United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`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 1442
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`
`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 1442
`Intel v. Qualcomm
`IPR2019-00129
`
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
