UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C. 20436
`
`In the Matter of
`
`.Inv. No. 337-TA-1065
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`
`THEREOF
`
`ORDER NO. 28:
`
`CONSTRUING TERMS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`(March 5, 2018)
`
`The claim terms construed in this Order are done so for the purposes of this Investigation.
`
`Hereafter, discovery and briefing in this Investigation shall be governed by the construction of
`
`the claim terms in this Order. Those terms not in dispute need not be construed. See Vanderlande
`
`Indus. Nederland BVv. Int ’1 Trade Comm ’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that
`
`the administrative law judge need only construe disputed claim terms).
`
`INTEL 1123
`
`INTEL 1123
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`, Relevant Law ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`The Asserted Patents ............................................................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`US. Patent No. 8,698,558 ........................................................................................ 5
`
`US. Patent No. 96086756
`
`U.S. PatentNo. 8,838,949 ........................................................................................6
`
`US. Patent No. 8,633,936 ........................................................................................ 6
`
`US. Patent No. 9,535,490 ............ 7
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................................ 7
`
`IV.
`
`Construction of Disputed Claim Terms ............................................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`’558 Patent ............................................................................................................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`. 3.
`
`“based on” ..................................................................................................I..9
`
`“current sense amplifier” ......................
`
`.................... 11
`
`“envelope signal” ....................................................................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`’675 Patent ............................................................................................................. 14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals being sent
`simultaneously” .......................................................................................... 14
`
`“power tracker” ........................................................................................... 18
`
`“single power tracking signal” ...... ............................................................ 20
`
`C.
`
`9419 Patent .............................................................................................................23
`
`1.
`
`“means for receiving at a secondary processor, from a primary
`processor via an inter-chip communication bus, an image header for
`an executable software image for the secondary processor that is
`stored in memory coupled to the primary processor” (claim 16) .............. 23
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`“means for receiving at the secondary processor, from the primary
`processor via the inter-chip communication bus, each data segmen ”
`(claim 16) ...................................................................................................27
`
`’936 Patent ............................................................................................................. 29
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“programmable streaming processor” (claims 1, 10, 19, 29,38,
`and 6?) .......................................................................................................29
`
`. convertfl graphics
`.
`“(conversionfexecutablfi instruction(s) [to] .
`data. .
`. [from a] (firstfsecondfdifferent) data precision [to a] .
`.
`.
`(secondffirstfindieated) data precision” (claims 1, 10, 19, 29, 38, 49,
`55, and 67) ................................................................................................. 32
`
`ii
`
`

`

`The following abbreviations may be used in this Order:
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`Complainants or Complainants’
`
`Initial Markman Brief
`
`Post-Markman “Bullet-Point” Brief
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`
`Declaration
`
`Electronic Document Imaging System
`
`
`
`
`Respondents or Respondents’
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply Markman Brief
`
`iii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`By publication of a notice in the Federal Register on August 14, 2017, pursuant to
`
`subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Commission instituted
`
`this investigation to determine:
`
`Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a
`violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the
`United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States
`after importation of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency
`and processing components thereof by reason of infringement of one or
`more of claims 1—27, 29, 38, 49, 55—60, 67, and 68 of the ’936 patent
`[U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936]; claims 1 and 6—20 of the ’558 patent [U.S.
`Patent No. 8,698,558]; claims 9, 10, 12, 14, and 20—22 of the ’658 patent
`[U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658]; claims 1—8, 10—14, 16, 20, and 22 of the ’949
`patent [U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949]; claims 1—6, 8, 10, 16, 17, and 31 of the
`’490 patent [U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490]; and claims l—3 and 7—14 of the
`’675 patent [U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675]; and whether an industry in the
`United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
`
`82 Fed. Reg. 37899 (Aug. 14, 2017).
`
`Additionally, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), the Commission ordered:
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(l), the
`presiding Administrative Law Judge shall
`take evidence or other
`information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested
`persons with respect
`to the public interest
`in this investigation, as
`appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a
`recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the
`statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1),
`(g)(1)-
`
`Id.
`
`The complainant is Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) of San Diego, California.
`
`The named respondent is Apple Inc. (“Apple”) of Cupertino, California. The Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) is also a party to this investigation. Id.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Qualcomm subsequently moved to terminate the ’658 patent from the investigation based
`
`on withdrawal of allegations from the complaint. I granted the motion in an initial determination.
`
`Order No. 6 (Aug. 30, 2017), afl’d, Notice of Comm’n Non—Review (Sept. 20, 2017).
`
`The parties submitted a Joint Claim Construction Chart (EDIS Doc. No. 629504)
`
`identifying claim terms that needed construction.1 The parties subsequently submitted Initial and
`
`"Reply Claim Construction Briefs in which they narrowed the number of claim terms to be
`
`construction to ten. I held a one-day combined technology tutorial and Markman hearing on
`
`January 23, 2018, and ordered the parties to submit Bullet-Point briefs the following week. See,
`
`e. g., Markman Tr. 1-305.
`
`Qualcomm subsequently moved to terminate claims 9 and 10 of the ’558 patent from the
`
`investigation based on withdrawal of allegations from the complaint. I granted the motion in an
`
`initial determination. Order No. 24 (Feb. 20, 2018). That initial determination remains pending
`before the Commission.
`9
`
`II.
`
`' Relevant Law
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning
`
`and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the
`
`properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc, 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (internal citations omitted), afl’d,
`
`517 US. 370 (1996). Claim construction is a “matter of law exclusively for the court.” Id. at
`
`970-71. “The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim
`
`1 A copy of the parties’ joint chart can be found at Exhibit JDX-l to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief.
`
`

`

`language in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embr‘ex,
`
`Inc. v. IServ. Eng ’9; Corp, 216 F.3d 1343, 134?r (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Claim construction focuses on the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claims
`
`themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips v. A WH Corp, 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bone); see also Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. As the Federal Circuit
`
`in Phillips explained, courts must analyze each of these components to determine the “ordinary
`
`and customary meaning of a claim term” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in art at the I
`
`time of the invention. 415 F.3d at 1313. “Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of
`
`the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Bell Ail. Network Saws, Inc. v.
`
`Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc, 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude?” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Imam/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Syn, Inc, 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
`
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claims terms.”
`
`1d. at 1314; see also Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc, 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001) (“In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the
`
`language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to
`
`‘particularly point [ ] out and distinctly claim [ ] the subject matter which the patentee regards as
`
`his invention”). The context in which a term is used in an asserted claim can be “highly
`
`instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, other claims in the same patent, asserted or
`
`unasserted, may also provide guidance as to the meaning of a claim term. Id.
`
`

`

`The specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it
`
`is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315 (quoting Vie‘mnics Corp. v. Concepironic, Inc, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
`
`“[T] he specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that
`
`differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography
`
`governs.” Id. at 1316. “In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or
`
`disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.” Id. As a general rule, however, the particular
`
`examples or embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims as
`
`limitations. Id. at 1323. In the end, “[t] he construction that stays true to the claim language and
`
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be .
`
`.
`
`. the correct
`
`construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Sociera ’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d
`
`1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`In addition to the claims and the specification, the prosecution history should be
`
`examined, if in evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Liebel—Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad,
`
`Inc, 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The prosecution history can “often inform the meaning
`
`of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether
`
`the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower
`
`than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Chimie v. PPG Indus. Inc. , 402
`
`F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in
`
`construing a claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution”).
`
`When the intrinsic evidence does not establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence (i.e., all evidence external-to the patent and the prosecution history, including
`
`dictionaries, inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered-
`
`4
`
`

`

`Philh'ps, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed as less reliable than the patent
`
`itself and its prosecution history in determining how to define claim terms. Id. at 1317. “The
`
`court may receive extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and the relevant
`
`technology, but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is
`
`clearly at odds with the construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Eben
`
`Mfg. Cat, 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`If, after a review of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a claim term remains ambiguous,
`
`the claim should be construed so as to maintain its validity. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. Claims,
`
`however, cannot be judicially rewritten in order to fulfill the axiom of preserving their validity.
`
`See Rhine v. Casio, Inc, 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed- Cir. 1999). Thus, “if the only claim
`
`construction that is consistent with the claim’s language and the written description renders the
`
`claim invalid, then the axiom does not apply and the claim is simply invalid.” Id.
`
`111.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 is titled, “Low-Voltage Power-Efficient Envelope
`
`Tracker.” The ’558 patent issued on April 15, 2014, and the named inventors are Lennart K.
`
`Mathe, Thomas Domenick Marra, and Todd R. Sutton. Qualcomm asserts claims 1, 6-8, and
`
`11-20 of the ’558 patent. 82 Fed. Reg. 37899 (Aug. 14, 2017). Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, and 15 are
`
`independent claims. See ”558 patent.2
`
`2 A copy of the ’558 patent can be found at Exhibit JX-l to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief. The ”558 prosecution history can be found at Exhibit IX-6 to Qualcomm’s
`Initial Claim Construction Brief.
`
`

`

`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 9, 608,675 is titled, “Power Tracker for Multiple Transmit
`
`Signals Sent Simultaneously.” The ’675 patent issued on March 28, 2017, and the named
`
`inventor is Alexander Dorosenco. Qualcomm asserts claims 1-3 and 7-14 of the ’675 patent. 82
`
`Fed. Reg. 37899 (Aug. 14,2017). Claim 1 is an independent claim. See ’675 patent.3
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949 is titled, “Direct Scatter Loading of Executable
`
`Software Image From a Primary Processor to One or More Secondary Processor in a Multi-
`
`Processor System.” The ’949 patent issued on September 16, 2014, and the named inventors are
`
`Nitin Gupta, Daniel H. Kim, Igor Malamant, and Steve Haehnichen. Qualcomm asserts claims
`
`1-8, 10-14, 16, 20, and 22 ofthe ’949 patent. 82 Fed. Reg. 37899 (Aug. 14, 2017). Claims 1, 10,
`
`16, 20, and 21 are independent claims. See ’949 patent.4
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,663,936 is titled, “Programmable Streaming Processor With
`
`Mixed Precision Instruction Execution.” The ’936 patent issued on January 21, 2014, and the
`
`named inventors are Yun Du, Chun Yu, Guofang Jiao, and Stephen Molloy. Qualcomm asserts
`
`3 A copy of the ’675 patent can be found at Exhibit JX-2 to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief. The ’675 prosecution history can be found at Exhibit JX—7 to Qualcomm’s
`Initial Claim Construction Brief.
`
`4 A copy of the ’949 patent can be found at Exhibit JX—4 to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief. The ’949 prosecution history can be found at Exhibit JX—9 to Qualcomm’s
`Initial Claim Construction Brief.
`
`

`

`claims 1-27, 29, 38, 49, 55-60, 67, and 68 of the ’936 patent. 82 Fed. Reg. 37899 (Aug. 14,
`
`2017). Claims 1, 10, 19, 29, 38, 49, 55, and 67 are independent claims. See ’936 patents.
`
`E.
`
`US. Patent No. 9,535,490
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490 is titled, “Power Saving Techniques in Computing
`
`Devices.” The ’490 patent issued on January 3, 2017, and the named inventors are Vinod
`
`Harimohan Kaushik, Uppindcr Singh Babbar, Andrei Danaila, Neven Klacar, Muralidhar
`
`Coimbatore Krishnamoorthy, Arunn Coimbatore Krishnamurthy, Vaibhav Kumar, Vanitha
`
`Aravamudhan Kumar, Shailesh Maheshwari, Alok Mitra, Roshan Thomas Pius, and Hariharan
`
`Sukumar. Qualcomm asserts claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16, 17, and 31 of the ’490 patent. 82 Fed. Reg.
`
`37899 (Aug. 14, 2017). Claims 1, l6, and 31 are independent claims. See ”490 patent.6
`
`F.
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`Apple addressed the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Ground Rule 7.5 Disclosure of
`
`Invalidity Contentions on October 23, 20-17.7 In that disclosure, Apple proposed that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the ’936 patent would have had “a Master’s Degree in Electrical
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, or in Computer Science combined with at least 2 years of
`
`experience in processor architecture or a related field, or alternatively, a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or in Computer Science combined with at least 4
`
`years of experience in processor architecture or a related field.” Id. at 5. For the ’949 patent,
`
`5 A copy of the ’936 patent can be found at Exhibit JX-S to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief. The ’936 prosecution history can be found at Exhibit JX-lO to Qualcomm’s
`Initial Claim Construction Brief.
`
`6 A copy of the ’490 patent can be found at Exhibit JX-3 to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief. The parties do not seek construction of terms from the ’490 patent.
`
`7 Excerpts of Apple’s invalidity disclosure can be found at Exhibit SXM-004 to the Staff’s Initial
`Claim Construction Brief.
`
`

`

`Apple proposed that one having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s degree in
`
`Computer Science or Computer Engineering with at least two years of experience in
`
`multiprocessor systems, or a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or Computer Engineering
`
`with at least two to four years of experience in multiprocessor systems.” Id. at 197. For the ’490
`
`patent, Apple proposed that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Master’s degree in
`
`Computer Science with at least two years of experience in multiprocessor systems andfor
`
`interconnection networks, or a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science with two to four years of
`
`experience in multiprocessor systems andr’or interconnection networks.” Id. at 444. Apple’s
`
`invalidity disclosure did not address the level ofordinary skill for the ’558 or ’6?5 patent.
`
`In view of Apple’s proposals, I find that one of ordinary skill in the relevant art for each
`
`of the asserted patents would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer
`
`Engineering, or Computer Science plus at least two years of relevant experience, or a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of relevant experience. “Relevant
`
`experience,” in the context of the asserted patents, refers to experience with mobile device
`
`architecture as well as the following:
`
`o
`
`’558 patent: transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices. See
`
`”558 patent at Abstract, 1:7-9, 30-31 (“Techniques for efficiently generating a
`
`power supply for a power amplifier andfor other circuits are described herein”).
`
`0
`
`’675 patent: transmission and power circuitry for radio frequency devices. See
`
`’675 patent at Abstract, 1:8-10, 35-38 (“The present disclosure relates generally to
`
`electronics, and more specifically to techniques for generating a power supply
`
`voltage for a circuit such as an amplifier.”).
`
`

`

`o
`
`“936 patent: graphics processing and processor architectures- See ’936 patent
`
`at Abstract, 1:7—8, 53-56 (“The disclosure relates to graphics processing and, more
`
`particularly, to graphics processor architectures”).
`
`-
`
`’949 patent: multi-processor systems. See ’490 patent at Abstract, 1:20-21,
`
`1:64-23 (“Aspects disclosed in the detailed description include power saving
`
`techniques in computing devices. In particular, as data is received by a modern
`
`processor in a computing device, the data is held until the expiration of a modem
`
`timer. The data is then passed to an application processor in the computing device
`
`over a peripheral component interconnect express (PCie) interconnectivity bus”).
`
`0
`
`’490 patent: multi-processor systems. See ’490 patent at Abstract, 1:20-21,
`
`1:64—23 (“Aspects disclosed in the detailed description include power saving
`
`techniques in computing devices. In particular, as data islreceived by a modem
`
`processor in a computing device, the data is held until the expiration of a modem
`
`timer. The data is then passed to an application processor in the computing device
`
`over a peripheral component interconnect express (PCie) interconnectivity bus”).
`
`I reserve the right to amend this determination in my final initial determination if new,
`
`persuasive information on this issue is presented at the evidentiary hearing.
`
`IV.
`
`Construction of Disputed Claim Terms
`
`A.
`
`’558 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“based on”
`
`The term “based on” appears in asserted claims 1, 6-8, 11-14, 16, and 18-19 ofthe ’558
`
`patent. The parties agree that the term “based on” can be given its plain and ordinary meaning for
`
`claims 6, 8, 12-14, 16, and 18-19. See Qualcomm PMB at 1; Apple PMB at 1; Staff PMB at 2.
`
`

`

`Apple argues that “based on” is indefinite with respect to asserted claims 1, 'i', and 11. See, e. g. ,
`
`Apple PMB at 1.
`
`Apple argues that claims 1, 7, and 11 are indefinite because, as used in those claims, the
`
`various “based on” clauses are internally inconsistent with each other:
`
`Claim 1 requires an “envelope amplifier” that generates a “second supply
`voltage” that must be (1) “based on the envelope signal and the boosted
`supply signa ,” (2) based on the first supply voltage,” and (3) based on the
`first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage.”
`
`Claims 7 [] and 11 state that the “second supply voltage” must be “based
`on” the boosted supply voltage, and not “based on” the boosted supply
`voltage.
`
`Apple PMB at 1.
`
`Yet, claims 1 and 7 contain the phrase “operative to,” which indicates that the claimed
`
`invention has multiple modes of operation in which a second supply voltage can be generated in
`
`different ways. See ’558 patent at 10:65-11:3 (claim 1), 11:64-67 (claim 'i’). As for claim 11, the
`
`claim term at issue is couched in means—plus—function language that describes an apparatus with
`
`multiple modes of operation. See id. at 12:46-50 (claim Ill). The internal inconsistency alleged
`by Apple does not exist, inasmuch as the claim language does not require that these different
`
`modes of operation take place simultaneously.
`
`Nevertheless, in the event Apple maintains its argument that the term “based on” as
`
`recited in claims 1, T, and 11 of the ’558 patent are indefinite, I would be willing to entertain
`
`further argument on this issue via a summary determination motion or at the evidentiary hearing.
`
`In both instances expert testimony would help determine whether or not this term would be
`
`indefinite to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
`
`10
`
`

`

`2.
`
`“current sense amplifier”
`
`The claim term “current sense amplifier” is recited in asserted claims 12 and 15 of the
`
`’558 patent. The parties’ original proposed constructions are as follows:
`
`Complainant’s Construction Respondent’s Construction
`
`Staff’s Construction
`
`output”
`
`“amplifier that senses changes
`in current”
`
`“amplifier that converts a
`current input to a voltage '
`output”
`
`“amplifier that converts a
`current input to a voltage
`
`At the hearing, I proposed that this term should be construed to mean “an amplifier that,
`
`after sensing a current input, converts a current input to a voltage output.” Markman Tr-
`
`121117-20. Apple and the Staff were amenable to this proposal, but Qualcomm was not.
`
`Markman Tr. at 121 :22-122:9, 12623-1272. Qualcomm stated at the hearing that it would be
`
`amenable to relying on the plain and ordinary meaning for this term. See Qualcomm PMB at 2.
`
`Subsequently, the Staff proposed a construction of “amplifier that converts a current to a
`
`voltage” or, alternately, “amplifier that produces a voltage from a current.” Staff PMB at 4.
`
`Qualcomm’s main disagreement with the construction I proposed at the hearing is that it
`
`unnecessarily specifies that the output of the current sense amplifier is a voltage. See Markman
`
`Tr. at 122:18-123:l I, 123118-124112. Yet, the ’558 patent specification supports construing
`
`“current sense amplifier” such that the output of that amplifier is a voltage signal.
`
`The patent specification instructs:
`
`Within switcher 160a, a current sense amplifier 330 has its input coupled
`to current sensor 164 and its output coupled to an input of a switcher
`driver 332. Driver 332 has its first output (S 1) coupled to the gate of a
`PMOS transistor 334 and its second output (82) coupled to the gate of an
`NMOS transistor 336.
`
`’558 patent at 4:64-52; see also id. at Figs. 3, 5.
`
`ll
`
`

`

`The current sensor (164) is coupled to the current sense amplifier and “senses the IE,“r
`
`current provided by the envelope amplifier 1700. Sensor 164 passes. most of the 1ch current to
`
`node A and provides a small sensed current (15m) to [the current sense amplifier of] the
`
`switcher 160a. The lsen current is a small fraction of the 15.“. current from envelope
`
`amplifier 170:1. ” ’558 patent at 4:58-63; see also id. at Figs. 3, 5.
`
`The specification then explains that the small sensed current (153”) from the current sensor
`
`is converted by the current sense amplifier into a voltage signal for use by the driver to control
`
`the downstream circuitry of the switcher:
`
`Switcher 160a operates as follows- Switcher l60o is in an 0n state when
`current
`sensor 164 senses
`a
`high output
`current
`from envelope
`amplifier 1700 and provides a low sensed voltage to driver 332. Driver
`332 then provides a low voltage to the gate of PMOS transistor 334 and a
`low voltage to gate of NMOS transistor 336. .
`.
`.
`
`current
`state when
`an Off
`in
`switcher 160a is
`Conversely,
`sensor 164 senses a low output current from envelope amplifier 170a and
`provides a high sensed voltage to driver 332. Driver 332 then provides a
`high voltage to the gate of PMOS transistor 334 and a high voltage to the
`gate of NMOS transistor 336.
`
`’558 patent at 5:?-12 (emphasis added), 5:18-23 (emphasis added).
`
`In one particular design, an “offset added by summer 328 in FIG. 5 reduces the sensed
`
`current provided to current sense amplifier 330 and results in switcher 160?) being turned On
`
`longer.” ’558 patent at 7:41-44, 7:5-18. The specification thus supports construing the term
`
`“current sense amplifier” such that the output of that amplifier is a voltage signal.
`
`I therefore construe the term “current sense amplifier” to mean “amplifier that produces a
`
`voltage from a current,” a construction that comports with the teachings of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`12
`
`

`

`3.
`
`“envelope signal”
`
`- The claim term “envelope signal” appears in asserted claims 1, 6-8, 11, 12, and 18 of the
`
`’558 patent. The parties’ proposed constructions are as follows:
`
`Complainant’s Construction Respondent’s Construction
`
`Staffs Construction
`
`boundary of another signal”
`
`“signal indicative of the upper No construction required;
`boundary ofthe output RF
`plain meaning
`signal”
`
`“signal indicative of the upper
`boundary of the output RF
`signal”
`
`Alternatively: “signal
`indicative of the upper
`
`The intrinsic evidence demonstrates that the claimed “envelope signal” should be
`
`construed to mean “signal indicative of the upper boundary of the output RF signal,” the position
`
`taken by Qualcomm and the Staff. Apple’s proposed construction fails to account for the fact that
`
`the ’558 patent does not refer to the envelope of any signal other than an RF signal.
`
`In particular, the ”558 patent is directed to a wireless communication device, and the only
`
`type of signals described in the patent are RF signals. See ’558 patent at 2:43-56; Fig. 1 (wireless
`
`device 100). The specification states: “Envelope tracker 230 receives an envelope signal
`
`indicative ofthe envelope ofthe RFout signal and generates the PA supply voltage (which is
`
`shown by a plot 280) for power amplifier based on the envelope signal.” ’558 patent at 4:22-26
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The ’558 patent also states: “[A] transmitter may process (e.g., encode and modulate)
`
`data to generate output samples. The tranSmitter may further condition (e.g., convert to analog,
`
`filter, frequency upconvert, and amplify) the output samples to generate an output radio
`
`frequency (RF) signal.” ’558 patent at 1:11-26 (emphasis added). In the patented inventiou, a
`
`13
`
`

`

`“modulator 112 may [ ] determine the envelope of the output samples, e.g., by computing the
`
`I magnitude of each output sample and averaginglthe magnitude across output samples. Modulator
`
`112 may provide an envelope signal indicative ofthe envelope of the output samples.” Id. at
`
`2:57-64 (emphasis added). The patent further states that, alternatively, “RF transmitter 120 may
`
`also include circuits to generate the envelope signal, instead of using modulator 112 to generate
`
`the envelope signal.” Id. at 3:4-6.
`
`The ’558 specification teaches that, as a consequence of 1the envelope signal, “[t] he PA
`
`supply voltage closely tracks the envelope of the RFout signal over time. Hence, the difference
`
`between PA supply voltage and the envelope of the RFout signal is small, which results in less
`
`wasted power.” ’558 patent at 4:26-30.
`
`I therefore construe the term “envelope signal” to mean “signal indicative ofthe upper
`
`boundary ofthe output RF signal,” a construction that comports with the teachings of the
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`B.
`
`’65 Patent
`
`1.
`
`“a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals being sent
`simultaneously”
`
`The claim term “plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals being sent
`
`simultaneously” appears in asserted claim 1 of the ’675 patent. The parties’ proposed
`
`constructions are as follows:
`
`Complainant’s Construction Respondent’s Construction
`
`Staff’s Construction
`
`frequencies”
`
`“two or more signals being
`“signals for transmission on
`sent simultaneously, each of
`multiple carriers at the same
`time to increase the bandwidth which combines multiple
`for a user”
`carriers at different
`frequencies”
`
`“two or more signals being
`sent simultaneously, each of
`which combines multiple
`carriers at different
`
`14
`
`

`

`The dispute between the parties turns on whether the claim language allows each of the
`
`transmit signals that are sent simultaneously to comprise the carrier aggregated transmission to
`
`be sent on one or more frequency carriers (Qualcomm’s position), or whether the claim language
`
`requires that each such transmit signal must be sent on two or more frequency carriers (Apple’s
`
`and Staff’s position). The evidence of record demonstrates that Qualcomm’s position is correct.
`
`One of the primary aspects of the claimed invention is illustrated by comparing Figure 4
`
`(showing a prior approach for implementing carrier aggregation with envelope tracking) and
`
`Figure 5 (showing an implementation of the invention) of the 3675 patent.
`
`In the system of Figure 4, a separate transmitter (440a through 440k) receives the inphase
`
`(I) and quadrature (Q) components for a single transmit signal to be aggregated for transmission.
`
`”.675 patent at 5:33-35, 5163-6: 1. Each of these transmitters has its own power tracking supply
`
`generation (480a-480k) and power amplifier (46061-46016). The power amplified outputs of each
`
`of these individual transmitters is then summed for transmission on the antenna.
`
`The specification describes the problem with the prior art approach shown in Figure 4:
`
`As shown in FIG. 4, power tracking may be used to improve the efficiency
`of PAS 460a to 460k. Each transmit signal may be processed by a
`respective transmitter 430 using a separate sets of mixers 448 and 449 and
`PA 460. Multiple transmit signals may be sent on different frequencies
`(e.g., different carriers)
`and hence may have increased envelope
`bandwidth. The increased envelope bandwidth may be addressed by using
`a separate transmitter 430 for each transmit signal. Each transmitter 430
`may then handle the envelope bandwidth of one transmit signal. However,
`operating multiple transmitters 430 concurrently for multiple transmit
`signals may result
`in more circuits, higher power consumption, and
`increased