` UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. AND HISENSE CO., LTD.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________________
`
`Case No. IPR2021-00990
`
`___________________________
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`OF
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,110,444
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES ..........................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 4
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 4
`
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 5
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 6
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................6
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED ........................6
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art ................................................................................................. 6
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY............................................................................8
`
`A. Wireless Signals .................................................................................... 8
`
`B.
`
`“Up-Conversion” and “Down-Conversion” .......................................... 9
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’444 PATENT ......................................................................9
`
`A. Alleged Problem .................................................................................... 9
`
`B. Alleged Invention .................................................................................. 9
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Added Insignificant Limitations To Obtain the
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 13
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................14
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`“frequency down-conversion module” (Claims 2 and 3) .................... 15
`
`“subtractor module” (Claims 2, 3) ...................................................... 16
`
`“under-samples” (Claim 2) .................................................................. 18
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES .........................................18
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Tayloe .................................................................................................. 18
`
`TI Datasheet ........................................................................................ 24
`
`Lam ...................................................................................................... 26
`
`Enz ....................................................................................................... 28
`
`E. Motivation to Combine ....................................................................... 30
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Tayloe with TI Datasheet .......................................................... 30
`
`Lam with Enz and Tayloe ......................................................... 32
`
`IX. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................35
`
`X.
`
`SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION ...............................................................35
`
`A. Ground I: Claims 2 and 3 Are Obvious Over Tayloe in View of TI
`Datasheet ............................................................................................. 35
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 35
`
`(a)
`
`(c)
`
`Element [2-preamble]: “A wireless modem
`apparatus, comprising” ...................................................35
`(b) Element [2A]: “a receiver for frequency down-
`converting an input signal including” .............................37
`Element [2B]: “a first frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert the input signal, wherein
`said first frequency down-conversion module down-
`converts said input signal according to a first control
`signal and outputs a first down-converted signal” .........38
`(d) Element [2C]: “a second frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert the input signal, wherein
`said second frequency down-conversion module
`down-converts said input signal according to a
`second control signal and outputs a second down-
`converted signal” ............................................................46
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`Element [2D]: “a subtractor module that subtracts
`said second down-converted signal from said first
`down-converted signal and outputs a down-converted
`signal” .............................................................................51
`Element [2E]: “wherein said first frequency down-
`conversion module under-samples said input signal
`according to said first control signal, and” .....................54
`(g) Element [2F]: “said second frequency down-
`conversion module under-samples said input signal
`according to said second control signal” ........................55
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 56
`
`2.
`
`(a)
`
`(c)
`
`Element [3-preamble]: “A wireless modem
`apparatus, comprising” ...................................................57
`(b) Element [3A]: “a receiver for frequency down-
`converting an input signal including” .............................57
`Element [3B]: “a first frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert the input signal, wherein
`said first frequency down-conversion module down-
`converts said input signal according to a first control
`signal and outputs a first down-converted signal” .........57
`(d) Element [3C]: “a second frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert said input signal, wherein
`said second frequency down-conversion module
`down-converts said input signal according to a
`second control signal and outputs a second down-
`converted signal; and” ....................................................57
`Element [3D]: “a subtractor module that subtracts
`said second down-converted signal from said first
`down-converted signal and outputs a down-converted
`signal” .............................................................................57
`Element [3E]: “wherein said first and said second
`frequency down-conversion modules each comprise a
`switch and a storage element” ........................................58
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`B. Ground II: Claims 2, 3 and 4 Are Obvious Over Lam in View of Enz
`and Tayloe ........................................................................................... 60
`
`1.
`
`Independent Claim 2 ................................................................. 60
`
`(a)
`
`(c)
`
`Element [2-preamble]: “A wireless modem
`apparatus, comprising” ...................................................60
`(b) Element [2A]: “a receiver for frequency down-
`converting an input signal including” .............................61
`Element [2B]: “a first frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert the input signal, wherein
`said first frequency down-conversion module down-
`converts said input signal according to a first control
`signal and outputs a first down-converted signal” .........62
`(d) Element [2C]: “a second frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert the input signal, wherein
`said second frequency down-conversion module
`down-converts said input signal according to a
`second control signal and outputs a second down-
`converted signal” ............................................................69
`Element [2D]: “a subtractor module that subtracts
`said second down-converted signal from said first
`down-converted signal and outputs a down-converted
`signal” .............................................................................70
`Element [2E]: “wherein said first frequency down-
`conversion module under-samples said input signal
`according to said first control signal, and said second
`frequency down-conversion module under-samples
`said input signal according to said second control
`signal.” ............................................................................73
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Independent Claim 3 ................................................................. 74
`
`(a)
`
`Element [3-preamble]: “A wireless modem
`apparatus, comprising” ...................................................74
`(b) Element [3A]: “a receiver for frequency down-
`converting an input signal including” .............................74
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`(c)
`
`Element [3B]: “a first frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert the input signal, wherein
`said first frequency down-conversion module down-
`converts said input signal according to a first control
`signal and outputs a first down-converted signal” .........74
`(d) Element [3C]: “a second frequency down-conversion
`module to down-convert said input signal, wherein
`said second frequency down-conversion module
`down-converts said input signal according to a
`second control signal and outputs a second down-
`converted signal; and” ....................................................75
`Element [3D]: “a subtractor module that subtracts
`said second down-converted signal from said first
`down-converted signal and outputs a down-converted
`signal” .............................................................................75
`Element [3E]: “wherein said first and second
`frequency down-conversion modules each comprise a
`switch and a storage element.” .......................................75
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Dependent Claim 4.................................................................... 76
`
`(a)
`
`Element [4]: “The apparatus of claim 3, wherein said
`storage elements comprises a capacitor that reduces a
`DC offset voltage in said first down-converted signal
`and said second down-converted signal” .......................76
`
`
`XI. THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE REVIEW.................................................78
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioners Timely Filed This Petition ................................................ 78
`
`The Examiner Committed a Material Error ........................................ 81
`
`XII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................85
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Gerate
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, 2020 WL 740292 (Feb. 13, 2020) ............................... 80, 82, 83
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., v. M2M Solutions LLC,
`IPR2019-01205, 2020 WL 44835 (Jan. 27, 2020) ......................................... 3, 82
`
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, 2020 WL 2126495 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ............. 78, 79, 80
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods., Inc.,
`919 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc.,
`713 F.3d. 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 30
`
`IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc.,
`206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Intel Corp. v. ParkerVision Inc.,
`No. IPR2020-01265 ............................................................................................ 78
`
`Intel Corporation v. ParkerVision, Inc.,
`IPR2020-01265 ................................................................................... 5, 80, 82, 83
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 32, 34
`
`Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
`485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................... 32, 34
`
`Mylan Pharm. Inc., v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.,
`No. IPR2020-00040, 2020 WL 2478503 (P.T.A.B. May 12, 2020) .................. 82
`
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`No. IPR2018-00752, 2018 WL 4373643 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) ..... 77, 78, 79
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Roku, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc.,
`No. IPR2019-01615, 2020 WL 1903093 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2020) .................. 82
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §102 (a) and (b) ................................................................................... 7, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 ........................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................................................................... 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ....................................................................................... 15, 51, 69
`
`35 U.S.C. §282(b) .................................................................................................... 14
`
`35 U.S.C. §314(a) .......................................................................................... 4, 77, 78
`
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .............................................................................................. 80, 82
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.100(b) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. and Hisense Co., Ltd. (“Petitioners”)
`
`respectfully request inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 2, 3, and 4 of USP
`
`7,110,444 (“’444 patent”) (Ex.1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’444 patent, which claims a priority date of August 4, 1999, is directed
`
`to methods for performing down-conversion, a process for converting a high-
`
`frequency signal to a lower-frequency signal, ultimately resulting in a signal (the
`
`“baseband signal”) that can be processed by a mobile device. Down-conversion
`
`was well-known before the ’444 patent, and the structure recited in the challenged
`
`claims for performing down-conversion was also well-known. Thus, the
`
`challenged clams are unpatentable.
`
`Electronic devices process data using baseband signals. But baseband
`
`signals cannot be transmitted wirelessly from one device to another. Accordingly,
`
`a baseband signal must be “modulated” onto a high-frequency radio-frequency
`
`(“RF”) signal called a “carrier” signal to be transmitted wirelessly. When that
`
`high-frequency signal is received by an electronic device, the receiving device
`
`must then “down-convert” the signal to one or more lower frequencies, with the
`
`result that the baseband signal is extracted and the device can process the data.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`The challenged claims recite a structure for performing down-conversion.
`
`For example, Figure 70A (below)1 shows a device that has an antenna 7072 for
`
`receiving a high-frequency RF signal 7082:
`
`Ex.1001-’444, Fig. 70A
`
`This RF signal (purple) is processed by three modules: two frequency down-
`
`conversion modules 7002 and 7006 (red and green) and a subtractor module 7020
`
`(light blue). The down-conversion modules down-convert the RF signal to
`
`
`1 All annotations and emphasis have been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`produce two down-converted signals 7007 and 7009 (red and green), which are
`
`then subtracted from each other by the subtractor module (i.e., a differential
`
`amplifier) to produce the baseband signal (yellow).
`
`These structures were well-known in the prior art. USP 6,230,000
`
`(“Tayloe”) (Ex.1004) and USP 5,937,013 (“Lam”) (Ex.1006) each discloses and/or
`
`renders obvious all the claimed features of claims 2 and 3. And the Enz article
`
`(Ex.1007) discloses a switched-capacitor arrangement that, in combination with
`
`Lam, renders obvious the DC-offset reduction limitation of dependent claim 4.
`
`And to the extent Patent Owner alleges that Tayloe does not disclose the specific
`
`structures of the claimed down-conversion modules, these features were also
`
`disclosed in the Texas Instruments (TI) Datasheet (Ex.1005).
`
`Although Tayloe and Lam are cited on the face of the ’444 patent, they were
`
`buried among over 900 references submitted by Patent Owner to the Patent Office.2
`
`These references were never mentioned during the prosecution, and there is no
`
`evidence that the Examiner considered the references at all. Amazon.com, Inc., v.
`
`M2M Solutions LLC, IPR2019-01205, 2020 WL 44835, at *7 (Jan. 27, 2020)
`
`(instituting where “the prosecution history record shows that the various IDSs
`
`
`2 Applicant filed Information Disclosure Statements on July 25, 2002, June 9, 2003,
`January 23, 2004, August 19, 2004, and November 12, 2004, listing hundreds of
`references. (Ex.1003-File History, 1142-1248 (12/15/04 Resubmission of IDS
`Forms).).
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`include at least about a few hundred references” and [n]othing in the record
`
`indicate[d] that the Examiner substantively considered ... the prior art”).
`
`Petitioners request that the Board institute inter partes review and cancel
`
`claims 2, 3, and 4 of the ’444 patent. Since the ’444 patent currently is asserted in
`
`district court litigation, in view of § 314(a), Petitioners request an expedited Notice
`
`of Filing Date Accorded.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`Petitioners are each real parties-in-interest for this IPR Petition. In addition,
`
`the following entities are real parties-in-interest for this IPR Petition: TCL
`
`Electronics Holdings Ltd.; Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd.; TCL King
`
`Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd.; TCL Moka Int’l Ltd.; TCL Moka
`
`Manufacturing S.A. DE C.V.; TCL Technology Group Corp.; TTE Technology,
`
`Inc.; and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Qingdao Hisense Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd.
`
`B. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner is aware of the following civil actions involving the ’444 patent:
`
` ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corporation, Case 6:20-cv-00108 (WDTX);
`
` ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et al, Case 6:20-cv-
`
`00945 (WDTX);
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
` ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al, Case 6:20-cv-00870 (WDTX);
`
` ParkerVision, Inc. v. ZyXEL Communications Corporation, Case 6:20-cv-
`
`01010 (WDTX);
`
` ParkerVision, Inc. v. Buffalo Inc., Case 6:20-cv-01009 (WDTX); and
`
` Intel Corporation v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2020-01265 (PTAB) (“Intel
`
`IPR”).
`
`Petitioners also have filed a Petition for inter partes review of certain claims
`
`of USP 7,292,835 (“the ’835 patent”). Patent Owner owns both the ’444 and ’835
`
`patents and is asserting both against Petitioners in the underlying litigations.
`
`C. Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TCL Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TCL Back-up Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hisense Lead Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hisense Back-up Counsel:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Reg. No. 58,694
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Edward J. Mayle
`Reg. No. 65,444
`tmayle@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Matias Ferrario
`Reg. No. 51,082
`mferrario@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Kristopher L. Reed
`Reg. No. 58,694
`kreed@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Edward J. Mayle
`Reg. No. 65,444
`tmayle@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`E-mail:
`
`TCL_Hisense444IPR@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Post and hand delivery: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`
`
`
`
`1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
`
`
`
`
`Denver, CO 80202
`
`
`
`
`(303) 571-4000 (telephone)
`
`Petitioners consent to service via email at the addresses above.
`
`III. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioners certify pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the claims
`
`on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`claims 2, 3, and 4 of the ’444 patent.
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`Petitioner relies upon the patents and printed publications in the Table of
`
`Exhibits, including:
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`1.
`
`USP 6,230,000 (“Tayloe”) (Ex.1004), filed on October 15, 1998, is
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)3.
`
`2.
`
`SN74CBT3253D Dual 1-of-4 FET Multiplexer/Demultiplexer (rev.
`
`ed. May 1998) (“TI Datasheet”) (Ex.1005) is a printed publication
`
`that was publicly available no later than July 1998 (see Ex.1009
`
`(“Honeycutt Decl.”)) and is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. §102
`
`(a) and (b).
`
`3.
`
`USP 5,937,013 (“Lam”) (Ex.1006), filed on January 3, 1997, is prior
`
`art under 35 U.S.C. §102(e).
`
`4.
`
`Circuit Techniques for Reducing the Effects of Op-Amp
`
`Imperfections: Autozeroing, Correlated Double Sampling, and
`
`Chopper Stabilization, Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol.84, No.11,
`
`November 1996 (“Enz”) (Ex.1007), is prior art under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102(b).
`
`B. Grounds for Challenge
`
`Petitioners submit that claims 2 and 3 of the ’444 patent are unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Tayloe in view of TI Datasheet. Claims 2, 3 and 4 of
`
`the ’444 patent are unpatentable under § 103 over Lam in view of Enz and Tayloe.
`
`
`3 Because the ’444 patent’s filing precedes the AIA, Petitioners have used the pre-
`AIA statutory framework.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. Matthew Shoemake (“Decl.”)
`
`(Ex.1002), demonstrates there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will
`
`prevail with respect to at least one claim.
`
`V. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY
`
`A. Wireless Signals
`
`Wireless devices exchange information by transmitting and receiving
`
`electromagnetic signals. These signals are sent from one device’s transmitter to
`
`another device’s receiver. The challenged claims of the ’444 patent focus on
`
`devices for receiving signals transmitted from another device. (Ex.1001-’444
`
`patent, claims 2-4.)
`
`Before transmission, an information signal is commonly in the form of a
`
`“baseband signal,” which has a relatively low frequency. Baseband signals cannot
`
`be effectively transmitted through the air. Instead, the information in a baseband
`
`signal must be “imprinted” onto a higher frequency signal—called a “carrier”
`
`signal—that can be more easily transmitted, i.e., radiated from an antenna. This
`
`process of “imprinting” a baseband signal onto a higher frequency carrier signal is
`
`called “modulation.” Modulation is achieved by modifying the frequency, phase,
`
`or amplitude of the carrier signal based on the frequency, phase, or amplitude of
`
`the baseband signal. (Ex.1002-Decl.¶¶62-63.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`“Up-Conversion” and “Down-Conversion”
`
`Modulating a high frequency carrier signal with a low frequency baseband
`
`signal to produce a high frequency modulated signal is called “up-conversion.”
`
`The ’444 patent refers to this modulated signal as a “radio frequency” or “RF”
`
`signal. After the modulated signal is received by a device’s receiver, it is “down-
`
`converted” to one or more lower-frequency signals so that the baseband signal can
`
`be used or the information therein further extracted. The challenged claims of the
`
`’444 patent are directed to down-converting a modulated RF signal. (Ex.1002-
`
`Decl.¶64.)
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE ’444 PATENT
`
`A. Alleged Problem
`
`The ’444 patent purports to address problems in receivers used in wireless
`
`networks. While the patent acknowledges that “various components” and
`
`“schemes” for down-converting signals already existed (Ex.1001-’444, 2:3-7), it
`
`describes conventional wireless network receivers as “complex” and requiring “a
`
`large number of circuit parts,” which are costly and “result in higher power
`
`consumption.” (Id., 1:65–2:3; Ex.1002-Decl.¶65.)
`
`B. Alleged Invention
`
`The ’444 patent purportedly discloses an improved wireless receiver that
`
`includes at least one “universal frequency translation [UFT] module that frequency
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`down-converts a received electromagnetic (EM) signal.” (Ex.1001-’444, 2:19-21,
`
`8:38–43, 9:30–32; Ex.1002-Decl.¶66.)
`
`Challenged claims 2, 3, and 4 are directed to the wireless receiver shown in
`
`Figure 70A (below), which includes two “frequency down-conversion modules”
`
`having UFT modules for down-converting a high-frequency RF input signal to a
`
`low-frequency baseband signal. (Ex.1002-Decl.¶67.)
`
`Ex.1001-’444, Fig. 70A
`
`The first down-conversion module 7002 (red) down-converts the high frequency
`
`RF input signal 7082 (purple) into a first down-converted signal 7098 (light red).
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex.1001-’444, 35:5-36:13.) Similarly, the second down-conversion module 7006
`
`(green) down-converts the input signal 7082 (purple) into a second down-
`
`converted signal 7001 (light green). (Id., 36:3-49.) Then, a “subtractor module”
`
`(i.e., “differential amplifier 7020”) (light blue) subtracts the first and second down-
`
`converted signals to generate a “baseband output signal” 7084” (yellow). (Id.,
`
`37:3-8; Ex.1002-Decl.¶68.)
`
`The first and second down-conversion modules in Figure 70A include
`
`capacitors 7074 and 7076 (brown), respectively, and UFT modules 7026 and 7038
`
`(gray), respectively. Each UFT module comprises a switch controlled by a control
`
`signal (control signal 7090 or 7092), as shown below:
`
`Ex.1001-’444, Fig. 1B
`
`(Ex.1001-’444, 8:62-64 (“Generally, the UFT module 103 includes a switch 106
`
`controlled by a control signal 108.”), 36:3-13, 36:38-49.) Accordingly, the first
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`and second down-conversion modules in Figure 70A each include a switch
`
`controlled by a control signal. The control signal for the second down-conversion
`
`module is inverted relative to the control signal for the first down-conversion
`
`module. (Id., 38:61-63 (“I control signal 7090 and inverted I control signal 7092
`
`operate to down-convert the I-phase portion of an input I/Q modulated RF signal”).
`
`The patent discloses two exemplary switched capacitor configurations that
`
`can be used for the first and second down-conversion modules in Figure 70A.
`
`Ex.1001-’444, Fig. 20A
`
`Ex.1001-’444, Fig. 20A-1
`
`One configuration (the one used in Figure 70A) is shown in Figure 20A-1 (above
`
`right), where the capacitor (brown) is in series with the input signal (purple), and
`
`the switch (gray) is shunted to ground. (Ex.1001-’444, 9:53-55, 36:3-13, 36:38-49,
`
`Fig. 70A.) In this configuration, the capacitor not only stores the output signal, but
`
`also “reduces or prevents a DC offset voltage” as required by Claim 4 only. (See
`
`Ex.1001-’444, 36:14-18.) However, “[t]he electronic alignment of the circuit
`
`components is flexible” (Id., 9:48-49), and in a second configuration shown in
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 20A (above left), the switch (gray) is in series with the input signal (purple),
`
`and the capacitor (brown) shunted to ground. (Id., 9:49-51; Ex.1002-Decl.¶¶69-
`
`72.)
`
`According to the patent, using such modules has various advantages,
`
`including “lower power consumption, longer battery life, fewer parts, lower cost,
`
`less tuning, and more effective signal transmission and reception.” (Ex.1001-’444,
`
`2:32–36.) But the patent does not explain how the claimed invention achieves
`
`these purported advantages. (Ex.1002-Decl.¶73.)
`
`C.
`
`Patent Owner Added Insignificant Limitations To Obtain the
`Challenged Claims
`
`Challenged claims 2, 3, and 4 were allowed based on insignificant
`
`limitations added to the end of claims 2 and 3. The Examiner determined that the
`
`two frequency down-conversion modules and subtractor module recited in claims 2
`
`and 3 were well-known, and allowed independent claims 2 and 3 (and claim 4
`
`which depends from claim 3) solely based on two added features: (i) a requirement
`
`that each of the modules “under-sample” according to its respective control signal
`
`(claim 2); and (ii) each of the down-conversion modules comprises a switch and a
`
`storage element (claim 3). These claims, however, never should have been
`
`allowed. (Ex.1002-Decl.¶74).
`
`More specifically, challenged claims 2, 3, and 4 correspond to application
`
`claims 43, 44, and 45, which originally depended from application claim 41.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`(Ex.1003-File History, 669-70 (06/09/03 Preliminary Amendment).) Application
`
`claim 41 included the first three elements of challenged claims 2, 3, and 4: a first
`
`frequency down-conversion module, a second frequency down-conversion module,
`
`and a subtractor module. The Examiner rejected application claim 41 as
`
`anticipated by USP 6,018,553 (“Sanielevici”), but indicated that dependent
`
`application claims 43 to 45 contained allowable subject matter. (Ex.1003-File
`
`History, 691.)
`
`In response to the rejection, Applicant made no attempt to distinguish claim
`
`41 from Sanielevici. Instead, per the Examiner’s suggestion, Applicant cancelled
`
`claim 41 and rewrote dependent claims 43 and 44 (challenged claims 2 and 3) in
`
`independent form by including all features of claim 41. (Ex.1003-File History,
`
`693-705.)
`
`Afterwards, the Examiner allowed claims 43, 44, and 45 (challenged claims
`
`2, 3, and 4). (Ex.1003-File History, 717-18; Ex.1002-Decl.¶¶75-77.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A claim in IPR is construed “using the same claim construction standard that
`
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. §282(b),
`
`including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). Petitioner
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`proposes construing certain terms in this IPR and submits that no other terms
`
`currently need to be construed. Depending on the issues raised by Patent Owner,
`
`Petitioner reserves the right to construe other claim terms.
`
`A.
`
`“frequency down-conversion module” (Claims 2 and 3)
`
`Claim 2 recites a (1) “first frequency down-conversion module to down-
`
`convert the input signal, wherein said first frequency down-conversion module
`
`down-converts said input signal according to a first control signal and outputs a
`
`first down-converted signal” and (2) a “second frequency down-conversion
`
`module” that includes identical language, except “first” is replaced with “second.”
`
`The district court in the Intel litigation held this term should have its “[p]lain-and-
`
`ordinary meaning.” (Ex.1013 at 2).
`
`Despite not being raised in the Intel litigation, the Board should find that 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112(6) applies to claim 2.4 The claimed function is “to down-convert the
`
`input signal ... according to a [] control signal and output[] a [] down-converted
`
`signal.” (Ex.1001-’444, claim 2.) And the corresponding structure disclosed in the
`
`’444 patent is an “aliasing module 2000” (blue) comprising at least one switch and
`
`one capacitor, e.g., as seen in Figures 20A and 20A-1.
`
`
`4 Claim 3 expressly recites structure in that the “said first and said second frequency
`down-conversion modules” each “comprise a switch and a storage element.”
`Therefore, § 112(6) arguably does not apply to claim 3.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex.1001-’444, Fig. 20A
`
`Ex.1001-’444, Fig. 20A-1
`
`This corresponding structure performs the claimed “down-conversion” function.
`
`(E.g., Ex.1001-’444, 9:43-53 (“FIG. 20A illustrates an aliasing module 2000 … for
`
`down-conversion” that “includes a switch 2008 and a capacitor 2010”); 10:4-20
`
`(the module uses a “control signal 2006 to generate a down-converted output
`
`signal.”).); (Ex.1002-Decl.¶¶79-81.)
`
`B.
`
`“subtractor module” (Claims 2, 3)
`
`Each of claims 2 and 3 recites a “subtractor module that subtracts said
`
`second down-converted signal from said first down-converted signal and outputs a
`
`down-converted signal.” Because this element fails to recite any structure to
`
`perform the claimed function, and because “‘module’ is a well-known nonce word
`
`that can operate as a