UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication
`Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`ChriMar Systems, Inc.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`Case No. Unassigned
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`IV.
`
`Page
`Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) ............................................................ 1
`Relevant Background on the ’838 Patent ........................................................ 3
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’838 Patent ...................... 3
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill ......................................................................... 5
`III. Claim Construction .......................................................................................... 6
`A.
`“BaseT” (claim 1) .................................................................................. 6
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood That the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable ............................ 7
`A. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on
`Hunter in View of Bulan ....................................................................... 8
`1.
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan ........................................ 8
`a.
`Reasons to Combine Hunter and Bulan .......................... 10
`b.
`The Combined System of Hunter and Bulan .................. 16
`c.
`Operation of Bulan’s Current Control Apparatus .......... 17
`d.
`Hunter in View of Bulan: Step-by-Step ........................ 23
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan to the Challenged
`Claims ....................................................................................... 26
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 26
`b.
`Dependent Claim 2 ......................................................... 33
`c.
`Dependent Claim 7 ......................................................... 34
`d.
`Dependent Claim 26 ....................................................... 36
`e.
`Dependent Claim 29 ....................................................... 38
`
`2.
`
`DM2\7414132.2
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`B.
`
`Dependent Claim 38 ....................................................... 38
`f.
`Dependent Claim 39 ....................................................... 39
`g.
`Dependent Claim 40 ....................................................... 39
`h.
`Dependent Claim 47 ....................................................... 40
`i.
`Dependent Claim 55 ....................................................... 41
`j.
`Dependent Claim 69 ....................................................... 41
`k.
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are Obvious Based on
`Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3. ...................................... 42
`1.
`Overview of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3 ....... 43
`a.
`Overview of Bloch .......................................................... 43
`b.
`Overview of Huizinga .................................................... 48
`c.
`Overview of IEEE 802.3 (IEEE-93 and IEEE-95) ......... 49
`d.
`The Combined System of Bloch, Huizinga, and
`IEEE 802.3 ...................................................................... 51
`Reasons to Combine Bloch, Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ............................................................................... 52
`Application of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3 .... 54
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 ....................................................... 54
`b.
`Dependent Claim 2 ......................................................... 59
`c.
`Dependent Claim 7 ......................................................... 60
`d.
`Dependent Claim 26 ....................................................... 61
`e.
`Dependent Claim 29 ....................................................... 61
`f.
`Dependent Claim 38 ....................................................... 62
`g.
`Dependent Claim 39 ....................................................... 62
`
`2.
`
`e.
`
`
`DM2\7414132.2
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`“Dependent Claim 40 ..................................................... 62
`h.
`Dependent Claim 47 ....................................................... 63
`i.
`Dependent Claim 55 ....................................................... 63
`j.
`Dependent Claim 69 ....................................................... 64
`k.
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 64
`
`V.
`
`
`DM2\7414132.2
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Number
`1001
`
`Short Name
`’838 patent
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`U.S. Patent 9,019,838 to Austerman, III et
`al.
`Declaration of Ian Crayford
`WO 96/23377 to Hunter
`U.S. Patent 5,089,927 to Bulan et al.
`U.S. Patent 4,173,714 to Bloch et al.
`IEEE International Standard ISO/IEC 8802-
`3: 1993
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995, pages 1-200
`
`IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995, pages 201-415
`
`U.S. Patent 4,046,972 to Huizinga et al.
`Dan Blacharski, “Maximum Bandwith: A
`Serious Guide to High-Speed Networking”,
`Que Corporation (1997)
`Randy H. Katz, “High Performance
`Network and Channel-Based Storage”,
`Report UCB/CSD 91/650, September 1991
`
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`1006
`
`10071
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`Crayford
`Hunter
`Bulan
`Bloch
`IEEE-1993
`
`IEEE-1995 (page 1-
`200)
`IEEE-1995 (pages 201-
`415)
`Huizinga
`Blacharski
`
`1011
`
`Katz
`
`
`1 IEEE Standard 802.3u-1995 has been separated into Exhibits 1007 and 1008
`
`to comply with file size limitations for Exhibits. Exhibits 1007 and 1008 are
`
`continuously paginated, from 1-200, and 201-415, respectively.
`
`DM2\7414132.2
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Description
`List of Pending Cases Involving U.S. Patent
`9,019,838
`Resume of Ian Crayford
`IEEE Standards Association News &
`Events: Press Releases “IEEE 802.3
`Standard for Ethernet Marks 30 Years of
`Innovation and Global Market Growth”
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Ruckus
`Wireless, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00186-SI
`(N.D. Cal.), Dkt. No. 1.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,247,058 to Miller et al.
`
`Chrimar Systems, Inc. et al. v. Netgear,
`Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00624-SI (N.D.
`Cal.), Dkt. No. 1.
`
`
`
`Number
`1012
`
`Short Name
`Related Matters
`
`1013
`1014
`
`Crayford C.V.
`IEEE Press Release
`
`1015
`
`Complaint
`
`1016
`1017
`
`’058 patent
`Complaint
`
`
`
`DM2\7414132.2
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear,
`
`Inc. (“Petitioners”) request inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38,
`
`39 40, 47, 55, 69 (“the Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 (“the ’838
`
`patent”), which is attached to this Petition as Exhibit 1001.
`
`I. Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8)
`Real Party-in-Interest (§ 42.8(b)(1)): Petitioners are the real parties-in-
`
`interest. No unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or otherwise has an opportunity
`
`to control or direct this Petition or Petitioners’ participation in any resulting IPR.
`
`Related Matters (§ 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 1012 is a list identifying each
`
`of these civil actions, which includes Chrimar Systems Inc., et al. v. Ruckus Wireless,
`
`Inc., Case No 3:16-cv-00186-SI (N.D. Cal.) and Chrimar Systems Inc., et al. v.
`
`Netgear, Inc., Case No 3:16-cv-00624-SI (N.D. Cal.). The ’838 patent is also the
`
`subject of instituted IPR2016-01151 and -01397 and pending IPR2016-01758. IPRs
`
`have also been filed on related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,902,107, 8,902,760, 8,115,012.
`
`IPR2016-00569, -00574, -00983, -01391, -01389, -01399, -01425, -01757, and -
`
`01759. These cases may affect, or be affected by, decisions in this proceeding.
`
`Concurrent with the filing of this Petition, Petitioners are also filing a Petition
`
`for the related ‘107 Patent and ‘760 Patent.
`
`DM2\7414132.2
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Standing (§ 4.104(a)): Petitioners certify that this patent is eligible for inter
`
`partes review and that none of them are barred or estopped from requesting inter
`
`partes review of the Challenged Claims on the grounds identified herein because
`
`this petition is accompanied by a motion for joinder. The one-year time bar of 35
`
`U.S.C. §315(b) does not apply to a request for joinder. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (final
`
`sentence) (“[t]he time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply
`
`to a request for joinder under subsection (c)”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`Designation of Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information
`
`(§§ 42.8(b)(3)-(4)):
`
`Lead Counsel
`Joseph Powers (Reg. No. 47,006)
`Duane Morris LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia PA 19103-4196
`Tel: 215-979-1842
`Fax: 215-689-3797
`JAPowers@duanemorris.com
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Christopher Tyson (Reg. No. 63,850)
`Duane Morris LLP
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Washington DC 20004
`Tel: 202-776-7851
`Fax: 202-776-7801
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com2
`
`
`2 Petitioners request authorization to file a motion for Matthew Yungwirth to
`
`appear pro hac vice, as Mr. Yungwirth is an experienced attorney who is counsel for
`
`Petitioners Ruckus Wireless, Inc. and Netgear, Inc. in the concurrent litigation and
`
`has established familiarity with the subject matter at issue.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney accompanies this
`
`Petition. Please address all correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners
`
`also consent to electronic service by email to lead and back-up counsel.
`
`Fee for Inter Partes Review (37 C.F.R. § 42.103): The undersigned
`
`authorizes the PTO to charge the required fees to Deposit Account No. 04-1679,
`
`referencing Docket No. G1543-00002 (’838 IPR).
`
`II. Relevant Background on the ’838 Patent
`A. Description of the Alleged Invention of the ’838 Patent
`The ’838 patent issued from Application No. 13/615,734 (“the ’734
`
`application”) which was filed on Sept. 14, 2012. The ’838 patent claims the benefit
`
`of Provisional Patent Application No. 60/081,279, filed Apr. 10, 1998.
`
`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. 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
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`transmit and receive data communication links.”3 ’838 5:12-19, 5:26-30 (“a pair of
`
`transmit wires”; “a pair of receive wires”). Crayford ¶ 45.
`
`The specification discloses a central module on the network that has a DC
`
`power supply where the voltage provided by the power supply is modulated to
`
`provide “both status information and power” across the transmit and/or receive lines
`
`to a remote module on the network. ’838 5:64-67. The specification discloses that
`
`a remote module can send information to the central module by altering the total
`
`current draw by the remote module. ’838 6:16-19. Crayford ¶ 46.
`
`The specification discloses embodiments that purport to provide an improved
`
`system for “asset tracking and management,” including monitoring and identifying
`
`“asset movement” and “theft.” ’838 Patent 1:20-3:14 (Background). Patent Owner,
`
`however, is attempting to apply the claims of the ’838 patent as covering scope
`
`beyond asset tracking and management and the disclosed embodiments. For
`
`instance, Patent Owner has taken the position that the claims of the ’838 patent read
`
`on the 802.3af Power over Ethernet (“PoE standard”). See Ex. 1015 (Complaint);
`
`Ex. 1012 (Civil Actions involving ’838 patent). Patent Owner has filed various
`
`lawsuits—including against two of the Petitioners—interpreting the Challenged
`
`
`3 Unless stated otherwise, emphasis to quotations have been added.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Claims of the ’838 Patent to broadly cover network switches that deliver power to a
`
`remote device over Ethernet. Id. Crayford ¶ 47.
`
`As will be shown in this Petition, the basic concepts of supplying power from
`
`a DC power supply over the same conductors over which data is communicated,
`
`known as “phantom” powering, were well known decades before the alleged
`
`invention of the ’838 patent. See Ground 2 (discussing Bloch patent, issued in 1979).
`
`And by the time of the alleged invention, providing DC power in this manner over
`
`the same conductors used for Ethernet communication was also well known. See
`
`Ground 1 (discussing Hunter International Patent application, published in 1996, and
`
`IEEE specifications from 1993 and 1995). It was also well known at the time of the
`
`alleged invention to convey information from one piece of equipment to another by
`
`modulating the voltage provided by the DC power supply or by modulating the
`
`current drawn from the power supply over the same conductors used for normal
`
`network communication, such as Ethernet. See Ground 1 (Hunter and Bulan
`
`references), Ground 2 (Bloch patent). Crayford ¶ 48.
`
`B.
`Level of Ordinary Skill
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would
`
`have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering or computer science, or the
`
`equivalent, and at least three years of experience in the design of network
`
`communication products. Such a person would be familiar with, inter alia, data
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`communications protocols, data communications standards (and standards under
`
`development at the time), and the behavior and use of common data communications
`
`products available on the market. Crayford ¶¶ 49-50
`
`III. Claim Construction
`A claim in IPR is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC
`
`v. Lee, 2016 U.S. Lexis 3927 (2016).
`
`A.
`“BaseT” (claim 1)
`BaseT” (claim 1): Claim 1 recites “BaseT Ethernet communication signals.”
`
`“BaseT” should be construed as “10BASE-T and 100BASE-T.” The ’838 patent
`
`consistently uses the term “BaseT” as part of the larger phrase “10BASE-T. ’838
`
`12:19-23. The ’838 patent references “existing Ethernet communications” and
`
`equivalents thereof, which would include 100BASE-T at the time of the purported
`
`invention. ’838 3:41-43, Ex. 1007 (IEEE-95) at 2 (“Type 100BASE-T”). Crayford
`
`¶ 53.
`
`Petitioners note that claim construction in inter partes review is broader than
`
`in litigation. Thus, nothing in this Petition should be taken as an assertion regarding
`
`how the claims should be construed in litigation. Moreover, nothing should be
`
`construed as expressing any position as to whether the claims constitute patentable
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or whether they satisfy the definiteness,
`
`enablement, best mode, or written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`IV.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) and Reasonable
`Likelihood That the Challenged Claims Are Unpatentable
`Petitioners request institution of an IPR and cancellation of the Challenged
`
`Claims of the ’838 patent based on the following grounds:
`
`
`
`Ground 1: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Challenged Claims are
`
`obvious based on WO 96/23377 (“Hunter”) (Ex. 1003) in view of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,089,927 (“Bulan”) (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`Ground 2: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Challenged Claims are
`
`obvious based on U.S. Patent No. 4,173,714 (“Bloch”) (Ex. 1005) in
`
`view of U.S. Patent 4,046,972 (“Huizinga”) (Ex. 1009) and IEEE 802.3
`
`(1993 and 1995) (Exs. 1006-1008).
`
`Ground 1 is not redundant to Ground 2. In Ground 1, Hunter (1996) discloses
`
`phantom power over an Ethernet network, which when combined with the current
`
`control apparatus of Bulan satisfies the claim limitations. In Ground 2, the Bloch
`
`(1979) reference, teaches a system that closely tracks the preferred embodiment of
`
`the ’838 patent, including the current modulation technique discussed above in
`
`Section II.A. It does so, however, in a telephone network rather than Ethernet (which
`
`was developed four years later, in 1983). When combined with the teachings of the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Ethernet specifications (1993 and 1995), it reads on the embodiment of the
`
`specification of the ’838 patent.
`
`A. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims Are Obvious Based on Hunter
`in View of Bulan
`The Challenged Claims are obvious over Hunter in view of Bulan for the
`
`reasons explained below. Hunter and Bulan are prior art because their filing dates
`
`(January 26, 1996 and October 12, 1989, respectively) predate the earliest possible
`
`priority date of the ’838 patent. Hunter is cited on the face of the ’838 patent but
`
`was not discussed during prosecution. Bulan does not appear to have been cited or
`
`discussed during prosecution.
`
`1. Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan
`Hunter discloses a system for supplying DC “phantom power” over an
`
`Ethernet cable from a central piece of networking equipment (hereafter “Hub”) to a
`
`remote piece of terminal equipment (hereafter “TE”). Hunter Abstract, 37:20-28
`
`(“10Base-T” Ethernet), 51 (“Ethernet®”; “100Base-T” Ethernet; “isoEthernet®”).
`
`The phantom power is supplied over the same twisted-pair conductors in the
`
`Ethernet cable that are used to carry data between the Hub and the TE. Hunter 37:20-
`
`28. The Hub includes a “protective device 213” (such as “a thermistor or polyfuse”)
`
`to protect against “overcurrents” in the DC current flow from the Hub to the TE.
`
`Hunter 38:12-19. Crayford ¶ 62.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`PETITION FIGURE 1
`
`
`
`Hunter Fig. 2 (markings added), 31:9-11(Fig. 2 illustrates “phantom powering
`
`subsystem”), 32:5-15 (“hubs”). Crayford ¶ 62.
`
`Bulan discloses an improved protective device (“current control apparatus”)
`
`intended for use in phantom-powered network systems such as Hunter, and this
`
`improved device would simply replace the existing protective device 213 of Hunter.
`
`Bulan 1:65-2:26, Abstract (“effective overcurrent protection”), 4:2-10 (“well known
`
`phantom power feed arrangement,” where power supplied over same wire pairs used
`
`to send data). Crayford ¶ 63.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`PETITION FIGURE 2
`
`
`
`Bulan Fig. 2 (“current control apparatus”), 4:20-42 (describing circuit).
`
`a.
`Reasons to Combine Hunter and Bulan
`Bulan is directed to systems for phantom powering network terminal
`
`equipment, and Hunter discloses just such a system. Hunter Abstract (“A power
`
`subsystem and method for providing phantom power . . . via a computer network
`
`bus”), 36:12-15 (“The positive and negative outputs . . . of the power supply . . . are
`
`coupled to the center taps 224, 234 of the windings . . . of the first and second
`
`transformers”), Fig. 2; Bulan 4:7-10 (“Power terminals . . . are connected to centre
`
`taps 16 and 17 of the transformer windings 11 in a well known phantom power
`
`feed arrangement.”),4 Fig. 1. Hunter and Bulan disclose similar examples of
`
`terminal equipment that could be phantom powered, and even similar levels of DC
`
`voltage. Hunter 23:19-21 (the TE may be “an Integrated Services Terminal
`
`
`4 Emphasis added to quotes here and below unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Equipment (‘ISTE’) device” that is “compatible with ISDN standards”), 23:9
`
`(“power is supplied at about 48V”); Bulan Abstract (“Integrated Services Digital
`
`Network (ISDN) terminal equipments (TEs)”), 1:49-50 (“power from the line power
`
`source, at a potential of about 50 volts”). Crayford ¶ 64.
`
`Bulan is intended to provide a superior replacement for the “typical current
`
`limiting circuit” in such phantom powering systems, and Hunter employs just such
`
`a current limiting circuit: i.e., its “protective device 213.” Bulan 1:65-2:14; Hunter
`
`38:12-15. Hunter’s protective device 213 is “preferably a thermistor or polyfuse”
`
`that protects from “overcurrents that may damage” the “power supply 210 and the
`
`bus.” Hunter 38:15-19. Crayford ¶ 65.
`
`Bulan criticizes the “typical current limiting circuit” as “inappropriate for
`
`operation throughout the whole current load regime” because it fails to distinguish
`
`between two conditions: (1) overcurrents that result from “unintended operational
`
`faults, for example . . . short circuits”; and (2) “a normal power up event in a TE”
`
`that contains a “DC to DC converter” (hereafter “DC-DC”). Bulan 1:26-31, 1:52-
`
`2:1. To “initiate operation of the typical DC to DC converter” in a TE, a “surge of
`
`current” is required that “may exceed an ampere for as much as ten milliseconds,”
`
`and this normal surge of current may “mimic” an operational fault. See Bulan 1:52-
`
`65, Abstract (“mimic”). Crayford ¶ 66.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Because the “typical current limiting circuit” must blindly apply the same
`
`current limit to both conditions, it must either set the limit so low that “there will be
`
`insufficient current for start up of the DC to DC converter,” or set the limit so high
`
`that “a fault may be permitted to draw current for a period of time sufficient to
`
`seriously jeopardize the operations of . . . the line power source circuits [in the
`
`Hub]”). Bulan 1:66-2:8. Crayford ¶ 67.
`
`Hunter’s protective device 213 suffers from this same deficiency, because, a
`
`simple “thermistor or polyfuse” cannot respond differently to the two conditions.
`
`See Hunter 38:12-19; Crayford ¶ 68.
`
`Bulan’s “current control apparatus” solves this dilemma in the typical current
`
`limiting circuit (such as Hunter’s) by intelligently distinguishing between
`
`operational faults and DC-DC startups. Bulan 1:28-29, 1:57-2:23. When the Bulan
`
`apparatus detects an overcurrent condition, it switches a high impedance resistor into
`
`the path to protect the circuitry: this forces the current down to a safe “trickle” level.
`
`Bulan 4:20-25 (“current sensor 26”; “current path switch 25”), 4:35-40, 4:63-68
`
`(“small trickle of current”). If the overcurrent was caused by an operational fault,
`
`current will continue to be drawn at this “trickle” level indefinitely until the fault is
`
`resolved—and the high impedance will continue to remain in place to protect the
`
`circuitry. See Bulan 6:44-46. If, however, the overcurrent was caused by a DC-DC
`
`trying and failing to start up, the resulting “open circuit” condition will be detected
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`by the absence of “trickle” current. Bulan 6:43-51. Hence the Bulan apparatus can
`
`detect the failure of the DC-DC to start up, and it switches the high impedance
`
`resistor out of the path so the TE’s DC-DC can resume starting up. Bulan 6:47-58,
`
`7:7-13. The operation of Bulan’s current control apparatus is discussed in greater
`
`detail below. See Overview(c-d).5
`
`A PHOSITA would recognize that the Hunter system could often be used to
`
`supply phantom power to TE’s containing DC-DC’s, and would therefore conclude
`
`the Bulan current control apparatus would be a superior alternative to Hunter’s
`
`existing protective device 213. Bulan 1:52-65 (“A typical TE includes a . . . DC to
`
`DC converter” which requires a “surge of current” to “initiate operation”); Hunter
`
`39:5-8 (similarly indicating the presence of a DC-DC in the TE: “DC-DC converters
`
`to convert 48V [supplied by Hunter’s phantom power] to transistor-to-transistor
`
`logic (‘TTL’) voltage levels (i.e. 3V or 5V) are also readily commercially
`
`available.”). Crayford ¶ 70.
`
`Equipped with the Bulan apparatus instead of Hunter’s existing protective
`
`device 213, Hunter would no longer be faced with the dilemma of setting a current
`
`limit that was either too low to allow a DC-DC to start up, or too high to prevent
`
`damage from faults. Bulan 2:1-8, 2:9-14 (“object of the invention” to “provid[e] an
`
`
`5 Citations to “Overview” in Ground 1 are to § IV.A.1.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`over current protection feature which is effective across the entire load current
`
`regime of the terminal equipment”); Crayford ¶ 71.
`
`Replacement of Hunter’s protective device 213 with Bulan’s “current control
`
`apparatus” would be a particularly straightforward task for a PHOSITA with a more
`
`than reasonable expectation of success, since the Bulan apparatus is intended to
`
`simply replace prior art current limiting circuits without further modification. See
`
`Bulan 2:23-26 (“The current control apparatus is for connection in series between
`
`the power source and the transmission line”); Hunter Fig. 2 (showing protective
`
`device 213 similarly in series between phantom power source 210 and the
`
`transmission line including point 224); Crayford ¶ 72. Both Hunter and Bulan
`
`assume there is a separate protective device in the Hub to regulate the current to each
`
`separate TE, making the combination a simple one-for-one replacement. Hunter
`
`Fig. 2 (protective device 213 in series to single remote “ISTE”); Bulan Fig. 1 (each
`
`“NT1” in Hub connected to a single remote TE device), 4:17-25 (“Each of the NT1s
`
`includes a line interface circuit” that includes the current control apparatus of the
`
`invention). Crayford ¶ 72.
`
`Replacing protective device 213 in Hunter with the Bulan apparatus is merely
`
`the simple substitution of one known element (Hunter’s protective device) with
`
`another (Bulan’s current control apparatus) to yield a predictable result (a Hub
`
`equipped with a protective device that can intelligently distinguish between faults
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`and DC-DC startups). Crayford ¶ 73. Moreover, this replacement is merely the use
`
`of a known technique (Bulan’s current control technique) to improve a similar device
`
`ready for improvement (another Hub supplying phantom power to network terminal
`
`equipment) to yield a predictable result (a Hub with a more intelligent current
`
`limiting system). Id. See also MPEP 2143 (exemplary obviousness rationales based
`
`on KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007)).
`
`Bulan does not discuss phantom powering over Ethernet specifically, but it is
`
`intended to improve phantom-powered network systems generally. See Bulan 2:9-
`
`12 (“object of the invention to supply operating current from a central line source
`
`. . . to a terminal equipment having a DC to DC converter”), 7:30-8:67 (claims not
`
`specific to any protocol). There is no pertinent operational difference between the
`
`wiring arrangements disclosed by Bulan and Hunter. See Bulan Fig. 1, 4:2-10 (“well
`
`known phantom power feed arrangement” applied to an exemplary ISDN “T bus”);
`
`Hunter Fig. 2, 37:20-38:11 (same arrangement applied to an exemplary 10Base-T
`
`Ethernet bus); Crayford ¶ 74. Both the ISDN “T bus” used in Bulan and the
`
`Ethernet-based system disclosed by Hunter use transformer-based (magnetic)
`
`isolation on the two twisted pairs used for communication with center taps on both
`
`transformers providing the phantom power feed. Bulan Figure 1, 4:7-10; Hunter
`
`19:22-20:5, Figure 2; Crayford ¶ 74. To the extent there are any minor differences
`
`between a 10Base-T Ethernet bus and a “T bus” (such as the assignment of which
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`twisted pairs in the cable are used to send and receive data), such details are not even
`
`mentioned by Bulan, much less relied on by its design. See Bulan 4:2-10; Crayford
`
`¶ 74. That twisted-pair phantom powering designs are functionally equivalent and
`
`essentially interchangeable is also demonstrated by Hunter, which relies on a
`
`single10Base-T Ethernet design to support application to various other twisted-pair
`
`systems. See Hunter 26:3-11 (“[I]n a preferred embodiment . . . the bus comprises
`
`a 10Base-T bus. Those of skill in the art will recognize, however, that the present
`
`invention is also compatible with Ethernet®, Token Ring®, ATM and isoEthernet®
`
`standards.”); Crayford ¶ 74.
`
`b.
`The Combined System of Hunter and Bulan
`In the combined system, Bulan’s current control apparatus simply replaces the
`
`existing “protective device 213” of Hunter, and DC current and power continue to
`
`flow through the phantom power circuit unchanged, as shown below:
`
`PETITION FIGURE 3
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`Hunter Fig. 2 (modified to substitute current control apparatus in Fig. 2 of Bulan for
`
`Hunter’s existing protective device 213, annotations added in red and blue);
`
`Crayford ¶ 75.
`
`c.
`Operation of Bulan’s Current Control Apparatus
`The operation of Bulan’s “current control apparatus” is discussed in detail
`
`here. Bulan teaches that the current control apparatus (depicted in Bulan Fig. 2)
`
`includes a “current sensor 26” that continuously monitors the level of DC current
`
`in the path that loops from the positive terminal of the Hub’s phantom power supply
`
`to the TE and back to the negative terminal of the power supply. Petition Figure 2
`
`(current sensor 26); Bulan 2:26-28 (“means for generating a magnitude signal being
`
`representative of an amount of said energizing direct current flow”), 4:20-33
`
`(“current sensor 26”), 4:49-50 (“current sensing device”). Crayford ¶ 76.
`
`Bulan generates two current level signals internally for use with the current
`
`sensor; these “control signals” are references against which the current level sensed
`
`by the current sensor can be compared:
`
`(1) A “static control signal” (also referred to herein as “static signal” or
`
`“static limit”) is generated by “static reference generator 23.” Bulan 3:5-6, 4:25-26,
`
`5:16-31 (internal circuitry), Fig. 5 (circuit diagram). This static signal is
`
`unchanging, and it defines the “maximum limit of load current” which should
`
`normally be drawn by the TE. Bulan 3:5-6, 2:2, 7:6 (“normal operating current”),
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`
`5:16-18 (“static reference generator . . . is used to provide a stable voltage supply -
`
`V1 and a reference voltage V REF-”). When the current level sensed by the current
`
`sensor rises above this “static” level, an overcurrent condition of some kind is
`
`indicated. See Bulan 2:24-36, 3:5-12; Crayford ¶ 77.
`
`(2) A “dynamic control signal” (also referred to herein as “dynamic
`
`signal” or “dynamic limit”) is generated by “dynamic reference generator 24.”
`
`Bulan 3:7-12, 4:27, 5:6-15 (internal circuitry), Fig. 4 (circuit diagram). The dynamic
`
`signal is normally set at the unchanging static level, but when the sensed current
`
`exceeds the static limit indicating an overcurrent condition, the dynamic signal is
`
`temporarily boosted to define a higher “maximum limit of the inrush current.” Bulan
`
`3:7-12, 5:33-44 (“in an event where the sense voltage (50) becomes greater than the
`
`potential of [stati
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
