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 IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 31, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`____________
`
`
`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 IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held: August 31, 2017
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before KARL D. EASTHOM, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`THOMAS A. LEWRY, ESQUIRE
`FRANK ANGILERI, ESQUIRE
`NONA DURHAM, ESQUIRE
`BROOKS KUSHMAN, PC
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, Michigan 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`ALSO PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`JOHN AUSTERMANN, III, INVENTOR
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`TALIN GORDNIA, ESQUIRE
`MICHAEL R. FLEMING, ESQUIRE
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`(310) 277-1010
`
`ALSO PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`SCOTT COONAN, JUNIPER NETWORKS
`MATTHEW S. YUNGWIRTH, DUANE MORRIS, LLP
`CHRISTOPHER J. TYSON, DUANE MORRIS, LLP
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Thursday, August
`31, 2017, commencing at 1:00 p.m., at the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`Office, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: All right. Good afternoon,
`everyone. This is a hearing for IPR2016-01389, 01391, 01397,
`and 01399, Juniper Networks, et al., v. Chrimar Systems.
` Let's start with appearances from the parties.
`When you make your appearance, please step up to the center
`podium so that Judge Anderson can hear you.
` Who do we have for Petitioner?
` MS. GORDNIA: Good afternoon, Your Honors. I am
`Talin Gordnia here with Mike Fleming from Irell & Manella for
`Petitioner, Juniper.
` Also in the room with us we have Scott Coonan, from
`Juniper Networks, and also from Duane Morris, we have Matt
`Yungwirth and Chris Tyson.
` Thank you.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Ms. Gordnia, does Mr.
`Tyson
`represent Ruckus, Brocade, and Netgear?
` MS. GORDNIA: That is right, Your Honor.
`Mr. Yungwirth and Mr. Tyson represent those parties you named.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. Thank you.
` And who do we have for Patent Owner?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` MR. ANGILERI: Your Honor, Frank Angileri for
`Patent Owner. Also with me are -- is Tom Lewry. We're both
`from Brooks Kushman.
` And then also in the room we have Nona Durham, from
`our firm, and John Austermann, who's one of the inventors.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Great. Thank you.
` MR. ANGILERI: Thank you.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So before we begin here, let's
`address a few housekeeping items.
` First, as I mentioned, you can see that Judge
`Anderson is appearing remotely, so any time you want to speak,
`please step up to the center podium so that he can hear you.
`And I'll ask that as you refer to your slides, please identify
`slide numbers so that he can follow along.
` Second issue is with regard to demonstratives. As
`you may recall, we had a discussion earlier this week about
`some objections to demonstratives. I just want to review how
`we discussed handling them.
` First off, I'll remind everyone that the
`demonstrative slides are not evidence and are not submitted
`into evidence. So I think that should address most of your
`concerns about objections to them.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` That said, if you do have objections, what we'll do
`is note them as you're -- as the opposing party is addressing
`the slide --
` JUDGE EASTHOM: Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt,
`Judge Weinstein [sic], I think Judge Anderson may be frozen,
`according to some information that I see. I don't know if
`he's hearing us or --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: We’ll hold on a second. We'll
`place things on a brief hold here.
` (Whereupon a recess was taken.)
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Now that we have Judge Anderson
`on the phone, we'll restart here.
` Before we lost Judge Anderson, I was talking about
`how we're going to handle objections to demonstratives, and
`the way we're going to do that is as a party is presenting, if
`the other party hears something that they feel is improper or
`prejudicial for some reason, please make a note of it and then
`address that objection when it's your turn to speak.
` We will note all of your objections for the record,
`and we will take them up when we consider our final written
`decision.
` We got some e-mails, I believe this morning,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`indicating that there was maybe some further disputes about
`demonstratives, maybe that Patent Owner changed their slides
`or added something to them.
` I do want to note, first for Patent Owner, to the
`extent that you changed slides or added stuff to your slides
`at 5:00 p.m. yesterday, that's probably not to best way to
`handle it, but the way we're going to do this is the same way
`we did with our other objections.
` Petitioner, if you feel you have an objection to
`something that they're saying during the hearing that was
`added to their slides at the last minute, please let us know
`and we'll consider that objection.
` Are there any questions from either side about how
`we're going to handle this?
` Ms. Gordnia?
` MS. GORDNIA: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Any questions --
` MR. LEWRY: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: -- from Patent Owner?
` MR. LEWRY: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` The last thing I wanted to take up here is in
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`looking at the parties' briefing, as you may recall, we joined
`Ruckus, Brocade, and Netgear to these cases.
` They had originally filed petitions in
`IPR2017-0718, 0719, 0720 and 0790. I notice in some of the
`papers that the parties are still referring to those cases.
` We terminated those cases after we joined Ruckus
`and the other parties to these cases, so we're solely
`considering the papers and evidence in these cases, and will
`only be issuing a final written decision in these cases, not
`in the 0718, 0719, 0720 or 0790 cases.
` So with that, are there any objections or concerns
`from Petitioner? Ms. Gordnia?
` MS. GORDNIA: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK. Just so you know, you have to
`speak into the center mic for Judge Anderson to hear you.
` MS. GORDNIA: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` And from Patent Owner?
` MR. LEWRY: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` And from Ruckus et al., are there any objections or
`concerns from you?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` MR. YUNGWIRTH: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Great.
` All right. So I think that addresses all of our
`housekeeping matters.
` Okay. Just one more comment for Judge Anderson
`about our ground rules for objections to demonstratives, that
`we discussed them, and the parties agreed to them during the
`previous conference call.
` The last thing I want to note is we're scheduled to
`go almost four hours today, so we will take a short break
`after Petitioner's first presentation and then we'll also take
`a short break after Patent Owner's first presentation.
` So with that, let's start with Petitioner. Ms.
`Gordnia, just let me know at the beginning how much time you'd
`like to reserve for your rebuttal.
` MS. GORDNIA: Thank you, Your Honor. Petitioner
`would like to reserve at least 45 minutes for rebuttal, and we
`respectfully ask that any time from our first hour and 15 that
`we don't use, we add it onto our rebuttal time, please.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Will do.
` MS. GORDNIA: Thank you.
` The four Chrimar patents that are at issue in these
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`IPRs, and the challenged claims of those patents, are directed
`to a very simple concept, and that is sending a DC current
`from one device to another over the same conductors, twisted
`pair conductors, that carry Ethernet data.
` And I'd like to provide a very brief overview for
`Ground 1 before I start talking about some of the disputed
`limitations.
` So if we can have Slide 13, Ground 1 consists of
`the combination of the Hunter and Bulan references.
` Slide 14.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: Ms. Gordnia, can you speak up,
`please?
` MS. GORDNIA: Yes, Your Honor.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: I think Judge Anderson is having
`trouble hearing still a little bit.
` MS. GORDNIA: So on to Slide 14, Hunter teaches a
`multimedia system, and in that system are a number of hubs,
`personal computers, and telephones networked over a number of
`standards.
` And one of the standards taught by Hunter is the
`10BASE-T Ethernet standard. As we can see in this figure from
`Hunter, there is a 10BASE-T hub illustrated in the multimedia
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`system.
` Slide 15?
` Slide 15 is another figure from Hunter. This is
`Hunter's power subsystem, and I'd like to draw your attention
`to the protected device labelled 213 to the left side of the
`figure. We'll talk about some of the other teachings of this
`figure in Hunter later, but for now I just want to focus on
`this protected device, which Hunter teaches is a polyfuserate
`(phonetic) thermistor.
` And if we go to Slide 16, the second reference in
`Ground 1 is Bulan. And what Bulan teaches among its teachings
`is an improved protected device, and Hunter expressly teaches
`that this improved protected device is intended to replace
`current -- overcurrent protection devices similar to the one
`we saw in Hunter.
` So if we can go back to Slide 15, the only
`modification we're making for Ground 1 is to replace that
`protected device, 213 in Hunter, with the improved protected
`device from Bulan.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So I think Patent Owner makes an
`argument that you've got a sufficient protective device already
`in Hunter. Why would you make this change?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` MS. GORDNIA: Your Honor, thank you.
` Bulan teaches that the traditional prior art
`protected devices that came before Bulan were inadequate for
`responding to the full range of currents typically associated
`with DC-to-DC converters, and both Hunter and Bulan are
`directed to terminal equipment with DC-to-DC converters.
` And Bulan teaches that a typical polyfuserate
`thermistor, similar to what Hunter teaches, does not properly
`react over the full range of currents.
` So for example, if a DC-to-DC converter starts up,
`it typically draws a high amount of current instantaneously.
`And that could be due to a normal DC-to-DC converter start up,
`but it could also be due to a fault, like a short.
` A normal protected device, like the one in Hunter,
`cannot distinguish between those two, treats them both the
`same, and it cuts off current to the whole circuit.
` Now, if it's a normal DC-to-DC converter starting
`up, when current is cut off to it, it can't start up, and
`therefore, it can't power the rest of the system.
` Bulan is intelligent in that it can distinguish
`between a normal start up versus a fault, and there is no
`dispute among the parties over how the Bulan circuitry
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`operates. In the -- in its preliminary Patent Owner response,
`Chrimar essentially articulated a similar explanation of the
`Bulan circuitry and how it operates.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So why couldn't they just choose
`an appropriate thermistor, or some other protective device,
`that wouldn't cut off power during a normal operation?
` MS. GORDNIA: So, Your Honor, any typical
`protection device that has a single threshold, when you exceed
`that threshold, it stops providing current. It cuts current
`off, and again, as I mentioned, there are various instances
`where that threshold can be exceeded.
` In one instance, like a short or a fault, you don't
`want to continue powering that circuit. You might cause
`damage.
` However, if it's a normal start up, if you cut off
`power, then that device cannot start up. So you've
`essentially mistaken a normal start up for a fault, and you've
`prevented your terminal equipment from starting up.
` And so any sort of single threshold device, such as
`the ones taught by Hunter, would have that same problem. And
`that is the problem that Bulan overcomes.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So there's no way to choose a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`threshold that would only cut off power when it's a fault and
`not normal start up?
` MS. GORDNIA: Bulan explains that that's not
`possible in this particular DC-to-DC converter scenario
`because you don't know what your equipment current draw is
`necessarily going to be.
` When you design your power supply and your power
`source, your terminal equipment has to be flexible. You need
`to be able to plug it in different types of equipment, and
`different DC-to-DC converters will have a different inrush
`current when they start up, and, of course, you wouldn't know
`if you have a fault in your terminal equipment.
` So Bulan's flexible circuit accounts for all of
`those various possibilities, whereas a single-threshold
`protected device does not.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Before you move on, I just have
`one sort of preliminary question for you.
` I think Patent Owner proposed changing the level of
`ordinary skill in the art that you proposed slightly to take
`out the word at least a BS degree.
` Do you have any issue with the level of ordinary
`skill that Patent Owner has proposed in their response?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` MS. GORDNIA: I'd have to take another look at the
`full language of their response, but if I may address that
`shortly, it -- maybe, perhaps, in our rebuttal, if that's all
`right. But I'd have to take another look at that.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay. And just so you know, I
`think they've agreed to exactly what you've proposed, save for
`the words at least. So I was just curious whether that was
`any -- that was going to be an issue for you.
` MS. GORDNIA: Well, so, Your Honor, someone could
`have more than -- so I guess their definition is just a BS
`degree as opposed to at least a BS degree, so we just --
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: I believe so.
` MS. GORDNIA: So to the extent that that excludes a
`person who has, say, a Master's degree or a higher-level
`degree, we would object to that definition, because we believe
`that someone with more then a BS degree would also qualify as
`a person of ordinary skill in the art.
` And so to the extent that they're trying to exclude
`that from the definition, then we would object.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` MS. GORDNIA: So going back to the Hunter and Bulan
`combination, I just wanted to briefly talk about the reasons
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`for combinability. And in addressing your questions, we
`covered some of them.
` If I could have Slide 20, please?
` So in addition to Bulan teaching that it's
`protected device is intended to replace the types of protected
`devices in the prior art, including the one in Hunter, there's
`also more reasons for combinability.
` Bulan and Hunter are both directed to phantom
`powering. They are both directed to powering terminal
`equipment. They are both directed to have terminal equipment
`with DC-to-DC converters. They are even directed to similar
`levels of DC voltage.
` Can I have Slide 23, please?
` And as Mr. Crayford, Petitioner's expert, has
`opined, having read both Hunter and Bulan as a whole, the
`replacement of one protected device with the improved
`protected device would yield more than reasonable expectations
`of success, because it's a one-for-one replacement.
` And if we can have Slide 25, please?
` And as Mr. Crayford explained in his first
`declaration, this replacement is merely the use of a known
`technique and would yield predictable results.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` And with that, I'd like to talk about the first
`limitation that's in dispute: Ethernet data terminal
`equipment.
` And can we have Slide 7, please?
` So I'd like to start off by focusing on the
`language of the claims. As we can see here, Ethernet data
`terminal equipment in Independent Claim 31 of the '012 patent,
`which is one of the illustrative claims discussed in Your
`Honors' decisions, it reads that the Ethernet data terminal
`equipment, which appears in the preamble, comprises, or is
`comprising, of an Ethernet connecter with a plurality of
`contacts, at least one path coupled across those contacts, and
`distinguishing information about the piece of Ethernet data
`terminal equipment that is associated to impedance within the
`at least one path.
` So with that in mind, can I have Slide 45, please?
` As The Board's decisions reflect, the term Ethernet
`data terminal equipment appears only in the claims. It is not
`defined in the specification. There is no narrowing
`definition for this term, and so we have to look at its
`broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the
`specification.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` Can I have Slide 46?
` So if we take a look at what the plain and ordinary
`meaning of data terminal equipment is, according to an IEEE
`dictionary from the appropriate time frame -- I believe this
`is from 1996 -- as we can see, in all variations of this
`definition for data terminal equipment, we see that it's a
`source and/or a sink of information or data.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Ms. Gordnia, did you propose
`this construction somewhere in your papers?
` MS. GORDNIA: Your Honor, it's reflected in our
`petition. And if you look at, for example, the 1391 petition
`at page 50, we have a reference to a definition for data
`terminal equipment.
` It may actually be from one of IEEE standards,
`Exhibits 1006 through 1008, but that definition in the
`petition is also in line with the dictionary we're seeing on
`the screen in that data terminal equipment is a source or sink
`of data.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: So this is a different reference
`than you cited in your petition?
` MS. GORDNIA: It is a different reference than we
`cited in the petition; however, this is in our reply, and it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`responding to portions of Patent Owner's response.
` So this is in the record, and it is, as I
`mentioned, similar to -- in language -- to what we referenced
`on page 50 of the 1391 petition.
` And so if we could have Slide 47, please.
` As we'll see in a moment, the Hunter reference of
`Ground 1 teaches an ISTE, which is an abbreviation for
`Integrated Services Terminal Equipment.
` And if we look to the IEEE standard from 1994, we
`see that an integrated services terminal equipment, similar to
`data terminal equipment, is defined as an information source
`and/or an information sink.
` And so with that in mind, if we can go to Slide 48,
`I'd like to focus -- this is a figure from the petition. It's
`actually Figure 2 from Hunter, with some annotations.
` And what it shows on the right-side of the screen
`is an ISTE card. And as we just saw, ISTE, like a DTE, are
`both terminal equipment for data. And we discussed in our
`petition why this ISTE teaches the data terminal equipment of
`the claims.
` And in its response, Patent Owner has argued for a
`narrower definition of data terminal equipment. According to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`Chrimar's responses, a data terminal equipment is equipment at
`the end of a network.
` However, as I mentioned earlier, there is no
`specific definition for this term in any of the claims or the
`specifications. In fact, under the broadest reasonable
`interpretation, Chrimar's definition is overly-narrow and
`unsupported by the patent.
` But even if we were to take Chrimar's definition,
`Hunter still teaches data terminal equipment, because we see
`that the ISTE card is coupled to the voice instrument, to the
`right, and together they are at the end of the network.
` And if we go to Slide 49, on Slide 49, we have
`testimony from Mr. Crayford. And within his testimony,
`Mr. Crayford is citing to an excerpt from Hunter that explains
`that the voice instrument and the ISTE are coupled such that
`the voice instrument is receiving both data and power from the
`ISTE.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: Ms. Gordnia, can I can you a
`question about that ISTE card? Is it your contention that the
`ISTE card is an Ethernet card that converts the Ethernet data
`into data that the other card, the card 299, understands?
` MS. GORDNIA: Can we go back to the previous?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` So the ISTE card in Hunter has a number of
`functions, and one of the functions is, as you mentioned, to
`separate data and to direct some data to the voice instrument
`and potentially some data to the local area network that is
`depicted at the bottom of the ISTE card as LAN data.
` And so to that extent, yes, the ISTE card, one of
`its functions is to redirect data. As I mentioned, the voice
`instrument is getting data from the ISTE card as well.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: When you say redirect, do you mean
`the Ethernet-type of data is going to the voice instrument, or
`is it in another format or protocol?
` MS. GORDNIA: Well, it depends on what the standard
`is that Hunter is using. Hunter teaches a number of different
`standards. It teaches plain old 10BASE-T Ethernet. It
`teaches, ATM, Token Ring, isoEthernet --
` JUDGE EASTHOM: So your contention is that Hunter
`is at least suggesting that the voice instrument card could be
`an Ethernet card? Is that --
` MS. GORDNIA: The voice instrument -- well, so if
`we go back to the multimedia system, and if we go back to
`Slide 14, what Mr. Crayford has explained, having read Hunter
`as a whole as one of ordinary skill in the art -- and it's
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`reflected by the clear disclosures of Hunter -- that ISTE card
`can be, for example, in one of those hubs.
` It could also be, for example, in that personal
`computer labeled 125. And that ISTE card, if it's receiving,
`for example, isoEthernet data, it could separate out the
`Ethernet data from the ISDN data, because isoEthernet is a
`standard that combines 10BASE-T Ethernet with in ISDN, and it
`operates in different modes. And in one mode, both Ethernet
`and ISDN data are sent over.
` So, for example, if that ISTE card was in PC 125,
`it could separate the Ethernet data for use by the computer
`and send ISDN data to the telephone.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: All right. Thank you.
` I have another more fundamental question. I think
`if we go to Slide 7 -- and I want to ask Patent Owner about
`this -- but Slide 7 is Claim 31 of the '012 patent.
` I'm just struggling with why we're talking about
`POE, power over internet [sic], with this claim, because I
`don't see why it's required by that claim.
` MS. GORDNIA: Your Honor, that is a correct
`observation. Power over Ethernet is not a limitation of Claim
`31, or any of the other claims.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` As I mentioned, the very simple concept that these
`claims are directed to uncover is simply sending a DC current
`over the same conductors used for powering -- rather, I'm
`sorry; I misspoke -- over the same conductors used for
`Ethernet data communication, and so power over Ethernet is not
`a requirement or a limitation of any of the claims.
` The reason we're looking at references that
`essentially are in the power over Ethernet environment is
`because that's a very well-known prior art example of this
`concept of sending a current over the same conductors that
`carry data.
` But you're correct that the claims do not require
`power over Ethernet as a limitation.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: Okay. Thank you.
` MS. GORDNIA: And so if we could have Slide 54,
`please?
` So as we saw, Hunter teaches the terminal
`equipment. And in fact, even under Chrimar's more narrow
`definition of the terminal equipment being at the end of a
`network, it still teaches Ethernet data terminal equipment.
` And with respect to the Ethernet portion of it,
`what Hunter teaches is that that ISTE card we saw, that is
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
`both transmitting and receiving data over a 10BASE-T bus.
` And so with that, I'd like to turn to the Ethernet
`limitation, which is also in dispute. Again, we're only on
`Ground 1 right now.
` Slide 28, please.
` In its decisions to institute both grounds, Your
`Honors defined BASE-T, which is a claim limitation, as twisted
`pair Ethernet in accordance with the 10BASE-T or 100BASE-T
`standards. And the so with that, we understand that 10BASE-T
`is an example of Ethernet, as is 100BASE-T.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Ms. Gordnia, do you have any
`problems with that construction?
` MS. GORDNIA: We don't, Your Honor. We're just
`mentioning it as background for our discussion.
` JUDGE WEINSCHENK: Okay.
` JUDGE EASTHOM: This is a good place where I kind
`of get lost in the weeds probably, but the agreement here
`seems to be that BASE-T means twisted pair Ethernet.
` Now, does that mean the physical twisted pair such
`that that Ethernet twisted pair can allow Ethernet-type of
`transmissions and other type of transmissions, like ISDN, to
`traverse?
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01389 (Patent 8,155,012 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01391 (Patent 8,942,107 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01397 (Patent 9,019,838 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01399 (Patent 8,902,760 B2)
`
`
`
` I just -- I guess it's a long question, but I don't
`understand what exactly is meant by an Ethernet device. What
`standards are we using, if you would?
` MS. GORDNIA: Sure. If we could go back to Slide
`29, actually -- or, sorry. 27. I misspoke.
` So we see here that the term Ethernet, which is
`disputed, as well as BASE-T Ethernet, it appears as a term
`describing data terminal equipment, terminal equipment,
`communications signals and connector, as well as systems.
` So the claims use 10 -- use Ethernet and BASE-T
`Ethernet in a variety of ways to describe equipment, signals,
`connecters
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
