Page 312
`
` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
` ____________________________
` BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
` ____________________________
` DR. MICHAEL FARMWALD and RPX CORPORATION
` Petitioner
`
` v.
` PARKERVISION, INC.,
` Patent Owner
`
` ____________________________
`
` Case IPR2014-00946
` Patent 6,266,518
` Case IPR2014-00947
` Patent 6,061,551
`
` Case IPR2014-00948
` Patent 6,370,371
` VOLUME 3 OF 3
`
` Friday, June 5, 2015 - 9:35 a.m.
`
` Oral deposition of BRUCE A. FETTE,
`Ph.D., a witness, taken by Petitioner, pursuant
`to Notice, held at the Offices of Sterne,
`Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
`York Avenue NW, Washington, DC, before RYAN K.
`BLACK, a Registered Professional Reporter,
`Certified Livenote Reporter and Notary Public
`for the District of Columbia.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`15
`16
`
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 1
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 313
`
`Page 315
`
`1 I N D E X
`2 TESTIMONY OF: BRUCE A. FETTE, Ph.D. PAGE
`3 By Mr. Bailey...........................316, 467
`4 By Mr. Lee...................................456
`
`5 6
`
` E X H I B I T S
`7 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE
`8 No. 1061 a hand-made equation on yellow
`9 legal paper containing an Eb/N0
`10 equation.........................373
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`23
`
` OBLON SPIVAK
`4 BY: W. TODD BAKER, ESQ.
`5 1940 Duke Street
`6 Alexandria, VA 22314
`7 703.412.6383
`8 tbaker@oblon.com
`9 Representing - Dr. Michael Farmwald and RPX
`10 Corporation
`11
`12
`13 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES T. BAILEY
`14 BY: JAMES T. BAILEY, ESQ.
`15 504 West 136th Street, Suite 1B
`16 New York, New York 10031
`17 917.626.1356
`18 jtb@jtbaileylaw.com
`19 Representing - Dr. Michael Farmwald and RPX
`20 Corporation
`21
`22
`23 Veritext Legal Solutions
` Mid-Atlantic Region
` 1250 Eye Street NW - Suite 1201
`24 Washington, D.C. 20005
`25
`
`Page 314
`
`Page 316
`
`1 Whereupon --
`2 BRUCE FETTE, Ph.D.,
`3 called to testify, having been first duly sworn
`4 or affirmed, was examined and testified as
`5 follows:
`6 EXAMINATION (Cont'd)
`7 BY MR. BAILEY:
`8 Q. Good morning, Dr. Fette.
`9 A. Good morning, sir.
`10 Q. You had some testimony yesterday about
`11 energy per bit, and that's Eb/N0?
`12 A. Yes, sir.
`13 Q. And that's a concept from
`14 communication theory, right?
`15 A. Yes, it is, sir.
`16 Q. And you know one of the places you'll
`17 typically find that is in a link budget, right?
`18 A. Absolutely, sir.
`19 Q. And so when you do it on link budget,
`20 you would see the Eb/N0 figure addressing between
`21 antennas -- one antenna and another, if you were
`22 in a wireless system, right?
`23 A. Normally, a link budget will include
`24 properties of the antenna gain, properties of
`25 the channel, losses for coax, transmit powers,
`
`2 (Pages 313 - 316)
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd):
`
`1 2
`
`3 4
`
` STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C
`5 BY: MICHAEL Q. LEE, ESQ.
`6 JOHN HARRIS CURRY, ESQ.
`7 CHRISTOPHER B. TOKARCZYK, ESQ.
`8 1100 New York Avenue, NW
`9 Washington, D.C. 20005
`10 202.772.8674
`11 mlee@skgf.com
`12 jcurry@skgf.com
`13 ctokarczyk@skgf.com
`14 Representing - ParkerVision, Inc.
`15
`16
`17 ALSO PRESENT:
`18 Thomas F. Presson, Esq. - ParkerVision
`19 Gregory L. Pollaro
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 2
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 317
`1 receive sensitivity information, properties of
`2 modulation. All kinds of things go into a link
`3 budget analysis. And in the end it ends up
`4 being what is the Eb/N0 presented to the
`5 demodulator in order to be able to convert
`6 the waveform into a bullion bit, or, often, a
`7 symbol. A symbol usually means to people that
`8 there may be more than one bit in the symbol.
`9 Q. And you have one reference that I
`10 found to it in your declaration. It's Page 21
`11 to 22, Paragraph 50. You're talking about Eb.
`12 A. Page 22?
`13 Q. Page 21 to 22 is the paragraph.
`14 A. Oh, paragraph.
`15 Q. It's Paragraph 50 at Page 21 to 22.
`16 A. Well, that explains Eb.
`17 Q. I'm sorry. What did you say?
`18 A. Paragraph -- oh, Paragraph 50? I'm
`19 sorry. I'm catching up.
`20 Yes, sir.
`21 Q. All right. And you don't have any
`22 citation for that there, right?
`23 A. It's quite common in the industry.
`24 I thought there might have been a cite to
`25 textbook, but it's not in this paragraph, sir.
`
`Page 318
`
`1 Sklar is the textbook that I think
`2 I've cited.
`3 Q. Sklar?
`4 A. Yeah. Dr. Bernie Sklar.
`5 Q. S-k-l-r -- l-a-r, right?
`6 A. Yes, sir.
`7 And he teaches a great course on
`8 communication theory, and that's where we start.
`9 Q. Okay. Did you have any discussions
`10 with anyone from ParkerVision, Mr. Sorrells,
`11 Mr. Rawlins, about analyzing things in terms of
`12 this communication theory of Eb/N0?
`13 A. It's -- yes, we did.
`14 Q. Okay.
`15 A. In Florida.
`16 Q. Did they -- did the ParkerVision
`17 guys provide you any of their white papers that
`18 discussed this concept?
`19 A. I'm not certain that I can remember
`20 whether or not they did.
`21 Q. You certainly discussed the topic.
`22 They may have showed you the papers. You're not
`23 sure?
`24 A. I'm not sure if they went into Eb/N0 or
`25 some other representations.
`
`Page 319
`
`1 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned the Sklar
`2 text, but you think -- the Sklar textbook is a
`3 communication theory book, right?
`4 A. Yes, sir.
`5 Q. It's not like a circuit book like
`6 you'd find from Dr. Razavi?
`7 A. That's correct, sir.
`8 Q. Have you ever seen anybody talking
`9 about RF circuits evaluated using Eb/N0, as
`10 opposed to channels?
`11 A. I'm pretty sure Pettai, which was
`12 also referenced in our work, discussed Eb/N0 as a
`13 function of the noise contributions that various
`14 types of certain components contribute, some of
`15 which give you white Gaussian noise, some of
`16 which give you spot noise. Various properties
`17 of noise were discussed by Pettai.
`18 Q. And is Pettai one you cite in your
`19 report?
`20 A. I'm certain.
`21 Q. Yesterday a number of times
`22 you mentioned five, and sometimes four,
`23 characteristics of an energy sampler. And
`24 I went back through your declaration and I
`25 realized I don't know which ones you're talking
`
`Page 320
`1 about. So are there five? Are there four?
`2 What do you think?
`3 A. We can turn to the declaration, and
`4 I believe it may be Paragraph 68 where they're
`5 specifically listed -- let me just check that --
`6 such as energy transfer from the carrier,
`7 subsampling the carrier over multiple apertures,
`8 non-negligible amounts of energy, storage
`9 modules, preventing accurate voltage
`10 reproduction R, and, in fact, five examples
`11 of the words frequently used to reflect
`12 properties -- design properties that are visible
`13 in evidence of energy transfer design.
`14 Q. Okay. Let me see them the way I can
`15 get them. I'm going to start on Page 23 of your
`16 declaration.
`17 A. Twenty-three? Okay.
`18 Q. All right. So in paragraph -- you
`19 have a heading -- withdraw that question.
`20 On Page 23, you have a heading,
`21 The Energy Transfer. And then in Paragraph 55,
`22 second sentence, you say, first, energy transfer
`23 embodiments transfer non-negligible amounts of
`24 energy from the carrier signal during sampling
`25 apertures. Is that one of your principles of --
`
`3 (Pages 317 - 320)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 3
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 321
`
`1 A. Non-negligible energy. That's one of
`2 the principles.
`3 Q. All right. And if I go up to Page 29,
`4 Paragraph 63, you say, a third important feature
`5 of energy transfer embodiments is that they
`6 generate the down-converted signal by
`7 discharging the storage module capacitor
`8 when the sampling switch is open.
`9 So that's another principle, right?
`10 A. Yes, sir.
`11 Q. And you numbered it three. So where
`12 is -- what are the other -- is there a two in
`13 between here? Can you just look there and tell
`14 me what's two?
`15 Is it the accurate voltage
`16 reproduction? That's not numbered, but it's in
`17 Paragraph 57.
`18 A. That is probably intended to be Number
`19 2. I'm sorry that we were not careful about
`20 getting that properly enumerated.
`21 I often refer to, when discussing it
`22 outside of a formal document, as squashing the
`23 symbol during the sample time. And you can see
`24 in the example Figure 57D where -- what the --
`25 the input voltage normally would have been
`
`Page 323
`1 amounts of energy from the carrier signal
`2 during sampling aperture, does that, in your
`3 mind, require both to the capacitor and the load
`4 during the sampling aperture?
`5 A. Perhaps you could restate that
`6 question and make it clear.
`7 Q. Right. I'm just reading, from your
`8 declaration, Paragraph 55. And it says -- your
`9 first principle is, quote, energy transfer
`10 embodiments transfer non-negligible amounts of
`11 energy from the carrier signal during sampling
`12 apertures.
`13 So if you're talking about during
`14 sampling apertures, are you talking about to the
`15 storage module or capacitor, or are you saying
`16 that also requires non-negligible energy to be
`17 transferred to the load at the same time?
`18 A. Well, in general, the load is
`19 connected in parallel with the storage module.
`20 So while you are transferring non-negligible
`21 amounts of energy to the storage module, you
`22 will also be transferring some energy to the
`23 load impedance. Even when the switch
`24 subsequently opens, you will continue to deliver
`25 more of that energy from the storage module
`
`Page 322
`1 sinusoidal during the time of the sampling,
`2 the voltage is squashed because energy's being
`3 transferred into the storage module.
`4 Q. Right. And so, in particular,
`5 what you describe there, you're saying it's
`6 non-negligible energy being transferred to the
`7 storage module that results in that squashing,
`8 correct?
`9 A. Yes, sir.
`10 Q. And so looking back at Principle
`11 Number 1, non-negligible energy transfer, that
`12 can be from the carrier signal to the storage
`13 module, correct?
`14 A. Yes, sir. And from the storage
`15 module to the downhill circuits, as we discussed
`16 yesterday, whether you tend to think of the
`17 downhill circuits as a load impedance or as a
`18 subsequent demodulation circuit of some kind
`19 that exhibits a low-impedance load to the
`20 storage module, often, it's represented as a
`21 resistor in the schematic diagram, even though
`22 it may be a more elaborate circuit that appears
`23 to give a resistive impedance.
`24 Q. Okay. And when you say your first
`25 principle is the transfer of non-negligible
`
`Page 324
`1 through the load. So it's a somewhat continuous
`2 process there, --
`3 Q. All right.
`4 A. -- so there's only a couple of steps
`5 involved.
`6 Q. I'm just trying to get clear,
`7 when you say non-negligible energy transfer
`8 is one of your characteristics, does it require
`9 non-negligible energy transfer to the capacitor
`10 or non-negligible energy transfer to the load or
`11 both?
`12 A. In my opinion, that requires both,
`13 and it occurs over multiple apertures. And
`14 that's a really important property, as well,
`15 because you're interested in acquiring energy
`16 from throughout the -- what we call the symbol
`17 time or the bit time or the baud time, depending
`18 upon which textbook you've been reading. You
`19 want to capture all of that energy over that
`20 entire period of time. So it is a
`21 multiple-aperture process.
`22 Q. All right. So I now have three
`23 written down. What are the two other principles
`24 or features of energy sampling?
`25 A. We'll go back to 68, I think.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`4 (Pages 321 - 324)
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 4
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 325
`1 Subsampling over aperture periods
`2 to transfer energy is one.
`3 Energy transfer, subsampling the
`4 carrier over apertures, wherein energy is
`5 transferred from the carrier and integrated
`6 using said integrator.
`7 Q. Are you reading the claim language
`8 from the bullet points?
`9 A. I'm reading under the bullet points,
`10 yes, sir.
`11 Q. But you're reading from the quoted
`12 parts that are from the claim language?
`13 A. Yes, sir. I'm not mentioning the
`14 claim numbers at this time.
`15 Q. Okay.
`16 A. I'm just mentioning how these are
`17 contributors to the features that reflect energy
`18 transfer.
`19 Q. Right.
`20 Well, I wanted to get the five
`21 features and then tie them to the claims
`22 afterwards. If you want to tell me which
`23 featured claims are, that's fine.
`24 Let's take the first bullet on Page
`25 32. You say that Claims 1, 82 and 90 of the
`
`Page 326
`1 '518 patent are directed to energy transfer
`2 embodiments because they recite sampling,
`3 subsampling over aperture periods to transfer
`4 energy from the carrier signal.
`5 Okay. So which of the principles
`6 are required by that claim language that you're
`7 quoting?
`8 A. Sampling and subsampling --
`9 Q. Is that --
`10 A. -- over an aperture to transfer
`11 energy. That's a principle.
`12 Q. Is that the same as Principle 1,
`13 transferring non-negligible energy?
`14 A. Well, I think there are a number of
`15 points of distinguishment here. And, in this
`16 case, this is just one principle, sampling -- or
`17 subsampling, if you will, over aperture periods
`18 to transfer energy from the carrier signal.
`19 Q. Well, do you understand that language
`20 that you just read, the quoted language in the
`21 first bullet point on Page 32, to require that
`22 the energy transferred be non-negligible?
`23 A. I think we're going to get to the
`24 non-negligible part on the third bullet, so if
`25 we can just, you know, treat each of these as,
`
`Page 327
`1 you know, contributing pieces, all of which
`2 represent examples of energy transfer
`3 embodiments.
`4 Q. I'm happy to do that, but we also have
`5 to treat each individual claim as an individual
`6 invention. And I'd like to know if, when you're
`7 applying this language -- you said this language
`8 makes these Claims 1, 82 and 90 of '518 energy
`9 transfer embodiments. And I want to know
`10 whether, in your mind, the language, over
`11 aperture periods to transfer energy from
`12 the carrier signal, means it has to be
`13 non-negligible energy in what you described as
`14 your first principle?
`15 A. Well, when we're looking at the exact
`16 language of the claims in the patents, we can
`17 address the details of what Claim 1, Claim 82,
`18 Claim 90 of '518 actually and specifically say,
`19 and it will likely include more than one of
`20 these bullet points.
`21 So I think if we're going to try to
`22 parse these down to claims, we'd have to look
`23 at it from the perspective of the patent.
`24 Q. Sure. I mean, look at the claim if
`25 you want to look at it in context.
`
`Page 328
`
`1 I want to know, does -- Claim 1 of the
`2 '518 patent, is there language in that one that
`3 requires there to be non-negligible energy
`4 transfer?
`5 It's Exhibit 1002.
`6 A. All right. So you now want me to
`7 address Claim 1 of Patent '518?
`8 Q. Yeah. So it's a method, right?
`9 A. What's claimed as one, a method for
`10 down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband
`11 signal comprising the steps of --
`12 Q. Right. And there's four steps, right?
`13 A. And now we're going to have multiple
`14 parts.
`15 Q. Four steps, right? They're numbered.
`16 A. They are -- they are -- yes,
`17 they're numbered, and they're numbered up to
`18 four.
`19 Q. All right. And so the first step --
`20 A. Receiving carrier signal that includes
`21 at least one of amplitude modulation, phase
`22 modulation, frequency modulation, at a frequency
`23 lower than a carrier frequency of the carrier
`24 signal.
`25 Q. All right. Stop there. That's --
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`5 (Pages 325 - 328)
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 5
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 329
`1 A. Okay. So that's a modulated signal.
`2 Q. Yeah. Modulated signal.
`3 Standard RF stuff, right?
`4 A. Part 2.
`5 Q. All right. Wait. Excuse me. I just
`6 want to ask a couple questions, otherwise we'll
`7 put it in too big of chunks.
`8 Step 1 is standard RF stuff, right?
`9 A. It says we're going to deal with a
`10 modulated signal.
`11 Q. Right. And, basically, when you say
`12 amplitude phase or frequency, that basically
`13 covers the universe of modulation, right?
`14 A. Most of it.
`15 Q. Yeah. And anytime you're doing an RF,
`16 any kind of radio thing, you don't just send an
`17 unmodulated signal. You always want to send
`18 some information. So pretty much any radio
`19 since the beginning of time is going to be
`20 receiving a carrier signal with some form of
`21 modulation, correct?
`22 A. Yes, sir.
`23 Q. Okay. Let's go on to Step 2. Go
`24 ahead and read it.
`25 A. There's a lot of detail behind that
`
`Page 330
`1 statement that is greatly simplifying what you
`2 just said and the way you just said it, but I
`3 don't think it's appropriate at this time to
`4 get into the variances and details, because, in
`5 general, what we're talking about here is the
`6 modulated parts.
`7 Sampling the carrier signal over
`8 aperture periods to transfer energy from the
`9 carrier signal at an aliasing rate; an aliasing
`10 rate determined according to the frequency of
`11 the carrier signal, divided by N, where N
`12 indicates a harmonic or subharmonic with a
`13 carrier signal. Now, there's multiple points
`14 here, first of which is transferring energy.
`15 So now it's specifically claiming
`16 energy transfer as part of Step 2, specifically
`17 claiming aliasing. And if you want me to
`18 describe aliasing, we can talk about that.
`19 Q. Well, do I need you to? I mean,
`20 there's no opinion by you that any of the prior
`21 art doesn't show aliasing, right?
`22 A. I'm just addressing the claim, sir.
`23 Q. I know. But in terms of what we're
`24 fighting about here, I got your declaration.
`25 You've got no opinion that any of the prior art
`
`Page 331
`
`1 relied on for this patent fails to show
`2 aliasing, correct?
`3 A. So energy transfer in Step 2 is part
`4 of the novelty of this patent.
`5 Q. Right. But I want to understand,
`6 when you see the words transfer energy from the
`7 carrier signal in Step 2 of Claim 1 of the '518,
`8 does that require, in your mind, transferring
`9 energy in non-negligible amounts?
`10 A. Yes, it does.
`11 Q. Even though the words non-negligible
`12 are not there?
`13 A. Yes, sir.
`14 Q. Right.
`15 And even though in the '551 patent,
`16 which is the parent to this, every claim puts
`17 those words non-negligible into the claim. You
`18 know that, right?
`19 A. Yes.
`20 Q. You say, it doesn't matter. It's
`21 left out. I'm going to read non-negligible in,
`22 correct?
`23 A. Yes, sir.
`24 Q. Okay. And when you now read
`25 this Step 2 of Claim 1 of the '518 to require
`
`Page 332
`1 non-negligible energy transfer, does it require
`2 that non-negligible energy transfer to both the
`3 capacitor and the load?
`4 A. In general, they were in parallel,
`5 so I'm not understanding why you would attempt
`6 to differentiate that. Because while energy's
`7 stored in storage module; for instance, a
`8 capacitor, it is continuously delivered to load.
`9 So it's continuously delivered to load, as we
`10 described earlier, even when the switch is open.
`11 Q. Why does it say that -- what words
`12 in the claim require me to continuously deliver
`13 energy to a load? Just Claim 1 of the '518,
`14 show me the words.
`15 A. I'm just telling you as we have
`16 discussed it, sir.
`17 Q. Look, at some point, sir, you and I
`18 are going to have to talk about these claims.
`19 I got your principles. But you can't just tell
`20 me, I've got a bunch of principles and that
`21 makes an energy sampler different than a sample
`22 and hold and then every claim addresses an
`23 energy sampler. You've gotta tell me where the
`24 claim language brings in the limitations. And
`25 if you're telling me that this claim requires
`
`6 (Pages 329 - 332)
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 6
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 333
`1 energy delivered to a load, I want to know where
`2 it is.
`3 A. All right. So Part 2, it has said,
`4 you're going to take energy, not voltage.
`5 You're going to take energy from the carrier
`6 signal and store it and deliver it to a load.
`7 Q. Where does it say store and deliver
`8 to a load? Which words make me inquire that?
`9 A. It's part of the energy transfer
`10 process that's been discussed throughout the
`11 specification, sir.
`12 Q. Okay. So you're reading storage and
`13 transfer to a load in from the specification?
`14 A. Yes.
`15 Q. Okay.
`16 A. Part 3, integrating energy over the
`17 aperture periods. Notice the plural. And so
`18 integrating means that the storage module is
`19 accumulating energy from many of these aperture
`20 periods in order to integrate the energy over
`21 the entire symbol, bit, period of time
`22 consisting of multiple apertures.
`23 Q. All right. And you know that the
`24 PTO, as of right now, disagrees with the way you
`25 interpret that, correct?
`
`Page 335
`
`1 disagreement.
`2 Q. Regardless, when you are applying
`3 Step 4 of Claim 1, you're applying your
`4 understanding, your proposed claim construction
`5 of generating -- that generating step.
`6 MR. LEE: Objection. That's a
`7 misrepresentation or a mischaracterization of
`8 his earlier testimony when he was saying that
`9 he's construing a basis on a person of ordinary
`10 skill in the art. It's not him. It's a person
`11 of ordinary skill in the art.
`12 MR. BAILEY: Mike, that's a ridiculous
`13 objection.
`14 BY MR. BAILEY:
`15 Q. Go ahead.
`16 You're applying your claim
`17 construction of Step 4 of Claim 1 of the '518
`18 in your analysis in your declaration, correct?
`19 A. I'm understanding it as I've
`20 explained, sir.
`21 Q. Right. But that's the understanding
`22 you're applying in opining that this claim is
`23 not taught in prior art, correct?
`24 A. Yes, sir.
`25 Q. Okay. Go to 82.
`
`Page 334
`
`Page 336
`
`1 A. I think we've spoken to that, sir.
`2 Q. Right. And now when you are applying
`3 this claim, Step 3, you're using your definition
`4 of integrating, not the PTO's, correct?
`5 A. That's correct. And we've spoken to
`6 that.
`7 Q. Okay.
`8 A. And four, generating the baseband
`9 signal from the integrated energy.
`10 Q. And that one you think requires the
`11 discharge, right?
`12 A. That is, essentially, the notion of
`13 taking that energy, the discharge process, and
`14 applying it to some downhill circuitry.
`15 Q. Right.
`16 And we went over this yesterday. You
`17 know the Patent Office doesn't agree with you on
`18 that one either, right?
`19 A. I'm not aware that that's a
`20 disagreement.
`21 Q. You think the Patent Office accepted
`22 your discharge stuff -- or, actually, it was the
`23 patent owner's discharge stuff at that point,
`24 but ...
`25 A. I was unaware that that's a
`
`1 A. Eighty-two, an apparatus for
`2 down-converting a carrier signal to a baseband
`3 signal. Carrier signal including at least one
`4 of amplitude phase or frequency variations, at a
`5 frequency lower than the carrier frequency of
`6 carrier signal, the apparatus comprising: Means
`7 for sampling the carrier signal over aperture
`8 periods to transfer energy from the carrier
`9 signal at an aliasing rate, and the aliasing
`10 rate determined according to the frequency of
`11 the carrier signal, divided by N, wherein N
`12 indicates a harmonic or subharmonic of the
`13 carrier signal; B, means for integrating energy
`14 over the aperture periods; and, C, means for
`15 generating the baseband signal from the
`16 integrated energy.
`17 Q. Okay. So breaking it up in pieces,
`18 it's fairly similar language to Claim 1 that we
`19 already went over. In Claim 82, am I correct
`20 that you are reading the means for sampling the
`21 carrier signal over apertures to transfer energy
`22 from the carrier signal at an aliasing rate to
`23 require transfer of energy, first in
`24 non-negligible amounts; is that correct?
`25 A. Yes, sir.
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`7 (Pages 333 - 336)
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 7
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 337
`1 Q. And you're also requiring it to be to
`2 the load; is that correct?
`3 A. The language of the claim is, a
`4 means for generating baseband signal from the
`5 integrated energy. So while, you know, people
`6 might choose to infer from that that it's energy
`7 delivered to the load, perhaps there's other
`8 ways of accomplishing that generation process
`9 other than load resistance.
`10 As I've said before, there could be
`11 downhill circuits that do something with that
`12 energy. And this is broadly allowing for
`13 circuits, other than a load resistance, to
`14 receive that energy and do something with it.
`15 Q. So you -- all right. Let me just go
`16 back to my question on the means for sampling
`17 the carrier signal over aperture periods to
`18 transfer energy from the carrier signal.
`19 You are interpreting that to require
`20 the transfer of energy in non-negligible
`21 amounts, correct?
`22 A. Yes. Because energy transfer implies
`23 the notion of non-negligible energy.
`24 Q. Okay. And you are requiring that
`25 energy transfer in the language I just quoted
`
`Page 339
`
`1 require discharge of energy from the storage
`2 device, correct?
`3 A. Including intervals of time, other
`4 than when the -- other than when the switch is
`5 closed.
`6 Q. Right.
`7 And that's what you're applying in
`8 your opinions in your declaration, correct?
`9 A. Yes, sir.
`10 Q. Okay. Claim 90.
`11 A. Claim 90, an apparatus for
`12 down-converting a first signal to a second
`13 signal comprising means for subsampling the
`14 first signal over aperture periods to transfer
`15 energy from the first signal, means for
`16 integrating transferred energy over aperture
`17 periods, means for generating the second signal
`18 from the integrated energy, means for impedance
`19 matching in at least one of said first signal
`20 and said second signal.
`21 Q. Okay. So the means for subsampling
`22 first signal over aperture periods to transfer
`23 energy from the first signal, you are, in fact,
`24 interpreting that to require energy in
`25 non-negligible amounts, correct?
`
`Page 338
`
`Page 340
`
`1 you to be to the load?
`2 A. To the storage module and subsequent
`3 downhill circuitry.
`4 Q. Okay. And the means for integrating
`5 the energy over the aperture periods, you're
`6 dealing with that the same way you dealt with
`7 integrating in the previous claim?
`8 A. Let me be sure I understand your
`9 question. When you say I'm dealing with
`10 integrating --
`11 Q. Yeah, you --
`12 A. -- the same way ...
`13 Q. Yes. The means for integrating energy
`14 over the aperture period, you say it has to be
`15 one integration that accumulates over multiple
`16 aperture periods, correct?
`17 A. Yes, sir.
`18 Q. All right. And that's the
`19 construction you're applying in your
`20 opinions in your declaration, correct?
`21 A. Relative to this claim.
`22 Q. Right.
`23 And then the last element, the means
`24 for generating the baseband signal from the
`25 integrated energy, you are reading that to
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. And you are, in fact, interpreting
`3 that to require that the energy be transferred
`4 to the load, correct?
`5 A. Through a sampling process.
`6 Q. Is that correct? Yes, through a
`7 sampling process, just so we're clear.
`8 A. Yes. Through a sam -- through a
`9 subsampling process.
`10 Q. Okay. And then the means for
`11 integrating the transferred energy over the
`12 aperture periods, you're interpreting that to
`13 require multiple -- accumulation over multiple
`14 aperture periods, correct?
`15 A. In a storage module.
`16 Q. Right. And that's the construction
`17 that you're applying, correct?
`18 A. Yes.
`19 Q. And then means for generating
`20 the second signal from the integrated energy,
`21 you interpret that to require a discharge of
`22 energy from the capacitor, correct?
`23 A. Yes.
`24 Q. And that's the construction you're
`25 applying, correct?
`
`Veritext Legal Solutions
`215-241-1000 ~ 610-434-8588 ~ 302-571-0510 ~ 202-803-8830
`
`8 (Pages 337 - 340)
`
`Farmwald and RPX Exhibit 1067, pg. 8
`Farmwald and RPX v. ParkerVision
`IPR2014-00948
`
`

`

`Page 341
`
`Page 343
`
`1 A. Yes.
`2 Q. And then the means for impedance
`3 matching, you're applying the ordinary meaning
`4 of impedance matching, right?
`5 A. So let me speak a little bit about
`6 impedance matching. In traditional sample and
`7 holds as taught by all the prior literature, the
`8 output impedance is extremely high. It's nearly
`9 impossible to impedance match to meg ohm, gig
`10 ohm, even 500-K ohm kinds of functionality and
`11 receive from it significant energy. Whereas,
`12 with the lower-impedance circuits,
`13 we are, in fact, able to impedance match and
`14 deliver energy, which is why we can talk about
`15 energy per bit, divided by noise energy per bit,
`16 versus talking about voltage versus voltage
`17 noise.
`18 Q. Okay. Well, looking at Claim 90,
`19 though, the actual limitation is, means for
`20 impedance matching at least one of said first
`21 signal and said second signal. Now, you
`22 understand in a patent when I say said data
`23 sig -- or said first signal, I'm referring to a
`24 first signal that I've identified earlier in the
`25 claim.
`
`1 or non-obvious being added by putting input
`2 impedance matching on a down-conversion circuit,
`3 is there?
`4 A. Well, in patent law, sir, let me point
`5 out examples. You can have a four-legged chair.
`6 You can have a four-legged chair with a back.
`7 You can have a four-legged chair with an
`8 armrest. You can patent all those things -- we
`9 can talk about a Barcelona chair and how it's
`10 different from a Davis chair -- all of which
`11 have some standard properties, understood
`12 properties, but still patents are feasible by
`13 combination.
`14 So in this case, there's a combination
`15 going on that's being talked about, and that's
`16 the combination we're talking about.
`17 Q. Well, let me ask you this: Let's
`18 say I took a receiver, and everything about
`19 the -- let me withdraw it.
`20 Let's say a took a down-converter.
`21 Everything about the down-converter is known in
`22 the prior art. We'll take that as a given. I
`23 come to you and I say, Dr. Fette, I have a great
`24 invention. I'm going to put input impedance
`25 matchin