`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`DELL INC., DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., HP INC., AND LENOVO (UNITED
`STATES) INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`UNIVERSAL CONNECTIVITY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIC WELCH
`
`
`Case No. IPR2024-01478
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Patent Board
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`Background and Qualifications ....................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. Documents and Materials Considered ............................................................. 4
`IV. Relevant Legal Principles ................................................................................ 5
`V.
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 9
`VI.
`’712 Patent .....................................................................................................11
`A. Overview .............................................................................................11
`B.
`Prosecution History .............................................................................17
`VII. Technology Background ................................................................................20
`VIII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................23
`IX. Summary of Opinions ....................................................................................24
`A. Overview of IEEE 802.3af (EX1006) .................................................24
`B.
`Overview of Biederman (EX1005) .....................................................27
`C.
`Overview of Karam (EX1007) ............................................................29
`D. Overview of Penning (EX1008) ..........................................................33
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 are Invalid ............................................................38
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 are obvious over
`Biederman in view of IEEE 802.3af ..............................................................38
`1. Motivation to Combine Biederman with IEEE
`802.3af .................................................................................................38
`2.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................44
`
`X.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`i
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`Claim 2: “The power delivery circuit of claim 1,
`further comprising a controller that controls opening and
`closing of the power relay switch.” .....................................................57
`4.
`Claim 3: “The power delivery circuit of claim 1,
`wherein the plurality of devices are connected to each
`other through a daisy chain, and wherein the power
`delivery circuit is included within each one of the devices
`in the daisy chain.” ..............................................................................58
`5.
`Claim 5: “The power delivery circuit of claim 1,
`wherein the load detector is further configured to detect
`removal of one of the plurality of devices from the
`network.” .............................................................................................59
`Ground 2: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 are obvious over
`B.
`Biederman in view of Karam .........................................................................61
`1. Motivation to Combine Biederman and Karam ........................61
`2.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................65
`3.
`Claim 2: “The power delivery circuit of claim 1,
`further comprising a controller that controls opening and
`closing of the power relay switch.” .....................................................71
`4.
`Claim 3: “The power delivery circuit of claim 1,
`wherein the plurality of devices are connected to each
`other through a daisy chain, and wherein the power
`delivery circuit is included within each one of the devices
`in the daisy chain.” ..............................................................................71
`5.
`Claim 5: “The power delivery circuit of claim 1,
`wherein the load detector is further configured to detect
`removal of one of the plurality of devices from the
`network.” .............................................................................................71
`Grounds 3-5: Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 are obvious over
`C.
`Biederman in view of IEEE 802.3af and Penning (Ground 3);
`Biederman in view of Karam and Penning (Ground 4); and
`Biederman in view of IEEE 802.3af, Karam, and Penning
`(Ground 5) .....................................................................................................73
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`ii
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`1. Motivation to Combine the Combination of
`Biederman and Karam and/or IEEE 802.3af with Penning ................73
`2.
`Claim 1 ......................................................................................80
`D. Ground 6: Claims 7 and 9 are anticipated by Karam ..........................82
`1.
`Claim 7 ......................................................................................82
`2.
`Claim 9: “The method of claim 7, further
`comprising: detecting removal of a device of the plurality
`of devices.” ..........................................................................................88
`
`
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`iii
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`1016
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,680,712 (the “’712 Patent”)
`Prosecution history of the ’712 Patent
`Declaration of Eric Welch
`Curriculum Vitae of Eric Welch
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0089230 A1 to Biederman et al.
`(“Biederman”)
`IEEE Standard for Information Technology, Part 3, Amendment:
`Data Terminal Equipment (DTE) Power via Media Dependent
`Interface (MDI) (“IEEE 802.3af”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0100799 A1 to Karam (“Karam”)
`U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2008/0168283 A1 to Penning
`(“Penning”)
`Declaration of James L. Lansford, Ph.D. regarding IEEE 802.3af
`Intentionally left blank
`UCT’s Amended Infringement Contentions, Ex. H, Universal
`Connectivity Technologies Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al.,
`1:23-cv-01506-RP (W.D. Tx. Apr. 3, 2024)
`Universal Serial Bus Type-C Cable and Connector Specification,
`Release 2.0
`Declaration of Nathaniel Frank-White Regarding WayBack
`Machine URLs
`Galit Mendelson, All you Need to Know About Power over
`Ethernet (PoE) and the IEEE 802.3af Standard (June 2004),
`available at https://web.archive.org/web/20050302031350/
`http://www.powerdsine.com/Documentation/WhitePapers/
`PoE_and_IEEE802_3af.pdf.
`Texas Instruments, An Engineer’s Guide to Current Sensing
`DigiKey, Current Shunt Monitors, YouTube 0:13, 0:34 (August
`12, 2010), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDqbIOik9tY.
`
`
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`iv
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`1. My name is Eric Welch. I have prepared this Declaration in connection
`
`with Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., HP Inc., and Lenovo (United States) Inc.’s
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,680,712 (the “’712 Patent”)
`
`(EX1001), which is to be filed concurrently with this Declaration.
`
`2.
`
`In the course of preparing this Declaration, I reviewed the ’712 Patent,
`
`its prosecution file history, as well as the other documents discussed in this
`
`Declaration.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained by Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., HP Inc., and
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Petitioners”) as an expert in the fields of electrical and
`
`software engineering, and product development for consumer, medical, industrial,
`
`aerospace, and other applications. I have been asked to provide my opinion
`
`regarding the state of the art of the technology described in the ’712 Patent and on
`
`the patentability of the claims of this patent. I am being compensated at my normal
`
`consulting rate for my time. My compensation is not dependent on and in no way
`
`affects the substance of my statements in this Declaration. I have no financial interest
`
`in the Petitioners, the ’712 Patent, or the owner of the ’712 Patent.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`II. Background and Qualifications
`
`4. My professional qualifications, experience, publications, and
`
`presentations, as well as a list of previous cases in which I have provided expert
`
`testimony, are outlined in my curriculum vitae (EX1004).
`
`5.
`
`I am an expert with over 50 years of experience in the fields of electrical
`
`and software engineering, and product development for consumer, medical,
`
`industrial, aerospace, and other applications.
`
`6.
`
`From 1976 to 2007, I was Vice President of Engineering and CTO of
`
`InnoSys Incorporated and its Keyspan division. The Keyspan division developed
`
`and marketed to the retail channel several lines of computer peripheral and
`
`communications devices such as USB adapters, computer remote control devices,
`
`USB and FireWire add on cards, and related technology. I personally designed and
`
`developed core technology for the Keyspan business, resulting in an increase in sales
`
`from less than $1MM in 1997 to $13MM in 1999.
`
`7.
`
`From 2007 to the present, I have been president of Bramson Welch &
`
`Associates, Inc., an Engineering Services consultancy specializing in embedded
`
`systems, USB, Bluetooth, data communications, mobile devices, iPhone accessories,
`
`and litigation services, including data analysis and expert witness work. I serve as
`
`System Architect and Project Strategist on all Bramson Welch projects. I frequently
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`work with multiple client groups to coordinate design and architecture across many
`
`different technical and organizational domains.
`
`8.
`
`I have over twenty-five years of significant experience specifically with
`
`the development of USB peripherals, adapters, hosts, and special purpose devices.
`
`For example, I was responsible for the design and development of the Keyspan
`
`USB/serial adapter, the first working serial adapter for the Apple iMac in the mid-
`
`1990s, which is still shipping today. Also, for example, I was responsible for the
`
`design and development of Keyspan’s network-attached host adapter, a device with
`
`an ethernet network connection and four USB Host ports. As yet other examples,
`
`while at Keyspan and later at Bramson Welch, I was responsible for the design and
`
`development of dozens of USB peripheral devices, including class device interface
`
`(i.e., storage, HID, and communication adapters), and vendor-specific devices that
`
`do not fit any of the existing USB classes. I am also a senior member of the Institute
`
`of the Electrical and Electronics Engineers association (IEEE).
`
`9.
`
`I also have specific experience with USB entities that can function
`
`either as a USB Host or as a USB Device, including several prominent smartphone
`
`platforms, where role detection and role switching are important features.
`
`10. While many of my projects have been USB focused, I also have
`
`experience with other communication protocols, such as HDMI and Power Over
`
`Ethernet (“PoE”), among others. For example, I worked on a design study with
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`HDMI to evaluate existing USB adapter technology to assess its applicability. I have
`
`also worked on a number of smart phone USB/Ethernet adapters, including several
`
`with PoE technology.
`
`11.
`
`I have significant experience providing expert witness services in the
`
`areas of electrical and computer engineering, and in the course of this work and my
`
`own research and patenting activities, I have gained experience studying and
`
`analyzing patents and patent claims from the perspective of a person skilled in the
`
`art.
`
`12. My curriculum vitae contains further details regarding my experience,
`
`education, publications, and other qualifications which allow me to render expert
`
`opinions in connection with this proceeding.
`
`III. Documents and Materials Considered
`
`13.
`
`In forming my opinions, in addition to my knowledge, education,
`
`training, and experience, I have considered the materials cited in this Declaration
`
`and the documents and things that I have obtained, or that have been provided to me,
`
`as listed in the Table of Exhibits.
`
`14.
`
`I reserve the right to supplement or amend this Declaration if additional
`
`information that affects my opinions becomes available.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. Relevant Legal Principles
`
`15.
`
`I am not an attorney, and I offer no opinions on the law. Counsel has
`
`informed me of legal standards that apply to the issue of patent validity. I have
`
`applied these standards in arriving at my conclusions.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that in an inter partes review the petitioner has the burden
`
`of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. I
`
`understand this standard is different from the standard that applies in a district court,
`
`where I understand a challenger bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and
`
`convincing evidence.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is invalid based on anticipation if a
`
`single prior art reference discloses all of the features of that claim in a way that
`
`enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Each of the
`
`claim features may be expressly or inherently present in the prior art reference. I
`
`understand that if the prior art necessarily functions in accordance with, or includes
`
`a claim’s feature, then that prior art inherently discloses that feature.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that to establish inherency, the evidence must make clear
`
`that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the item of prior art and
`
`that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art. I also understand
`
`that prior art use of the claimed patented invention that was accidental,
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`unrecognized, or unappreciated at the time of filing can still be an invalidating
`
`anticipation.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that although multiple prior art references may not be
`
`combined to show anticipation, additional references may be used to interpret the
`
`allegedly anticipating reference and shed light on what it would have meant to those
`
`skilled in the art at the time of the invention. These additional references must make
`
`it clear that the missing descriptive matter in the patent claim is necessarily present
`
`in the allegedly anticipating reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that a patent may not be valid even though the invention
`
`is not identically disclosed or described in the prior art 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 to a person having ordinary skill in the art in
`
`the relevant subject matter at the time the invention was made.
`
`21.
`
`I understand that obviousness must be tested as of the time the invention
`
`was made. I understand that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
`
`of the prior art references would have suggested, disclosed, or taught to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`22. To determine if a claim is obvious, the following factors should be
`
`considered: (1) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`made; (2) the scope and content of the prior art; (3) the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) secondary considerations, including
`
`evidence of commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, unsuccessful attempts
`
`by others, copying of the claimed invention, unexpected and superior results,
`
`acceptance and praise by others, independent invention by others, and the like.
`
`23. For example, 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 also understand that an obviousness analysis need not seek out
`
`precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim
`
`because a court can take account of the inferences and/or creative steps that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the following rationales may be used to determine
`
`whether a piece of prior art can be combined with other prior art or with other
`
`information within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
`results;
`
`• Predictable use or combination of prior art elements according to their
`established functions;
`
`• Use of known techniques to improve similar devices (methods, or
`products) in the same way;
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
`for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try” - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use
`in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or
`other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of
`ordinary skill in the art; or
`
`• 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.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that when a work is available in one field of endeavor,
`
`design incentives and/or other market forces, for example, can prompt variations of
`
`it, either in the same field or a different one. Moreover, if a person of ordinary skill
`
`can implement a predictable variation, I understand this likely bars its patentability.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that another factor to be considered is common sense. For
`
`example, I understand that common sense teaches that familiar items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and, in many cases, a person of
`
`ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces
`
`of a puzzle.
`
`27.
`
`I understand that the Supreme Court articulated additional guidance for
`
`obviousness in its KSR decision. My understanding is that the Supreme Court said
`
`that technical people of ordinary skill look for guidance in other solutions to
`
`problems of a similar nature, and that the obviousness inquiry must track reality, and
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`not legal fictions. I have relied on these understandings in expressing the opinions
`
`set forth below.
`
`28.
`
`I understand that, for purposes of my analysis in this inter partes review
`
`proceeding, the terms appearing in the patent claims should be interpreted according
`
`to their “ordinary and customary meaning.” In determining the ordinary and
`
`customary meaning, the words of a claim are first given their plain meaning that
`
`those words would have had to a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). I
`
`understand that the structure of the claims, the specification, and the file history also
`
`may be used to better construe a claim insofar as the plain meaning of the claims
`
`cannot be understood. Moreover, treatises and dictionaries may be used, albeit under
`
`limited circumstances, to determine the meaning attributed by a POSITA to a claim
`
`term at the time of filing. I have followed this approach in my analysis.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that the words of the claims should be interpreted as
`
`they would have been interpreted by a POSITA at the time the alleged invention was
`
`made (not today). I have been asked to use the priority date of December 11, 2008.
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`30.
`
`In order to determine the characteristics of a POSITA of the ’712
`
`Patent, I have used December 11, 2008 as the relevant time frame. My understanding
`
`is that this is the alleged earliest priority date of the application that resulted in the
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`’712 Patent. For purposes of this Declaration, any reference to the priority date of
`
`the ’712 Patent is intended to refer to this December 11, 2008 date.
`
`31.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`for the ’712 Patent, I have considered the state of the art of data communications
`
`devices and interfaces at that time, the types of problems encountered with
`
`delivering power over a communications network, connecting communications
`
`devices in a daisy chain network, and determining power requirements of connected
`
`devices, and the solutions that then existed. I have also considered the then-existing
`
`technology for delivering power over such communication networks, including the
`
`sophistication of the technology involved, and the education and experience of those
`
`working in the field at that time. I have also considered my personal knowledge and
`
`experience in the field at that time, including those I worked and interacted with
`
`regarding communication systems. I have also considered the knowledge, education,
`
`and experience of those in academia and industry at that time that were working,
`
`innovating, or performing research in the field of audio/visual communications.
`
`32.
`
`It is my opinion that a POSITA for the ’712 Patent at the time of this
`
`filing date would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer
`
`engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and three years of experience
`
`with data communications systems or interfaces, including at least some experience
`
`with serial or display data communications systems or interfaces.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 15
`
`

`

`
`
`33. Given this background, a POSITA would have been familiar with at
`
`least the IEEE 802.3af industry standard on Power over Ethernet (“PoE”) and
`
`knowledgeable about the design and operation of standardized PoE systems.
`
`34. Based on my background and qualifications, I am currently and was as
`
`of the priority date of the ’712 Patent at least a POSITA in the subject matter of the
`
`’712 Patent. In addition, I have participated in numerous engineering projects that
`
`involved working with POSITAs in the subject matter of the ’712 patent.
`
`VI.
`
`’712 Patent
`
`A. Overview
`
`35. U.S. Patent No. 8,680,712 to Lee et al. is entitled “Power Delivery Over
`
`Digital Interaction Interface for Video and Audio (DIIVA)” and was issued on
`
`March 25, 2014.
`
`36. The ’712 Patent is directed to “[a] system for delivering power over a
`
`network of devices connected through a serial link,” where the devices support the
`
`bi-directional transfer of “user data,” including “audio data, control data, Ethernet
`
`data, and bulk data,” and may be connected in a daisy chain via Ethernet CAT5,
`
`CAT6, or CAT7 cables. EX1001 at abstract, 1:18-25, 1:36-38, 2:54-57.
`
`Independent claims 1 and 7 are specifically directed to a power delivery circuit (a
`
`“POD circuit”) for delivering power to the plurality of devices, and a method of
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 16
`
`

`

`
`
`delivering power to the plurality of devices connected in a daisy chain, respectively.
`
`Id. at 7:2-4, 8:7-8.
`
`37. As shown in Fig. 4, below, the claimed power delivery circuit 401
`
`includes:
`
`a voltage source 410 configured to generate a voltage (or equivalently,
`electric power); a power relay switch 420 configured to relay, when
`closed, the voltage generated by the voltage source 410 to one or more
`of the connected devices; a signature resistor 430 connected to the
`switch 420 and configured for power source detection from one or
`more of the connected devices; and a load detector 450 connected to
`the switch 420 and configured to read a load current flowing
`therethrough so as to detect a load in one of the connected devices,
`and to extract information about the connected device based on the
`load current.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`12
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 17
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id. at 4:35-48, Fig. 4 (annotated).1
`38. The power delivery circuit also includes a controller (not shown in Fig.
`
`4), which controls the opening and closing of the power relay switch 420. Id. at 4:46-
`
`48. According to the ’712 Patent, the circuit illustrated in Fig. 4 can perform several
`
`functions, including: “detecting power source from a neighboring device; detecting
`
`POD load in a neighboring device; detecting removal of a device and/or connection
`
`of a new device; detecting a hot plug; detecting a POD client device; detecting
`
`
`1 All color annotations in figures have been added unless otherwise stated.
`Eric Welch Declaration
`13
`IPR2024-01478
`
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 18
`
`

`

`
`
`power-on or power-off state of a connected device; and relaying POD power, i.e.
`
`relaying POD current from one side to the other.” Id. at 5:3-10, Fig. 4.
`
`39.
`
`
`
`The ’712 Patent further explains that the information extracted
`
`by the load detector 450 may include, without limitation, information regarding the
`
`identity of the connected device, whether the connected device is powered on or
`
`powered off, and whether the connected device needs a supply of power. Id. at 4:51-
`
`55. For example, the load detector may determine that “the device is self-powered,
`
`and thus does not need to be supplied with power,” or may “receive information
`
`from a connected device indicating that the device needs to be supplied with power.”
`
`Id at 4:63-5:2; see also Fig. 7 (“All devices that are not locally powered receive
`
`power from TV (POD server)”) (emphasis added). The load detector may also detect
`
`removal of a device from the network and/or the connection of a new device. Id. at
`
`4:55-58. More specifically, when a load (typically one or more load resistors) is
`
`connected to the circuit, the load detector 450 “detects current flow therethrough, to
`
`determine whether a device is connected, and if so, to obtain information about the
`
`connected device based on the load resistor value.” Id. at 4:59-63.
`
`40. As illustrated in Fig. 6, the devices can be connected in a “daisy chain,”
`
`in which bi-directional data is transmitted from a source device S4 to a sink device
`
`(TV) through a daisy chain of POD devices S3, S2, and S1. Id. at 5:38-43. The ’712
`
`Patent explains that the devices in the chain can operate in an “active mode, a POD
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`14
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 19
`
`

`

`
`
`mode, or an off mode.” Id. at 5:55-56. In the active mode, the device is turned on
`
`(locally powered and fully functional) and data is processed on chip using local
`
`power. Id. at 56-58. In the POD mode, “the video and hybrid link data is processed
`
`and serviced by the device….[and] the transmitter is able to communicate with the
`
`receiver in entirety through the POD mode device.” Id. at 5:60-63. In the off mode,
`
`the circuit is off and no communication takes place. Id. at 5: 63-64. During
`
`operation, the sink device (TV) receives digital video data from the source device,
`
`and exchanges user data with the source device through a bi-directional hybrid link.
`
`Id. at 6:18-21.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`15
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 20
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Id. at Fig. 6.
`41. The flowchart of Fig. 7 outlines a process for delivering power to
`
`devices in a daisy chain configuration comprising a source device (DVD player), a
`
`POD client (set-up box), and a sink device (TV). Id. at 6:28-33, Fig. 7. The TV sends
`
`power to the devices in the daisy chain, such that “[a]ll source devices not local
`
`powered (i.e. ‘turned on’) receive power from the TV.” Id. at 6:34-36. The devices
`
`discover each other, and the TV sends a command to the DVD player to turn itself
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`16
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 21
`
`

`

`
`
`on. Id. at 40-41. The DVD player turns on, leaves POD client mode, and sends video
`
`signals to the TV. Id. at 6:40-43.
`
`Id. at Fig. 7.
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`
`
`42. On December 11, 2009, the ’712 Patent was filed as Application No.
`
`12/636,063 (the “’063 Application”) entitled “Power Delivery Over Digital
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`17
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 22
`
`

`

`
`
`Interaction Interface for Video and Audio (DiiVA).” EX1002 at 545. The ’063
`
`Application claims priority to Provisional Application No. 61/201,727, filed on
`
`December 11, 2008, and originally listed 23 claims. EX1002 at 476, 531-34.
`
`43. The PTO issued a non-final rejection on February 1, 2013, in which the
`
`examiner rejected claims 13-16, 18-19, and 22-23 as obvious over U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,783,926 (“Moon”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0100799 (“Karam”).
`
`Id. at 420-26. The examiner objected to claim 17 as being dependent upon a rejected
`
`base claim, but noted without explanation that it would be allowable if rewritten in
`
`independent form. Id. at 425. Claim 17 recited “[t]he power delivery circuit of claim
`
`13, wherein the information extracted by the load detector comprises information
`
`regarding whether the connected device is powered on or powered off; and whether
`
`or not the connected device needs a supply of power.” Id. at 441.
`
`44.
`
`In rejecting claims 13-16, 18-19, and 22-23, the examiner explained
`
`that Moon discloses:
`
`a power delivery circuit comprising a voltage source 180, a signature
`resistor R1, and a load detector to detect a load of connected device
`110 and to extract information about the connected device based on
`the load current. The load on resistor 150 (R1) is V which is a product
`of a current produced by Vdd/R2 and R1.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`18
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 23
`
`

`

`
`
`Id. at 423.
`45. The examiner further explained that Karam discloses:
`
`
`
`a power delivery circuit and power device discovery and identification
`system comprising a switch for selectively connecting applying
`voltage across a signature resistor to identify power devices….
`a controller…to control opening and closing of the power relay
`switch….[and]
`connecting devices in daisy chain and providing power delivery
`circuit for each of the daisy-chained devices.
`Id. at 424-25.
`In response, the applicant did not argue that the examiner’s rejection
`46.
`
`was incorrect, but instead amended independent claims 13 and 22 (corresponding to
`
`issued claims 1 and 7, respectively) to “incorporate the allowable subject matter of
`
`claim 17.” Id. at 409, 406-08. The PTO then allowed the claims. Id. at 394-99.
`
`47. While the examiner found the subject matter of original claim 17
`
`allowable, that limitation is disclosed by Biederman, Karam, IEEE 802.3af, and
`
`Penning.
`
`Eric Welch Declaration
`
`
`19
`
`IPR2024-01478
`
`DELL/HP/LENOVO EXHIBIT 1003
`Page 24
`
`

`

`
`
`VII. Technology Background
`
`48. The technology of the ’712 Patent generally relates to the provision of
`
`power over a network of data communication devices. As of the filing date of the
`
`’712 Patent, Power Over Ethernet (“PoE”) was a well-known standard for providing
`
`power to a network of ethernet devices. PoE “allows IP telephones, wireless LAN
`
`Access Points, Security network cameras and other IP-based t