In the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; 9,812,825
`
`Filed: September 26, 2008
`
`Issued: April 10, 2012
`
`Inventor(s): John F. Austermann, III
`and Marshall B. Cummings
`
`Assignee: ChriMar Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: System and Method for Adapting
`a Piece of Terminal Equipment
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 IN
`SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 8,155,012, 8,902,760; 9,049,019; AND 9,812,825
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Background and Qualifications .................................................................... 4
`I.
`II. Materials and Other Information Considered ........................................... 6
`III. Understanding of Patent Law ....................................................................... 7
`IV. Background on the ChriMar Patents ........................................................ 12
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 16
`V. Claim Construction ..................................................................................... 17
`A.
`‘012 Patent ........................................................................................... 18
`B.
`‘760 Patent ........................................................................................... 22
`C.
`‘019 Patent ........................................................................................... 26
`D.
`‘825 Patent ........................................................................................... 26
`VI. Detailed Analysis .......................................................................................... 28
`A.
`‘012 Patent ........................................................................................... 32
`1.
`Ground 1: Hunter in View of Bulan ......................................... 32
`2.
`Ground 2: Bloch in View of IEEE 802.3 .................................. 80
`‘760 Patent .........................................................................................104
`1.
`Ground 1: Hunter in View of Bulan .......................................104
`2.
`Ground 2: Hunter in view of Bulan, and Nelson ....................129
`3.
`Ground 3: Bloch in View of IEEE 802.3 and Peguiron .........139
`The ‘019 Patent .................................................................................161
`1.
`Ground 1: Hunter in View of Bulan .......................................161
`2.
`Ground 2: Hunter in View of Bulan and Nelson ....................179
`3.
`Ground 3: Bloch in View of IEEE 802.3 ................................189
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`4.
`Ground 4: Bloch in View of IEEE 802.3 and Peguiron .........201
`‘825 Patent .........................................................................................206
`1.
`Ground 1: Hunter in View of Bulan .......................................206
`2.
`Ground 2: Bloch in View of IEEE 802.3 and Peguiron .........232
`VII. Secondary Indicia of Non-Obviousness ...................................................254
`VIII. Public Availability of IEEE Standards ....................................................255
`IX. Conclusion ..................................................................................................256
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`I, George Zimmerman, do hereby declare as follows:
`1.
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of Cisco Systems,
`
`Inc. (“Cisco”) for the Petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,155,012 (“the ‘012 patent”), 8,902,760 (“the ‘760 patent”); 9,049,019 (“the ‘019
`
`patent”); and 9,812,825 (“the ‘825 patent”) (collectively, the “ChriMar Patents”). I
`
`am being compensated for my time in connection with this IPR at my standard
`
`consulting rate of $300 per hour. My compensation is not affected by the outcome
`
`of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether claims 1,
`
`5, 6, 10, 13, 16, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 67, 73, 80, 88, 106, 108, 114, 121, 129, and 147
`
`(“Challenged ‘012 Claims”) of the ‘012 patent; claims 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, 145,
`
`146, 175, 203, 216, and 219 of the ‘760 patent (“Challenged ‘760 Claims”); claims
`
`44, 76, and 77 of the ‘019 patent (“Challenged ‘019 Claims”); and claims 1, 15, 34,
`
`38, 49, and 64 of the ‘825 patent (“Challenged ‘825 Claims”) (collectively, the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) are invalid as obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`The ChriMar Patents all share a common specification and are all
`
`continuations of U.S. Patent No. 6,650,622. The ‘012 patent issued on April 10,
`
`2012, from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 12/239,001, filed on September 26, 2008.
`
`(Ex.1003 at cover.) The ‘760 patent issued on December 2, 2014, from U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`Appl. No. 13/370,918, filed on February 10, 2012. Ex.1004, Cover. The ‘019
`
`patent issued on June 2, 2015, from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 13/615,726, filed on
`
`September 14, 2012. Ex.1005, Cover. The ‘825 patent issued on November 7,
`
`2017, from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 14/726,940, filed on June 1, 2015. Ex.1006,
`
`Cover. For the purposes of my Declaration, I have been asked to assume that the
`
`priority date of the alleged invention recited in the ‘012 patent is April 10, 1998.
`
`4.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon
`
`my education and experience in the relevant field of the art, and I have considered
`
`the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art as of the priority
`
`date of the ‘622 parent patent, i.e., April 10, 1998. My opinions are based, at least
`
`in part, on the following prior art references:
`
`Reference
`WO 96/23377 (“Hunter”)
`(Ex.1033)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927
`(“Bulan”) (Ex.1027)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,823,070
`(“Nelson”) (Ex.1026)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714
`(“Bloch”) (Ex.1025)
`
`Date of Public Availability
`Hunter was filed on January 26,
`1996, was published on August 1,
`1996, has a priority date of January
`27, 1995.
`
`Bulan was filed on October 12,
`1989, and issued on February 18,
`1992.
`
`Nelson was filed on August 3,
`1987, and issued on April 18, 1989.
`
`Bloch was filed on June 3, 1977,
`and issued on November 6, 1979.
`
`
`
`2
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`
`IEEE International Standard
`ISO/IEC 8802-3: 1993 (“IEEE-
`1993”) (Ex.1022)
`
`IEEE-1993 was published and
`publicly available by at least
`August 5, 1993.
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
`(“IEEE-1995”) (Ex.1021)
`
`Swiss Patent No. CH 643 095 A5
`(“Peguiron”) (Ex.1034)
`
`IEEE-1995 was published and
`publicly available by at least June
`1996.
`
`Peguiron was filed in July 14,
`1981, and issued and published on
`May 15, 1984.
`
`5.
`
`The references relied upon in this Petition are prior art to the ChriMar
`
`Patents because they all predate April 10, 1998, the earliest possible priority date
`
`for each of the ChriMar Patents.
`
`6.
`
`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, including documents that may
`
`not yet have been provided to me.
`
`7. My analysis of the materials relating to this matter is ongoing and I
`
`will continue to review any new material as it is provided. 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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`8.
`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 1002.
`
`9.
`
`In 1985, I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering from Stanford University. In 1988, I received a Master of Science
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology. In
`
`1990, I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the California Institute of
`
`Technology.
`
`10. From 1985 to 1995, I held systems engineering, digital design, and
`
`engineering management positions as a Member of Technical Staff at Jet
`
`Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. From 1989 to 1995, I was an
`
`independent consultant in the areas of communications and signal processing
`
`analysis. Between 1992 and 1994, I was a lecturer at the California Institute of
`
`Technology.
`
`11. From May 1995 through June 2000, I was Chief Scientist at PairGain
`
`Technologies. PairGain was a pioneering firm in the DSL and broadband
`
`networking space and made line-powered broadband access products including
`
`chipsets.
`
`
`
`4
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`
`12. From January 2001 through May 2011, I was the founder and Chief
`
`Technical Officer of SolarFlare Communications, a leading provider of 10 Gigabit
`
`Ethernet server adapters and silicon.
`
`13. From May 2011 to date, I have been the principal consultant at CME
`
`Consulting, Inc., specializing in wireline communications.
`
`14.
`
`I have been involved in numerous IEEE 802.3 standards, including
`
`Power over Ethernet standards. I have been a contributor to the IEEE 802.3
`
`working group, contributing actively to IEEE Std 802.3an-2006, IEEE Std
`
`802.3az-2010, and was a participant in IEEE Std 802.3at-2009 (commonly referred
`
`to as Power over Ethernet Plus). For the past five years, I have been an active
`
`participant in many IEEE 802.3 standards, and have am currently serving as the
`
`Chief Editor for two standards, the IEEE P802.3bq 25G/40GBASE-T Task Force
`
`and the IEEE P802.3bz 2.5G/5GBASE-T Task Force. In addition, I am a current,
`
`active participant in the IEEE P802.3bt Task Force, commonly referred to as 4 Pair
`
`Power over Ethernet.
`
`15.
`
`I have written numerous technical publications, many of which focus
`
`on networking technology. Exemplary publications include:
`
`G. Zimmerman, “Power Backoff,” IEEE P802.3an Task Force
`Contributions: Zimmerman_1_0205.pdf, Zimmerman_1_0305.pdf,
`Zimmerman_2_0305.pdf, February and March 2005;
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`
`G.A. Zimmerman, “Approaches to CSA-Reach Single-Pair HDSL,”
`PairGain contribution, T1E1.4/96-063, April 1996; and
`
`G.A. Zimmerman, “Achievable rates vs. operating characteristics of local
`loop transmission: HDSL, HDSL2, ADSL and VDSL,” Signals, Systems &
`Computers, 1997. Conference Record of the Thirty-First Asilomar
`Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Volume 1, 2-5 Nov. 1997
`Pages: 573-577 vol. 1.
`
`16.
`
`I am also the named inventor on numerous patents and patent
`
`applications in networking technology, including high-speed networking devices.
`
`A full list of my patents and publications can be found in Exhibit 1002.
`
`17. As set forth herein, I am a person skilled in the art to which the
`
`ChriMar Patents pertain, and thus, am well qualified to provide an opinion on
`
`whether the Challenged Claims would have been obvious to a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged inventions. Exhibit 1002 contains
`
`a list of my expert engagements over the last six years.
`
`II. MATERIALS AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED
`18.
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the materials referenced
`
`herein including the ChriMar Patents and other continuations of the ‘622 patent,
`
`the file history of the ChriMar Patents and other continuations of the ‘622 patent,
`
`prior-art references, technical references from the time of the alleged inventions,
`
`the Petitions, expert declarations of Dr. Ian Crayford from the IPRs filed by
`
`Juniper (IPR2016-01389 (relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012); IPR2016-01391
`
`(relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107); IPR2016-01397 (relating to U.S. Patent
`
`
`
`6
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`No. 9,019,838); and IPR2016-01399 (relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,902,760)),
`
`expert declarations of Dr. Vijay Madisetti from ChriMar Sys., v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`
`Case No. 4:13-cv-13800-JSW (N.D. Cal.), oral hearing transcript, and Final
`
`Written Decisions in IPR2016-01389 (relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,155,012);
`
`IPR2016-01391 (relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107); IPR2016-01397 (relating
`
`to U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838); and IPR2016-01399 (relating to U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,902,760), expert reports of Dr. Vijay Madisetti in ChriMar Sys. and ChriMar
`
`Holding Company LLC v. Cisco Sys. Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-1300-JSW (N.D.
`
`Cal.), and statements made regarding the alleged meaning and scope of terms and
`
`phrases recited in the Challenged Claims. My opinions are also based on my years
`
`of education, research, and work experience, as described in Section I (Background
`
`and Qualifications) and in my curriculum vitae attached hereto as Exhibit 1002.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`19.
`I understand that a patent or other publication must first qualify as
`
`prior art before it can be used to invalidate a patent claim.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is prior to the invention of the
`
`asserted patent. I further understand that a printed publication, such as an article
`
`published in a magazine or trade publication, qualifies as prior art to an asserted
`
`patent if the date of publication is prior to the invention of the asserted patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`
`I understand that a U.S. or foreign patent qualifies as prior art to an
`
`21.
`
`asserted patent if the date of issuance of the patent is more than one year before the
`
`earliest filing date of the asserted patent. I further understand that a printed
`
`publication, such as an article published in a magazine or trade publication,
`
`constitutes prior art to an asserted patent if the publication occurs more than one
`
`year before the earliest filing date of the asserted patent.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that documents and materials that qualify as prior art
`
`may be used to invalidate a patent claim as anticipated or as obvious.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that, in an inter partes review proceeding invalidity must
`
`be shown by a preponderance of evidence.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior-art reference, arranged in the prior-art
`
`reference as arranged in the claim. Obviousness of a claim requires that the claim
`
`be obvious from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention. I understand that a claim may be obvious in
`
`view of a combination of two or more prior-art references.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that obviousness analysis requires an understanding of
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`
`
`8
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that certain factors—often called “secondary
`
`considerations”—may support or rebut the obviousness of a claim. I understand
`
`that such secondary considerations include, among other things, commercial
`
`success of the alleged invention, skepticism of those having ordinary skill in the art
`
`at the time of the alleged invention, unexpected results of the alleged invention,
`
`any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was satisfied by the alleged
`
`invention, the failure of others to make the alleged invention, praise of the alleged
`
`invention by those having ordinary skill in the art, and copying of the alleged
`
`invention by others in the field. I further understand that there must be a nexus—a
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged invention.
`
`I also understand that contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a
`
`secondary consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`27.
`
`I further understand that a claim is obvious if it unites old elements
`
`with no change to their respective functions, or alters prior art by mere substitution
`
`of one element for another known in the field, and that combination yields
`
`predictable results. While it may be helpful to identify a reason for this
`
`combination, common sense should guide, and there is no rigid requirement for a
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine. When a product is available,
`
`
`
`9
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or different one.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods may be proven obvious when it does no more than yield
`
`predictable results. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same
`
`field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable
`
`variation, obviousness likely bars its patentability. Similarly, if a technique has
`
`been used to improve one device, and a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that the technique would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, use of the technique is obvious. I further understand that a claim may be
`
`obvious if common sense directs one to combine multiple prior art references to
`
`reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims.
`
`29.
`
`It is further my understanding that a proper obviousness analysis
`
`focuses on what was known or obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”), not just the patentee. Accordingly, I understand that any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by
`
`the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that a claim can be obvious in light of a single reference,
`
`without the need to combine references, if the elements of the claim that are not
`
`
`
`10
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`found explicitly or inherently in the reference can be supplied by the common
`
`sense of one of skill in the art.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill could have combined two
`
`pieces of prior art or substituted one prior art element for another if the substitution
`
`can be made with predictable results, even if the swapped-in element is different
`
`from the swapped-out element. In other words, the prior art need not be like two
`
`puzzle pieces that must fit together perfectly. The relevant question is whether
`
`prior art techniques are interoperable with respect to one another, such that that a
`
`person of skill would view them as a design choice, or whether a person of skill
`
`could apply prior art techniques into a new combined system.
`
`32.
`
`In sum, my understanding is that prior art teachings are properly
`
`combined where a person of ordinary skill in the art having the understanding and
`
`knowledge reflected in the prior art and motivated by the general problem facing
`
`the inventor, would have been led to make the combination of elements recited in
`
`the claims. Under this analysis, the prior art references themselves, or any need or
`
`problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention, can provide a
`
`reason for combining the elements of multiple prior art references in the claimed
`
`manner.
`
`
`
`11
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis requires a comparison of
`
`33.
`
`the properly construed claim language to the prior art on a limitation-by-limitation
`
`basis.
`
`34.
`
`I have written this declaration with the understanding that obviousness
`
`must be shown by a preponderance of evidence.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND ON THE CHRIMAR PATENTS
`35. The ChriMar Patents relate to “a network management and security
`
`system for managing, tracking, and identifying remotely located electronic
`
`equipment on a network.” (Ex.10031 at 1:28-31.) According to the ChriMar
`
`Patents, this type of system can be used to reduce Total Cost of Ownership
`
`(“TCO”) of business “assets” such as computers, by permanently attaching a
`
`device to the asset that provides a unique identification number. (Id. at 2:4-37.)
`
`The patent describes also being applied to other elements of an office environment
`
`such as telephones, fax machines, robots, and printers.
`
`36. The ChriMar Patents disclose four embodiments. The first
`
`embodiment is shown in, for example, Figure 3:
`
`
`1 All of the ChriMar Patents share a common specification. For convenience I
`
`have cited to the ‘012 patent specification.
`
`
`
`12
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`
`
`
`37. Figure 3 depicts the remote module 16 and central module 15. The
`
`remote module 16 transmits a unique identification number to the central module
`
`using known techniques for transmission of digital data, such as Manchester,
`
`4B/5B, PAM5x5, Polar NRZ (non-return to zero), Bipolar, and frequency-shift
`
`keying (FSK) encoding. (Id. at 6:13-19.) This information is encoded and
`
`modulated as low frequency changes in the current from the remote module to the
`
`central module in order to prevent interfering with high-frequency network traffic
`
`(Ethernet). (Id. at 12:12-18 (“Coupling a lower frequency signal to the data lines
`
`of such a network permits increased utilization of the available transmitting
`
`medium . . . [t]o ensure that the added lower frequency signal does not interfere
`
`with normal network communications the added signal must not contain frequency
`
`
`
`13
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`components that interfere with the network signals.”).) As an example, the patent
`
`describes using a 150 kHz high-pass filter to remove Ethernet data signals from the
`
`line and isolating the low-frequency encoded signal bearing the remote module’s
`
`unique identifier.
`
`38. The ChriMar Patents purport to teach equipment networked over pre-
`
`existing wiring or cables that connect pieces of networked computer equipment to
`
`a network. (Ex.1003 at 3:24-28, 4:62-66.) The ‘012 patent explains that existing
`
`communications links such as Ethernet were known and used at the time of the
`
`invention. (Ex.1003 at 3:41-43, 5:20-24 (“The invention described herein is
`
`particularly suited to be implemented in conjunction with a computer network 17
`
`which preferably employs a conventional wiring approach of the type which may
`
`include twisted pair wiring such as Ethernet, Token Ring, or ATM.”). The
`
`ChriMar Patents give examples of “networked equipment” such as
`
`“PCs,...telephones, fax machines, robots, and printers” connected to a hub in a
`
`network. (Ex.1003 at 4:66-5:3.) The networked equipment is connected over
`
`“conventional multi-wire cables that include a plurality of transmit and receive
`
`data communication links.” (Ex.1003 at 5:12-19, 5:26-31 (“data communication
`
`
`
`14
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`links 2A-2D generally include a pair of transmit wires . . . as well as a pair of
`
`receive wires…connected to each of personal computers”).2
`
`39. The ChriMar Patents explain that the central module utilizes the
`
`unique identification number for asset tracking (the stated objective of the patent):
`
`“The information sent from the remote module 16 is received by the signal receiver
`
`6 within the central module 15, decoded by Manchester decoder 5, and passed on
`
`to the firmware kernel 4. The firmware kernel may now pass this received
`
`information on to an external device 19, such as a computer responsible for asset
`
`tracking.” (Id. at 6:31-36.) The absence of a unique identifier can also be used for
`
`asset blocking to deny access to an unauthorized computer. (Id. at 6:37-53.)
`
`40. The ChriMar Patents also explain that the central module contains a
`
`DC power supply, from which voltage powering the remote module is provided in
`
`some embodiments. “Signal modulator 7 inserts this [DC] power supply across the
`
`transmit and receive lines or into either the transmit lines or the receives lines in
`
`order to supply the remote module 16 with both status information and power.”
`
`(Ex.1003 at 5:64-67.) The ChriMar Patents further describe that the remote
`
`module can send Manchester-encoded (or otherwise digitally encoded) information
`
`to the central module by altering the current draw by the remote module.
`
`
`2 Emphases added to all citations unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`15
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`
`41. As I explain below, this basic concept phantom powering (i.e.,
`
`providing power with a DC power supply over the same conductors that carry data
`
`signals) was well known well before the invention date of the ChriMar Patents.
`
`For instance, Bloch, which relates to phantom powering, was issued in 1979—
`
`more than a decade before the earlier possible priority date of the ChriMar Patents.
`
`Moreover, supplying power with a DC power supply over the same conductors
`
`used for Ethernet communication was well known by the time of the alleged
`
`invention date of the ChriMar Patents, as further explained below with respect to
`
`the Hunter reference that was published in 1996, and the IEEE specifications
`
`published in 1993 and 1995. Additionally, by the time of the alleged invention
`
`date of the ChriMar Patents, references like Hunter, Bulan, Bloch, and Peguiron
`
`disclosed the concept of communicating “information” from an equipment to
`
`another equipment by modulating the current drawn from the DC power supply
`
`over the same conductors used for, e.g., Ethernet communication or by modulating
`
`the voltage supplied by the DC power supply.
`
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`42.
`In determining the characteristics of a hypothetical person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art of the ChriMar Patents at the time of the claimed inventions, I
`
`considered several things, including the type of problems encountered in this field,
`
`and the rapidity with which innovations were made. I also considered the
`
`
`
`16
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`sophistication of the technology involved, and the educational background and
`
`experience of those actively working in the field, and the level of education that
`
`would be necessary to understand the ChriMar Patents. Finally, I placed myself
`
`back in the relevant period of time, and considered the state of the art and the level
`
`of skill of the engineers working in this field at that time. It is my opinion that the
`
`art of the subject matter of the ChriMar Patents is network communication
`
`products. Based on the materials I have considered, my own involvement in the
`
`IEEE 802.3 working group, the knowledge required to design and implement
`
`network communication products, I came to the conclusion that the characteristics
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the field of art of the ChriMar Patents would be
`
`someone who has 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. By this definition, I was a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art in 1998.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`43.
`I understand that in an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired
`
`patent must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears. In other words, under the BRI
`
`standard, the Patent Office must give claims their “broadest reasonable
`
`construction consistent with the specification.” In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
`
`
`
`17
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010). I understand that in an inter partes review, a claim in
`
`an expired patent must be construed under the Phillips standard, in which the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term
`
`would have to a person of skill in the art in question at the time of invention, in
`
`light of the specification, and prosecution history, as well as pertinent evidence
`
`extrinsic to the patent.
`
`A.
`44.
`
`‘012 Patent
`I have been informed that the ‘012 patent may expire during the
`
`pendency of this IPR, if instituted, and the Board also extends any deadlines.
`
`Thus, I have construed the terms of the ‘012 patent under both the BRI and Phillips
`
`standards.
`
`a.
`
`“wherein the impedance within the at least one path is
`part of a detection protocol” (‘012 patent, claims 5,
`73, and 114):
`In IPR 2016-01389, the Board construed the term “wherein the
`
`45.
`
`impedance within the at least one path includes a detection protocol” to represent
`
`“an intended use of the impedance such that it must be capable of being part of a
`
`scheme involving signals, current, and/or voltage, or similar inputs, for detecting
`
`the impedance or a change in impedance.” In my opinion, the reasoning of the
`
`Board applies equally here to the term “wherein the impedance within the at least
`
`
`
`18
`
`CISCO 1001
`Cisco v. ChriMar
`
`

`

`Declaration of George Zimmerman in Support of Inter Partes Review of 8,155,012; 8,902,760;
`9,049,019; and 9,812,825
`
`one path is part of a detection protocol” used in claims 5, 73, and 114 of the ‘012
`
`patent, and therefore should be given the same construction.
`
`46. Based on my reading of the specification, this construction is
`
`consistent with the BRI. For example, the specification of the ‘012 patent
`
`describes an embodiment in which the central module simply monitors the
`
`existence of connections with networking equipment simply by detecting
`
`interruptions in the DC current flow between the central module and those other
`
`pieces of network equipment. Ex. 1003, 8:6-25. A mutually agreed upon method
`
`of communication is not required under the BRI, and ChriMar stated that even
`
`measuring the resistance of a passive device (which cannot “mutually agree” on a
`
`method of communication) satisfies this term. Ex. 10