Filed on behalf of: Aerohive Networks, Inc.
`By: Matthew A. Argenti (margenti@wsgr.com)
`Michael T. Rosato (mrosato@wsgr.com)
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH AND ROSATI
`
`
`
`Paper No. ____
`Filed: September 8, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_____________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01757
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107 B2
`_____________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review .............................. 2
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ....................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)) .......................................... 2
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2)) .................................................. 2
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) ................................. 2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ............................... 3
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) .................................... 3
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’107 Patent ...................................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’107 Patent ...................... 4
`
`Priority Claims in the ’107 Patent ....................................................... 6
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date of the ’107 Patent ........................................................... 6
`
`IV. State of the Art .............................................................................................. 9
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT” (claim 5) ............................................................................. 12
`
`B.
`
`“path coupled across” (claims 1, 104) ............................................... 13
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ........................... 13
`
`A.
`
`The challenged claims are obvious based on the De Nicolo
`references. ......................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`The De Nicolo References ...................................................... 14
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References ...................... 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................... 17
`a.
`“A piece of Ethernet terminal equipment” .................... 17
`b.
`“an Ethernet connector comprising first and second
`pairs of contacts used to carry Ethernet
`communication signals” ................................................ 17
`“at least one path for the purpose of drawing DC
`current” ......................................................................... 18
`“the at least one path coupled across at least one of
`the contacts of the first pair of contacts and at least
`one of the contacts of the second pair of contacts” ........ 19
`“the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment to draw
`different magnitudes of DC current flow via the at
`least one path” .............................................................. 20
`“the different magnitudes of DC current flow to
`result from at least one condition applied to at least
`one of the contacts of the first and second pairs of
`contacts” ....................................................................... 25
`“wherein at least one of the magnitudes of the DC
`current flow to convey information about the piece
`of Ethernet terminal equipment” ................................... 28
`
`g.
`
`Dependent Claim 5: “wherein the Ethernet
`communication signals are BaseT Ethernet
`communication signals” .......................................................... 30
`
`Dependent Claim 31: “wherein the DC current comprises
`a predetermined range of magnitudes” .................................... 30
`
`Dependent Claim 43: “wherein the information to
`distinguish the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment
`from at least one other piece of Ethernet terminal
`equipment” ............................................................................. 31
`
`Dependent Claim 53: “wherein a duration of at least one
`of the different magnitudes of the DC current to comprise
`a predetermined range” ........................................................... 32
`
`8.
`
`Dependent Claim 58: “wherein impedance within the at
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`least one path changes” ........................................................... 34
`
`9.
`
`Dependent Claim 70: “wherein the DC current to
`comprise first magnitude of DC current for a first interval
`followed by a second magnitude of DC current for a
`second interval, wherein the second magnitude is greater
`than the first magnitude” ......................................................... 35
`
`10. Dependent Claim 72: “wherein at least one magnitude of
`the DC current is part of a detection protocol” ........................ 36
`
`11. Dependent Claim 75: “wherein the electrical component
`is a resistor” ............................................................................ 37
`
`12. Dependent Claim 83: “wherein the piece of Ethernet
`equipment comprises a controller” .......................................... 37
`
`13. Dependent Claim 84: “wherein the controller comprises
`firmware”................................................................................ 38
`
`14. Dependent Claim 103: “wherein the piece of Ethernet of
`[sic] terminal equipment is a piece of powered-off
`Ethernet terminal equipment” ................................................. 39
`
`15.
`
`Independent Claim 104 ........................................................... 40
`
`16. Dependent Claim 107: “wherein the at least one
`condition comprises an impedance condition” ........................ 41
`
`17. Dependent Claim 111: “wherein the information to
`distinguish the powered-off end device from at least one
`other end device” .................................................................... 41
`
`18. Dependent Claim 123: “wherein at least one of the
`magnitudes is part of a detection protocol” ............................. 42
`
`19. Dependent Claim 125 (across 104, 111, and 123):
`“wherein the powered-off end device is a powered-off
`Ethernet end device” ............................................................... 42
`
`VII. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 43
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Number
`
`Short Name
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`’760 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`’760 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`’107 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`’107 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`’838 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`’838 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`’019 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`
`’019 Assignment
`Records
`
`USPTO Assignments on the Web for U.S.
`Patent No. 9,049,019
`
`Seifert Decl.
`
`Declaration of Richard Seifert
`
`Seifert CV
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Rich Seifert
`
`Seifert Materials
`
`List of Materials Reviewed by Rich Seifert
`
`’760 Actions
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760
`
`1013
`
`’107 Actions
`
`1014
`
`’838 Actions
`
`1015
`
`’019 Actions
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for
`U.S. Patent No. 9,049,019
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`Number
`
`Short Name
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`’260 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260
`
`Murphy
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,822,519
`
`Lee
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,200,686
`
`De Nicolo ’468
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468
`
`De Nicolo ’666
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666
`
`Bloch
`
`Puvogel
`
`Bell
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,733,389
`
`U.S. Patent No. 244,426
`
`DP83840 Data
`Sheet
`
`National Semiconductor DP83840 Technical
`Data Sheet
`
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3-1993
`
`’279 Provisional
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279
`
`Baxter Dist. Ct.
`Decl.
`
`Declaration of Les Baxter, dated December
`17, 2015
`
`Seifert Dist. Ct.
`Decl.
`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert, dated January
`21, 2016
`
`1030
`
`H4000 Manual
`
`Excerpt from “H4000 Ethernet Transceiver
`Technical Manual” (1982)
`
`1031
`
`Gigabit Ethernet
`
`Excerpt from Gigabit Ethernet, R. Seifert
`(1998)
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`
`
`
`Comm. Engineering Excerpt from Communication Engineering,
`W. L. Everitt and G. E. Anner (1956)
`
`Baxter Dep.
`
`Transcript of Deposition of Leslie Baxter
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Petitioner Aerohive
`
`Networks, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Aerohive”) respectfully requests inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 5, 31, 43, 53, 58, 70, 72, 75, 83, 84, 103 (across 1 and
`
`31), 104, 111, 123, and 125 (across 104, 111, and 123) (“the challenged claims”)
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107 (“the ’107 patent”), which is attached to this Petition
`
`as Exhibit 1003. USPTO assignment records indicate that the applicants of
`
`the ’107 patent assigned their rights to ChriMar Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`(Ex. 1004.)
`
`This petition is filed with a motion for joinder with IPR2016-00569 (“the
`
`’569 review”), in which AMX, LLC and Dell Inc. filed a petition on February 12,
`
`2016 requesting cancellation of the challenged claims of the ’107 patent. The
`
`Board instituted trial in the ’569 review on August 10, 2016 on one ground: the
`
`challenged claims are obvious in light of United States Patents Number 6,115,468
`
`(“De Nicolo ’468,” Ex. 1019) and 6,134,666 (“De Nicolo ’666,” Ex. 1020)
`
`(collectively, “the De Nicolo references”). Here, Aerohive proposes the same
`
`ground of unpatentability as instituted in the ’569 review and relies on the same
`
`analysis and evidence.1
`
`
`1 AMX, LLC and Dell Inc.’s petition for the ’569 review included an additional
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`II. Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1))
`
`The real party-in-interest is Aerohive Networks, Inc.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters (§ 42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’107 patent is the subject of 48 civil actions filed in the Eastern District
`
`of Michigan, Eastern District of Texas, and Northern District of California.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1013 is a list identifying each of these civil actions. These
`
`cases may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Matthew A. Argenti (Reg. No. 61,836)
`margenti@wsgr.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: 650-354-4154
`Fax: 650-493-6811
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney accompany this
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Michael T. Rosato (Reg. No. 52,182)
`mrosato@wsgr.com
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100
`Seattle, WA 98104-7036
`Telephone: 206-883-2529
`Fax: 206-883-2699
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`
`ground based on § 103 in light of other references. The Board declined to institute
`
`on that ground. Aerohive has omitted that ground from this petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`also consents to electronic service by email.
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The undersigned authorizes the PTO to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 23-2415. Review of 19 claims
`
`is requested. The undersigned authorizes payment for additional fees that may be
`
`due with this petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that it has standing to request and is not barred from
`
`requesting an IPR of the ’107 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315. Neither
`
`Petitioner nor any privy of Petitioner has filed any civil actions challenging the
`
`validity of any claim of the ’107 patent or previously requested IPR of the ’107
`
`patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(a). The time limit of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) (“1 year after . . . the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the patent”) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) (same) does not apply here
`
`because Aerohive has moved for joinder, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.22 and as filed
`
`with this petition, to the ’569 review within one month of the ’569 review’s
`
`institution on August 10, 2016. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Neither Petitioner nor any privy of Petitioner is estopped from requesting
`
`cancellation of the challenged claims on the grounds identified in this petition. See
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1); 37 U.S.C. § 42.101(c).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’107 Patent
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention
`
`would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering or computer
`
`science, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in the design of
`
`network communication products. Specifically, such a person would be familiar
`
`with, inter alia, data communications protocols, data communications standards
`
`(and standards under development at the time), and the behavior and use of
`
`common data communications products available on the market. (Ex. 1009, Seifert
`
`Decl., at ¶¶ 41-42.)
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’107 Patent
`
`The claims of the ’107 patent are directed to a piece of Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment comprising an Ethernet connector with first and second pairs of
`
`contacts, and a path coupled across at least one contact from each pair of contacts,
`
`with functional limitations for applying a condition to at least one contact to draw
`
`different magnitudes of DC current flow, wherein at least one magnitude of the DC
`
`current conveys information about the piece of equipment. (Ex. 1003, ’107 patent,
`
`at 17:11-25, 22:17-29.) The ’107 patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent
`
`5,406,260 (also assigned to the Patent Owner), which discloses a current loop
`
`including a portion passing through a pair of contacts. (Ex. 1016, ’260 patent, at
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`3:37-52, Fig. 2.) The ’107 patent states that the prior art ’260 patent already
`
`disclosed:
`
`a means of detecting the unauthorized removal of a networked device
`
`by
`
`injecting a
`
`low current power signal
`
`into each existing
`
`communications link. A sensor monitors the returning current flow
`
`and can thereby detect a removal of the equipment. This method
`
`provides a means to monitor the connection status of any networked
`
`electronic device thus providing an effective theft detection/deterrent
`
`system.
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, ’107 patent, at 2:19-25.) The ’107 patent then states the desire to
`
`“provide a further means in which a networked device may also be identified by a
`
`unique identification number using the existing network wiring or cabling as a
`
`means of communicating this information back to a central location.” (Id. at 2:26-
`
`30.) The ’107 patent discloses a modulation scheme for this purpose:
`
`[A] communication system is provided for generating and monitoring
`
`data over a pre-existing wiring or cables [sic] that connect pieces of
`
`networked computer equipment to a network. The system includes a
`
`communication device or remote module attached to the electronic
`
`equipment that transmits information to a central module by
`
`impressing a low frequency signal on the wires of the cable. A
`
`receiver in the central module monitors the low frequency data to
`
`determine the transmitted information from the electronic equipment.
`
`The communication device may also be powered by a low current
`
`power signal from the central module. The power signal to the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`communication device may also be fluctuated to provide useful
`
`information, such as status information, to the communication device.
`
`
`(Id. at 3:24-37.) The specification emphasizes modulation techniques by which the
`
`variation in current transmits identifying information. (Id.) In contrast, the
`
`challenged claims recite that a single magnitude of DC current is sufficient to
`
`convey information about the claimed device. (Id. at 17:11-25, 22:17-29.)
`
`C.
`
`Priority Claims in the ’107 Patent
`
`The ’107 patent issued from Application No. 13/370,918 (“the ’918
`
`application”), which was filed on Feb. 10, 2012. The ’918 application is a
`
`continuation of Application No. 12/239,001 filed Sep. 26, 2008, now U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,155,012 issued Apr. 10, 2012, which is a continuation of Application No.
`
`10/668,708 filed Sep. 23, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,457,250 issued Nov. 25, 2008,
`
`which is a continuation of Application No. 09/370,430 filed Aug. 9, 1999, now
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,622 issued Nov. 18, 2003, which is a continuation-in-part
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 120 of International Application PCT/US99/07846,
`
`filed Apr. 8, 1999, designating the United States. The ’107 patent also claims the
`
`benefit of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/081,279, filed Apr. 10, 1998.
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date of the ’107 Patent
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date or date of invention
`
`earlier than April 8, 1999, which is the filing date of priority PCT Application No.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`PCT/US99/07846.
`
`In co-pending litigation, Patent Owner contends that the claims are entitled
`
`to an earlier priority date or date of invention based on (i) U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 60/081,279; (ii) uncorroborated testimony of named inventors
`
`Marshall Cummings and John Austerman; and (iii) letters from third-party Clyde
`
`Boenke to Marshall Cummings (“the Boenke letters”). None of these establishes an
`
`earlier priority date or invention date.
`
`First, the ’107 patent’s claims are not entitled to the April 10, 1998 filing
`
`date of the ’279 provisional application. Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`establishing that the ’279 provisional application provides written description
`
`support for every limitation of the challenged claims. For example, the ’279
`
`provisional application does not provide written description support for the
`
`limitation “the different magnitudes of DC current flow to result from at least one
`
`condition applied to at least one of the contacts of the first and second pairs of
`
`contacts,” which is recited in every challenged claim. Nor does the ’279
`
`provisional application provide written description support for the limitations
`
`added by dependent claims 31, 43, 53, 58, 70, 72, 75, 103, 111, 123, and 125.
`
`Second, inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier invention date
`
`as a matter of law. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Moreover, inventor testimony cannot be used “to authenticate a document offered
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`to corroborate the inventor’s testimony.” Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00292, Paper 93 at 16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014).
`
`Finally, the Boenke letters do not establish an earlier invention date. Those
`
`letters do not establish that the named inventors disclosed the subject matter of the
`
`letters to others before the critical date. See Microsoft, IPR2013-00292, Paper 93 at
`
`15 (emphasis added). To the contrary, the Boenke letters, at best, show that
`
`Boenke, not the named inventors, conceived the subject matter disclosed in those
`
`letters. The Boenke letters also cannot establish an earlier date of invention
`
`because they do not disclose every limitation of any challenged claim. See Iron
`
`Dome LLC v. E-Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, Paper 16 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4,
`
`2014). For example, the letters do not disclose at least the following limitations: (i)
`
`“the at least one path coupled across at least one of the contacts of the first pair of
`
`contacts and at least one of the contacts of the second pair of contacts” (every
`
`challenged claim); (ii) “the different magnitudes of DC current flow to result from
`
`at least one condition applied to at least one of the contacts of the first and second
`
`pairs of contacts” (every challenged claim); (iii) “powered-off end device” (claims
`
`103 and 104, and 104’s dependents); (iv) “wherein the piece of Ethernet equipment
`
`comprises a controller” (claim 83); and (v) “wherein the controller comprises
`
`firmware” (claim 84).
`
`Therefore, as a matter of law, Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`showing a priority date or date of invention prior to April 8, 1999.
`
`IV. State of the Art
`
`The challenged claims recite well-known structural elements of an Ethernet
`
`connector and a path coupled between two pairs of contacts. (Ex. 1009, Seifert
`
`Decl., at ¶ 21.) Indeed, this form of connection existed in Ethernet communication
`
`systems dating to the first Ethernet standards in 1980. (Id.) Further still, twisted-
`
`pair wiring configurations, such as 10BASE-T, would use paths coupled between
`
`pairs of connector contacts because they provide separate transmit and receive
`
`pairs, each of which allows information to be sent differentially to benefit signal
`
`propagation. (Id.) As Patent Owner has admitted, the challenged claims recite these
`
`well-known structural elements. (Id. at ¶¶ 29-37 (citing Ex. 1033, Baxter Dep., at
`
`113-116.)
`
`The challenged claims further recite well-known functional features. (Id. at ¶
`
`22.) For instance, the claims provide that the equipment is “to draw different
`
`magnitudes of DC current flow,” that this is “to result from at least one condition
`
`applied” to a contact, and that at least one of the magnitudes is “to convey
`
`information about the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment.” (Id.) These are
`
`functional features that can be used with a prior art Ethernet system. (Id.)
`
`For instance, U.S. Patent No. 4,733,389 shows the following configuration:
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`(Id. at ¶ 23 (citing Ex. 1022, Puvogel, at FIG. 2).) In this figure, the Ethernet
`
`
`
`equipment (transceiver 70) has an Ethernet connector comprising first and second
`
`pairs of contacts (e.g., pairs 1, 6 and 5, 9). (Id.) Power supply 42 applies a
`
`condition, namely a DC voltage between 11.4 to 15.75 volts to pins 1 and 6. (Id.)
`
`This causes transceiver 70 to draw magnitudes of DC current. (Id.) The DC-DC
`
`converter 48 completes the path and returns the current to the host station 60
`
`through pins 5 and 9. (Id.) This conveys to the host station 60, at a minimum,
`
`whether transceiver 70 is properly connected or disconnected. (Id.)
`
`It was well-known that magnitudes of DC current can convey information
`
`about a device. (Id. at ¶ 26.) In fact, this is a simple application of Ohm’s law
`
`(Current (I) = Voltage (V) - Resistance (R)). (Id.) For example, U.S. Patent No.
`
`2,822,519 (“Murphy”) disclosed an apparatus incorporating in paths “known
`
`values of resistors and a meter with a source of direct current to identify circuits
`
`that have been connected.” (Id. (citing Ex. 1017, Murphy, at 1:20-22).) Murphy
`
`uses multiple contacts and twisted pairs. (Id.) In the context of evaluating how
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`much power to send to a device, the same concept was recognized as well-known
`
`prior art in U.S. Patent No. 5,200,686 (“Lee”), in which the resistance in a path
`
`(measured using Ohm’s law and a known voltage or current) was associated with
`
`the power charging requirements for the device. (Id. (citing Ex. 1018, Lee, at Figs.
`
`1 -3).)
`
`Similarly, in the system shown in Fig. 2 above, a person of ordinary skill
`
`would know that a measurement of the current drain from the 11.4 to 15.75 V DC
`
`supply 42 would convey whether the transceiver was connected to the cable, and
`
`operating within its specified parameters. (Id. at ¶ 27.) The IEEE 802.3 standard
`
`for 10BASE5 specifies that transceivers (such as shown in Fig. 2 above) can draw
`
`a maximum of 0.5A of DC current. (Id. (citing IEEE 802.3 at Clause 8.3.2.2).) A
`
`typical steady-state current drain from such a transceiver is shown below:
`
`(Id. (citing Ex. 1030, H4000 Manual, at 2-8).) A person of ordinary skill would
`
`have known that a current drain on the order of a few hundred milliamps would
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`indicate proper connection of the transceiver, a current drain exceeding 500 mA
`
`would indicate a faulty device (according to the Ethernet specification), and a very
`
`low or zero current drain would indicate either a defective or disconnected device.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 28.) In this way, the magnitude of DC current drawn would convey
`
`information about the Ethernet device, resulting from the condition (i.e., the
`
`voltage applied) to the pins of its connector. (Id.)
`
`V. Claim Construction
`
`A claim in IPR is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Under this standard,
`
`“claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent
`
`disclosure.” Nuvasive, Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., IPR2013-00206, Paper No.
`
`17 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2013). This meaning applies unless the inventor, as his
`
`own lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a term in the specification.
`
`Id. Under this standard, the following terms of the ’107 patent should be construed
`
`as proposed.
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT” (claim 5)
`
`Claim 5 recites “BaseT Ethernet communication signals.” “BaseT” should
`
`be construed as “10BASE-T.” The ’107 patent consistently uses the term “BaseT”
`
`only as part of the larger phrase “10BASE-T.” (Ex. 1003, ’107 patent, at 12:19-
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`29.) Similarly, the ’279 provisional and the ’260 patent, both of which the ’107
`
`patent incorporates by reference, only use the term “Base-T” in the phrase
`
`“10Base-T.” (Ex. 1027, ’279 provisional, at 3:9-11, Abstract; Ex. 1016, ’260
`
`patent, at Abstract, 3:35, 5:53, 7:13, 8:50.)
`
`B.
`
`“path coupled across” (claims 1, 104)
`
`Claims 1 and 104 recite “at least one path coupled across at least one of the
`
`contacts of the first pair of contacts and at least one of the contacts of the second
`
`pair of contacts.” “Path coupled across” should be construed as “path permitting
`
`energy transfer between [at least one of the contacts of the first pair of contacts and
`
`at least one of the contacts of the second pair of contacts].”2 In district court, the
`
`parties’ experts agree upon this interpretation. (Ex. 1028, Baxter Dist. Ct. Decl., at
`
`¶ 89; Ex. 1029, Seifert Dist. Ct. Decl., at ¶ 107.)
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`
`Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of the challenged
`
`claims of the ’107 patent based on the following grounds: Under pre-AIA 35
`
`2 In the ’569 review, the Board construed this term to mean “path permitting
`
`energy transfer.” IPR2016-00569, Paper 19 at 8. Petitioner submits that the
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable under both Petitioner’s proposed construction
`
`and the construction adopted by the Board in the ’569 review.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a), the challenged claims are obvious based on U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,115,468 (“De Nicolo ’468”) (Ex. 1019) and U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666
`
`(“De Nicolo ’666”) (Ex. 1020) (collectively, “the De Nicolo references”).
`
`A. The challenged claims are obvious based on the De Nicolo
`references.
`
`1.
`
`The De Nicolo References
`
`De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 are prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
`
`because their filing dates (March 26, 1998 and March 12, 1998, respectively),
`
`predate the earliest possible priority date of the ’107 patent’s claims (April 8,
`
`1999).3 Neither of the De Nicolo references was substantively addressed during the
`
`prosecution of the application that issued as the ’107 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined De Nicolo ’468
`
`and De Nicolo ’666. (Ex. 1009, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 47.) Both references disclose
`
`techniques for powering a controlled device. (Id. at ¶ 48.) In De Nicolo ’468, for
`
`example, a power supply 144 provides power via two twisted pairs 128a, 128b to a
`
`power processor 149, which, in turn, provides power to a portion of an Ethernet
`
`device 98. (Id. at ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1019, De Nicolo ’468, at FIG. 3).) Similarly, in
`
`
`3 The De Nicolo references also predate the filing date of the provisional
`
`application to which the '107 patent on its face claims priority.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`De Nicolo ’666, a power supervisor 14 provides power via a query conductor 28 to
`
`a power circuit soft start 44, which, in turn, provides power to power consuming
`
`circuitry. (Id. (citing Ex. 1020, De Nicolo ’666, at FIG. 1).) De Nicolo ’666
`
`discloses that “multiple query conductors could also be used, if more convenient.”
`
`(Id. (citing Ex. 1020, De Nicolo ’666, at 5:34-38).)
`
`In addition, De Nicolo ’468’s disclosure would have motivated a skilled
`
`artisan to incorporate De Nicolo ’666’s teachings with De Nicolo ’468’s teachings.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 49.) For example, similar to De Nicolo ’666, De Nicolo ’468 discloses “[a]
`
`system for supplying DC power to a remote device.” (Id. (citing Ex. 1019,
`
`De Nicolo ’468, at claim 6).) De Nicolo ’468 shows a system with multiple devices
`
`(associated with loads 98, 100, and 102) in Figure 3. (Id.) De Nicolo ’468 also
`
`provides that such a system can have one remote device. (Id. (citing Ex. 1019,
`
`De Nicolo ’468, at claim 6 (“[a] system for supplying DC power to a remote
`
`device”), claim 12 (“[a] method for supplying a DC power connection and a bi-
`
`directional data connection to a remote device”, claim 16 (“[a] system for
`
`supplying DC power to a remote device over a 4-wire Ethernet connection”)).) A
`
`skilled artisan would have understood that the remote device has a maximum
`
`power requirement and that it would have been desirable to provide that device
`
`with a power signal that satisfies the device’s power requirement. (Id.) With that
`
`understanding, a skilled artisan would have incorporated