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 Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2016-01399, and 2016-013971
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,942,107 B2, 8,902,760 B2, and 9,019,838 B2
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. VIJAY K. MADISETTI IN SUPPORT OF
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.220
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00718, IPR2017-0719, and IPR2017-
`
`0720 who have been joined to the instant proceeding.
`
`Page 1 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience ..................................................10
`
`Relevant Legal Standards ..............................................................................13
`
`III. Qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art ...........................................15
`
`IV. Background ....................................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Background of the relevant technology ..............................................16
`1.
`Telephone Technology ..............................................................16
`2.
`Ethernet technology differs substantially from telephony ........18
`Overview of Prior Art..........................................................................20
`
`V. Obviousness Combinations Proposed By Petitioners ...................................21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`[GROUNDS 1 AND 2] HUNTER-BULAN and BLOCH -
`HUIZINGA- IEEE: At the Time of the Invention of the
`Chrimar Patents, an Ordinary Artisan Would Not Have Had a
`Reason to Apply Telephone-Based Operating Power To
`Ethernet Terminal Equipment .............................................................21
`1.
`Applying operating power to pre-existing Ethernet
`terminal devices would have destroyed Bob Smith
`terminations and degraded the flow of Ethernet data ...............21
`2. When an unused pair of contacts is available – as in
`Ethernet – an ordinary artisan would supply power over
`the unused pairs, not the data pairs as Petitioners assert ..........24
`[GROUND 1] HUNTER-BULAN: The Combination Does Not
`Disclose Phantom-Powering An Ethernet Terminal Device ..............32
`1.
`Petitioners have failed to show that Hunter’s discussion
`of “Ethernet®” is relevant to the claimed invention .................32
`Hunter’s phantom-power circuit connects a hub to other
`hubs – not to Ethernet terminal equipment ...............................32
`Hunter’s specification confirms that Figure 2 does not
`apply to Ethernet communications ...........................................37
`[GROUND 1] HUNTER-BULAN: Petitioners have not shown
`why an ordinary artisan would have replaced the “preferable”
`protective device described in Hunter with the unnecessarily
`complicated current limiting circuit of Bulan .....................................39
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Page 2 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`D.
`
`[GROUND 2] BLOCH –HUIZINGA-IEEE: The combination
`would not have been obvious to an ordinary artisan because it
`would have disrupted and degraded the Ethernet data signal .............42
`
`VI. U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107 .............................................................................43
`
`A. Overview of the ‘107 Patent ................................................................44
`B.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................48
`1.
`"powered off"; "powered-off Ethernet terminal
`equipment"; "powered-off end device" (Claims 103, 104,
`111, 123, and 125).....................................................................48
`“protocol” (Claims 72 and 123) ................................................49
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1: Hunter in view of Bulan .........................................................................50
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`The Hunter-Bulan combination does not teach the various claim
`limitations requiring “a piece of Ethernet terminal equipment”
`or “end device” that draws different magnitudes of DC current
`to “convey information” about itself ...................................................50
`1.
`All challenged claims: The Hunter-Bulan combination
`does not teach an Ethernet terminal/end device that draws
`different DC currents to convey information about itself .........50
`Claims 43, 103 and 111: The Hunter-Bulan combination
`does not teach the “information to distinguish”
`limitations ..................................................................................54
`All Challenged claims: The portion of Hunter’s Figure 2
`circuit Petitioners identify as the “TE” is not the claimed
`“Ethernet terminal equipment”/“end device” ...........................56
`Claims 74 and 75: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach that “at least one path comprises an electrical
`component,” which is a “resistor” .......................................................60
`Claim 5: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not teach “BaseT
`Ethernet communication signals”........................................................62
`Claims 72 and 123: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach a “detection protocol” ................................................................63
`Claims 103, 104, 111, 123, and 125: The Hunter-Bulan
`combination does not teach the “powered-off” limitations ................64
`
`Ground 2: Bloch in view of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3 ...........................................68
`
`H.
`
`Claims 103, 104, 111, 123, and 125: The Bloch-Huizinga-IEEE
`Combination does not teach the “powered-off Ethernet terminal
`equipment” limitations ........................................................................68
`
`Page 3 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`VII. U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012 .............................................................................71
`
`A. Overview of the ‘012 Patent ................................................................71
`B.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................73
`
`Ground 1: Hunter in view of Bulan .........................................................................74
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`All Claims: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not teach the
`“distinguishing information” limitation ..............................................74
`D. All claims: The portion of Hunter’s Figure 2 circuit Petitioners
`identify as the “TE” is not the claimed “Ethernet data terminal
`equipment” ..........................................................................................77
`Claims 31, 40 and 52: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach that the claimed “path” includes “impedance,” a
`“resistor,” or impedance as “a function of voltage across the
`selected contacts” ................................................................................79
`1.
`Hunter-Bulan does not teach “impedance within the at
`least one path” ...........................................................................79
`Hunter-Bulan does not teach that “the at least one path
`comprises at least one resistor” .................................................82
`Hunter-Bulan does not teach that the impedance is “a
`function of voltage across the selected contacts” .....................83
`Claim 35: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not teach
`“detection protocol” ............................................................................85
`Claim 36: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not teach
`“BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment ..................................................85
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`VIII. U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 .............................................................................87
`
`A. Overview of the ‘760 Patent ................................................................87
`B.
`Claim Construction..............................................................................92
`
`Ground 1: Hunter in view of Bulan .........................................................................93
`
`C.
`
`All asserted claims: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach “a BaseT Ethernet system” ........................................................93
`D. All asserted claims: Hunter-Bulan does not have a “path” for
`DC current flow “between a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment and a piece of central network equipment” .......................94
`Claims 37 and 112: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach that “magnitudes of the current flow through the loop
`represent information about the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment” ............................................................................98
`
`E.
`
`Page 4 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Claims 59 and 134: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach a “detection protocol” ..............................................................100
`Claims 69 and 142: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach the “to distinguish” limitations ................................................100
`Claims 72 and 145: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach the “powered-off” limitations ..................................................101
`
`Ground 2: Bloch in view of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3 .........................................104
`
`I.
`
`Claims 72 and 145: The Bloch-Huizinga-IEEE combination
`does not teach the “powered-off” limitations....................................104
`
`IX. U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 ...........................................................................107
`
`A. Overview of the ‘838 Patent ..............................................................107
`B.
`Claim Construction............................................................................109
`
`Ground 1: Hunter in view of Bulan .......................................................................110
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`All challenged claims: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach the claimed “Ethernet connector . . . .contacts” that both
`(1) are “used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals,”
`and (2) via which “different magnitudes of DC current flow.” ........110
`1.
`Petitioners have failed to show that Hunter’s discussion
`of “Ethernet®” discloses the claimed “contacts used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals” ......................112
`Petitioners have proven their assertion that Hunter
`teaches hub 170 providing phantom power to Ethernet
`terminal devices; on the contrary, Hunter’s phantom-
`power circuit connects one hub to other hubs ........................113
`Hunter’s specification confirms that Figure 2 does not
`apply to Ethernet communications .........................................118
`Claim 2: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not teach a
`“detection protocol” ..........................................................................120
`Claims 26 and 29: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach a central piece of network equipment configured to
`“distinguish” one “end device”/“network object” from another
`“end device”/“network object” ..........................................................121
`
`3.
`
`X.
`
`Conclusion ...................................................................................................122
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`Identifier
`
`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 96, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX,
`LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-
`881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 105, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX,
`LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-
`881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 108, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX,
`LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-
`881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 122, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent, et al., Civil Action No.
`6:15-cv-163-JDL, Eastern District
`of Texas
`2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 123, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-
`Lucent, et al., Civil Action No.
`6:15-cv-163-JDL, Eastern District
`of Texas
`2035 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 318, filed in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc., et al. v. AMX,
`LLC, Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-
`881-JDL, Eastern District of
`Texas
`
`Date
`October 12,
`2016
`
`October 12,
`2016
`
`October 12,
`2016
`
`October 12,
`2016
`
`October 12,
`2016
`
`October 12,
`2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`2040
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2036 Response to Office Action
`(Reexam Control No. 90/009,513)
`(June 15, 2010)
`2037 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte
`Reexamination Certificate
`(Reexam Control No. 90/009,513)
`(Nov. 22, 2010)
`2038 Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`2039 Deposition transcript of Ian
`Crayford
`Slides titled “DTE Power via
`MDI: System Requirements,”
`presented on November 5, 1999
`by Arlan Anderson of Nortel
`Networks
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from March 7-8,
`2000
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from May 24-25,
`2000
`Slides titled “DTE Power over
`MDI: Building Consensus,”
`presented on May 24, 2000 by
`Ralph Andersson of TDK
`Semiconductor, Daniel Dove of
`Hewlett Packard, and Robert Muir
`of Level One Communications
`Slides titled “Powering and
`Discovery Alternatives,”
`presented on May 24, 2000 by
`Arlan Anderson of Nortel
`Networks
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from July 11-12,
`2000
`
`Date
`October 12,
`2016
`
`October 12,
`2016
`
`
`
`
`11/5/1999
`
`Identifier
`
`
`
`
`
`Madisetti Decl.
`¶Dep.
`
`Anderson 1999
`slides
`
`3/7-8/2000
`
`5/24-25/2000
`
`
`
`
`
`5/24/2000
`
`Dove slides
`
`5/24/2000
`
`Anderson 2000
`slides
`
`7/11-12/2000
`
`
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`Page 7 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2046
`
`2047
`
`Description
`Slides titled “Technical Feasibility
`of Sending Common Mode Power
`on the Signal Pairs,” presented on
`May 24, 2000 by Roger Karam
`and Karl Nakamura of Cisco
`Systems
`E. Krol & E. Hoffman, Internet
`Engineering Task Force Network
`Working Group, Request for
`Comments: 1462, “FYI on ‘What
`is the Internet?’”
`2048 Declaration of Clyde Camp
`2049 U.S. Patent No. 5,995,392
`2050 Dr. Vijay Madisetti CV
`
`Date
`
`
`
`Identifier
`Karam slides
`
`May 1993
`
`Krol RFC
`
`
`
`
`
`Camp Decl.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`I, Vijay Madisetti, hereby declare as follows:
`
`
`1.
`
`I am making this declaration at the request of Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Chrimar” or “Patent Owner”) in the matter of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,942,107 (“the ‘107 Patent”), 8,155,012 (“the ‘012 Patent”),
`
`8,902,760 (“the ‘760 Patent”), and 9,019,838 (“the ‘838 Patent”).
`
`
`2.
`
`I have been retained by Patent Owner to serve as a technical expert in
`
`this proceeding to investigate and analyze certain issues relating to the validity of
`
`the claims of the ‘107 Patent, the ‘012 Patent, the ‘760 Patent and the ‘838 Patent.
`
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work in this matter at a rate of
`
`$450/hour. I am also reimbursed for my reasonable expenses incurred in
`
`connection with my work on this proceeding. My compensation in no way
`
`depends on the outcome of this proceeding.
`
`
`4.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the assertions made by Juniper Networks
`
`Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., and Netgear,
`
`Inc., (collectively, “Petitioners”) in the Inter Partes Review of the ‘107 Patent, the
`
`‘012 Patent, the ‘760 Patent, and the ‘838 Patent.
`
`
`
` My opinions are based on my review of the ‘107 Patent, the ‘012 5.
`
`Patent, the ‘760 Patent, the ‘838 Patent and each of the references on which
`
`Petitioners rely. I have also reviewed the documents listed as exhibits to this
`
`declaration. Finally, my opinions are also based on my experience and work in
`
`Page 9 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`this area as described in detail below. In this Declaration, Roman Numerals I-V
`
`apply to all patents and all IPRs. Patent/IPR specific issues are included in Roman
`
`Numerals VI-IX.
`
`I.
`
`Qualifications and Professional Experience
`
`
`6.
`
`I have provided my full background in the curriculum vitae that is
`
`attached as Exhibit 2050.
`
`
`7.
`
`I am a Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Georgia
`
`Institute of Technology (“Georgia Tech”) in Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`
`8.
`
`I obtained my Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
`
`at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989. I received the Demetri
`
`Angelakos Outstanding Graduate Student Award from the University of California,
`
`Berkeley and the IEEE/ACM Ira M. Kay Memorial Paper Prize in 1989.
`
`
`9.
`
`I joined Georgia Tech in the Fall of 1989 and am now a Professor in
`
`Electrical and Computer Engineering. I have been active in the areas of wireless
`
`communications, digital signal processing, integrated circuit design (analog &
`
`digital), software engineering, system-level design methodologies and tools, and
`
`software systems. I have been the principal investigator (“PI”) or co-PI in several
`
`active research programs in these areas, including DARPA’s Rapid Prototyping of
`
`Application Specific Signal Processors, the State of Georgia’s Yamacraw
`
`Initiative, the United States Army’s Federated Sensors Laboratory Program, and
`
`Page 10 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`the United States Air Force Electronics Parts Obsolescence Initiative.
`
`
`10.
`
`I have designed several specialized computer and communication
`
`systems over the past two decades at Georgia Tech for tasks such as wireless audio
`
`and video processing and protocol processing for portable platforms, such as cell
`
`phones and PDAs. I have worked on designing systems that are efficient from
`
`performance, size, weight, area, and thermal considerations. I have developed
`
`courses and classes for the industry on these topics, and many of my lectures in
`
`advanced computer system design, developed under the sponsorship of the United
`
`States Department of Defense in the late 1990s, have been used by several U.S.
`
`and international universities as part of their course work. I graduated more than 20
`
`Ph.D. students that now work as professors or in technical positions around the
`
`world.
`
`
`11.
`
`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.
`
`
`12.
`
`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
`
`Page 11 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`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).
`
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`networks, synchronization of updates across a distributed network, and
`
`multiprocessing systems and tools.
`
`
`14.
`
`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.
`
`
`
` Over the past 20 years, I have worked in and researched in the area of 15.
`
`Page 12 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`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.
`
`
`16.
`
`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,
`
`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.
`
`
`17.
`
`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.
`
`
`18.
`
`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.
`
`II. Relevant Legal Standards
`
`
`
` While I am not an attorney, I have been advised of certain legal 19.
`
`Page 13 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`principles as they relate to patent law. I have applied these legal principles in my
`
`analysis and preparation of this declaration.
`
`
`20.
`
`It is my understanding that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (an ordinary
`
`artisan) to which the subject matter pertains. I also understand that the obviousness
`
`analysis takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior
`
`art and the claimed subject matter.
`
`
`21.
`
`I have been informed that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. I understand some of these rationales include the
`
`following: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results; simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; use of a known technique to improve a similar device (method,
`
`or product) in the same way; applying a known technique to a known device
`
`(method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; choosing
`
`from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
`
`expectation of success; and some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior
`
`Page 14 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to
`
`combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`
`22.
`
`I have been informed that, in seeking to determine whether an
`
`invention that is a combination of known elements would have been obvious to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, one must consider
`
`the references in their entirety to ascertain whether the disclosures in those
`
`references render the combination obvious to such a person.
`
`
`
` Considering a prior art reference in its entirety includes considering 23.
`
`portions of the reference that would lead away or teach away from the claimed
`
`invention. A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
`
`upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
`
`in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
`
`taken by the applicant.
`
`
`24.
`
`I have also been informed that there are secondary considerations or
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness that may also be considered. For example,
`
`evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unmet need, and skepticism in the
`
`industry can provide evidence of non-obviousness.
`
`
`25.
`
`I provide my opinions in this Declaration based on the guidelines set
`
`forth above.
`
`III. Qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`Page 15 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`
`26.
`
`I have reviewed the challenged patents, the prior art references cited
`
`in the Petitions and discussed in this declaration. Based on this review and my
`
`knowledge of electronics and networking equipment, in my opinion, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (an “ordinary artisan”) at the time of the invention would
`
`have been a person who has a B.S. degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering
`
`or computer science, and three years of experience in the design of network
`
`communications products. Such a person would also have been familiar with data
`
`communications protocols, data communications standards (and standards under
`
`development at the time, including the 802.3 standard), and the behavior of data
`
`communications products available on the market.
`
`IV. Background
`
`A. Background of the relevant technology
`
`1.
`
`Telephone Technology
`
`
`
` Petitioners’ prior art references are primarily 27.
`
`telephone-based
`
`technologies that Petitioners assert relate to Chrimar’s Ethernet-focused patents.
`
`But telephone technology is inapplicable to Ethernet technology because the
`
`communications channels for phone systems carry different information (voice) at
`
`lower frequencies, which are not as susceptible to noise and degradation as are
`
`Ethernet communications. As Petitioners explain, “At the time of the invention,
`
`conserving [Ethernet] bandwidth was a known consideration and design motivation
`
`Page 16 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`in the prior art.” (Pet., p. 53.)2 That issue did not exist for voice communications.
`
`
`
` A standard cable “in the telco industry” was a “25-pair cable.” (See 28.
`
`also, Ex.2039 at 146:23-24.) A telephone installation needed only two wires – a
`
`single pair – to carry voice and power a phone. Anyone who is familiar with their
`
`own home phone wiring knows that telephone wires can be split and spliced to
`
`couple multiple phones to a single pair of wires that ultimately connect to the
`
`phone company’s central office. This works because voice communications are bi-
`
`directional on the single wire pair; no special terminations are needed at each
`
`splice.
`
`
`
` Voice communication over phone lines historically had a limited 29.
`
`frequency range of about 400 to 3,400 Hz. (See also., Ex.2039 at 140:25-141:7.)
`
`High frequency noise or other high frequency interference, especially if in a range
`
`above normal human hearing (about 20,000 Hz), would not affect voice
`
`communications on a telephone line. When dealing with phone technology, it was
`
`relatively simple to send power (and data) over the same wires that carried the
`
`voice channel, without affecting the voice communications. (See, e.g., Ex.2039 at
`
`143:5-11.)
`
`
`2 References to “Pet.” refer to the Petition in IPR2016-1091, unless the context
`
`indicates otherwise.
`
`Page 17 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`
`
` Petitioners’ Bloch reference is an example of this. Bloch describes a 30.
`
`telephone system that transmits digital data from a control unit to a terminal using
`
`the same wires used for voice communications. (Ex.1005 at 2:39-45.) The
`
`terminal transmits data back to the control unit by switching a resistor into and out
`
`of the phantom power circuit. (See, e.g., Ex.2039 at 172:2-19.) Because the
`
`switch is sending data (1’s and 0’s) at a high rate, the noise it creates would be
`
`inaudible to people talking on the phone lines. Bloch does not contemplate use of
`
`his circuitry in Ethernet systems (See, e.g., Ex.2039 at 166:22-24) because the
`
`same noise would interfere with the Ethernet data communications.
`
`2.
`
`Ethernet technology differs substantially from
`telephony
`
`
`
` Unlike telephony, Ethernet systems are designed for high-speed, high 31.
`
`frequency communication of digital data. Ethernet data is transmitted at
`
`frequencies in the tens of megahertz, thousands of times greater than the
`
`frequencies used in telephony (400 to 3,400 Hz). (See, e.g., Ex.2039 at 141:9-14,
`
`140:25-141:7.) Ethernet communications are much more susceptible to noise and
`
`degradation than voice communications. (See, e.g., Ex.2039 at 143:5-11.)
`
`
`32.
`
` The IEEE published the first Ethernet standard, which covered
`
`“10Base-T,” in 1993. (Ex.1006, p. 1.) The IEEE published another standard
`
`covering “100Base-T” Ethernet in 1995. (Ex.1007, p. 1.)
`
`
`
` By 1995, phantom powering for voice communications was well-33.
`
`Page 18 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 2106-01389, 2016-01399, and 2016-01397
`
`
`known. Nevertheless, 10Base-T (1993) and 100Base-T (1995) did not employ
`
`phantom powering for Ethernet communications. Unlike telephony, in which a
`
`single wire pair can communicate bi-directionally, Ethernet data can only travel
`
`one direction on a wire-pair. To send data back, a second wire-pair is needed.
`
`
`
` By 1995, “Bob Smith” terminations – so called because they were 34.
`
`invented by Bob Smith – and “common mode chokes” were prevalent in installed
`
`Ethernet networking equipment. (See, e.g., Ex.2039 at 43:20-44:2, 45:6-8.) These
`
`special terminations were necessary for “Base-T” Ethernet “to clean up [the] signal
`
`and minimize emissions. (Id. at 43:11-18.)
`
`
`35.
`
`If the Bob Smith terminations were damaged, for example by adding
`
`power to the data lines, it would impair the signal integrity and degrade the
`
`propagation of Ethernet data. (Id. at 45:10-21.) Similarly, adding power to an
`
`Ethernet cable could saturate the common mode chokes, interfering with the
`
`Ethernet transmission.
`
`
`
` As late as 1999-2000, the IEEE experts were skeptical that the same 36.
`
`wires could be used to deliver operating power and data to Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment without damaging the equipment or degrading the Ethernet data signal.
`
`
`
` At the time of Chrimar’s invention (1997), “Standard 10Base-T 37.
`
`Ethernet [was] still the most common type of network architecture in use.”
`
`Page 19 of 123
`
`
`
`
`CHRIMAR 2038
`
`

`

`
`Case Nos. IPR2016-01391, 210