UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`AFFORDABLE WIRE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAMBRIA COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND AND
`HANDICAPPED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2024-00139
`U.S. Patent No. 10,177,551 B1
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSHUA PHINNEY, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`1 of 135
`
`
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`
`AFFORDABLE WIRE MANAGEMENT, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CAMBRIA COUNTY ASSOCIATION FOR THE BLIND AND
`HANDICAPPED, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`———————
`
`IPR2024-00139
`U.S. Patent No. 10,177,551 B1
`_____________________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF JOSHUA PHINNEY, Ph.D.
`IN SUPPORT OF PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`1 of 135
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Assignment ...................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Qualifications ................................................................................................... 2
`III. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ................................................................... 7
`IV. Relevant Legal Standards .............................................................................. 10
`V.
`Brief Tutorial on Grounding Systems ........................................................... 12
`A. GROUNDING ..................................................................................... 13
`1.
`Grounding conductors ............................................................. 14
`2.
`Messenger wire ........................................................................ 18
`BONDING ........................................................................................... 21
`B.
`VI. Overview of the ’551 Patent .......................................................................... 24
`VII. Claim Interpretation - “MULTI-FUNCTION LINE” ................................... 34
`VIII. Discussion of alleged Grounds of Unpatentability ........................................ 40
`A. DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............................. 42
`1.
`CAB Website ........................................................................... 42
`2.
`CAB Whitepaper...................................................................... 45
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 10,003,298 (“Grushkowitz”) ......................... 46
`4.
`U.S. Patent No. 3,001,749 (“Petersen”) .................................. 48
`5.
`MacLean .................................................................................. 49
`RESPONSE TO ASSERTED INVALIDITY GROUNDS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103 ..................................................................... 50
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`2 of 135
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1-19 Over CAB Website and
`CAB Whitepaper...................................................................... 50
`CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper Do Not
`a.
`Render Obvious Claims 1-18 of the ‘551 Patent ........... 52
`CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper do not
`disclose the claimed “multi-function line” .................... 53
`CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper fail to
`disclose the limitation “a number of conductive
`mounting assemblies” of Claim 1 .................................. 68
`CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper fail to
`disclose the limitations of Independent Claim 19 ......... 71
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1-12 and 18-19 Over
`Grushkowitz ............................................................................. 74
`Grushkowitz does not render obvious Independent
`a.
`Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2-12, 18 of the
`‘551 patent ..................................................................... 74
`b. Grushkowitz Does Not Render Obvious
`Independent Claim 19 .................................................... 84
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1-19 Over Petersen .............. 86
`Petersen Does Not Render Obvious Independent
`a.
`Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2-18 ............................. 86
`Petersen Does Not Render Obvious Dependent
`Claim 2 ........................................................................... 99
`Petersen Does Not Render Obvious Independent
`Claim 19 ....................................................................... 100
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 13-17 Over Petersen and
`MacLean ................................................................................ 103
`Alleged Obviousness of Claims 13-17 Based on the CAB
`Website, CAB Whitepaper, and MacLean ............................ 105
`
`b.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`3 of 135
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`IX. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS ............ 108
`CAB IS ENTITLED TO A PRESUMPTION OF NEXUS
`A.
`SINCE ITS COMMERCIAL PRODUCT IS COEXTENSIVE
`WITH THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘551 PATENT ................................ 110
`CAB’S INTEGRATED GROUNDING SYSTEM MET A
`LONG-FELT INDUSTRY NEED .................................................... 115
`CAB’S INTEGRATED GROUNDING SYSTEM
`OVERCAME INDUSTRY SKEPTICISM ....................................... 116
`CAB’S INTEGRATED GROUNDING SYSTEM HAS
`RECEIVED INDUSTRY PRAISE ................................................... 117
`CAB’S INTEGRATED GROUNDING SYSTEM ACHIEVED
`COMMERCIAL SUCCESS ............................................................. 119
`Conclusion ................................................................................................... 122
`
`X.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`4 of 135
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Joshua Phinney, Ph.D., of Garden City, NY declare that:
`
`I.
`
`ASSIGNMENT
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of Cambria County Association for the
`
`Blind and Handicapped, Inc. (“CAB” or “Patent Owner”). I understand that the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) has instituted an inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,177,551 (“the ’551 patent”) (EX1001),
`
`issued to CAB on January 8, 2019, (Paper 21 – the “Institution Decision”) based
`
`on a petition filed by Affordable Wire Management, LLC (“AWM” or
`
`“Petitioner”) (Paper 1 – the Petition).
`
`2.
`
`I have been asked to analyze the assertions of invalidity of claims 1-
`
`19 of the ’551 patent made by Petitioner in its petition and by Dr. Omid Beik in his
`
`declaration submitted in support of the petition (EX1002) and in his deposition
`
`(EX2004) as well as to analyze the Institution Decision, and to render my opinions
`
`in response to Petitioner’s and Dr. Beik’s assertions. I understand that CAB is
`
`submitting my declaration in support of its Patent Owner Response to AWM’s
`
`petition.
`
`3.
`
`I am being compensated for my work as an expert with respect to this
`
`inter partes review at the rate of $725 per hour, but my compensation is not
`
`contingent in any way on the content of my opinions or the outcome of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`5 of 135
`
`
`
`4. My findings, as explained below, are based on my study, experience,
`
`and background in the field of power systems, informed by my education in
`
`electrical engineering, and my experience in the design and analysis of mechanical
`
`and electrical systems. In preparing this declaration, I have considered the claims,
`
`specification, and prosecution history of the ’551 patent. In addition, I have relied
`
`on my review and analysis of the prior art as well as other materials submitted to
`
`the Board in support of AWM’s petition. I have also relied on my review and
`
`analysis of the exhibits submitted with CAB’s Patent Owner Response.
`
`5.
`
`I have also considered the various documents referenced in my
`
`declaration and other information provided to me in connection with this case.
`
`6. My opinions are also based on the knowledge I have accumulated
`
`over my years of experience as outlined below.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`7. My complete qualifications and professional experience are described
`
`in my Curriculum Vitae, EX2065. The following is a brief summary of my
`
`relevant qualifications and professional experience.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Principal Engineer in the Electrical Engineering and Computer
`
`Science practice at Exponent, an engineering and scientific consulting firm
`
`headquartered at 149 Commonwealth Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`9.
`
`I received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts
`
`
`
`2
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`6 of 135
`
`
`
`Institute of Technology (“MIT”) in 2005. I also earned S.M. and B.S. degrees in
`
`Electrical Engineering from MIT and the University of Illinois, Chicago (“UIC”),
`
`respectively.
`
`10. While at MIT, I worked at the interface of power electronics and
`
`electromechanics. I designed inverters and rectifiers for rotating machines,
`
`including automotive alternators and induction generators in the MIT Microengine
`
`Project.
`
`11. As part of my graduate work for the MIT/Industry Consortium on
`
`Advanced Electrical/Electronic Components and Systems, I measured and modeled
`
`the chassis-ground impedance in automobiles equipped with 42 V electrical
`
`systems.
`
`12.
`
`In my Master’s Thesis I designed, built, and tested filters to suppress
`
`electromagnetic interference (“EMI filters”) that are used when powering circuity
`
`from an AC utility source.
`
`13. At MIT I also worked on the Laser Interferometric Gravitational
`
`Wave Observatory (LIGO) experiment, where I designed and tested low-
`
`turbulence hydraulic systems for seismic isolation of the experimental apparatus.
`
`My job responsibilities included the design and testing of a hydraulic manifold and
`
`pressure control system, as well as the selection and testing of the sensors and
`
`actuators that were parts of the position control system.
`
`
`
`3
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`7 of 135
`
`
`
`14. My doctoral work at MIT centered on power electronics and
`
`magnetics. As part of my doctoral work, I constructed and modeled filters,
`
`including filters with magnetically coupled coils.
`
`15. While at MIT, I taught magnetics design and magnetic-circuit analysis
`
`to both undergraduate and graduate students.
`
`16.
`
`I have authored papers in the areas of power electronics and
`
`magnetics, and am a co-inventor on patents for improving the performance of
`
`capacitors, EMI filters, and common-mode chokes.
`
`17. For my publications related to both my Master’s and Ph.D. thesis, I
`
`received the William M. Portnoy Prize Paper Award (2003) and the IEEE Power
`
`Electronics Society Transactions Prize Paper Award (2004).
`
`18. After earning my Ph.D., I joined Exponent where I lead technical
`
`investigations pertaining to electronics, microcomputers, and electromechanical
`
`systems. My job functions include analyzing hardware and software of these
`
`devices to understand their modes of failure and testifying regarding these devices
`
`in legal matters involving patents and trade secrets. I have led Exponent’s
`
`technical investigation of large generation failures, including grid-scale
`
`photovoltaic facilities and the Ravenswood U30 generator loss. In addition at
`
`Exponent, I have worked on commissioning and failure analysis of HVDC
`
`converter stations as well as emergency power systems (including uninterruptible
`
`
`
`4
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`8 of 135
`
`
`
`power supplies) in hospitals, data centers, emergency-response centers, and
`
`military installations. These investigations encompassed distribution and
`
`substation automation of the serving utility.
`
`19. Throughout the last 18 years at Exponent, I have performed
`
`electromagnetic assessments of utility and communication infrastructure. These
`
`issues include permitting, interference, and environmental impact of radar, AC and
`
`HVDC transmission lines, substations, photovoltaic installations, generators,
`
`broadcast antennas, and electrified mass transit systems. As part of this work, I
`
`calculate electric- and magnetic-field profiles – as well as profiles of audible noise
`
`and radio noise – along transects perpendicular to the path of transmission and
`
`distribution lines. For overhead lines, calculation of profiles is preceded by sag
`
`calculations, i.e., predicting the ground clearance of conductors at their lowest
`
`point, for a given temperature and attachment height at the structure. I have
`
`formalized this prediction of conductor position as part of a tool suite at Exponent
`
`to predict the likelihood of flashover. These tools used assist transmission-line
`
`operators manage the risk associated with wilderness fires.
`
`20.
`
`In addition to the foregoing, I have advised clients on RF safety and
`
`grounding practices in the vicinity of commercial radio transmitters and high-
`
`voltage transmission lines. This work includes advising manufacturers and
`
`operators of hoists, cranes, pipelines, and hydrogen-handling facilities regarding
`
`
`
`5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`9 of 135
`
`
`
`mitigation of touch potentials, nuisance shocks, and electromagnetic interference
`
`around high electric fields. I have also performed stray-current measurements and
`
`grounding-system assessments in high-voltage DC converter stations, substations,
`
`marinas, and dairies. Here, stray currents were from conducted sources, rather
`
`than induced by radiated sources.
`
`21.
`
`I have also testified regarding the faults that occur in electrical
`
`systems, e.g., detection and ride-through of ground faults in grid-connected wind
`
`turbines, as well as mitigation of electrical hazards to installers of commercial
`
`lighting. In the context of mediation, I have opined regarding specification
`
`compliance and National Electric Code (NEC) compliance in the emergency-
`
`power and power-distribution systems of data centers. In addition, I have taught
`
`electricians and engineers-in-training and as part of the Professional Engineering
`
`Review Course at Hofstra University, to prepare students for NEC questions on the
`
`Professional Engineering exam.
`
`22. Regarding solar projects, I have assisted with permitting of grid-
`
`scale solar facilities (30-300 MW) in Kern County, CA, Arizona, and Texas, and
`
`led failure root-cause analysis (RCA) efforts in solar power plants. Some of the
`
`RCA projects involve failure of particular components, e.g., panels and combiner
`
`boxes. More complicated RCA projects included inverter fires and generator-step-
`
`up transformer failures. As part of these failure studies, I have modeled the
`
`
`
`6
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`10 of 135
`
`
`
`dynamics of grid-scale solar power plants, including the collector system,
`
`inverters, generator step-up transformers, and main step-up transformers.
`
`23.
`
`I also testified before the Kern County Board of Supervisors on behalf
`
`of Sempra Generation regarding their solar generation projects in Antelope Valley.
`
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`24.
`
`I understand there are multiple factors relevant to determining the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, including (1) the educational level of the
`
`inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to
`
`those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of
`
`the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that ’551 patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`15/725,668 (the “’668 application”) on October 5, 2017, and does not claim
`
`priority to any earlier-filed applications.
`
`26. As discussed further below, the ’551 patent relates to a “grounding
`
`system, structured to ground a number of cables supported by a support assembly,”
`
`and that “includes a multi-function line assembly [including a multi-function line]
`
`and a number of conductive mounting assemblies,” each of which is “structured to
`
`be coupled to the multi-function line and to a conductive pile.” EX1001, Abstract.
`
`27. The specification further explains that the claimed invention “relates
`
`to a grounding system for a suspended cable assembly and, more particularly, to a
`
`
`
`7
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`11 of 135
`
`
`
`grounding system that includes conductive elements whereby grounding cables do
`
`not need to be spliced into a conductor wire disposed adjacent a messenger wire.
`
`EX1001, 1:7-13. The multi-function line “supports the cable hangers, as a
`
`messenger wire, and provides a current path, as a grounding conductor.” EX1001,
`
`2:35-37.
`
`28. Based on my understanding of the technology, education, and
`
`experience level of those working in this field, it is my opinion that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) working in the field of the ’551 Patent circa
`
`2017 would have an associate’s degree in an engineering discipline, and 1-2 years’
`
`experience in electrical power systems. Lack of work experience can be remedied
`
`by additional education, and vice versa.
`
`29. At ¶32, Dr. Beik opines “that a POSITA working in the field of the
`
`’551 Patent at the relevant time would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent
`
`discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical
`
`engineering or equivalent with 2-3 years of experience in electrical power systems,
`
`planning, and design, with the understanding that the number of years of
`
`
`
`8
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`12 of 135
`
`
`
`experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa.”1
`
`30.
`
`I have considered the level of ordinary skill offered by Dr. Beik and it
`
`is my opinion that he (and Petitioner) propose a level of skill that is too high. In
`
`my opinion, a POSITA working in the field of the ’551 patent could have the work
`
`experience Dr. Beik and Petitioner proposes, but with far less education. I base
`
`this opinion on my experience and interactions with electricians and engineers-in-
`
`training, many of whom did not have a bachelor’s degree in an engineering
`
`discipline, but nevertheless would be considered to be skilled artisans in the field
`
`of the ‘551 invention.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that in its Institution Decision, the Board did not “discern
`
`a meaningful difference between the parties’ positions regarding the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, and . . . preliminarily determine[d] a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and
`
`two years of experience in electrical systems.” Paper 21, Institution Decision, 6.
`
`Therefore, for purposes of my analysis, I have assumed the Board’s articulation
`
`regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`1 While Dr. Beik refers to the 2-3 years’ experience level being in “electrical
`
`power systems,” Petitioner in its Petition refers to 2-3 years experience in
`
`“electrical utility systems.” Petition, 23.
`
`
`
`9
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`13 of 135
`
`
`
`IV. RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARDS
`32.
`
`In preparing and expressing my opinions and considering the subject
`
`matter of the ’551 patent, I am relying on certain basic legal principles that counsel
`
`have explained to me. These principles are discussed below.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that prior art to the ’551 patent includes patents and
`
`printed publications in the relevant art that predate the priority date of the
`
`inventions recited in the ’551 patent.
`
`34.
`
`I have been informed that a claimed invention is unpatentable under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the invention 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. I have also been informed by counsel that the obviousness analysis
`
`takes into account factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and
`
`the claimed subject matter.
`
`35.
`
`I have also been informed that when asserting obviousness under §
`
`103 based on a single prior art reference, a petitioner must articulate a reason, with
`
`rational underpinnings, why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify that
`
`single prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that the Supreme Court has recognized several
`
`
`
`10
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`14 of 135
`
`
`
`rationales for combining references or modifying a reference to show obviousness
`
`of claimed subject matter. Some of these rationales include the following: (a)
`
`combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable
`
`results; (b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results; (c) use of a known technique to improve a similar device
`
`(method, or product) in the same way; (d) applying a known technique to a known
`
`device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (e)
`
`choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a
`
`reasonable expectation of success; and (f) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation
`
`in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art
`
`reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`37.
`
`I have also been informed by counsel that, in addition to considering
`
`factual inquiries including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and
`
`content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the claimed
`
`subject matter, the obviousness inquiry also must take into account secondary
`
`considerations such as commercial success, long-felt need, failed attempts,
`
`copying, unexpected results, praise of the invention, expressions of skepticism in
`
`the industry, and the patent owner proceeding contrary to accepted wisdom of the
`
`prior art.
`
`
`
`11
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`15 of 135
`
`
`
`V. BRIEF TUTORIAL ON GROUNDING SYSTEMS
`38. Before the time of the invention, safety benchmarks such as NFPA 70
`
`and the National Electrical Code (NEC), included a requirement that non-current-
`
`carrying metal components of an electrical power system (such as metallic
`
`supports, raceways, and enclosure) be bonded to one another, and also be grounded
`
`through the use of a grounding conductor.
`
`39. Grounding and bonding practices are important and required per NEC
`
`because they protect personnel from electrical shock hazards and protect against
`
`faults. These practices:
`
`(a) keep equipment enclosures and other exposed metal parts well-defined
`
`(i.e., near ground potential) and therefore, safe to touch;
`
`(b) limit unintended voltage on the electrical system imposed by lightning or
`
`short circuits;
`
`(c) bond electrical equipment together to establish a low-impedance path (an
`
`“effective ground-fault current path”) from the fault location back to
`
`supply to facilitate the operation of overcurrent protection devices.
`
`
`
`12
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`16 of 135
`
`
`
`A. GROUNDING
`40.
`
`In photovoltaic (PV) systems,2 exposed metal parts of equipment like
`
`PV-module frames, racking, piles, and raceways must all be grounded. See
`
`EX1007, 2008 NEC, Art. 690.43, 587.
`
`
`
`41. The racking, piles, bracket hardware and messenger wire illustrated
`
`
`2 While the claims of the ‘551 patent are not limited to grounding systems and
`
`components in solar PV installations, given the prior art references at issue in this
`
`IPR proceeding, particularly CAB Website (EX1005), CAB Whitepaper (EX1006)
`
`and Grushkowitz (EX1003), my tutorial focuses on grounding systems in a solar
`
`PV installation.
`
`
`
`13
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`17 of 135
`
`
`
`above serve a support function and do not normally carry current, though they are
`
`likely to become energized in the event of a fault. This support equipment is not
`
`grounded by virtue of resting on the earth, or by being embedded into the earth (in
`
`the case of conductive piles). Rather, the equipment shown above is grounded by
`
`being connected through grounding conductor(s) to a grounding electrode.
`
`42. NEC Article 690.43 requires that exposed non-current-carrying metal
`
`parts in a PV array be grounded regardless of voltage, and regardless of whether
`
`any of the current-carrying conductors from the PV array are grounded. See
`
`EX1007, 2008 NEC, Art. 690.43, 587.
`
`1. Grounding conductors
`43. The NEC provides two types of grounding conductor, the “grounding
`
`electrode conductor” (GEC) and the “equipment grounding conductor” (EGC).
`
`Both the GEC and EGC, which is ramified to interconnect exposed non-current-
`
`carrying metal parts of equipment, are depicted in the diagram above.
`
`44. Grounding Electrode Conductor. A grounding electrode is an
`
`electrically conductive solid rod or other structure whose size and surface area are
`
`sufficient to permit adequate contact with the earth in which it is buried or driven.
`
`A wire called the “Grounding Electrode Conductor” (“GEC”) connects to the
`
`grounding electrode. As depicted in the figure above, the GEC and its grounding
`
`
`
`14
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`18 of 135
`
`
`
`electrode are located at the inverter that serves strings of PV modules in the array.3
`
`45. Equipment Grounding Conductor. An “equipment grounding
`
`conductor” (“EGC”) is the conductive path installed to connect normally non-
`
`current-carrying metal parts of equipment together and to the system grounded
`
`conductor (a system or circuit conductor that is intentionally grounded) or to the
`
`grounding electrode conductor, or both. See EX1007, 2008 NEC, Art. 100 –
`
`Definitions, 31.
`
`46. The EGC does not normally carry current, and is not intended to carry
`
`current, when the electrical system is properly functioning. In the event of a
`
`ground-fault, however, the equipment grounding conductor is designed to provide
`
`an effective, low-impedance ground-fault current path from the point of a ground-
`
`fault on the wiring system to the electrical supply source in order to cause an
`
`overcurrent protection device to open the circuit and to clear the fault. This path
`
`provided by the EGC is referred to as an “effective ground fault current path,” and
`
`is an intentionally constructed path that facilitates the operation of the overcurrent
`
`protective device or ground-fault detectors on high impedance grounded
`
`systems. EX1007, 2008 NEC, Art. 250.2, 99.
`
`
`3 The inverter in a solar power plant converts DC voltage (generated by strings of
`
`PV modules connected in series) into AC voltage for use in the electric power grid.
`
`
`
`15
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`19 of 135
`
`
`
`47.
`
`In his deposition, Dr. Beik acknowledged that “[a] POSITA would
`
`know an effective ground fault current path is the one that provides a low
`
`resistance. It has the mechanical considerations from the point of that element to
`
`the end.” EX2004, 22:14-174. Dr. Beik also acknowledged that the low resistance
`
`(or low impedance) path that facilitates the operation of the overcurrent device or
`
`ground-fault detector as provided in the NEC. Id., 22:18-23:24 (referring to
`
`EX1007, 2008 NEC Art. 250.4(A)(5), 99).
`
`48. An example of an effective ground fault current path for a PV system
`
`is shown in the figure below. The red (positive) dashed line shows the path that
`
`ground-fault currents take through equipment grounding conductor(s), to the
`
`
`4 I have been informed by counsel that Dr. Beik was deposed on July 9, 2024 in
`
`IPR2024-00178, and July 11, 2024 in IPR2024-00139. I have also been informed
`
`by counsel that during the deposition of Dr. Beik on July 9, 2024, counsel for the
`
`parties stipulated that EX2004 would include the transcripts of both days of
`
`testimony. As a result, I understand that EX2004 contains the transcript from July
`
`9, 2024 (Volume I, stamped pages 1-216) and the transcript from July 11, 2024
`
`(Volume II, stamped pages 217-410). For ease of reference by the Board, all
`
`citations in this declaration to EX2004 are to the page and line numbers of the
`
`transcript for Volume II, which begins on stamped page 217.
`
`
`
`16
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`20 of 135
`
`
`
`inverter, and back to the source. This particular system is a grounded system and
`
`the negative PV-array conductor is the grounded circuit conductor. In this case, all
`
`ground-fault currents pass through the DC system bonding connection (a fuse
`
`through which the negative conductor is grounded) at the inverter. It is here, at the
`
`inverter, where the ground-fault protection device (GFPD) is located.
`
`Alternatively, protection devices such as an insulation-monitoring device can
`
`monitor the impedance between isolated DC array conductors and the EGC at the
`
`inverter. E.g., NEC Art. 690.35. Id. 587.
`
`
`
`See p. 22 of the Solar America Board for Codes and Standards (Solar ABCs) report
`
`Photovoltaic System Grounding, prepared by John C. Wiles, Jr., New Mexico State
`
`University, College of Engineering, October 2012. A copy of the report may be
`
`downloaded at www.solarabcs.org/systemgrounding. See also Brooks, B. (2012),
`
`The ground-fault protection blind spot: Safety concern for larger PV systems in the
`
`
`
`17
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`21 of 135
`
`
`
`U.S. Solar ABCs. www.solarabcs.org/blindspot.
`
`49.
`
`In PV generation facilities, the NEC requires that an EGC be installed
`
`between a PV array and other equipment (such as an inverter), and must run with
`
`the PV-circuit conductors where they leave the vicinity of the PV array. EX1007,
`
`2008 NEC, Art. 690.43, 587; see also EX1001, 1:65-2:16 (discussing equipment
`
`grounding conductors). These PV conductors (e.g., positive and negative DC
`
`cables from strings of PV modules), typically run with the EGC in a raceway or
`
`conduit to the inverter. The NEC requires that the EGC, in keeping with its
`
`electrical function, be sized for the largest overcurrent device protecting other
`
`conductors in the raceway. EX1007, 2008 NEC, Art. 250.122, 690.45, 120, 588.
`
`2. Messenger wire
`50. To organize the myriad of high-ampacity conductors in commercial
`
`PV installations before the time of the invention claimed in the ‘551 patent, CAB
`
`sold an above-ground cable management system that used cable hangers suspended
`
`from a steel messenger wire. EX2061, ¶¶5-6, 13-14, 21-32, 36-40, 45-47, 54-55,
`
`57-58, 62-64. In this system, designated by CAB as its “Standard System,” the
`
`messenger wire performed a mechanical function but not an electrical function,
`
`and was separate from the grounding conductor. CAB’s Standard System requires
`
`the separate installation of a separate grounding conductor that is typically installed
`
`parallel to the messenger wire with grounding splices to the piles. EX2061, ¶67.
`
`
`
`18
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`22 of 135
`
`
`
`This installation of a separate grounding conductor and grounding splices is shown
`
`below in a photo excerpted from CAB’s Installation Guide, EX2041, 2. This
`
`grounding conductor performs an electrical function and is appropriately sized to
`
`ground equipment and satisfy NEC requirements as an EGC.
`
`
`
`EX2041, 2.
`
`
`
`51.
`
`In keeping with its mechanical function, and since it not designed to
`
`carry current, the messenger wire depicted above is just another piece of metal
`
`equipment that must be grounded. A POSITA would understand that a messenger
`
`wire is an exposed metal part that may become energized, particularly when it
`
`supports power cables. As such, a messenger wire (as with all other exposed metal
`
`parts, like enclosures) must be grounded. NEC Article 396.60 includes this
`
`specific requirement. EX1007, 2008 NEC, Art. 396.30, 241.
`
`52. Prior to 2020, “messenger wire” was not a defined term in the NEC.
`
`
`
`19
`
`CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`CAB, EX2064
`Case No. IPR2024-00139
`23 of 135
`
`
`
`A POSITA at the time of the invention, however, would have und
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
