UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Dell Inc.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01151
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Declaration of Rich Seifert
`
`List of Pending Civil Actions for U.S. Patent
`No. 9,019,838
`
`’260 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260
`
`’279 Provisional
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279
`
`De Nicolo ’468
`
`De Nicolo ’666
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,468
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,134,666
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993
`
`IEEE 802.3-1993 Standard
`
`IEEE 802.3u-1995
`
`IEEE 802.3u-1995 Standard
`
`IEEE 802.3-2000
`
`IEEE 802.3-2000 Standard
`
`Baxter Depo.
`
`Deposition transcript of Leslie Baxter
`
`Ethernet V1
`
`The Ethernet: A Local Area Network (1980)
`
`Gigabit Ethernet
`
`Excerpt from Gigabit Ethernet, R. Seifert (1998)
`
`PCnet-FAST
`
`Am79C971 PCnet-FAST Hardware User’s
`Manual
`
`Agilent Application
`Note
`
`An Overview of the Electrical Validation of
`10BASE-T, 100BASE-TX, and 1000BASE-T
`Devices
`
`Dist. Ct. Markman
`Order
`
`Claim Construction Order in Chrimar Systems,
`Inc. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-
`00163-JDL, Dkt. 123 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2016)
`
`ii
`
`Number Short Name
`
`’838 Patent
`
`Seifert Decl.
`
`’838 Actions
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Number Short Name
`
`Description
`
`Seifert CV
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Rich Seifert
`
`Seifert Materials
`
`List of Materials Reviewed by Rich Seifert
`
`Am79C971 PCnet-FAST Preliminary Data
`Sheet
`
`Information Disclosure Statement in File
`History of U.S. Patent No. 5,905,870
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`Am79C971
`
`1020
`
`’870 IDS
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`’787 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,787
`
`Dist. Ct. Complaint Second Amended Complaint in Chrimar
`Systems, Inc. v. ADTRAN, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-
`00618-JDL, Dkt. 254 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2016)
`
`1023
`
`’107 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,942,107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review ............................... 1
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)) ......................................... 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) .......................... 1
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ................................... 1
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)) .................................. 2
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ................................ 2
`
`Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)) ..................................... 3
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’838 Patent ........................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 3
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’838 Patent ...................... 4
`
`Priority Claims in the ’838 Patent ......................................................... 5
`
`Priority Date of the ’838 Patent............................................................. 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to the April 10,
`1998 filing date of the ’279 provisional. ..................................... 7
`
`Inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier
`invention date as a matter of law. ............................................. 10
`
`The Boenke letters do not establish an invention date. ............ 10
`
`IV. State of the Art ............................................................................................... 11
`
`V.
`
`Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“BaseT” ............................................................................................... 13
`
`“pairs of contacts” ............................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood that the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ............................ 17
`
`A. Ground 1: The challenged claims are obvious based on the De
`Nicolo references. ................................................................................ 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The De Nicolo References ........................................................ 18
`
`Reasons to Combine the De Nicolo References ....................... 18
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 22
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“A central piece of network equipment” ........................ 22
`
`“at least one Ethernet connector comprising
`first and second pairs of contacts used to
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals” ........................................................................... 24
`
`“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” .................................. 25
`
`“[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” ...................................................... 29
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow are part of a detection protocol” ................ 31
`
`Dependent 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” .............. 32
`
`6.
`
`Dependent Claim 26: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to distinguish one end device from
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`at least one other end device based on at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow” ......................................... 34
`
`Dependent 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” ........................ 35
`
`Dependent Claim 38: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment comprises at least one DC supply” ........... 36
`
`Dependent Claim 40: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to control application of the at least
`one DC power signal” ............................................................... 37
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10. Dependent Claim 47: “wherein the at least one
`electrical condition comprises at least one voltage
`condition” .................................................................................. 38
`
`11. Dependent Claim 55: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow comprise a first magnitude followed
`by a second magnitude” ............................................................ 38
`
`12. Dependent 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” ....................................................... 39
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The challenged claims are obvious based on the
`Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup references. ......................................... 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup References .............................. 39
`
`Reasons to Combine the Auto-Negotiation and Wakeup
`References ................................................................................. 41
`
`Independent Claim 1 ................................................................. 42
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“A central piece of network equipment” ........................ 42
`
`“at least one Ethernet connector comprising
`first and second pairs of contacts used to
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`carry BaseT Ethernet communication
`signals” ........................................................................... 43
`
`“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” .................................. 45
`
`“[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” ...................................................... 50
`
`Dependent Claim 2: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow are part of a detection protocol” ................ 51
`
`Dependent 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” .............. 52
`
`Dependent 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” ......................................... 53
`
`Dependent 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” ........................ 54
`
`Dependent Claim 38: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment comprises at least one DC supply” ........... 54
`
`Dependent Claim 40: “wherein the central piece of
`network equipment to control application of the at least
`one DC power signal” ............................................................... 56
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`10. Dependent Claim 47: “wherein the at least one
`electrical condition comprises at least one voltage
`condition” .................................................................................. 57
`
`11. Dependent Claim 55: “wherein the different magnitudes
`of DC current flow comprise a first magnitude followed
`by a second magnitude” ............................................................ 57
`
`12. Dependent 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
`
`VII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Cat Tech LLC v. TubeMaster, Inc.,
`528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 16
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
`460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00527, Paper 41 (P.T.A.B. May 18, 2015) ......................................... 40
`
`FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Leak Surveys, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00411, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 5, 2014) ............................................. 40
`
`HTC Corp. v. Advanced Audio Devices, LLC,
`IPR2014-01155, Paper 6 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2014) ........................................... 21
`
`IGB Auto. Ltd. v. Gentherm GmbH,
`IPR2014-00664, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) ........................................... 10
`
`Iron Dome LLC v. E-Watch, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00439, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2014) ........................................... 10
`
`Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.,
`177 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 16
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ............................................................................................ 20
`
`Legends, Inc. v. Upper Deck Co., LLC,
`No. H-09-3463, 2010 WL 4817050 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2010) ......................... 15
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`Case IPR2015-00329, Paper No. 13 (P.T.A.B. July 10, 2015) .......................... 40
`
`Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.p.A.,
`808 F.3d 829 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 22
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00292, Paper 93 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014) .......................................... 10
`
`Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`699 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 21
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Nuvasive Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00206, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2013) ......................................... 13
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 16
`
`PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 6
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re SP Controls, Inc.,
`453 F. App’x 990 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 14
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................. 18, 39
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, Dell Inc. (“Petitioner”)
`
`respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 40,
`
`47, 55, and 69 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 (“the ’838
`
`patent”), which is attached to this Petition as Exhibit 1001. USPTO assignment
`
`records indicate that the applicants of the ’838 patent assigned their rights to
`
`ChriMar Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`II. Compliance with Requirements for Inter Partes Review
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1))
`1.
`Real Party-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real party-in-interest is Dell Inc.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`2.
`The ’838 patent is also the subject of 20 civil actions pending in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas and Northern District of California. Ex. 1003, ’838 Actions. In
`
`addition, there are five pending inter partes review proceedings, AMX, LLC v.
`
`Chrimar Systems,
`
`Inc.,
`
`IPR2016-00569,
`
`IPR2016-00572,
`
`IPR2016-00573,
`
`IPR2016-00574 and Dell Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc., IPR2016-00983,1 that
`
`
`1 Dell is a co-petitioner in the IPR2016-00569 and IPR2016-00574 proceedings
`
`and the sole petitioner in the IPR2016-00983 proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`challenge the validity of Chrimar’s patents related to the ’838 patent.2 These cases
`
`may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`3.
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-up Counsel and Service
`Information (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Gilbert A. Greene (Reg. No. 48,366)
`bert.greene@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
`LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 474-5201
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Back-up Counsel
`James G. Warriner (Reg. No. 72,833)
`jim.warriner@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Stephanie N. DeBrow (Reg. No.
`63,555)
`stephanie.debrow@nortonrosefulbright.
`com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US
`LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 474-5201
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`also consents to electronic service by email.
`
`B.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103)
`
`The undersigned authorizes the PTO to charge the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.15(a) for this Petition to Deposit Account No. 50-1212. Review of ten claims
`
`2 The patents challenged in the five inter partes reviews are U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,155,012, 8,902,760, 8,942,107, 9,019,838, and 9,049,019.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`is requested. The undersigned authorizes payment for additional fees that may be
`
`due with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account.
`
`C. Grounds for Standing (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioner certifies that it has standing to request, and is not barred from
`
`requesting, an IPR of the ’838 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315. Petitioner has
`
`not filed any civil actions challenging the validity of any claim of the ’838 patent
`
`or previously requested IPR of the ’838 patent. Petitioner certifies that it files this
`
`petition for IPR less than one year after the date on which Petitioner was served
`
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’838 patent.
`
`III. Relevant Background on the ’838 Patent
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged
`
`invention would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering or
`
`computer science, or the equivalent, and at least three years of experience in the
`
`design of network communication products. Specifically, such a person would be
`
`familiar with, inter alia, data communications protocols, data communications
`
`standards (and standards under development at the time), and the behavior and use
`
`of common data communications products available on the market. Ex. 1002,
`
`Seifert Decl. at ¶¶ 30-31.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’838 Patent
`
`The claims of the ’838 patent are generally directed to a central piece of
`
`network equipment comprising an Ethernet connector with first and second pairs of
`
`contacts, and functional limitations that the central piece of network equipment
`
`detect different magnitudes of DC current flow via at least one of the contacts of
`
`the first and second pair and control application of an electrical condition to a
`
`contact of the first and second pairs of contacts in response to a magnitude of DC
`
`current flow. See Ex. 1001, ’838 patent at 17:13-23. The ’838 patent claims to
`
`incorporate by reference (but does not claim priority to) U.S. Patent 5,406,260
`
`(also assigned to the Patent Owner), which discloses a current loop, including a
`
`portion passing through a pair of contacts. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 50; Ex.
`
`1004, ’260 patent at 3:37-52, Fig. 2. The ’838 patent states that the ’260 patent
`
`already disclosed:
`
`a means of detecting the unauthorized removal of a networked device
`by
`injecting a
`low current power signal
`into each existing
`communications link. A sensor monitors the returning current flow
`and can thereby detect a removal of the equipment. This method
`provides a means to monitor the connection status of any networked
`electronic device thus providing an effective theft detection/deterrent
`system.
`
`Ex. 1001, ’838 patent at 2:19-25.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`The ’838 patent then states the desire to “provide a further means in which a
`
`networked device may also be identified by a unique identification number using
`
`the existing network wiring or cabling as a means of communicating this
`
`information back to a central location.” Id. at 2:26-30; Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at
`
`¶ 51. The ’838 patent discloses a modulation scheme for this purpose:
`
`[A] communication system is provided for generating and monitoring
`data over a pre-existing wiring or cables [sic] that connect pieces of
`networked computer equipment to a network. The system includes a
`communication device or remote module attached to the electronic
`equipment that transmits information to a central module by
`impressing a low frequency signal on the wires of the cable. A
`receiver in the central module monitors the low frequency data to
`determine the transmitted information from the electronic equipment.
`The communication device may also be powered by a low current
`power signal from the central module. The power signal to the
`communication device may also be fluctuated to provide useful
`information, such as status information, to the communication device.
`
`Ex. 1001, ’838 patent at 3:24-37.
`
`C.
`
`Priority Claims in the ’838 Patent
`
`The ’838 patent issued April 28, 2015 from U.S. Application No.
`
`13/615,734 (“’734 app.”), filed September 14, 2012. The ’734 app. is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 12/239,001, filed September 26, 2008, which
`
`is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 10/668,708, filed September 23, 2003,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`which is a continuation of Application No. 09/370,430, filed August 9, 1999,
`
`which is a continuation-in-part under 35 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 120 of International
`
`Application No. PCT/US99/07846, filed April 8, 1999, designating the United
`
`States. Id. The ’838 patent also claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application
`
`No. 60/081,279 (“’279 provisional”), filed April 10, 1998. Id.
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date of the ’838 Patent
`
`A priority date analysis is limited to the four corners of the priority
`
`document. To provide sufficient disclosure for a later-filed application, the priority
`
`document must “actually or inherently disclose the claim element.” PowerOasis,
`
`Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008). That standard is
`
`not met here.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date or date of invention
`
`before April 8, 1999, which is the filing date of priority PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/US99/07846. In co-pending litigation (to which Petitioner is not a party),
`
`Patent Owner contends that the claims are entitled to an earlier priority date or date
`
`of invention based on (i) the ’279 provisional; (ii) uncorroborated testimony of
`
`named inventors Marshall Cummings and John Austermann; and (iii) letters from
`
`third-party Clyde Boenke to Marshall Cummings (“the Boenke letters”). None of
`
`these establishes an earlier priority date or invention date.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`1.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to the April 10, 1998
`filing date of the ’279 provisional.
`
`First, the ’838 patent’s claims are not entitled to the April 10, 1998 filing
`
`date of the ’279 provisional application. Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`establishing that the ’279 provisional application provides written description
`
`support for each limitation of the challenged claims. For example, the ’279
`
`provisional does not support independent claim 1’s requirement that the central
`
`piece of network equipment “control application of at least one condition . . . in
`
`response to at least one of the magnitudes of the DC current flow.” See Ex. 1002,
`
`Seifert Decl. at ¶¶ 128-129. It fails to disclose how that equipment can control
`
`application of an electrical condition in
`
`response to one magnitude of DC current
`
`flow. Id. at ¶ 129.
`
`In the ’279 provisional, the only
`
`equipment that could correspond to the
`
`claimed “central piece of network
`
`equipment” is identification receiver 15,
`
`which is shown in Figure 2. Id. at ¶ 130;
`
`Ex. 1005, ’279 provisional, at FIG. 2
`
`(annotated). Receiver 15 provides an
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`encoded power signal to transmitter 16. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 131; Ex. 1005,
`
`’279 provisional, at 4:8-11, 5:9-21. Transmitter 12 then sends an identification
`
`number to receiver 15 as a Manchester-encoded signal. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at
`
`¶ 132; Ex. 1005, ’279 provisional, at 5:22-6:7. In receiver 15, signal receiver 6
`
`receives the Manchester-encoded signal, Manchester decoder 5 decodes it, and
`
`firmware kernel 4 may then pass the decoded information to external device 19 or
`
`provide a blocking signal to blocking circuit 20. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 135;
`
`Ex. 1005, ’279 provisional, at 6:11-16. The important point is that every signal that
`
`receiver 15 receives is Manchester-encoded and passes through Manchester
`
`decoder 5. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶ 136; Ex. 1005, ’279 provisional, at FIG. 2,
`
`6:3-7, 6:11-13.
`
`This is significant because a single magnitude of a Manchester-encoded
`
`signal provides no meaningful information. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl. at ¶¶ 134, 136.
`
`By definition, a Manchester-encoded signal has different magnitudes, as shown
`
`below. Id. at ¶ 134.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1013, Gigabit Ethernet, at 226 (Fig. 12-3 in-part). Manchester encoding uses
`
`transitions between a high level and low level of current (or voltage) to represent
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`data, so there are always two magnitudes representing a single bit of data. Ex.
`
`1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 134. Thus, as disclosed in the ’279 provisional, when
`
`signal receiver 6 receives a Manchester-encoded signal, Manchester decoder 5
`
`must evaluate the signal’s transitions, each transition being composed of multiple
`
`magnitudes, in order to identify any useable information. Id. at ¶ 136. Without this
`
`information, firmware kernel 4 does not perform any controlling function. Id. at
`
`¶ 135; Ex. 1005, ’279 provisional at 6:13-14. Therefore, without evaluating
`
`multiple magnitudes of the Manchester-encoded signal, receiver 15 does not
`
`control anything. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 136. Because Manchester is the only
`
`encoding scheme that the ’279 provisional discloses, the provisional application
`
`fails to disclose that the central equipment controls application of an electrical
`
`condition in response to one magnitude. Id.
`
`To fill this gap, Patent Owner might try to rely on (1) the provisional
`
`application’s attempt to incorporate by reference U.S. Patent No, 5,406,260 (Ex.
`
`1005, ’279 provisional, at 2:5-11); and (2) a single paragraph describing the ’260
`
`patent (id.). Neither provides written description support. As a matter of law, the
`
`attempted incorporation by reference is insufficient, because the ’279 provisional
`
`neither “identifies with ‘detailed particularity’ the specific materials in the patent[]
`
`asserted to be incorporated by reference” nor “‘clearly indicates’ where the
`
`material is found in the incorporated patent[], as required to incorporate material
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`by reference.” IGB Auto. Ltd. v. Gentherm GmbH, IPR2014-00664, Paper 8 at 15
`
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2014) (quoting Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc., 460 F.3d 1365,
`
`1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The ’279 provisional’s single-paragraph description of the
`
`’260 patent is also insufficient, because it is silent about claim 1’s requirement that
`
`the central equipment control an application of an electrical condition in response
`
`to at least one magnitude of DC current flow. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶¶ 137-
`
`138.
`
`2.
`
`Inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier
`invention date as a matter of law.
`
`Second, inventor testimony alone cannot establish an earlier invention date
`
`as a matter of law. See In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Nor
`
`can inventor testimony be used “to authenticate a document offered to corroborate
`
`the inventor’s testimony.” Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc., IPR2013-00292,
`
`Paper 93 at 16 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014).
`
`3.
`
`The Boenke letters do not establish an invention date.
`
`Finally, the Boenke letters do not establish that the named inventors
`
`disclosed the subject matter of the letters to others before the critical date. See id. at
`
`15 (emphasis added). To the contrary, Boenke’s letters show that Boenke, not the
`
`named inventors, conceived the subject matter disclosed in those letters. The
`
`Boenke letters also cannot establish an earlier date of invention because they do
`
`not disclose every limitation of any challenged claim. See Iron Dome LLC v. E-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Watch, Inc., IPR2014-00439, Paper 16 at 8 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2014).
`
`Therefore, as a matter of law, Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`showing a priority date or date of invention prior to April 8, 1999.
`
`IV. State of the Art
`The challenged claims recite well-known structural elements: “central piece
`
`of network equipment” and “Ethernet connector.” Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 21.
`
`These are well-known elements of Ethernet communication systems in the prior
`
`art. Id.
`
`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”). Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`¶ 22. Each DTE with a PCnet-FAST board installed 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. Id.
`
`An Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts was also known in
`
`the prior art. Id. at ¶ 23. In fact, Ethernet connectors comprising a plurality of
`
`contacts existed long prior to the 10BASE-T system. Id. For example, the Ethernet
`
`Version 1 specification, published on September 30, 1980, teaches two different
`
`Ethernet connectors, each comprising a plurality of connectors. Id. at ¶¶ 23-24; Ex.
`
`1012, Ethernet V1 at §§ 7.2.3, 7.3.1.2.
`
`Patent Owner’s expert in co-pending litigation (to which Petitioner is not a
`
`party) also concedes that an Ethernet connector comprising a plurality of contacts
`
`was well-known. Ex. 1002, Seifert Decl., at ¶ 25.
`
`is known, an Ethernet connector
`this figure
`Q: Okay. So
`comprising a plurality of contacts is known, correct?
`
`A: Yes.
`
`Ex. 1011, Baxter Depo., at 113:18-21.
`
`V. Claim Construction
`A claim in an IPR is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of
`
`the specification to a POSITA. Under this standard, “claim terms are given their
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a POSITA in the
`
`context of the entire patent disclosure.” Nuvasive Inc. v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc.,
`
`IPR2013-00206, Paper 17 at 6 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 23, 2013). This meaning applies
`
`unless the inventor, as his own lexicographer, has set forth a special meaning for a
`
`term in the specification. Id. Under this standard, the following terms of the ’838
`
`patent should be construed as proposed below.
`
`A.
`
`“BaseT”