1N 111E UN11‘ED STATES PATENT AND T ADEMARK ()FFICE
`
`PA'E‘EN'I‘
`
`In re:
`
`EX Parte Reexamination 0f US Patent No. 8,155,012
`
`Centre} Ne:
`
`90/013,740
`
`Cenfirrna‘tien Ne:
`
`1 868
`
`Fi1ing Date:
`
`May 18, 2016
`
`First Named
`
`inventor:
`
`101m}? Austermann, 111
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`3992
`
`Examiner:
`
`Charles R. Graver
`
`Titie: SYSTEM AND METHQD FOR ADAPTING A PIECE OF TERMENAL EQUIPMENT
`
`Patent Q‘Wl’ifil‘ Dirt;
`
`9919~000002—US~RXM (Requester 11kt, 31AEL~226116)
`
`Mai} Step Appeai Brief— Patent
`Ceinmissiener fer Patents
`
`PO. BOX 1450
`
`Aiexandria, Virginia 22313—1450
`
`PATENT G'WNER’S APPEAL BRIEF
`
`Cemniissiener:
`
`A Notice 0f Appeai was flied en June 16, 2017. Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41166, the Patent
`
`Owner has two months from the filing date if the Netiee of Appeal to: timely tiie an Appeai
`
`Brief. This Appeal Brief is tirneiy ii1ed an August 16, 2017,
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/0I3,74O
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`TABLE {IE CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`LIST DP EXHIBITS provided IN appendix, ....................................................................... 6
`
`REAL PAR'I'Y IN INTEREST ........................................................................................... 6
`
`RELATED APPEALS, IN’I‘ERPERENCES. AND TRIALS ............................................. 6
`
`PENDING PETITIONS UNDER 37 CPR §I.18I and §II83 ......................................... IO
`
`STIR/[MARY of CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER ........................................................... II
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... l3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`SUMh/IARY 0P PATENT DINNER APPEAL .................................................... l3
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. IS
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`Background of Ethernet Technology ........................................................ l8
`
`The Invention of the ’0l2 Patent Claims .................................................. l9
`
`C.
`
`PROPER CDNSTRUCTIQN OP CLABVI TERMS ............................................. 21
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Proper Legal Claim Construction Must Be Legally Correct and Supported
`by the Patent Specification, and Statements Made Can Be Relied On To
`Support Prosecution Disclaimer In Construing Claims ............................ 21
`
`Proper Claim Construction in Light of Specification of the ‘OIZ Patent and,
`Ordinary Skill in the Art ........................................................................... 22
`
`a).
`
`Current Construction of the Claimed Terms Being Applied in the
`Corresponding Inter Partes Review.
`22
`
`h).
`
`Prior Claim Constructions from the District—Court Litigation...
`
`23
`
`Argument in Support of Proper Claim Construction in Light of
`Specification of the ‘OIZ Patent and Ordinary Skill in theArt 24
`
`a).
`
`h).
`
`c).
`
`“Ethernet Data Terminal Equipment” — The Claims Are
`Specifically Directed To a Piece ot‘Ethernet Data Terminal
`Equipment; and Are Not To Be Construed To Include Ancillary
`Ethernet System Components ....................................................... 24
`
`The Claimed Elements are Part of Ethernet Data Terminal
`Equipment — The Claim Language Limits Interpretation of the
`Claim Elements to he Part of the Piece of Ethernet Data. Terminal
`
`Equipment and Not Ancillary Equipment ..................................... 27
`
`“Path” — The Claim Language Limits Interpretation of the “Path” to
`he Part of the Piece of Ethernet Data Terminal Equipment .......... 29
`
`Page 2. of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`d).
`
`e).
`
`it).
`
`“Coupling a Path” and a “Coupled Path” — Any Attempted
`Decoupling of the Claimed “Path” Necessarily Fails To Read Dn
`the Claimed Structure ................................................................... 3l
`
`“Distinguishing lnformation” — The Distinguishing lnformati on is
`Positively Claimed as Being Associated to Impedance within the
`Path
`
`32
`
`“About the Piece of Ethernet Data Terminal Equipment” — The
`Distinguishing information is “About the Piece of Ethernet Data
`Terminal Equipment,” Not a Connection Status of a Cable, a
`Central Device, or a Network Security System ............................ 34
`
`D.
`
`REJEC'HQN UNDER 35 USC. §103 ................................................................. 35
`
`l.
`
`2.
`
`Grounds ot‘Rejection to be Reviewed, on Appeal ..................................... 35
`
`Summary of the Cited Prior Art ................................................................ 38
`
`a).
`
`h).
`
`c).
`
`d).
`
`e).
`
`f).
`
`g).
`
`h).
`
`Cummings (US. Patent No. 5,406,260) ....................................... 38
`
`Maman (US. Patent No. 5,034,723) ............................................. 39
`
`PCnet (Al‘s/l79C9’7 PCnetTM—PAST Hardware User’s Manual (July
`1996)) ............................................................................................ 42
`
`Annunziata et al. (US. Patent No. 4,55l,67l) .............................. 43
`
`lohnson (US. Patent No. 5,524,184) ............................................ 44
`
`Bloch et al. (US. Patent No. 4,l73,7l4) ....................................... 45
`
`Sutterlin et al. (US. Patent No. 5,l48,l44) .................................. 45
`
`Libby (US Patent No. 3,803,432.) ............................................... 4‘6
`
`3.
`
`Legal Basis for Motivation to Combine References ................................. 46
`
`a).
`
`b).
`
`c).
`
`d).
`
`e).
`
`Requester Failed To Articulate Sut‘li cient Motivation to Combine
`Cummings and Maman (and PCnet) ............................................. 48
`
`DyStar Requires that the Explicit Reasoned Explanation include an
`Explanation as to the Motivation to Combine, Reasonable
`Expectation of Success, and Additional Findings ......................... Sl
`
`There is No Reasonable Expectation of Success When Combining
`Cummings and Maman ................................................................. Sl
`
`Combination of Cummings and Maman Renders The Prior Art
`Unsatisfactory For its intended Purpose ....................................... 54
`
`Combination of Cummings and Maman Cannot Change the
`Principles ofOperation ofthe Reference...................................... 55
`
`4.
`
`Rejection under 35 USC. §l03 oyer Cummings in View of Maman (and
`PCnet) ....................................................................................................... 57
`
`a).
`
`Independent Claim3157
`
`Page 3 of l26
`
`

`

`Reexaminatien Centrel Ne. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`‘0).
`
`e).
`
`(1).
`
`e).
`
`Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................... 64
`
`Independent Claim 67 ................................................................... 72
`
`Independent Claim 108 ................................................................. 78
`
`Dependent Claims ......................................................................... 85
`
`Rejectien under 35 11 SC §103 ever Cummings in View Of Maman and
`Annun ziata............................................................................................... 1 114
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 12, 42, 89 ...................................................... 1134
`
`Rejectien under 35 USC. §1Q3 over Cummings in View efMaman and
`Johnsen ................................................................................................... 107
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 20, 50, 77, and 78 ......................................... 107
`
`Rejectien under 35 USC. §103 ever Cummings in View Of Maman and
`Bleeh ....................................................................................................... 108
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 21, 2.3, 51, 53, 79, and 97 ............................. 108
`
`Rejection under 35 USC. 33103 ever Cummings in View of Maman and
`Sutterlin ................................................................................................... 110
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 74, 75, 81—86, and 90 .................................... 110
`
`Rejectien under 35 11 SC §103 ever Cummings in View Of Maman and
`Libby ....................................................................................................... 112
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 115, 116, and 122-127 .................................. 112
`
`Rejectien under 35 USC. §1Q3 ever Cummings in View oi‘Maman,
`PCnet, and .1 nhnsnn ................................................................................ 113
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 20, 50, 77, 78, 118, and 119 ......................... 113
`
`Rejectien under 35 USC. §103 ever Cummings in V1 ew nf Miaman,
`PCnet, and Bloch ................................................................................... 115
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 21, 2.3, 51, 53, 79, 97, 120, and 138 ............. 115
`
`Rejectien under 35 USC. §103 ever Cummings in View 01‘ Maman,
`PCnet, and Annunziata ........................................................................... 117
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 12, 42, 89, and 130 ....................................... 117
`
`Rejection under 35 USC, §103 ever Cummings in View ef Maman,
`PCnet, and Sutterlin ............................................................................... 119
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 90 and 131 .................................................... 119
`
`Rejectien under 35 USC. §103 ever Cummings in View of Maman,
`PCnet, and Libby ................................................................................... 122.
`
`a).
`
`Dependent Claims 74, 75, 81—86, 115, 116, and 122—127 .......... 122
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13,
`
`14.
`
`V11.
`
`CONCLUSlON ............................................................................................................... 124
`
`Page 4 of 126
`
`

`

`Reexaminatien Centre} N0. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`CERTEFICATE 0F SERVICE ................................................................................................... 125
`
`APPENDIX & EXHIBETS ......................................................................................................... 126
`
`Page 5 of 126
`
`

`

`Reexamination Contro1 No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appea1 Brief
`
`1.,
`
`LTST 9F EXT-TTBTTS PRQVTDED TN AT’T’ENDTX
`
`Dec1arahcn Under 37CER 1 132 13y Mr. Albert McGilyre with
`Curriculum 12mg of Albert W. MeGiivra (Petitions under 37 CER
`
`$11,181 and 1.183 cur’renfly pending)
`
`Herewirh;
`
`May 15, 2017
`
`Dec1arahon Under 37 CPR 1 132 13y Mr. 101m Austern‘rann, 111
`
`Herewith,
`
`{Petitions under3 71318 §1.181 and §1 183 currenriy pending)
`
`May 15, 2017
`
`Mem. Op. 8;; Drder, Chrzmar Systems, Inc, 91 al. v. AflfX, LLC, No. December 8,
`
`6:13—cy—881-1DL(E.D Tex. Oct. 22, 2014 {ECF Ne. 96))
`V Mem. Op. & Order, Chrimar Systems, Inc, e! a]. v. Afi/IX, LLC, Ne.
`
`2016
`V December 8,
`
`6:13-cy—881-.1DL(E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2015 (ECF No. 105))
`
`2.016
`
`201 6
`
`Mem. Op. & {)rder, CIzrz’mar Systems, Inc, ct (II. V. AlcazeI-Ijuceni,
`
`(21521., No. 6:15—cy—163—1DL(E.D, Tex. Mar. 28, 2016 (ECF No.
`
`123))
`
`Mem (3p & Order, CIzrmzm‘ Systems, Inc, et aI. v. AIHRAIV, 1116.,
`
`615117., No. 6: 15—cv—618—1RGJDL (ED Tex, Tune 20, 2016 (ECE
`
`No L154))
`
`December 8,
`2.01 6
`
`December 8,
`
`Memorandum Dpinien and order on ALE’S motion to construe
`
`certain c1aim terms 01‘ the ”012 and ’760 Patenrsflhrimar Sysz‘ems,
`
`December 8,
`
`Inc, er a]. v. AIeateI-Lucem, 6! al, No, 6:15—cy—163-1D1_,(E,D.
`
`2016
`
`Tex. Sept. 27, 2016 {ECF No. 318)))
`
`11. REAL PARTY TN TNTEREST
`
`The Real Party in Tnteres‘r is ChriMar Systems, 1nc., the assignee of record.
`
`TILRELATED APPEALS, TNTERFERENCES, AND TRIALS
`
`The ‘012 Patent is also the Subject Of one (1) inter paries review proceedings, specificafly
`
`1E1§2016—01389.
`
`The ‘012 Patent is a, continuation apphcation 01‘ US. Patent No. 7,457,250 (the “ ‘250
`
`Patent”), which was simi1ar1y subject 10 ex parte reexaminatien in 2010—1 1. The ‘250 Patent was
`
`Page 6 of 126
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`successfitlly defended and a Reexamination Certificate was issued confirming patentability of
`
`the subject claims without amendment.
`
`The ‘012 Patent is further a parent application of US. Patent No. 8,902,760 (the “’ 760
`
`Patent”), which is currently subject to ex parte reexamination} The ‘760 Patent was successfully
`
`defended and the Office has recently issued a, Notice of intent
`
`to lssue a Reexamination
`
`Certificate on August 9, 2017.
`
`The following table denotes trials specifically relating to the ‘0l2 Patent:
`
`2: 14—cv— l 0290—
`
`ED. Mich.
`
`Ctsco Systems, Inc. and Itnksys ILC vs.
`
`AC-RSW
`
`Chrtmar Systems Inc.
`
`2:14-cV—l0292—
`
`en. Mich.
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. vs. Chrtmar Systems Inc.
`
`Citrtmar Systems. Inc, et ai. v. Juniper
`
`Networks, Inc.
`
`Chrtmar Systems, Inc., et (II. v. xlIcnteI—Lneent,
`Inc. et at.
`
`Citrtmar Systems, Inc., et aI. v. AAIX, LLC
`
`Chrtmar Systems, Inc, et at. v. EnGentns
`
`AC-RSW
`
`’ 3:16—cv—sss
`
`6: l 3—cv—880
`
`6:13—cv—881
`
`6:13-cV—882
`
`6:15—cv—l63
`
`6:15—cV—618
`
`6:15—cv—00639—
`
`IRG—JDL
`
`6:15—cv—006l4—
`
`lRG—JDL
`
`6: lS-cv—006 l 6—
`
`lRG-JDL
`
`6:1 S—cv—00640-
`
`Chrtmar Systems, Inc... et a]. v. Grantistream
`
`Islets/works, Inc.
`
`Citrtmar Systems. Inc, et ai. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co, Ltd.
`
`Chrtmar Systems, Inc., et (II. v. xlIcrtteI—Lueent
`
`SA” et aI.
`Citrtmar Systems, Inc., et aI. v. ADTIMN, Inc., et V
`aI.
`
`Chrtmar Systems, Inc, et nI. v. Aemntve
`
`Networks, Inc.
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc, et a]. V. Alcateimltteent
`
`Enterprise US4 Inc.
`
`Citrtmar Systems. Inc. et ai. v. Edgewre (/1314
`
`Corporattmt d/Io/n Edgecore Networks
`
`ERG-33L
`
`Ikefmeiogtes, Inc.
`
`" See Application Control Number 90/0l3,802.
`
`Page 7 of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Controi No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeed Brief
`
`6:15-cv-00616—
`
`END Tex.
`
`IRG—IDL
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc, et at’. v. 5114C Networks,
`Inc.
`
`6:2013—cv-00879
`
`. Tex.
`
`6:2015—cv—0061 6
`
`. Tex.
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc. et al vs. Aastra
`
`Technologies Limited et aI
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc. et a! vs. Accton
`
`Iecnnot’ogy Corporation US4 et aI
`
`6:2015—cv—00577
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et aI vs. Advanced
`
`Arretimr'kDew'ces, Inc.
`
`6:2015-cv—00619
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`CIN/‘t‘mar Systems, Inc. et aI vs. Advantecn
`
`Corporation
`
`6:2015-cv-00652
`
`ED.
`
`Tex .
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc. et aI vs. AIIied TeIesz's,
`Inc.
`
`6:20 i 5—cv-00621
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc. et aI vs. Alpha Networks,
`Inc.
`
`6:2015—cv—0061 ‘5
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`6:2015—cvm00164
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`et aI vs. AfiIX, LILC
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc.
`
`et aI vs. AIMX, ILLC
`
`Licensed
`
`Open
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Dismissed
`
`Dismissed
`
`6:2015—cv—00579
`
`ED.”
`
`Tex.
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Inc.
`
`et‘ aI vs. Arrowspan, Inc.
`
`Dismissed
`
`Tex.
`
`CIN/‘t‘mar Systems, Inc. et aI vs. AS’USIek
`
`
`
`6:2015-cv—00623
`
`ED.
`
`Dismissed
`
`Computer InternationaI, Inc.
`
`6:2015—cvm00624
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`Cnrtmdr Systems, Inc. et aI vs. ASUS Computer
`InternationaI
`
`Dismissed
`
`1, :201 Lev—0,1050
`
`E. D. De1
`
`Cnrtmar Systems Inc. et aI v. Ctsco Systems Inc.
`
`et a! (Avaya)
`
`6:2015—cv—00650
`
`ED. Tex.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et aI vs. BeIkt‘n
`
`InternationaI, Inc.
`
`6:2015—eV—00578
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et at’ vs. Btamp Systems
`
`Corporation
`
`2:2015-cv-12565
`
`ED.
`
`Mi ch
`
`Ctsco Systems, Inc. us. Cnrz’mar Systems, Inc.
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Deciaiatcry
`
`Judgment
`
`Transferred
`
`Deciai‘aiory
`
`Judgment
`Licensed
`
`1:2011—cvm01050
`
`ED.
`
`Del.
`
`2:2015—0v—1081'I
`
`ED. Mich
`
`2:2001—eV—71 i 13
`
`ED. Mich
`
`4:2013-CV-01300
`
`ND. Cal.
`
`1
`
`‘
`
`Cnrtmdr Systems Inc. et aI VS. Cisco Systems Inc.
`et aI
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. vs. Cnrt'mar Systems, Inc.
`
`Chrimar Systems Inc. vs. Ctsco Sys Inc
`
`Cnrtmar Systems Inc. et aI VS. Ctsco Systems Inc. Q
`i
`et aI
`
`13611
`
`2:2006—cv- i 3937
`
`ED. Mich
`
`Cnrtmar Systems, Incorporated v. I) Link
`
`Licensed
`
`Systems, Incorporated
`
`Page 8 of 126
`
`

`

`Reexaminaiien Centrei Ne. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Append Brief
`
`2:2009—0v—00044
`
`ED. Tex.
`
`6:2015-cv—00639
`
`ED Tex.
`
`Cnrimcir Systems Inc. vs. Dmmex Corporation
`
`Chrimnr Systems, Inc. et cti vs. Dell Inc. et a]
`
`6:2015—cv-00628
`
`en. Tex.
`
`i:2011—cv~01050
`
`en. Dei.
`
`4:2013—cv—01300
`
`ND. en.
`
`Cnrimcir Systems Inc. et cn' vs. Edimctx Computer
`
`Company
`Cnrimar S stems Inc. rt 052' vs. Cisco S istems Inc.
`I
`b
`I
`et (1! (Extreme Networks)
`
`Chrimor Systems Inc. et (1! vs. Cisco Systems Inc.
`
`‘
`
`a
`
`'
`
`et (ti {Extreme Networks)
`
`Dismissed
`
`Licensed
`
`.
`Licensed
`
`Transferred
`
`,
`Licensed
`
`3:2016-CV-00897
`
`ND. Cal.
`
`CIN/‘imcir Systems, Inc. et ai v. Fortinet, Inc.
`
`Dpen
`
`2:2006—cv— 13936
`
`en. Mich
`
`Cnrimar Systems, Incorporated v. Fozmdry
`
`Newer/Es, Incorpomtect7
`
`2:2009—cv—0008‘5
`
`ED. Tex.
`
`3 :2009-cvr-045 i6
`
`ND. Cal.
`
`Chrimor Systems, Inc. vs. Gorrettcom, Inc., et a]
`
`Citrimar Systems, Inc. vs. Garrettcom, Inc., et oi
`
`6:2015—cv—00580
`
`ED. Tex.
`
`Chrimor Systems, Inc. et at! v. Hem/1174 Security
`Inc
`
`2:2015—cV—108 14
`
`ED. i‘viich
`
`Hey-i/Iett—Pclckcird Compctny v. Chrimnr Systems,
`Inc.
`
`2:2015-cv—12569
`
`ED iviich
`
`Hewiett-Pctckard Co. et a! v. Cnrimar Systems,
`Inc.
`
`Dismissed
`
`Dismissed
`
`Dismissed
`
`Dismissed
`
`Deciera‘iery
`
`Judgment
`
`Deciara‘iery
`
`Judgment
`
`
`
`Open
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`Licensed
`
`1:2011—cvr-01050
`
`ED. Dei.
`
`4:2013—0v—01300
`
`ND. Cal.
`
`‘
`
`‘
`
`Cnrimor Systems Inc. et oi vs. Cisco Systems Inc.
`
`Transferred
`
`et 052' (HR)
`
`Cnrimar Systems Inc. et 052' vs. Cisco Systems Inc.
`
`et a! (HP)
`
`Htibbei’! Premise Wiring
`
`6:2015-CV-00532
`
`6:2015—(3v—00583
`
`6:2015—cv—0063 1
`
`2:2009-CV-00230
`
`Tex.
`
`Tex.
`
`TeX.
`
`Tex.
`
`Citrimar Systems, Inc. et aI v. IPItomy
`
`Communications; LIE
`
`Cnrimcir Systems, Inc. et in v. Keysccin Inc.
`
`Chrimnr Systems, Inc. et cn' v. ,Korenix US4
`
`Corporation
`
`CIN/‘imcir Systems Inc. v. KTI Network, Inc. et aI
`
`6:2015—0v—00632
`
`en.
`
`Tex.
`
`Cnrimar Systems, Inc. et a! v. Leviton
`
`ii/Im’tnfctctnring Company, Inc,
`
`IyIicrosemi Corporation
`
`6:2015-CV-00633
`
`en.
`
`T ex .
`
`Citrimar Systems, Inc. et ctI v. M’oxa Americas
`Inc.
`
`2:2009—cv-00085
`
`ED.
`
`Tex.
`
`Cnrimcir Systems, Inc v. Gorrettcom, Inc., et a!
`
`(Neteon)
`
`3 :2016—cv—00624
`
`ND. Cal.
`
`Chrimor Systems, Inc. et at! v. NETGEdR
`
`Open
`
`Page 9 of 126
`
`

`

`Reexaminatien Centrel Ne. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`6:2015—ev—00635 ED. Tex.
`6:2015—eV—00636 inn. Tex.
`
`Cnrt'mar Systems, Inc. et ct] v. NetMea’inInc.
`.h,
`f
`,
`”S it
`,‘I’, .
`i I t. Pn‘h
`”(ISA
`(I ”mm .3” ems
`”6 e a ‘
`l (mt
`(.orporarton
`
`Dismissed
`:
`.
`iLieensed
`
`2:2001—cvm74081 ED. Mich
`
`Cnrnnar Sys Inc. v. Ponr’erdsine LTD, er a!
`
`Licensed
`
`,
`.
`6:2015—ev—(10637 1 ED. Tex.
`
`3:201 6—eV—OO l 86 ND. Cal.
`
`6:2015-eV—00645 ED. Tex.
`
`_
`6:2015-ev-00642
`
`.
`_.
`11.1). “leis.
`
`1
`6:2015—ev—00646 ED. Tex.
`
`fix)
`_,‘,_
`In; .
`1-
`1......008 es 00453 ED. Tex.
`ntnznreeeas3
`USPTO
`
`g
`
`‘
`
`1
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et a! v. Reckweli
`.
`Automation, Inc.
`
`.
`.
`1 Dismissed
`a
`
`Chrimar Sfizstems, Inc. et ai v. Ruckus Wireless
`Inc.
`1
`Cizr'z‘mcn‘ Systems, Inc. at 615117. SrctrTechcont USA Licensed
`LLP.
`1
`
`Open
`
`Cnrnnar Systems, Inc. at aI v. Transition
`
`1
`
`.
`Licensed
`
`:
`Netwnrks, Inc.
`Cnrt'mar Systems, Inc. et ct] v. chon Systemsjnc. Licensed
`
`Chi/inter Systems, Inc. v. Wittersw‘v’ez'work
`Systems, IILC
`Deli
`
`
`
`'
`
`I‘,
`Linensed
`Cancelled
`
`Active
`
`ln process 0f
`
`being cancelled
`
`ll’RZOle-GBSQ
`
`nsrte
`
`Jumper
`
`TPR2016—Gl425
`
`USPTO
`
`[II—Link
`
`IV.
`
`PENBENG E’E'E‘ETEGNS {FEEDER 37 CFR §1.181 AND §l.183
`
`it is neted that Petitions under 37 CPR §1.181 and §1.183 are currently pending before
`
`the Director in eenneetien with the Examiner’s refusal to enter Declarations under 37 CFR
`
`§1_132 by Mr. Albert MeGilvra and Mr. .1 ehn Austerrnann, 111 that were filed in connection with
`
`Patent Gwner’s Response te Final Office Action filed en May 15, 2017. The Petitions were
`
`timely filed en August 14, 2917. The Patent Owner makes reference t0 the aforementiened
`
`Deelaratiens within the present Appeal Brief in antieipatien of grant of the Petitiens. To the
`
`extent that the Declarations are not entered into the record of the present matter by the Director,
`
`Patent aner requests the Board to eensider remanding the appeal as the appeal is net ripe fer
`
`eensideratien ef the Board. Remanding the appeal will previde fer entry of the Declaratiens
`
`inte the record to properly instruct, inform. and equip the Board as to the technical attributes of
`
`Page 10 0f126
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`the disclosed invention. The Patent Owner has appealed the premature finality of the proceeding
`
`and the refusal to consider evidence that was presented in response to arguments that were set
`
`forth for the first time in the Final Office Action
`
`V. SUhllVlARY GE CLAER’EED SUBJECT h’lATTER
`
`The following summary correlates claim elements to specific emhodiments descrihed in
`
`the specification of the ‘Ol2 Patent, but does not in any manner limit claim interpretation. Due
`
`to the breadth of the specification of the “OlZ Patent,
`
`the present recitation should not be
`
`regarded as being exhaustive, but rather is offered only to facilitate the Board’s understanding of
`
`the subject matter of this appeal.
`
`Generally, the claims are directed to adapting a piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment
`
`or an adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment by arranging or associating impedance
`
`within a path of the Ethernet data terminal equipment to distinguish the piece of Ethernet data
`
`terminal equipment.
`
`lndependent Claim 1 claims a method for adapting a piece of Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment, the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment having an Ethernet connector, the
`
`method comprising: selecting contacts of the Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of
`
`contacts (see, eg, Abstract; FlG. 4, ref. 3A; FlG. 8, ref. llo, FIGS. 14 & l5, Col. 3, ll. 36-37,
`
`Col. 5, ll. 16—20; Col. l2, ll. 1—3, Col. 12, ll.
`
`l3—l4), the selected contacts comprising at least one
`
`of the plurality of contacts of the Ethernet connector and at least another one of the plurality of
`
`contacts of the Ethernet connector (_see, e. g, Abstract, FIG. 4, ref, 3A,; PK}, 8, ref. l l6; Fle, 14
`
`8:; l5; Col. 3, ll. 36—37, Col. 5, ll. 16-20; Col.
`
`2., ll. 1-3; Col. 12, ll. l3—l4), coupling at least one
`
`path across the selected contacts of the Ethernet connector (see, eg, ElG. 8; Col. 5, ll. 28~3l,
`
`Page ll of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`Col. 5, ll. 33—35; Col. 9, ll. 27-30), and associating distinguishing information about the piece of
`
`Ethernet data terminal equipment to impedance within the at least one path (see, e.g., Abstract;
`
`sin. 3, Col. 3, ll. 36—37, Col. 6, ll. 11—13; Col. 8, ll. 51—57; Col. 12, ll. 1—3, Col. l2, ll. l3-l4).
`
`independent Claim 3i claims an adapted piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment
`
`comprising: an Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts (see, e.g., Abstract; FIG. 4,
`
`3A, rm. 8, ref. llo, FlGS. l4 a: 15,001. 3,1i. 36-37;, Col, an. 16—20, Col. i2,1i i3, (:01. 12,
`
`ll. 13—14); and at least one path coupled across selected contacts (see, eg, FIG. 8; Col. 5, ll. 28—
`
`3l, Col. 5,
`
`ll. 33—35; Col. 9,
`
`ll. 27—30), the selected contacts comprising at least one of the
`
`plurality of contacts of the Ethernet connector and at least another one of the plurality of contacts
`
`of the Ethernet connector (see, eg, Abstract; FlG. 8;, Col. l2, ll. l-3, Col. l2, ll. 13-14), wherein
`
`distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment is associated to
`
`impedance within the at least one path (see, cg, Abstract; FIG. 3, Col. 3, ll. 36-37; Col. 6, ll.
`
`ll—
`
`13, Col. 8, n. 5i—57, Col. 12,11, 1—3, Col. 12,11. 13—14).
`
`lndependent Claim 67 claims a method for adapting a piece of terminal equipment, the
`
`piece of terminal equipment having an Ethernet connector, the method comprising: coupling at
`
`least one path across specific contacts of the Ethernet connector (see, c. g Abstract, ElG. 4, ref.
`
`3A, ElG. 8, ref. ll6, PlGS. l4 8; l5, Col. 3, ll. 36—37, Col. 5, ll. will); Col. l2, ll. l-3, Col. l2,
`
`ll. 13—14), the at least one path permits use of the specific contacts for Ethernet communication
`
`(see, e.g., Eli}. 8, Col. 5
`
`ll. 28—3l‘7
`
`Col. 5, ll. 33-35, Col. 9, ll. 27—30), the Ethernet connector
`
`comprising the contact l through the contact 8 (see, e. g, FIGS. l4 & l5), the specific contacts of
`
`the Ethernet connector comprising at least one of the contacts of the Ethernet connector and, at
`
`least another one of the contacts of the Ethernet connector (see, eg, F168, 4 81. 8); and arranging
`
`Page l2 of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`impedance within the at least one path to distinguish the piece of terminal equipment (see, eg,
`
`Col. 2, it. 49—58; Col. 6,11. 25—33).
`
`independent Claim 108 claims an adapted piece of terminal equipment having an
`
`Ethernet connector, the piece of terminal equipment comprising: at least one path coupled across
`
`specific contacts of the Ethernet connector (see, eg, Abstract; ElG. 4, ref. 3A; FIG 8, ref llo;
`
`FIGS. l4 & l5, Col. 3, ll. 36-37, Col. 5, ll.
`
`lo—ZO, Col. 12, ll. l-3, Col. 12, ll.
`
`l3—l4), the at least
`
`one path permits use of the specific contacts for Ethernet communication (see, eg, FIG. 8, Col.
`
`5, ll. 28—3l, Col. 5, ll. 33—35; Col. 9, ll. 27—30), the Ethernet connector comprising the contact l
`
`through the contact 8 (see, e. g, ElGS. 14 & l5), the specific contacts comprising at least one of
`
`the contacts of the Ethernet connector and at least another one of the contacts of the Ethernet
`
`connector (see, eg, FlGS. 4, 8, l5, & l6), impedance within the at least one path arranged to
`
`distinguish the piece ofterminal equipment (see, eg, C2, ll. 5468, Col. 6, ll. 3l-33).
`
`VI, ARGUhlENT
`
`A.
`
`SUMMARY GE FATE NT GEE/NEWS APPEAL
`
`'l‘he ‘OlZ Patent claims an innovative and beneficial Ethernet data terminal equipment.
`
`The claimed equipment improved on then—existing Ethernet terminal equipment, because it can
`
`use its impedance that is physically associated with the Ethernet terminal equipment to convey
`
`information, which distinguishes it from another piece of Ethernet terminal equipment.
`
`The Requester has applied grounds employing numerous teachings of the cited prior art,
`
`namely the Cummings, Maman, and PCnet references, that do not teach the claim limitations
`
`alone or in combination. Moreover, the Requester has failed to articulate a primafacie case of
`
`obviousness and,
`
`in particular, has failed to (l) articulate a. reason why a. PHOSlTA would
`
`Page l3 of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`combine the prior art references; (2) have an adequate evidentiary basis for that finding; and (3)
`
`provide a satisfactory explanation, for the motivation finding that
`
`includes an express and
`
`“rational” connection with the evidence presented as required by in re Lee“? The Requester and
`
`the Office have only stated,
`
`272 i010:
`
`“Cummings and Maman both describe theft prevention
`
`using impedance detection.”3 This conclusory statement is grossly insufficient to support a
`
`primafircie case of oh‘viousness,
`
`The claims of the ‘OlZ Patent are each directed to a method of adapting a piece of
`
`Ethernet data terminal equipment (independent Claims l, 67) or a piece of Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment (independent Claims 3i, res) that define structure to physically and permanently
`
`associate impedance to a. piece of Ethernet terminal equipment in accordance with the disclosed
`
`embodiments.
`
`That
`
`is,
`
`the claims of the ‘Ol2 Patent clearly recite that “distinguishing
`
`information” “about the piece of Ethernet data terminal equipment” itself is “associated” to
`
`“impedance Within .
`
`.
`
`. [a] path” “across selected/specific contacts of the Ethernet connector” of
`
`the “Ethernet data terminal equipment” such “distinguishing information” distinguishes the
`
`Ethernet data terminal equipment.4
`
`Moreover, the rejections set forth by the Requester and adopted by the Office do not
`
`provide any physical solution for the claim limitation of the piece of Ethernet data terminal
`\
`
`
`equipment itself
`
`each of the rejections is predicated on an entire system configuration including
`
`a plurality of ancillary components. The proposed combinations advanced by the Requester are
`
`predicated on references that fail
`
`to teach ever adapting a piece of Ethernet data temrinal
`
`equipment.
`
`lnstead, the proposed, combinations advanced by the Requester and adopted by the
`
`2 Discussed in greater detail herein below.
`3 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of US. Patent No. 8,l55,012 filed April 27, 2M6 (hereinafter the “Request”;
`page 27.
`4 See independent Claims 1, 3 l, 67, and 108.
`
`Page l4 of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/0l3,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`Office verbatim are based primarily on US. Patent No. 5,406,260 to Cummings, which discloses
`
`four PCs with an “identical” (and not detectable) impedance, to support an argument that PCs
`
`can be distinguished based on impedance.
`
`it is factually impossible to distinguish PCs via the
`
`use of impedance when all of the PCs have the “same” impedance. Notably, the impedance
`
`(actually, admittance) in the path within the PCs of Cummings is much less than the resistance in
`
`the data lines used to connect the PCs to the network, (which are used by the Requester to
`
`complete the combined Ethernet system), which in reality makes it impossible to detect any
`
`impedance associated with the PC by a central piece of equipment.
`
`it may be worth noting that
`
`this reality was part of the motivation and catalyst for “physically adding” impedance to the PCs
`
`(by way of “adapting .
`
`.
`
`. Ethernet data terminal equipment”) as taught and patented in the
`
`present ‘OlZ Patent. This physically added impedance provided a detectable impedance (an
`
`impedance greater than that of the data lines) and allowed a piece of Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment
`
`to have an impedance that
`
`is different
`
`than the other Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`the proposed combinations and the corresponding rejections attempt to
`
`combine the tapped data communication lines of Cummings (ie. that is, cables connecting a hub
`
`to a computer that are physically disconnectable from the hub and, the computer) with a micro-
`
`switch or shorting bar of an AC power cable solution of Martian. The present rejections state
`
`that disconnection of the data communication lines of Cummings or the disconnection of the AC
`
`power cord of Maman provide “distinguishing information” about
`
`the computer.
`
`This is
`
`incorrect.
`
`ln fact,
`
`the present rejections fails to appreciate that
`
`l) Cummings and Martian are
`
`physically incompatible solutions to the same problem (the AC power cable solution is fatal to
`
`Page l5 of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/0l3,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`the Ethernet communications within the data communication lines of Cummings), 2) that each
`
`and every independent claim require a “path” coupled across “selected/specific contacts” of the
`
`“Ethernet connector” of the “Ethernet data terminal equipment” and “impedance within the at
`74‘
`
`least one path” heing associated/arranged to “distinguishing inforination/distinguish"
`
`the piece
`
`of Ethernet data terminal equipment” or a variation thereof; and 3) reliance on any disconnection
`
`event for information necessarily fails to meet at least one of the specifi ‘ claim limitations (idea
`
`coupling a path).
`
`The present rejections overlook the fact that the claims of the ‘OlZZ Patent specifically
`
`require that the “Ethernet data terminal equipment” itself includes the claimed elements that
`
`permit the Ethernet data terminal equipment itself to achieve the resultant benefits The structure
`
`of the claims and associated antecedent hasis require interpretation of the claim to be limited to
`
`only the Ethernet data terminal equipment, without regard to ancillary Ethernet network
`
`components. This is made clear in each independent claim; which is specifically directed to
`
`Ethernet data terminal equipment “having an Ethernet connector”5 or “comprising an Ethernet
`
`connector”? The ownership of the Ethernet connector is part of the Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment and is not (nor cannot he) an ancillary component of the Ethernet data terminal
`
`equipment. There is further support for this in lEEE 802.3i, which states specifically states
`
`“[t]he plug connector Shall be used on the twisted-pair link segment and themes on the A414, U.”7
`
`Consequently, the claimed structure that requires the “Ethernet connector comprising a plurality
`
`of contacts” or “contacts of the Ethernet connector,” thus requires the contacts to be part of the
`
`Ethernet data terminal equipment. Finally; the “path coupled across the .
`
`.
`
`. contacts of the
`
`‘ Independent Claims 1, 6'7, 108
`f Independent Claim 31
`/ IEEE Std. 802.3i-l990, page Sl.
`
`Page l6 of l26
`
`

`

`Reexamination Control No. 90/013,740
`
`Patent Owner’s Appeal Brief
`
`Ethernet connector” thus require the path to be part