`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: Unassigned
`________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN CRAYFORD
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 4
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 5
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................ 7
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 7
`
`IV. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ON THE '107 PATENT .......................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`THE '107 PATENT .......................................................................... 14
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the '107 Patent .................. 14
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill .................................................................... 17
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 18
`
`VI. OPINIONS RELATING TO EACH OF THE GROUNDS ....................... 19
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................................... 20
`
`A. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on
`Hunter in View of Bulan. ................................................................. 21
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan ................................... 21
`a.
`Reasons to Combine Hunter and Bulan ....................... 23
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The Combined System of Hunter and Bulan ............... 27
`
`Operation of Bulan's Current Control Apparatus ........ 28
`
`Hunter in View of Bulan: Step-by-Step ...................... 34
`
`2.
`
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan ............................... 37
`
`3468721
`
`
`- i -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 2
`
`
`
`Page
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................... 37
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ...................................................... 46
`
`Dependent Claim 31 .................................................... 46
`
`Dependent Claim 43 .................................................... 48
`
`Dependent Claim 70 .................................................... 49
`
`Dependent Claim 72 .................................................... 50
`
`Dependent Claim 74 .................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claim 75 .................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claim 83 .................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claim 103 (across 1, 5, 31, 43, 70,
`72, and 75) ................................................................... 52
`
`Independent Claim 104 ................................................ 54
`
`Dependent Claim 111 .................................................. 54
`
`m. Dependent Claim 123 .................................................. 55
`
`n.
`
`Dependent Claim 125 (across 104, 111, and
`123) .............................................................................. 55
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on
`Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3. ................................... 55
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ....................................................................................... 56
`a.
`Overview of Bloch ....................................................... 56
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Overview of Huizinga ................................................. 61
`
`Overview of IEEE 802.3 (IEEE-93 and IEEE-
`95) ................................................................................ 62
`
`3468721
`
`
`- ii -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 3
`
`
`
`Page
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`The Combined System of Bloch, Huizinga, and
`IEEE 802.3 (-93 & -95) ............................................... 64
`
`Reasons for Combinability .......................................... 65
`
`2.
`
`Application of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ....................................................................................... 67
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................... 67
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`Dependent Claim 5 ...................................................... 72
`
`Dependent Claim 31 .................................................... 72
`
`Dependent Claim 43 .................................................... 73
`
`Dependent Claim 70 .................................................... 74
`
`Dependent Claim 72 .................................................... 75
`
`Dependent Claim 74 .................................................... 76
`
`Dependent Claim 75 .................................................... 76
`
`Dependent Claim 83 .................................................... 76
`
`Dependent Claim 103 (across 1, 5, 31, 43, 70,
`72, and 75) ................................................................... 77
`
`Independent Claim 104 ................................................ 78
`
`Dependent Claim 111 .................................................. 78
`
`m. Dependent Claim 123 .................................................. 78
`
`n.
`
`Dependent Claim 125 (across 104, 111, and
`123) .............................................................................. 79
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 79
`
`
`
`3468721
`
`
`- iii -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN CRAYFORD.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 8,942,107
`
`I, Ian Crayford, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an expert in the field of networking and communication systems.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc. ("Juniper" or
`
`"Petitioner") to provide my independent, expert opinion and I submit this
`
`declaration on behalf of Petitioner to analyze, render opinions, and/or provide
`
`expert testimony regarding the invalidity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,942,107 ("the '107 patent"). I understand that Petitioner submitted the '107
`
`patent as Exhibit 1001.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $425 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 stated in this Declaration and, if called upon to do so, could
`
`and would attest to these facts under oath.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`patents, academic and professional publications, is set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which I understand has been submitted as Exhibit 1013.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`In 1981, I earned a Bachelor of Science (BSc.) Honors Degree in
`
`Electrical and Electronic Engineering from Kingston University in London,
`
`England.
`
`5.
`
`I began my career in 1975, when I started working as an
`
`apprentice/student engineer in industrial process control at Foxboro Yoxall in the
`
`UK. Since that time, I have been continuously working in the industry, focusing
`
`especially on the development of Ethernet products and technologies.
`
`6.
`
`For example, from 1988-1997 I was employed at AMD in their
`
`Network Products Division
`
`in a variety of engineering and engineering
`
`management positions,
`
`including Systems Engineer, Manager of Systems
`
`Engineering, and AMD Fellow. In this capacity I was actively involved in
`
`specifying and developing Ethernet networking integrated circuits, as well as end
`
`customer products based on those circuits, such as Ethernet adapters, Ethernet
`
`LOM solutions, repeaters, hubs, switches and routers.
`
`7.
`
`During 1997-1998, I worked for Bay Networks as Director of
`
`Engineering for Multi-LAN Switching. Here I led the hardware engineering team
`
`for a next generation hybrid ATM, Token Ring and Ethernet switch for Fortune
`
`500, government and large multi-national enterprise customers. I was also
`
`responsible for the engineering interface with the software development and
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 6
`
`
`
`
`regression testing teams to ensure the overall system product met customer
`
`expectation.
`
`8.
`
`During 2002-2012, I operated my own independent consultancy,
`
`where I worked with multiple clients, on products and technology directly
`
`associated with or adjacent to the Ethernet product market space, in a variety of
`
`engineering, marketing and senior management positions. These products/
`
`technologies included a 10Gb/s transceiver for 10GBASE-T, a state-full deep
`
`packet classification security co-processor for line rate virus protection, several
`
`10Gb/s switches and fabrics, and 1/10Gb/s line rate deep packet classification
`
`Ethernet switch line card interfaces, etc.
`
`9.
`
`I have over 10 years of experience in the IEEE802.3 committee. The
`
`IEEE publishes technical papers and articles submitted by members, sponsors
`
`conferences and standards setting bodies, and many other functions. One of the
`
`standards bodies is referred to as "Project 802", which encompasses the
`
`specifications for "Local and Metropolitan Area Networks." There are many
`
`different networking technologies, each broken into a different Task Force
`
`Committee. 802.3 is the Task Force where Ethernet standards are specified,
`
`developed, and maintained. My participation on the 802.3 Ethernet committee
`
`began in 1988 with the development of 10BASE-T (1993), and continued through
`
`100BASE-T (1995), where I was Chair of the Auto-Negotiation sub-group
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 7
`
`
`
`
`(802.3u, Clause 28 of the published Standard), Chair of the VLAN Tagging
`
`Working Group (802.3ac), and an active participant in the Full Duplex (802.3x)
`
`and Gigabit Ethernet (802.3z) developments (1995-98).
`
`10.
`
`I have 47 granted U.S. patents, primarily in the area of networking
`
`technology and related architectures and implementation of integrated circuits for
`
`Local Area Networks (LANs), which are listed in my CV. Ex. 1013.
`
`11.
`
`I am co-author of "Gigabit Ethernet-Migrating to High Bandwith
`
`LANs," published by Prentice Hall in 1998. I am also the author of a number of
`
`other articles and conference presentations in the field of networking technology
`
`and architecture (including 10Base-T), which are listed in my CV. Ex. 1013.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`12.
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the materials referenced
`
`herein. My opinions are also based on my years of education, research and work
`
`experience, as described in the earlier background and qualifications section and in
`
`my Curriculum Vitae (Ex. 1013)
`
`13.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by ChriMar Systems, Inc. ("Chrimar" or "Patent Owner"). I may
`
`also consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary
`
`opinions - including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`14. My analysis of the materials relating to this matter is ongoing and I
`
`will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This Declaration
`
`therefore represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to
`
`revise, supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new
`
`information and on my continuing analysis of the materials already in hand.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`15.
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the '107
`
`patent and its claims, I have relied upon certain basic legal principles as explained
`
`to me by legal counsel.
`
`16.
`
`First, I understand that, for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, or to be valid, it must be, among other things, new and not
`
`obvious in light of what came before it. That which came before is generally
`
`referred to as "prior art."
`
`17.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, the burden is on the party
`
`asserting unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand that "a preponderance of the evidence" is evidence sufficient to show
`
`that a fact is more likely than not.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 9
`
`
`
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, patentability may be challenged
`
`only "on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C., section 102 or 103 and
`
`only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents and printed publications." See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b). I have been advised that, under the relevant parts of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 addressing patents and printed publications, a person is not entitled to a
`
`patent if (1) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this
`
`or a foreign country before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
`
`(2) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
`
`foreign country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in
`
`the United States. My analysis below compares the challenged claims of the '107
`
`patent to patents and printed publications that qualify as prior art to the claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to "anticipate" the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to "render obvious" the claim. Further
`
`explanation concerning these two legal standards is set forth below.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Anticipation
`21.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is "anticipated" by the prior art. I have applied these
`
`standards in my evaluation of whether the '107 patent claims are anticipated.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated (or lacks "novelty") if
`
`what is claimed is not new. Anticipation occurs if, within a single prior art
`
`reference, each and every limitation or requirement of the patent claim is disclosed,
`
`either explicitly or inherently. I understand that a claim limitation that is not
`
`expressly found in a prior art reference is inherently disclosed where it would have
`
`been necessarily present in the prior art device or method. I am further informed
`
`that material not explicitly contained in the single prior art reference may still be
`
`considered for purposes of anticipation if that material is incorporated by reference
`
`into the prior art reference.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior
`
`art reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not
`
`expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`24.
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable or may be found
`
`invalid as obvious if, at the time when the invention was made, the subject matter
`
`of the claim, considered as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 11
`
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the field of the technology (the "art") to which the claimed subject
`
`matter belongs.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that, in the absence of other information, the time when
`
`an invention was made is generally considered to be the date on which the patent
`
`application for the invention was filed. The provisional application for the '107
`
`patent was originally filed on April 10, 1998 (Serial No. 60/081,279), and I have
`
`used this as the "date of the alleged invention" in my consideration of the question
`
`of obviousness, although nothing would change if I instead used the alternative
`
`date of April 8, 1999 (the filing date of PCT/US99/07846).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
`title [in a single prior art reference], 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 at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the challenged claims of the '107 patent would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim in a patent is obvious when 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 at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more
`
`than one item of prior art, and that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that certain other factors known as "secondary
`
`considerations" may, if proffered, be evaluated as potential indicia of non-
`
`obviousness. Such secondary considerations include: commercial success of
`
`products covered by the patent claims subsequent to filing of the patent; a long-felt
`
`but unsolved need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others; unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; praise of the invention by those in the relevant industry; the taking of
`
`licenses under the patent by others; and expressions of surprise or skepticism by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention. I understand,
`
`however, that a secondary consideration cannot be relevant to the obviousness
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 13
`
`
`
`
`analysis for a patent unless that secondary consideration is connected, or has a
`
`"nexus," with the invention claimed in the patent at issue. I have never heard
`
`anyone offer praise for the '107 patent, nor am I aware of any commercial success
`
`attributable to the '107 patent. To my knowledge, there also has been no copying of
`
`the alleged invention of the '107 patent. I am also unaware of any use to which
`
`Chrimar has put the '107 patent to use other than to assert it in litigation. To the
`
`extent Patent Owner proffers additional evidence of alleged secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, I reserve the right to respond in a supplementary
`
`report.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be done in
`
`hindsight, but should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to
`
`have knowledge of all relevant prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can
`
`combine the teachings of various prior art references based on the teachings of the
`
`individual prior art references, the general knowledge present in the art, or
`
`common sense. I understand that a teaching, motivation or suggestion appearing in
`
`the prior art may provide a basis for combining two (or more) prior art references
`
`or modifying a given prior art reference. A motivation to combine references may
`
`also be implicit in the prior art, and there is no requirement that there be an actual
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 14
`
`
`
`
`or explicit teaching to combine two references. Thus, one may take into account
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ to combine the known elements in the prior art in the manner claimed by
`
`the patent at issue.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the
`
`stated purpose of the patentee is controlling. Rather, the only thing that matters is
`
`the objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that
`
`is obvious, then the patent claim is invalid.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of that work, either in the
`
`same field or a different one. Likewise, if a technique has been used to improve
`
`one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device in a predictable manner would normally be obvious.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that obviousness need not rest on precise teachings
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but instead can take
`
`account of "ordinary innovation" such as the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 15
`
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Familiar items may have obvious
`
`uses beyond the particular application being described in a reference, and a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple prior art
`
`references together "like the pieces of a puzzle."
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity in the field. A person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will
`
`not be restricted only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same
`
`problem. Rather, in exercising common sense and ordinary creativity, a person of
`
`ordinary skill can draw upon prior art directed to any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of the invention. In other words, the prior art does
`
`not need to be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the
`
`patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered as an obvious
`
`variation on, or modification of, the prior art may nonetheless be considered
`
`nonobvious if one or more of the applicable prior art references discourages or
`
`leads away from the invention. A reference does not "teach away" from an
`
`invention, however, simply because the reference suggests that a different
`
`technique may be optimal or preferred. Similarly, a known or obvious combination
`
`does not become patentable simply because it has been described in the prior art as
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 16
`
`
`
`
`somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Rather, I understand
`
`that to teach away from the invention, a prior art reference must contain some clear
`
`discouragement of that combination in the prior art—such as expressly articulated
`
`reasons why one should not make the claimed combination or invention. But if the
`
`prior art teaches that the feature or combination is useful for the invention's
`
`purpose, and the alleged invention provides no discovery beyond what was known
`
`to the art, then the patent claim will nonetheless be obvious.
`
`38.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
`
`there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
`
`skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If
`
`this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the result not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was
`
`obvious to try might show that it was obvious. I understand that the fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was "obvious to try" may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one had attempted the combination at the
`
`time of filing. Likewise, duplicating a known feature from the prior art multiple
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 17
`
`
`
`
`times in order to take advantage of proven technology typically does not require a
`
`leap of inventiveness.
`
`IV. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ON THE '107 PATENT
`A. THE '107 PATENT
`39.
`I understand Juniper is challenging claims 1, 5, 31, 43, 70, 72, 74, 75,
`
`83, 103, 104, 111, 123, 125 of the '107 Patent.
`
`40. The '107 patent is titled "Piece of Ethernet Terminal Equipment." It
`
`names John F. Austermann and Marshall B. Cummings as inventors, and on its
`
`face is assigned to ChriMar Systems, Inc.
`
`41. The '107 patent was filed as application number 13/370,918 on
`
`February 10, 2012 and issued on January 27, 2015.
`
`42. The '107 patent's earliest priority date is April 10, 1998, the date on
`
`which provisional application 60/081,279 was filed.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that no matter which of these dates ChriMar may rely on
`
`as the priority date of the '107 patent, the references relied upon in this Petition are
`
`prior art to the '107 patent because they all predate April 10, 1998, the earliest
`
`possible priority date recited by the '107 patent.
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the '107 Patent
`44. The '107 patent issued from Application No. 13/370,918 which was
`
`filed on Feb. 10, 2012. The '107 patent claims the benefit of Provisional Patent
`
`Application No. 60/081,279, filed Apr. 10, 1998.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`45. The '107 patent explains that it is directed to equipment networked
`
`over "pre-existing wiring or cables that connect pieces of networked computer
`
`equipment to a network." '107 3:23-27, 4:62-66. The '107 patent acknowledges that
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, "existing Ethernet communications" and
`
`equivalents thereof were known. '107 3:40-42, 5:20-24 ("Ethernet, Token Ring, or
`
`ATM"). The '107 patent provides examples of networked equipment including
`
`personal computers and telephones connected to a hub in a network. '107 4:66-5:3.
`
`The equipment would be connected over "conventional multi-wire cables that
`
`include a plurality of transmit and receive data communication links."1 '107 5:12-
`
`19, 5:26-31 ("a pair of transmit wires"; "a pair of receive wires").
`
`46. The specification discloses a central module on the network that has a
`
`DC power supply where the voltage provided by the power supply is modulated to
`
`provide "both status information and power" across the transmit and/or receive
`
`lines to a remote module on the network. '107 5:64-67. The specification discloses
`
`that a remote module can send information to the central module by altering the
`
`total current draw by the remote module.
`
`47. The specification discloses embodiments that purport to provide an
`
`improved system for "asset tracking and management," including monitoring and
`
`
`1 Emphasis added to quotes unless otherwise indicated.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 19
`
`
`
`
`identifying "asset movement" and "theft." '107 1:20-3:14. Patent Owner, however,
`
`is attempting to apply the claims of the '107 patent as covering scope beyond asset
`
`tracking and management and the disclosed embodiments. For instance, Patent
`
`Owner has taken the position that the claims of the '107 patent read on the 802.3af
`
`Power over Ethernet ("PoE standard"). See Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 17-18; Ex. 1012. Patent
`
`Owner has filed various lawsuits—including against Petitioner—interpreting the
`
`challenged claims of the '107 Patent to broadly cover network switches that deliver
`
`power to a remote device over Ethernet. Id.
`
`48. As explained in this declaration, the basic concepts of supplying
`
`power from a DC power supply over the same conductors over which data is
`
`communicated, known as "phantom" powering, was well known decades before
`
`the alleged invention of the '107 patent. See Ground 2 (discussing Bloch patent,
`
`issued in 1979). And by the time of the alleged invention, providing DC power in
`
`this manner over the same conductors used for Ethernet communication was also
`
`well known. See Ground 2 (discussing Hunter International Patent application,
`
`published in 1996, and IEEE specifications from 1993 and 1995). It was also well
`
`known at the time of the alleged invention to convey information from one piece of
`
`equipment to another by modulating the voltage provided by the DC power supply
`
`or by modulating the current drawn from the power supply over the same
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 20
`
`
`
`
`conductors used for normal network communication, such as Ethernet. See
`
`Ground 1 (Hunter and Bulan references), Ground 2 (Bloch patent).
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`49.
`I have been informed that a PHOSITA is a hypothetical person and
`
`that I should consider the following factors in constructing a POSITA: (1) the
`
`educational and experience level of active workers in the field; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`(4) the types and problems encountered in the art; (5) the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems. I understand that not all such factors may be present in every case,
`
`and one or more of them may predominate.
`
`50. After considering the factors mentioned above and my professional
`
`experience, it is my opinion that a POSITA would have at least a B.S. degree (or
`
`equivalent) in electrical engineering or computer science, and at least three years of
`
`experience in the design of network communications products. Specifically, such a
`
`person would be
`
`familiar with data communications protocols, data
`
`communications standards (and standards under development at the time, including
`
`the 802.3 standard), and the behavior of data communications products available
`
`on the market.
`
`51. At the time of the filing dates of each of the '107 patent, through the
`
`time of the earliest claimed priority date of April 10, 1998, I was at least a person
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 21
`
`
`
`
`of ordinary skill in the art, and regularly worked with and supervised others at that
`
`level of skill. For example, my qualifications and experiences discussed in Section
`
`II above, and in my CV (Ex. 1013), demonstrate my familiarity with and
`
`knowledge of the art of the '107 patent.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`52.
`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
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears. Under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard, I understand the Petitioner has proposed that the following
`
`claim terms be construed as shown below:
`
`53. "powered off"; "powered-off Ethernet terminal equipment";
`
`"powered-off end device" ('107 Patent, Claims 103, 104, 111, 123, 125): The
`
`BRI of this term is "without operating power" because claim 104 recites "the
`
`powered-off end device to draw different magnitudes of DC current flow"
`
`indicat