Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01397
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 1
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01397
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 1
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 9
`A. Materials Considered .......................................................................... 9
`B.
`Opinions ............................................................................................. 9
`CHRIMAR RELIES ON INCORRECT PRIORITY DATE ..................... 10
`II.
`III. ADDITIONAL CIRCUITRY IS NOT REQUIRED FOR OBVIOUSNESS
` .................................................................................................................... 11
`A.
`BST and CMC Overview ................................................................. 11
`B.
`BSTs and CMCs Are Not Required By The Claims Or Prior Art ... 12
`C.
`POSITA Would Have Know How To Implement Grounds 1 and 2 15
`IV. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF PRIOR ART
`TEACHING PHANTOM POWER DELIVERY OVER ETHERNET DATA
`LINES ......................................................................................................... 17
`A.
`Ethernet Phantom Power Is Prior Art To The '838 Patent ............... 18
`B.
`Chrimar Did Not Invent Or Enable Ethernet Phantom Power ......... 20
`C.
`The IEEE's Standardization Of Ethernet Phantom Power Supports
`Obviousness ...................................................................................... 21
`There Is No Evidence That Ethernet Signals Would Be Compromised
`In The Combined Systems ............................................................... 25
`V. ALTERNATIVE POWER DELIVERY METHODS IN THE PRIOR ART
`DO NOT NEGATE OBVIOUSNESS ........................................................ 31
`A. A Combination Does Not Become Less Obvious Because It Relies On
`A Reference Teaching Alternative Embodiments............................ 31
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 2
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Page
`The Prior Art Favored Phantom Power ............................................ 32
`B.
`Unused Pairs Often Were Not Readily Available ............................ 33
`C.
`VI. GROUND 1: HUNTER AND BULAN TEACH ALL LIMITATIONS OF
`THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ................................................................ 35
`A. Hunter Teaches "Contacts Used to Carry BaseT Ethernet
`Communication Signals" .................................................................. 35
`a.
`Hunter Teaches "Ethernet" .......................................... 35
`b.
`Hunter Teaches "Contacts Used to Carry BaseT Ethernet
`Communication Signals" ............................................. 37
`Hunter Teaches Phantom Powering Ethernet Terminal
`Devices ........................................................................ 41
`Hunter Figures 1 and 2 Teach Non-Limiting
`Embodiments ............................................................... 43
`Hunter Teaches Sending Power And 10Base-T Data Over
`The Same Conductors .................................................. 45
`Bulan's Protective Device Improves Upon The Teachings Of Hunter
` .......................................................................................................... 46
`The Hunter-Bulan Combination Teaches "Distinguishing Information"
`Conveyed by Different DC Currents, Including Information that
`Differentiates One Terminal Equipment From Another .................. 47
`The Hunter-Bulan Combination Teaches a "Detection Protocol" ... 49
`D.
`VII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 50
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`10191664.12 02
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 3
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Number
`1001
`
`Short Name
`'838 Patent
`
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`10071
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`Crayford
`
`Hunter
`Bulan
`Bloch
`IEEE-1993
`
`IEEE-1995 (part 1)
`IEEE-1995 (part 2)
`Huizinga
`Blacharski
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent 9,019,838 to Austermann, III
`et al.
`Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of
`Petition
`WO 96/23377 to Hunter
`U.S. Patent 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`U.S. Patent 4,173,714 to Bloch et al.
`IEEE International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-
`3: 1993
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995
`U.S. Patent 4,046,972 to Huizinga et al.
`Dan Blacharski, "Maximum Bandwith: A
`Serious Guide to High-Speed Networking",
`
`
`1 IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995 has been separated into Exhibits 1007 and
`
`1008 to comply with file size limitations for Exhibits. Exhibits 1007 and 1008 are
`
`continuously paginated, from 1-200, and 201-415, respectively.
`
`10191664.12 02
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 4
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Number
`Short Name
`
`1011
`
`Katz
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`Related Matters
`
`Crayford C.V.
`IEEE Press Release
`
`1015
`
`Complaint
`
`'058 patent
`N/A
`
`N/A
`
`N/A
`Madisetti
`Declaration
`
`Level One
`
`Pulse
`
`Valor
`
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`
`
`
`Description
`Que Corporation (1997)
`Randy H. Katz, "High Performance Network
`and Channel-Based Storage", Report
`UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent
`9,019,838
`Resume of Ian Crayford
`IEEE Standards Association News &
`Events: Press Releases "IEEE 802.3
`Standard for Ethernet Marks 30 Years of
`Innovation and Global Market Growth"
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Juniper
`Networks, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00630
`(N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1.
`U.S. Patent 6,247,058 to Miller et al.
`Gordnia Declaration in support of pro hac
`vice motion
`Kagan Declaration in support of pro hac
`vice motion
`Reserved
`Deposition transcript for the July 21 and
`July 22, 2017 deposition of Dr. Vijay
`Madisetti
`Level One LXT914 Data Sheet, June 1997,
`Revision 2.2
`Pulse LAN Isolation Transformer Catalog,
`May 1998
`Valor Electronic Products Catalog, 1992
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 5
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Number
`Short Name
`
`Halo
`
`Description
`(excerpts)
`Halo TD43-2006K Drawing, December 18,
`1996
`Fisher or '998 patent U.S. Patent 5,994,998 to Fisher et al.
`'911 Patent
`U.S. Patent 6,140,911 to Fisher et al.
`De Nicolo or '468
`U.S. Patent 6,115,468 to De Nicolo
`patent
`'356 patent
`Smith
`Chrimar
`Presentation to IEEE
`
`U.S. Patent 6,295,356 to De Nicolo
`U.S. Patent 5,321,372 to Smith
`"Power on the 802.3 connection July 11th &
`12th, 2000 Power, Detection and Discovery
`over the Existing Ethernet Wiring" by CMS
`Technologies
`Madisetti Deposition Exhibit 1, Belden
`"Conduit and Media Twist" white paper,
`August 25, 1997
`IEEE 802.9 Standard, 1994
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical
`and Electronics Terms, Sixth Edition, 1996
`(excerpts)
`Madisetti Deposition Exhibit 1, July 22,
`2017
`Lucent Technologies, "TransTalk™ 9000
`Digital Wireless System MDW 9030P
`Wireless Pocketphone Installation and Use,"
`March 1997 (excerpts)
`Steve Carlson, "802.3 DTE Power via MDI
`Study Group" (November 1999)
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`1024
`
`1025
`1026
`1027
`
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`Madisetti Deposition
`Exhibit 1
`
`IEEE 802.9
`IEEE Dictionary
`
`Madisetti Deposition
`Exhibit 2
`Lucent
`
`1036
`
`Agenda
`
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 6
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`Number
`Short Name
`1037
`Muir
`
`Description
`Robert Muir, "DTE power over MDI - DTE
`Discovery Process Proposal" (November
`1999)
`Howard Frazier, Karl Nakamura and Roger
`Karam, "Power over the MDI" (January
`2000)
`Roger Karam, "Common mode Rejection
`Through Center Tap of Magnetics" (March
`2000)
`Michael Nootbar, "Why Power Over Signal
`Pairs?" (March 2000)
`Robert Love and Dave Kooistra, "User
`Requirements for Cabling Support" (May
`2000)
`Karl Nakamura and Roger Karam, "Power
`over the MDI using the two Signal Pairs"
`(May 2000)
`U.S. Patent 8,155,012 to Austermann, III
`et al.
`U.S. Patent 8,942,107 to Austermann, III
`et al.
`U.S. Patent 8,902,760 to Austermann, III
`et al.
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`Frazier
`
`Karam
`
`Nootbar
`
`Love
`
`1042
`
`Nakamura
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`'012 patent
`
`'107 patent
`
`'760 patent
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 7
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`I, Ian Crayford, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an expert in the field of networking and communication systems.
`
`I have been retained by Juniper Networks, Inc., Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade
`
`Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc. ("Petitioners") to provide my
`
`independent, expert opinion and I submit this declaration on behalf of Petitioners
`
`to analyze, render opinions, and/or provide expert testimony regarding the
`
`invalidity of certain claims of 9,019,838 ("the '838 patent"),, in IPR No. IPR2016-
`
`01397.
`
`2. My declaration addresses issues raised in Chrimar's Preliminary
`
`Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner Response, and Dr. Vijay Madisetti's
`
`testimony in support therefore (declaration and deposition).
`
`3.
`
`I previously submitted a declaration in support of the Petition in each
`
`of the IPRs. I incorporate my previous declarations herein by reference, including
`
`the "Background and Qualifications," "Legal Standards," and "Relevant
`
`Background" sections. See Ex. 1002.
`
`4.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $425 per hour for the time
`
`spent by me in connection with these proceedings. This compensation is not
`
`contingent upon my opinions or the outcome of the proceedings. I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration and, if called upon to do so, could
`
`and would attest to these facts under oath.
`
`10191664.12 02
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 8
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`A. Materials Considered
`5.
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the materials referenced
`
`herein, including the documents listed in the "Materials Considered" section of this
`
`declaration, supra. My opinions are also based on my years of education, research
`
`and work experience, as described in the earlier background and qualifications
`
`section and in my Curriculum Vitae (Ex. 1013)
`
`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 in forming any necessary
`
`opinions, 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. This Declaration
`
`therefore represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right
`
`to revise, supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new
`
`information and on my continuing analysis of the materials already in hand.
`
`B. Opinions
`8.
`In my opinion, the evidence establishes Grounds 1 and 2 disclose the
`
`Challenged Claims (1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 39, 40, 47, 55, and 69), and a Person of
`
`Ordinary Skill in the Art at the time of the alleged invention (herein "POSITA")
`
`would have made the combinations.
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 9
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`9.
`In Ground 1, Hunter teaches hubs and terminal equipment networked
`
`over standards including 10Base-T Ethernet. Pet., 7-25. Hunter teaches data and
`
`power delivery over the same conductors, and a current limiting device. Id., 7-8.
`
`A POSITA would have been motivated to replace this device with Bulan's circuit,
`
`which intelligently detects and distinguishes overcurrent from the terminal
`
`equipment (e.g., normal start-up versus fault). Id., 8-15. The combination teaches
`
`Claim 1, including "central piece of network equipment, "Ethernet connector," and
`
`"detect[ing] different magnitudes of DC current flow." Id., 25-33; id., 33-41.
`
`10. Ground 2 further confirms the Challenged Claims are obvious. Bloch
`
`teaches a telephone system where data and power are delivered over the same
`
`conductors. Id., 42-64. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine Bloch
`
`with the Ethernet standard, which was developed based on legacy telephone
`
`systems. Id., 52-54. Chrimar does not dispute Ground 2 teaches the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`II. CHRIMAR RELIES ON INCORRECT PRIORITY DATE
`11. The earliest priority date listed on the '838 patent is the April 10, 1998
`
`filing date of the provisional application. Ex. 1001 at 1. I understand Chrimar has
`
`not proffered evidence to support an earlier date. For my opinions, I have relied on
`
`April 10, 1998 (Serial No. 60/081,279), and I have used this as the "date of the
`
`alleged invention" in my consideration of the question of obviousness, although
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 10
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`nothing would change if I instead used the alternative date of April 8, 1999 (the
`
`filing date of PCT/US99/07846). Ex. 1002, ¶ 25.
`
`III. ADDITIONAL CIRCUITRY IS NOT REQUIRED FOR
`OBVIOUSNESS
`12. Chrimar's Preliminary Response argued
`
`that
`
`the Ground 1
`
`combination would result in an unworkable network environment. IPR2016-
`
`01389, Paper 12, 22-23. The Board disagreed and instituted trial, instructing
`
`Chrimar "[i]t is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on
`
`teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution
`
`of elements." Id. (citation omitted). In my opinion, Chrimar makes the same
`
`argument in its Response. Chrimar's argument is even more untenable this time
`
`because it requires the references be physically combined not only with other
`
`reference(s) in the Ground, but with additional circuitry that is neither required by
`
`the challenged claims nor mentioned in the references or the '838 patent—Bob
`
`Smith Terminations ("BST") and common mode chokes ("CMC"). Resp., 13-16.
`
`A. BST and CMC Overview
`13. BSTs are one way to minimize electromagnetic emissions in devices
`
`subject to the FCC's regulations and are not relevant to the claimed inventions. In
`
`1994, Robert ("Bob") Smith received U.S. Patent No. 5,321,372 for his eponymous
`
`terminations. Ex. 1029 ("Smith"). Smith explains "[g]overnment regulations
`
`mandate that emissions be limited to a particular level in order to minimize
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 11
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`interferences with other apparatus." Id., 2:5-7. "[T]he signal strength for twisted
`
`pairs is governed by the standards set forth by the FCC." Id., 2:8-9. Smith
`
`provides one way to meet these standards by terminating each individual twisted
`
`pair in a cable into a matching impedance thereby minimizing emissions from that
`
`cable. Id., 2:61-3:2. CMCs are another method for minimizing radiation from a
`
`twisted pair; they provide a high impedance to common mode signals above a
`
`certain frequency, thereby attenuating them. Dr. Madisetti clarified that the CMCs
`
`discussed in the Response are meant to be used with BSTs, and not instead of
`
`BSTs. Ex. 1020, 144:6-18 ("Common mode choke is used in addition to a Bob
`
`Smith [Termination]."). Dr. Madisetti's testimony confirms he gave very little
`
`consideration to these issues raised in the Smith Patent. Id., 84:7-13, 88:19-89:2,
`
`90:13-91:5, 115:5-14.
`
`B.
`14.
`
`BSTs and CMCs Are Not Required By The Claims Or Prior Art
`In my opinion, BSTs and CMCs are not relevant to the invalidity
`
`questions at hand. A POSITA would understand that the BRI of the Challenged
`
`Claims does not require BSTs, CMCs, or compliance with any FCC regulation.
`
`Dr. Madisetti testified he has not offered any opinions on whether the claims
`
`require BSTs or CMCs. Ex. 1020, 128:19-129:6, 139:4-9, 140:8-9 ("I'm not
`
`offering an opinion on the scope of the claims."). But when asked, he could not
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 12
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`deny "[t]he words 'Bob Smith' don't explicitly appear" in the claims. Id., 133:18-
`
`19.
`
`15. Neither BSTs nor CMCs appear in the specification that is common to
`
`the '838 patent and U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,902,760 ("'760 patent"), 8,942,107 ('107
`
`patent"), and 8,155,012 ("'012 patent") ("Shared Specification"). Dr. Madisetti
`
`explained they do not appear in the Shared Specification or the prior art, because
`
`BSTs and CMCs are part of an unclaimed "specific method of implementation"
`
`(Ex. 1020, 142:20-143:12) and are optional in an Ethernet system. Whether they
`
`are used is part of the innovation left "to the hand of the designer." Id.
`
`16. A POSITA would understand that the mere mention of "pre-existing
`
`wiring or cables" in the Shared Specification does not mean the claims require
`
`BSTs. Resp., 8, 13. There is no evidence that "pre-existing wiring or cables"
`
`required BSTs and CMCs in April 1998. To the contrary, Dr. Madisetti admitted
`
`he "cannot verify each and every system out there" used BSTs in April 1998, and
`
`he cannot "speak of every system." Ex. 1020, 80:16-20, 55:19-23. In fact, Dr.
`
`Madisetti formed his opinions without even considering the purpose of BSTs and
`
`CMCs, i.e., to address FCC emission requirements as explained in the Smith
`
`Patent. Id., 84:7-13, 88:19-89:2, 90:13-91:5, 115:5-14.
`
`17. The claims do not even recite or otherwise require "pre-existing
`
`wiring or cables" or "existing infrastructure." Ex. 1020, 376:14-17. Accordingly, a
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 13
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`POSITA would understand that whether Grounds 1 or 2 would have worked in a
`
`network that includes BSTs and CMCs is simply not relevant.
`
`18. For commercially sold devices that are subject to the territorial FCC
`
`emissions regulations addressed by BSTs, a POSITA would know of ways to
`
`satisfy those regulations without BSTs or CMCs. For example, Level One sold a
`
`10BASE-T repeater chip in 1997 that was designed to allow FCC compliance
`
`without requiring BSTs or CMCs. Exs. 1021, 1022.
`
`19. The 1997 data sheet for the Level One LXT914 Flexible Quad
`
`Ethernet Repeater shows that this device was designed to allow FCC compliance
`
`without the use of BSTs or CMCs. Ex. 1021. The LXT914 was a 4-port 10BASE-
`
`T repeater chip designed for hubs. This device was specifically designed to
`
`eliminate the need for transmit and receive filtering and CMCs, and was referred to
`
`as a "filterless" design in the industry. The LXT914 would have been a component
`
`well known to an artisan practicing at the time of the invention of Chrimar's
`
`patents.
`
`20. The "General Description" on the cover page of the LXT914 Data
`
`Sheet recites "The 10BASE-T transceivers are entirely self-contained with internal
`
`filters which simplify the design work required for FCC-compliant EMI
`
`performance." Ex. 1021, 1. Figure 5 is a 12 Port Hub Schematic and Figure 6 is
`
`an 8 Port Hub Schematic. Id., 20, 24. These figures show that the four 10BASE-T
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 14
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`interfaces on the LXT914 are terminated using external resistors and are clearly
`
`connected via the 1:1 receive transformer and the 1:√2 transmit transformer
`
`directly to pins 3/6 and 1/2 of the RJ-45 connector respectively. Id. There are no
`
`BST or CMC components present.
`
`21. Table 19 of the LXT914 data sheet shows a "Manufacturers
`
`Magnetics List" for parts to be used with the LXT914 chip. Id., 19. Examples are
`
`the Pulse PE-68810 and PE-68820. The Pulse LAN Isolation Transformer Catalog
`
`includes a "Typical 10Base-T Application Circuit" for the LXT914. Ex. 1022, 5.
`
`Again, the 10BASE-T transmit and receive connections do not include either BSTs
`
`or CMCs.
`
`C.
`POSITA Would Have Know How To Implement Grounds 1 and 2
`22. Chrimar ignores the knowledge and ordinary creativity a POSITA
`
`would have in April 1998, and from this, speculates a POSITA could not make the
`
`combinations of Grounds 1 or 2 for use in an Ethernet network that includes BSTs
`
`and CMCs. Resp., 13-16. As explained above, the optional use of BSTs and
`
`CMCs in certain network implementations is not relevant to the present invalidity
`
`analysis.
`
`23. However, even if this issue is to be addressed, a POSITA would
`
`possess sufficient knowledge and creativity to implement BSTs and CMCs in
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 without damage to the circuitry. For example, he would know in
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 15
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`April 1998 that a blocking capacitor could be used to block DC current from
`
`flowing through the BSTs. The Shared Specification uses capacitors in this
`
`manner to form a filter for blocking current from flowing in a particular path of the
`
`circuit. Ex. 1043, 7:40-41 ("High pass filter 86 blocks DC current from flowing to
`
`hub 1 from signal modulator 7 …").
`
`24. He also would know that CMCs were available that would not
`
`saturate from the application of power. Exs. 1023, 1024. CMCs can be located on
`
`the network side (between the transformer and the RJ-45) in phantom power
`
`applications, in at least two well-known methods.
`
`25. First, an "auto-transformer" can be used ahead of the CMC. Such a
`
`configuration is shown in the prior art of the Fisher Patent U.S. Patent No
`
`5,994,998. Ex. 1025 ("Fisher"). Fisher Figure 4 refers to "a pair of center tapped
`
`inductors (inductor 416 and inductor 417)" (id., 6:23-24) in the hub device, and "a
`
`pair of center tapped inductors (inductor 524 (sic) and inductor 425)" (id., 6:31-32)
`
`at the terminal device. A POSITA would understand that such center tapped
`
`inductors essentially form the auto-transformers. An auto-transformer offers a
`
`high impedance path from the outer terminals to the center tap for differential
`
`signals (such as Ethernet data), but a low impedance path from the outer terminals
`
`to the center tap for common mode signals (such as phantom power). Therefore,
`
`placing the auto-transformer between the CMC and the RJ-45 connector, allows
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 16
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`insertion of phantom power at the hub, and extraction of phantom power at the
`
`terminal, without causing saturation of the CMC, and without degrading the
`
`Ethernet signals.
`
`26. A second method which prevents CMC saturation, is by utilizing
`
`CMCs wound on the same core for the transmit and receive paths. Since the
`
`phantom current flows in equal and opposite directions, it causes the creation of
`
`equal and opposing magnetic flux, and the CMCs will not saturate. For example,
`
`both Valor and Halo were companies that publicly sold CMCs with this structure at
`
`the time of the invention. The Valor Catalog shows that the CMCs for parts
`
`ST7010 and PT4068 are wound on the same core as shown by the dotted line in the
`
`Schematic T9. Ex. 1023, 2-3. The Halo TD43-2006K data sheet likewise shows a
`
`CMC wound on the same core as shown by the dotted line in the Schematic. Ex.
`
`24. A POSITA would have known that the dotted line in these diagrams is the
`
`symbol that designates that the CMCs are wound on the same core.
`
`IV. CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS IN VIEW OF PRIOR ART
`TEACHING PHANTOM POWER DELIVERY OVER ETHERNET
`DATA LINES
`27.
`In my opinion, Chrimar makes a series of incorrect and unsupported
`
`arguments about power over Ethernet. First, to clarify, a POSITA would know
`
`that Chrimar did not invent or enable the application of power delivery over data
`
`lines to Ethernet networks. The application of this textbook concept existed at the
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 17
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`time of the invention and later became an IEEE standard (802.3af (2003), 802.3at
`
`(2009)), generically referred to as "Power over Ethernet" or "PoE". Ex. 1020,
`
`190:7-20.
`
`A. Ethernet Phantom Power Is Prior Art To The '838 Patent
`28. Chrimar says PoE did not exist in 1997. Resp., 8, Ex. 2038, ¶232. If
`
`Chrimar means that phantom power—the concept of power delivery over data
`
`lines—was not known or had not been applied to Ethernet networks in 1997
`
`("Ethernet phantom power"), this is false. First, 1997 is not the time of invention.
`
`See §II, supra. Second, prior art references predating Chrimar's priority date show
`
`Ethernet phantom power was well known by April 1998.
`
`29. Hunter confirms that by 1996, "the concept of phantom power ha[d]
`
`been extended significantly to operate with data bearing-LAN buses," including the
`
`10Base-T bus of the preferred embodiment. Ex. 1003 ("Hunter")2, 20:14-16.,
`
`19:13-17, 21:11-13. Each of the two twisted-pair conductors in the 10Base-T bus
`
`is "used for unidirectional transmission of data" and "as a rail by which to deliver
`
`DC power to the equipment." Id., 21:22-29. This "allow[s] power to be introduced
`
`into the conductors and throughout the computer network." Id., 20:11-16.
`
`30. The prior art cited in the '838 patent further confirms Ethernet
`
`phantom power predates Chrimar's alleged invention, but Chrimar and its expert
`
`
`2 Hunter citations reference the document's internal pagination.
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 18 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 18
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`did not consider this because they relied on an incorrect time of invention. Ex.
`
`1020, 200:23-201:11 ("I don't agree they're prior art.").
`
`31. For example, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,994,998 and 6,140,911, filed May 29,
`
`1997 and issued to Fisher et al., teach powering an Ethernet device over the same
`
`Cat-3 or Cat-5 twisted pair cable that carry 10BASE-T and 100BASE-T Ethernet
`
`data. Ex. 1025 ("Fisher"), 2:21-41, 3:65-67, 6:7-10; see also Ex. 1026. The '838
`
`patent lists both patents as prior art. Ex. 1001, 5 Fisher teaches a "combined
`
`power and data signal that can eventually be supplied to the network device."
`
`Fisher, 3:49-63; 2:21-26 (electric power supply current and data signal over same
`
`transmission line), 2:27-41 ("combined power supply current and data signal").
`
`Fisher also explains the "network device" can be a personal computer having a
`
`network interface card. Id., 4:1-7.
`
`32. Similarly, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,115,468 and 6,295,356, filed March 26,
`
`1998 and issued to De Nicolo, teach "provid[ing] electrical power to ethernet-
`
`based telephones over an ethernet wire link." Ex. 1027 ("De Nicolo"), 1:7-9; see
`
`also Ex. 1028. The '838 patent lists both patents as prior art. Ex. 1001, 5. De
`
`Nicolo Figure 3 illustrates "Ethernet devices requiring power to be transmitted to
`
`them in addition to data over Ethernet twisted pair lines." Id., Fig. 3, 3:5-12.
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, a POSITA with knowledge of this material art would
`
`have had even more reason to make the combinations in the Grounds, because the
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 19
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`resulting systems, which would involve power delivery over Ethernet data lines,
`
`were well known in the prior art, and the combinations would yield predictable
`
`results.
`
`B. Chrimar Did Not Invent Or Enable Ethernet Phantom Power
`34. To the extent Chrimar contends its invention enabled Ethernet
`
`phantom power to function with BSTs and CMCs, the plain language of the Shared
`
`Specification shows this is untrue. Resp., 8.
`
`35. The Shared Specification describes an asset
`
`tracking system
`
`consisting of two modules that communicate over conductors carrying network
`
`data, for example Ethernet. Ex. 1043, Figs. 1-8, 10. A remote module is attached
`
`to or integrated into a network asset such as a personal computer. Id., Figs. 1-4,
`
`13-15. A central module provides current to the remote module; but it does not
`
`power the asset. Id., 4:65-67, 5:40-48, 7:40-42, 7:48-50, 12:48-50. It also does not
`
`control (i.e., selectively turn on and off) power to either the remote module or the
`
`asset. Id. The central module, unaware that there may be a BST or CMC
`
`somewhere in the asset or remote module, continuously provides current to the
`
`remote module (unless of course, the two modules are unplugged from one
`
`another). Ex. 1043, 5:33-35, 5:43-48. Chrimar cannot rely on its expert to argue
`
`its patent teaches something more, because when asked whether Chrimar invented
`
`
`DM2\7976942.3
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`
`Juniper Ex 1046-p. 20
`Juniper v ChriMar
`IPR2016-01397
`
`
`
`Second Declaration of Ian Crayford in Support of Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`"phantom power for Ethernet," he responded "I'm not offering an opinion as to
`
`Chrimar's –Chrimar's specific contributions." Ex. 1020, 192:17-194:1.3
`
`C. The IEEE's Standardization Of Ethernet Phantom Power
`Supports Obviousness
`36. Chrimar argues a POSITA would not have made the combinations in
`
`the Grounds because the resulting systems would deliver power over Ethernet data
`
`lines, and there was allegedly skepticism about Ethernet phantom power. Chrimar
`
`attempts to fabricate skepticism from a selection of IEEE presentations and
`
`meeting minutes. Resp., 7, 21-25. A more complete review of the IEEE
`
`documents confirms members favored phantom power and questioned the
`
`availability of unused pairs.
`
`37. As background, the IEEE presentations identified by Chrimar were
`
`made during IEEE meetings related to the development of a standard for power
`
`delivery to data terminal equipment (DTE). Ex. 1036. The concept of Ethernet
`
`
`3 It also is noteworthy that when Chrimar presented its invention to the IEEE
`
`in 2000, the IEEE rejected it. Ex. 1030; Ex. 2045, 1-3 (IEEE meeting Minutes
`
`show Chrimar did not get enough votes to advance to next round). This further
`
`confirms Chr
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
