phantom power source 210 and
`
`transmission line); Crayford ¶ 74. Both Hunter and Bulan assume there is a
`
`
`5 Citations to "Overview" in Ground 1 are to § IV.A.1.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`separate protective device in the Hub to regulate the current to each separate TE,
`
`making the combination a simple one-for-one replacement. Hunter Fig. 2
`
`(protective device 213 in series to single remote "ISTE"); Bulan Fig. 1 (each
`
`"NT1" in Hub connected to a single remote TE device), 4:17-25 ("Each of the
`
`NT1s includes a line interface circuit" that includes the current control apparatus
`
`of the invention).
`
`Replacing protective device 213 in Hunter with Bulan's apparatus is the
`
`simple substitution of one known element with another to yield a predictable
`
`result (a Hub equipped with a protective device that can distinguish between faults
`
`and DC-DC startups). Moreover, this replacement is merely the use of a known
`
`technique (Bulan's current control technique) to improve a similar device ready
`
`for improvement (Hub supplying phantom power to network terminal equipment)
`
`to yield a predictable result (Hub with more intelligent current limiting system).
`
`Crayford ¶ 75. See also MPEP 2143 (exemplary obviousness rationales based on
`
`KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007)).
`
`b.
`In the combined system, Bulan's current control apparatus simply replaces
`
`The Combined System of Hunter and Bulan
`
`the existing "protective device 213" of Hunter, and DC current and power
`
`continue to flow through the phantom power circuit unchanged, as shown below:
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`PETITION FIGURE 3
`
`
`
`Hunter Fig. 2 (modified to substitute current control apparatus in Fig. 2 of Bulan
`
`for Hunter's existing protective device 213, annotations added); Crayford ¶ 77.
`
`c.
`The operation of Bulan's "current control apparatus" is detailed here. Bulan
`
`Operation of Bulan's Current Control Apparatus
`
`teaches that the current control apparatus (depicted in Bulan Fig. 2) includes a
`
`"current sensor 26" that continuously monitors the level of DC current in the
`
`path that loops from the positive terminal of the Hub's phantom power supply to
`
`the TE and back to the negative terminal of the power supply. Petition Figure 2
`
`(current sensor 26); Bulan 2:26-28 ("means for generating a magnitude signal
`
`being representative of an amount of said energizing direct current flow"), 4:20-33
`
`("current sensor 26"), 4:49-50 ("current sensing device"). Crayford ¶ 78.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`Bulan generates two current level signals internally for use with the current
`
`sensor; these "control signals" are references against which the current level
`
`sensed by the current sensor can be compared:
`
`(1) A "static control signal" (also referred to herein as "static signal" or
`
`"static limit") is generated by "static reference generator 23." Bulan 3:5-6, 4:25-
`
`26, 5:16-31 (internal circuitry), Fig. 5 (circuit diagram). This static signal is
`
`unchanging, and it defines the "maximum limit of load current" which should
`
`normally be drawn by the TE. Bulan 3:5-6, 2:2, 7:6 ("normal operating current"),
`
`5:16-18 ("static reference generator ... is used to provide a stable voltage supply –
`
`V1 and a reference voltage V REF-"). When the current level sensed by the
`
`current sensor rises above this "static" level, an overcurrent condition of some
`
`kind is indicated. See Bulan 2:24-36, 3:5-12; Crayford ¶ 80.
`
`(2) A "dynamic control signal" (also referred to herein as "dynamic signal"
`
`or "dynamic limit") is generated by "dynamic reference generator 24." Bulan 3:7-
`
`12, 4:27, 5:6-15 (internal circuitry), Fig. 4 (circuit diagram). The dynamic signal
`
`is normally set at the unchanging static level, but when the sensed current exceeds
`
`the static limit indicating an overcurrent condition, the dynamic signal is
`
`temporarily boosted to define a higher "maximum limit of the inrush current."
`
`Bulan 3:7-12, 5:33-44 ("in an event where the sense voltage (50) becomes greater
`
`than the potential of [static] V REF- ...."), 5:66-6:2 ("control signal at the output
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`60 is therefore a static level as determined by the potential at junction 60t, unless
`
`the potential is over-ridden by the dynamic level switched ... to the output 60");
`
`Crayford ¶ 81.
`
`Once boosted (because sensed current exceeded the static limit), the
`
`dynamic signal does not remain indefinitely at the higher level; rather it
`
`"decay[s]" over time in a manner defined by the "RC value" of the dynamic
`
`reference generator's resistor/capacitor (R/C) circuit. Bulan 5:44-46; Crayford
`
`¶ 82. This decay is shown in the following figure from Bulan.
`
`PETITION FIGURE 4
`
`
`
`Bulan Fig. 6, 6:59-60, 6:65-7:1 ("Assuming an inrush of current ... , the maximum
`
`permissible limit [dynamic signal] rises abruptly to a peak whereafter the limit is
`
`reduced exponentially in accordance with the RC time constant"). And "if at any
`
`time during the decay portion the [current] sense signal becomes less than the
`
`potential of [static] V REF-," the decaying control signal is "terminate[d]" (and
`
`the dynamic signal resets to the static level). Bulan 5:52-55, 7:2-7; Crayford ¶ 83.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`Bulan's dynamic signal imposes a decaying inrush current maximum in this
`
`manner because if the inrush current is merely the result of a DC-DC startup, then
`
`the current drawn should be expected to decline over time as the DC-DC
`
`completes its startup. See Bulan 1:57-62 ("momentary surge of current" is "that
`
`which is required to initiate operation of the typical DC to DC converter"). On the
`
`other hand, if the inrush is caused by an "unintended operational fault[]" such as a
`
`"short circuit[]," then the overcurrent condition will continue indefinitely until
`
`resolved, and hence it would be certain to violate the decaying dynamic limit
`
`eventually (as intended). See Bulan 1:27-30, 6:44-47; Crayford ¶ 84.
`
`When the current detected by current sensor 26 exceeds the dynamic limit,
`
`a "current path switch 25" in the Bulan apparatus switches a high impedance
`
`(resistor 48 in Bulan Fig. 3) into the current path. Petition Figure 2; Bulan 4:24-
`
`25, 4:35-40 ("The current path switch is required to provide a current path which
`
`at any one time is of a very low impedance, or alternately is of a much higher
`
`impedance"), 6:36-44 ("if the sensed current exceeds the [dynamic] control signal
`
`permissible level ….. FET 41 [is] locked OFF"). The addition of this high
`
`impedance to the path forces the current down to a safe "trickle" level, thereby
`
`protecting the power supply in the Hub from the overcurrent condition. See Bulan
`
`4:62-66, 6:43-44 ("the trickle current is conducted via the current path 9d."), Fig.
`
`9737256
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`3 (circuit diagram including trickle path 9d
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
