Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT A1ND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In the Inter Partes Review of:
`
`Trial Number: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Filed: Sep. 14, 2012
`
`Earliest Related Appln: Apr. 10, 1998
`
`Issued: Apr. 28, 2015
`
`Inventor(s): John F. Austermann, III
`
`Assignee: Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Title: CENTRAL PIECE OF
`NETWORK EQUIPMENT
`Mail Stop Inter Partes Review
`Commissions for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Panel: To Be Assigned
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ANDREW WOLFE, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`i
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 1 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`II. Background and Qualifications ...................................................................... 3
`
`III. Understanding of Patent Law ........................................................................ 8
`
`IV. Background ....................................................................................................11
`A. Brief Description of Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the '838 Patent .11
`B. Brief Description of Patent Owner’s Infringement Allegations Based
`on Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the '838 Patent .............................14
`
`V. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art ................................................14
`
`VI. State of The Technology Prior To The '838 Patent ...................................15
`A. Monitoring Ethernet Data Terminal Equipment In an Ethernet
`Network Based on Current/Impedance Detection Was Known .......15
`B. Providing Electrical Power and Communication Signal Over A
`Common Twisted-Pair Wire Was Known ..........................................19
`
`VII. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation ...........................................................21
`
`VIII. Detailed Invalidity Analysis .........................................................................21
`A. Summary of Opinions ............................................................................23
`B. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 under §103 based on
`Chang (US5991885) Alone or In View of Patton (US5121482) .........24
`1. Background on Chang ......................................................................24
`2. Background on Patton .......................................................................27
`3. Chang/Patton Combination ...............................................................28
`4. Detailed Analysis ..............................................................................31
`C. Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 under §103 based on
`Hunter (WO 96/23377) In View of Bulan (US 5,089,927) .................49
`1. Background on Hunter ......................................................................49
`2. Background on Bulan .......................................................................50
`3. Hunter in view of Bulan Combination .............................................50
`4. Detailed Analysis ..............................................................................52
`
`IX. Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness.........................................67
`
`X. Conclusion .......................................................................................................67
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 2 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`I , Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. hereby declare as follows:
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I have been retained as an expert witness on behalf of D-Link Systems, Inc.
`
`("D-Link") for the above-captioned Petition for Inter Partes Review ("IPR")
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 ("the '838 patent", Ex. 1001). I am being
`
`compensated for my time in connection with this IPR. My compensation is
`
`in no way dependent on the outcome of this matter.
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to provide my opinions regarding whether any of claims
`
`1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the '838 patent is invalid, as anticipated by the prior
`
`art, or would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3.
`
`The '838 patent issued on April 15, 2015, from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/615,734, filed on September 14, 2012 and has a series of related
`
`applications, with the earliest provisional application filing date of April 10,
`
`1998.
`
`4.
`
`The face of the '838 patent names John F. Austermann, III and Marshall B.
`
`Cummings as the purported inventors.
`
`5.
`
`In preparing this Declaration, I have reviewed the '838 patent, the file history
`
`of the '838 patent, and numerous prior art references and technical references
`
`from the time of the alleged invention.
`
`
`
`1
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 3 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`6.
`
`I have been advised and it is my understanding that patent claims in an IPR
`
`are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the patent
`
`specification, file history, and the understanding of one having ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant art at the time of the purported invention.
`
`7.
`
`In forming the opinions expressed in this Declaration, I relied upon my
`
`education and experience in the relevant field of the art, and have considered
`
`the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art, as of April
`
`1998. My opinions directed to the invalidity of each of claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40
`
`and 69 of the '838 patent are based, at least in part, on the following prior art
`
`references:
`
`Reference
`
`Date of Public Availability
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 to
`
`Chang (Ex. 1006) was filed on June 11,
`
`Chang et al. ("Chang")
`
`1997, and issued on November 23, 1999.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,121,482 to
`
`Patton (Ex. 1007) was filed on September
`
`Patton ("Patton")
`
`11, 1989, and issued on June 9, 1992.
`
`WO 96/23377 to Hunter et al.
`
`Hunter (Ex. 1008) was published on
`
`("Hunter")
`
`August 1, 1996.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 to
`
`Bulan (Ex. 1009) was filed on October 12,
`
`Bulan et al. ("Bulan")
`
`1989 and issued on February 18, 1992.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 to Cummings (Ex. 1010) was filed on
`
`
`
`2
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 4 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Cummings ("Cummings")
`
`December 18, 1992 and issued on April
`
`11, 1995.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,568,525 to
`
`De Nijs (Ex. 1011) was filed on August
`
`De Nijs et al. ("De Nijs")
`
`19, 1993 and issued on October 22, 1996.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,444,184 to
`
`Hassel (Ex. 1012) was filed on February
`
`Hassel ("Haseel")
`
`10, 1993 and issued on August 22, 1995.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714
`
`Bloch (Ex. 1013) was filed on June 3,
`
`Bloch et al. ("Bloch")
`
`1977 and issued on November 6, 1979.
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`I have more than 30 years of experience as a computer system designer,
`
`personal computer graphics designer, educator, and as an executive in the
`
`electronics industry.
`
`9.
`
`In 1985, I earned a B.S.E.E. degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science from The Johns Hopkins University. In 1987, I received an M.S.
`
`degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Carnegie Mellon
`
`University. In 1992, I received a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from
`
`Carnegie Mellon University. My doctoral dissertation proposed a new
`
`approach for the architecture of a computer processor.
`
`10.
`
`In 1983, I began designing touch sensors, microprocessor-based computer
`
`systems, and I/O (input/output) cards for personal computers as a senior
`
`
`
`3
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 5 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`design engineer for Touch Technology, Inc. During the course of my design
`
`projects with Touch Technology, I designed I/O cards for PC-compatible
`
`computer systems, including the IBM PC-AT, to interface with interactive
`
`touch-based computer terminals that I designed for use in public information
`
`systems. I continued designing and developing related technology as a
`
`consultant to the Carroll Touch division of AMP, Inc. and I designed one of
`
`the first custom touchscreen integrated circuits in 1986.
`
`11. From 1986 through 1987, I designed and built a high-performance computer
`
`system as a student at Carnegie Mellon University. From 1986 through
`
`early 1988, I also developed the curriculum, and supervised the teaching
`
`laboratory, for processor design courses.
`
`12.
`
`In the latter part of 1989, I worked as a senior design engineer for ESL-TRW
`
`Advanced Technology Division. While at ESL-TRW, I designed and built a
`
`bus interface and memory controller for a workstation-based computer
`
`system, and also worked on the design of a multiprocessor system.
`
`13. At the end of 1989, I (along with some partners) reacquired the rights to the
`
`technology I had developed at Touch Technology and at AMP, and founded
`
`The Graphics Technology Company. Over the next seven years, as an
`
`officer and a consultant for The Graphics Technology Company, I managed
`
`the company's engineering development activities and personally developed
`
`
`
`4
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 6 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`dozens of touchscreen sensors, controllers, and interactive touch-based
`
`computer systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have consulted, formally and informally, for a number of fabless
`
`semiconductor companies. In particular, I have served on the technical
`
`advisory boards for two processor design companies: BOPS, Inc., where I
`
`chaired the board, and Siroyan Ltd., where I served in a similar role for three
`
`networking chip companies—Intellon, Inc., Comsilica, Inc, and Entridia,
`
`Inc.—and one 3D game accelerator company, Ageia, Inc.
`
`15.
`
`I have also served as a technology advisor to Motorola and to several
`
`venture capital funds in the U.S. and Europe. Currently, I am a director of
`
`Turtle Beach Corporation, providing guidance in its development of
`
`premium audio peripheral devices for a variety of commercial electronic
`
`products.
`
`16. From 1991 through 1997, I served on the Faculty of Princeton University as
`
`an Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering. At Princeton, I taught
`
`undergraduate and graduate-level courses
`
`in Computer Architecture,
`
`Advanced Computer Architecture, Display Technology, and Microprocessor
`
`Systems, and conducted sponsored research in the area of computer systems
`
`and related topics. I was also a principal investigator for DOD research in
`
`video technology and a principal investigator for the New Jersey Center for
`
`
`
`5
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 7 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Multimedia Research. From 1999 through 2002, I taught the Computer
`
`Architecture course to both undergraduate and graduate students at Stanford
`
`University multiple times as a Consulting Professor. At Princeton, I
`
`received several teaching awards, both from students and from the School of
`
`Engineering. I have also taught advanced microprocessor architecture to
`
`industry professionals in IEEE and ACM sponsored seminars. More
`
`recently, I have been a lecturer at Santa Clara University teaching graduate
`
`courses on Computer Organization and Architecture and undergraduate
`
`courses on electronics and embedded computing.
`
`17. From 1997 through 2002, I held a variety of executive positions at a
`
`publicly-held fabless semiconductor company originally called S3, Inc. and
`
`later called Sonicblue Inc. For example, I held the positions of Chief
`
`Technology Officer, Vice President of Systems Integration Products, Senior
`
`Vice President of Business Development, and Director of Technology. At
`
`the time I joined S3, the company supplied graphics accelerators for more
`
`than 50% of the PCs sold in the United States.
`
`18.
`
`I have published more than 50 peer-reviewed papers in computer
`
`architecture and computer systems and IC design.
`
`
`
`6
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 8 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`19.
`
`I also have chaired IEEE and ACM conferences in microarchitecture and
`
`integrated circuit design and served as an associate editor for IEEE and
`
`ACM journals.
`
`20.
`
`I am a named inventor on at least 51 U.S. patents and 28 foreign patents.
`
`21.
`
`In 2002, I was the invited keynote speaker at the ACM/IEEE International
`
`Symposium on Microarchitecture and at the International Conference on
`
`Multimedia. From 1990 through 2005, I have also been an invited speaker
`
`on various aspects of technology and the PC industry at numerous industry
`
`events
`
`including
`
`the Intel Developer’s Forum, Microsoft Windows
`
`Hardware Engineering Conference, Microprocessor Forum, Embedded
`
`Systems Conference, Comdex, and Consumer Electronics Show, as well as
`
`at the Harvard Business School and the University of Illinois Law School. I
`
`have been interviewed on subjects related to computer graphics and video
`
`technology and the electronics industry by publications such as the Wall
`
`Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek,
`
`Forbes, and Fortune as well as CNN, NPR, and the BBC. I have also spoken
`
`at dozens of universities including MIT, Stanford, University of Texas,
`
`Carnegie Mellon, UCLA, University of Michigan, Rice, and Duke.
`
`22. Based on my technical education, and my years of professional experience
`
`as both an engineer and as an educator, I consider myself to be an expert in
`
`
`
`7
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 9 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`the field of computer architecture and computer system design, consumer
`
`electronics, and computer programming,
`
`including computer busses,
`
`interfaces, and input/output ports. Moreover, I am very familiar with the
`
`operation and functional capabilities and
`
`limitations of commercial
`
`computers and computer peripherals existing during the late 1990s.
`
`23. My professional experience with computer device interface design, as well
`
`as my educational background, is summarized in more detail in my C.V.,
`
`which is attached as Ex. 1017.
`
`III. UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`
`24.
`
`I am not a patent attorney and I am presenting no opinions on the law related
`
`to patent validity. D-Link's attorneys have explained certain legal principles
`
`to me that I have relied on in forming my opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that prior art to the '838 patent includes patents and printed
`
`publications in the relevant art that predate the April 10, 1998 earliest
`
`claimed related application filing date.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the term "comprising" or "comprises" in a patent claim is
`
`inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional elements.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid if it is anticipated or obvious.
`
`Anticipation of a claim requires that every element of a claim be disclosed
`
`
`
`8
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 10 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference. Obviousness of a
`
`claim requires that the claim be obvious from the perspective of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time the alleged invention was
`
`made. I understand that a claim may be obvious from a combination of two
`
`or more prior art references.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an understanding of the
`
`scope and content of the prior art, any differences between the alleged
`
`invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in evaluating the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`29.
`
`I further understand that certain factors may support or rebut the obviousness
`
`of a claim. I understand that such secondary considerations include, among
`
`other things, commercial success of the patented invention, skepticism of
`
`those having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, unexpected
`
`results of the invention, any long-felt but unsolved need in the art that was
`
`satisfied by the alleged invention, the failure of others to make the alleged
`
`invention, praise of the alleged invention by those having ordinary skill in
`
`the art, and copying of the alleged invention by others in the field. I
`
`understand that there must be a nexus—a connection—between any such
`
`secondary considerations and the alleged invention. I also understand that
`
`
`
`9
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 11 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`contemporaneous and independent invention by others is a secondary
`
`consideration tending to show obviousness.
`
`30.
`
`I further understand that a claim may be obvious if common sense directs
`
`one to combine multiple prior art references or add missing features to
`
`reproduce the alleged invention recited in the claims. If a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art can implement a predictable variation,
`
`obviousness likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
`
`has been used to improve one device and a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, using the technique is obvious. I further understand that a claim can be
`
`obvious if it unites old elements with no change to their respective functions,
`
`or alters prior art by mere substitution of one element for another known in
`
`the field and that combination yields predictable results. While it may be
`
`helpful to identify a reason for this combination, common sense should
`
`guide and no rigid requirement of finding a teaching, suggestion or
`
`motivation to combine is required. When a product is available, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the
`
`same field or different one.
`
`
`
`10
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 12 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Brief Description of Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the '838 Patent
`
`31. The '838 patent explains that it is directed to equipment networked over
`
`"pre-existing wiring or cables that connect pieces of networked computer
`
`equipment to a network." '838 3:23-27, 4:62-66.
`
`32. The '838 patent acknowledges that at the time of the alleged invention,
`
`"existing Ethernet communications" and equivalents thereof were known.
`
`'838 3:40-42, 5:20-24 ("Ethernet, Token Ring, or ATM"). The '838 patent
`
`provides examples of networked equipment including personal computers
`
`and telephones connected to a hub in a network. '838 4:66-5:3. The
`
`equipment would be connected over "conventional multi-wire cables that
`
`include a plurality of transmit and receive data communication links." '838
`
`5:12-19, 5:26-30 ("a pair of transmit wires"; "a pair of receive wires").
`
`33. Claim 1 is an independent claim, and each of claims 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69
`
`depends from claim 1.
`
`34. Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 are directed to a central piece of network
`
`equipment. These claims further provide that “the central piece of network
`
`equipment to detect different magnitudes of DC current flow.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 13 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Specifically, claim 1 recites:
`
`A central piece of network equipment comprising:
`
`at least one Ethernet connector comprising first and second
`
`pairs of contacts used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals;
`
`and
`
`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 and 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.
`
`Claim 2 recites:
`
`The central piece of network equipment of claim 1 wherein the
`
`different magnitudes of DC current flow are part of a detection
`
`protocol.
`
`Claim 7 recites:
`
`The central piece of network equipment of claim 1 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
`
`
`
`12
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 14 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`detect distinguishing information within the DC current via the at least
`
`one of the contacts of the first and second pairs of contacts.
`
`Claim 26 recites:
`
`The central piece of network equipment of claim 1 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.
`
`Claim 40 recites:
`
`The central piece of network equipment of claim 39 wherein the
`
`central piece of network equipment to control application of the at
`
`least one DC power signal.
`
`Claim 39. The central piece of network equipment of claim 38
`
`wherein the at least one DC supply to provide at least one DC power
`
`signal.
`
`Claim 38. The central piece of network equipment of claim 1 wherein
`
`the central piece of network equipment comprises at least one DC
`
`supply.
`
`Claim 69 recites:
`
`The central piece of network equipment of claim 1 wherein the at least
`
`one magnitude of DC current flow is used by the central piece of
`
`
`
`13
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 15 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`network equipment to control application of at least one DC power
`
`signal.
`
`B.
`
`Brief Description of Patent Owner’s Infringement Allegations
`Based on Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the '838 Patent
`
`35.
`
`I understand that Patent Owner has acknowledged and represented to the
`
`District Court that “central piece of equipment” and “end device” in claims
`
`1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 are “known structures in the art.” Ex. 1004-1, page 18,
`
`lines 2-3.
`
`36.
`
`I further understand that Patent Owner has alleged that claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40
`
`and 69 to cover equipment that is capable to receive Power over Ethernet
`
`(“PoE”) based on the IEEE 802.3af and IEEE 802.at standard.
`
`V. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE PERTINENT ART
`
`37.
`
`I have been advised that there are multiple factors relevant to determining
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including the educational level
`
`of active workers in the field at the time of the invention, the sophistication
`
`of the technology, the type of problems encountered in the art, and the prior
`
`art solutions to those problems.
`
`38.
`
`It is my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the
`
`time of invention (i.e., in April 1998) is a person with a Bachelor of Science
`
`degree in Electrical Engineering or computer science, or the equivalent, and
`
`
`
`14
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 16 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`at least three years of practical experience in the design of network
`
`communication products.
`
`VI. STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY PRIOR TO THE '838 PATENT
`
`A. Monitoring Ethernet Data Terminal Equipment In an Ethernet
`Network Based on Current/Impedance Detection Was Known
`
`39. Ethernet was developed in the early 1970s for connecting devices, such as
`
`computers, into a network, commonly known as local area networks
`
`(LANs). The IEEE formally adopted Ethernet as a protocol standard as
`
`IEEE 802.3 and initially published the 802.3 Standard on June 23, 1983.
`
`40.
`
`In 1990, the 10BaseT unshielded twisted pair specification for Ethernet was
`
`published. The IEEE 802.3i. Under this protocol, Ethernet was designed to
`
`run on a cable that has an Ethernet connector at each end. An Ethernet
`
`connector is to be fitted into an Ethernet port of an Ethernet device, and an
`
`Ethernet connector includes a plurality of exposed contacts with a signal
`
`path across selected contacts of that Ethernet connector.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 17 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`41. Ethernet initially assumed a shared medium. In other words, multiple
`
`devices on each segment of the network are interconnected at first but later
`
`10Base T introduced an optional star topology via Ethernet hubs (which
`
`replicated all traffic received on any port to every other port). For example,
`
`a known method for sharing the medium is Carrier Sense Multiple Access
`
`with Collision Detection (CSMA/CD). Ethernet devices will check to see if
`
`anyone else is transmitting at the moment (carrier sense of multiple access)
`
`and if so (collision detection) will wait a short time before retrying the
`
`transmission.1
`
`42. Hence, it was well known to monitor or otherwise detect Ethernet signals,
`
`for example, to manage transmission.
`
`43.
`
`In addition, under 10BaseT, to monitor whether Ethernet terminal equipment
`
`has been recently disconnected from a network, a low current can be injected
`
`in the existing communications links and a sensor monitors for changes in
`
`the current flow in the existing communications links to ascertain if Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment has been recently disconnected from the network. Ex.
`
`1001, col. 2:12-21 and Ex. 1010, U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 to Cummings,
`
`
`1 Over time, though, hubs were replaced by switches, which send to each port only
`
`the traffic directed to the device on that port. That, combined with the migration
`
`from coaxial to twisted pair cabling (with dedicated pairs for sending and receiving
`
`data) and optical fiber, made shared-medium problems a thing of the past.
`
`
`
`16
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 18 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`issued on April 11, 1995 for “Network Security System for Detecting
`
`Removal of Electronic Equipment.”
`
`44. Also, U.S. Patent No. 5,568,525 to de Nijs et al. (Ex. 1011), filed on August
`
`19, 1993 and issued on October 22, 1996, discloses circuitry and method for
`
`automatically configuring a system having network workstations and
`
`corresponding network equipment of various protocols based on detection of
`
`a characteristic of an attached equipment. Ex. 1011, Abstract, ll. 1-3 and 6-
`
`10. De Nijs describes “[e]xamples of identifying characteristics include a
`
`characteristic impedance, a characteristic voltage, and a characteristic cable
`
`identification of the work station.” Ex. 1011, Abstract, ll. 10-12.
`
`45. De Nijs discusses that “networks can be constructed from local area network
`
`technologies, such as Ethernet (as defined by the IEEE 802.3 standard)” and
`
`that “twisted pair, coaxial or fiber optic cabling” are examples cabling for
`
`the transmission. Ex. 1011, Col. 1:30-32 and 1:46-48. De Nijs further
`
`discusses “data-grade, shielded-twisted pair wiring is being used to transmit
`
`data conforming to…Ethernet 10baseT.” Ex. 1011, Col. 2:3-5.
`
`46. A circuit path where any current can flow will always the result in the
`
`presence of resistance and impedance in that path.
`
`47. Electrical resistance is the measure of the opposition that a circuit presents to
`
`a DC current when a voltage is applied. Impedance extends the concept of
`
`
`
`17
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 19 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`resistance to alternating current (AC) circuits (using complex-valued
`
`mathematics rather than real numbers), and possesses both magnitude and
`
`phase.2 When a circuit is driven with direct current (DC), there is no
`
`distinction between impedance and resistance (resistance can be thought of
`
`as impedance with zero phase angle).
`
`48. According to Ohm’s Law:
`
`I = V / R
`
`where I is current, V is voltage, and R is resistance.
`
`49. As current is directly proportional to voltage, changes in current flow in a
`
`circuit intrinsically reflect changes in voltage for a given resistance.
`
`50. Hence, monitoring changes in a current path would also detect changes in
`
`voltage for any known resistance and/or changes in resistance for any known
`
`voltage.
`
`51. Ohm’s Law can also be written in term of impedance:
`
`V = I • Z
`
`where V is voltage, I is current, and Z is the load impedance.
`
`52. As current is proportional to impedance (see, for example, Ex. 1001, Col.
`
`8:52-54, “alter the flow of current…by changing the impedance of a
`
`
`2 Resistance has only magnitude.
`
`18
`
`
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 20 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`circuit”), changes in current flow in a circuit intrinsically reflect changes in
`
`impedance for a given resistance.
`
`53. Hence, monitoring changes in a current path would also detect circuit
`
`impedance changes for any known voltage and/or voltage changes for any
`
`known impedance.
`
`54.
`
`In the field of electronics, "VDC" stands for "volts of direct current," where
`
`DC stands for "direct current," which means the voltage is constant (as
`
`opposed to AC, alternating current, in which the voltage is constantly
`
`oscillating).
`
`55. For example, for one of ordinary skill in the art, the phrase "12 VDC power"
`
`means power that is supplied at 12 volts DC.
`
`56. Direct current is the type of current that comes directly from a battery or the
`
`power supplies of many electronic devices.
`
`B.
`
`Providing Electrical Power and Communication Signal Over A
`Common Twisted-Pair Wire Was Known
`
`57. The concepts of supplying power from a DC power supply over the same
`
`conductors over which data is communicated, was already known and
`
`referred to as "phantom" powering prior to April 1998. See, for example,
`
`U.S. Patent 4,173,714 to Bloch, issued in 1979. By the time of the alleged
`
`invention, providing DC power in this manner over the same conductors
`
`
`
`19
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 21 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`used for Ethernet communication was also well known. See, for example,
`
`WO 96/23377 to Hunter published in 1996.
`
`58. Providing both electrical power and communication signals between
`
`equipment over a common wire was also known prior to April 1998. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1012, U.S. Patent No. 5,444,184 to Hassel, issued on August 22,
`
`1995 for “Method and Cable for Transmitting Communication Signals and
`
`Electrical Power Between Two Spaced-Apart Locations.” For example, the
`
`common wire carrying both electrical power and communication signals can
`
`be a twisted-pairs cable.
`
`Ex. 1012, Abstract.
`
`
`
`59.
`
`In addition, Ex. 1013, U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 to Bloch was issued on
`
`November 6, 1979, for “Communication Circuit With Combined Power
`
`Feed and Data Transmission Over A Phantom Channel.” Bloch teaches a
`
`communication system consisting of a control unit and a terminal unit
`
`connected by four conductors that form a communication channel between
`
`
`
`20
`
`D-Link-1014
`Page 22 (of 69)
`
`

`
`Declaration of Andrew Wolfe, Ph.D. in Support of
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`the two units. Ex. 1013, Abstract, Fig. 1, 1:9-13. A "phantom circuit
`
`arrangement" is disclosed which allows the control unit to supply power to
`
`the
`
`terminal unit "over
`
`the same four conductors" used for
`
`the
`
`communication channel. Ex. 1013, Abstract, Fig. 1, 1:9-13;
`
`VII. B