ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`
`Judge Bryson: ...2014, '16, '12, and 1655. Mr. Dunner, when you are ready.
`
`[silence]
`
`Judge Bryson: If you are there. We've lost sight of you.
`
`Don Dunner: My apology for the delay. Good morning, and may it please the court. The
`infringement issues in this care are essentially factual. The question is, "Was
`there substantial evidence in the case to support ParkerVision's infringement
`position and the jury's verdict in its favor?" The question is not whether or not
`Qualcomm can find snippets of evidence to support its position.
`
`I'll do my best to show that there was substantial evidence and, moreover, I will do
`my best to show that the district court's infringement decision was based on
`basically a misunderstanding of the technology in this case. Let me deal first with
`the generating limitation. Both sides agree, we don't agree on a lot of things, but
`we do agree on...
`
`Judge Bryson: Before you get into the merits of that argument, could I get a couple
`of things clarified in my own mind as to where the parties are in this? First of
`all, I take it that no one disputes that the Qualcomm accused devices are
`current-mode devices not voltage-mode devices. The patent is very broad, but in any
`event, the specification is voltage-mode. Is that fair to say?
`
`Don: I don't think that...
`
`Judge Bryson: As to Qualcomm, all the accused devices are current-mode devices,
`correct?
`
`Don: Razavi, their expert, said that the baseband is created by voltage across the
`capacitor, so I think...
`
`Judge Bryson: He was talking about the ParkerVision invention. He wasn't talking
`about the Qualcomm accused devices.
`
`Don: He was talking about the baseband signal is based on the measurement of voltage
`across the capacitor.
`
`Judge Bryson: In ParkerVision, he's talking about validity, and there he's talking
`about the ParkerVision device, so why is it...let me make sure that we're on the
`same page here. Initially Qualcomm's devices that were accused included both
`voltage-mode and current-mode devices.
`
`As I read the record, the ultimate decision was to strike all of the voltage-mode
`devices, and go only with current-mode devices. Is that your understanding?
`
`Don: Your honor, my understanding is that it's all based on voltage. There obviously
`is a current. Power is a function of voltage and current. Razavi page 1189, was
`asked, "How is the base band signal measured?" He said, "The baseband signal is
`measured as a voltage across the capacitor."
`
`I think that applies to the accused devices. It applies generally, and our position
`-- I know they've taken the position that theirs is a current-mode device, and
`therefore does not infringe, but I have to disagree with you, your honor, on that
`point.
`
`Judge Bryson: You mean you think that the accused devices are not limited to
`current-mode devices.
`
`Don: That's exactly right.
`
`Page 1
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 1
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`Judge Bryson: OK.
`
`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`
`Man 1: Both parties agree that the issue on generating means is whether Qualcomm's
`product generate a baseband signal from energy stored in the capacitors.
`
`There is testimony by Dr. Prucnal, ParkerVision's expert, and I'm reading from
`11057. It's very short. The energy from the carrier signal is transferred through
`the switch. It's accumulated by the capacitor, and that energy is then used to
`generate the baseband signal following the capacitor.
`
`I submit that that alone is substantial evidence that should have ended the inquiry.
`
`Don: What page was that again? I'm sorry.
`
`Man 1: Sorry?
`
`Don: What was the page number?
`
`Man 1: One, one, Zero, Five, seven.
`
`Don: One, one, Zero, Five, seven.
`
`Man 1: That should have been enough, and I submit is enough, but the district court
`held that because Dr. Prucnal made a concession, it wasn't enough, and what was the
`concession?
`
`In the district court's words, on A-27, that the baseband was created prior to the
`storage capacitor, and therefore the baseband signal could not have generated from
`energy stored in the capacitors.
`
`There are two problems with that holding. One is it's a mischaracterization of Dr.
`Prucnal's testimony, and secondly, he made no such concession, and secondly, the
`district court's position is inconsistent with the evidence that actually comes from
`Qualcomm's files, and let me deal with that evidence, which is really kind of
`critical.
`
`If you look at the yellow brief, pages seven and eight, you will see three
`schematics.
`
`The first schematic on page seven is a high level schematic. The next two are lower
`level schematics. It's sort of like a map with a country, a state, a city, and then
`a neighborhood.
`
`Man 1: I'm sorry, what page? I'm sorry, what page?
`
`Don: Yellow seven and eight.
`
`Man 1: Seven and eight, OK. Thank you.
`
`Don: At seven you'll see the high level schematic. It shows a passive mixer on the
`left, a TX filter on the right, and the energy signal is coming in from the left.
`The second schematic, which is a lower level schematic at the top of page eight, is
`a picture schematic showing the mixer, Mix IQ. Right below it is something called W
`Mixer IQ split.
`
`Dr. Prucnal said that the lower level mixer, the one with the one, two, and the
`three on it, is the mixer's internal circuitry. "Everything in that lower level is
`inside of the box," was his words.
`
`Man 1: Qualcomm disputes that, right?
`
`Don: Qualcomm disputes that. They dispute it because if you look at A1330 -- which
`is the JMOL picture of this one, two three drawing -- it's labeled at the top. One
`Page 2
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 2
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`is the mixer, two is the baseband, and three are the capacitors, but Dr. Prucnal
`said everything in this picture is in the mixer, everything. It's labeled W Mixer.
`
`Their argument is that because the baseband signal is under two therefore it was
`generated before the capacitor, which is inconsistent with our position if that were
`correct.
`
`Judge Bryson: Inconsistent with your position, but why isn't it necessarily the case
`that at least -- assume for a moment that we're talking about current mode mixers --
`why is it not the case that if the baseband is created and is present on the circuit
`at BTOP and BTOM, number two in that diagram, that that necessarily means that the
`baseband is not being generated by the capacitors?
`
`Don: Because Dr. Razavi said, at 11320, that the baseband signal is observed at
`every point along the wire since all points along the wire are one and the same
`point. This is generated instantaneously across the entire wire. The showing of the
`baseband signals under two...
`
`Man 1: Mr. Dunner, your side didn't bring up this theory, though, of infringement
`below at trial, right?
`
`Don: Your Honor, what we did bring up was we brought up the position that Dr.
`Prucnal said that the baseband signal is generated by the capacitors and that the
`location shown in these drawings was not inconsistent with that.
`
`Man 1: I thought Dr. Prucnal was really focused on the capacitors relating to the TX
`filter and then maybe in very, very quick passing made reference to these two, or
`maybe four, capacitors related to the mixer. Maybe it's inside the mixer. Maybe it's
`outside the mixer. Is that a fair characterization of what happened below and what
`was really ParkerVision's infringement theory?
`
`Don: That's a fair characterization of what the district court concluded, and it's a
`fair characterization of what Qualcomm is arguing. But it's not a fair
`characterization of what happened below.
`
`Man 1: Where did ParkerVision come forward or testimony about this one point on the
`line is the same as every other point on the line?
`
`Don: Your Honor, the point I was going to make -- and I apologize, I didn't finish
`it -- is that Dr. Prucnal made the point that the capacitors generate the baseband
`signal and that that was consistent with the argument about location of the baseband
`signal.
`
`The case law says, Supreme Court case law, that you can add additional arguments in
`support of an argument you made below. I'm saying the argument was made below, that
`the location of the baseband signal is compatible with the capacitors generating the
`baseband signal. This is another argument reinforcing that point.
`
`Judge Bryson: When you raise Dr. Rizavi's testimony on 1132-O, you were raising that
`in support, as I understand it, of the argument that that he was testifying as to
`the accused device, and saying that every point is the same on, as every other point
`on the circuit, right?
`
`Because, I'm reading Rizavi's testimony as being directed to the Weisskopf prior
`Act, as part of the invalidity case. He specifically addresses Weisskopf. He's not
`talking about the accused device at that point.
`
`Don: It came up in...
`
`Judge Bryson: I don't see why Rizavi helps you.
`
`Don: It came up in the context of Weisskopf, but it was a general statement. It was
`not restricted to only Weisskopf. It is a fact that when the baseband signal is
`Page 3
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 3
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`generated, it is generated instantaneously across the entire wire...
`
`Judge Bryson: Voltage, but not the current, right? I mean, it's a matter of
`electrical...
`
`Don: That's correct. Both...
`
`[crosstalk]
`
`Judge Bryson: OK, so if this is a current-based system, a current-mode system, then
`that proposition doesn't apply, right?
`
`Don: Your honor, I don't know when you say "A current-mode system," excludes the
`concept of voltage creating the baseband signal. I don't know that something being
`called a current-mode system -- there is voltage and there's current, and when the
`carrier signal is generated and goes in through the switches and into the capacitor,
`there is a voltage element, and there's a current element, and the power is a
`function of both voltage and current.
`
`Judge Bryson: Right, but if the signal, if the baseband signal is being expressed in
`terms of current as opposed to variations in voltage. It would seem to me that the
`voltage and the proposition that all voltage on the circuit is the same ceases to
`have significance.
`
`That's my problem with your argument about the nature of Dr. Rizavi's testimony and
`the other testimony about the voltage-mode devices, as applied to what looks to be
`current-mode devices in the accused system.
`
`Don: Your honor, my answer to you would be that the voltage plays a role in this
`system. The baseband signal is created, is measured through voltage across the
`capacitor, and to call it a current-mode system does not exclude what I am
`suggesting is the case here.
`
`I know that Qualcomm disagrees with us on that point, but that is our position.
`
`Don: Dr. Prucnal -- if that's the right pronunciation -- testified that the
`capacitor did not affect that baseband current. The capacitor affected the
`high-frequency current, that's why it's a low-pass filter, and why is that not
`inconsistent with what you just said, that the voltage, the signal is determined by
`the voltage across the capacitor.
`
`Don: Your honor, I apologize. I was reading a note. Could you please repeat that?
`
`Judge Bryson: Sure. Dr. Prucnal said that the way the capacitor works with a
`high-frequency and a low-frequency signal is that in effect, the capacitor serves as
`if it has a closed switch for the high-frequency signal and an open switch for the
`low-frequency signal. In effect, the capacitor is blind to the low-frequency signal,
`which is why the TX filter works the way it does.
`
`But why does that not answer the question as to whether the baseband is being
`generated by the capacitor in the negative?
`
`Don: I have two comments to make with respect to that. First of all, there are
`multiple capacitors. There are capacitors in the mixer, and there are capacitors in
`the PX filter. Each one generates, each one contributes to the baseband signal.
`
`The first one that contributes is the capacitor in the mixer. It does so, it would
`do so even alone, even independently, with the PX filter, and a note that was passed
`up to me say that parties will focus on energy in the accused products, not the
`current.
`
`Both parties agree that the energy is related to voltage, and I have cites A2443 and
`2433.
`
`Page 4
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 4
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`
`Man 1: But didn't Dr. Purcnal also point to this BBOP and BBOM as being the baseband
`signal?
`
`Don: He did, your honor, but the answer is that since everything in this drawing is
`in the mixer -- everything, this is just a schematic. I say Dr. Rizavi's testimony
`is relevant to this point because that BBOP could have been drawn any place along
`this line. It could have been drawn...the capacitor is not after the mixer. Their
`argument is that the capacitor is after the mixer. The capacitor is in the mixer.
`
`Man 1: But it was your infringement theory that this device by Qualcomm, it's
`discharging energy from these capacitors, and that discharged energy generates the
`baseband signal. Is that right?
`
`Don: That's correct.
`
`Man 1: How does that work, exactly? How do you take this discharged energy
`necessarily results in a down-converted signal?
`
`Don: I can only tell you my understanding is that the carrier signal goes into the
`switch. When the switch is opened, it doesn't go through. When it's closed, energy
`passes through the switch into the capacitor, and it opens and closes in order to
`get a discontinuous signal, which is the sampling concept, and then energy is
`discharged from the capacitor every time the switch is opened, energy discharges out
`of the capacitor.
`
`Man 1: And that results in a lower-frequency signal?
`
`Don: That results in a lower-frequency signal.
`
`Man 1: Is there any introduction of a control signal that mixes with that incoming
`carrier signal in order to lower the frequency to the point where you have a
`baseband signal?
`
`Don: The control signal operates the switches, opens and closes the switches, in
`accords with a certain time scheme, and when the switch closes, energy flows
`through.
`
`Man 1: Right, but I'm just trying to understand how you get from a high-frequency
`signal to a low-frequency signal. I understand the prior art as relying on mixing
`the high-frequency signal with some controlled low-frequency signal to...
`
`[crosstalk]
`
`Don: The baseband signal is a lower-frequency signal compared to the carrier signal,
`and it just happens. I don't think there's any disagreement that the lower
`signal...the district court asked the question, "Show me why the baseband signal
`going out is at a lower frequency than the baseband signal going in." That's not the
`issue.
`
`The issue is, "Is the baseband signal going out at a lower frequency than the
`carrier signal?" I don't think there's any disagreement on that point.
`
`Man 1: Right. As I understand the claimed invention, it doesn't rely on a second
`signal being mixed with the carrier signal in order to produce the baseband signal.
`It seems like this Qualcomm mixer is necessarily mixing the carrier signal with some
`lower frequency signal to ultimately produce the baseband signal.
`
`Don: Your Honor, It's doing exactly what the patent calls for. It is injecting a
`carrier high frequency signal. It uses switches. They open and close. When it's
`closed, the energy flows through. When it's open, it discharges. I don't think it's
`doing anything different.
`
`Page 5
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 5
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`Man 1: Is it fair to say that just looking at this circuit diagram, it doesn't look
`any different in any meaningful way from figures 78a and 78b of the patent, which
`show the prior art design? Just looking at the schematic. There's a switch. There's
`a sampling signal. There's a capacitor.
`
`Judge Bryson: As I understand it, just to...everybody agrees that the structure is
`the same. It's just that what ParkerVision claims to have invented is new values at
`lower impedance, a higher value for the capacitor, and a larger aperture for the
`switch. That produced the invention, as I understand it.
`
`If you look at the diagrams themselves, you see the same structure. It's just that
`the difference comes with the values. Isn't that a fair summary of the situation?
`
`Don: I think you summarized it great. It's a lower impedance. It is creating a
`discontinuous signal. If I understood your question correctly, that's basically
`correct. That's what the accused structures do.
`
`Judge Chen, you asked me a question, "Wasn't everything focused on the TX filter?"
`The answer is no, because there's testimony the capacitors were in the mixer. I cite
`10803 and 04, and 10758 and 59. They're also in the TX filter, 11058 and 11054.
`
`The testimony was not about capacitors in the TX filters. That's what got the
`district court confused. There are capacitors in the TX filter. They contribute to
`the baseband signal. They augment the baseband signal, but they are not alone
`responsible for the baseband signal, which is a product of the capacitors coming out
`of the mixer initially.
`
`Judge Bryson: Mr. Dunner, why don't we hear from Qualcomm and we'll give you your
`three minutes of rebuttal time.
`
`Don: OK.
`
`Judge Bryson: Mr. Teeter?
`
`[background noises]
`
`Tim Teeter: Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the Court, most of the argument we
`just heard this morning wasn't presented to the district court. Most of the
`arguments weren't presented at JMOL, and most of the arguments weren't presented at
`trial.
`
`I would direct the panel to the Sage v. Devon case from 1997. It said the new
`infringement arguments, new theories, can't be introduced on appeal. They're citing
`a Supreme Court case that I think had to do with property disputes and takings. It
`has nothing to do with a patent case. Sage v. Devon in 1997 is the one you want to
`look at. You can't raise new infringement arguments and new infringement theories on
`appeal.
`
`Man 1: What did the capacitors do in your mixer?
`
`Tim: There are no capacitors in the mixer.
`
`Man 1: OK. That's disputed. The capacitors are labeled number three on page eight of
`the yellow brief.
`
`Tim: Those capacitors are actually part of the TX filter. I can go through Dr.
`Prucnal's testimony that shows exactly why that's the case.
`
`Man 1: But what do they do?
`
`Tim: Those capacitors are there to attenuate the TX jammer. You have a massive TX
`jammer signal, and that's created only because we're both transmitting and receiving
`at the same time in CDMA.
`
`Page 6
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 6
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`
`Man 1: Trying to filter out the high frequency transmits.
`
`Tim: Exactly. There's a high frequency transmit jammer, and that's what they're
`trying to get rid of.
`
`Judge Bryson: The capacitors are open, in this case, with the switches, in effect,
`closed to the high frequency but open, that is to say shut, to the low frequency.
`Right? The low frequency, in your theory, just goes flying right by.
`
`Tim: That is precisely correct, and that's how they're designed. You can have a
`capacitor do two different things. You could use a capacitor as a sampler, like they
`do in their invention or their prior art Weisskopf, where you use that capacitor to
`generate a voltage baseband signal. You could do that. That's one thing you could do
`with a capacitor.
`
`Another different thing you can do with a capacitor is use it as part of a low-pass
`filter. That's exactly what we do. In the testimony that we cite in our brief, for
`example, Mr. Sorrells says, "Having a down converter followed by a filter, known
`since the antiquity." Dr. Prucnal testified that having a double balanced mixer
`followed by just a low-pass filter, if it's just a low-pass filter, that's not
`infringing, either.
`
`Judge Bryson: To summarize this case in one sentence, I guess, you would say that
`the difference between the ParkerVision invention and Qualcomm's accused devices is
`simply that, sure, Qualcomm uses capacitors, but they don't use capacitors to
`generate the baseband signal. End of discussion.
`
`Tim: That's precisely correct.
`
`Judge Bryson: Tell me why...What's the evidence that shows, as you assert, that
`Qualcomm's devices are pure current-mode devices and not, as Mr. Dunner was arguing,
`dependent in part on voltage variation, as I understood it as his argument?
`
`Tim: That's a great question. We cite a lot of that evidence on page 60, I believe,
`and 61 of our brief, indicating that our devices are current-mode devices. All of
`the design documents we discussed describe, for example, A2308. This is cited on
`page 60 of our brief. The incoming RF signals are converted into current, and then
`the down-converted baseband current describes what they're doing there.
`
`This argument, by the way, was not made at the district court. They never argued
`that our devices were voltage-mode devices. They dropped all the claims against
`voltage-mode devices, as we noted, I believe, footnote 23 of page 61. They dropped
`all of those claims because those particular devices didn't have capacitors at all,
`didn't need them because they didn't have the TX jammer problem.
`
`The only reason we have the capacitors in the TX filter is because we have the TX
`jammer. That's why we have them there. If you look at...
`
`Judge Bryson: Which means that you're doing transmitting and receiving from the same
`device, and therefore you've got to get rid of the noise coming from the
`transmitter.
`
`Tim: Absolutely correct. There's this massive TX jammer signal that comes around
`through, and that's what the TX filter and all those capacitors are there to get rid
`of. When you don't have that in the other devices that they dropped the claims
`against...
`
`Man 1: Before you go any further, I thought they were pointing to capacitors in the
`TX filter, and then they were pointing to an additional set of capacitors that, in
`their view, related to Qualcomm's mixer. Are you trying to say "No, every single
`capacitor that they're pointing to, whether it's on this side or that side of the TX
`filter box, they're all actually inside the TX filter?"
`Page 7
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 7
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`
`Tim: Yes. That's right. This is a new argument they raised on appeal. They flushed
`it out for the first time...
`
`Man 1: They were pointing to these very capacitors before.
`
`Tim: That's right. Dr. Prucnal very clearly indicated, after looking at the
`schematics, that those capacitors are part of the TX filter. He didn't say that the
`capacitors under three in the figure on, It's page 46 of our red brief, he never
`said that those capacitors are part of the mixer and not part of the TX filter. He,
`in fact, identified them as part of the TX filter.
`
`Man 1: Where did he say that?
`
`Tim: It's right at A10806, 23 through 108072. Here's the question. He's just walked
`through all the schematics. He's just walked through the schematic that we show on
`page 46 of our red brief. Here's the question, and this is on direct.
`
`"Now, Dr. Prucnal, where in this figure..." Now he's looking at the figure that
`shows the TX filter, the one they have on A7. Having gone through the schematics,
`he's asked, "Where in this figure are the energy storage devices that you showed us
`with respect to the schematic pages?" Schematic pages refers back to what we see on
`page 46.
`
`Answer, "The energy storage devices follow the mixers, and they're inside this box
`labeled TX filter." That box, labeled TX filter. Then he's asked the question again,
`as well, looking at the same filter, at the same figure, this figure here on yellow
`seven. He's discussing the 342 patent claim 18.
`
`He says, "The capacitors are located in the TX filter right here." The district
`court was right there. He cited that testimony inside of the first passage I
`referred you to. This, by the way, the second one is at A10873. The district court
`referred to that testimony at page 24 of his opinion.
`
`He was right there. He heard Dr. Prucnal say they're in the TX filter right there.
`That's what he understood. That's why they didn't raise the argument at the JMOL
`hearing. They didn't raise the argument in their papers, because they knew the
`district court would shoot it down. He was there. He heard that testimony. He heard
`and saw exactly what Dr. Prucnal was pointing to.
`
`Judge Bryson: Now, there was some discussion at trial of exhibit...We've been
`talking about what originated as the exhibits at 6989 through 6992.1 in the joint
`appendix. Right?
`
`Tim: Right.
`
`Judge Bryson: These are extractions from those exhibits. There was discussion of the
`capacitors at 6992.1, which are downstream from what was otherwise identified as the
`mixer, or the mixer and the TX filter. What do they serve? What role do they serve?
`
`Tim: They are also part of the TX filter. The TX filter is implemented with multiple
`capacitors. They don't just have one capacitor. They have multiple capacitors all in
`a line. What they've done is they're looking at some of them in 6992.1. Those are
`some of the TX filter capacitors, and so are the ones in 6991, the two capacitors
`that are shown there.
`
`What they've done is they've taken, the first time they made this argument, they've
`taken this figure at 6989 and they've said that everything is on page eight of their
`brief. They say there's this box that says mixer IQ, and everything in that box is a
`mixer, and that's what Dr. Prucnal was referring to as "Mixer." We know from the
`testimony we just saw, that wasn't what he was referring to.
`
`Judge Bryson: That's that one piece of testimony, but I believe, if my recollection
`Page 8
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 8
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`serves me, is that in other places he did say that the capacitors that show up on
`6991, just to the right of the BPOP and BPOM, are part of the mixer box. Is my
`recollection correct on that?
`
`Tim: The box that we have at 6989, that box includes the TX filter and the mixers.
`If you look at that, the actual native drawing that you'll have in the appendix,
`6989, that whole drawing, there's no TX filter there because that box includes both
`the TX filter and the mixers.
`
`Judge Bryson: Go ahead.
`
`Tim: Anyway, then his testimony he repeatedly refers to the capacitors as being part
`of the TX filter. That's what the district court acknowledged. Then in his testimony
`he says the down converted signal is created before the baseband hits the TX filter.
`
`This whole argument about are these capacitors really something we can call a mixer
`or not is in some ways a red herring because Dr. Prucnal agreed that the lower
`frequency baseband is created "before the current has reached the capacitor that
`we're talking about."
`
`This new argument that the capacitors are really somehow in the mixer is wrong, but
`it's also a red herring because Dr. Prucnal indicated that the baseband in the lower
`frequency signal is created before the current has reached the capacitor we're
`talking about.
`
`I believe Judge Chen pointed the figure 6991 shows high frequency RF going into the
`circle with the cross, that's a double balance mixer, and it's the low frequency,
`BBOP, going out. That happens before the current hits the mixer.
`
`Judge Bryson: He does testify at one point. What is it, Dr. Prucnal?
`
`Tim: Dr. Prucnal, yeah.
`
`Judge Bryson: Right. He testifies at one point -- and this is at 10947 cited several
`times in the blue and yellow briefs -- that the actual baseband signal on the
`baseband path is created after the capacitor. He calls it capacitor resistor. I'm
`not sure what that means. Presumably he means the capacitor. Why is that not
`evidence that supports the plaintiff's position?
`
`Tim: I'm glad you brought that up because that testimony, we were crossing him. We
`were crossing him on the simulations. You'll recall that his simulations were of the
`ParkerVision design, the ParkerVision schematic.
`
`We were asking him some questions about his simulation of the ParkerVision design
`and then comparing it and juxtaposing it with our design and showing how the two
`were different. If you go through that Q&A, we're asking him about his schematic.
`We're asking him to show where it is in his schematic.
`
`Judge Bryson: Using his schematic? Which schematic is that?
`
`Tim: It's not in the appendix now. It was in appendix K of his report. We cite in
`our brief ad nauseam that he has simulated the ParkerVision design, not ours.
`
`Judge Bryson: You're saying that this is a discussion of the ParkerVision device,
`not the accused device?
`
`Tim: Yes. That capacitor resistor comment that he makes is a comment describing his
`simulation of the ParkerVision design, not the Qualcomm design. If you go through
`the testimony it's A-10944 through 48. In those passages where he's referring to the
`capacitor resistor, he's really pointing and looking at the schematic for the
`ParkerVision design that he simulated.
`
`The district court was there, knew that, saw that, but that was our cross. That's
`Page 9
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1069, pg. 9
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00947
`
`

`

`ParkerVision v Qualcomm CAFC Oral Hearing.txt
`what we were doing. That's a fundamentally different simulation than one of the
`Qualcomm design which he never performed. He never performed a simulation of our
`double balanced mixers because we know what the result would have been. They even
`tried to exclude any cross on the simulation.
`
`Judge Bryson: Mr. Teeter, do you want to spend a few minutes on your cross appeal
`validity?
`
`Tim: Just a few minutes, Your Honor, yes, thank you. I'll save one minute for
`rebuttal. The disagreement regarding Weisskopf was really over the disagreement
`between Mr. Weisskopf and Mr. Sorrells about what values work best downstream. Mr.
`Sorrells thinks it best to have a low impedance load downstream. Mr. Weisskopf
`thought it was best to have a high impedance.
`
`That had no real relevance because Mr. Weisskopf discussed both modes in his paper.
`He discussed both the low impedance load and then a high impedance load. He did
`exactly what Mr. Sorrells did.
`
`Judge Bryson: Isn't the bigger point that the claims don't have any limitation
`relating to discharge and therefore it doesn't matter what the impedance is because
`that all relates to discharge?
`
`Tim: That's exactly correct, and that was our argument below. Frankly that and the
`emails probably...
`
`Judge Bryson: I'm not sure why the whole issue of whether he was disparaging the low
`impedance or not is really material if discharge isn't a limitation.
`
`Tim: It' shouldn't have been material. That's what we argued. We tried to get the
`jury and the judge to say, "Look, whether it discharges or not, it's immaterial of
`all these claims." The judge understood that. The judge said, "Yes, it's
`immaterial," but they raised the argument anyway and apparently it resonated with
`the jurors. It is an immaterial argument. That was one argument they made.
`
`The other is just they said, "Well, it doesn't show generating a baseband using
`stored energy," but the figures in the text showed that. They flat out say it. If we
`look at figure one and figure five -- figure one is for the high impedance, figure
`five is for the low impedance -- it shows generating a baseband. It's right there.
`That's the generation of the baseband.
`
`That's a voltage-mode design. Weisskopf and the invention are both voltage-mode. So
`was [inaudible 37:35] , voltage mode. Our device is current-mode, fundamentally
`different kinds of devices. I'll save my last 20 seconds for rebuttal.
`
`Man 1: Is Weisskopf mixing signals?
`
`Tim: Weisskopf has a switch with the big storage capacitor behind it, so it's doing
`the exact same thing. They would call it an energy sampler. It doesn't have the
`mixer, so it's not doing the kind of double balance mixing that we do.
`
`Judge Bryson: Thank you Mr. Teeter. Mr. Dunner has three minutes of rebuttal time.
`
`[silence]
`
`Don: First of all, let me deal with the current-voltage issue. Judge Bryson, you
`asked a lot of questions on that. I cited page A-2433, which is a Qualcomm
`opposition to ParkerVision's motion for summary judgement. It says, "All invalidity
`experts id