UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: Unassigned
`________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN CRAYFORD
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 1
`
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________
`
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838
`___________________
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No.: Unassigned
`________________________________________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN CRAYFORD
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`
`Mail Stop: PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 1
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS .............................................. 1
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ..................................................................... 4
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS ................................................................................ 5
`
`A. Anticipation ........................................................................................ 7
`
`B.
`
`Obviousness ........................................................................................ 7
`
`IV. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ON THE '838 PATENT .......................... 14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The '838 Patent ................................................................................. 14
`
`Description of the Alleged Invention of the '838 Patent .................. 14
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill .................................................................... 17
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... 18
`
`A.
`
`"BaseT" (claim 1) ............................................................................. 18
`
`VI. OPINIONS RELATING TO EACH OF THE GROUNDS ....................... 18
`
`VII.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE AND REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE
`UNPATENTABLE ..................................................................................... 19
`
`A. Ground 1: The Challenged Claims are Obvious Based on
`Hunter in View of Bulan .................................................................. 20
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Hunter in View of Bulan ................................... 21
`a.
`Reasons to Combine Hunter and Bulan ....................... 23
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The Combined System of Hunter and Bulan ............... 29
`
`Operation of Bulan's Current Control Apparatus ........ 30
`
`Hunter in View of Bulan: Step-by-Step ...................... 36
`
`3468721
`
`
`- i -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 2
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Application of Hunter in View of Bulan to the
`Challenged Claims ................................................................. 39
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................... 39
`
`Page
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ...................................................... 46
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ...................................................... 47
`
`Dependent Claim 26 .................................................... 49
`
`Dependent Claim 29 .................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claim 38 .................................................... 51
`
`Dependent Claim 39 .................................................... 52
`
`Dependent Claim 40 .................................................... 52
`
`Dependent Claim 47 .................................................... 53
`
`Dependent Claim 55 .................................................... 53
`
`Dependent Claim 69 .................................................... 54
`
`B.
`
`Ground 2: The Challenged Claims are Obvious Based on
`Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE 802.3 .................................... 55
`
`1.
`
`Overview of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ....................................................................................... 55
`a.
`Overview of Bloch ....................................................... 55
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Overview of Huizinga ................................................. 61
`
`Overview of IEEE 802.3 (IEEE-93 and IEEE-
`95) ................................................................................ 62
`
`The Combined System of Bloch, Huizinga, and
`IEEE 802.3 ................................................................... 65
`
`Reasons to Combine Bloch, Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ............................................................................ 66
`
`3468721
`
`
`- ii -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 3
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Application of Bloch in View of Huizinga and IEEE
`802.3 ....................................................................................... 68
`a.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................... 68
`
`Page
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Dependent Claim 2 ...................................................... 73
`
`Dependent Claim 7 ...................................................... 73
`
`Dependent Claim 26 .................................................... 75
`
`Dependent Claim 29 .................................................... 75
`
`Dependent Claim 38 .................................................... 75
`
`Dependent Claim 39 .................................................... 75
`
`Dependent Claim 40 .................................................... 76
`
`Dependent Claim 47 .................................................... 76
`
`Dependent Claim 55 .................................................... 76
`
`Dependent Claim 69 .................................................... 77
`
`VIII. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 78
`
`
`
`3468721
`
`
`- iii -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF IAN CRAYFORD.
`REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 9,019,838
`
`I, Ian Crayford, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an expert in the field of networking and communication systems.
`
`I have been retained by Petitioner Juniper Networks, Inc. ("Juniper" or
`
`"Petitioner") to provide my independent, expert opinion and I submit this
`
`declaration on behalf of Petitioner to analyze, render opinions, and/or provide
`
`expert testimony regarding the invalidity of certain claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,019,838 ("the '838 patent"). I understand that Petitioner submitted the '838
`
`patent as Exhibit 1001.
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at my usual rate of $425 per hour for the time
`
`spent by me in connection with these proceedings. This compensation is not
`
`contingent upon my opinions or the outcome of the proceedings. I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration and, if called upon to do so, could
`
`and would attest to these facts under oath.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS
`3.
`
`A detailed record of my professional qualifications, including a list of
`
`patents, academic and professional publications, is set forth in my curriculum
`
`vitae, which I understand has been submitted as Exhibit 1013.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`In 1981, I earned a Bachelor of Science (BSc.) Honors Degree in
`
`Electrical and Electronic Engineering from Kingston University in London,
`
`England.
`
`5.
`
`I began my career in 1975, when I started working as an
`
`apprentice/student engineer in industrial process control at Foxboro Yoxall in the
`
`UK. Since that time, I have been continuously working in the industry, focusing
`
`especially on the development of Ethernet products and technologies.
`
`6.
`
`For example, from 1988-1997 I was employed at AMD in their
`
`Network Products Division
`
`in a variety of engineering and engineering
`
`management positions,
`
`including Systems Engineer, Manager of Systems
`
`Engineering, and AMD Fellow. In this capacity I was actively involved in
`
`specifying and developing Ethernet networking integrated circuits, as well as end
`
`customer products based on those circuits, such as Ethernet adapters, Ethernet
`
`LOM solutions, repeaters, hubs, switches and routers.
`
`7.
`
`During 1997-1998, I worked for Bay Networks as Director of
`
`Engineering for Multi-LAN Switching. Here I led the hardware engineering team
`
`for a next generation hybrid ATM, Token Ring and Ethernet switch for Fortune
`
`500, government and large multi-national enterprise customers. I was also
`
`responsible for the engineering interface with the software development and
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 6
`
`
`
`
`regression testing teams to ensure the overall system product met customer
`
`expectation.
`
`8.
`
`During 2002-2012, I operated my own independent consultancy,
`
`where I worked with multiple clients, on products and technology directly
`
`associated with or adjacent to the Ethernet product market space, in a variety of
`
`engineering, marketing and senior management positions. These products/
`
`technologies included a 10Gb/s transceiver for 10GBASE-T, a state-full deep
`
`packet classification security co-processor for line rate virus protection, several
`
`10Gb/s switches and fabrics, and 1/10Gb/s line rate deep packet classification
`
`Ethernet switch line card interfaces, etc.
`
`9.
`
`I have over 10 years of experience in the IEEE802.3 committee. The
`
`IEEE publishes technical papers and articles submitted by members, sponsors
`
`conferences and standards setting bodies, and many other functions. One of the
`
`standards bodies is referred to as "Project 802", which encompasses the
`
`specifications for "Local and Metropolitan Area Networks." There are many
`
`different networking technologies, each broken into a different Task Force
`
`Committee. 802.3 is the Task Force where Ethernet standards are specified,
`
`developed, and maintained. My participation on the 802.3 Ethernet committee
`
`began in 1988 with the development of 10BASE-T (1993), and continued through
`
`100BASE-T (1995), where I was Chair of the Auto-Negotiation sub-group
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 7
`
`
`
`
`(802.3u, Clause 28 of the published Standard), Chair of the VLAN Tagging
`
`Working Group (802.3ac), and an active participant in the Full Duplex (802.3x)
`
`and Gigabit Ethernet (802.3z) developments (1995-98).
`
`10.
`
`I have 47 granted U.S. patents, primarily in the area of networking
`
`technology and related architectures and implementation of integrated circuits for
`
`Local Area Networks (LANs), which are listed in my CV. Ex. 1013.
`
`11.
`
`I am co-author of "Gigabit Ethernet-Migrating to High Bandwith
`
`LANs," published by Prentice Hall in 1998. I am also the author of a number of
`
`other articles and conference presentations in the field of networking technology
`
`and architecture (including 10Base-T), which are listed in my CV. Ex. 1013.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`12.
`In forming my opinions, I have considered the materials referenced
`
`herein. My opinions are also based on my years of education, research and work
`
`experience, as described in the earlier background and qualifications section and in
`
`my Curriculum Vitae (Ex. 1013)
`
`13.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to rebut
`
`arguments raised by ChriMar Systems, Inc. ("Chrimar" or "Patent Owner"). I may
`
`also consider additional documents and information in forming any necessary
`
`opinions - including documents that may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`14. My analysis of the materials relating to this matter is ongoing and I
`
`will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This Declaration
`
`therefore represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to
`
`revise, supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new
`
`information and on my continuing analysis of the materials already in hand.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`15.
`In forming my opinions and considering the subject matter of the '838
`
`patent and its claims, I have relied upon certain basic legal principles as explained
`
`to me by legal counsel.
`
`16.
`
`First, I understand that, for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, or to be valid, it must be, among other things, new and not
`
`obvious in light of what came before it. That which came before is generally
`
`referred to as "prior art."
`
`17.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, the burden is on the party
`
`asserting unpatentability to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand that "a preponderance of the evidence" is evidence sufficient to show
`
`that a fact is more likely than not.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 9
`
`
`
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, patentability may be challenged
`
`only "on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C., section 102 or 103 and
`
`only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents and printed publications." See 35
`
`U.S.C. § 311(b). I have been advised that, under the relevant parts of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 102 addressing patents and printed publications, a person is not entitled to a
`
`patent if (1) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this
`
`or a foreign country before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
`
`(2) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a
`
`foreign country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in
`
`the United States. My analysis below compares the challenged claims of the '838
`
`patent to patents and printed publications that qualify as prior art to the claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to "anticipate" the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to "render obvious" the claim. Further
`
`explanation concerning these two legal standards is set forth below.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Anticipation
`21.
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a patent claim is "anticipated" by the prior art. I have applied these
`
`standards in my evaluation of whether the '838 patent claims are anticipated.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is anticipated (or lacks "novelty") if
`
`what is claimed is not new. Anticipation occurs if, within a single prior art
`
`reference, each and every limitation or requirement of the patent claim is disclosed,
`
`either explicitly or inherently. I understand that a claim limitation that is not
`
`expressly found in a prior art reference is inherently disclosed where it would have
`
`been necessarily present in the prior art device or method. I am further informed
`
`that material not explicitly contained in the single prior art reference may still be
`
`considered for purposes of anticipation if that material is incorporated by reference
`
`into the prior art reference.
`
`23.
`
`I understand that it is acceptable to examine evidence outside the prior
`
`art reference (extrinsic evidence) in determining whether a feature, while not
`
`expressly discussed in the reference, is necessarily present within that reference.
`
`B. Obviousness
`24.
`I understand that a patent claim is unpatentable or may be found
`
`invalid as obvious if, at the time when the invention was made, the subject matter
`
`of the claim, considered as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 11
`
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the field of the technology (the "art") to which the claimed subject
`
`matter belongs.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that, in the absence of other information, the time when
`
`an invention was made is generally considered to be the date on which the patent
`
`application for the invention was filed. The provisional application for the '838
`
`patent was originally filed on April 10, 1998 (Serial No. 60/081,279), and I have
`
`used this as the "date of the alleged invention" in my consideration of the question
`
`of obviousness, although nothing would change if I instead used the alternative
`
`date of April 8, 1999 (the filing date of PCT/US99/07846).
`
`26.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute as follows:
`
`A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
`identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this
`title [in a single prior art reference], if the differences between the
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the challenged claims of the '838 patent would have been
`
`considered obvious at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`I understand that a claim in a patent is obvious when the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
`
`subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
`
`made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter
`
`pertains.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that obviousness may be shown by considering more
`
`than one item of prior art, and that the following factors should be considered in
`
`analyzing obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
`
`differences between the prior art and the claims; and (3) the level of ordinary skill
`
`in the pertinent art.
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that certain other factors known as "secondary
`
`considerations" may, if proffered, be evaluated as potential indicia of non-
`
`obviousness. Such secondary considerations include: commercial success of
`
`products covered by the patent claims subsequent to filing of the patent; a long-felt
`
`but unsolved need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others; unexpected results achieved by the
`
`invention; praise of the invention by those in the relevant industry; the taking of
`
`licenses under the patent by others; and expressions of surprise or skepticism by
`
`experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention. I understand,
`
`however, that a secondary consideration cannot be relevant to the obviousness
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 13
`
`
`
`
`analysis for a patent unless that secondary consideration is connected, or has a
`
`"nexus," with the invention claimed in the patent at issue. I have never heard
`
`anyone offer praise for the '838 patent, nor am I aware of any commercial success
`
`attributable to the '838 patent. To my knowledge, there also has been no copying of
`
`the alleged invention of the '838 patent. I am also unaware of any use to which
`
`Chrimar has put the '838 patent to use other than to assert it in litigation. To the
`
`extent Patent Owner proffers additional evidence of alleged secondary
`
`considerations of nonobviousness, I reserve the right to respond in a supplementary
`
`report.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be done in
`
`hindsight, but should be done through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the art is assumed to
`
`have knowledge of all relevant prior art. I understand that one skilled in the art can
`
`combine the teachings of various prior art references based on the teachings of the
`
`individual prior art references, the general knowledge present in the art, or
`
`common sense. I understand that a teaching, motivation or suggestion appearing in
`
`the prior art may provide a basis for combining two (or more) prior art references
`
`or modifying a given prior art reference. A motivation to combine references may
`
`also be implicit in the prior art, and there is no requirement that there be an actual
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 14
`
`
`
`
`or explicit teaching to combine two references. Thus, one may take into account
`
`the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`employ to combine the known elements in the prior art in the manner claimed by
`
`the patent at issue.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that when determining whether a patent claim is obvious
`
`in light of the prior art, neither the particular motivation for the patent nor the
`
`stated purpose of the patentee is controlling. Rather, the only thing that matters is
`
`the objective reach of the claims, and that if those claims extend to something that
`
`is obvious, then the patent claim is invalid.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that the combination of familiar elements according to
`
`known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
`
`results. I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of that work, either in the
`
`same field or a different one. Likewise, if a technique has been used to improve
`
`one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device in a predictable manner would normally be obvious.
`
`35.
`
`I understand that obviousness need not rest on precise teachings
`
`directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but instead can take
`
`account of "ordinary innovation" such as the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 15
`
`
`
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Familiar items may have obvious
`
`uses beyond the particular application being described in a reference, and a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art will be able to fit the teachings of multiple prior art
`
`references together "like the pieces of a puzzle."
`
`36.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity in the field. A person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will
`
`not be restricted only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same
`
`problem. Rather, in exercising common sense and ordinary creativity, a person of
`
`ordinary skill can draw upon prior art directed to any need or problem known in
`
`the field of endeavor at the time of the invention. In other words, the prior art does
`
`not need to be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the
`
`patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`37.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered as an obvious
`
`variation on, or modification of, the prior art may nonetheless be considered
`
`nonobvious if one or more of the applicable prior art references discourages or
`
`leads away from the invention. A reference does not "teach away" from an
`
`invention, however, simply because the reference suggests that a different
`
`technique may be optimal or preferred. Similarly, a known or obvious combination
`
`does not become patentable simply because it has been described in the prior art as
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 16
`
`
`
`
`somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. Rather, I understand
`
`that to teach away from the invention, a prior art reference must contain some clear
`
`discouragement of that combination in the prior art—such as expressly articulated
`
`reasons why one should not make the claimed combination or invention. But if the
`
`prior art teaches that the feature or combination is useful for the invention's
`
`purpose, and the alleged invention provides no discovery beyond what was known
`
`to the art, then the patent claim will nonetheless be obvious.
`
`38.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
`
`there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
`
`skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If
`
`this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the result not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance, the fact that a combination was
`
`obvious to try might show that it was obvious. I understand that the fact that a
`
`particular combination of prior art elements was "obvious to try" may indicate that
`
`the combination was obvious even if no one had attempted the combination at the
`
`time of filing. Likewise, duplicating a known feature from the prior art multiple
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 17
`
`
`
`
`times in order to take advantage of proven technology typically does not require a
`
`leap of inventiveness.
`
`IV. RELEVANT BACKGROUND ON THE '838 PATENT
`A. The '838 Patent
`39.
`I understand Juniper is challenging claims 1, 2, 7, 26, 29, 38, 39, 40,
`
`47, 55, and 69 of the '838 Patent.
`
`40.
`
`The '838 patent is titled "Central Piece of Network Equipment." It
`
`names John F. Austermann and Marshall B. Cummings as inventors, and on its
`
`face is assigned to ChriMar Systems, Inc.
`
`41.
`
`The '838 patent was filed as application number 13/615,734 on
`
`September 14, 2012 and issued on April 28, 2015.
`
`42.
`
`The '838 patent's earliest priority date is April 10, 1998, the date on
`
`which provisional application 60/081,279 was filed.
`
`43.
`
`I understand that no matter which of these dates ChriMar may rely on
`
`as the priority date of the '838 patent, the references relied upon in this Petition are
`
`prior art to the '838 patent because they all predate April 10, 1998, the earliest
`
`possible priority date recited by the '838 patent.
`
`B. Description of the Alleged Invention of the '838 Patent
`44.
`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.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`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 transmit and receive data communication links."1 '838 5:12-
`
`19, 5:26-30 ("a pair of transmit wires"; "a pair of receive wires").
`
`46.
`
`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.
`
`47.
`
`The specification discloses embodiments that purport to provide an
`
`improved system for "asset tracking and management," including monitoring and
`
`
`1 Unless stated otherwise, emphasis to quotations have been added.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 19
`
`
`
`
`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; Ex. 1012. Patent Owner has filed various lawsuits—including against
`
`Petitioner—interpreting the challenged claims of the '838 Patent to broadly cover
`
`network switches that deliver power to a remote device over Ethernet. Id.
`
`48.
`
`As I explain in this declaration, 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
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 20
`
`
`
`
`conductors used for normal network communication, such as Ethernet. See
`
`Ground 1 (Hunter and Bulan references), Ground 2 (Bloch patent). .
`
`C. Level of Ordinary Skill
`49.
`I have been informed that a PHOSITA is a hypothetical person and
`
`that I should consider the following factors in constructing a PHOSITA: (1) the
`
`educational and experience level of active workers in the field; (2) the
`
`sophistication of the technology; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made;
`
`(4) the types and problems encountered in the art; (5) the prior art solutions to
`
`those problems. I understand that not all such factors may be present in every case,
`
`and one or more of them may predominate.
`
`50.
`
`After considering the factors mentioned above and my professional
`
`experience, it is my opinion that a PHOSITA would have at least a B.S. degree (or
`
`equivalent) in electrical engineering or computer science, and at least three years of
`
`experience in the design of network communications products. Specifically, such a
`
`person would be
`
`familiar with data communications protocols, data
`
`communications standards (and standards under development at the time, including
`
`the 802.3 standard), and the behavior of data communications products available
`
`on the market.
`
`At the time of the filing date of the '838 patent, through the time of the
`
`earliest claimed priority date of April 10, 1998, I was at least a person of ordinary
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`RUCKUS Ex 1002-pg. 21
`
`
`
`
`skill in the art, and regularly worked with and supervised others at that level of
`
`skill. For example, my qualifications and experiences discussed in Section II
`
`above, and in my CV (Ex. 1013), demonstrate my familiarity with and knowledge
`
`of the art of the '838 patent.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`51.
`I understand that in an inter partes review, a claim in an unexpired
`
`patent must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which it appears.
`
`52.
`
`Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, I understand
`
`the Petitioner has proposed that the following claim terms be construed as shown
`
`below:
`
`A.
`53.
`
`"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").
`
`VI. OPINIONS RELATING TO EACH OF THE GROUNDS
`54. My opinions with respect to the invalidity of the challenged claims of
`
`the '838 patent are set forth in detail below.
`
`3468721
`
`
`
`- 18
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
