Paper 8
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: January 4, 2017
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and 145 of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’760 patent”). Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) to the Petition. An inter partes review
`may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the
`petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 1, 31, 37,
`59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent. Accordingly,
`we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and 145 of the ’760 patent on the grounds specified below.
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’760 patent is the subject of several cases
`in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and the United
`States District Court for the Northern District of California. Pet. 1; Paper 5,
`2–3; Ex. 1012. The parties also indicate that the following petitions for inter
`partes review are related to this case:
`Case No.
`IPR2016-00569
`IPR2016-00573
`IPR2016-00574
`IPR2016-00983
`IPR2016-01151
`IPR2016-01389
`
`Involved U.S. Patent No.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`IPR2016-01391
`IPR2016-01397
`IPR2016-01425
`IPR2016-01426
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 3.
`B.
`The ’760 Patent
`The ’760 patent relates to a system for managing, tracking, and
`identifying remotely located electronic equipment. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 27–
`30. According to the ’760 patent, one of the difficulties in managing a
`computerized office environment is keeping track of a company’s electronic
`assets. Id. at col. 1, ll. 32–57. Previous systems for tracking electronic
`assets suffered from several deficiencies. Id. at col. 1, ll. 62–65. For
`example, previous systems could not determine the connection status or
`physical location of the asset and could only track those assets that were
`powered-up. Id. at col. 1, l. 65–col. 2, l. 2.
`To address these deficiencies, the ’760 patent describes a system for
`tracking an electronic asset using existing network wires. Id. at col. 2, ll. 3–
`6, col. 3, ll. 23–27. The system includes a central module and a remote
`module. Id. at col. 3, ll. 27–30. The remote module attaches to the
`electronic asset and transmits information to the central module by
`impressing a low frequency signal on the existing network wires. Id. A
`receiver in the central module monitors the information transmitted by the
`remote module. Id. at col. 3, ll. 30–32. The central module determines if the
`location of the electronic asset changes, and a database is updated
`accordingly. Id. at col. 3, ll. 37–40.
`C.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claims 1 and 73 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`4
`
`1. A BaseT Ethernet system comprising:
`a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment;
`a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment;
`data signaling pairs of conductors comprising first and
`second pairs used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment
`and the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment, the first
`and second pairs physically connect between the piece of BaseT
`Ethernet terminal equipment and the piece of central BaseT
`Ethernet equipment, the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment having at least one DC supply, the piece of BaseT
`Ethernet terminal equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow from the at least one DC
`supply through a loop formed over at least one of the
`conductors of the first pair and at least one of the conductors of
`the second pair, the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment
`to detect at least two different magnitudes of the current flow
`through the loop and to control the application of at least one
`electrical condition to at least two of the conductors.
`Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 16–36.
`D.
`Evidence of Record
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration (Pet. 7):
`Reference or Declaration
`Exhibit No.
`Declaration of Ian Crayford (“Crayford Declaration”)
`Ex. 1002
`Hunter et al., PCT Publication No. WO 96/23377
`Ex. 1003
`(published Aug. 1, 1996) (“Hunter”)
`Bulan et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 (issued Feb. 18,
`1992) (“Bulan”)
`Bloch et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 (issued Nov. 6,
`1979) (“Bloch”)
`The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
`IEEE Standard 802.3-1993 (1993) (“IEEE 802.3-1993”)
`The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995 (1995) (“IEEE 802.3-1995”)
`Huizinga et al., U.S. Patent No. 4,046,972 (issued Sept. 6,
`1977) (“Huizinga”)
`
`Ex. 1007,
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Reference(s)
`Hunter and Bulan
`
`E.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds (Pet. 7):
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72,
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`73, 106, 112, 134,
`142, and 145
`1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72,
`73, 106, 112, 134,
`142, and 145
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Bloch, Huizinga, IEEE
`802.3-1993, and IEEE
`802.3-1995
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–45 (2016). The parties propose construing several claim
`terms in the ’760 patent. Pet. 5–7; Prelim. Resp. 13–15. On this record and
`for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require
`express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted
`grounds of unpatentability in this case. See infra Section II.B; Vivid Techs.,
`Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly
`those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`B.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1.
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and 145 Over Hunter and Bulan
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134,
`142, and 145 would have been obvious over Hunter and Bulan. Pet. 7. We
`have reviewed the parties’ assertions and supporting evidence. For the
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`reasons discussed below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134,
`142, and 145 would have been obvious over Hunter and Bulan.
`a.
`Claims 1 and 73
`Claim 1 recites “a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment” and “a
`piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 17–18.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Hunter teaches a piece of
`central equipment, such as a hub, and a piece of terminal equipment, such as
`an Integrated Services Terminal Equipment (“ISTE”) device, which
`communicate with one another using BaseT Ethernet signals. Pet. 26–29
`(citing Ex. 1003, 23:19–21, 32:3–4, 32:7–9, 34:18, 37:19–26, 39:14–15, Fig.
`2). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of
`Hunter and Bulan teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “data signaling pairs of conductors comprising first
`and second pairs used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals
`between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment and the piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment, the first and second pairs physically
`connect between the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and the
`piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 19–25.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that, in Hunter, the piece of central
`equipment and the piece of terminal equipment are physically connected to a
`BaseT Ethernet bus with two twisted pair conductors for carrying signals
`between the piece of central equipment and the piece of terminal equipment.
`Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1003, 36:6–12, 37:17–28, Fig. 2). On this record,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Hunter and Bulan
`teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment having
`at least one DC supply, the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`having at least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow from
`the at least one DC supply through a loop formed over at least one of the
`conductors of the first pair and at least one of the conductors of the second
`pair.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 26–32. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating
`that the piece of central equipment in Hunter includes a DC power supply.
`Pet. 30 (Ex. 1003, 35:29, 37:26–28). Petitioner also identifies evidence
`indicating that the piece of terminal equipment in Hunter includes a DC-to-
`DC converter that draws different magnitudes of current flow from the DC
`power supply over the two twisted pair conductors in the BaseT Ethernet
`bus. Pet. 13, 30–34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 74, 109–111; Ex. 1003, 35:27–
`38:25, 39:5–8; Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 52–65).
`Patent Owner responds that Hunter does not teach the above limitation
`of claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 21–25. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that
`“[a]lthough Hunter supplies DC current from the power supply to the
`connected device . . . it does not show a path in the terminal device
`continuing back to the power supply.” Id. at 24. According to Patent
`Owner, “the input path simply ends at the device—there is no loop.” Id. On
`this record, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Even assuming that
`Hunter does not teach expressly that the DC current flows back to the power
`supply from the piece of terminal equipment, Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that
`such a path existed in the system taught by Hunter. Pet. 30–32 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶ 109). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Hunter and Bulan teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment to
`detect at least two different magnitudes of the current flow through the loop
`and to control the application of at least one electrical condition to at least
`two of the conductors.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 32–36. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Bulan teaches a current control apparatus that
`detects whether DC current flow in a path exceeds static and dynamic
`current limits. Pet. 22–23, 32–34 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 57–65, col. 2,
`ll. 1–7, col. 2, ll. 31–36, col. 3, ll. 3–12, col. 4, ll. 7–10, col. 4, ll. 23–24, col.
`5, ll. 36–46, col. 6, ll. 36–39). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating
`that, in response to detecting DC current flow that exceeds the static and
`dynamic current limits, the current control apparatus in Bulan switches a
`high impedance into the path.1 Pet. 23, 33, 35 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll.
`28–29, col. 1, ll. 60–65, col. 3, ll. 13–21, col. 4, ll. 35–40, col. 4, ll. 62–64,
`col. 6, ll. 36–51). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Hunter and Bulan teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine the cited
`teachings in Hunter and Bulan. Pet. 10–15. According to Petitioner, Bulan
`teaches that typical current protection circuits are inadequate because they
`cannot distinguish between unintended operational faults and normal power
`up events. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 1, ll. 26–31, col. 1, l. 52–col. 2, l.
`
`
`1 Petitioner further identifies evidence indicating that the current control
`apparatus in Bulan detects whether the high impedance reduces the DC
`current flow to a trickle or zero, and, if the DC current flow is reduced to
`zero, the current control apparatus switches the high impedance out of the
`path. Pet. 23, 33–35 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 2, ll. 60–65, col. 3, ll. 22–25, col.
`4, ll. 35–40, col. 4, l. 67–col. 5, l. 1, col. 6, ll. 47–58).
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`1). Petitioner points out that the protective device in Hunter is a simple
`thermistor or polyfuse, and, thus, suffers from the deficiency identified in
`Bulan. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:12–19). Petitioner argues that it would
`have been obvious to replace the protective device in Hunter with the current
`control apparatus in Bulan because a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have recognized that “the Bulan current control apparatus would be a
`superior alternative to Hunter’s existing protective device.” Pet. 12–13
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 74, 75). Petitioner further argues that the proposed
`combination would have been a straightforward task with a reasonable
`expectation of success. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76, 77).
`Patent Owner responds that Hunter and Bulan teach away from the
`proposed combination. Prelim. Resp. 19–21. In particular, Patent Owner
`argues that Hunter teaches a system that provides operating power to
`multiple devices over a shared bus, and Bulan teaches a current control
`apparatus that cuts off power during device startup. Id. at 19–20. Patent
`Owner contends that, as a result, if the current control apparatus in Bulan
`were combined with the system in Hunter, “any time one of the end devices
`connected along the bus were plugged in, power to all of the devices
`connected on the bus would necessarily be cut off as well, until the new
`device had completed the startup process.” Id. at 20 (emphasis omitted).
`According to Patent Owner, this result would have been “unacceptable.” Id.
`
`On this record, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. As
`discussed above, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to replace the
`protective device in Hunter with the current control apparatus in Bulan
`because the current control apparatus in Bulan can distinguish between
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`unintended operational faults and normal power up events. Pet. 12–13
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 74, 75). Even assuming that the current control
`apparatus in Bulan would temporarily cut off power to all the devices
`sharing the bus in Hunter, Patent Owner does not direct us to specific
`evidence indicating that this result would have discouraged a person of
`ordinary skill in the art from combining Hunter and Bulan to achieve the
`aforementioned benefits identified by Petitioner. See Prelim. Resp. 19–21;
`Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir.
`2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another
`benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the
`disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another.”).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious
`over Hunter and Bulan. Claim 73 recites limitations similar to those
`discussed above with respect to claim 1. Pet. 42; Ex. 1001, col. 21, ll. 37–
`52. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, Petitioner
`demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 73
`would have been obvious over Hunter and Bulan.
`b.
`Claims 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and
`145
`Claims 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 depend from
`claim 1 or claim 73. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that the
`combination of Hunter and Bulan teaches the limitations in claims 31, 37,
`59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145. Pet. 35–42. Patent Owner responds
`that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Hunter and
`Bulan teaches the limitations in claims 31 and 69. Prelim. Resp. 26–29. We
`address Patent Owner’s arguments below.
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`Claim 31 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein the BaseT
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment comprises a controller coupled to the at least
`one path.” Ex. 1001, col. 19, ll. 34–36. Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
`art that the piece of terminal equipment in Hunter includes a controller
`coupled to the path. Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 120; Ex. 1003, 10:12–14).
`Patent Owner repeats its previous argument that the combination of Hunter
`and Bulan does not teach the path recited in claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 28.
`Patent Owner contends that, as a result, the combination of Hunter and
`Bulan cannot teach a controller coupled “to the undisclosed, nonexistent
`path.” Id. On this record, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive for the
`same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
`Claim 69 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein the piece of
`central BaseT Ethernet equipment to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment from at least one other piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 21, ll. 22–25. Petitioner argues that the current
`control apparatus in Bulan determines whether DC current flow exceeds
`static and dynamic current limits, and, thus, distinguishes one piece of
`terminal equipment that is drawing a potentially dangerous inrush of current
`from another piece of terminal equipment that is not drawing a potentially
`dangerous inrush of current. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex. 1004, col. 3, ll. 3–21,
`col. 4, ll. 35–50, col. 6, ll. 36–47). Petitioner also argues that the current
`control apparatus in Bulan observes an iterative pattern that is unique to a
`particular piece of terminal equipment, and, as a result, distinguishes that
`piece of terminal equipment from other pieces of terminal equipment. Pet.
`39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 128; Ex. 1004, col. 7, ll. 11–14).
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner responds that, in the proposed combination of Hunter
`and Bulan, all the end devices are connected to the same bus and share a
`common power source. Prelim. Resp. 26. According to Patent Owner,
`“because current flows indiscriminately between the power source and the
`devices connected to the bus, it is impossible for the power source to
`distinguish any particular device from any other device using different
`magnitudes of current.” Id. Patent Owner further argues that, during an ex
`parte reexamination of a patent related to the ’760 patent, the Examiner
`addressed Hunter and explained that a device connected to a bus cannot
`communicate information about itself using altered current flow. Id. at 27
`(citing Ex. 2036, 24–30; Ex. 2037, 3).
`
`On this record, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. As
`discussed above, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that the current
`control apparatus in Bulan observes an iterative pattern that is unique to a
`particular piece of terminal equipment, and, as a result, distinguishes that
`piece of terminal equipment from other pieces of terminal equipment. Pet.
`39 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 128; Ex. 1004, col. 7, ll. 11–14). Patent Owner does
`not identify persuasive evidence indicating that the current control apparatus
`in Bulan would not have been able to observe a unique iterative pattern over
`a bus. See Prelim. Resp. 26–28.
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112,
`134, 142, and 145 would have been obvious over Hunter and Bulan.
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106,
`112, 134, 142, and 145 Over Bloch, Huizinga, IEEE
`802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134,
`142, and 145 would have been obvious over Bloch, Huizinga, IEEE 802.3-
`1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995. Pet. 7. We have reviewed the parties’
`assertions and supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed below,
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`claims 1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 would have
`been obvious over Bloch, Huizinga, IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-
`1995.
`
`a.
`Claims 1 and 73
`Claim 1 recites “a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment” and “a
`piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 17–18.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that IEEE 802.3-1993 and IEEE
`802.3-1995 teach a piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment, such as a
`BaseT Repeater, and a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment, such as
`a piece of Data Terminal Equipment (“DTE”). Pet. 55–56 (citing Ex. 1006,
`243, 267; Ex. 1007, 27; Ex. 1008, 303–304). On this record, Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Bloch, Huizinga, IEEE 802.3-
`1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995 teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “data signaling pairs of conductors comprising first
`and second pairs used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals
`between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment and the piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment, the first and second pairs physically
`connect between the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and the
`piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 19–25.
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that IEEE 802.3-1993 teaches
`Ethernet cables that physically connect the piece of central equipment and
`the piece of terminal equipment. Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1006, 266, Figs. 14-
`20, 14-21). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that the Ethernet
`cables in IEEE 802.3-1993 comprise one pair of conductors used to transmit
`BaseT communication signals and a second pair of conductors used to
`receive BaseT communications signals. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1006, 266–267,
`Fig. 14-22). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Bloch, Huizinga, IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995
`teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment having
`at least one DC supply, the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`having at least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow from
`the at least one DC supply through a loop formed over at least one of the
`conductors of the first pair and at least one of the conductors of the second
`pair.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 26–32. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating
`that Bloch teaches a telephone system that includes a control unit with a DC
`power supply. Pet. 57–58 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 2–10, col. 4, ll. 14–18,
`col. 6, ll. 27–40, Fig. 1). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that
`Bloch teaches a terminal that draws different magnitudes of current flow
`from the DC power supply over two pairs of conductors by switching a
`resistor into and out of a path between the control unit and the terminal. Pet.
`58–59 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 20–27, col. 5, ll. 44–55, col. 6, ll. 2–10,
`col. 6, ll. 27–40, col. 9, ll. 6–22). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the combination of Bloch, Huizinga, IEEE 802.3-1993, and
`IEEE 802.3-1995 teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Claim 1 recites “the piece of central BaseT Ethernet equipment to
`detect at least two different magnitudes of the current flow through the loop
`and to control the application of at least one electrical condition to at least
`two of the conductors.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 32–36. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that the control unit in Bloch detects the DC current
`pulses applied to the path by the terminal. Pet. 60 (Ex. 1005, col. 5, ll. 56–
`59, col. 5, l. 64–col. 6, l. 2, col. 10, ll. 56–65). Petitioner also identifies
`evidence indicating that, in response to the DC current pulses applied by the
`terminal, the control unit in Bloch applies a voltage pulse to the path to
`control indicators in the terminal. Pet. 60–61 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 6, ll. 62–
`65, col. 8, ll. 6–9, col. 10, ll. 41–55, col. 10, l. 66–col. 11, l. 10). In addition,
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that, in Huizinga, the indicators in
`the terminal are lamps associated with different telephone lines. Pet. 61
`(citing Ex. 1009, col. 4, ll. 26–30, col. 5, ll. 29–39). On this record,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Bloch, Huizinga,
`IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995 teaches the above limitation of
`claim 1.
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine the cited
`teachings in Bloch and Huizinga. Pet. 53. Specifically, Petitioner points out
`that Bloch and Huizinga both relate to telephone systems with bi-directional
`signaling. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract; Ex. 1009, Abstract). In addition,
`Petitioner argues that Bloch teaches a control unit that detects the status of
`different telephone lines in a terminal and controls indicators in the terminal,
`and Huizinga teaches that the indicators in Bloch can be lamps associated
`with different telephone lines. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 5, l. 64–col. 6, l.
`2, col. 11, ll. 1–10; Ex. 1009, col. 4, ll. 19–25, col. 5, ll. 29–34).
`
`15
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner responds that, even if Bloch and Huizinga relate to
`similar subject matter, that alone is not sufficient to show that it would have
`been obvious to combine Bloch and Huizinga. Prelim. Resp. 30–31. On
`this record, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Petitioner does
`more than just show that Bloch and Huizinga relate to similar subject matter.
`As discussed above, Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Bloch
`teaches a control unit that detects the status of different telephone lines in a
`terminal and controls indicators in the terminal, and Huizinga teaches that
`the indicators in Bloch can be lamps. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1005, col. 5, l. 64–
`col. 6, l. 2, col. 11, ll. 1–10; Ex. 1009, col. 4, ll. 19–25, col. 5, ll. 29–34).
`We are persuaded, on this record, that the interrelated teachings in Bloch and
`Huizinga are sufficient to show that there would have been a reason to
`combine Bloch and Huizinga. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 418 (2007) (explaining that “interrelated teachings” of multiple prior art
`references may provide a reason to combine known elements).
`Moreover, even if Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that it would
`have been obvious to combine Bloch and Huizinga, we are persuaded, on
`this record, that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`in showing that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Bloch,
`IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995, without Huizinga. Pet. 55–66.
`We, therefore, also institute an inter partes review on the ground that claims
`1, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 would have been
`obvious over Bloch, IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995, without
`Huizinga.
`Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to combine the cited
`teachings in Bloch with the cited teachings in IEEE 802.3-1993 and IEEE
`
`16
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`802.3-1995. Pet. 53–55. Specifically, Petitioner contends that combining
`the phantom power circuit in Bloch with the Ethernet network in IEEE
`802.3-1993 and IEEE 802.3-1995 would have the “benefit of supplying
`power over the same wires used for the Ethernet communication channel,”
`which “eliminates the need to provide a local power supply or separate
`conductors and connectors for powering the DTE device.” Id. at 53–54
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 160). Petitioner argues that the proposed combination
`also has the “benefit of providing bi-directional signaling of status and
`control information over the same wires used for the Ethernet
`communication channel (voice data), but without using any bandwidth from
`that channel.” Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 160).
`Patent Owner responds that it would not have been obvious to
`combine Bloch with IEEE 802.3-1993 and IEEE 802.3-1995 for several
`reasons. Prelim. Resp. 31–36. First, Patent Owner argues that “the
`inventors of the ’760 Patent were not looking for a way to provide operating
`power to Ethernet terminal equipment over the same twisted-pair cables
`used to transmit data.” Id. at 33. On this record, Patent Owner’s argument
`is not persuasive. “[T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one
`of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420.
`Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field
`of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide
`a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id.
`
`Second, Patent Owner argues that “even if the inventors of the ’760
`Patent had been looking for a way to power Ethernet terminal devices over
`the same twisted-pair cables used to transmit data, they would not have
`found it in Bloch” because “[p]roviding power to key telephones was not the
`
`17
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`innovative feature of Bloch.”2 Prelim. Resp. 34. On this record, Patent
`Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Patent Owner does not provide a
`specific explanation indicating why a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would only consider Bloch for its “innovative feature,” and not any of its
`other teachings. See id.
`
`Third, Patent Owner argues that “the inventors of the ’760 Patent
`would not have looked to Bloch to find a way to achieve bi-directional
`signaling of status and control information over Ethernet cables” because
`“[b]y their nature, Ethernet communications allow bi-directional signaling of
`status and control information, as well as data.” Prelim. Resp. 34. On this
`record, Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive. Petitioner argues that
`the benefit of combining Bloch with IEEE 802.3-1993 and IEEE 802.3-1995
`was more than just providing bi-directional signaling of status and control
`information over Ethernet cables; the benefit was doing so without using any
`bandwidth from the Ethernet communication channel. Pet. 54 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶ 160). Patent Owner does not identify specific evidence indicating
`that, as of the filing date of the ’760 patent, existing Ethernet systems
`allowed for bi-directional signaling of status and control information over
`Ethernet cables without using any bandwidth from the Ethernet
`communication channel. See Prelim. Resp. 34–35.
`
`
`2 Patent Owner also contends that “[n]othing in Bloch teaches or suggests
`providing enough power to operate Ethernet terminal equipment such as
`computers.” Prelim. Resp. 34. However, as discussed above, Petitioner
`relies on the combination of Bloch, IEEE 802.3-1993, and IEEE 802.3-1995,
`not Bloch alone, to teach detecting DC current flow over Ethernet cables.
`Pet. 56–61.
`
`18
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01399
`Patent 8,902,760 B2
`
`Fourth, Patent Owner argues