`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`__________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`__________
`
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
`Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., and Netgear, Inc.,
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2016-01399
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`___________
`
`PETITIONERS’ BRIEF PURSUANT TO
`ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING REGARDING
`PATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS AMENDED
`DURING EX PARTE REEXAMINATION
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`The Board’s Order (Paper 69) authorized Petitioners to file an opening brief
`
`that addresses the patentability of the amended claims based on the asserted
`
`grounds of unpatentability on which this IPR was instituted. Paper 69, 2.
`
`Of the claims challenged in this IPR, claims 73 and 145 were amended
`
`during the ex parte reexamination pending during this IPR. Ex. 2056, 2. Claim 73
`
`was amended to include the following limitation, but was not otherwise changed:
`
`“the piece of central network equipment is a BaseT Ethernet hub.” Id. This
`
`limitation added to claim 73 is addressed below for Grounds 1 and 2. Claim 145
`
`was amended to account for the fact that certain claims it originally referenced
`
`were cancelled in the reexamination. Id. The substance of amended Claim 145,
`
`thus, has been addressed in prior submissions and is not addressed further herein.
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM 73 IS OBVIOUS BASED ON GROUND 1
`
`The Papers and evidence in the record show that claim 73, prior to being
`
`amended, was obvious based on Hunter (Ex. 1003) in view of Bulan (Ex. 1004).
`
`The relevant portions of the Petition (Paper 1) are pages 8-24 that provide an
`
`overview of Hunter in view of Bulan and the reasons that a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have combined the relevant teachings of these
`
`references; page 42 that discusses that the limitations of original claim 73 are a
`
`subset of claim 1 (see also Response (Paper 26), 10-12); and pages 25-35 that
`
`show that the combination of Hunter in view of Bulan teaches each of the
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`limitations of claim 1, and therefore claim 73. See also Decision (Paper 8), 10.
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`The Reply (Paper 33) includes relevant discussions at pages 11-18 that respond to
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the “BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment”
`
`limitation; pages 22-23 that respond to Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the
`
`“path” limitation of claim 73; and pages 1-11 and 18-19 that respond to Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments regarding whether a PHOSITA would have combined Hunter
`
`and Bulan’s relevant teachings. These portions of the Petition and Reply are
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`Ground 1 also teaches the limitation added to claim 73 by amendment: “the
`
`piece of central network equipment is a BaseT Ethernet hub.” As shown in the
`
`Petition, Hunter teaches a network with a central piece of network equipment, such
`
`as a “hub.” Pet. 8-9, 25-27; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65-67, 100-103; Ex. 1003, 32:2-9
`
`(multimedia “system 100 may ... comprise a plurality of hubs in separate
`
`chassis.”). One example of such a hub taught by Hunter is “multimedia hub 120
`
`[that] forms a principal component of the system 100.” Ex. 1003, 32:16-17.
`
`Hunter also teaches “[a] 10Base-T hub 170 [that] provides 24 SNMP-managed
`
`10Base-T ports.” Ex. 1003, 34:18-19; Pet. 26-27; Reply (Paper 33), 16. Patent
`
`Owner does not dispute that Hunter teaches central network equipment that is a
`
`hub. See, e.g., Patent Owner Response (Paper 26), 15 (“Hunter teaches a
`
`multimedia hub (120 in Figure 1) that uses isoEthernet interfaces….”); id. at 39.
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`Hunter also teaches that the central network equipment is a “BaseT
`
`Ethernet” hub. For example, Hunter teaches that hub 120 can include a “10Base-T
`
`hub repeater.” Ex. 1003, 32:16-19; see also Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1003, 34:18
`
`(“10Base-T hub 170”)). Figure 1 of Hunter shows that the 10Base-T repeater in
`
`multimedia hub 120 is connected to other hubs, such as 10Base-T hub 170, over a
`
`10Base-T Ethernet bus. Pet. 29-30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 106-107; Ex. 1003, 26:3-8, 32:16-
`
`27, 34:18-20, 37:19-28, Fig. 1. This shows that the 10Base-T Ethernet bus in
`
`Hunter carries 10Base-T Ethernet signals from the 10Base-T repeater in
`
`multimedia hub 120 to other hubs such as 10Base-T hub 170. Ex. 1003, 37:19-28
`
`(“In the illustrated embodiment, the bus comprises a 10Base-T bus. A 10Base-T
`
`bus conventionally comprises two twisted-pair conductors 240, 250, each used for
`
`unidirectional transmission of data.”); Fig. 2 (bus with conductors 240 and 250).
`
`Additionally, for example, Hunter teaches that 10Base-T hub 170 can include
`
`power sources for phantom powering associated devices. Pet. 26-27; Reply (Paper
`
`33), 16-18; Ex. 1046, ¶¶ 73, 76-79, Ex. 1003, 34:18-19, 19:2-7. Again, Hunter
`
`describes that each such instance of phantom powering would occur over a
`
`10Base-T Ethernet bus carrying 10Base-T Ethernet signals. Id.; Pet. 29-30; Ex.
`
`1002 ¶¶ 106-107; Ex. 1003, 26:3-8, 34:18-20, 37:19-28.
`
`The record also shows that the isoEthernet interfaces of hub 120 can carry
`
`10Base-T Ethernet signals when using the 10Base-T mode of isoEthernet. Ex.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`1010, 165 (isoEthernet includes a 10Base-T mode in which the “IsoEthernet layer
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`functions as a 10Base-T transceiver.”). Also, the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the claim term “BaseT Ethernet” includes 10Base-T, and the
`
`Patent Owner has not disputed this. Patent Owner Response (Paper 26), 18-19.
`
`Thus, amended claim 73 is obvious based on Ground 1.
`
`II. CLAIM 73 IS OBVIOUS BASED ON GROUND 2
`The Papers and evidence in the record also show that claim 73, prior to
`
`being amended, was obvious based on Bloch (Ex. 1005) in view of Huizinga (Ex.
`
`1009) and the IEEE 802.3 references, IEEE-1993 (Ex. 1006) and IEEE-1995 (Exs.
`
`1007, 1008). The relevant portions of the Petition (Paper 1) are pages 43-55 that
`
`provide an overview of Bloch in view of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3, and the
`
`reasons that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have
`
`combined the relevant teachings of these references; page 66 that discusses that the
`
`limitations of original claim 73 are a subset of claim 1; and pages 55-61 that show
`
`that the combination teaches each of the limitations of claim 1, and therefore claim
`
`73. The relevant portions of the Reply (Paper 33) are pages 1-11 that respond to
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding reasons a PHOSITA would have combined
`
`Bloch, Huizinga, and the IEEE 802.3 references’ relevant teachings. These
`
`portions of the Petition and Reply are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`Ground 2 also teaches the limitation added to claim 73 by amendment: “the
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`piece of central network equipment is a BaseT Ethernet hub.” As shown in the
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition, the IEEE references teach a piece of central network equipment such as a
`
`“10Base-T Repeater,” a “100Base-T Repeater,” or a “Multi-Port Bridge.” Pet. 51,
`
`55-56; IEEE-95 (Ex. 1008), 303-304 (Fig. 29-1 and 29-2 illustrating “10Base-T
`
`Repeater,” “100Base-T Repeater,” and “Multi-Port Bridge” connected to “DTEs”);
`
`IEEE-93 (Ex. 1006), 243 (“Repeaters are an integral part of all 10Base-T networks
`
`with more than two DTEs”), 267 (“twisted-pair link connects a DTE to a
`
`repeater”); Ex. 1002, ¶¶ 154, 162. Patent Owner does not dispute that Ground 2
`
`teaches “[a] piece of central network equipment.” See Response (Paper 26).
`
`The IEEE references also teach that the central network equipment is a
`
`“BaseT Ethernet hub.” The ‘760 patent uses the term “hub” broadly without
`
`ascribing to it any particular functionality or structure. Under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of the term “hub,” the 10BaseT and 100Base-T Repeaters
`
`and Bridges taught by the IEEE references are hubs. As disclosed by Hunter, hubs
`
`were known to include repeaters and/or bridges at the time. Ex. 1003, 32:16-27.
`
`And these are “BaseT Ethernet” hubs because the term “BaseT Ethernet” includes
`
`10Base-T and 100Base-T, and the Patent Owner does not dispute this. Response
`
`(Paper 26), 18-19. Thus, amended claim 73 is obvious based on Ground 2.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
`
`order that amended claims 73 and 145 are unpatentable based on Grounds 1 and 2.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`Dated: January 3, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By: /Talin Gordnia/
`Talin Gordnia (Reg. No. 76,214)
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`
`
`
`
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. section 42.6 that a complete copy of
`
`the PETITIONERS’ BRIEF PURSUANT TO ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL
`
`BRIEFING REGARDING PATENTABILITY OF CLAIMS AMENDED
`DURING EX PARTE REEXAMINATION is being served by electronic mail,
`
`as agreed to by the parties, the same day as the filing of the above-identified
`
`document in the United States Patent and Trademark Office/Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board, upon:
`
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`CHRMC0110IPR1@brookskushman.com
`
`Richard W. Hoffman (Reg. No. 33,711)
`REISING ETHINGTON PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 1850
`Troy, MI 48084
`Hoffman@reising.com
`
`January 3, 2018 /Susan M. Langworthy/
`Susan M. Langworthy
`Talin Gordnia (Reg. No. 76,214)
`Michael Fleming (Reg. No. 67,933)
`Jonathan Kagan (Pro Hac Vice)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Tel.: (310) 277-1010 | Fax: (310) 203-7199
`Attorneys for Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`10169964
`DM2\8435415.2
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
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
