`
`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’ REPLY 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
`
`Petitioners’ Brief (Paper 70) establishes that the amended claims are
`
`unpatentable based on the evidence of record. For Ground 1, the Board determined
`
`“Hunter teaches a piece of central equipment, such as a hub.” Paper 8, 6. Examples
`
`include “multimedia hub 120” and “10Base-T hub 170,” each of which can include
`
`a power supply, and provide power and BaseT data to terminal equipment over a
`
`10Base-T bus. Id.; Paper 70, 2-3 (citing Hunter). The evidence shows each hub is
`
`also a “BaseT Ethernet hub,” as recited in the amended claims. “10Base-T hub
`
`170” meets this limitation, because, as Chrimar agrees, “BaseT” includes 10Base-
`
`T. Paper 26, 18-19. Hub 120 is 10Base-T at least because it provides 10Base-T
`
`Ethernet data over the 10Base-T bus. Paper 1, 25-26. Chrimar’s argument about
`
`the repeater overlooks this. Chrimar’s other arguments are also incorrect. Paper 71,
`
`4-5. They overlook that hub 120 connects to terminal equipment, such as PC 125.
`
`Ex. 1003, 32:16-22; Fig. 1. And the argument about isoEthernet confirms the
`
`references teach developing an isoEthernet system with 10BaseT. Paper 71, 5.
`
`For Ground 2, the Board found that the IEEE references “teach a piece of
`
`central BaseT Ethernet equipment, such as a BaseT Repeater.” Paper 8, 13 (citing
`
`excerpts from IEEE references disclosing repeaters and bridges). Chrimar’s
`
`argument misses the point. Paper 71, 5. The appropriate inquiry is whether the
`
`repeaters and bridges satisfy the BRI of the claim term “hub.” It is not whether
`
`they meet the definition of “hub” in the IEEE references. The BRI of the claim
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01399
`
`term “hub” is not limited to that definition. See Paper 70, 5. Moreover, “hub” in the
`
` U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`
`
`IEEE references does not pertain to 10Base-T or 100Base-T. Rather, it is specific
`
`to Clause 12 of the standard, which is for 1Base5, rather than any or all Base-T.
`
`Ex. 1007, 29 (“hub” references clause 12); Ex. 1006, 207 (clause 12 is for 1Base5).
`
`The Board should not consider Section II of Chrimar’s Response because it
`
`violates the Board’s Order (Paper 69, 3) by not responding to the Opening Brief.
`
`But even if the Board considers it, Chrimar has not shown that the statutes it cites
`
`limit the Director’s jurisdiction over the patentability of the amended claims in this
`
`proceeding. § 314(a) sets the requirements for instituting trial. § 315(b) limits
`
`when a petition may be filed. And § 312(a) sets the requirements for a Petition.
`
`These do not limit the Director’s jurisdiction once trial is instituted. In fact,
`
`§ 315(d) shows the breadth of the Director’s jurisdiction during an IPR proceeding.
`
`Chrimar’s due process argument is unfounded. In In re Nuvasive, Inc., 841
`
`F.3d 966, 968 (2016), the Patent Owner could not file a brief to respond to the
`
`arguments in a Reply. Here, the Board authorized Chrimar to file a brief. Paper 69,
`
`3. The brief itself provides due process. Finally, Chrimar waived any complaints
`
`about additional pages or evidence when it did not propose modifications to the
`
`Board’s Procedure; spent only half its allotted pages on patentability; and chose to
`
`pursue claim amendments in the ex parte reexamination but not in this proceeding.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`January 23, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Talin Gordnia/
`
`Talin Gordnia (Reg. No. 76,214)
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`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’ REPLY 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 23, 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.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
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
