DECLARATION OF RICH SEIFERT IN SUPPORT OF
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
` Dell Inc.
` Exhibit 1002
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Background/Qualifications .................................................................................. 1
`
`III. Documents and Materials Considered ................................................................ 2
`
`IV. Legal Principles .................................................................................................. 2
`
`V. State of the Art .................................................................................................... 9
`
`VI. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 11
`
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................. 12
`
`VIII. Prior Art .......................................................................................................... 12
`
`A. De Nicolo References ............................................................................. 12
`
`1. Overview ....................................................................................... 13
`
`2. Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References ........................... 13
`
`B. Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup References ............................................ 16
`
`1. Overview ....................................................................................... 16
`
`2. Reasons to Combine the Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup
`References ................................................................................. 17
`
`IX. ’838 Patent ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`A. Summary of the ’838 Patent ................................................................... 19
`
`B. Challenged Claims .................................................................................. 20
`
`X. Invalidity Analysis of ’838 Patent ..................................................................... 23
`
`A. The challenged claims are invalid based on the De Nicolo
`references. ............................................................................................ 23
`
`1. Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................... 23
`
`a. “A central piece of network equipment” ............................ 23
`
`
`
`i
`
`Page 2
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`b. “at least one Ethernet connector comprising
`first and second pairs of contacts used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals” ........................................................................... 25
`
`c. “the central piece of network equipment to
`detect different magnitudes of DC current
`flow via at least one of the contacts of the
`first and second pairs of contacts” .................................. 27
`
`d. “[the central piece of network equipment] to
`control application of at least one electrical
`condition to at least one of the contacts of
`the first and second pairs of contacts in
`response to at least one of the magnitudes of
`the DC current flow” ...................................................... 31
`
`2. Claim 2: “wherein the different magnitudes of DC current
`flow are part of a detection protocol” ....................................... 33
`
`3. Claim 7: “wherein the central piece of network equipment
`to provide at least one DC current via at least one of the
`contacts of the first and second pairs of contacts and to
`detect distinguishing information within the DC current
`via the at least one of the contacts of the first and
`second pairs of contacts” .......................................................... 34
`
`4. Claim 26: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment to distinguish one end device from at least
`one other end device based on at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow” ......................................... 35
`
`5. Claim 29: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment to distinguish one network object from at
`least one other network object based on at least one of
`the magnitudes of the DC current flow” ................................... 36
`
`6. Claim 38: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment comprises at least one DC supply” ......................... 37
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Page 3
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`7. Claim 40: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment to control application of the at least one DC
`power signal” ............................................................................ 38
`
`8. Claim 47: “wherein the at least one electrical condition
`comprises at least one voltage condition” ................................. 39
`
`9. Claim 55: “wherein the different magnitudes of DC
`current flow comprise a first magnitude followed by a
`second magnitude” .................................................................... 39
`
`10. Claim 69: “wherein the at least one magnitude of DC
`current flow is used by the central piece of network
`equipment to control application of at least one DC
`power signal” ............................................................................ 40
`
`B. The challenged claims are invalid based on the Auto-Negotiation
`and Wakeup references. ...................................................................... 40
`
`1. Independent Claim 1 ..................................................................... 40
`
`a. “A central piece of network equipment” ............................ 40
`
`b. “at least one Ethernet connector comprising
`first and second pairs of contacts used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals” ........................................................................... 41
`
`c. “the central piece of network equipment to
`detect different magnitudes of DC current
`flow via at least one of the contacts of the
`first and second pairs of contacts” .................................. 43
`
` “
`
`d.
`
`47
`
`47
`
`2. Claim 2: “wherein the different magnitudes of DC current
`flow are part of a detection protocol” ....................................... 50
`
`3. Claim 7: “wherein the central piece of network equipment
`to provide at least one DC current via at least one of the
`contacts of the first and second pairs of contacts and to
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4
`
`

`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`detect distinguishing information within the DC current
`via the at least one of the contacts of the first and
`second pairs of contacts” .......................................................... 52
`
`4. Claim 26: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment to distinguish one end device from at least
`one other end device based on at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow” ......................................... 54
`
`5. Claim 29: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment to distinguish one network object from at
`least one other network object based on at least one of
`the magnitudes of the DC current flow” ................................... 55
`
`6. Claim 38: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment comprises at least one DC supply” ......................... 55
`
`7. Claim 40: “wherein the central piece of network
`equipment to control application of the at least one DC
`power signal” ............................................................................ 57
`
`8. Claim 47: “wherein the at least one electrical condition
`comprises at least one voltage condition” ................................. 58
`
`9. Claim 55: “wherein the different magnitudes of DC
`current flow comprise a first magnitude followed by a
`second magnitude” .................................................................... 59
`
`10. Claim 69: “wherein the at least one magnitude of DC
`current flow is used by the central piece of network
`equipment to control application of at least one DC
`power signal” ............................................................................ 59
`
`XI. Analysis of Provisional Application No. 60/081,279 ...................................... 61
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5
`
`

`
`
`
`I, 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 Petitioner Dell Inc. (“Petitioner”) to analyze, render
`
`opinions, and/or provide expert testimony regarding the validity of certain claims
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 (“the ’838 patent”). I understand that Petitioner
`
`submitted the ’838 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 from 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
`
`
`
`1
`
`Page 6
`
`

`
`
`
`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 1017, 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 1018. 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
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 7
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 8
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`Page 9
`
`

`
`
`
`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:
`
`A.
`
`The scope and contents of the prior art;
`
`B. Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
`
`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
`
`Page 10
`
`

`
`
`
`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
`
`patentability.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 11
`
`

`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 12
`
`

`
`
`
`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.8 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 fictions.9 I have relied on
`
`these understandings in expressing the opinions set forth below.
`
`8
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
`
`9
`
`“The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a 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
`
`Page 13
`
`

`
`
`
`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 further understand that, in general, merely discovering and claiming a
`
`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
`
`piece of network equipment” and “Ethernet connector.” These are well-known
`
`elements 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.
`
`(Ex. 1014, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 14
`
`

`
`
`
`PCnet-FAST board can connect to the network hub over an Ethernet network using
`
`the on-board RJ-45 jack for either 10BASE-T or 100BASE-TX operation. (Id.) In
`
`this illustration, the network hub constitutes a central piece of network equipment.
`
`23. An Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts was also
`
`known in the prior art. In fact, Ethernet connectors comprising a plurality of
`
`contacts existed long prior to the 10BASE-T system. For example, the Ethernet
`
`Version 1 specification, published on September 30th, 1980 teaches two different
`
`Ethernet connectors, each comprising a plurality of connectors. See generally, Ex.
`
`1012, Ethernet V1, Clause 7.
`
`24. A transceiver cable connector comprising 15 contacts is disclosed for
`
`connecting an Ethernet station to a physically separate transceiver.10 Ethernet V1 at
`
`56 (§7.2.3). A second “coaxial cable connector” comprising two contacts is
`
`disclosed for connecting sections of the shared coaxial cable communications
`
`medium. Ethernet V1 at 60 (§7.3.1.2). See also, Ex. 1008, IEEE 802.3-1985 at
`
`128-29 (§8.5 et seq.).
`
`10 When the original Ethernet specification was transformed into the IEEE
`
`802.3 specification, first published in 1985, the terms “transceiver cable” and
`
`“transceiver cable connector” were changed to “Attachment Unit Interface [AUI]
`
`cable” and “Attachment Unit Interface [AUI] connector. See, generally, IEEE
`
`802.3-1993 Clause 7.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 15
`
`

`
`
`
`25. Patent Owner’s expert also concedes that an Ethernet connector
`
`comprising a plurality of contacts was well-known:
`
`Q: Okay. So this figure is known, an Ethernet connector
`comprising a plurality of contacts is known, correct?
`
`A: Yes.
`
`(Ex. 1011, Baxter Depo. at 113.)
`VI. Claim Construction
`26.
`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.
`
`27. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, I understand
`
`that Petitioner has proposed that the following claim terms be construed as shown
`
`below.
`
`Claim Term
`“BaseT”
`“pairs of contacts”
`
`Claim(s)
`claim 1
`claim 1
`
`Construction
`10BASE-T
`two contacts
`
`28. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the term
`
`“pairs of contacts” may encompass any two contacts within a connector.
`
`29. When rendering an opinion, I have used these proposed constructions
`
`for these two terms. For all other terms, I have applied the plain meaning of the
`
`term to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 16
`
`

`
`
`
`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`30.
`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; (d) 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.
`
`31. Specifically, such a person would be familiar with, inter alia, data
`
`communications protocols, data communications standards (and standards under
`
`development at
`
`the
`
`time), and
`
`the behavior and use of common data
`
`communications products available on the market.
`
`32. At the time of the filing date of the ’838 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 17
`
`

`
`
`
`1. Overview
`
`33. 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 1006.
`
`34. 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 1007.
`
`35. Collectively, I refer to De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666 as “the De
`
`Nicolo references” in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References
`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`combined De Nicolo ’468 and De Nicolo ’666.
`
`37. 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, 128b 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
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 18
`
`

`
`
`
`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.)
`
`38.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Page 19
`
`

`
`
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`Ethernet-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.
`
`40. 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
`
`remote device over a 4-wire Ethernet connection having a first twisted pair of
`
`conductors for transmission of data packets from said remote device and a second
`
`twisted pair of conductors for reception of data packets at said remote device”).) In
`
`this system, the skilled artisan could have included De Nicolo ’666’s power
`
`supervisor 14 (see Figure 1) into De Nicolo ’468’s power supply module 144 (see
`
`Figure 3) and included De Nicolo ’666’s electronic module 26 (see Figure 1) into
`
`De Nicolo ’468’s power processor 149. This is a routine, common sense design
`
`choice that is well within the skilled artisan’s knowledge and capabilities. This
`
`modification would maintain the De Nicolo ’468 circuitry’s existing purpose and
`
`
`
`15
`
`Page 20
`
`

`
`
`
`functionality—providing power and data over the Ethernet pairs 128 and powering
`
`the load 98 via the power processor 149. It would also enable the power processor
`
`149 to power the load 98 in the selective manner that De Nicolo ’666 teaches.
`
`B. Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup References
`1. Overview
`
`41.
`
`IEEE Std. 802.3u-1995 is titled “Media Access Control (MAC)
`
`Parameters, Physical Layer, Medium Attachment Units, and Repeater for 100 Mb/s
`
`Operation, Type 100BASE-T (Clauses 21-30)” and was approved by the IEEE
`
`Standards Board on June 14, 1995. I refer to this publication as “IEEE 802.3u-
`
`1995” in this declaration. I understand that Petitioner has submitted IEEE 802.3u-
`
`1995 as Exhibit 1009.
`
`42.
`
`IEEE Std. 802.3 is titled “Carrier sense multiple access with collision
`
`detection (CSMA/CD) access method and physical layer specifications” and is
`
`dated July 8, 1993. I refer to this publication as “IEEE 802.3-1993” in this
`
`declaration. I understand that Petitioner has submitted IEEE 802.3-1993 as Exhibit
`
`1008.
`
`43. Am79C971 PCnetTM-FAST Single-Chip Full-Duplex 10/100 Mbps
`
`Ethernet Controller for PCI Local Bus is a user guide for AMD’s Am79C971
`
`Ethernet controller and is dated May 1996. I refer to this publication as
`
`
`
`16
`
`Page 21
`
`

`
`
`
`“Am79C971” in this declaration. I understand that Petitioner has submitted this
`
`document as Exhibit 1019.
`
`44. Collectively, I refer to IEEE 802.3u-1995, IEEE 802.3-1993, and
`
`Am79C971 as “the Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup references” in this declaration.
`
`2.
`
`Reasons to Combine the Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup
`References
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to combine the teachings of IEEE 802.3u-1995, IEEE 802.3-1993,
`
`and Am79C971.
`
`46.
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993 discloses the 10BASE-T standard for Ethernet
`
`communications over twisted pair wiring. See generally IEEE 802.3-1993 at § 14.
`
`IEEE 802.3u-1995 discloses the Ethernet standard for automatic negotiation of
`
`data rates, duplex operation, and other operational parameters of devices connected
`
`using twisted pair wiring. See generally IEEE 802.3u-1995 at § 28. Am79C971
`
`discloses an Ethernet controller for integration in an Ethernet network interface
`
`card. See generally Am79C971 at 1-2, 31. The Am79C971 is an implementation of
`
`the relevant portions of IEEE 802.3-1993 and IEEE 802.3u-1995, along with
`
`additional features, including waking up from a snooze mode. Id. at 1-2, 31, 101.
`
`47. When a new technology is designed and standardized within the IEEE
`
`802.3 Working Group, it may initially be published as a stand-alone document,
`
`such as IEEE 802.3u-1995. At a convenient time in the publication cycle, all such
`
`
`
`17
`
`Page 22
`
`

`
`
`
`outstanding stand-alone standards are later incorporated into the main IEEE 802.3
`
`document. For example, IEEE 802.3u-1995 became Clauses 21-29 of IEEE 802.3-
`
`2000 (along with appropriate changes to other clauses to reflect the needs of the
`
`new technology). That is, IEEE 802.3u-1995 and IEEE 802.3-1993 constit