Trials@uspto.gov
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
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
