`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner,
`v.
`Qualcomm Incorporated
`Patent Owner
`
`Case No: IPR2019-00128 and IPR2019-00129
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`February 27, 2020
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`1
`
`Intel 1341
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`IPR2019-00128
`
`
`
`Agenda
`
`▪ Introduction
`
`▪ Technology Background
`
`▪ U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`▪ Overview of Prior Art
`
`▪ Disputed Issues
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`2
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`3
`
`
`
`Introduction: Instituted Grounds
`
`IPR2019-00128
`
`Grounds
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Ground I
`
`Anticipated by Lee
`
`1, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18
`
`Ground II
`
`Obvious over Lee
`
`7 and 8
`
`Ground III
`
`Obvious over Lee in view of Feasibility Study
`
`1, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18
`
`Grounds
`
`Reference(s)
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`IPR2019-00129
`
`Ground I
`
`Anticipated by Lee
`
`Ground II
`
`Obvious over Lee in view of Youssef
`
`Ground III
`
`Obvious over Lee in view of Feasibility Study
`
`Ground IV
`
`Obvious over Lee in view of Feasibility Study
`and Youssef
`
`2-6
`
`10
`
`2-6
`
`10
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 32; -00129 IPR, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 35-36
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`4
`
`
`
`Introduction: Summary of Disputes
`
`IPR2019-00128 (Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18)
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`If Board adopts Petitioner’s construction of “carrier aggregation”:
`
`▪ Claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 are anticipated by Lee (Ground I)
`
`▪ Claims 7-8 anticipated (Ground I) and/or obvious over Lee (Ground II)
`
`Board need not reach Ground III (obviousness of all challenged claims)
`
`IPR2019-00129 (Claims 2-6, 10)
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`If Board adopts Petitioner’s construction of “carrier aggregation”:
`
`▪ Claims 2-6 are anticipated (Ground I)
`
`▪ Claim 10 is obvious (Ground II)
`
`Board need not reach Grounds III or IV (obviousness of all challenged claims)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`5
`
`
`
`Introduction: Prior Adjudication
`
`▪
`
`January 8, 2018: Qualcomm files ITC action asserting ′356
`patent against Apple.
`
`▪ August 28, 2018:
`ITC ALJ construes “carrier aggregation”
`to mean “simultaneous operation on multiple carriers”
`
`▪ November 9, 2018: Intel files IPR petitions at issue
`
`▪ March 26, 2019: ITC ALJ issues final initial determination
`finding independent claims 1 and 17 of the ′356 patent invalid
`as anticipated by Lee
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 1; -00128 IPR, Ex. 1336 (Markman CC Order) at 16-17, Appx. A at 24, 30;
`-00128 IPR, Paper 8 (Updated Mandatory Notices) at 1
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`6
`
`
`
`Introduction: Prior Adjudication
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1336 (Markman CC Order)
`Appx. A at 24 (annotated)
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1336 (Markman CC Order) Appx. A at 27
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`7
`
`
`
`Technology Background
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`8
`
`
`
`Technology Background:
`Wireless System
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) Fig. 1
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`9
`
`
`
`Technology Background:
`Basic Receiver
`
`Antenna
`
`Bandpass Filter
`
`ωin
`
`BPF
`
`LNA
`
`cosωLOt
`sinωLOt
`
`Low Noise Amplifier
`
`Mixers
`
`Low-pass filters
`
`▪ “antenna for
`receiving signals”
`
`LPF
`
`I
`
`▪ “low noise amplifier
`for amplifying the
`signals”
`
`LPF
`
`Q
`
`▪ “mixers for down
`conversion”
`
`▪ “various filters for
`removing undesired
`signals”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1302 (Fay Decl.) ¶ 33
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`10
`
`
`
`Technology Background:
`Carrier Aggregation
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 14, Fig. 7 (annotated); see also -00128 IPR, Ex. 1325 (Kaukovuori), Fig. 15
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Technology Background:
`Low Noise Amplifiers (LNAs)
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`“A low noise amplifier
`(‘LNA’) is a well-known and
`widely used component of
`the receiver front end.”
`
`“The purpose of the LNA
`is to increase the power of
`a received signal while
`introducing minimal ‘noise.’”
`
`Cascode
`Transistor
`
`Transconductance
`Transistor
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1302 (Fay Decl.) ¶ 35; see also -00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 11, Fig. 6
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`12
`
`
`
`Technology Background:
`Low Noise Amplifiers (LNAs)
`
`▪
`
`“Cascode amplifiers include a
`common source ‘transconductance’
`transistor that receives an input
`voltage signal (Vin) and converts it
`to current with an applied gain, and
`a common gate ‘cascode’ transistor
`that couples the current to the
`output signal.”
`
`Cascode
`Transistor
`
`Transconductance
`Transistor
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1302 (Fay Decl.) ¶ 36; see also -00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 11, Fig. 6
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`13
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`14
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 (“′356 Patent”)
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) at Cover, Abstract
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`15
`
`
`
`′356 Patent: Alleged Problem in the Prior Art
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) at 1:32-40 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`16
`
`
`
`′356 Patent: Alleged Solution
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) at 2:22-25 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`17
`
`
`
`′356 Patent: Alleged Solution
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) at 2:40-45
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`18
`
`
`
`′356 Patent: Overview of Claim 1
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent), Claim 1
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`19
`
`
`
`′356 Patent: Overview of Claim 17
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent), Claim 17
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`20
`
`
`
`Overview of Prior Art
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`21
`
`
`
`Overview of ′356 Patent
`
`Input RF Signal
`
`Load Circuits
`
`Voltage
`
`Switches
`
`Cascode
`Transistors
`
`Gain
`Transistors
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 21; -00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent), Fig. 6A (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`22
`
`
`
`Lee
`
`Output Stages
`(including cascode
`transistors)
`
`Selecting Stages
`
`Input Stages
`
`Amplifier
`Block 202_1
`
`Amplifier
`Block 202_N
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 33; -00128 IPR, Ex. 1335 (Lee), Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`23
`
`
`
`Lee v. ′356 Patent
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 33;
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1335 (Lee), Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 21;
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent), Fig. 6A (annotated)
`
`Sept. 6, 2010
`
`May 25, 2012
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`24
`
`
`
`Youssef
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1409 (Youssef) at 1999, Fig. 1(b)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`25
`
`
`
`Feasibility Study
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1304 (Feasibility Study) at 8 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`26
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`27
`
`
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill In The Art
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 33
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`28
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`▪ Claim Construction of “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`▪ If Intel’s proposed construction, then claims 1, 11, 17, and 18
`anticipated
`
`▪ Does Lee disclose shared and combo modes in the
`Figure 4 embodiment?
`
`▪ If yes, claims 7-8 anticipated
`
`▪ Does Lee disclose cascode transistors?
`
`▪ If yes, claims 2-6 anticipated
`
`▪ Was there reason to combine Youssef with Lee?
`
`▪ If yes, claim 10 obvious
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`29
`
`
`
`Disputed Issues
`
`Alternative Arguments
`
`▪ Was there reason to combine embodiments of Lee?
`▪ IPR -00128, Claims 7-8
`
`▪ Was there reason to combine Lee and Feasibility Study?
`▪ Both IPRs, All Challenged Claims
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`30
`
`
`
`Claim Construction of “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`31
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`“carrier aggregation”
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent Owner
`
`“simultaneous operation
`on multiple carriers”
`
`“[1] simultaneous operation
`on multiple carriers
`
`[2] that are combined as
`a single virtual channel
`
`[3] to provide higher bandwidth”
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 28-32; -00128 IPR, Paper 13 (POR) at 11-30
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`32
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent), Claim 1 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`33
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1302 (Fay Decl.) at ¶ 60 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`34
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) at 1:32-33, 2:53-55 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`35
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`▪ Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
`
`▪ “[T]he 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.” (internal
`quotation marks omitted)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`36
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`ITC Construction of “Carrier Aggregation” Under Phillips
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1336 (Markman CC Order) Appx. A at 30 (annotated)
`
`▪ Rembrandt Wireless Techs., L.P. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`853 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`▪ “the Board in IPR proceedings operates under a broader claim
`construction standard than the federal courts”
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply to POR) at 4
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`37
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`Term
`
`Patent Owner
`
`“carrier aggregation”
`
`[2] that are combined as a single virtual channel
`
`“[1] simultaneous operation on multiple carriers
`
`[3] to provide higher bandwidth”
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`38
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`Testimony of Dr. Foty
`
`Q.
`
`So let’s go through the different parts of that claim
`construction. The first part is “simultaneous operation on
`multiple carriers.” From where did you get that
`requirement for “carrier aggregation”?
`
`A. That first part, the first five words, are explicitly
`found in the specification. That part is found.
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1340 (Foty Tr.) at 69:12-19 (annotated)
`
`▪
`
`“Single virtual channel” and “bandwidth” do not appear in the ′356 patent
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`39
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`Patent Owner relies
`primarily on two sentences
`in the ′356 specification
`that focus on LTE
`
`But the ′356 patent is not
`limited to devices that
`implement LTE
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) at 2:63-67
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent) at 2:50-52 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`40
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`▪
`
`Patent Owner relies on three specific pieces of prior art cited in
`the ′356 prosecution history
`
`Kaukovuori
`
`WO 2012/008705
`
`GB 2472978
`
`Ex. 1325
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`Ex. 2017
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 13 (POR) at 15-17
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`41
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`▪
`
`Patent Owner relies on three specific pieces of prior art cited in
`the ′356 prosecution history
`
`Kaukovuori
`
`WO 2012/008705
`
`GB 2472978
`
`Cited Text
`Never Discussed
`
`Reference
`Never Discussed
`
`Reference
`Never Discussed
`
`Ex. 1325
`
`Ex. 2016
`
`Ex. 2017
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 13 (POR) at 15-17
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`42
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`Hirose
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply to POR) at 11, Fig. 1; Ex. 1314 at 2-6; Ex. 1315 at 7-10; Ex. 1324 Fig. 1
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`43
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1315 (Patent Owner’s June 6, 2014 Response) at 7 (annotated)
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1315 (Patent Owner’s June 6, 2014 Response) at 8 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`44
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply to POR) at 12 (annotated)
`
`▪
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus.,
`839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`▪
`
`“[T]he standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence
`that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature.”
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply to POR) at 10
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`45
`
`
`
`Claim Construction: “Carrier Aggregation”
`
`Petitioner’s Construction Does Not Read Out “Aggregation”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1339 (Second Fay Decl.) at ¶¶ 27, 28 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`46
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 2-6
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`47
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 2-6
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1401 (′356 Patent), Claim 2 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`48
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 2-6
`
`Cascode
`Transistor
`
`Cascode
`Transistor
`
`Transconductance
`Transistor
`
`Transconductance
`Transistor
`
`-00129 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 12, Fig. 6
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1435 (Lee), Fig. 2 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`49
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 2-6
`
`▪ Dr. Fay testified that Lee discloses the claimed cascode transistors
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1402 (Fay Decl.) at ¶¶ 97, 99 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`50
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 2-6
`
`▪ The Board found
`Petitioner’s evidence,
`including Dr. Fay’s
`testimony, sufficient
`to show the claimed
`cascode transistors
`
`-00129 IPR, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 28-29 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`51
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 2-6
`
`▪ Despite Board’s initial finding that Petitioner’s evidence was sufficient
`to show the claimed cascode transistors, Patent Owner did not
`submit evidence that Lee does not disclose cascode transistors
`
`-00129 IPR, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply to POR) at 7
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`52
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 2-6
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1439 (Second Fay Decl.) at ¶ 37; see also -00129 IPR, Ex. 1439 (Second Fay Decl.) at ¶¶ 41, 42
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`53
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 7-8
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`54
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 7-8
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1301 (′356 Patent), Claims 7-8 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`55
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 7-8
`
`▪
`
`Lee figure 4 discloses all elements of claims 7-8, including a
`“feedback circuit”
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 57; -00128 IPR, Ex. 1335 (Lee), Fig. 4 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`56
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 7-8
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 27
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`57
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 7-8
`
`▪ The embodiment of Lee Figure 4 operates in both a “shared
`mode” and a “combo mode”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1335 (Lee) at [0038], [0041] (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`58
`
`
`
`Anticipation by Lee of Claims 7-8
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1339 (Second Fay Decl.) at ¶ 38 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`59
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Embodiments of Lee
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`60
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Embodiments of Lee
`
`▪ Motivation to incorporate the feedback circuit of Lee Figure 4
`into the signal amplification circuit of Lee Figure 2 is directly
`supported by Lee’s specification
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 3 (Petition) at 70-71
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1335 (Lee) at [0039] (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`61
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Embodiments of Lee
`
`Institution Decision
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 29
`
`▪ Neither Patent Owner nor Dr. Foty states that a skilled artisan
`would not be motivated to incorporate the feedback circuit of
`Lee figure 4 into the signal amplification circuit of Lee figure 2
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 20 (Petitioner’s Reply to POR) at 21
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`62
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Youssef
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`63
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Youssef
`
`Claim 10
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1401 (′356 Patent), Claim 10 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`64
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Youssef
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1409 (Youssef) at 1999, Fig. 1(b)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`65
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Youssef
`
`Lee
`
`Youssef
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1435 (Lee) at [0002] (annotated); -00129 IPR, Ex. 1409 (Youssef) at 1999 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`66
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Youssef
`
`Fay Declaration
`
`Youssef
`
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1402 (Fay Decl.) at ¶¶ 125, 126 (annotated); Ex. 1439 (Second Fay Decl.) at ¶¶ 44, 45 (annotated);
`-00129 IPR, Ex. 1409 (Youssef) at 1999-2000 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`67
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Feasibility Study
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`68
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Feasibility Study
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1304 (Feasibility Study) at 8-9 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`69
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Feasibility Study
`
`Lee and Feasibility Study Are Analogous Art
`
`-00128 IPR, Paper 9 (Institution Decision) at 15 (annotated); -00128 IPR, Paper 13 (POR) at 19 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`70
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Feasibility Study
`
`▪
`
`“A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to turn
`to the amplification circuit of Lee in order to process the carrier-aggregated
`input RF signal of the Feasibility Study and would have been motivated to
`combine those references.”
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`▪
`
`“The Feasibility Study recognizes that wireless mobile devices can be configured to
`operate with input RF signals employing carrier aggregation.”
`
`“The Feasibility Study further suggests that an ideal receiver for noncontiguous
`intra-band and inter-band carrier aggregation would have multiple RF front-ends.”
`
`“The Feasibility Study characterizes an ‘RF front end’ as having its own gain control
`(amplifier), mixer, and analog-to-digital conversion.”
`
`“Lee teaches multiple amplifier blocks providing output to different receivers.”
`
`“Lee thus teaches the exact type of receiver that the Feasibility Study recognizes
`would work with signals employing carrier aggregation.”
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1302 (Fay Decl.) at ¶ 134
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`71
`
`
`
`Motivation to Combine Lee and Feasibility Study
`
`-00128 IPR, Ex. 1302 (Fay Decl.) at ¶ 135 (annotated)
`
`WH_Intel_IPR_356_v11
`
`72
`
`