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 IPR2016-013991
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.220
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00719, who have been joined to the
`
`instant proceeding.
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... i
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. iv
`
`List of Exhibits ........................................................................................................... v
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Summary of Patent Owner Response .............................................................. 1
`
`III. Background ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`Background of the technology relevant to the patent ........................... 4
`1.
`Telephone technology ................................................................. 4
`2.
`Ethernet technology differs substantially from telephony .......... 6
`The invention of the ‘760 Patent claims ............................................... 8
`The challenged claims of the ‘760 patent ...........................................10
`Level of ordinary skill .........................................................................14
`The prior art on which Petitioners rely ...............................................15
`
`IV. Standard for Inter Partes Review ..................................................................15
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`“powered off”; “powered-off Ethernet terminal equipment”;
`“powered-off end device” (Claims 103, 104, 111, 123, and 125) ......16
`“protocol” (Claim 72) ..........................................................................18
`“BaseT” (claim 5) ................................................................................18
`
`VI. No Reason to Combine - An Ordinary Artisan Would Not Have Made
`Petitioners’ Proposed Combinations .............................................................19
`
`A.
`
`For both combinations: at the time of the invention, an ordinary
`artisan would have had a reason to apply telephone-based
`phantom operating power to Ethernet terminal equipment .................19
`1.
`Applying operating power to pre-existing Ethernet
`terminal devices would not have destroyed Bob Smith
`terminations, saturated the common mode chokes, and
`thus degraded the propagation of Ethernet data .......................19
`2. When an unused pair of contacts is available – as in
`Ethernet – an ordinary artisan would have supplied
`power over the unused pairs, not the data pairs as
`Petitioners assert .......................................................................22
`
`i
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Additionally for Bloch-Huizinga-IEEE: An ordinary artisan
`would not have applied Bloch’s telephone-based phantom
`power to Ethernet terminal equipment for the additional reason
`that Bloch would have disrupted and degraded the Ethernet data
`signal....................................................................................................32
`Petitioners mistakenly assert that Hunter teaches phantom
`powering of Ethernet terminal equipment ...........................................34
`1.
`Petitioners have failed to show that Hunter’s discussion
`of “Ethernet®” is relevant to the claimed invention .................34
`Petitioners have not proven their assertion that Hunter
`teaches hub 170 providing phantom power to Ethernet
`terminal devices; on the contrary, Hunter’s phantom-
`power circuit connects a hub to other hubs – not to
`Ethernet terminal devices ..........................................................35
`Hunter’s specification confirms that Figure 2 does not
`apply to Ethernet communications ...........................................40
`D. Additionally for Hunter-Bulan: An ordinary artisan would not
`have replaced Hunter’s “preferable” protective device with the
`unnecessarily complicated current limiting circuit of Bulan ..............42
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`VII. The Proposed Hunter-Bulan Combination Does Not Disclose
`Limitations of the Claims ..............................................................................45
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`A. All challenged claims: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach “a BaseT Ethernet system” ........................................................45
`All challenged 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” .......................47
`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” ............................................................................50
`Claims 59 and 134: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`have a “detection protocol” .................................................................52
`Claims 69 and 142: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach the “to distinguish” limitations ..................................................53
`Claims 72 and 145: The Hunter-Bulan combination does not
`teach the “powered-off” limitations ....................................................54
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`VIII. Claims 72 and 145: The Proposed Bloch-Huizinga-IEEE Combination
`Does Not Teach the “Powered-Off” Limitations ..........................................58
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`IX. Conclusion .....................................................................................................61
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................62
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 .......................................64
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Depomed, Inc.,
`
`IPR2014-00656, Paper 66 at 27 (September 21, 2015) .......................... 32, 45
`
`Gillette Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.,
`
`919 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .......................................................................27
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`
`688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .....................................................................16
`
`KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`
`550 U.S. 398 (2007).......................................................................................16
`
`MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00877, Paper 8 at 22 (September 9, 2015) .............................. 31, 45
`
`Monarch Knitting Mach. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH,
`
`139 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................27
`
`Stryker Corp. v. Karl Storz Endoscopy Am., Inc.,
`
`IPR2015-00764, Paper 13 at 13 (September 2, 2015) ...................................43
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .....................................................................27
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ...................................................................................................15
`35 U.S.C. §103 .........................................................................................................16
`37 C.F.R. § 42.220 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Identifier
`
`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
`2036 Response to Office Action (Reexam
`Control No. 90/009,513) (June 15,
`2010)
`
`Date
`10/22/2014
`
`1/8/2015
`
`1/16/2015
`
`3/28/2016
`
`3/28/2016
`
`9/27/2016
`
`6/15/2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Date
`11/22/2010
`
`
`
`Identifier
`
`
`
`11/5/1999
`
`Madisetti Decl.
`Crayford 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Karam slides
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`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
`2040
`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
`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
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Date
`May 1993
`
`Identifier
`Krol RFC
`
`
`
`
`
`Camp Decl.
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2047
`
`Description
`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 Madisetti Curriculum Vitae
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.220, Patent Owner, Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`(“Chrimar”), submits the following Response to the consolidated Petitions.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`On December 22, 2016, the Board instituted IPR2016-01399, filed by
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), concerning claims 11, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 73,
`
`106, 112, 134, 142, and 145 of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 (“the ‘760 Patent”).
`
`(Paper 9.) That IPR is referred to as the “Juniper IPR.” Unless otherwise stated,
`
`all references to Paper numbers, Petition page numbers, and Exhibit page and
`
`paragraph numbers are references to the Juniper IPR.
`
`On March 15, 2017, the Board instituted IPR2017-00719, joined it with the
`
`Juniper IPR, and terminated IPR2017-00719. (Paper 25 at 5-6.) The various
`
`Petitioners are referred to collectively as “Petitioners.”
`
`II.
`
`Summary of Patent Owner Response
`
`The ‘760 Patent claims an innovative and beneficial Ethernet system having
`
`a central piece of Ethernet equipment coupled to Ethernet terminal equipment
`
`using two pairs of wires. The claimed system improved on then-existing Ethernet
`
`systems because it enabled communication of Ethernet data while DC current was
`
`flowing on the same wires. Although phantom-power systems worked in
`
`telephony with voice communications, the experts were skeptical that it would
`
`1
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`work with Ethernet, especially in view of the large installed base of such Ethernet
`
`systems at the time of the invention.
`
`Petitioners argue that the ‘760 Patent claims would have been obvious in
`
`view of two combinations of references: (1) WO 96/23377 (“Hunter”) (Ex.1003) in
`
`view of U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 (“Bulan”) (Ex.1004); and (2) U.S. Patent No.
`
`4,173,714 (“Bloch”) (Ex.1005) in view of U.S. Patent 4,046,972 (“Huizinga”)2
`
`(Ex.1009) and IEEE 802.3 (1993 and 1995) 10Base-T and 100Base-T Ethernet
`
`specifications (Exs.1006-1008). Petitioners argue that these references teach
`
`providing operating DC current over data wires (“phantom powering”), that such
`
`“phantom powering” would have been used to power Ethernet terminal equipment
`
`in an Ethernet network, and that their proposed combinations meet all the claim
`
`limitations. Petitioners fail for several reasons.
`
`First, as explained in Section VI., objective, historical evidence shows that
`
`an ordinary artisan would not have combined these references, and applied
`
`phantom operating power, as Petitioners propose. Among other things, applying
`
`
`2 Petitioners’ expert stated emphatically at his deposition that Petitioners have
`
`dropped their reliance on Huizinga (“literally Huizinga, there's no part of his circuit
`
`that’s used in the combination”), leaving just the Bloch-IEEE 802.3 combination.
`
`(Exhibit 2039 at 173:24-175:20; 179:4-8.)
`
`2
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`phantom power as taught by Petitioners’ references, in an Ethernet network at the
`
`time of Chrimar’s invention, would have destroyed a critical circuit – known by its
`
`inventor’s name as the “Bob Smith” termination – on the millions of installed
`
`Ethernet terminal devices. Petitioners’ expert could not articulate how this
`
`problem could have been solved at the time of the Chrimar invention. These
`
`objective facts apply to both combinations, and there are additional reasons not to
`
`combine specific to each of the combinations (see Sections VI. B.-D.).
`
`Second, and explained in Section VI, the Hunter-Bulan combination does
`
`not disclose the following claim limitations:
`
` a path from a central device to an Ethernet terminal/end device, but
`
`the path Petitioners rely on connects only to an intermediate device;
`
` “magnitudes of
`
`the current flow
`
`through
`
`the
`
`loop represent
`
`information about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment”
`
`(claims 37, 112);
`
` a “protocol” (claims 59, 134);
`
` “distinguish[ing]” one Ethernet terminal device from another Ethernet
`
`terminal device (claims 69, 142); or
`
` “powered-off” Ethernet terminal equipment (claims 72, 145).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`Third, the Bloch-Huizinga-IEEE combination, likewise does not teach the
`
`critical “powered-off” Ethernet terminal equipment limitation of claims 72 and
`
`145.
`
`III. Background
`
`A. Background of the technology relevant to the patent
`
`1.
`
`Telephone technology
`
`Petitioners’ prior art references are primarily telephone-based technologies
`
`that Petitioners assert relate to Chrimar’s Ethernet-focused patents. But telephone
`
`technology is not so easily applied 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
`
`Ethernet communications. (Ex.2038, Dr. Madisetti Decl., ¶27.) As Petitioners
`
`explain, “At the time of the invention, conserving [Ethernet] bandwidth was a
`
`known consideration and design motivation in the prior art.” (Pet. at 54.) That
`
`issue did not exist for voice communications. (Ex.2038, ¶27.) Petitioners have
`
`failed to address this issue in their Petitions.
`
`A standard cable “in the telco industry” was a “25-pair cable.” (Ex.2039 at
`
`146:23-24.) A telephone installation needed only two wires – a single pair – to
`
`carry voice and power a phone. (Ex.2038, ¶28.) Anyone who is familiar with their
`
`own home phone wiring knows that telephone wires can be split and spliced to
`
`4
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`couple multiple phones to a single pair of wires that ultimately connect to the
`
`phone company’s central office. (Id.) This works because voice communications
`
`are bi-directional on the single wire pair; no special terminations are needed at
`
`each splice. (Id.)
`
`Voice communication over phone lines historically had a limited frequency
`
`range of about 400 to 3,400 Hz. (Ex.2038, ¶29; 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. (Ex.2038, ¶29.) Thus, 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.
`
`(Id.)
`
`A good example of this is Petitioners’ Bloch reference. Bloch describes a
`
`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. (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. (Ex.2038, ¶30.) But Bloch does not
`
`contemplate use of his circuitry in Ethernet systems (Ex.2039 at 166:22-24), and
`
`5
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`for good reason – the same noise would interfere with the Ethernet data
`
`communications. (Ex.2038, ¶30.)
`
`2.
`
`Ethernet technology differs substantially from
`telephony
`
`Unlike telephony, Ethernet systems are designed for high-speed, high
`
`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). (Ex.2039 at 141:9-14, 140:25-
`
`141:7; Ex.2038, ¶31.) Ethernet communications are much more susceptible to
`
`noise and degradation than voice communications. (Ex.2038, ¶31; Ex.2039 at
`
`143:5-11.)
`
` The IEEE published an Ethernet standard, which covered “10Base-T,” in
`
`1993. (Ex.2038, ¶32; Ex.1006.) The IEEE published another standard covering
`
`“100Base-T” Ethernet in 1995. (Ex.2038, ¶32; Ex.1007.)
`
`By 1995, phantom powering for voice communications was well-
`
`known. Nevertheless, 10Base-T (1993) and 100Base-T (1995) did not employ
`
`phantom powering for Ethernet communications. (Ex.2038, ¶33.) Unlike
`
`telephony, in which a single wire-pair can communicate bi-directionally, Ethernet
`
`data can only travel one direction on a wire-pair. (Id.) To send data back, a
`
`second wire-pair is needed. (Id.)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`By 1995, “Bob Smith” terminations – so called because they were invented
`
`by Bob Smith – and “common mode chokes” were prevalent in installed Ethernet
`
`networking equipment. (Ex.2039 at 43:20-44:2, 45:6-8, 195:3-15.) These special
`
`terminations were necessary for “Base-T” Ethernet “to clean up [the] signal and
`
`minimize emissions.” (Id. at 43:11-18; Ex.2038, ¶34.)
`
`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. (Ex.2039 at 45:10-21; Ex.2038, ¶35.) Similarly, adding power to an
`
`Ethernet cable could saturate the common mode chokes, interfering with the
`
`Ethernet transmission. (Ex.2038, ¶35.) As late as 1999-2000, the IEEE experts
`
`were skeptical that the same wires used for Ethernet could be used to deliver
`
`operating power to Ethernet terminal equipment without damaging the equipment
`
`or degrading the Ethernet data signal. (Ex.2038, ¶36.)
`
`At the time of Chrimar’s invention (1997), “Standard 10Base-T Ethernet
`
`[was] still the most common type of network architecture in use.” (Ex.1010 at 99;
`
`see also id. at 157; Ex.2039 at 24:18-25:15.)3 IEEE 802.3u – the “[s]tandard [for]
`
`10Base-T Ethernet” – required an RJ-45 “MDI connector” having eight contacts.
`
`(Ex.2039 at 77:21-78:8.) Four of those contacts (contacts 1, 2, 3, and 6) were used
`
`
`3 Throughout this declaration, all emphasis is added unless otherwise noted.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`to carry data; the other four contacts (contacts 4, 5, 7, and 8) were “Not used.”
`
`(Ex.2038, ¶37; Ex.1006 at 266-267, Fig. 14-22; Ex.1007 at 147, Figure 23-26 and
`
`Figure 23- 27.)
`
`B.
`
`The invention of the ‘760 Patent claims
`
`The Chrimar patent “provides examples of networked equipment” that
`
`“would be connected over ‘conventional multi-wire cables that include a plurality
`
`of transmit and receive data communication links.’” (Ex.1002, ¶45.) It “is
`
`directed to equipment networked over ‘pre-existing wiring or cables that connect
`
`pieces of networked computer equipment to a network.’” (Ex.1002, ¶45.) As
`
`mentioned above, operating Power-over-Ethernet (“PoE”) did not exist in 1997.
`
`Rather, Ethernet terminal devices needed their own power supplies. (Ex.2038,
`
`¶189.)
`
`The ‘760 Patent describes and claims an improved system of Ethernet
`
`equipment that improves network security and enables PoE networks, i.e., Ethernet
`
`networks that provide operating power to an Ethernet system over the Ethernet
`
`data path. As explained more fully below, the improved system of the ‘760 Patent
`
`can: (1) draw DC current over Ethernet data cables; (2) vary the magnitude of the
`
`DC current to provide information over the wires that carry Ethernet signals; and
`
`(3) do this while powered-off, i.e., without receiving operating power. The
`
`8
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`claimed Ethernet system lets the network assess whether the device should have
`
`access to the network, before the network grants access.
`
`The claimed Ethernet system also enables PoE networks. For many years,
`
`Ethernet terminal devices could not receive operating power over the Ethernet data
`
`path. (Ex.2038, ¶191.) If an Ethernet network hub were to apply PoE power and
`
`create a DC current path using the Ethernet data wires to an Ethernet device, the
`
`operating power would have destroyed the “Bob Smith” terminations in the device
`
`and saturated the common mode chokes. (Id.) As such, a PoE network could not
`
`provide PoE power to an Ethernet terminal device unless it already knew that the
`
`device was a PoE terminal device and not a standard terminal device. (Id.)
`
`Because the Ethernet system of the ‘760 Patent can provide information about
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment, it can learn, for example, (a) whether the terminal
`
`equipment can accept operating power over its Ethernet data path and (b) how
`
`much power it can accept, before the network provides operating power. These
`
`features enhance the safety and cost effectiveness of Ethernet networks.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`Petitioners challenge two of the ‘760 patent’s independent claims, claims 1
`
`and 73, and several dependent claims, 31, 37, 59, 69, 72, 106, 112, 134, 142, and
`
`145.4
`
`C. The challenged claims of the ‘760 patent
`
`Petitioners have challenged independent claims 1 and 73. Those claims are
`
`reproduced below side-by-side with highlighting added to show the differences
`
`between the claims:
`
`1. A BaseT Ethernet system
`
`73. A BaseT Ethernet system
`
`comprising:
`
`comprising:
`
`a piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`
`equipment;
`
`a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`
`
`
`
`equipment;
`
`
`4 Claims 72 and 145 are multiple dependent claims. Petitioners have not
`
`challenged the validity of each dependency of claims 72 and 145. Petitioners’
`
`challenge is thus limited to claim 72 depending from claims 1, 31, 59, or 69, and
`
`claim 145 depending from claims 73, 112, 134, or 142.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`data signaling pairs of conductors
`
`Ethernet cabling having at least first
`
`comprising first and second pairs used
`
`and second individual pairs of
`
`to carry BaseT Ethernet
`
`conductors used to carry BaseT
`
`communication signals between the
`
`Ethernet communication signals,
`
`piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`
`equipment and the piece of BaseT
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment,
`
`the first and second pairs physically
`
`the at least first and second individual
`
`connect between the piece of BaseT
`
`pairs of conductors physically connect
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment and the
`
`between a piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment and a piece of
`
`equipment,
`
`central network equipment;
`
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`
`the piece of central network
`
`equipment having at least one DC
`
`equipment having at least one DC
`
`supply,
`
`supply,
`
`the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment having at least one path to
`
`equipment having at least one path to
`
`draw different magnitudes of current
`
`draw different magnitudes of current
`
`flow from the at least one DC supply
`
`flow via the at least one DC supply
`
`11
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`through a loop formed over at least one
`
`through a loop formed over at least
`
`of the conductors of the first pair and at
`
`one of the conductors of the first pair
`
`least one of the conductors of the
`
`of conductors and at least one of the
`
`second pair,
`
`conductors of the second pair of
`
`conductors,
`
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`
`the piece of central network
`
`equipment to detect at least two
`
`equipment to detect at least two
`
`different magnitudes of the current
`
`different magnitudes of current flow
`
`flow through the loop and to control
`
`through the loop.
`
`the application of at least one
`
`electrical condition to at least two of
`
`the conductors.
`
`
`
`Petitioners have also challenged several dependent claims, which are
`
`reproduced below with highlighting added to indicate significant claim limitations:
`
`31. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`106. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`claim 1 wherein the BaseT Ethernet
`
`claim 73 wherein the BaseT Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment comprises a
`
`terminal equipment comprises a
`
`controller coupled to the at least one
`
`controller coupled to the at least one
`
`path.
`
`path.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`
`37. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`
`112. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`claim 1 wherein one or more
`
`claim 73 wherein one or more
`
`magnitudes of the current flow through
`
`magnitudes of the current flow
`
`the loop represent information about
`
`through the loop represent
`
`the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`information about the piece of BaseT
`
`equipment.
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment.
`
`
`59. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`
`134. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`claim 1 wherein at least one of the
`
`claim 73 wherein at least one of the
`
`different magnitudes of current flow
`
`different magnitudes of current flow
`
`through the loop is part of a detection
`
`through the loop is part of a detection
`
`protocol.
`
`protocol.
`
`
`69. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`
`142. The BaseT Ethernet system of
`
`claim 1 wherein the piece of central
`
`claim 73 wherein the piece of central
`
`BaseT Ethernet equipment to
`
`network equipment to distinguish the
`
`distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`terminal equipment from at least one
`
`equipment from at least one other
`
`other piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment.
`
`equipment.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`
`72. The BaseT Ethernet system
`
`
`145. The BaseT Ethernet system
`
`according to any one of claims 1, 10-
`
`according to any one of claims 73, 82-
`
`13, 16-18, 21-32, 35-46, 52-57, 59-66,
`
`91, 94-107, 108-121, 127-132, 134-
`
`or 67-71 wherein the piece of BaseT
`
`129, or 140-144 wherein the piece of
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment is a
`
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment is
`
`powered-off piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`a powered-off piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`equipment.
`
`
`
`D. Level of ordinary skill
`
`equipment.
`
`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. (Ex.2038, ¶26.) 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. (Id.)
`
`The parties disagree slightly on the level of skill in the art. Chrimar believes
`
`that Petitioners’ use of the phrase “at least” (“at least a B.S. degree”; “at least three
`
`years of experience”) is too open ended. It would result in an expert, who has a
`
`14
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`Ph.D. and 15 years of experience, being considered an ordinary artisan. To avoid
`
`this, Chrimar has eliminated the phrase “at least” in its description of an ordinary
`
`artisan. The parties agree otherwise.
`
`E.
`
`The prior art on which Petitioners rely
`
`Petitioners’ first ground relies on Hunter (Ex.1003) and Bulan (Ex.1004).
`
`Hunter teaches a multimedia network hub (120 in Figure 1) that uses isoEthernet
`
`interfaces to provide phantom operating power to certain media hubs in the
`
`network. Bulan, a telephony reference, adds complex over-current protection
`
`circuitry that Hunter describes as unnecessary. (Ex.2038, ¶39.)
`
`Petitioners’ second ground relies on the combination of Bloch, Huizinga,
`
`and
`
`the IEEE 802.3 (-93 and -95) 10Base-T and 100Base-T Ethernet
`
`specifications. (Exs.1005-1009.) Bloch and Huizinga, telephony references, do
`
`not mention Ethernet. (Ex.2038, ¶40.)
`
`None of the prior art on which Petitioners rely describes the structure of
`
`devices in a BaseT Ethernet system, let alone the features of the claimed BaseT
`
`Ethernet equipment. (Ex.2038, ¶38.)
`
`IV. Standard for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioners have the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of
`
`the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`15
`
`

`

`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0110PR1
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01399
`Patent No.: 88,902,760
`
`
`
`As to Petitione