IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`6: 15-CV-163-JDL
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`ALCATEL-LUCENT S.A., ET AL.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`My name is Les Baxter and I declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`I have been asked by Plaintiffs to provide opinions as one of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`this matter regarding the meaning of certain terms in the four Patents-in-Suit, namely
`
`United States Patent Nos. 8,155,012 (“the ’012 Patent”); 8,942,107 (“the ’l07 Patent”);
`
`8,902,760 (“the ’760 Patent”); and 9,019,838 (“the ’838 Patent”).
`
`PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS
`
`2.
`
`I was employed at Bell Laboratories where I was a Member of the Technical Staff,
`
`Technical Manager, and Director in the network cable systems, optical fiber solutions,
`
`customer switching systems, and optical networking business units from 1977 through
`
`2001. Since 2001, I have been the Principal of Baxter Enterprises which provides
`
`consulting, engineering, and expert witness services specializing in structured cabling
`
`systems, local area networks and residential networks.
`
`3.
`
`During my thirty-five year career in the networking field I acquired extensive technical
`
`expertise and experience in structured cabling (copper and fiber-optic) and physical layer
`
`networking in the enterprise, network, and residential markets; local area networks, data
`
`communication/networking, protocols (particularly IEEE 1394/FireWire and IEEE
`
`802.3/Ethemet), including connectors; systems engineering (network architecture,
`
`product and system specifications and requirements); optical networking; standards
`
`strategy and development; switching systems (circuit, packet and optical); prototyping
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0001
`
`

`
`and product development (hardware and firmware); and commercializing new technology
`
`to create successful products and systems.
`
`4.
`
`I was named an IEEE fellow in 2009 for my “contributions to high-speed digital
`
`communication networks.” I am a registered professional engineer in New Jersey and
`
`coauthor of the book Premises Cabling (Thomson Delmar Learning, 3rd ed. 2006) and
`
`author of the book Residential Networks (Delmar Thompson Learning, 2006).
`
`5.
`
`In June 1972, I received an Associate of Arts and Science degree in Electronic
`
`Technology from Delaware Technical Community College. In June 1975, I received the
`
`degree of Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the Rochester Institute of
`
`Technology. In June 1977, I received the degree of Master of Science in Electrical
`
`Engineering from the University of Delaware.
`
`6.
`
`I have participated in numerous standards-setting committees under the auspices of the
`
`Electronic Industries Association (EIA); Telecommunications Industries Association
`
`(TIA); the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and the International
`
`Standards Organization (ISO). I am currently Chair of the IEEE 1394 Committee relating
`
`to High Perfonnance Serial Buses and am a member of the IEEE 802.3 Working Group
`
`on Ethernet LANs. I am a member of the IEEE Standards Association, TIA, BICSI,
`
`NSPE, and the 1394 Trade Association.
`
`7.
`
`I have published more than 30 articles in technical and trade journals and have made
`
`presentations at technical conferences on five continents. I am an inventor of eight U.S.
`
`Patents.
`
`8.
`
`Attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of my current CV which lists all publications that I
`
`authored in the previous 10 years and lists all other cases in which, during the previous 4
`
`years, I have testified as an expert at trial or by deposition.
`
`9.
`
`I am being compensated at the rate of $250 per hour for my study and testimony in this
`
`case. My compensation is based solely on the amount of time that I devote to activity
`
`related to this case and is in no way affected by any opinions that I render or the outcome
`
`of the litigation.
`
`DECLARATION OF LEs BAXTER
`
`PAGE 2
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0002
`
`

`
`LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`10.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art with respect to the Patents-in-
`
`Suit would have an undergraduate degree or the equivalent in the field of electrical
`
`engineering or a related ancillary field, and one to three years of experience with Ethernet
`
`networks. Alternatively, a greater length of experience could replace the degree
`
`requirement.
`
`11.
`
`I am one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`THE USE OF THE INFINITIVE “To
`
`”
`
`12.
`
`I understand that Defendants have asked the Court to construe the infinitive “to” in the
`
`following claims to mean that the “[t]he action claimed must occur to meet the limitation:
`
`’ 107 Patent: claims 1, 43, 104, and 111
`
`’760 Patent, claims 1, 58, 69, 73, and 142
`
`’838 Patent, claims 1, 7, 26, 29, 40, and 69
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`l5.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction of the infinitive “to.”
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction of the term “to” is incorrect because it would be
`
`improperly transforming apparatus claims into hybrid apparatus-method claims.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the tenn “to” such that it
`
`needs no construction. Further, I note that Defendants are not proposing a construction
`
`for the word “to,” but seeking to require that the fimction following the word “to” must
`
`be actually performed in order to infringe each claim identified above.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history, would understand that the infinitive “to” as used in these claims means that
`
`the claimed apparatus or structure is “configured to” or “designed to” perform the
`
`function recited in the claim.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’l07 Patent states the following:
`
`A piece of Ethernet terminal equipment comprising:
`
`an Ethernet connector comprising first and second pairs of contacts
`used to carry Ethernet communication signals,
`
`at least one path for the purpose of drawing DC current, the at least
`one path coupled across at least one of the contacts of the first pair
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 3
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0003
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0003
`
`

`
`of contacts and at least one of the contacts of the second pair of
`contacts,
`the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment
`to draw
`diflerent magnitudes ofDC currentflow via the at least one path,
`the different magnitudes of DC current flow to result from at
`least one condition applied to at least one of the contacts of the
`first and second pairs of contacts, wherein at least one of the
`magnitudes of the DC current flow to convey information about
`the piece ofEthernet terminal equipment.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`For example, that the claimed “Ethernet terminal device” is configured to “draw different
`
`magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one pat ” as recited in claim 1 of the ’ 107
`
`Patent. In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this
`
`means that the equipment is configured or designed to draw different magnitudes of (DC)
`
`current flow.”
`
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’107 Patent, like all of the claims identified above associated with the
`
`word “to” is an apparatus claim, not a method claim.
`
`Nothing in claim 1 of the ’ 107 Patent, or any of the other claims identified above,
`
`requires the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment to actually draw current in the context
`
`of this apparatus claim.
`
`Each claim identified above recites a structural component.
`
`Defendants’ proposal is also problematic as the word “to” appears in other places where
`
`it would not make sense that some action must occur. For example, in claim 1 of the ’ 107
`
`Patent, “an Ethernet connector comprising first and second pairs of contacts used to carry
`
`Ethernet communication signals.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`this means that the Ethernet connector includes pairs of contacts that are configured to
`
`carry Ethernet communication signals—not that the Ethernet connector was actually
`
`carrying those signals.
`
`24.
`
`As detailed below, I disagree with Defendants that where the infinitive “to” is used that
`
`an action must occur:
`
`“to detect at least two different magnitudes of the current flow” (‘760 Patent,
`
`claims 1, 73)
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 4
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0004
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0004
`
`

`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the BaseT Ethernet equipment is configured or designed to detect at least two different
`
`magnitudes of the current flow.
`
`“to detect current flow” (‘760 Patent, claim 58)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the BaseT Ethernet equipment is configured or designed to detect current flow.
`
`“to detect different magnitudes of DC current flow” (‘838 Patent, claim 1)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to detect different magnitudes of DC
`
`current flow.
`
`“to detect distinguishing information within the DC current” (‘838 Patent, claim
`
`7)
`
`28.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to detect distinguishing information
`
`within the DC current.
`
`“to distinguish one end device from at least one other end device” (‘838 Patent,
`
`claim 26)
`
`29.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to distinguish one end device from at
`
`least one other end device.
`
`“to distinguish one network object fi'om at least one other network object” (‘838
`
`Patent, claim 29)
`
`30.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to distinguish one network object from
`
`at least one other network object.
`
`“to distinguish the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one other
`
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment” (‘ 107 Patent, claim 43)
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 5
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0005
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0005
`
`

`
`31.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the the network equipment is configured or designed to convey information about the
`
`piece of Ethernet terminal equipment.
`
`“to distinguish the powered-off end device from at least one other end device”
`
`(‘ 107 Patent, claim 1 l 1)
`
`32.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to distinguish the powered-off end
`
`device from at least one other end device.
`
`“to distinguish the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one
`
`other piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment” (‘760 Patent, claims 69, 112)
`
`33.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the central BaseT Ethernet equipment is configured or designed to distinguish the piece
`
`of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment from at least one other piece of BaseT Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment.
`
`“to control application of at least one electrical condition” (‘760 Patent, claim 1; ‘838
`
`Patent, claim 1)
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the central BaseT Ethernet equipment (‘760) or central network equipment (‘83 8) is
`
`configured or designed to control application of at least one electrical condition.
`
`“to control application of the at least one DC power signal” (‘838 Patent, claim 40)
`
`35.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the context
`
`of claim 40 of the ‘838 Patent, this means that the central piece of network equipment is
`
`configured or designed to control application of the at least one DC power signal.
`
`“the at least one magnitude of DC current flow is used by the central piece of network
`
`equipment to control application of at lest one DC power signal” (‘838 Patent, claim
`
`69)
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 6
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0006
`
`

`
`36.
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in the context
`
`of claim 69 of the ‘838 Patent, this means that the central piece of network equipment is
`
`configured or designed to control the application of the at least one DC power signal.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`“to convey information about the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment” (‘ 107 Patent,
`
`claim 1)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to convey information about the piece
`
`of Ethernet terminal equipment.
`
`“to convey information about the powered-off end device” (‘ 107 Patent, claim 104)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to convey information about the
`
`powered-off end device.
`
`“to provide at least one DC current” (‘838 Patent, claim 7)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the central piece of network equipment is configured or designed to provide at least one
`
`DC current.
`
`“to result from at least one condition applied to” (‘ 107 Patent, claims 1, 104)
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this means that
`
`the network equipment is configured or designed to draw different magnitudes of DC
`
`current flow in response at least one electrical condition applied to at least one of the
`
`contacts .
`
`“AT LEAST ONE [ELECTRICAL, VOLTAGE, IMPEDANCE] CONDITION”
`
`41.
`
`I understand that Defendants have asked the Court to construe the phrases “at least one
`
`condition” and “at least one condition applied” in the following claims:
`
`’lO7 Patent, claims 1, 104, and 107;
`
`’760 Patent, claim 1; and
`
`’838 Patent, claims 1 and 47.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 7
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0007
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0007
`
`

`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`I understand that Defendants contend that the term “condition,” without a modifier such
`
`as voltage, is indefinite.
`
`I also understand that Defendants contend that the term “applying a voltage condition”
`
`means applying a voltage. However, the phrase “applying a voltage condition” does not
`
`appear in any of these claims.
`
`I disagree that the term “condition,” without a modifier such as electrical, voltage, or
`
`impedance, is indefinite. I also disagree that these terms need any construction.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history, would understand that these terms would have their plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. In the context of these claims, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“condition” is an electrical condition (e.g., a voltage or an impedance condition).
`
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’ 107 Patent states that “the piece of Ethernet terminal
`
`equipment to draw different magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one path, the
`
`different magnitudes of DC current flow to resultfrom at least one condition applied to
`
`at least one ofthe contacts ofthefirst and secondpairs of contacts.”
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading this claim, would understand that the
`
`“condition” that would be applied to at least one of the contacts must be an electrical
`
`condition such a voltage or an impedance, since the claim requires that the Ethernet
`
`terminal equipment must be configured to draw different magnitudes of current in
`
`response to such an electrical condition.
`
`49.
`
`Additional support can be found in the specification of the Patents-in-Suit. For example:
`
`Although the encoded signal in the present embodiment transmits
`the encoded signal from the remote module 16a, it is within the
`scope of the invention to source current fi'om the central module
`and alter the flow of current from within the remote module 16a by
`changing the impedance of a circuit connected across the data
`communication link 2A. Examples of such circuits include an RC
`network connected directly to the data link 2A and reflecting an
`impedance change across an isolation transformer.
`in the
`’0l2
`Patent, 8:49-57
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 8
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0008
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0008
`
`

`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Further, the dependent claims add additional support. For example, claim 22 of the ’ 107
`
`Patent states “wherein the at least one condition comprises a voltage condition,” thus
`
`confirming that the “condition” is an electrical condition, and one type of electrical
`
`condition is a voltage condition.
`
`In other words, claim 22 demonstrates that the claimed “piece of Ethernet terminal
`
`equipmen ” of claim 1 is configured to “draw different magnitudes of DC current flow
`
`via the at least one pa ” in response to a voltage “applied to at least one of the contacts
`
`of the first and second pairs of contacts.”
`
`Claim 23 of the ’ 107 Patent specifies that the “condition” is an “impedance condition.”
`
`Thus, claim 23 shows that the claimed “piece of Ethernet terminal equipment” of claim 1
`
`is configured to “draw different magnitudes of DC current flow via the at least one path”
`
`in response to an impedance “applied to at least one of the contacts of the first and second
`
`pairs of contacts.”
`
`The other dependent claims of the ’ 107, ’760, and ’838 Patents further support the same
`
`conclusion regarding the meaning of the term “condition” as meaning an electrical
`
`condition, such as a voltage or an impedance condition.
`
`“CURRENT” AND “CURRENT FLOW”
`
`54.
`
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the term “current” and “current flow” mean
`
`different things, and therefore the following claims referring to both “current” and
`
`“current flow” are indefinite as they have improper antecedent basis:
`
`’l07 Patent, claims 1, 31, 53, 70, 72, and 104;
`
`’760 Patent, claims 1, 37, 58, 59, 73, 112, and 134; and
`
`’838 Patent, claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 55, and 69
`
`55.
`
`I disagree that the terms “current” and “current flow” mean different things. Also, I note
`
`that Defendants have not provided separate constructions for these terms, and therefore I
`
`carmot analyze their proposed constructions. Should the Defendants provide separate
`
`constructions for these terms, I reserve the right to address those constructions at a later
`
`time.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 9
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0009
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0009
`
`

`
`56.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history, would understand that the terms “current” and “current flow” mean the same
`
`thing and have their plain and ordinary meaning, namely a flow of electric charge.
`
`57.
`
`The term “curren ” is a common electrical engineering term to describe the flow of
`
`electric charge. While less commonly used, the tenn “current flow” describes the same
`
`thing, namely the flow of electric charge.
`
`58.
`
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`59.
`
`Notably, in every instance where the terms “current” and “current flow” are mentioned, it
`
`is with respect to direct current (“DC”), as opposed to alternating current (“AC”).
`
`60.
`
`Because these terms have the same meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art, I
`
`disagree that there is an issue of indefiniteness due to improper antecedent basis.
`
`61.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’ 107 Patent recites “at least one path for the purpose of
`
`drawing DC current,” and also recites that “the piece of Ethernet terminal equipment to
`
`draw different magnitudes ofDC currentflow via the at least one path.” Where terms
`
`“current” and “current flow” are used, it is with respect to “DC” or direct current. Given
`
`that each term is preceded by DC, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
`
`both “current” and “current flow” are talking about direct current.
`
`62.
`
`In every instance in the claims identified above where the terms “curren ” and “current
`
`flow” appear, they are being used in connection with direct current or “DC.”
`
`63.
`
`Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms “current” and
`
`“current flow” to mean the same thing in the context of these claims, namely a flow of
`
`electric charge.
`
`64.
`
`I also note that “current” and “current flow” are not claimed structure elements of any of
`
`these claims. Instead, where the terms “curren ” and “current flow” are used, they are
`
`being used merely to describe how the claimed structural elements or apparatus is
`
`configured or designed to operate.
`
`65.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’ 107 Patent claims “at least one pathfor the purpose of
`
`drawing DC current.” Claim 1 of the ’l07 Patent does not require current to be flowing
`
`through the path in order to infringe claim 1. Instead, claim 1 merely requires a path that
`
`is configured to draw DC current.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 10
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0010
`
`

`
`66.
`
`Thus, in my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the
`
`specification and file history, would understand that the terms “current” and “current
`
`flow” mean the same thing and have their plain and ordinary meaning, namely a flow of
`
`electric charge.
`
`“DETECTION PROTOCOL” / “PART OF A DETECTION PROTOCOL”
`
`67.
`
`I understand that Defendants contend that the terms “detection protocol” and “part of a
`
`detection protocol” as used in the following claims are indefinite:
`
`’Ol2 Patent, claim 35;
`
`’l07 Patent, claims 72 and 123;
`
`’760 Patent, claim 59; and
`
`’838 Patent, claim 2.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the terms “detection protocol,” and “part
`
`of a detection protocol,” are indefinite.
`
`I disagree that the terms “detection protocol,” and “part of a detection protocol,” are
`
`indefinite. In my opinion, these terms are readily understandable by one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art and have their plain and ordinary meanings.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history, would understand that the “detection protocol,” and “part of a detection
`
`protocol,” have their plain and ordinary meaning, namely a “detection scheme, rule, or
`
`procedure,” or a part thereof, respectively.
`
`The specification supports this definition of detection protocol by providing a detection
`
`scheme, rule or procedure. Support for this can be found in Plaintiffs‘ 4-3 Disclosures.
`
`All of the claims using this term are dependent claims which refer to either the magnitude
`
`of the current (flow) or the impedance in the path as being part of a detection protocol.
`
`In plain English, detection means to detect, discover, or determine the existence of
`
`something. And protocol means a procedure, scheme, or set of rules. Thus, a detection
`
`protocol is a procedure, scheme, or set of rules for detecting, discovering, or determining
`
`the existence of something.
`
`In the context of these claims, “detection protocol” means that the equipment is
`
`configured or designed so that the magnitude of the current (flow) or the impedance in
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 11
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0011
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0011
`
`

`
`the path allow it to detect or determine some information about the equipment at the other
`
`end of the path.
`
`“LOOP FORMED OVER”
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the term “loop formed over,” means “a
`
`complete circuit that includes [at least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least
`
`one of the conductors of the second pair].”
`
`The phrase “loop formed over” occurs in the following asserted claims:
`
`’760 Patent, claims 1 and 73.
`
`I disagree that the term “loop formed over” means a complete circuit that includes [at
`
`least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least one of the conductors of the
`
`second pair].
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history, would understand that the phrase “loop formed over” would have its plain
`
`and ordinary meaning, which is a round trip path formed over [at least one of the
`
`conductors of the first pair of conductors and at least one of the conductors of the second
`
`pair of conductors].
`
`Claim 1 of the ’760 Patent states that “the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment
`
`having at least one path to draw different magnitudes of current flow from the at least one
`
`DC supply through a loopformed over at least one ofthe conductors of thefirstpair
`
`and at least one ofthe conductors of the secondpair.”
`
`In my opinion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this language of
`
`claim 1 of the ’760 means that the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment has a path
`
`and is configured to draw different magnitudes of current through a loop (e.g., a round
`
`trip path) formed over the recited conductors.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is incorrect because it adds the limitation of a
`
`complete circuit that is connected.
`
`Nothing in the patent specification or claims requires the further limitation of a circuit,
`
`much less a complete circuit that is connected. Rather, the claim merely requires the
`
`claimed device be configured to draw different magnitudes of current flow through a
`
`loop. The only limitation on the loop as stated in the asserted claims is that the loop is
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 12
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0012
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0012
`
`

`
`formed over at least one of the conductors of the first pair and at least one of the
`
`conductors of the second pair when the first and second pairs are physically connected
`
`between the piece of BaseT Ethernet terminal equipment and the piece of central BaseT
`
`Ethernet equipment.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`This is further supported by claim 71, which depends from claim 1.
`
`The term loop is used in the specification. See, e.g, Plaintiffs‘ 4-3 disclosures providing
`
`support. The specification does not redefine loop to be a complete circuit.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history would recognize that the term loop is not limited to a complete circuit as
`
`Defendants suggest.
`
`“PATH COUPLED ACROSS”
`
`86.
`
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the phrase “path coupled across” means “an
`
`electrical connection between [first contact and second contact]” as used in the following
`
`claims:
`
`’0l2 Patent, claim 31; and
`
`’ 107 Patent, claims 1 and 104.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction of the phrase “path coupled across.”
`
`The word “connection” is a much more restrictive term than “coupled” as used in the
`
`claim and would add unnecessary limitations to this phrase. Neither the intrinsic or
`
`extrinsic evidence supports making this restriction.
`
`For example, the McGraw Hill Electronics Dictionary (page 100, cited by Defendants)
`
`defines “coupling” as follows:
`
`A mutual relationship between two circuits that permits energy
`transfer from one to the other. Coupling can be direct through a
`wire, resistive through a resistor, inductive through a transformer
`or choke, or capacitive through a capacitor.
`
`In other words, a connection (such as through a wire) is a special case of the more general
`
`term coupling.
`
`This is an important distinction for devices using DC current, like Power over Ethernet
`
`(“POE”) equipment. For example, a DC voltage can be applied to the center tap of a
`
`transformer and current is coupled through the transformer to the contacts of a connector.
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 13
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0013
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0013
`
`

`
`92.
`
`In such an example, the DC source is not directly connected to the contacts of the
`
`connector, but still electrically coupled. Defendants’ proposed construction of “an
`
`electrical connection between” would improperly limit these claims to direct electrical
`
`connections, thus eliminating certain types of electrically coupled circuits, such as
`
`through a transformer.
`
`93.
`
`Transformer coupling is disclosed in the specifications of the Patents-in-Suit. For
`
`example, transformer coupling is disclosed in at least Figures 6 and 10 of the ’012 and
`
`’ 107 Patents and show isolation transformers being used with the receiver and transmitter
`
`circuits, respectively.
`
`“BASET”
`
`94.
`
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the term “BaseT” means “10BASE-T,
`
`which requires communication over twisted pair cabling at 10 Mb/s,” as used in the
`
`following claims:
`
`’012 Patent, claims 36, 56, and 60;
`
`’ 107 Patent, claim 5;
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`98.
`
`’760 Patent, claims 1, 31, 37, 58, 59, 69, 72, 73, 106, 112, 134, 142, and 145; and
`
`’838 Patent, claim 1.
`
`I disagree with Defendants’ proposed construction.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction is improper because it would limit the claims to only
`
`one speed of BaseT Ethernet, namely Base-T Ethernet at 10 Mb/s (megabits per second).
`
`Nothing in the intrinsic record shows that the claims are limited to one speed of BaseT
`
`Ethernet.
`
`Notably, everywhere that the term “BaseT” is used, it is used together with “Ethemet” as
`
`“BaseT Ethemet.”
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history, would understand that the term “BaseT” as used each claim is actually BaseT
`
`Ethernet and has its plain and ordinary meaning, namely “twisted pair Ethernet per the
`
`IEEE 802.3 Standards (e.g. 10BaseT/IEEE 802.3i, 100BaseTX/IEEE 802.3u, and
`
`l000BaseT/IEEE 802.3ab).”
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 14
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0014
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0014
`
`

`
`99.
`
`100.
`
`101.
`
`102.
`
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`None of the asserted claims are limited to l0BaseT Ethernet, which is the subject of
`
`l0BaseT/IEEE 802.3i standard and one speed of BaseT Ethernet.
`
`While one claim, Claim 31 originally filed with the ‘O12 Patent (See file history of the
`
`'012 patent, application filed 9/26/2008 at p. 40) had a limitation that identified
`
`specifically l0BaseT, no issued claim was ever limited to l0BaseT.
`
`During prosecution, the “10” in front of “BaseT” was removed.
`
`103.
`
`None of the asserted claims are limited to l0BaseT and in fact each recites BaseT
`
`Ethernet.
`
`104.
`
`105.
`
`BaseT Ethernet is known and is described in at least the IEEE 802.3 Standards (e.g.
`
`l0BaseT/IEEE 802.3i, 100BaseTX/IEEE 802.3u, and 1000BaseT/IEEE 802.3ab)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history would recognize that the term BaseT Ethernet is not limited to l0BaseT
`
`which requires communication over twisted pair cabling at 10Mb/s.
`
`“POWERED OFF”
`
`106.
`
`I understand that the Defendants contend that the terms “powered of ,
`
`powered off
`
`77
`
`66
`
`Ethernet terminal equipment,” and “powered-off end device” as used in the following
`
`claims mean that no power is applied to the claimed equipment/device.
`
`’l07 Patent, claims 103, 104, 107, 111, 123, 125; and
`
`’760 patent, claims 72, 145.
`
`107.
`
`108.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction of these “powered off’ terms is incorrect because it
`
`implies that the device has absolutely no power at all applied to it, which is incorrect in
`
`light of the specification and file history.
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in light of the specification and
`
`file history, would understand that the terms “powered off’ as used in the claims would
`
`mean “Ethernet terminal equipment without its operating power” and “end device
`
`without its operating power.”
`
`109.
`
`This construction is proper because, as the claims and specification contemplate, the
`
`claimed equipment being configured to draw different magnitudes of current flow
`
`DECLARATION OF LES BAXTER
`
`PAGE 15
`
`bit 1028
`
`
`
`0015
`
`Aerohive - Exhibit 1028
`0015
`
`

`
`without the equipment having its operating power. See, e.g. Col. 3 11. 33-37 of both
`
`patents, and Col. 611. 7-12 ofboth patents Col. ll 1. 16-25 ofthe '10’! Patent and Col. 11
`
`11. 18-27 of the "160 Patent. Further support for this can be found in Plaintiffs P.R. 4-3
`
`disclosure.
`
`Support for these constructions can be found in the intrinsic evidence, including the claim
`
`language itself.
`
`None of the asserted claims says that no power is applied to the Ethernet