UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON,D.C. 20436
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE ELECTRONIC
`DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY
`AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1065
`
`ORDERNO.28:
`
`CONSTRUING TERMSOF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`(March5, 2018)
`
`The claim terms construed in this Order are done so for the purposesofthis Investigation.
`
`Hereafter, discovery andbriefing in this Investigation shall be governed by the construction of
`
`the claim termsin this Order. Those termsnotin dispute need not be construed. See Vanderlande
`
`Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’! Trade Comm’n, 366 F.3d 1311, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that
`
`the administrative law judge need only construe disputed claim terms).
`
`INTEL 1323
`
`INTEL 1323
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Introduction ........cccccccccccccescescesccsscescceseeseceecenecsecseesersececeseeseesseesesessessuseeceassesseseeeseeesareneenssenenes 1
`
`Il.
`
`— Relevant Law ......cccccccssccessscessecssnceessnecssececceecaeeeseeesseesssecssuceeseeceeesessseenseeesseeensesseseseeseenense2
`
`IT.
`
`The Asserted Patents ............:ceeeceesscceeseceereatesseessessneosseeeseneeaeeseeeeseeensnsecsnnecesnneneenaeecanasenen5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558... cccccsssssnsnesceeceeeeeeseseesacnecaeeeescaseeseseseesessesssersneeeees 5
`
`U.S. Patent No, 9,608,675..vssssssssssssssssssssssssssssesssassssstsssssssssesssinssessseesese
`
`USS. Patent No. 8,838,949... ccccscsesecsscnessecsecssessceseceeeesecseessssssseasssessessesssesaseneenee6
`
`US. Patent No. 8,633,936.......c:ccccccsscssccesecsrecsreceeessecsseessascsssesecesscssssesssssssessscsenenseeas6
`
`USS. Patent No. 9,535,490......cccccccscessssseneeeeescesecnecseessesssasssesssssssssesssssesneeetesseeseenens 7
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art...ees seceesseeeseereecnseseseesseensesereesaeenseenees7
`
`IV.
`
`Construction of Disputed Claim Term..0.......ececceccsseesccsscsssseeseseeseeseessesneeneeesnserseeesnesaees9
`
`A.
`
`558 Patent .......cccsscccssccccssetccceseeerersecesseccesseeeessasecssssesseseseensaseeeeseeeeeeseeseenseeeesnaees 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`“based ON” ....ccccseccsssecsetecescceseceeneesecesceeeseeceneecesseeessecesesesssseesesecsssersnseeeneees9
`
`“current sense amplifier” .......0... seceseseueesseesueessessvesseee aceesseeeecereneees 11
`
`“envelope Signal”oo... eceesseeesscesesscesssessessseseseeseeneseseecsasseeseeseeseesenees 13
`
`B.
`
`7675 Patent .......ccccccscccsssscessecesnccessceesecescersasesssesssacsssecssecesseeessssesnesesssesesaeeeeenessneeeaes 14
`
`1.
`
`“a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals being sent
`SimUItancOUSL]y”..........cceeceesecneceneeeeeeeecesecssscseusessesseesscesesenseesseenseeeneeeneeneees 14
`
`“powertracker” 0.0...eeesesvsnsnseceencnsnnaseceeconneasencnennarecenananscensnnnnnneety 18
`2.
`“single power tracking signal”......|eeeseeaceeseceaceececeseeeseeessenseesseoesseeseeseseeesns20
`3.
`°949 Patent ecscscsesssssssecsssnsseestvsseensssnststssesensssnsunsssassasssessaneaetnesinese,23
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`“means for receiving at a secondary processor, from a primary
`processorvia an inter-chip communication bus, an image header for
`an executable software image for the secondary processorthatis
`stored in memory coupledto the primary processor” (claim 16) ..............23
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS(CONT’D)
`
`Page
`
`2
`
`“means for receiving at the secondary processor, from the primary
`processorvia the inter-chip communication bus, each data segment”
`(olalin 16) cs cscssnnteamnniieasncamarae enemas27
`
`D.
`
`"O36: PALCIE a sccccesereranesvnvecmnuacnn non ane naanTRENT29
`
`12
`
`2:
`
`“programmable streaming processor” (claims 1, 10, 19, 29,38,
`and 67) sssiannnenununenaER29
`
`. convert[] graphics
`.
`“(conversion/executable) instruction(s) [to] .
`data... . [from a] (first/second/different) data precision [to a]...
`(second/first/indicated) data precision” (claims 1, 10, 19, 29, 38, 49,
`i EEGiuscxccicnnunscennceucenmeniaeninrnnnoconnaneeasansicannaiaeninnnsaxl ene esanesaanskiena eRemMieNs 32
`
`il
`
`

`

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

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Bypublication ofa 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 Commissioninstituted
`
`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 isa
`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 1-3 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)(1), 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), (HQ),
`(g)(1).
`
`Id.
`
`The complainant is Qualcomm Incorporated (“Qualcomm”) of San Diego, California.
`
`The named respondentis Apple Inc. (“Apple”) of Cupertino, California. The Commission
`
`Investigative Staff (“Staff”) is also a party to this investigation. Id.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Qualcomm subsequently movedto 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), aff'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.' The parties subsequently submitted Initial and
`
`Reply Claim Construction Briefs in which they narrowed the numberof claim termsto be
`
`construction to ten. I held a one-day combined technologytutorial and Markman hearing on
`
`January 23, 2018, and ordered the parties to submit Bullet-Point briefs the following week. See,
`
`e.g., MarkmanTr. 1-305.
`
`Qualcomm subsequently movedto terminate claims 9 and 10 of the °558 patent from the
`
`investigation based on withdrawal ofallegations 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.
`.
`
`II. Relevant Law
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. Thefirst step is determining the meaning
`
`and scope ofthe patent claimsasserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the
`
`properly construed claimsto the device accused ofinfringing.” Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)(internal citations omitted), aff'd,
`
`517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim construction is a “matter of law exclusively for the court.” Jd. at
`
`970-71. “The construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse claim
`
`' A copyofthe parties’ joint chart can be found at Exhibit JDX-1 to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief.
`
`

`

`languagein order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope ofthe claims.” Embrex,
`Ine. v. se Eng’g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (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. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); 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 |
`
`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 Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v.
`
`Covad Comme’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 whichthe patenteeis entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). “Quite apart from the written description and the prosecutionhistory, the claims
`
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaningofparticular claims terms.”
`
`Id. 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
`
`languageofthe claims themselves,forit is that language that the patentee chose to use to
`
`‘particularly point [ ] out and distinctly claim [ ] the subject matter which the patentee regardsas
`
`his invention.”). The context in whichaterm 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 guidanceas to the meaning of a claim term. Jd.
`
`

`

`Thespecification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usuallyit
`
`is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 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.”Jd. at 1316. “In othercases, the specification may revealan intentional disclaimer, or
`
`disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.” Jd. As a general rule, however, the particular
`
`examples or embodiments discussed in thespecification are not to be read into the claims as
`
`limitations. Jd. at 1323. In the end, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and
`
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description ofthe invention will be .
`
`.
`
`. the correct
`
`construction.” Jd. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC vy. Marposs Societa’ 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.”).
`
`Whenthe intrinsic evidence doesnot establish the meaning of a claim, then extrinsic
`
`evidence(i.e., all evidence-externaHtothe patent and the prosecution history, including
`
`dictionaries, inventor testimony, expert testimony, and learned treatises) may be considered.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence is generally viewed asless reliable than the patent
`itselfand its prosecution history a determining how to define claim terms. /d. at 1317. “The
`
`court may receive extrinsic evidence to educateitself about the invention andthe relevant
`
`technology, but the court may not use extrinsic evidence to arrive at a claim construction that is
`clearly at odds with the construction mandatedbythe intrinsic evidence.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco
`
`Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`If, after a review ofthe 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, cannotbe judicially rewritten in orderto fulfill the axiom of preservingtheir validity.
`
`See Rhine y. 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.” Jd.
`
`Ill.
`
`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 namedinventors 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). Claims1, 6, 8, 12, and 15 are
`
`independentclaims. See *558 patent.”
`
`* A copy of the ’558 patent can be found at Exhibit JX-1 to Qualeomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief. The 558 prosecution history can be found at Exhibit JX-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 independentclaim. See 675 patent.?
`
`Cc,
`
`US. Patent No. 8,838,949
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949 istitled, “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 inventorsare
`
`Nitin Gupta, Daniel H. Kim, Igor Malamant, and Steve Haehnichen. Qualcommasserts claims
`1-8, 10-14, 16, 20, and 2” ofthe ’949 patent. 82 Fed. Reg. 37899 (Aug. 14, 2017). Claims 1, 10,
`
`16, 20, and 21 are independentclaims. See 949 patent.’
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,663,936 istitled, “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 ofthe ’675 patent can be foundat 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.
`* A copy ofthe °949 patent can be foundat 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). Claims1, 10, 19, 29, 38, 49, 55, and 67 are thdevendent claims. See °936 patent.” .
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490 istitled, “Power Saving Techniques in Computing
`
`Devices.” The 7490 patent issued on January 3, 2017, and the named inventors are Vinod
`
`Harimohan Kaushik, Uppinder Singh Babbar, Andrei Danaila, Neven Klacar, Muralidhar
`
`Coimbatore Krishnamoorthy, Arunn Coimbatore Krishnamurthy, Vaibhav Kumar, Vanitha
`
`Aravamudhan Kumar, Shailesh Maheshwari, Alok Mitra, Roshan ThomasPius, and Hariharan
`
`Sukumar. Qualcommasserts claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16, 17, and 31 of the ’490 patent. 82 Fed. Reg.
`
`37899 (Aug. 14, 2017). Claims 1, 16, and 31 are independentclaims. See *490 patent.®
`
`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 October23, 2017.’ In that disclosure, Apple proposed that one of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art of the °936 patent would have had “a Master’s Degree in Electrical
`Engineering, Computer Engineering, or in Computer Science combinedwith at least 2 years of
`
`experience in processor architecture ora related field, or alternatively, a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or in Computer Science combined with atleast 4
`
`years of experience in processorarchitecture or a related field.” /d. at 5. For the °949 patent,
`
`> A copyof the ’936 patent can be found at Exhibit JX-5 to Qualcomm’s Initial Claim
`Construction Brief. The 936 prosecution history can be found at Exhibit JX-10 to Qualcomm’s
`Initial Claim Construction Brief.
`® A copy of the 490 patent can be foundat Exhibit IX-3 to Qualcomm’sInitial Claim
`Construction Brief. The parties do not seek construction of terms from the °490patent.
`7 Excerpts of Apple’s invalidity disclosure can be found at Exhibit SXM-004to the Staff'sInitial
`Claim Construction Brief.
`
`

`

`Apple proposedthat one having ordinaryskill in the art would have had “a Master’s degree in
`| Computer Science or Computer Engineering with at least two years ofexperience 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.”Jd. 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 and/or
`
`interconnection networks, or a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science with two to four years of
`
`experience in multiprocessor systems and/or interconnection networks.” Jd. at 444. Apple’s
`invalidity disclosure did not address the level ofordinary skill for the °558 or ’675 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 Scienceplus at least two years of relevant experience, or a Bachelor’s
`
`degree in oneofthose 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:
`
`e
`
`°558 patent: transmission and powercircuitry for radio frequency devices. See
`
`°558 patent at Abstract, 1:7-9, 30-31 (“Techniquesforefficiently generating a
`
`powersupply for a power amplifier and/or other circuits are described herein.”).
`
`e
`
`’°675 patent: transmission and powercircuitry 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.”).
`
`

`

`e
`
`°936 patent: graphics processing and processorarchitectures. See 936 patent
`at Abstract, 1:7-8, 53-56 (“The disclosure relates to graphics enonesing and, more
`
`particularly, to graphics processorarchitectures.”).
`
`e
`
`°949 patent: multi-processor systems. See ’490 patent at Abstract, 1:20-21,
`
`1:64-2:3 (“Aspects disclosedin the detailed description include power saving
`
`techniques in computing devices.In particular, as data is received by a modem
`
`processorin 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 componentinterconnect express (PCie) interconnectivity bus.”).
`
`e
`
`°490 patent: multi-processor systems. See ’490 patent at Abstract, 1:20-21,
`
`1:64-2:3 (“Aspects disclosed in the detailed description include powersaving
`
`techniques in computing devices.In particular, as data is received 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 componentinterconnect express (PCie) interconnectivity bus.”).
`
`I reserve the right to amend this determination in myfinal initial determination if new,
`
`persuasive informationonthis issue is presented at the evidentiary hearing.
`
`IV.
`
`Construction of Disputed Claim Terms
`
`A.
`
`°558 Patent
`
`“based oni
`1.
`The term “based on” appears in asserted claims1, 6-8, 11-14, 16, and 18-19 ofthe °558
`patent. The parties agree that the term “based on”can begivenits plain and ordinary meaning for
`
`claims 6, 8, 12-14, 16, and 18-19. See Qualcomm PMBat 1; Apple PMBat1; Staff PMBat2.
`
`

`

`Apple arguesthat “based on”is indefinite with respect to asserted claims1, 7, and 11. See, e.g.,
`
`Apple PMBat1.
`
`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 signal,” (2) based onthe 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 PMBat1.
`
`Yet, claims | and 7 contain the phrase “operative to,” which indicates that the claimed
`
`invention has multiple modes ofoperation 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 7). As for claim 11, the
`
`claim term at issue is couched in means-plus-function language that describes an apparatus with
`
`multiple modesof operation. See id. at 12:46-50 (claim 11). The internal inconsistency alleged
`by Apple does notexist, inasmuch asthe claim language does pe require that these different
`
`modesof operation take place simultaneously.
`Nevertheless, in the event Apple maintains its argumentthat the term “based on”as
`
`recited in claims 1, 7, and 11 of the °558 patent are indefinite, I would be willing to entertain
`
`further argument on this issue via a summary determination motionor at the evidentiary hearing.
`In both fhestemees expert testimony would help determine whetheror 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 constructionsare as follows:
`
`Complainant’s Construction|Respondent’s Construction|Staff’s Construction
`
`output”
`
`“amplifier that senses changes|“amplifier that converts a “amplifier that converts a
`
`in current”
`current input to a voltage _
`current input to a voltage
`output”
`
`Atthe hearing, I proposedthat 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.
`
`121:17-20. Apple and the Staff were amenable to this proposal, but Qualcomm was not.
`
`MarkmanTr.at 121:22-122:9, 126:23-127:2. Qualcommstated at the hearing that it would be
`
`amenable to relying on the plain and ordinary meaning for this term. See Qualcomm PMBat 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 PMBat 4.
`
`Qualcomm’s main disagreementwith the construction I proposed at the hearingis thatit
`
`unnecessarily specifies that the outputof the current sense amplifier is a voltage. See Markman
`Tr. at 122:18-123:11, 123:18-124:12. 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 (S1) coupled to the gate of a
`PMOStransistor 334 and its second output (S2) coupled to the gate of an
`NMOStransistor 336.
`
`°558 patent at 4:64-5:2;see also id.at Figs.3, 5.
`
`ll
`
`

`

`The current sensor (164) is coupled to the current sense amplifier and “senses the Ieny
`
`current provided by the envelope amplifier 170a. Sensor 164 passes most ofthe Ieny current to
`
`node A and provides a small sensed current(Isen) to [the current sense amplifier of] the
`
`switcher 160a. The I,e, current is a small fraction of the Ieny current from envelope
`
`amplifier 170a.” °558 patent at 4:58-63; see also id. at Figs. 3, 5.
`
`The specification then explains that the small sensed current(Isen) 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 160a is in an On state when
`current
`sensor164 senses
`a
`high output
`current
`from envelope
`amplifier 170a and provides a low sensed voltage to driver 332. Driver
`332 then provides a low voltage to the gate of PMOStransistor 334 and a
`low voltage to gate of NMOStransistor 336....
`Conversely,
`switcher160ais
`in
`an Off “state when
`current
`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 PMOStransistor 334 and a high voltage to the
`gate of NMOStransistor 336.
`
`°558 patent at 5:7-12 (emphasis added), 5:18-23 (emphasis added).
`
`In one particular design, an “offset added by summer328in FIG. 5 reduces the sensed
`
`current provided to current sense amplifier 330 and results in switcher 1605 being turned On
`
`longer.” ’558 patentat 7:41-44, 7:5-18. The specification thus supports construing the term
`
`“current sense amplifier” such that the output ofthat 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 ofthe intrinsic evidence.
`
`12
`
`

`

`as
`“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 constructionsare as follows:
`
`boundaryof another signal”
`
`Complainant’s Construction|Respondent’s Construction|Staff’s Construction
`
`“signal indicative of the upper|No construction required; “signal indicative of the upper
`
`boundary ofthe output RF
`plain meaning
`boundary of the output RF
`signal”
`signal”
`
`Alternatively: “signal
`indicative of the upper
`
`Theintrinsic 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 andtheStaff. Apple’s proposed constructionfails to accountfor the fact that
`
`the 558 patent does notrefer 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 (whichis
`
`shown by a plot 280) for power amplifier based on the envelope signal.” ’558 patent at 4:22-26
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The ’558 patentalso 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 outputradio
`
`frequency (RF) signal.” ’558 patent at 1:11-26 (emphasis added). In the patented invention,a
`
`13
`
`

`

`“modulator 112 may [ ] determine the envelope ofthe output samples, e.g., by computingthe
`| magnitude ofeach enema sample and averagingthe magnitude across output samples. Modulator
`
`112 may provide an envelope signalindicative ofthe envelope of the output samples.”Id. at
`
`2:57-64 (emphasis added). The patentfurther states that, alternatively, “RF transmitter 120 may
`also includecircuits to generate the envelopesignal, instead of using modulator 112 to generate
`
`the envelope signal.” Jd. at 3:4-6.
`
`The °558 specification teachesthat, as a consequence of the envelope signal, “{t]he PA
`
`supply voltage closely tracks the envelopeof the RFoutsignal over time. Hence,the difference
`
`between PA supply voltage and the envelope of the RFoutsignalis 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 seactitngs ofthe
`
`intrinsic evidence.
`
`B.
`
`°675 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
`“two or more signals being
`“signals for transmission on
`sent simultaneously, each of
`sent simultaneously, each of
`multiple carriers at the same
`
`time to increase the bandwidth|which combines multiple which combines multiple
`for a user”
`carriers at different
`carriers at different
`frequencies”
`
`14
`
`

`

`The dispute between the parties turns on whetherthe claim languageallows each of the
`
`transmit signals that are sent simultaneously to comprise the carrier aggregated transmission to
`
`be sent on one or more frequencycarriers (Qualcomm’s position), or whether the claim language
`
`requires that each such transmit signal must be sent on two or more frequencycarriers (Apple’s
`
`andStaff's position). The evidence of record demonstrates that Qualcomm’s position is correct.
`
`Oneofthe primary aspects of the claimed inventionis illustrated by comparing Figure 4
`
`(showingaprior approach for implementing carrier aggregation with envelope tracking) and
`
`Figure 5 (showing an implementation of the invention)of the ’675patent.
`
`In the system of Figure 4, a separate transmitter (440a through 4404) receives the inphase
`
`(I) and quadrature (Q) componentsfora single transmit signal to be aggregated for transmission.
`
`°675 patent at 5:33-35, 5:63-6:1. Each ofthese transmitters has its own powertracking supply
`
`generation (480a-480k) and power amplifier (460a-460k). 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 improvethe 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 cost, all of which are undesirable.
`
`°675 patent at 6:6-19.
`
`The claimed invention ofthe 675 patent simplifies the circuitry required to implement
`
`simultaneous transmission of multiple RF transmit signals on separate carriers. Figure 5 of the
`
`15
`
`

`

`°675 patent shows how multiple transmit signals on separate carriers can be received,
`aggregated, and transmitted simultaneously with a single poweramplifier. As described in the
`
`specification, multiple transm