IPR2020-01265
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444
`
`Issue Date: September 19, 2006
`Title: WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK (WLAN) USING UNIVERSAL
`FREQUENCY TRANSLATION TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING MULTI-PHASE
`EMBODIMENTS AND CIRCUIT IMPLEMENTATIONS
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01265
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444
`
`Issue Date: September 19, 2006
`Title: WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK (WLAN) USING UNIVERSAL
`FREQUENCY TRANSLATION TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING MULTI-PHASE
`EMBODIMENTS AND CIRCUIT IMPLEMENTATIONS
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01265
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`INTEL’S EXPERT MAKES CRITICAL ADMISSIONS AGAINST
`INTEL’S POSITION ....................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. TAYLOE’S SYSTEM IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN
`PARKERVISION’S CLAIMED INVENTION. ............................................. 6
`
`IV. PARKERVION’S CONSTRUCTION IS BASED ON HOW
`TECHNOLOGY ACTUALLY WORK; INTEL RELIES ON A NAMING
`CONVENTION ............................................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`THE TEXAS COURT’S UPDATED CONSTRUCTION ............................ 10
`
`VI.
`
`INTEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF “STORAGE ELEMENT” IS WRONG. . 10
`
`A. A “Storage Element” Is Only an Element of an Energy Transfer
`System. ................................................................................................ 10
`
`B.
`
`A “Storage Element” Drives a Low Impedance Load. ........................ 13
`
`VII. TAYLOE DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “STORAGE ELEMENT” ................ 14
`
`A.
`
`Intel Admits That a “Storage Element” Stores Non-Negligible
`Amounts of Energy. ............................................................................ 14
`
`B.
`
`The Capacitors in Tayloe Hold Negligible Amounts Of Energy. ....... 17
`
`1.
`
`Energy in a Tayloe Capacitor. .................................................. 18
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`STEP 1: Calculating available energy. ........................... 18
`
`STEP 2: Calculating energy in capacitor. ....................... 21
`
`STEP 3: Percentage of available energy. ....................... 22
`
`2.
`
`Energy in ParkerVision’s storage element. ............................... 23
`
`a.
`
`STEP 1: Calculating available energy. ........................... 23
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`STEP 2: Energy stored on storage element. ................... 24
`
`STEP 3: Percentage of available energy. ....................... 25
`
`C.
`
`Tayloe Does Not Disclose An Energy Transfer System. .................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`First, while the parties’ constructions of “storage element” are different, the
`
`parties agree that a “storage element” must store non-negligible amounts of energy
`
`from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal. The capacitors of Tayloe (Intel’s
`
`primary reference), however, only hold a negligible (near zero) amount of energy
`
`from an input EM signal. No other Intel prior art reference changes this fact.
`
`In particular, using the values provided in Tayloe, a capacitor in Tayloe holds
`
`only 0.193% of the energy from an input EM signal – a negligible amount of energy.
`
`On the other hand, using the values provided in the ’444 patent (which incorporates
`
`the ’551 patent) for an energy transfer embodiment, a storage element stores 58.7%
`
`of the energy from an input EM signal – a non-negligible amount of energy. See
`
`Section VII.B. For at least this reason, challenged claim 3 is not invalid.
`
`Recognizing that Tayloe does not disclose storing non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy from an input EM signal, Intel provides only a superficial discussion of this
`
`critical issue. Tellingly, Intel quickly shifts its discussion away from energy storage
`
`and, instead, focuses on a control signal having non-negligible aperture widths. But
`
`whether a control signal has non-negligible apertures does not mean that a capacitor
`
`will store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal. How much
`
`energy is stored depends on the specific components/configuration of a system.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Second, the parties dispute whether a “storage element” is an element of an
`
`“energy transfer system.” In its Response, ParkerVision explained why it is. See
`
`Paper 18 (“POR”), 46-50. The Texas District Court (“Texas Court”) has now twice
`
`agreed with ParkerVision.1 Yet, before this Board, Intel persists in making the exact
`
`same flawed arguments that it made to the Texas Court – arguments which rely on a
`
`mere naming convention rather than how the technology is actually described in the
`
`patent, and which the Texas Court has twice rejected.
`
`Indeed, the negligible amount of energy held in a Tayloe capacitor is exactly
`
`what one would expect in a voltage sampling system, not an energy transfer system
`
`(a system which drives a low impedance load). Thus, the capacitors of Tayloe are
`
`not “storage elements.” For this additional reason, challenged claim 3 is not invalid.
`
`Finally, the parties dispute whether an energy transfer system is driving a low
`
`impedance load. Intel incorrectly asserts that limiting the construction in this way is
`
`inconsistent with the specification. See Reply, 3-4. To the contrary, the specification
`
`specifically states that driving a low impedance load is a “benefit” of an energy
`
`
`1 That the Texas Court twice provided constructions that support ParkerVision’s
`
`view of “storage element” (see Ex.-2012, 4-5; Ex.-1038, 2) belies Intel’s assertion
`
`that ParkerVision’s arguments lack support in law or fact. See Paper 21 (“Reply”),
`
`4.
`
`2
`
`
`
`transfer system. Indeed, after ParkerVision filed its POR, in a second litigation
`
`against Intel, the Texas Court once again considered the term “storage module”2 in
`
`a related ParkerVision patent and expressly included the language “for driving a low
`
`impedance load” in its construction. This supports ParkerVision's interpretation of
`
`(and provides clarification regarding) what it means for a system to be an “energy
`
`transfer system.”
`
`Tayloe, however, discloses a high impedance load, not a low impedance load.
`
`And as discussed in Section VII.D below, Tayloe does not deliver enough energy to
`
`a load to drive a low impedance load. For this additional reason, challenged claim 3
`
`is not invalid.
`
`II.
`
`INTEL’S EXPERT MAKES CRITICAL ADMISSIONS AGAINST
`INTEL’S POSITION
`
`Intel asserts that Tayloe discloses an “energy transfer system” because the
`
`summing amplifiers 50, 52 in Tayloe are low impedance loads. Reply, 26-27. Intel’s
`
`expert, Dr. Subramanian, however, effectively concedes that these summing
`
`amplifiers are actually high impedance loads.
`
`First, in both of his declarations, Dr. Subramanian admits that Tayloe’s
`
`summing amplifiers use operational amplifiers (op-amps). See Ex.-1002, ¶138 (“the
`
`
`2 Intel agrees that the terms “storage element” and “storage module” are used
`
`interchangeably. Reply, 10 n. 2.
`
`3
`
`
`
`triangular element depicted within the amplifier 50 [of Tayloe] … is an operational
`
`amplifier.”);3 Ex.-1030, ¶¶17-21. Operational amplifiers are high impedance loads.
`
`Ex.-2021, ¶¶90, 263-265. Indeed, during his deposition, Dr. Subramanian admitted
`
`that (1) with regard to input impedance “the ideal OP amp is assumed to be infinite,
`
`but in reality, it starts at the meg[]ohm typically and goes up from there.” (Ex.-2028,
`
`170:15-18) and (2) the most widely sold commercial op-amp at the time (the 741
`
`series) typically had an input impedance of about 1 megohm. Ex.-2028, 138:21-
`
`139:18. One megohm is a high impedance load as discussed below.
`
`Notably, Dr. Subramanian’s testimony is consistent with Figure 78A of the
`
`’551 patent (below) (a voltage sampling system), which shows 1 megohm as a high
`
`impedance load.
`
`
`3 Unless otherwise notes, all emphasis has been added.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Subramanian’s only basis for asserting that there is a low impedance
`
`presented at the input of Tayloe’s op-amp is the presence of a resistor before the op-
`
`amp. Ex.-1030, ¶16. According to Dr. Subramanian, there would be no need to
`
`include a resistor in the circuit if the impedance of the non-inverting input (+) of the
`
`op-amp were high. Id., ¶18. Critically, at his deposition, Dr. Subramanian
`
`contradicted his declaration and ultimately admitted that the resistor before the
`
`Tayloe op-amp serves another purpose – a compensation resistor. See Ex.-2028,
`
`154:4-16. A compensation resistor is put before an op-amp in order to eliminate
`
`voltage offsets (i.e., to eliminate the errors that would be introduced by input bias
`
`currents). Ex.-2028 184:9-185:6. As such, Dr. Subramanian’s deposition testimony
`
`5
`
`
`
`eliminated his only basis as to why he viewed the op-amp as presenting a low
`
`impedance load.
`
`III. TAYLOE’S SYSTEM IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THAN
`PARKERVISION’S CLAIMED INVENTION.
`
`Tayloe is a voltage sampling system – a fundamentally different and
`
`competing technology to ParkerVision’s energy transfer (energy sampling) system.
`
`Intel seeks to ignore the distinction between an energy transfer system
`
`(ParkerVision’s claimed invention), which uses a “storage element” (the term at
`
`issue here), and a voltage sampling system (Tayloe), which uses a “holding element”
`
`(a different term used in the ’444 patent). See POR, 19-22, 33-42, 47-50.
`
`In an energy transfer system, the energy stored in a “storage element”
`
`becomes part of (is incorporated into) the down-converted signal (as a result of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`energy being transferred to and driving a low impedance load). See Ex.-2021, ¶¶160,
`
`165, 168, 173. Since the flow of energy itself forms the down-converted signal, the
`
`storage element must store non-negligible amounts of energy. Id., ¶200.
`
`Tayloe is different – i.e., Tayloe is not including energy from a capacitor in
`
`the down-converted signal. Instead, Tayloe is only holding energy in a capacitor in
`
`order to take readings of voltage.4 As such, the ’444 patent refers to this type of
`
`element as a “holding element.” The readings are, in turn, used to accurately
`
`reproduce the voltage of the input signal in order to create a down-converted signal.
`
`Since Tayloe is simply capturing a voltage measurement, a Tayloe capacitor
`
`only holds negligible amounts of energy (near zero). Moreover, in order to hold
`
`energy in a capacitor long enough to take a measurement, Tayloe uses a high
`
`impedance load which prevents energy in the capacitor from being discharged from
`
`the capacitor into the load. As a result, the capacitors in Tayloe do not drive a low
`
`
`4 A voltage sampling system seeks to accurately represent the voltage of the input
`
`signal. It does so by holding the voltage value on a capacitor. Unlike voltage
`
`sampling, energy sampling systems cannot accurately represent the voltage of the
`
`input signal because a non-negligible amount of energy in the storage element is
`
`being transferred to a low impedance load, even between samples. See, e.g., Ex.-
`
`2021, ¶164.
`
`7
`
`
`
`impedance load. These features of Tayloe are all features of a voltage sampling
`
`system.
`
`IV. PARKERVION’S CONSTRUCTION
`IS BASED ON HOW
`TECHNOLOGY ACTUALLY WORK; INTEL RELIES ON A
`NAMING CONVENTION
`
`Intel asserts that ParkerVision is attempting to redefine what the ’444 patent
`
`says about the patented technology. Reply, 3. Not so.
`
`Unlike ParkerVision, who focuses on how the technology actually works,
`
`Intel relies on a naming convention used in the patent to push a flawed narrative –
`
`one that has twice been rejected by the Texas Court. See Reply, 2-3, 6-8. In
`
`particular, Intel points out that the ’444 patent (which incorporates the ’551 patent)
`
`refers to the two distinct systems for down-conversion – “under-sampling” systems
`
`and “energy transfer” systems.5 Id., 6-8. Intel then complains that ParkerVision
`
`describes “under-sampling” systems as “voltage sampling/sample and hold” and
`
`“energy transfer” systems as “energy sampling/energy transfer.” Id., 4. But that is
`
`
`5 Intel’s discussion of “aliasing rate” is inapplicable. See Reply, 5-6. Aliasing rate is
`
`simply the rate at which an input signal is sampled. It is not what distinguishes an
`
`“under-sampling” system and an “energy transfer” system.
`
`8
`
`
`
`exactly what they are. The fact that the patent does not use the terms “voltage
`
`sampling” and “energy sampling” verbatim is beside the point.6
`
`In particular, the ’444 patent relates to the use of sampling to down-convert a
`
`signal and teaches only two things that can be sampled to down-convert a signal: (1)
`
`voltage and (2) flow of energy over time. Voltage is sampled by taking and holding
`
`input voltage values (using a “holding” element).7 On the other hand, energy is
`
`sampled by transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from an input signal. See,
`
`e.g., Ex.-2007, 63:27-30. As such, there are only two systems that can sample to
`
`down-convert a signal – the same two systems discussed in the patent: (1) “voltage”
`
`sampling system (referred to as “under-sampling systems”) and (2) “energy”
`
`sampling system (referred to as “energy transfer” systems). Compare Ex.-2007,
`
`64:20-50 (describing an “under-sampling system”) with 66:55-68:13 (describing an
`
`
`6 Intel’s reliance on the timing diagrams (Figures 83E-F) of the ’551 patent – which
`
`plot measurements of voltage instead of energy over time – is of no moment. Energy
`
`cannot be measured directly. Instead, a measurement (voltage or its inverse, current)
`
`needs to be taken from which energy can be derived. See Ex.-1030, ¶7.
`
`7 The ’551 patent specifically discloses that “[t]he under-sampling systems utilize a
`
`sample and hold system controlled by an under-sampling signal.” Ex.-2007, 63:4-5.
`
`A sample and hold system is a “voltage sampling” system. Ex.-2021, ¶142.
`
`9
`
`
`
`“energy transfer system”). This is the reason why ParkerVision’s POR refers to
`
`voltage sampling systems and energy sampling systems.
`
`V. THE TEXAS COURT’S UPDATED CONSTRUCTION
`
`Since ParkerVision filed its POR, the Texas Court revisited its construction
`
`of “storage module” (which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage element”)
`
`in a related patent. See Ex.-1038, 2. The Texas Court construed “storage module” as
`
`“a module of an energy transfer system that stores non-negligible amounts of energy
`
`from an input electromagnetic signal for driving a low impedance load.” Id.
`
`The Texas Court’s addition of “for driving a low impedance load” to its
`
`original construction supports ParkerVision’s interpretation of (and provides
`
`clarification regarding) what it means for a system to be an “energy transfer system”
`
`as set forth in ParkerVision’s proposed construction of “storage element.” See POR,
`
`49-50.
`
`VI.
`
`INTEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF “STORAGE ELEMENT” IS WRONG.
`
`The Texas Court has now twice considered and rejected Intel’s construction
`
`and arguments. While the Board is not bound to the Texas Court’s construction, it is
`
`informative.
`
`A. A “Storage Element” Is Only an Element of an Energy Transfer
`System.
`
`The ’444 patent specification (which incorporates the ’551 patent) states that
`
`the “energy transfer” system uses “a storage module” that “stores non-negligible
`
`10
`
`
`
`amounts of energy,” whereas the “under-sampling” (i.e., sample-and-hold) system
`
`utilizes a “holding module” that “stores negligible amounts of energy.” Ex.-2007.
`
`66:55-67. As such, there should be no dispute that “energy transfer system” should
`
`be included in the construction as ParkerVision proposes.
`
`Tellingly, Intel provides no substantive technical arguments based on the
`
`intrinsic evidence as to why including “an element of an energy transfer system” is
`
`technically incorrect. Instead, Intel points to a single sentence from the specification
`
`(red below)8 and asserts that this passage is enough to define the “storage” element.9
`
`It is not.
`
`FIG. 82A illustrates an exemplary energy transfer system 8202 for
`
`down-converting an input EM signal 8204. The energy transfer system
`
`8202 includes a switching module 8206 and a storage module
`
`illustrated as a storage capacitance 8208. The terms storage module
`
`and storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the
`
`terms holding module and holding capacitance, respectively. . . .
`
`
`8 Notably, Intel never asserts that this red passage provides lexicography for “storage
`
`element.”
`
`9 Intel asserts that the goal of storage module is to store non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy. See Reply, 10. While storage of non-negligible amounts of energy is
`
`certainly one goal, it is not the only goal nor is this feature the only thing that defines
`
`what it means to be a “storage” element.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to
`
`systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM
`
`signal.
`
`Ex.-2007, 66:55-67.
`
`
`The entire paragraph above is describing a “storage” module/element in the
`
`context of an energy transfer system (green above), which is the only type of system
`
`that has a “storage” module/element. Indeed, this passage is found in the section
`
`entitled “0.1.2 Introduction to Energy Transfer.” See Ex.-2007, 66:33. As such, there
`
`is no basis for Intel to argue against including “energy transfer system.”
`
`The inclusion of “energy transfer system” in “storage element” is appropriate.
`
`First, in its Reply, Intel admits that there are only two systems disclosed in the
`
`patent: (1) energy transfer and (2) under-sampling. Reply, 6. Second, the ’444 patent
`
`states that a “storage” element is only used in an energy transfer system. Ex.-2007,
`
`66:55-59. Logically, if there are only two systems and a “storage” element is only
`
`used in an energy transfer system, then a “storage” module/element must necessarily
`
`be an element of an energy transfer system. Indeed, the specification makes it clear
`
`that “storage” modules/elements are inseparably intertwined with energy transfer
`
`systems. See POR, 46-50.
`
`Further, Intel argues that Intel’s construction of “storage element” is the same
`
`as ParkerVision’s proposed construction of “storage module” in a previous IPR
`
`(IPR2014-00948). Reply, 11-12. But this cuts against Intel’s argument. In 2014,
`
`12
`
`
`
`claim terms were interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`(BRI) – a different standard than the Board uses today. In 2018, the USPTO
`
`eliminated the BRI standard and harmonized its claim construction standard with the
`
`district courts. In IPR2014-00948, ParkerVision focused on the red passage above.
`
`The PTAB’s current claim construction standard, however, requires considering
`
`more than just the red passage, which ParkerVision has done here.
`
`B. A “Storage Element” Drives a Low Impedance Load.
`
`A “low impedance load” goes to the heart of what makes an element, a
`
`“storage” element (used in energy sampling) as opposed to a “holding” element
`
`(used in voltage sampling/sample-and-hold). Unlike a low impedance load, a high
`
`impedance load causes an element to “hold” energy, making it a “holding” element,
`
`not a “storage” element.10 This is the reason the specification specifically makes a
`
`point to say that a “holding” modules/elements hold “negligible amounts of
`
`energy…with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value.’” Ex.-2007, 66:63-65. Intel
`
`does not address this language.11
`
`
`10 A high impedance load restricts the flow of current. Ex.-2007, 64:21-30. A low
`
`impedance load provides little resistance to electrical current. Ex.-2021, ¶200 n. 11.
`
`11 Intel asserts that the Texas Court did not include “driving a low impedance load”
`
`in its original construction. Reply, 15. Such a position is moot. Not only is “driving
`
`13
`
`
`
`Indeed, the way in which “holding” modules/elements “hold” a voltage value
`
`is by using a high impedance load. See, e.g., Ex.-2021, ¶148. As such, a “storage”
`
`module/element is not using a high impedance load.
`
`So what type of load is a “storage” module/element using? The specification
`
`explains that with regard to loads, it is a binary choice – it is either high or low
`
`impedance: “Recall from the overview of under-sampling that loads can be
`
`classified as high impedance loads or low impedance loads.” Ex.-2007, 67:32-33.
`
`As such, because a “storage” module/element is not using a high impedance load, it
`
`must necessarily be using a low impedance load. This portion of the specification
`
`should not be ignored and, therefore, is included in ParkerVision’s construction.
`
`Finally, the specification states that in energy transfer systems driving a low
`
`impedance load is a benefit (it necessarily occurs). Id., 67:37-42.
`
`
`
`VII. TAYLOE DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “STORAGE ELEMENT”
`
`A.
`
`Intel Admits That a “Storage Element” Stores Non-Negligible
`Amounts of Energy.
`
`For the first time in its Reply, Intel defines “storage element.” It is now clear
`
`that the parties agree that a “storage element” must store non-negligible amounts of
`
`
`a low impedance load” implicit when referring to an “energy transfer system,” but
`
`the Texas Court has now expressly included this language. See Ex.-1038, 2.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`energy from an input EM signal.12 Notably, however, Intel provides only a
`
`superficial analysis on this critical issue. See Reply, 19.
`
`Whether an element stores non-negligible amounts of energy, begs the
`
`question – “non-negligible” relative to what? Intel fails to address this issue. And
`
`without this proper context, Intel’s assessment of energy stored in Tayloe’s
`
`capacitors is meaningless. Thus, Intel fails to meet its burden of proving invalidity.
`
`The ’444 patent (by incorporating the ’551 patent) makes clear that “non-
`
`negligible” is relative to the available power (i.e., amount of energy available from
`
`the input EM signal). See, e.g., Ex.-2007, 67:14-22.
`
`Indeed, the parties agree that the storage element must store non-negligible
`
`amounts of energy “from an input electromagnetic (EM) signal.” As shown below,
`
`the input EM signal (blue) (and the energy it carries) is the signal received by a
`
`switch (orange). Id., 66:55-59, 67:14-30.
`
`
`12 Dr. Subramanian states the claims 198-202 of the ’551 patent, which recite
`
`integrating non-negligible amounts of energy, is the embodiment of Tayloe. Ex.-
`
`1030, ¶11. Not so. While Tayloe integrates, Tayloe integrates negligible amounts of
`
`energy. See Section VII.B.1.c.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`As such, whether an element stores “non-negligible amounts of energy” is
`
`relative to the available energy of the input EM signal. Thus, in order to determine
`
`whether an element stores “non-negligible amounts of energy,” one needs to
`
`calculate the amount of energy that was available from the input EM signal during a
`
`sampling aperture and compare it to the amount of energy actually stored in an
`
`element during that sampling aperture. Only after determining this percentage can
`
`one determine if an element stores a non-negligible amount of energy. Intel fails to
`
`make these necessary calculations and, thus, does not meet its burden of proof.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Instead, for the first time in its Reply, Intel focuses on the size of Tayloe’s
`
`capacitor and that Tayloe’s capacitors accumulate energy over time.13 Rely, 19. But
`
`this superficial analysis provides no insight into whether a Tayloe capacitor stores
`
`non-negligible amounts of energy.
`
`B.
`
`The Capacitors in Tayloe Hold Negligible Amounts Of Energy.
`
`Unlike an energy transfer system, Tayloe works based on voltage. Thus, a
`
`Tayloe capacitor only holds negligible amounts of energy (near zero), because
`
`Tayloe is taking readings of voltage in a capacitor. See Section III.
`
`In order to determine whether an element stores “non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy” (Step 3 below), one needs to calculate the amount of energy that was
`
`available from the input EM signal during a sampling aperture (Step 1 below) and
`
`compare it to the amount of energy transferred to the element during that sampling
`
`
`13 Tellingly, Intel quickly shifts the focus from storage of non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy to Tayloe’s use of a control signal having a non-negligible aperture width.
`
`See Reply, 21. But that is not the relevant analysis.
`
`17
`
`
`
`aperture (Step 2 below). When presented with the formulas of Steps 1-3, Dr.
`
`Subramanian agreed that those are the correct formulas.14
`
`As shown below, the Tayloe system holds negligible (near zero) amounts
`
`energy – 0.193% of the available energy.15 For comparison, a ParkerVision storage
`
`element stores non-negligible amounts of energy – 58.7% of the available energy.
`
`1.
`
`Energy in a Tayloe Capacitor.
`
`a.
`
`STEP 1: Calculating available energy.
`
`In order to determine whether a non-negligible amount of energy is being
`
`transferred, one must first know the total amount of power available for transfer.
`
`
`14 See Ex.-2028, 26:21-27:21; 28:1-25; 29:5-31:22; 33:5-12, 17-22; 34:7-35:19;
`
`41:5-42:23; 43:6-44:13; 46:24-49:7; 49:12-24; 53:15-54:17; 54:22-56:13; 58:11-
`
`16; 64:19-66:8; Ex.-2022.
`
`15 Intel argues that Tayloe’s description of the capacitors as “integrators” “matches
`
`the ’551 patent’s description of a storage module’s operation,” and, thus, Tayloe’s
`
`capacitors operate in the same way. Reply, 19. Not so. While “charge builds up on
`
`[each] capacitor” during a separate quarter wave of the input signal, the Tayloe
`
`system transfers only a negligible amount of energy to each capacitor during a
`
`respective quadrant. See Section VII.B.1.c below; see also Ex.-2021, ¶¶263-365.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`The maximum power transfer theorem is a fundamental theorem of circuits:
`
`This theorem states that when a source is connected to a load, maximum power is
`
`delivered to the load when the load resistance is equal to the internal source
`
`resistance. Intel’s expert agrees. Ex.-2028, 41:4-42:23; 109:18-111:6.
`
`Since the source being evaluating in Tayloe has an output resistance, the
`
`maximum energy (or power) that can be delivered to the load can be calculated by
`
`setting the load resistance equal to the source resistance. In his prior declaration,
`
`ParkerVision’s expert created a circuit diagram (below) to illustrate a single path of
`
`Figure 3 of Tayloe.16 The radio frequency source (dashed blue box) is what a
`
`POSITA would use to represent the input signal f1. Ex.-2021, ¶259.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16 The circuit diagram and its analysis are applicable to each of the capacitors
`
`72,74,76,78 in Tayloe. Ex.-2021, ¶¶258, 262, 267.
`
`19
`
`
`
`A POSITA would model a source (an input EM signal) as having an ideal
`
`voltage source and a resistance RS in addition to RFILTER. See Ex-2021, ¶¶260-265;
`
`Ex.-1004, 4:46-49.
`
`The maximum power that can be delivered from the source (the available
`
`power from input EM signal) is obtained with RLOAD = RS. In “Experimental
`
`Results,” Tayloe discloses an embodiment of the product detector which was built
`
`as the direct conversion receiver 30 (in FIG. 3) utilizing an analog multiplexer and
`
`digital counter as shown in FIG. 7. Ex.-1004, 5:31-35.
`
`Considering an input signal with an available power of +10 dBm = 10
`
`milliwatts, this is the power delivered to RLOAD when RLOAD = RS = 50 ohms. Thus,
`
`the power delivered to the matched load, PMAX = 0.010 watts = 0.5 (VPEAK)2 / (RL) =
`
`(EPEAK)2 / (400) where EPEAK is the amplitude of the source. 17 Accordingly, the
`
`amplitude of EPEAK = 2 volts.
`
`Tayloe also describes the commutating switch connecting the input of the
`
`switch to an output at a rate of 7 MHz. Ex.-1004, 5:49-50 (“The prototyped direct
`
`conversion receiver has an input bandwidth of roughly 1 kHz centered at 7 MHz.”).
`
`The period (T) of a 7 MHz signal is mathematically calculated as the reciprocal of
`
`the frequency. The period of a 7 MHz signal is thus 142.86 nanoseconds. Since the
`
`
`17 When RL=RS, the peak of the sinusoidal voltage across is VPEAK = ½ EPEAK.
`
`20
`
`
`
`commutating switch in Tayloe connects the input to the output for a quarter cycle,
`
`the time the switch is closed is TON = T/4 = 35.71 nanoseconds = 35.71 ns. The
`
`switch is also off for 107.15 ns, during which time the voltage is held on the holding
`
`capacitor. Thus, the maximum amount of energy available from the input EM signal
`
`during TON is a product of the power delivered to a matched load and the time
`
`duration.
`
`As such, according to the experimental embodiment in Tayloe, the available
`
`energy during the time the switch is on is UTAYLOE = PL * TON = (0.010 W) * (35.71
`
`ns) = 35.71 * 10−11 J = 357.1 pJ = 357.1 pJ.
`
`b.
`
`STEP 2: Calculating energy in capacitor.
`
`When a step voltage VS is applied to a circuit consisting of a resistor and a
`
`capacitor, the voltage on the capacitor (VCAP) will increase from its initial starting
`
`value up to the voltage VS following an exponential curve. Ex-2028, 51:10-53:10;
`
`Ex. 2022, 14. If the starting voltage is 0 V, the capacitance value is C and the resistor
`
`value is R then VCAP = VS(1 – e–t/τ), where τ = RC is the time constant. Figure 4 of
`
`Tayloe illustrates how the system uses the input signal f1 to determine the voltage
`
`to which to charge each capacitor. Figure 4 shows a waveform 100 includes a signal
`
`125 corresponding to input signal f1. Ex.-2021, ¶¶252-256.
`
`Using Figure 4 of Tayloe, the ideal voltage source can be replaced by a
`
`constant voltage of EAVG = 1.800 V, or the voltage at point 110. See Ex.-2007, ¶¶255-
`
`21
`
`
`
`256 (comparing average value of the input signal f1 with peak voltage, EPEAK = 2.00
`
`V). The time constant in Tayloe is τTAYLOE,ON = (RS + RFILTER) * Cf = (50 + 50 Ω) *
`
`(0.3 µF) = 30 microseconds = 30 μs. The switch is on for TON = 35.71 ns. Thus, when
`
`the switch is closed, the voltage on Cf increases from 0 volts to a voltage VCAP =
`
`EAVG (1 – e–TON/τ) = EAVG * ( 1 – e–(35.71 ns/30 μs)) = EAVG * 0.001190. Now EAVG =
`
`1.800 V, so at the end of the charging interval VCAP = 0.002141 V. At the end of the
`
`charging interval, the energy held by the capacitor Cf is ECf = ½ C*(VCAP)2 = 0.5 *
`
`(0.3 μF) * (0.002141 V)2 = 6.878 * 10−13 J = 0.6878 pJ.
`
`c.
`
`STEP 3: Percentage of available energy.
`
`Having calculated the available energy (357.1 pJ) and the amount of energy
`
`held in a capacitor (0.6878 pJ), one can calculate the percentage of available energy
`
`that is held on Tayloe’s capacitor:
`
`0.6878 pJ = 0.193%
` 357.1 pJ
`
`As such, only 0.193% of the energy available is held on Tayloe’s capacitor
`
`Cf.18 This is a negligible (nearly zero) amount of energy. The balance of the energy
`
`
`18 Regardless of the number of apertures Tayloe uses, the percentage of energy held
`
`in a capacitor will always be the same because there is additional available energy
`
`during each aperture.
`
`22
`
`
`
`– 99.807% of the available energy – is not stored but, instead, is dissipated in the
`
`resistor RFILTER. Id., ¶264.
`
`2.
`
`Energy in ParkerVision’s storage element.
`
`a.
`
`STEP 1: Calculating available energy.
`
`Fig. 82B of the ’551 patent illustrates an exemplary energy transfer system.
`
`
`
`Similar to the Tayloe analysis above, annotated Fig. 82B of the ’551 patent
`
`
`
`incorporates an actual source (representing input EM signal) with RS = 50 ohms. The
`
`source voltage, E, is a sinusoidal signal with a peak value of 5 mV. See Ex.-2007,
`
`Fig. 83B. That is, EPEAK = 5 mV. The power available from the source =
`
`0.5*(EPEAK/2)2 / 50 = 62.5 nW. This energy sampling embodiment has an input signal
`
`centered at 900 MHz and an aperture width (the time the switch is on or pulse width)
`
`TON = 550 pico seconds = 550 ps. See Ex.-2007, 67:11-13. During the time the switch
`
`23
`
`
`
`is on, the energy available from the source = (62.5 nW) * (0.550 ns) = 34.38 * 10−18
`
`joules = 34.38 atto joules = 34.38 aJ.
`
`b.
`
`STEP 2: Energy stored on storage element.
`
`In the storage capacitance 8208 (i.e., storage element 8208) (denoted as C8208
`
`below), the charging time constant (when the switch is closed) is τPV,ON = (RS / RL)
`
`* C8208 = ((50 / 2000) ohms) * (18 pF) = (48.78 ohms) * (18 pF) = 878 pico seconds
`
`= 878 ps. The switch is on for TON = 550 ps and the ‘ON’ interval of the switch is
`
`centered on the 90 degree point as with Tayloe.19 The frequency of the input signal
`
`in the ParkerVision embodiment is 900 MHz, so the period of the input signal
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
