`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 42
`Entered: December 8, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`_____________
`
`Record of Oral Hearing
`Held Virtually: November 1, 2021
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, BART A. GERSTENBLITH, and
`IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`
`GRANT K. ROWAN
`HAIXIA LIN
`BRIAN LAMBSON
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`202-663-6000
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`
`JASON S. CHARKOW
`CHANDRAN B. IYER
`STEPHANIE R. MANDIR
`Goldberg Segalla LLP
`711 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
`New York, NY 10017
`
`
`
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday, November
`
`1, 2021, commencing at 10:00 a.m. EST, by video/by telephone.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`- - - - -
` (Proceedings begin at 10:00 a.m.)
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Hello, everyone. We are here
`for oral argument in IPR2020-01265, Intel Corporation versus
`ParkerVision, Inc. I am Judge Gerstenblith, and
`appearing with me today are Judges Zecher and Ahmed. Starting
`with Petitioner, will Counsel please enter your appearance for
`the record?
` MR. ZUBLER: Good morning, Your Honors. This is
`Todd Zubler from the WilmerHale law firm, representing Intel
`Corporation. I am joined today by Lead Counsel in this
`proceeding, Grant Rowan, as well as Counsel Michael
`Summersgill, and Haixia Lin.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Morning. And who do we have on
`for Patent Owner?
` MR. CHARKOW: Good morning, Your Honors. This is
`Jason Charkow, from the Daignault Iyer firm. With me today, I
`have Stephanie Mandir, also of the Daignault Iyer firm, and
`Ron Daignault, as well as a few corporate representatives,
`Jeff Parker (ph), Richard Harland (ph), and Greg Rollins (ph).
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Good morning and welcome. Mr. Charkow,
`I just -- your sound is a little bit -- sounds a
`little bit like you're removed from whatever speaker you're
`using, I just want to make sure that the court reporter can
`capture everything that's being said. I could hear you, just
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`want to make sure it's also captured for that.
` MR. CHARKOW: Is this better, Your Honor?
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: That is a little better, yes.
`If for any reason we have trouble, we'll let you know, or if
`the court reporter has any trouble, please feel free to jump
`in and let us know. I want to make sure the transcript is as
`clear as possible, but thank you.
` We set forth the procedure for today's oral hearing
`in our order granting the parties request for an oral hearing,
`which is Paper 33. Each party will have 60 minutes of total
`argument time. However, Patent Owner has requested that a
`LEAP practitioner present argument, as well, so Patent Owner
`will have an extra 15 minutes of argument time for a total of
`75 minutes.
` We will begin with Petitioner, who may present its
`case with regard to the challenged claims and grounds set
`forth in the Petition. Petitioner may reserve time for
`rebuttal. Thereafter, Patent Owner may respond to
`Petitioner's argument and may reserve time for sur-rebuttal.
`Petitioner may then present its rebuttal followed by Patent
`Owner's sur-rebuttal.
` In this video format, I do not have a timer that I
`can share with you. However, when it's your turn to come up
`for your opening, if you would please let me know how much
`time you would like to reserve for rebuttal, I'm happy to
`remind you when you reach that point in your opening argument.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
` A few other things just to keep in mind for this
`particular hearing and the video nature. This hearing, at the
`moment, is open to the public, and there are and may and will
`-- be additional folks listening on the phone. It is my
`understanding that there is a pending motion to seal filed by
`Petitioner.
` We discussed his motion during our pre-hearing conference
`on October 26th. The panel does not need argument on this
`motion today, although I may ask for an update on the motion
`after these introductory remarks.
` However, to the extent that Petitioner would like to
`argue its motion or to the extent that Patent Owner would like
`to speak to the issues addressed in the motion which pertain
`to Patent Owner's alleged confidential information, we can
`take any argument on that after the parties conclude the main
`part of the hearing and we can seal the courtroom by
`disconnecting the public line.
` So during this proceeding, unless we get to that
`point, please do not raise any information that either side
`alleges is confidential.
` Also, please be as clear as possible during your
`argument regarding what slide or figure or exhibit you may be
`referring to so that the record is clear and that we may
`follow along. We have electronic versions of all of your
`demonstratives and all of the documents in the record.
` Additionally, when it's not your turn to speak,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`please keep your line on mute so that we can minimize any
`background noise.
` Importantly, if either side experiences any
`technical or other difficulties attending the hearing today,
`please either let us know, if you're still connected, or the
`IT personnel with whom you have been in touch regarding
`setting up the connection to the hearing as soon as possible,
`and we can make any adjustments that are needed.
` Just from that part that I spoke about, are there
`any questions from Petitioner's side?
` MR. ZUBLER: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. And who was speaking?
` MR. ZUBLER: This was Todd Zubler.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Zubler.
` Any questions from Patent Owner's side just on the
`part that I spoke about already?
` MR. CHARKOW: No, Your Honor.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Thank you.
` A couple other things. We'll take two short breaks.
`One after each side concludes its opening argument. So you
`can please plan for that. In addition, I just want to discuss
`some of the things that we spoke about this past Tuesday since
`we did not have a court reporter or a transcript made.
` We held a pre-hearing conference this past Tuesday
`on October 26th. During that conference, we discussed and
`ruled on Petitioner's motion to exclude, which is Paper 34,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`and we discussed and made a ruling on Petitioner's
`identification of arguments improper for a sur-reply, which
`were raised in Paper 32.
` In particular, we excluded Exhibit 2022, and we
`ruled that the portions of the sur-reply identified by
`Petitioner did impermissibly raise new arguments that are
`inappropriate for a patent owner's sur-reply. We also indicated
`that we would memorialize our ruling in -- either in an order or
`a final written decision should we reach that point in the
`case.
` Specifically, the issue identified by Petitioner was
`whether Patent Owner belatedly raised the argument that
`Tayloe's capacitors do not disclose the claimed storage
`element because Tayloe's capacitors do not store a non-
`negligible amount of energy. In the Patent Owner response,
`Patent Owner raised several arguments directed to the storage
`element, but none specifically focused on the term or phrase
`non-negligible amount of energy.
` Rather, Patent Owner's arguments were directed to
`explaining why Tayloe failed to disclose a storage element
`because of other aspects of Patent Owner's construction of
`that term, including the alleged lack of disclosing an energy
`transfer system.
` To the extent the parties seek further clarification
`on that ruling, we are happy to discuss before we begin the
`argument. But if that ruling was clear enough, then we will
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`leave it as it stands.
` Additionally, I wanted to thank Patent Owner for
`promptly filing the disclaimer that we -- that was eluded to
`in Patent Owner's response, which disclaims Claims 1 and 5 of
`the '444 patent. The notice of disclaimer was filed as Paper 40, 4-0,
`and the disclaimer that was filed is included as Exhibit A to
`that paper.
` With all that I just said, I will turn it over to
`Petitioner. If everybody is on board and understands,
`Petitioner can begin its argument. If there is any need for
`clarification, I will turn to you, Mr. Zubler, first to ask
`that.
` MR. ZUBLER: Thank you, Your Honor. I believe we
`don't need further clarification at this time, and we can
`address those issues, you know, if and when they arise during
`our presentations.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. And for Mr. -- and for
`Patent Owner, Mr. Charkow, same question.
` MR. CHARKOW: I may -- as we go into the arguments,
`I may seek guidance from the Board. It depends what the
`Petitioner is going to say. So when we get to it, I may have
`-- need further clarification. So that's where we are right
`now.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Understood. Thank you
`both very much.
` And with that, we will turn to Mr. Zubler or whoever
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`from Petitioner will be presenting the arguments. And just as
`a reminder, if you let me know how much time you would like to
`reserve, we can remind you when you are close to that time.
` MR. ZUBLER: Thank you, Your Honor. And this is
`Todd Zubler. I will be presenting today. And if I could
`reserve 15 minutes for rebuttal.
` And one other point of clarification. I neglected
`to mention that we are also joined by a client representative
`today from Intel Corporation, that's Intel Counsel, Gemma Suh.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Thank you.
` PETITIONER'S OPENING REMARKS
` MR. ZUBLER: And with -- I will now begin our
`presentation.
` Your Honors, Intel filed this Petition and this
`proceeding back in July 2020, challenging Claims 1, 3, and 5
`of the '444 patent. I'm just going to briefly summarize the
`key points I want to make today, and then I'll dive into each
`point in more detail.
` First, with respect to Claims 1 and 5, Patent Owner
`has conceded their unpatentability and has now disclaimed
`those claims. So we, therefore, will not be addressing those
`claims in any detail today.
` With respect to the only other challenged claim,
`Claim 3, Patent Owner has disputed just one claim limitation.
`That's the storage element limitation. But each argument that
`Patent Owner has made with respect to that storage element
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`limitation fails.
` Under the proper claim construction of that term,
`Claim 3 is unpatentable. And even under Patent Owner's
`incorrect construction of storage element the decided prior art
`discloses this feature. That's the roadmap. Now, I would
`like to step back briefly and discuss the '444 patent and then
`address each of Patent Owner's arguments.
` So if I could direct your attention to Slide 2, this
`shows the '444 patent, which was issued in 2006. It was filed
`in August 2000, and it dates -- claims priority back to a
`provisional application back in August 1999. There is no
`issue in this case about whether any of the cited prior art is
`prior art and precedes, you know, the claimed priority of the
`patent.
` The patent is directed to methods for performing
`down-conversion, which is a process for converting a high-
`frequency signal down to a low-frequency signal, which is
`called the baseband signal. And that conversion is necessary
`so that the signal can be processed by a mobile device like a
`telephone.
` If I could direct your attention now, Your Honors,
`to Slide 5, which is a brief overview of the alleged
`invention.
` The '444 patent claims to improve upon prior down-
`conversion methods with a wireless receiver that includes two
`frequency down-conversion modules. And you can see that here
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`in Figure 70A-1 of the '444 patent. And what you see here are
`two frequency down conversion modules. There is a first one
`in red at the top, it's 7002, and the second down-
`conversion module -- (audio issues). That's Element 7006.
` And the way this works is that an RF signal, a radio
`frequency signal, is received at the antenna, 7072 in the
`upper left corner. It's then sent to each frequency down-
`conversion module. The first frequency down-conversion
`module, the one in red, down-converts that high-frequency
`signal into a first down-converted signal, 7098 shown in red.
`And similarly, the second down-conversion module, green, it
`down-converts the same input signal into a second down-
`converted signal, 7001.
` And then there is a subtractor module. That's the
`differential amplifier 7020, shown in light blue. That's the
`load for this circuit, and it's going to subtract the first
`and second down-converted signals in order to generate a
`single down-converted signal.
` If I could now direct your attention to Slide 6.
`The down-conversion modules in red and green, they come in two
`different flavors, two different configurations in the patent.
`And we show them both here on Slide 6.
` On the top, there is a configuration, where there is
`a switch in gray that's followed in series -- follows in
`series from the input signal, and then the switches itself
`followed by a capacitor, shown in brown, that is shunted or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`coupled to ground.
` And on the bottom configuration, on the right side,
`there is a different configuration of the frequency down-
`conversion module. And here, you have the capacitor in series
`with the input signal. The capacitor is in brown, and it's
`followed by a switch, in gray, that is shunted to ground.
`Both of those configurations are disclosed in the patent.
` If I could now direct your attention to Slide 8.
`This is the only remaining challenged claim. It's Claim 3.
`And Claim 3 matches very closely to that Figure 70A-1 that we
`were looking at.
` At a high level, Claim 3 requires a receiver for
`frequency down-converting an input signal. And that receiver
`has to include first -- a first frequency down-conversion
`module, then a second down-conversion module, and third, a
`subtractor module. Those are just the things we saw in
`Figure 70A-1.
` And the final limitation, which is where we're going
`to spend our time today, it adds a requirement that each of
`the frequency down-conversion modules includes a switch and a
`storage element. And as I mentioned before, storage element
`is the only claim limitation that Patent Owner has contended
`is not disclosed in the prior art.
` Turning now to Slide 10. This is the primary prior
`art reference at issue in this case, which is a patent called
`Tayloe. Again, there is no dispute that Tayloe or any of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`other art cited in our Petition constitutes prior art to the
`'444 patent.
` And if you go to Slide 11, we can take a brief look
`at Tayloe. Tayloe discloses all of the features of the '444
`patent at issue. It is directed to a quote, "Direct
`conversion receiver," which is the same type of receiver we
`were looking at in Figure 70A-1. It has two frequency down-
`conversion modules, comprising a switch and a capacitor, and
`each of those modules will down-convert a high-frequency RF
`signal to a low-frequency baseband signal.
` In turning to Slide 12, we can see exactly how this
`works. This is the primary figure on which we rely in Tayloe.
`And you can see that the receiver here receives an RF input
`signal at the left, just like we saw in Figure 70A-1. And the
`signal is highlighted in purple on the left side of the image.
`And that signal is fed into two different frequency down-
`conversion modules, one in red, one in green.
` Each of them will down-convert the signal to produce
`a signal in red or green, respectively, that is fed into an
`amplifier, which is the load of the circuit. And you can see
`that's referred to as summing amplifier 50. That's the box in
`the upper right-hand corner, which contains an amplifier,
`colored in blue.
` And the function here is identical to what's claimed
`in the patent, that, you know, the amplifier will
`differentially sum the two input signals and will output a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`single down-converted signal, shown in yellow, which is a
`baseband signal.
` That's the core of our presentation of our evidence
`that lays out the basic case for why Tayloe discloses the
`claim limitations of Claim 3.
` Now, I would like to turn to the specific objections
`that the Patent Owner has raised to our evidence. And I think
`before I go dive right down into details, I would like to
`turn to, kind of, an overarching argument that the Patent
`Owner has made, kind of a broad overarching
`mischaracterization of the '444 patent that I think pervades a
`lot of the arguments the Patent Owner has made.
` And if I could turn your attention to Slide 13. The
`Patent Owner has spent multiple pages of its Patent Owner
`response attempting to draw a distinction between two
`technologies allegedly disclosed in the patent. And the
`Patent Owner described these as energy sampling on the one
`hand and voltage sampling on the other. And the Patent Owner
`says that Claim 3 of the patent relates only to "Energy
`sampling," and that this supposed distinction is critical to
`understanding the '444 patent.
` Now, as I'm going to explain, the patent does draw a
`distinction between two different modes of operation. We
`don't dispute that. But it's not the way the Patent Owner
`describes. The patents never even use the terms voltage
`sampling or energy sampling. Those are terms that are made up
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`for this proceeding or for Patent Owner's litigation. And
`this whole voltage sampling versus energy sampling distinction
`just isn't a credible foundation for the larger patentability
`arguments that we're going to come to shortly.
` Turning to Slide 14. This is a -- showing a table
`that the Patent Owner has presented in its Patent Owner
`response, where they try to identify different characteristics
`of what they call their energy sampling system on the one hand
`and a voltage sampling system on the other.
` And what they are trying to do with this, Your
`Honors, is to add features to the claim that aren't there. So
`on the left-hand side of the table, in the left column, you'll
`see energy sampling. And they list four different
`characteristics that are allegedly necessarily inherently in
`their claim, but these characteristics are not disclosed in the
`limitations of the claims. These are things that the Patent
`Owner is attempting to layer on.
` So what -- how does the patent actually describe
`their invention? Well, if we could turn to Slide 15. This is
`going back to the '551 patent. The '551 patent is
`incorporated by reference into the '444 patent, and both
`parties agree that the '551 patent is the foundational
`disclosure for the claims at issue here.
` And as shown here in the '551 patent, summary of the
`invention, it describes a way of performing down-conversions.
`And it mentioned that the way a down-conversion needs to occur
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`is by aliasing. And aliasing is a way of sampling a signal in
`which there is a control sample that's used, and the control
`signal's frequency is below something called the Nyquist rate.
`We don't need to dive into that right now.
` But you can -- but I want to go on in the summary of
`invention where it says that there are two distinct ways of
`down-converting by aliasing. There is under-sampling and
`transferring energy.
` Just to read from the slide, it says, "The term
`aliasing is used herein and, as covered by the invention,
`refers to both down-converting an EM signal, electromagnetic
`signal, by under-sampling the EM signal at an aliasing rate
`and down-converting an EM signal by transferring energy from
`the EM signal at an aliasing rate."
` That's the nature of the division that the patent
`draws between the modes of operation, and that's the accurate
`way to think about it. And so if you go even to Slide 16, for
`example, specification -- the overall structure in the index
`or the table of contents of the -- a patent breaks up the
`invention into down-converting by under-sampling and down-
`converting by transferring energy.
` And similarly, on Slide 17, the specification
`reinforces this understanding with a Venn diagram. It says,
`aliasing is the broad category. The subcategories are under-
`sampling and transferring energy.
` So what exactly does that mean? Well, the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`distinction that’s drawn between under-sampling and energy
`transfer, is the aperture sizes of the pulse width of the
`control signal. In other words, how wide of a pulse width do
`you have? Which will determine how long the down-converting
`switches are on.
` And if I could just direct Your Honors' attention to
`jump ahead a little bit in the presentation to Slide 32.
`Slide 32 describes the introduction to energy transfer in the
`patents. And it starts off by defining an energy transfer
`system in contrast to an under-sampling system based
`precisely on its aperture size width, or in other words, the
`pulse width size.
` The patent says, "Unlike under-sampling signals that
`have negligible aperture pulses, the energy transfer signal
`includes a train of pulses having non-negligible apertures
`that tend away from zero. This provides more time to transfer
`energy from an EM input signal."
` That's the common feature of energy transfer systems
`as they're disclosed in the patent. And so, again, we agree
`there is a distinction between under-sampling and energy
`transfer, but we disagree strongly with Patent Owner's attempt
`to layer on top of that truthful distinction with a new false
`terminology of energy sampling and voltage sampling that isn't
`in the patents. And we disagree with their attempt to use
`this distinction to add on additional claim requirements, like
`a low impedance load requirement that just aren't supported by
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`the claims or the specification here.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Counsel, this is Judge
`Gerstenblith. Question for you --
` MR. ZUBLER: Yes?
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- is, what, if any,
`significance is there to referring to an under-sampling system
`as a voltage sampling system? In other words, does that
`actually matter that they want to call it -- that Patent Owner
`wants to call it a voltage sampling system instead of saying
`under-sampling?
` MR. ZUBLER: Well, Your Honor, I think what we
`disagree with is that they are -- this is a new term. It's
`not anywhere in the patent. And that -- we would say, Your
`Honor, that an under-sampling system does do voltage sampling,
`but so does an energy transfer system.
` An energy transfer system involves taking samples of
`voltages as shown in our -- as shown in -- let's see -- Slide
`Number -- Slide 19. We could look at that. This is an
`example of an energy transfer embodiment in the '551 patent.
`And it's showing in the top Figure 83E, a waveform of an
`energy sampling system in which the measured signal is a
`voltage. That's a voltage on the left-hand side on the
`vertical axis there.
` So what -- the reason we think it's objectionable to
`draw this energy versus voltage sampling distinction is that
`they're implicitly trying to use it to suggest that because
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`Tayloe does sample voltage, therefore, it can't be an energy
`transfer system. And we want to say, no, both energy transfer
`systems and under-sampling systems will use voltage samples.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Thank you. Is there an under-
`sampling system that does not use voltage?
` MR. ZUBLER: I am --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: I should say --
` MR. ZUBLER: -- not aware of any.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: -- I don't mean to talk over
`you, but I should say that we have any evidence of in the
`record?
` MR. ZUBLER: Off the top of my head, Your Honor, I
`can't think of any example.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Okay. Thank you.
` MR. ZUBLER: So turning back to now Slide Number 20.
`So where does this leave us for our analysis? And as I
`mentioned before, the only undisputed limitation -- I'm sorry
`-- the only disputed limitation is the storage element
`limitation in the last row of our table. And this issue
`really boils down to the low impedance load requirement that
`we have already eluded to. And this -- you can think of three
`basic questions that need to be answered.
` First, does the storage element limitation require an
`energy transfer system? We submit it does not. And if the
`Board agrees, that should end the patentability analysis in
`Intel's favor. Because the only way that ParkerVision gets to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`its low impedance load requirement is through a construction
`of a storage element that requires an energy transfer system.
` Second question we want to address is, does an
`energy transfer system require a low impedance load? We
`submit it does not. And if the Board agrees with us there,
`that ends the patentability analysis in Intel's favor, as
`well.
` And finally, does Tayloe disclose a low impedance
`load? We submit that it does. And if the Board agrees, that
`would end the patentability analysis in Intel's favor.
` So if we could turn now to Slide 21, which is the
`basic claim construction dispute, each party has proposed a
`construction. The constructions are very similar. Both of
`them were -- both constructions say that the storage element
`is an element that stores a non-negligible amount of energy
`from an input electromagnetic signal.
` The difference is the language the Patent Owner
`wants to include, which is of an energy transfer system. And
`we -- Your Honor, there is no support for adding that
`language.
` If we could turn to Slide 22. Our construction, the
`patent -- the Petitioner's construction is drawn directly from
`the patent specification from the '551 patent. And as shown
`here at the top of the slide, storage -- the '551 patent
`states that the storage modules and storage capacitances says
`quote, "Refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`energy from an input EM signal." That's a definition.
`Storage modules refer to systems that store non-negligible
`amounts of energy.
` And the specification, in fact, says that the goal
`of a storage module is quote, "To store non-negligible amounts
`of energy." The meaning of the storage element, which the
`parties have agreed is the same thing as a storage module, it
`could not be more clear based on the definition here.
` On Slide 23, we presented a -- we present a case
`from the Federal Circuit, Martek Biosciences, and it expresses
`a basic principle of claim construction. "When a patentee
`explicitly defines a claim in the patent specification, the
`patentee’s definition controls."
` Turning to Slide 24, it's not just that the patent's
`defined in that way, but there's nothing in the specification
`that would limit a storage module to an element of an energy
`transfer system. And the language that the Patent Owner would
`rely on is shown on Slide 24, where it says that there's an
`energy transfer embodiment that quote, "Includes a storage
`module." That's their primary support -- well, almost their
`exclusive support for their position.
` But that language doesn't define storage element.
`We saw how a storage module was defined. This language here
`merely describes an energy transfer embodiment. And just
`because an energy transfer system includes a storage module
`doesn't mean that every storage module must be in an energy
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`transfer system. All cars include wheels, but that doesn't
`mean that all wheels must be on cars.
` And by Patent Owner's own logic, switching module,
`which is also presented here as being included in an energy
`transfer system, would also have to be limited to an energy
`transfer system, but that's contradicted by the patent itself,
`which -- and it doesn't make sense.
` And, Your Honor, if we could turn to Slide 25 and
`direct your attention there --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Counsel, let me just --
` MR. ZUBLER: -- the Patent Owner --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Apologies. This is Judge
`Gerstenblith. Just to ask you, are you going to show where
`the patent using switching module in a different sense than
`this -- than in an energy transfer system?
` MR. ZUBLER: Yes, Your Honor. I can go into that,
`happy to.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: You don't have to --
` MR. ZUBLER: I'll just refer you to the '551 --
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: I apologize again. You don't
`have to jump ahead. I just want to make sure, at some point,
`that you will explain that statement.
` MR. ZUBLER: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. I'm happy
`to clarify that right now.
` In the '551 patent, you could look at Figure 78A,
`for example, and the description of it, which is at Column 63,
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01265
`Patent 7,110,444 B1
`
`line 40 to 44. And that figure illustrates -- and I'm quoting
`from the patent, "illustrates an exemplary under-sampling
`system."
` And it states that, "The under-sampling system
`includes a switching module and a holding module." So that
`would be at least one example. And there are others, but I
`think that one should be sufficient to make the point.
` JUDGE GERSTENBLITH: Thank you.
` MR. ZUBLER: Thank you, Your Honor.
` Turning to Slide 25. It's not just we who are
`making this point or this -- taking this position