UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`------------------------
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`------------------------
`
`D-Link Systems, Inc.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc.
`
`Patent owner,
`
`------------------------
`
`Case: IPR2016-01426
`
`------------------------
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTIES REVIEW
`
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED (37
`C.F.R. §42.22(a)).......................................................................................... 1
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))................................. 1
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1)) .................................... 1
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ................................. 1
`B.
`Identification of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ............... 1
`C. Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(3) & (b)(4))
`............................................................................................................... 2
`D. Payment of fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103) .................................................. 2
`IV. REQUEST FOR REVIEW ........................................................................... 3
`A. Claims To Be Reviewed ...................................................................... 3
`B. Each Of The Cited References Is Available As Prior Art ............... 3
`C.
`Identification Of Challenge ................................................................ 4
`V. The ’838 Patent................................................................................................ 5
`A. Description of the Purported Invention ............................................ 5
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill ....................................................................... 7
`C. State of The Technology Prior To The '838 Patent.......................... 7
`1. Monitoring Ethernet Data Terminal Equipment In an Ethernet
`Network Based on Current/Impedance Detection Was Known....... 8
`2. Providing Electrical Power and Communication Signal Over A
`Common Twisted-Pair Wire Was Known ..................................... 10
`VI. Priority Claims in the ’838 Patent.............................................................. 10
`VII. Claim Construction .................................................................................... 12
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CLAIMS 1, 2, 7,
`26, 40 and 69 ARE UNPATENTABLE. .................................................. 12
`A. Ground I – Obviousness based on Chang (USPN 5,991,885) alone
`or in view of Patton (USPN 5,121,482) ............................................ 13
`B. Ground 2 – Obviousness of based on Hunter (WO 96/23377) in
`view of Bulan (USPN 5,089,927)....................................................... 25
`IX. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 35
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004-1
`
`1004-2
`
`1004-3
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent 9,019,838 (‘838 patent)
`
`Return Summon in EDTX Case No. 6:15cv653, Docket No. 7
`
`List of Related Matters
`EDTX Case No. 6:15-cv-653, Claim Construction Order dated
`June 17, 2016 (Docket No. 454)
`
`EDTX Case No. 6:15-cv-163, Claim Construction Order dated
`March 28, 2016 (Docket No. 123)
`
`EDTX Case No. 6:13-cv-880, Claim Construction Order dated
`January 7, 2015 (Docket No. 99)
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 (Chang)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,121,482 (Patton)
`
`WO 96/23377 (Hunter)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 (Bulan)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 (Cummings)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,568,525 (De Nijs)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,444,184 (Hassel)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 (Bloch)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Andrew Wolfe
`
`iii
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED (37
`C.F.R. §42.22(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Petitioner petitions for institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,019,838 (“the ’838 patent”) (Ex. 1001) and cancellation of that patent’s claims
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING (37 C.F.R. §42.104(a))
`
`The undersigned and Petitioner certify that the ’838 patent is available for
`
`review. Petitioner further certifies that it is not estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review challenging claims of the ’838 patent. Petitioner was not served
`
`with a complaint for infringement more than a year ago of the instant petition. See
`
`Ex. 1002.
`
`III. MANDATORY NOTICES (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(1))
`A. Real Party-In-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`
`D-Link Systems, Inc.
`
`B.
`
`Identification of Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`
`The ’838 patent is the subject of 45 civil actions filed in the Eastern District
`
`of Michigan, Eastern District of Texas, and Northern District of California.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1003 is a list identifying each of these civil actions, which
`
`includes Chrimar Systems Inc., et al. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., Case No. 6:15cv653;
`
`consolidated to Case No. 6:15cv618 (E.D.TX). The ’838 patent is also subject of
`
`pending IPR in IPR2016-00573, IPR2016-01151 and IPR2016-01397.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`IPRs have also been filed on related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,155,012, 8,902,760,
`
`and 8,942,107: IPR2016-00569, IPR2016-00574, IPR2016-00983, IPR2016-
`
`01389, IPR2016-01391; IPR2016-01399. These cases may affect, or be affected
`
`by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`C. Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. §§42.8(b)(3) & (b)(4))
`
`Lead Counsel
`Victoria Hao (Reg. No. 47,630)
`Law Offices of S.J. Christine Yang
`17220 Newhope Street,
`Suites 101 & 102
`Fountain Valley, California 92708
`Tel: (714) 641-4022
`Fax: (714) 641-2082
`vhao@sjclawpc.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Martha Hopkins (Reg. No. 46,277)
`Law Offices of S.J. Christine Yang
`17220 Newhope Street,
`Suites 101 & 102
`Fountain Valley, California 92708
`Tel: (714) 641-4022
`Fax: (714) 641-2082
`mhopkins@sjclawpc.com
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), Powers of Attorney accompany this
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioner
`
`also consents to electronic service by email.
`
`D.
`
`Payment of fees (37 C.F.R. §42.103)
`
`The undersigned authorizes the PTO to charge the required fees to Deposit
`
`Account No. 60-0381. Review of 6 claims 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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR REVIEW
`A. Claims To Be Reviewed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Petitioner requests review of claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the ’838 patent
`
`(“Challenged Claims”).
`
`B.
`
`Each Of The Cited References Is Available As Prior Art
`
`Each of the references cited in this petition qualifies as prior art. All of the
`
`references have an effective filing date prior to the earliest potential effective filing
`
`date of the ’838 patent of April 10, 1998.
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,991,885 to Chang et al. (“Chang”) (Ex. 1006) was filed on
`
`June 11, 1997, and issued on November 23, 1999, thus qualifies as prior art
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§102(a) and (e).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,121,482 to Patton (“Patton”) (Ex. 1007) was filed on
`
`September 11, 1989, and issued on June 9, 1992, and thus qualifies as prior
`
`art under §102(b).
`
`• WO 96/23377 to Hunter et al. (“Hunter”) (Ex. 1008) was published on
`
`August 1, 1996, and thus qualifies as prior art under §102(b).
`
`• U.S. Patent No. 5,089,927 to Bulan et al. (“Bulan”) (Ex. 1009) was filed on
`
`October 12, 1989 and issued on February 18, 1992, and thus qualifies as
`
`prior art under §102(b).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Chang, Patton, and Hunter are cited on the face of the ’838 patent but were not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`discussed during prosecution. Bulan does not appear to have been cited or
`
`discussed during prosecution.
`
`C.
`
`Identification Of Challenge
`
`The ’838 patent is unpatentable. In particular, the claims are invalid on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground 1. Chang (USPN 5,991,885) alone or in view of Patton (USPN
`
`5,121,482) renders claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the '838 patent obvious under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103.
`
`Ground 2. Hunter (WO 96/23377) in view of Bulan (USPN 5,089,927)
`
`renders Claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 of the '838 patent obvious under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103.
`
`Grounds 1 and 2 are not redundant of each other. Petitioner anticipates that
`
`the Patent Owner may try to swear behind non-102(b) references, for example,
`
`Chang. Petitioner therefore requests that the Board institute on both grounds.
`
`A detailed explanation of why claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 are invalid is
`
`provided below in Section VIII, including the supporting evidentiary declaration of
`
`Dr. Andrew Wolfe (Ex. 1014).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`V. The ’838 Patent
`A. Description of the Purported Invention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`The ’838 patent specification discloses embodiments that purport to provide
`
`an improved system for "asset tracking and management," including monitoring
`
`and identifying "asset movement" and "theft." ’838 1:20-3:14 (Background). 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
`
`(emphasis added); 5:26-30 (“a pair of transmit wires”; “a pair of receive wires”).
`
`The ’838 patent generally claims a piece of network equipment to detect
`
`different magnitudes of DC current flow. More specifically, 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.”
`
`Claim 1 recites:
`
`(1a) A central piece of network equipment comprising:
`
`(1b)
`
`at least one Ethernet connector comprising first and second
`
`pairs of contacts used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals;
`
`and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`(1c)
`
`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.
`
`Each of claims 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 depends from claim 1.
`
`Claim 2 further requires “wherein the different magnitudes of DC current
`
`flow are part of a detection protocol.”
`
`Claim 7 further requires “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.”
`
`Claim 26 further requires “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 (depend from 1, 38, 39) further requires “wherein the central piece
`
`of network equipment comprises at least one DC supply,” “wherein the at least one
`
`DC supply to provide at least one DC power signal,” and “wherein the central
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`piece of network equipment to control application of the at least one DC power
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`signal.”
`
`Claim 69 further requires “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.”
`
`Patent Owner’s Infringement Theory
`
`In various related civil actions, Patent Owner is attempting to apply the
`
`claims of the ’838 patent to read on the 802.3af Power over Ethernet ("PoE
`
`standard").
`
`B.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering
`
`or computer science, or the equivalent, and at least three years of practical
`
`experience in the design of network communication products. Ex. 1014, Wolfe
`
`Decl., at ¶ 38.
`
`C.
`
`State of The Technology Prior To The '838 Patent
`
`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`In addition, as discussed below, monitoring terminals in a network using a
`
`central equipment based on current detection and supplying power over the same
`
`conductors over which data is communicated were also known prior to 1998.
`
`For instance, the concepts of supplying power from a DC power supply over
`
`the same conductors over which data is communicated, was known and referred to
`
`as "phantom" powering. 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 used for Ethernet communication was also known. See,
`
`for example, WO 96/23377 to Hunter published in 1996.
`
`1. Monitoring Ethernet Data Terminal Equipment In an
`Ethernet Network Based on Current/Impedance Detection
`Was Known
`
`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. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., at ¶ 39.
`
`In 1990, the 10BaseT unshielded twisted pair specification for Ethernet was
`
`published. Under IEEE 802.3 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`plurality of exposed contacts with a signal path across selected contacts of that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Ethernet connector. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., at ¶ 40.
`
`As Ethernet initially assumed a shared medium, it was well known to
`
`monitor or otherwise detect Ethernet signals, for example, to manage transmission.
`
`Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., at ¶¶ 41-42. For instance, 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, U.S. Patent No. 5,406,260 to Cummings
`
`(Ex. 1010), U.S. Patent No. 5,568,525 to de Nijs et al. (Ex. 1011), and Ex. 1014,
`
`Wolfe Decl., at ¶ 43-45.
`
`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 circuit”),
`
`changes in current flows in a circuit intrinsically reflect changes in impedance for a
`
`given voltage. Hence, monitoring changes in a current path, for example, as
`
`disclosed in Ex. 1010, would also detect changes in circuit impedance changes for
`
`any known voltage. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., at ¶¶ 46-56.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`2.
`Providing Electrical Power and Communication Signal
`Over A Common Twisted-Pair Wire Was Known
`
`Providing both electrical power and communication signals between
`
`equipment over a common wire was also known prior to April 1998. For example,
`
`the common wire carrying both electrical power and communication signals can be
`
`a twisted-pairs cable. See, Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., at ¶¶ 57-59, U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,444,184 to Hassel (Ex. 1012), and U.S. Patent 4,173,714 to Bloch et al. (Ex.
`
`1013).
`
`VI. Priority Claims in 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.
`
`As shown on the face of the ’838 patent, the Patent Owner claims the benefit
`
`of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/081,279 (“’279 provisional”) (Ex. 1005),
`
`filed April 10, 1998. Ex. 1001.
`
`The challenged claims are not entitled to a priority date or date of invention
`
`based on the ’279 provisional. Patent Owner cannot meet its burden of
`
`establishing that the ’279 provisional application provides written description
`
`support for every limitation of the challenged claims. For example, the ’279
`10
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`provisional application does not provide written description support for the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`limitation “to control application of at least one electrical condition . . . in response
`
`to at least one of the magnitudes of the DC current flow” recited in independent
`
`claim 1, and every remaining challenged claims. Ex. 1005. Nor does the ’279
`
`provisional application provide written description support for the limitations
`
`added by challenged dependent claims. Id.
`
`To fill this gap, Patent Owner might try to rely on the following from the
`
`’279 provisional application: (1) an 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 (Ex. 1001). 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 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 piece
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of network equipment “to control application of at least one electrical condition . . .
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`in response to at least one of the magnitudes of the DC current flow.”
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`
`Before the PTO, a claim in an unexpired patent receives its broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification -- i.e., a claim term
`
`gets its plain meaning unless it is inconsistent with the specification. See 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.100(b).
`
`The BRI standard may be different from the claim construction standard
`
`applied in litigation.1 A district court has construed the following:
`
`“BaseT”
`
`
`current
`
`“twisted pair Ethernet in
`accordance with the 10BASE-
`T or 100BASE-T standards”
`a flow of electric charge
`
`Ex. 1004-1 pg 23
`
`Ex. 1004-1 pg 23
`
`
`VIII. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT CLAIMS 1, 2, 7,
`26, 40 and 69 ARE UNPATENTABLE.
`
` As described below, Chang alone or in combination with Patton renders the
`
`Challenged Claims obvious under §103. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 68-150.
`
`
`1 Petitioner expressly reserves its right to advance different constructions in district
`court litigation, which employs a different claim construction standard. Petitioner
`further reserves its position that claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112 and/or
`under other provision of 35 U.S.C. §102.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`In addition, Hunter in combination with Bulan also renders the Challenged
`
`Claims obvious under §103. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 151-191.
`
`A. Ground I – Obviousness based on Chang (USPN 5,991,885) alone
`or in view of Patton (USPN 5,121,482)
`
`Chang
`
`Chang (Ex. 1006) relates to “a network that detects the presence of a remote
`
`terminal connected to a network and determines the functional protocol of the
`
`remote terminal.” Ex. 1006, Abstract, lines 1-3. Chang discloses “network hubs
`
`and network interface adapters for automatically and continuously detecting the
`
`presence of a remote adapter coupled to a network twisted-pair cable, providing
`
`electrical power from a network hub to the remote adapter via the network
`
`twisted-pair cable, creating a multi-protocol networking system, and automatically
`
`connecting the remote adapter to the appropriate network hub.” Ex. 1006, Col.
`
`1:8-14 (emphasis added).
`
`Chang explains his use of known standard RJ45 connector and twisted-pair
`
`cable in Ethernet 10Base-T and 100Base-T systems. Ex. 1006, Col. 8:49-57:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Chang describes that “detection mechanism [that] relies on the impedance of
`
`the data lines” can detect “the connected device independent of networking
`
`protocol.” Ex. 1006, Col. 2: 49-55. Also see, Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 68-76.
`
`Patton
`
`Patton (Ex. 1007) discloses, as described by Chang: “a device that detects
`
`the connected device
`
`independent of networking protocol…its detection
`
`mechanism relies on the impedance of the data signal lines, its detection circuitry
`
`is also coupled directly to the data signal line.” Ex. 1006, Col. 2: 49-55, and Ex.
`
`1007.
`
`For example, Patton discloses that “current detection circuits may also be
`
`referred to as detection means.” For example, an “I/O connection has a high
`
`impedance and therefore results in a low current across resistor 16 when driver 14
`
`is enabled.” Ex. 1007, Col. 2:61-63.
`
`Patton also discusses that “A LAN I/O connection has a low impedance
`
`because it includes a transformer and therefore, a high current and large voltage
`
`drop results across resistor 16 when driver 14 is enabled.” Ex. 1007, Col. 2:67-3:2.
`
`Also see, Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 77-80.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`Chang/Patton Combination
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have had compelling reasons and
`
`motivations for combining the teaching of Chang with Patton. Ex. 1014, Wolfe
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 81-91.
`
`For example, one of ordinary skill would have understood both Chang and
`
`Patton relate to detection in Local Area Networks (LANs). Ex. 1014, Wolfe
`
`Decl., ¶ 82.
`
`In addition, Chang itself discusses Patton’s detection mechanism. Ex. 1006,
`
`Col. 2:49-55.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that although Chang
`
`proposes his own detection circuit, Patton’s circuitry can be adapted by Chang’s
`
`system to achieve Chang’s described objectives. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 83-86.
`
`In addition, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the detection
`
`mechanism based on voltage of Chang is functionally similar to Patton’s
`
`impedance-based detection mechanism. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶ 85.
`
`Furthermore, Chang’s preferred embodiment shows supplying electrical
`
`power to an infrared adapter, and one of ordinary skill also would recognize that
`
`the Chang’s method for providing power is not limited to supplying power to an
`
`infrared transceiver adapter. For example, Chang discusses one objective is to
`
`address “[a] dedicated electrical power supply [which] increases the system cost
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`and requires an AC electrical power outlet.” Ex. 1006, Col. 1:34-38. Ex. 1014,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 87-89.
`
`For at least each of these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
`
`compelling reasons to combine Chang and Patton in the manner described below.
`
`Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 81-91.
`
`Claim 1(a) preamble : “a central piece of network equipment”
`
`This element appears in the preamble. If this element is to bear patentable
`
`weight, Chang discloses “the network hub 202 (FIG. 2) and the network hub 302
`
`(FIG. 3) [to] provide the electrical power to the detected device when the presence
`
`of the detected device is confirmed.” Ex. 1006, col. 1:9-16. Chang discusses that
`
`“protocol conversion bridge is coupled to a connector typically near the user’s
`
`work station. The connector is then coupled to a network hub that is centrally
`
`located.” Ex. 1006, Col. 1:31-34, and Figure 2.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized any of the network
`
`hubs of Chang, such as the second network hub to be “a central piece of network
`
`equipment.” Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 92-98.
`
`Claim 1(b) element “at least one Ethernet connector comprising first and second
`pairs of contacts used to carry BaseT Ethernet communication signals”:
`
`Patent Owner has acknowledged and represented to the District Court that
`
`“central piece of equipment” in claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 40 and 69 is “known structures
`
`in the art.” Ex. 1004-1, page 18, lines 2-3. Thus, Claim 1(b) element should be
`
`considered as Patent Owner’s admitted prior art and is obvious.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`In any event, as mentioned above, Chang teaches using connectors
`
`supporting Ethernet 10BaseT and 100BaseTX protocol. For example, Chang
`
`expressly teaches that “[i]n one embodiment of the present invention, the user
`
`interface connectors 204 are conventional RJ45 connector,” and Chang further
`
`shows an exemplary signal assignment for an 8-pin connector for user interface
`
`connector 204 at TABLE II specifically for Ethernet 10BaseT and 100BaseTX
`
`protocol. Ex. 1006, col. 5: 27-29.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chang discloses
`
`or render Claim 1(b) element obvious. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 99-110.
`
`Claim 1(c) element “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”:
`
`Chang describes his invention as “a system for controlling the application of
`
`electrical power to a detected device.” Ex. 1006, Col. 3:1-2. Chang discusses that
`
`“[t]he system includes a signal generator….The signal generator…provides the
`
`control signal.” Ex. 1006, Col. 3:2-7.
`
`Chang teaches “[i]n one embodiment…, the system may include more than
`
`one types of remote terminal 602-1, for example, 602-1a and 602-1b. In order to
`
`distinguish them…. For example, the continuous presence signal 621 in terminal
`
`602-1a is set to 3VDC and in terminal 602-1b to 5VDC.” Ex. 1006, Col. 11:11-23.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Chang shows an exemplary signal assignment for an 8-pin connector at
`
`TABLE II.
`
`Ex. 1006, Col. 13:9-28.
`
`Chang teaches supplying electrical power to the remote terminal based on
`
`the detected presence signal. For example, Ex. 1006, Col. 11:43-58. Hence, one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Chang discloses 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.”
`
`In addition, different voltages correspond to different current flow. Thus,
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that changes in voltage can
`
`intrinsically reflect changes in current flow.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`Further, the extent that Chang’s presence detection signal is not deemed to
`
`reflect “different magnitudes of DC current flow via at least one of the contacts of
`
`the first and second pairs of contacts”, it would have been obvious to the ordinary
`
`artisan at the time of the invention to combine Chang’s method with Patton’s
`
`current/impedance-based detection method.
`
`Patton discloses “an I/O driver capable of supplying current to an I/O
`
`connector, a current detection circuit …, a comparator to compare the level of
`
`current ….The device … interprets the[ ] signal as identifying either a serial I/O
`
`system or a LAN I/O system.” Ex. 1007, Abstract.
`
`Patton discloses, what is described by Chang as: “a device that detects the
`
`connected device independent of networking protocol…its detection mechanism
`
`relies on the impedance of the data signal lines, its detection circuitry is also
`
`coupled directly to the data signal line.” Ex. 1006, Col. 2: 49-55, and Ex. 1007.
`
`Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chang
`
`alone or in combination with Patton discloses or render Claim 1(c) element
`
`obvious. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶ 120-123.
`
`For the reasons set forth in detail above, Chang alone or Chang in view of
`
`Patton render claim 31 obvious, and therefore, invalid. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶
`
`111-124.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Claim 2 “wherein the different magnitudes of DC current flow are part of a
`detection protocol”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01426
`
`As an example, Chang’s “Table II describes the signals present at the
`
`interface of the user interface connector 204 at the detection phase….In the
`
`detection phase, the device presence detector 414 enables the pass through
`
`connection path….” Ex. 1006, Col. 13:9-10 and 13:25-33.
`
`In addition, Patton discloses “[t]he invented circuit includes an I/O driver
`
`capable of supplying current to an I/O connector, a current detection circuit…,
`
`and a translator to convert the output signal…into a transistor-transistor logic
`
`signal…. The invented circuit then interpret the logic signal” to identify the type
`
`of network connection. Ex. 1007, Col. 1:62-2:4.
`
`Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Chang
`
`alone or in combination with Patton discloses or render Claim 2 obvious, and
`
`therefore, invalid. Ex. 1014, Wolfe Decl., ¶¶ 125-128.
`
`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”:
`
`Chang describes his invention as “a system for controlling the application of
`
`electrical power to a detected device.” Ex. 1006, Col. 3:1-2. Chang discusses that
`
`“[t]