DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PAR TES REVIEW OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,760
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1009
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................... .. 1
`
`II.
`
`Background/Qualifications ........................................................................... ..l
`
`III. Documents and Materials Considered .......................................................... ..2
`
`IV.
`
`Legal Principles ............................................................................................. ..2
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art .............................................................................................. ..9
`
`VI.
`
`Claim Construction ..................................................................................... ..lO
`
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................. ..11
`
`VIII. Prior Art ...................................................................................................... .. 12
`
`A.
`
`De Nicolo References ....................................................................... .. 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview ................................................................................ .. 12
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References ..................... .. 13
`
`B.
`
`Auto-Negotiation References ............................................................ .. 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview ................................................................................ .. 15
`
`Reasons to Combine the Auto-Negotiation References ......... ..17
`
`IX.
`
`’760 Patent .................................................................................................. ..19
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary of the ’760 Patent ............................................................. .. 19
`
`Challenged Claims ............................................................................ ..20
`
`X.
`
`Invalidity Analysis of ’760 Patent ............................................................... ..23
`
`A.
`
`The challenged claims are obvious based on the De Nicolo
`references. ......................................................................................... ..23
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................... ..23
`
`a.
`
`“A BaseT Ethernet system” .......................................... ..23
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`(1.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`“a piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ................................................................... ..25
`
`“a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment” ................................................................... ..26
`
`“data signaling pairs of conductors
`comprising first and second pairs used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals
`between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment and the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment, the first and second
`pairs physically connect between the piece
`of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ................................................................... ..27
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment having at least one DC supply” .................. ..28
`
`“the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow from
`the at least one DC supply through a loop
`formed over at least one of the conductors of
`
`the first pair and at least one of the
`conductors of the second pair” ..................................... ..29
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to detect at least two different
`magnitudes of the current flow through the
`loop and to control the application of at least
`one electrical condition to at least two of the
`
`conductors” ................................................................... .. 3 l
`
`2.
`
`Claim 31: “wherein the BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment comprises a controller coupled to the at least
`one pat ” ................................................................................. ..34
`
`3.
`
`Claim 37: “wherein one or more magnitudes of the
`current flow through the loop represent information
`about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ........ ..36
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`4.
`
`Claim 58: “wherein the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to detect current flow through the loop via
`voltage” ................................................................................... ..37
`
`5.
`
`Claim 59: “wherein at least one of the different
`
`magnitudes of current flow through the loop is part of a
`detection protocol” ................................................................. .. 38
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Claim 69: “wherein the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment from at least one other piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ..................................... ..38
`
`Claim 72: “wherein the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment is a powered-off piece of BaseT
`Ethernet equipment” ............................................................... ..39
`
`8.
`
`Independent Claim 73 ............................................................. ..4l
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`“Ethernet cabling having at least first and
`second individual pairs of conductors used
`to carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals, the at least first and second
`individual pairs of conductors physically
`connect between a piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment and a piece of central
`network equipment” ..................................................... ..4l
`
`“the piece of central network equipment
`having at least one DC supply” .................................... ..4l
`
`“the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow via the
`at least one DC supply through a loop
`formed over at least one of the conductors of
`
`the first pair of conductors and at least one
`of the conductors of the second pair of
`conductors” ................................................................... ..42
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`d.
`
`“the piece of central network equipment to
`detect at least two different magnitudes of
`current flow through the loop” ..................................... ..42
`
`9.
`
`Claim 106: “wherein the BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment comprises a controller coupled to the at least
`one path” ................................................................................. ..42
`
`10.
`
`Claim 112: “wherein one or more magnitudes of the
`current flow through the loop represent information
`about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ........ ..42
`
`11.
`
`Claim 134: “wherein at least one of the different
`
`magnitudes of current flow through the loop is part of a
`detection protocol” ................................................................. ..42
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 142: “wherein the piece of central network
`equipment to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment from at least one other piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ..................................... ..43
`
`Claim 145: “wherein the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment is a powered-off piece of BaseT
`Ethernet equipment” ............................................................... ..43
`
`B.
`
`The challenged claims are obvious based on the Auto-
`Negotiation references. ..................................................................... ..43
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 1 ............................................................... ..43
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“A BaseT Ethernet system” .......................................... ..43
`
`“a piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ................................................................... ..44
`
`“a piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment” ................................................................... ..46
`
`“data signaling pairs of conductors
`comprising first and second pairs used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals
`between the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment and the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`terminal equipment, the first and second
`pairs physically connect between the piece
`of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and
`the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment” ................................................................... ..48
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment having at least one DC supply” .................. ..5l
`
`“the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow from
`the at least one DC supply through a loop
`formed over at least one of the conductors of
`
`the first pair and at least one of the
`conductors of the second pair” ..................................... ..53
`
`“the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to detect at least two different
`magnitudes of the current flow through the
`loop and to control the application of at least
`one electrical condition to at least two of the
`
`conductors” ................................................................... ..5 8
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 31: “wherein the BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment comprises a controller coupled to the at least
`one pat ” ................................................................................. ..59
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claim 37: “wherein one or more magnitudes of the
`current flow through the loop represent information
`about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ........ ..60
`
`Claim 58: “wherein the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to detect current flow through the loop via
`Voltage” ................................................................................... ..6l
`
`5.
`
`Claim 59: “wherein at least one of the different
`
`magnitudes of current flow through the loop is part of a
`detection protocol” ................................................................. ..6l
`
`6.
`
`Claim 69: “wherein the piece of central BaseT Ethernet
`equipment to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`V
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`terminal equipment from at least one other piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ..................................... ..62
`
`7.
`
`Claim 72: “wherein the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment is a powered-off piece of BaseT
`Ethernet equipment” ............................................................... ..62
`
`8.
`
`Independent Claim 73 ............................................................. ..63
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“Ethernet cabling having at least first and
`second individual pairs of conductors used
`to carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals, the at least first and second
`individual pairs of conductors physically
`connect between a piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment and a piece of central
`network equipment” ..................................................... ..64
`
`“the piece of central network equipment
`having at least one DC supply” .................................... ..64
`
`“the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal
`equipment having at least one path to draw
`different magnitudes of current flow via the
`at least one DC supply through a loop
`formed over at least one of the conductors of
`
`the first pair of conductors and at least one
`of the conductors of the second pair of
`conductors” ................................................................... ..64
`
`“the piece of central network equipment to
`detect at least two different magnitudes of
`current flow through the loop” ..................................... ..64
`
`9.
`
`Claim 106: “wherein the BaseT Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment comprises a controller coupled to the at least
`one path” ................................................................................. ..65
`
`10.
`
`Claim 112: “wherein one or more magnitudes of the
`current flow through the loop represent information
`about the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ........ ..65
`
`Vi
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`ll.
`
`Claim 134: “wherein at least one of the different
`
`magnitudes of current flow through the loop is part of a
`detection protocol” ................................................................. .. 65
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 142: “wherein the piece of central network
`equipment to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment from at least one other piece of
`BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” ..................................... ..65
`
`Claim 145: “wherein the piece of BaseT Ethernet
`terminal equipment is a powered-off piece of BaseT
`Ethernet equipment” ............................................................... ..65
`
`Vii
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`1, Rich Seifert, declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`I am an expert in the field of communication systems. I submit this
`
`declaration on behalf of Petitioners AMX and Dell, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”)
`
`to analyze, render opinions, and/or provide expert testimony regarding the validity
`
`of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760 (“the ’760 patent”). I understand
`
`that Petitioner submitted the ’760 patent as Exhibit 1001.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $400 per hour for the time
`
`spent by me in connection with these proceedings. This compensation is not
`
`contingent upon my opinions or the outcome of the proceedings. I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called to testify as a
`
`witness, could and would competently testify to them under oath.
`
`II.
`
`Background/Qualifications
`
`3.
`
`I am currently the President of Networks & Communications
`
`Consulting in Los Gatos, California.
`
`I received a Bachelor in Engineering
`
`(Electrical Engineering) degree fiom the City College of New York in 1976. I
`
`received a Master of Science (Electrical Engineering) degree in 1979 from the
`
`Worcester Polytechnic Institute, a Master of Business Administration degree in
`
`1984 from Clark University, and a Juris Doctor degree in 2006 from Santa Clara
`
`University. I have over 45 years of experience in computer and communications
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`technology, and have worked for the past 35 years on the architecture and design
`
`of data communications networks and networking products. My curriculum vitae,
`
`which I understand has been submitted as Exhibit 1010,
`
`includes a list of
`
`publications I have authored and legal cases in which I have been involved.
`
`III. Documents and Materials Considered
`
`4.
`
`I understand that Petitioner has submitted a list of materials that I have
`
`considered in rendering the opinions expressed herein as Exhibit 1011. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have also relied on my experience and education.
`
`IV. Legal Principles
`
`5.
`
`I am not a patent attorney and offer no opinions on the law. However,
`
`I have been informed by counsel of the legal standards that apply with respect to
`
`patent validity and invalidity, and I have applied them in arriving at my
`
`conclusions.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the
`
`burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. I understand this standard is different from the standard that applies in a
`
`district court, where I understand a challenger bears the burden of proving
`
`invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.
`
`7.
`
`I have been informed and understand that a patent claim is invalid
`
`based on anticipation if a single prior art reference discloses all of the limitations
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`of that claim, and does so in a way that enables on of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`make and use the invention. Each of the claim limitations may be expressly or
`
`inherently present in the prior art reference. I understand that if the prior art
`
`necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes a claim’s limitation, then that
`
`prior art inherently discloses that limitation. I have relied on this understanding in
`
`expressing the opinions set forth below.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that a prior art reference describes the claimed invention
`
`if it either expressly or inherently describes each and every feature (or element or
`
`limitation) set forth in the claim; i.e., in determining whether a single item of prior
`
`art anticipates a patent claim, one should take into consideration not only what is
`
`expressly disclosed in that item, but also what is inherently present as a natural
`
`result of the practice of the system or method disclosed in that item.
`
`9.
`
`It is my further understanding that to establish such inherency, the
`
`evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present
`
`in the item of prior art and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. I also understand that prior art use of the claimed patented invention
`
`that was accidental, unrecognized, or unappreciated at the time of filing can still be
`
`an invalidating anticipation.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that although multiple prior art references may not be
`
`combined to show anticipation, additional references may be used to interpret the
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`allegedly anticipating reference and shed light on what it would have meant to
`
`those skilled in the art at the time of the invention. These additional references
`
`must make it clear that the missing descriptive matter in the patent claim is
`
`necessarily present in the allegedly anticipating reference, and that it would be so
`
`recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`11.
`
`I also understand that a patent may not be valid even though the
`
`invention is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art in the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was made.
`
`12.
`
`To determine if a claim is obvious, the following factors should be
`
`considered: (1) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`made; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) so-called secondary considerations,
`
`including evidence of commercial
`
`success,
`
`long-felt but unsolved need,
`
`unsuccessful attempts by others, copying of the claimed invention, unexpected and
`
`superior results, acceptance and praise by others, independent invention by others,
`
`and the like.
`
`13.
`
`For example, I understand that the combination of familiar elements
`
`according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than
`
`4 2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`yield predictable results. I also understand that an obviousness analysis need not
`
`seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`claim because a court can take account of the inferences and/or creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`14.
`
`I also understand that the obviousness determination of an invention
`
`turns on whether a hypothetical person with ordinary skill and full knowledge of
`
`all the pertinent prior art, when faced with the problem to which the claimed
`
`invention is addressed, would be led naturally to the solution adopted in the
`
`claimed invention or would naturally view that solution as an available alternative.
`
`Facts to be evaluated in this analysis include:
`
`(1)
`
`the scope and contents of the prior art;
`
`(2)
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`(3)
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`(4)
`
`evidence
`
`of objective
`
`factors
`
`suggesting
`
`or
`
`negating
`
`obviousness.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that the following rationales may be used to determine
`
`whether a piece of prior art can be combined with other prior art or with other
`
`information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
`
`yield predictable results;
`
`5 -
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`(B)
`
`Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`(C)
`
`Use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods,
`
`or products) in the same way;
`
`(D)
`
`Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or
`
`product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`(E)
`
`“Obvious to try”—choosing from a finite number of identified,
`
`predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`(F)
`
`Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of
`
`it for use in either the same field or a different one based on
`
`design incentives or other market forces if the variations would
`
`have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`(G)
`
`Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
`
`would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and/or other market forces, for example, can prompt variations of
`
`it, either in the same field or a different one. Moreover, if a person of ordinary skill
`
`can implement a predictable variation,
`
`I understand that
`
`that
`
`likely bars its
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`patentability.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that obviousness must be tested as of the time the
`
`invention was made.
`
`I understand that
`
`the test for obviousness is what
`
`the
`
`combined teachings of the prior art references would have suggested, disclosed, or
`
`taught to one of ordinary skill in the art. In particular, it is my understanding that a
`
`patent claim is invalid based upon obviousness if it does nothing more than
`
`combine familiar elements from one or more prior art references or products
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results. For example, I understand
`
`that where a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve similar
`
`devices in the same way, using that technique is obvious.
`
`I understand that
`
`obviousness can be proved by showing that a combination of elements was
`
`obvious to try, i.e.: that it does no more than yield predictable results; implements a
`
`predictable variation; is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
`
`according to their established functions; or when there is design need or market
`
`pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions. I have been further informed that when a patent claim simply arranges
`
`old elements with each element performing the same function it had been known to
`
`perform and yields results no more than one would expect from such an
`
`arrangement, the combination is obvious.
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`18.
`
`I understand that another factor to be considered is common sense.
`
`For example, I understand that common sense teaches that familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and,
`
`in many cases, a person of
`
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like
`
`pieces of a puzzle.
`
`19.
`
`I have been informed and understand that
`
`the Supreme Court
`
`articulated additional guidance for obviousness
`
`in its KSR decision.1 My
`
`understanding is that the Supreme Court said that technical people of ordinary skill
`
`look for guidance in other solutions to problems of a similar nature, and that the
`
`obviousness inquiry must track reality, and not legal f1ctions.2 I have relied on
`
`these understandings in expressing the opinions set forth below.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a new use of an old product or material cannot be
`
`claimed as a new product; the apparatus or system itself is old and cannot be
`
`patented. I fl1I'lIllCI' understand that, in general, merely discovering and claiming a
`
`1
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`“The obviousness analysis in the patent context cannot be confined by a
`2
`formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
`overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of
`issued patents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology
`counsels against limiting the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that
`there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be
`the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design
`trends.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419.
`
`8 -
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`new benefit to an old process cannot render the process newly patentable.
`
`V.
`
`State of the Art
`
`21.
`
`The challenged claims recite well-known structural elements: “central
`
`BaseT Ethernet equipment,” “BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment,” “data signaling
`
`pairs of conductors,
`
`a DC supply,” and “a path.” These are well-known elements
`
`95 L‘
`
`of Ethernet communication systems in the prior art.
`
`22.
`
`For example, the following illustration comes from a 1996 hardware
`
`user’s manual of the AMD PCnet-FAST board.
`
`(PCnet-FAST at 3-1 .) This figure depicts a network hub connected to several pieces
`
`of data terminal equipment (“DTE”). Each DTE with the installed PCnet-FAST
`
`board can connect to an Ethernet network using the on-board RJ-45 jack for either
`
`IOBASE-T or IOOBASE-TX connection. (Id.) In this illustration, the network hub
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`constitutes central BaseT Ethernet equipment,
`
`the DTEs are pieces of BaseT
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment, each piece of equipment necessarily includes a DC
`
`supply (see, e.g., PCnet-FAST Power Requirements, 3.25W maximum at 5V DC,
`
`at 25° C (with NSC 10/100 PHY), PCnet-FAST at 4-4), and each twisted pair cable
`
`comprises data signaling pairs of conductors. When the network hub is connected
`
`to a DTE, the connection provides a path through which current can flow.
`
`23.
`
`It was also well-known that magnitudes of DC current can convey
`
`information about a device. In fact, this is a simple application of Ohm’s law
`
`(Current (I) = Voltage (V) + Resistance (R)). 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.” (Murphy at 1:20-22.) Murphy uses multiple contacts and twisted
`
`pairs. In the context of evaluating how 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.
`
`VI. Claim Construction
`
`24.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired
`
`patent must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`10 I
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.
`
`25. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, I understand
`
`that Petitioner has proposed that the following claim term be construed as shown
`
`below.
`
`Claim Term
`
`Claim(s)
`
`Construction
`IOBASE-T
`
` claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59,
`
`69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134,
`
`142, 145
`
`26. When rendering an opinion, I have used this proposed construction for
`
`this term. For all other terms, I have applied the plain meaning of the term to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`27.
`
`I have been informed and understand that the following criteria are
`
`useful in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art with respect to a given
`
`patent:
`
`(a)
`
`the educational
`
`level of the inventor;
`
`(b)
`
`the type of problems
`
`encountered in the art; (c) prior art solutions to those problems; ((1) rapidity with
`
`which innovations are made; (e) sophistication of the technology in the art; and (f)
`
`the educational level of active workers in the field. A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art with respect to the asserted patent 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 communications products.
`
`28.
`
`Specifically, such a person would be familiar with, inter alia, data
`
`11 -
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`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.
`
`29. At the time of the filing date of the ’760 patent, through the time of
`
`the earliest claimed priority date of April 10, 1998, I was at least a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and regularly worked with and supervised others at that
`
`level of skill.
`
`VIII. Prior Art
`
`A.
`
`De Nicolo References
`
`1.
`
`Overview
`
`30. U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468 was filed on March 26, 1998, issued on
`
`September 5, 2000, and names as its inventor Maurilio Tazio De Nicolo. I refer to
`
`this patent as “De Nicolo ’468” in this declaration. I understand that Petitioner has
`
`submitted De Nicolo ’468 as Exhibit 1019.
`
`31. U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666 was filed on March 12, 1998, issued on
`
`October 17, 2000, and also names as its inventor Maurilio Tazio De Nicolo. I refer
`
`to this patent as “De Nicolo ’666” in this declaration. I understand that Petitioner
`
`has submitted De Nicolo ’666 as Exhibit 1020.
`
`32.
`
`Collectively, I refer to De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 as “the De
`
`Nicolo references” in this declaration.
`
`12 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`2.
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would have
`
`combined De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666.
`
`34.
`
`Both references disclose techniques for powering a controlled device.
`
`In De Nicolo ’468, for example, a power supply 144 provides power via two
`
`twisted pairs 128a, l28b to a power processor 149, which, in turn, provides power
`
`to a portion of an Ethernet device 98. (See, e.g., De Nicolo ’468 at FIG. 3.)
`
`Similarly, in 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. (See, e.g., De Nicolo ’666 at FIG. 1.) De Nicolo ’666
`
`discloses that “multiple query conductors could also be used, if more convenient.”
`
`(Id. at 5:34-38.)
`
`35.
`
`In addition, De Nicolo ’468’s disclosure would have motivated a
`
`skilled artisan to incorporate De Nicolo ’666’s teachings with those of De Nicolo
`
`’468. For example, like De Nicolo ’666, De Nicolo ’468 discloses “[a] system for
`
`supplying DC power to a remote device.” (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. De Nicolo ’468 also provides that such a system can have one
`
`remote device. (See, e.g., 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
`
`13 ‘
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`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
`
`remote device with a power signal
`
`that satisfies the device’s power
`
`requirement. With that understanding, a skilled artisan would have incorporated De
`
`Nicolo ’666’s technique of determining the remote device’s maximum power
`
`requirement by way of a resistor (or other component) into De Nicolo ’468’s
`
`system.
`
`36.
`
`In other words, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
`
`use De Nicolo ’666’s principle of operation together with De Nicolo ’468’s
`
`Ethemet-based system. Moreover, because both references name Maurilio Tazio
`
`De Nicolo as their sole inventor, a skilled artisan reviewing one of the De Nicolo
`
`references would have reviewed other references naming De Nicolo as an inventor
`
`to gain a better understanding of the disclosed teachings.
`
`37. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood how to
`
`combine De Nicolo 468’s teaching with De Nicolo 666’s teachings. For example,
`
`De Nicolo ’468’s system in Figure 3 could include a single remote device (e.g., a
`
`device that includes load 98) as described, for example, in claim 16 of De Nicolo
`
`’468. (De Nicolo ’468 at claim 16 (“[a] system for supplying DC power to a
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`remote device over a 4-wire Ethernet connection having a first twisted pair of
`