`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`__________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`__________________________
`
`MEDIATEK INC.,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`__________________________
`
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`Patent No. 7,292,835
`__________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,292,835
`__________________________
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B) ......................... 3
`A.
`REAL PARTY IN INTEREST ......................................................... 3
`B.
`RELATED MATTERS ..................................................................... 3
`C.
`NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE
`INFORMATION ............................................................................... 4
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW .................................. 4
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING ......................................................... 4
`B.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE ............................................ 5
`1.
`Claims Challenged .................................................................. 5
`2.
`The Prior Art ........................................................................... 5
`3.
`Grounds for Challenge ............................................................ 6
`4.
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge And Legal
`Principles ................................................................................. 7
`IV. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY ............................................................. 7
`A. Wireless communications signals ..................................................... 7
`B.
`“Modulating” Signals for Wireless Communications ....................... 8
`1.
`Amplitude Modulation ............................................................ 9
`2.
`Phase Modulation .................................................................. 10
`3.
`Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (“QAM”) ...................... 11
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’835 PATENT ...................................................... 14
`A. Alleged Problem .............................................................................. 14
`B.
`Alleged Invention ............................................................................ 14
`C.
`The Examiner Did Not Consider or Analyze the Gibson,
`Schiltz, or Crols References Presented in This Petition
`During Original Prosecution. .......................................................... 19
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................... 20
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`A.
`“cable modem” (Claim 1, Preamble) .............................................. 21
`“storage module” (Claim 1) ............................................................. 21
`B.
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............................... 23
`A. Gibson (Ex. 1004) ........................................................................... 23
`B.
`Schiltz (Ex. 1005) ............................................................................ 24
`C.
`Crols (Ex. 1006) .............................................................................. 26
`D. DOCSIS References (Goldberg (Ex. 1007), Thacker
`(Ex. 1008)) ....................................................................................... 29
`ITU-T J.83 (Ex. 1009) ..................................................................... 31
`E.
`AAPA .............................................................................................. 31
`F.
`G. Motivation to Combine ................................................................... 32
`1.
`Ground 1: Gibson and Schiltz .............................................. 32
`2.
`Ground 2: Crols .................................................................... 34
`3.
`“Cable Modem” .................................................................... 37
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ....................................... 40
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS FOR PETITION .................................................. 41
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1-5 are Unpatentable as Obvious Over
`Gibson and Schiltz........................................................................... 41
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................. 41
`2.
`Claim 2: “The cable modem of claim 1, wherein
`said quadrature-phase oscillating signal is out of
`phase with said in-phase oscillating signal by
`substantially 90 degrees.” ..................................................... 55
`Claim 3 .................................................................................. 56
`Claim 4: “The cable modem of claim 3, wherein
`said first storage device is a first capacitor, and said
`second storage device is a second capacitor.” ...................... 63
`Claim 5: “The system of claim 3, wherein said first
`reference potential is substantially equal to ground,
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`X.
`
`and said second reference potential is substantially
`equal to ground.” ................................................................... 64
`Ground 2: Claims 1–5 are Unpatentable as Obvious Over
`Crols ................................................................................................ 65
`1.
`Claim 1 .................................................................................. 65
`2.
`Claim 2: “The cable modem of claim 1, wherein
`said quadrature-phase oscillating signal is out of
`phase with said in-phase oscillating signal by
`substantially 90 degrees.” ..................................................... 80
`Claim 3 .................................................................................. 82
`Claim 4: “The cable modem of claim 3, wherein
`said first storage device is a first capacitor, and said
`second storage device is a second capacitor.” ...................... 88
`Claim 5: “The system of claim 3, wherein said first
`reference potential is substantially equal to ground,
`and said second reference potential is substantially
`equal to ground.” ................................................................... 89
`Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness ........................................... 90
`C.
`THE BOARD SHOULD INSTITUTE REVIEW ..................................... 91
`A.
`The Board Should Not Deny Institution under Fintiv. .................... 91
`B.
`The Examiner Did Not Consider the Gibson, Schiltz, and
`Crol References Forming the Basis of This Petition ....................... 93
`XI. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 94
`
`
`3.
`4.
`
`5.
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,292,835 (“’835 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`Excerpts of ’835 Patent File History
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Declaration of Lawrence E. Larson, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent
`No. 7,292,835 (“Larson Decl.”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,682,117 (“Gibson”)
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,339,459 (“Schiltz”)
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1007
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`J. Crols, A Single-Chip 900 MHz CMOS Receiver Front-End with a
`High Performance Low-IF Topology, 30 IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-
`STATE CIRCUITS 1483 (Dec. 1995) (“Crols”)
`
`L. Goldberg, “MCNS/DOCSIS MAC Clears a Path for the Cable-
`Modem Invasion,” Electronic Design; Dec. 1, 1997; 45, 27;
`Materials Science & Engineering Collection pg. 69 (“Goldberg”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,011,548 (“Thacker”)
`
`Ex. 1009
`
`ITU-T J.83 Recommendation (April 1997) (“ITU-T J.83”)
`
`Ex. 1010
`
`Declaration of Brenda Ray
`
`Ex. 1011
`
`Declaration of June Munford
`
`Ex. 1012
`
`Ex. 1013
`
`Ex. 1014
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek
`Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01163 (W.D. Tex. November 10, 2022) (ECF 1).
`
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, ParkerVision, Inc. v.
`MediaTek Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01163 (W.D. Tex. March 8, 2023)
`(ECF 16).
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.’s Disclosure of Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions, ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc., No. 6:22-cv-
`01163 (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2023).
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1015
`
`Ex. 1016
`
`Ex. 1017
`
`Ex. 1018
`
`Ex. 1019
`
`Ex. 1020
`
`Ex. 1021
`
`Ex. 1022
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`Claim Chart for Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,835 by
`MediaTek’s MT7612UN Chip, accompanying ParkerVision, Inc.’s
`Disclosure of Preliminary Infringement Contentions, ParkerVision,
`Inc. v. MediaTek Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01163 (W.D. Tex. June 20,
`2023).
`
`Claim Construction Order, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00108 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2021) (ECF 75).
`
`Claim Construction Order, ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Electronics,
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00520 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2022) (ECF 55).
`
`Special Master’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim
`Construction, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., No. 6:20-cv-00870
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2022) (ECF 72).
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order, ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc.,
`No. 6:22-cv-01163 (W.D. Tex. July 31, 2023) (ECF 44).
`
`U.S. District Courts – Federal Court Management Statistics, UNITED
`STATES COURTS (March 31, 2023), available at
`https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/fcms_na_dis
`tprofile0630.2023.pdf.
`
`J. Crols, A 1.5 GHz Highly Linear CMOS Downconversion Mixer,
`30 IEEE Journal Of Solid-State Circuits 736 (July 1995).
`
`Protective Order
`
`Ex. 1023
`
`U.S. Patent No.6,088,569 (“Bach”)
`
`Ex. 1024
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,181,716 (“Lide”)
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 311 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, MediaTek Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–5 (“challenged
`
`claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,292,835 (Ex. 1001, the “’835 Patent”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Although this is Petitioner’s first petition challenging claims of the
`
`’835 Patent, the Board has previously found (in a proceeding brought by unrelated
`
`petitioners) certain ’835 Patent claims unpatentable, including independent
`
`claim 1. TCL Indus. Holdings Co., Ltd. v. ParkerVision, Inc., IPR2021-00985,
`
`Final Written Decision, Paper 44 (PTAB Nov. 17, 2022) (“TCL IPR Final Written
`
`Decision”).1 Dependent claims 2‒5 were not at issue in the TCL IPR, and the
`
`present Petition challenging those claims was necessitated by Patent Owner’s
`
`litigation conduct following the TCL IPR final written decision.
`
`
`1 The final written decision in the TCL IPR is presently on appeal.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Indus. Holdings Co., Ltd., No. 2023-1417 (Fed. Cir.). If
`
`the Board’s finding of unpatentability is affirmed, and the USPTO issues a
`
`certificate canceling claim 1 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(b), the challenge to
`
`claim 1 in this Petition will be at issue only because claims 2‒5 include the
`
`limitations of claim 1 (the independent claim from which they depend).
`
`– 1 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the MediaTek litigation
`
`have been a moving target. Specifically, on November 10, 2022, Patent Owner
`
`filed its original complaint against Petitioner in district court (“MediaTek
`
`litigation”), which asserted only claims 1 and 17. (Ex. 1012, p. 10.) The FWD in
`
`the TCL IPR issued just one week later, holding both ’835 Patent claims asserted
`
`in the MediaTek litigation (claims 1 and 17) unpatentable. Then, in March 2023,
`
`Patent Owner filed an amended complaint, removing allegations of infringement
`
`for claims 1 and 17 and newly asserting claims 3–5. (Ex. 1013, p. 17.) In its
`
`June 2023 preliminary infringement contentions, Patent Owner maintained the
`
`infringement allegations for claims 3–5, re-introduced the infringement allegations
`
`for claims 1 and 17, and asserted for the first time claims 2, 12–15, and 17–20.
`
`(Ex. 1014, p. 2.) Of the claims now at issue in the MediaTek litigation, Petitioner
`
`challenges in this Petition only those asserted claims not already found
`
`unpatentable in the TCL IPR (claims 2–5) and the independent claim from which
`
`they depend (claim 1).
`
`For the reasons described herein, and for the reasons the Board already
`
`articulated in its Final Written Decision in the TCL IPR, Petitioner requests
`
`institution of inter partes review and cancellation of all challenged claims of the
`
`’835 Patent.
`
`– 2 –
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(B)
`A. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
`MediaTek Inc., MediaTek USA Inc., MTK Wireless Limited (UK),
`
`Gaintech Co. Limited, and MediaTek Investment Singapore Pte. Ltd. are the real
`
`parties-in-interest.
`
`B. RELATED MATTERS
`Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner infringes the ’835 Patent in
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. MediaTek Inc., No. 6:22-cv-01163 (W.D. Tex.) (complaint
`
`filed November 10, 2022).
`
`Additionally, Patent Owner has asserted the ’835 Patent in the following
`
`litigations: ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et al, No. 6:20-
`
`cv- 00945 (W.D. Tex.); ParkerVision, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al, No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00870 (W.D. Tex.); ParkerVision, Inc. v. ZyXEL Commc’ns Corp., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`01010 (W.D. Tex.); ParkerVision, Inc. v. Buffalo Inc., No. 6:20-cv-01009
`
`(W.D. Tex.); ParkerVision, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00520 (W.D. Tex.);
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., 6:22-cv-01162 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`The ’835 Patent has been involved in the following PTAB proceedings: TCL
`
`Indus. Holdings Co., Ltd. v. ParkerVision, Inc., No. IPR2021-00985 (PTAB); LG
`
`Elecs., Inc. v. ParkerVision, Inc., No. IPR2022-00246 (PTAB) (joined to IPR2021-
`
`00985). The Board found claims 1, 12–15, and 17–20 unpatentable, and that
`
`– 3 –
`
`

`

`
`
`decision is presently on appeal in ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Indus. Holdings Co.,
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`Ltd., No. 23-1417 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`C. NOTICE OF COUNSEL AND SERVICE INFORMATION
`Lead counsel: Jessica C. Kaiser, Reg. No. 58,937
`
`Back-up counsel: Matthew C. Bernstein, pro hac vice to be requested;
`
`Kyle R. Canavera, Reg. No. 72,167; Kevin A. Zeck, pro hac vice to be requested.
`
`These attorneys can be reached by mail at Perkins Coie LLP, 11452 El
`
`Camino Real, Suite 300, San Diego, CA 92130; by phone at (858) 720-5700; and
`
`by fax at (858) 720-5799.
`
`Petitioner consents to electronic service. All services and communications
`
`to the attorneys listed above may be sent to: PerkinsServiceMediatek-
`
`ParkerVisionIPRs@perkinscoie.com. A Power of Attorney is being filed
`
`concurrently.
`
`III. REQUIREMENTS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`This Petition is complete, complies with all requirements and thus should be
`
`accorded a filing date as the date of filing of this Petition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.106.
`
`A. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that the ’835 Patent is available for IPR and that the
`
`Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting IPR challenging claims of the
`
`’835 Patent on the grounds identified herein.
`
`– 4 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`B.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE
`Claims Challenged
`1.
`The precise relief requested is that the Board institute an IPR trial on claims
`
`1–5 of the ’835 Patent on all presented grounds and cancel claims 1–5.
`
`The Prior Art
`2.
`The prior art references relied upon are prior art discussed or referred in the
`
`papers filed with Petition. See Exhibit List, supra. The prior art references relied
`
`upon in the specific invalidity grounds are listed below and are identified in
`
`connection with applicable subsections under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 4,682,117 (“Gibson”) (Ex. 1004) issued on July 21,
`
`1987, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA);
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,339,459 (“Schiltz”) (Ex. 1005) issued on August 16,
`
`1994, and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA);
`
`3.
`
`J. Crols, A Single-Chip 900 MHz CMOS Receiver Front-End with a
`
`High Performance Low-IF Topology, 30 IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-
`
`STATE CIRCUITS 1483 (Dec. 1995) (“Crols”) (Ex. 1006) published in
`
`December 1995 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA);
`
`4.
`
`L. Goldberg, “MCNS/DOCSIS MAC Clears a Path for the Cable-
`
`Modem Invasion,” Electronic Design; Dec. 1, 1997; 45, 27; Materials
`
`Science & Engineering Collection pg. 69 (“Goldberg”) (Ex. 1007),
`
`– 5 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`published on December 1, 1997 (see Ex. 1010, Declaration of Brenda
`
`Ray)2 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA);
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,011,548 (“Thacker”) (Ex. 1008), was filed on
`
`September 4, 1998, and issued January 4, 2000, and is prior art under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e) (pre-AIA);
`
`6.
`
`ITU-T J.83Recommendation (April 1997) (“ITU-T J.83”) (Ex. 1009),
`
`was published in April 1997 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b);
`
`and
`
`7.
`
`Applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”), set forth in the ’835 Patent
`
`(Ex. 1001) at column 40, lines 17-35.
`
`3. Grounds for Challenge
`Basis
`References
`
`Ground
`
`1
`2
`
`
`§ 103
`§ 103
`
`Gibson, Schiltz
`Crols
`
`Challenged
`Claims
`1–5
`1–5
`
`As to both Grounds, if the Board finds that the preamble of claim 1 is
`
`
`2 Exhibit 1010 is re-submitted from the TCL IPR, and is Exhibit 1010 to the
`
`Petition in IPR2021-00985. The public availability of Goldberg is further
`
`evidenced by the Declaration of June Munford, Ex. 1011.
`
`– 6 –
`
`

`

`
`
`limiting—and thus requires a “cable modem”—then Petitioner submits that the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`challenged claims are unpatentable as obvious over the combinations above and
`
`further in view of publications (e.g., Goldberg and Thacker) describing the then-
`
`existing cable modem standards (ITU-T J.83 and DOCSIS) and/or AAPA.
`
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Lawrence E. Larson, Ph.D.
`
`(“Larson Decl.” (Ex. 1003)), demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail with respect to cancellation of at least one challenged claim.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Statutory Grounds Of Challenge And Legal Principles
`4.
`This Petition requests cancellation of claims 1–5 of the ’835 Patent under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 to 319 and 325(d).
`
`IV. BACKGROUND TECHNOLOGY
`A. Wireless communications signals
`Wireless devices (e.g., cellular phones) exchange information by
`
`transmitting and receiving electromagnetic signals. These signals are
`
`communicated from one device’s transmitter to another device’s receiver. The
`
`challenged claims of the ’835 Patent focus on devices for receiving signals
`
`transmitted from another device.
`
`Before transmission, information (e.g., the voice information of a telephone
`
`call) exists as a “baseband signal,” which has a relatively low frequency. The
`
`– 7 –
`
`

`

`
`
`baseband signal is often a digital signal, and to transmit the baseband signal
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`wirelessly, the digital signal sometimes is converted into an analog signal. As
`
`shown below, an analog signal is a continuous waveform that oscillates at a
`
`particular frequency between maximum and minimum values:
`
`(Larson Decl., ¶¶28-30.)
`
`
`
`“Modulating” Signals for Wireless Communications
`B.
`Because baseband signals have relatively low frequencies, they cannot be
`
`effectively transmitted through the air between wireless devices. Instead, a
`
`baseband signal must be “imprinted” onto a higher frequency signal—called a
`
`“carrier” signal—that can be transmitted more easily. This carrier signal “carries”
`
`the baseband signal through the air from one device to another device.
`
`This process of “imprinting” a lower frequency baseband signal onto a
`
`higher frequency carrier signal is called “modulation.” Modulation is achieved by
`
`– 8 –
`
`

`

`
`
`modifying the frequency, phase, and/or amplitude of the carrier signal based on the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`frequency, phase, and/or amplitude of the baseband signal. The following
`
`describes well-known modulation techniques. (Larson Decl., ¶¶31-33.)
`
`Amplitude Modulation
`1.
`As shown below, modifying the carrier signal’s amplitude based on the
`
`amplitude of the baseband signal is called “amplitude modulation.” In this case,
`
`the modified carrier signal is called an “amplitude modulated signal,” which can be
`
`transmitted wirelessly over the air.
`
`(Larson Decl., ¶34.)
`
`The receiver “knows” the frequency of the unmodulated carrier signal ahead
`
`– 9 –
`
`

`

`
`
`of time. Thus, when it receives the amplitude modulated signal, it can recover the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`original baseband signal from the modulated signal by separating out the amplitude
`
`of carrier frequency. (Larson Decl., ¶¶34-35.)
`
`Phase Modulation
`2.
`A baseband signal can also be transmitted wirelessly to another device using
`
`phase modulation. In this case, the carrier signal’s phase is modified based on the
`
`phase of the baseband signal, as shown below.
`
`(Larson Decl., ¶36.)
`
`This modified carrier signal is called a “phase modulated signal,” which can
`
`be wirelessly transmitted. As with amplitude modulation, the receiver knows the
`
`– 10 –
`
`

`

`
`
`frequency of the carrier signal beforehand and can recover the baseband signal by
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`extracting the phase of the carrier signal. (Larson Decl., ¶¶36-37.)
`
`3. Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (“QAM”)
`QAM modulation involves two carrier waves of the same frequency that are
`
`out of phase with each other by 90 degrees, a condition known as “quadrature.”
`
`The amplitude of each of the two carrier waves are independently modified in
`
`amplitude to convey information. Often one signal is called the in-phase or “I”
`
`signal, and the other is called the quadrature-phase or “Q” signal. After
`
`modulation of these two carrier waves, the signals are combined and transmitted.
`
`(See ’835 Patent, 40:35-51.). The combined transmitted wave thus has variations
`
`in amplitude and phase, depending on the information that it conveys.
`
`For example, if the baseband signal contains the bit string “0011” the QAM-
`
`modulated wave may have a first amplitude and a first phase as shown on the top
`
`of the figure below. When the baseband signal contains the bit string “0101” the
`
`QAM-modulated wave may have a second amplitude and a second phase as shown
`
`in the middle of the figure below. And when the baseband signal contains the bit
`
`string “1100” the QAM-modulated wave may have a third amplitude and a third
`
`phase, as shown in the bottom of the below figure:
`
`– 11 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`
`
`(Larson Decl., ¶39.)
`
`A QAM receiver receives the overall signal, which is a combination of both
`
`the amplitude-modulated I and Q carriers. The QAM receiver separates the in-
`
`phase modulated signal from the quadrature-phase modulated signal. Because the
`
`receiver “knows” the frequency of the unmodulated I and Q carrier signals ahead
`
`of time, it can recover the original baseband signals.
`
`Recovery of the transmitted data is illustrated below with the aid of a
`
`“constellation” diagram, which plots the recovered I signal on the x-axis and the
`
`recovered Q signal on the y-axis:
`
`– 12 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`(Larson Decl., ¶41.)
`
`
`
`This example is known as “16-QAM” because the modulated wave transmits
`
`16 symbols (with 4 bits per symbol). As seen in the above constellation diagram,
`
`when the receiver detects a symbol having an amplitude and phase corresponding
`
`to the green circle on the top right of the diagram, it interprets this as the bit string
`
`“0011.” When the receiver detects the green symbol in the upper left quadrant, it
`
`interprets it as the bit string “0101,” and when it detects the green symbol in the
`
`lower left quadrant,” it interprets it as “1100,” and so on. In this way, the receiver
`
`can demodulate the QAM-modulated signal and recover the transmitted
`
`information (e.g., a transmitted bit string). (Larson Decl., ¶38.)
`
`– 13 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`QAM modulation varies the phase and amplitude of a wave, and thus can
`
`transmit data faster than modulations that vary phase or amplitude alone. For
`
`example, 16-QAM transmits 4 bits per symbol. 64-QAM is faster still, as it can
`
`transmit 6 bits per symbol, and otherwise operates according to the same principles
`
`as 16-QAM. (’835 Patent, 47:6-14.)
`
`V. OVERVIEW OF THE ’835 PATENT
`A. Alleged Problem
`The ’835 Patent discloses purportedly inventive receivers for use in “cable
`
`modem applications.” (’835 Patent, Abstract).
`
`B. Alleged Invention
`The ’835 Patent purportedly teaches a wireless “QAM modulation mode
`
`receiver” used to down-convert and demodulate an input signal that is modulated
`
`according to QAM. (’835 Patent, 42:43-43:57, Fig. 54B.) The patent admits that
`
`QAM “is a well known technique for modulating digital signals using both
`
`amplitude and phase coding” (Id. at 40:37-51) and states that the receivers of the
`
`invention “may be implemented in cable modems.” (Id. at 40:52-61.) But the
`
`patent admits that “cable modem receivers … of the present invention may be
`
`implemented using a variety of well known devices.” (Id. at 40:17-35 (listing
`
`prior art cable modem devices “manufactured by Broadcom”).)
`
`The challenged claims and the specification recite a basic structure for
`
`– 14 –
`
`

`

`
`
`performing down-conversion, with nothing identified that is unique to “cable
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`modems.” Figure 54B (shown below) shows a modem (5402) that receives a
`
`signal 5416, with the received signal 5416 comprising “two information signals
`
`modulated with an RF carrier signal according to” the QAM modulation technique.
`
`(’835 Patent, 42:43-43:57.)
`
`
`
`(’835 Patent, Fig. 54B.)3
`
`This received RF electromagnetic signal is processed by two modules: a
`
`
`3 All annotations and emphasis have been added unless otherwise noted.
`
`– 15 –
`
`

`

`
`
`first frequency down-conversion module 5422 and a second frequency down-
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`conversion module 5424. In addition, the challenged claims include an oscillator
`
`5426 that generates an in-phase oscillating signal 5434, and a phase-shifter 5428
`
`that receives the in-phase oscillating signal and outputs a quadrature-phase
`
`oscillating signal 5436. Each down-conversion module comprises a frequency
`
`translation module (e.g., a switch, blue) and a storage module (e.g., a capacitor,
`
`brown), as shown for example in Figures 20A and 20A-1.
`
`(’835 Patent, Fig. 20A.)
`
`
`
`– 16 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`(’835 Patent, Fig. 20A-1.)
`
`
`
`In Figure 54B of the ’835 Patent, the first-frequency translation module
`
`5422 “samples” the RF signal 5416 at a rate that is a function of the in-phase
`
`oscillating signal 5434, creating a down-converted in-phase signal 5438 (yellow).
`
`Similarly, the second frequency translation module 5424 samples the RF signal
`
`5416 at a rate that is a function of the quadrature-phase oscillating signal 5436,
`
`creating a down-converted quadrature-phase signal 5440 (gray). The down-
`
`converted “I” and “Q” signals may be “information” signals with “more than two
`
`possible states or voltage levels” according to the QAM modulation technique.
`
`(’835 Patent, 43:17-20, 43:32-34.)
`
`Claim 1 is directed to the receiver of Figure 54B:
`
`1.
`
`A cable modem for down-converting an electromagnetic signal having
`
`complex modulations, comprising:
`
`– 17 –
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`an oscillator to generate an in-phase oscillating signal;
`
`a phase shifter to receive said in-phase oscillating signal and to create a
`
`quadrature-phase oscillating signal;
`
`a first frequency down-conversion module to receive the electromagnetic
`
`signal and said in-phase oscillating signal;
`
`a second frequency down-conversion module to receive the electromagnetic
`
`signal and said quadrature-phase oscillating signal; wherein
`
`said first frequency down-conversion module further comprises a first
`
`frequency translation module and a first storage module, wherein
`
`said first frequency translation module samples the electromagnetic
`
`signal at a rate that is a function of said in- phase oscillating signal,
`
`thereby creating a first sampled signal; and
`
`said second frequency down-conversion module further comprises a second
`
`frequency translation module and a second storage module, wherein
`
`said second frequency translation module sample the electromagnetic
`
`signal at a rate that is a function of said quadrature-phase oscillating
`
`signal, thereby creating a second sampled signal.
`
`(’835 Patent, claim 1 (emphasis added); Larson Decl., ¶¶43-48, 51.) The additional
`
`challenged claims 2‒5 are reproduced below.
`
`2.
`
`The cable modem of claim 1, wherein said quadrature-phase oscillating signal
`
`– 18 –
`
`

`

`
`
`is out of phase with said in-phase oscillating signal by substantially 90 degrees.
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`3.
`
`The cable modem of claim 1, wherein
`
`said first storage device has a first storage first port and a first storage second
`
`port,
`
`said first storage first port being connected to said first sampled signal, and
`
`said first storage second port is connected to a first reference potential, and
`
`said second storage device has a second storage first port and a second storage
`
`second port,
`
`said second storage first port being connected to said second sampled signal,
`
`and
`
`said second storage second port is connected to a second reference potential.
`
`4.
`
`The cable modem of claim 3, wherein said first storage device is a first
`
`capacitor, and said second storage device is a second capacitor.
`
`5.
`
`The system of claim 3, wherein said first reference potential is substantially
`
`equal to ground, and said second reference potential is substantially equal to ground.
`
`C. The Examiner Did Not Consider or Analyze the Gibson, Schiltz,
`or Crols References Presented in This Petition During Original
`Prosecution.
`The application was filed on January 29, 2001. (Ex. 1002, 1-8.) On
`
`August 30, 2001, the applicant filed a preliminary amendment, amending the
`
`preamble of claim 1 by deleting “system” in favor of “cable modem,” and
`
`– 19 –
`
`

`

`
`
`amending the body of claim 1 by replacing “universal frequency transfer module”
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,292,835
`PTAB Case No. IPR 2024-00150
`
`with “universal frequency translation module.” (Ex. 1002, 9-20.) The applicant
`
`did not provide a reason for either of these amendments. (See id.)
`
`Along with a response to a restriction requirement, on December 28, 2004,
`
`the applicant amended claim 1 by deleting “universal” in the phrase “universal
`
`frequency down-conversion module.” (Ex. 1002, 31-47.) Shortly thereafter, the
`
`examiner allowed the claims, without having issued any rejections. (Ex. 1002, 48-
`
`53 (Feb. 10, 2005 Notice of Allowance).) The stated reason for allowance was
`
`that “the prior arts of record, in combination or individual, fail to show or make …
`
`obvious” the invention recited in independent claim 1. (Ex. 1002, 52.) Then, on
`
`several occasions, the applicant requested continued prosecution to cite additional
`
`refer