Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 1 of 30
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO.,
`LTD., TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS
`LTD., SHENZHEN TCL NEW
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., TCL KING
`ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
`(HUIZHOU) CO., LTD., TCL MOKA
`INT’L LTD., and TCL MOKA
`MANUFACTURING S.A. DE C.V.;
`
`HISENSE CO., LTD. and HISENSE
`VISUAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (F/K/A
`QINGDAO HISENSE ELECTRONICS CO.),
`LTD. and HISENSE ELECTRIC CO., LTD.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00945-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00870-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`DECLARATION OF MATTHEW SHOEMAKE B. SHOEMAKE IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 30
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 30
`
`I, Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D., do hereby declare andstate, that all statements are made
`
`herein of my own knowledgearetrue andthat all statements made on information andbelief are
`
`believed to be true.
`
`I am over the age of 21 and am competent to makethis declaration. These
`
`statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements are punishable by fine or
`
`imprisonment, or both, under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
`
`Dated: August23,2021OwGS
`
`Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D.
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................... 2
`I.
`MATERIALS REVIEWED ................................................................................................ 8
`II.
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .............................................................. 9
`III.
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................................. 10
`IV.
`A. “Low Impedance Load” .................................................................................................... 11
`B. “Said Energy Discharged From Said Capacitor Provides Sufficient Power to Drive the
`Low Impedance Load” ...................................................................................................... 16
`C. “Voltage of the Input Modulated Carrier Signal is Not Reproduced or Approximated at
`the Capacitor During the Apertures or Outside of the Apertures” .................................... 18
`D. “A Down-Convert and Delay Module to Under-Sample an Input Signal to Produce an
`Input Sample of a Down-Converted Image of Said Input Signal, and to Delay Said Input
`Sample” ............................................................................................................................. 21
`E. “Delay Module” Terms ..................................................................................................... 22
`F. “Said Control Signal Comprises a Train of Pulses Having Pulse Widths That are
`Established to Improve Energy Transfer From Said Input Signal to Said Down-Converted
`Image” ............................................................................................................................... 25
`G. “Wherein Said Energy Transfer Signal Generator in Widening Said Apertures of Said
`Pulses by a Non-Negligible Amount That Tends Away From Zero Time in Duration to
`Extend the Time That Said Switch is Closed for the Purpose of Increasing Energy
`Transferred From Said Input Signal Does So at the Expense of Reproducing Said Input
`Signal, Such That Said Increased Energy Transferred From Said Input Signal When Said
`Switch is Closed in Response to Said Energy Transfer Signal Prevents Substantial
`Voltage Reproduction of Said Input Signal” .................................................................... 26
`H. “Establishing Apertures” Terms ....................................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 4 of 30
`
`I.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1.
`
`I, Matthew B. Shoemake, Ph.D, submit this declaration in support of TCL
`
`Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., Shenzhen TCL New Technology
`
`Co., Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd., TCL Moka Int'l Ltd., and Moka
`
`Manufacturing S.A. De C.V. (collectively “TCL”) and Defendants Hisense Co., Ltd. and Hisense
`
`Visual Technology Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Qingdao Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd. and Hisense Electric
`
`Co., Ltd.) (collectively “Hisense”) (TCL and Hisense are collectively referred to as
`
`“Defendants”) opening claim construction brief.
`
`2.
`
`Although I am being compensated for my time at a rate of $670 per hour in
`
`preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my own. I have no stake in the outcome of
`
`this proceeding. My compensation does not depend in any way on the outcome of this
`
`proceeding or on any IPRs related to this proceeding requested by the Defendants.
`
`3.
`
`I graduated magna cum laude from Texas A&M University in 1994 upon earning
`
`two bachelor’s degrees, one in Electrical Engineering and one in Computer Science. While at
`
`Texas A&M I took several classes on analog and RF design including the use of switched
`
`capacitors. I also took digital signal processing at Texas A&M.
`
`4.
`
`I also earned a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Cornell
`
`University in 1997 and 1999, where my studies focused on communications systems,
`
`communication protocols, and information theory. While at Cornell I also was a teaching
`
`assistant for digital signal processing courses.
`
`5.
`
`I have almost 30 years of experience in a variety of technologies and industries
`
`related to communications systems. From 1991 to 1995, I worked as an intern in the Digital
`
`Signal Processing Group at Texas Instruments, Inc. in Stafford, Texas. I worked on both product
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 5 of 30
`
`engineering and applications engineering projects. Our DSP chips were used in a variety of
`
`products including wired and wireless communication systems.
`
`6.
`
`I was on the founding team of Alantro Communications, Inc. (“Alantro”), a
`
`manufacturer of semiconductor products that relate to communication systems. While employed
`
`by Alantro, I served as an engineer and engineering manager in the development of an HDSL2
`
`modem, a cable modem, a 2.4 GHz cordless phone, and Wi-Fi technologies. During that time, I
`
`was responsible for developing the digital baseband portions of physical layers; the portion of a
`
`communication system that is responsible for transmitting information over a physical medium,
`
`such as wire, fiber, or air; and successfully decoding the information at the receiver. I also
`
`worked on standardized interface technologies such as Ethernet (802.3) and USB. My team at
`
`Alantro worked on and pioneered Wi-Fi technology, which was the foundation of the Wi-Fi
`
`product line offered by Texas Instruments. Texas Instruments acquired Alantro in 2000.
`
`7.
`
`After Texas Instruments acquired Alantro, I became the director of the Wireless
`
`Networking Branch in the Texas Instruments DSP Solutions R&D Center from 2000 to 2003.
`
`While manager of this group, I developed technologies for increasing throughput and quality of
`
`service in communications networks. I also worked with sister organizations including DSL and
`
`cable modem teams to integrate Wi-Fi into products such as home gateways.
`
`8.
`
`In 2003, I founded WiQuest Communications, Inc. and was the CEO from 2003
`
`to 2008. At WiQuest, I developed and sold the world’s first wireless docking system for
`
`notebook computers and the world's first 1 Gbps ultra wideband chipset. Our products contained
`
`RF and analog circuitry for modulating and demodulating high-speed signals transmitted
`
`wirelessly.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 6 of 30
`
`9.
`
`From 2008 to 2018 I was the CEO and Founder of Biscotti Inc., which designs
`
`high-definition, Wi-Fi-based video calling systems for the home and office. Biscotti was
`
`founded in 2008 for the purpose of enabling consumer-based video calling in the home.
`
`Biscotti’s products were awarded the 2012 CES Innovation award and have been featured on
`
`television’s The View as well as in numerous publications including The Financial Times, The
`
`Dallas Morning News, Mashable, EE Times, USA Today, PC World and Engadget. Biscotti
`
`cameras provided secure audio/video communication. Biscotti’s cameras performed audio and
`
`video processing and included interfaces such as HDMI, Wi-Fi, Ethernet and IR. Biscotti
`
`products also use interchip communication technologies such as USB, I2C and I2S.
`
`10.
`
`Beginning in 2008, companies began calling on me to serve as an expert in patent
`
`litigation. I have testified in numerous cases related to communication networks as well as
`
`standards. After working as a sole proprietor for many years, I incorporated Peritum LLC in
`
`2016. I continue my expert consulting work via Peritum today.
`
`11.
`
`I participated in the IEEE 802.11 standards development process between 1998
`
`and 2004, including, but not limited to, through my participation in the IEEE 802.11a, IEEE
`
`802.11b, IEEE 802.11g, IEEE 802.11e, IEEE 802.11i and IEEE 802.11n standards development
`
`processes. I also made numerous presentations to the participants in the groups that developed
`
`the IEEE 802.11b, 802.11g and 802.11n amendments. Based on those submissions, technologies
`
`of which I am an inventor were ultimately adopted into the IEEE 802.11b and 802.11g
`
`amendments.
`
`12.
`
`I have personal experience with standard-setting meeting and with rules
`
`governing the conduct of meetings at standards-setting bodies. For example, I was a voting
`
`member of the IEEE 802.11 Working Group during critical votes that were taken during the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 7 of 30
`
`802.11a, b, g, e, i, and n standards development processes. In September of 1999, I organized
`
`and hosted the IEEE 802.11 Working Group meeting in Santa Rosa, California, the meeting at
`
`which IEEE 802.11a (now Wi-Fi 1) and IEEE 802.11b (now Wi-Fi 2) were ratified. In January
`
`of 2001, I organized and hosted the IEEE 802.11 Working Group meeting in Dallas, Texas. I
`
`have continued to actively monitor the 802.11 development process through the years and
`
`periodically attend meetings today.
`
`13.
`
`I have years of experience with the rules and practices for chairing standard-
`
`setting meetings during the standardization process. Having heavily participated in the IEEE
`
`802.11b standardization process, I was elected by the membership of the 802.11 Working Group
`
`to chair a Study Group to develop a high-rate extension to the IEEE 802.11b amendment, which
`
`ultimately became the IEEE 802.11g amendment (now Wi-Fi 3). This Study Group evolved into
`
`a Task Group (known as Task Group G, or TGg), which I also chaired.
`
`14.
`
`As Chairperson of Task Group G, I was responsible for leading all of the
`
`activities of Task Group G, including, among other things, ensuring compliance with standard-
`
`setting rules, processes, and procedures, including patent policies; being knowledgeable in both
`
`the standards process and parliamentary procedure; setting goals and deadlines; developing and
`
`publishing meeting agendas; calling meetings; entertaining motions; ensuring fairness in
`
`discussions, including mediating discussions and seeking consensus; managing balloting;
`
`prioritizing work to best serve the group and its goals; fulfilling financial reporting requirements
`
`as appropriate; reporting on TGg status, work, and activities to the full 802.11 Working Group;
`
`interfacing with other Task Group chairs as appropriate; and delegating and assigning functions
`
`and subtasks of the group. I was the Chair of TGg from inception through ratification of the
`
`IEEE 802.11g amendment in 2003.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 8 of 30
`
`15.
`
`In 2003, I was elected by the IEEE 802.11 Working Group members to be the
`
`Chairperson of the 802.11n Task Group (now Wi-Fi 4). In early 2004 I stepped down as chair of
`
`IEEE 802.11n to take a CEO position.
`
`16.
`
`I am an inventor of technology that was adopted as part of the 802.11 standard
`
`(e.g., PBCC), including the 802.11b and 802.11g amendments.
`
`17. My familiarity with digital signal processing, communication systems and analog
`
`and RF design began while I was an undergraduate at Texas A&M University in College Station
`
`between 1989 and 1994. Further, during my undergraduate studies I was an intern at Texas
`
`Instruments’ Digital Signal Processor (DSP) group in Stafford, Texas. Texas Instruments’ DSP
`
`chips were used in multiple applications, including wireless digital communication systems. My
`
`study of communication theory continued from 1994 to 1999 while I was a graduate student at
`
`Cornell University.
`
`18.
`
`I have actively programmed computers for over 40 years, having started
`
`programming in BASIC circa 1982. My programming expertise includes BASIC, C, C++,
`
`Pascal, Java, Swift, assembly languages, HTML, Matlab, UNIX shell scripts, and hardware
`
`description languages (HDL).
`
`19.
`
`Based on my study and work experience, I am aware of a wealth of work that
`
`relates to communication systems, protocols, standards and interfaces. Examples of previous
`
`work I am familiar with include channel access protocols, the OSI and TCP/IP networking
`
`models, datagram/frame/packet formatting techniques, automatic repeat request (ARQ)
`
`techniques, handshakes, RTS/CTS, detection and estimation theory, capabilities signaling,
`
`information theory including theoretical channel capacities and source coding, forward error
`
`control (FEC), IEEE 802.1, IEEE 802.3, IEEE 802.11, video communications, audio
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 9 of 30
`
`communications, general purpose and specialized processors, Bluetooth, CAN, USB, wireless
`
`USB, I2C, I2S, UARTs, DSL, cable modems, AM radio, FM radio, DVB, NSTC, ATSC, MPEG,
`
`MP3, h.264, binary convolutional codes, Reed Solomon codes, trellis codes, low-density parity-
`
`check codes, color space conversions, QAM, BPSK, QPSK, SSB, frequency translation, DC
`
`offset, carrier offset, LPC-10, G.711, G.722 and AAC. I am also familiar with various file
`
`formats including vCards, JSON, XML, and HTML as well as databases.
`
`20.
`
`I have authored numerous publications in the field of wireless technology,
`
`including “Low Peak-to-Average Ratio Channel Estimation Sequences for MultiBand OFDM
`
`Systems” in EE Times, “High Performance Wireless Ethernet” in IEEE Communications
`
`Magazine, and various other articles in IEEE publications. I have presented papers at many
`
`IEEE and other meetings. I organized and hosted the September 1999 IEEE 802.11 meeting in
`
`Santa Rosa, California and the January 2002 meeting in Dallas, Texas. In March 2019 I gave an
`
`invited lecture as part of Texas A&M University’s Distinguished Speaker Series. The lecture was
`
`on the topic of LDPC coding for robust communication networks. I was recognized as a “leader
`
`and innovator” and recognized for my “many accomplishments as a researcher leader and
`
`scholar.”
`
`21.
`
`The IEEE 802.11g Task Group that I chaired received the Technology Excellence
`
`award in 2003 from PC Magazine for the protocols incorporated in the IEEE 802.11g
`
`amendment developed under my leadership.
`
`22.
`
`Companies I have founded won CES Innovations Awards in 2008 and 2012 for
`
`OFDM-based wireless technology and Wi-Fi connected cameras, respectively.
`
`23.
`
`I am a named inventor on at least thirty-four patents.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 10 of 30
`
`24.
`
`I served on the External Advisory Committee of the Texas A&M University
`
`Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering from 2006 to 2020.
`
`25.
`
`A full list of my qualifications and experience is contained in my CV, which I
`
`attached as Appendix 1 to this report.
`
`II. MATERIALS REVIEWED
`
`26. My opinions are based on years of education, research and experience, as well as
`
`investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming my opinions, I have considered the
`
`materials identified in this declaration, including USP 6,049,706 (“the ’706 patent”); USP
`
`6,266,518 (the ’518 patent); ”); USP 6,580,902 (the ’902 patent); USP 7,110,444 (the ’444
`
`patent); USP 7,292,835 (the ’835 patent); USP 8,588,725 (the ’725 patent); USP 6,660,513
`
`(the ’513 patent); USP 9,118,528 (the ’528 patent); USP 9,246,736 (the ’736 patent); USP
`
`9,444,673 (the ’672 patent) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”) and aspects of their file histories. I
`
`have also considered the materials identified in my Declarations in IPR2021-00990 (USP
`
`7,110,444) and IPR2021-00985 (USP 7,292,835), which are attached as Appendix 2 and
`
`Appendix 3, respectively.
`
`27.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond to
`
`arguments raised by the Plaintiff. I may also consider additional documents and information in
`
`forming any necessary opinions—including documents that may not yet have been provided to
`
`me.
`
`28. My analysis of the materials produced in this proceeding is ongoing and I will
`
`continue to review any new material as it is provided. This declaration represents only those
`
`opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise, supplement, and/or amend my
`
`opinions stated herein based on new information and on my continuing analysis of the materials
`
`already provided.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 11 of 30
`
`III.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`29.
`
`I have been informed that the Asserted Patents and their claims, as well as the
`
`prior art, are interpreted the way a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the relevant art
`
`would have interpreted these materials at the time of the invention. I understand that the “time of
`
`the invention” in is the earliest “priority date” that the applicant for Asserted Patents claimed in
`
`the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). I have been informed that the earliest
`
`priority date claimed for any Asserted Patent is October 21, 1998, but some of the Asserted
`
`Patents claim a later priority date in 1999 or 2000. I was conducting research and performing
`
`product development in the relevant technological field at that time.
`
`30.
`
`In determining the characteristics of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the claimed invention, I considered several things, including the factors discussed below,
`
`as well as (1) the levels of education and experience of the inventor and other persons actively
`
`working in the relevant field; (2) the types of problems encountered in the field; (3) prior art
`
`solutions to these problems; (4) the rapidity in which innovations are made; and (5) the
`
`sophistication of the relevant technology. I also placed myself back in the relevant time period
`
`and considered the individuals that I had worked with in the field.
`
`31.
`
`It is my opinion that a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time
`
`of the invention (“POSITA”) would have been someone with at least an undergraduate degree in
`
`electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the fields of
`
`communication systems, signal processing and/or RF circuit design. Less work experience may
`
`be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.
`
`32.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art is a hypothetical
`
`person who is assumed to be aware of all the pertinent information that qualifies as prior art. He
`
`or she is a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. He or she makes inferences and takes
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 12 of 30
`
`creative steps. In addition, a person of ordinary skill recognizes that prior art items may have
`
`obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases he or she will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple pieces of prior art together like pieces of a puzzle.
`
`33.
`
`I am prepared to testify as an expert in this field and also as someone who had at
`
`least the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed
`
`invention, and someone who worked with others that had at least the knowledge of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention.
`
`34.
`
`Unless otherwise stated, my statements below refer to the knowledge, beliefs and
`
`abilities of a person having ordinary skill with respect to the arts relevant to the Asserted Patents
`
`at the time of the claimed invention. I qualify at least as a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`during the time of the inventions.
`
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`35.
`
`I understand that the interpretation of the claims is a matter for the court to decide
`
`through a process called claim construction. I have been informed of several legal principles
`
`concerning claim construction as set forth below.
`
`36.
`
`I have been informed that claim terms are to be given the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning they would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. I
`
`have considered the disputed claim terms from this perspective in forming my opinions
`
`regarding the proper interpretation of the disputed claim terms.
`
`37.
`
`I have been informed that claim terms are to be construed in light of the claim
`
`language, the patent specification, and the file history. I understand that these sources are
`
`referred to as intrinsic evidence. I have been informed that extrinsic evidence, such as
`
`contemporaneous dictionaries, treatises, textbooks, and the like may also be considered, but
`
`should not be used to deviate from the meaning set forth in the intrinsic evidence.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 13 of 30
`
`38.
`
`I understand that a provision in the Patent Act states that “[t]he specification shall
`
`conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
`
`matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as his invention.” I understand that a claim
`
`that does not comply with this provision is said to be “indefinite,” and is invalid for this reason.
`
`I understand that a claim is invalid for indefiniteness if the claim, read in light of the
`
`specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable
`
`certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.
`
`39.
`
`I have applied these principles in forming my opinions.
`
`A.
`
`“Low Impedance Load”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’
`Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`“low impedance load”
`(’736 claims 26 and 27; ’673 claim 5)
`
`
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning
`
`40.
`
`The intrinsic evidence does not provide an objective boundary for determining
`
`what is a “low impedance load.”
`
`41.
`
`First, the specification describes a “low impedance load” as “one that is
`
`significant relative to the output drive impedance of the system for a given output
`
`frequency.” ’736 patent at 73:52-58 and ’673 patent at 67:52-58 (emphasis added). Yet this
`
`description merely shifts the uncertainty as to what is considered “low” to a different subjective
`
`term of degree (i.e., “significant relative” to another, unspecified impedance), and does nothing
`
`to resolve it.
`
`42.
`
`Second, this description indicates that whether an impedance is “low” also
`
`depends on the “output frequency” of a given system at some indeterminate time. Indeed, a
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 14 of 30
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would know that impedance is a frequency-dependent value.
`
`As such, in order to determine whether a given device infringes, not only must one of ordinary
`
`skill somehow divine what is “significant relative to the output drive impedance,” she must also
`
`predict the output frequencies with which the system ultimately will be utilized.
`
`43.
`
`Reasonable certainty regarding claim scope is impossible for one of ordinary skill
`
`under such a regime.
`
`44.
`
`The patents describe what is “low impedance” or “high impedance” in purely
`
`subjective ways. Both specifications instruct that a “low impedance load” is “one that is
`
`significant relative to the output drive impedance of the system for a given output
`
`frequency.” ’736 patent at 73:52-58 and ’673 patent at 67:52-58; see also ’736 patent at 76:34-
`
`40 and ’673 patent at 70:34-40 (“Recall from the overview of under-sampling that loads can be
`
`classified as high impedance loads or low impedance loads. A high impedance load is one that is
`
`relatively insignificant to an output drive impedance of the system for a given output frequency.
`
`A low impedance load is one that is relatively significant.”) (emphasis added in both cases). But
`
`defining “low impedance” as one that is “relatively significant” to an output drive impedance
`
`does nothing to resolve the uncertainty as to how to determine what a “low” impedance is in the
`
`context of these patents.
`
`45.
`
`Likewise, the described dependency of “low impedance” on a “given output
`
`frequency” renders it indeterminate. Electrical “impedance” measures the degree to which a
`
`circuit resists the flow of current. In an alternating current circuit, the current varies with
`
`frequency, and so does the impedance. For example, if the load consists of an inductor, its
`
`impedance is 2𝜋𝑓𝐿, where 𝑓 is frequency and 𝐿 is inductance. If the load consists of a capacitor,
`
`
`⁄
`
`its impedance is 1 (2𝜋𝑓𝐶) , where 𝐶 is capacitance. As another example, if a load consists of a
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 15 of 30
`
`resistor, capacitor, an inductor in a series circuit, the magnitude of the impedance is the
`
`(cid:3495)𝑅(cid:2870) + (cid:4672)2𝜋𝑓𝐿(cid:2870) −
`
`(cid:2870)
`
`(cid:4673)
`
`(cid:2869)
`
`(cid:2870)(cid:3095)(cid:3033)(cid:3004)
`
`, where 𝑅 is resistance and 𝑓, 𝐿, and 𝐶 are as previously specified. This
`
`shows that even if the values of 𝑅, 𝐿, and 𝐶 are completely specified, the actual value of
`
`impedance cannot be calculated until the frequency is specified. And importantly, the
`
`impedance of a load in circuit can be made low or higher simply by changing the circuit’s
`
`frequency.
`
`46.
`
`Again, the specification merely discloses that “low impedance” is a function of
`
`“a given output frequency”; it entirely fails to specify what frequency (or range of frequencies)
`
`would make it “low.” ’736 patent at 73:52-58 (defining a low impedance load as “one that is
`
`significant relative to the output drive impedance of the system for a given output
`
`frequency”); ’673 patent at 67:52-58 (same). And no other claims in the ’736 patent or the ’673
`
`patent specify the requisite frequency (or range of frequencies). Further, whether a load is “low
`
`impedance” could change depending on the actual output frequency used by a given operator,
`
`making infringement contingent on the set of circumstances in which the circuit may be used.
`
`47.
`
`Given this ambiguity, one of ordinary skill in the art could not have reasonable
`
`certainty as to the bounds of the claims. Thus, in my opinion, the claims are indefinite.
`
`48.
`
`The other statements in the specification also do not provide an objective
`
`boundary for determining “low impedance.” For example, the specification states
`
`“When the load 7812 is a low impedance load, the holding capacitance 7808 is
`significantly discharged by the load between pulses 8004 (FIG. 80C). As a result,
`the holding capacitance 7808 cannot reasonably attain or ‘hold’ the voltage of the
`original EM input signal 7804, as was seen in the case of FIG. 79D. Instead, the
`charge appears as the output illustrated in FIG. 80D.”
`
`’736 patent at 74:10-16; ’673 patent at 68:10-16 (emphasis added). The phrase “significantly
`
`discharged” fares no better than the description “significant relative to the output drive
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 16 of 30
`
`impedance” discussed previously, and does nothing to cure the frequency-dependent ambiguity
`
`in the term “low impedance.” And whether something is “significantly discharged” will also
`
`vary by application of the circuit, again demonstrating that the scope of the circuit claim is
`
`circumstance-dependent.
`
`49.
`
` A capacitor stores energy. The amount of energy a capacitor stores is determined
`
`by is capacitance, 𝐶, and the voltage, 𝑉, across the two terminals of the capacitor. The energy
`
`𝐶𝑉(cid:2870). Since a capacitor stores energy, it can be analogized
`
`(cid:2869) (cid:2870)
`
`stored is given by the equation 𝐸 =
`
`to a battery. Consider the battery in your mobile phone, e.g. our iPhone or Android phone. The
`
`question of when the battery of the phone is “significantly discharged” may vary from person-to-
`
`person. One person may view their phone has having significantly discharged when 50% of the
`
`battery life is left. Some other person may not view the battery as significantly discharged until a
`
`warning message is displayed saying the battery life is down to 10%. Yet another person might
`
`charge their phone every night when it has 70% battery life left, because they view 30% as a
`
`significant enough discharge. This illuminates the problem with the phrase “significant
`
`discharge.” As with a mobile phone’s battery for laypeople, the definition of what “significant
`
`discharge” of a capacitor is to a POSITA is ambiguous.
`
`50.
`
`The patents’ shared figures also do not resolve the uncertainty. For example,
`
`Figure 79D shows a circuit where the voltage on the capacitor is perfectly held while the switch
`
`is open—as indicated by the perfectly horizontal “stair step” shape:
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 17 of 30
`
`This scenario illustrates a circuit having a very “high” (effectively infinite) impedance load.
`
`Figure 80D illustrates a capacitor discharging to a load having a lower impedance—as indicated
`
`by the droop in the signal between times when the switch is closed:
`
`
`
`But where is the boundary between these two scenarios? When does the droop cross over from a
`
`“low” to a “high” impedance load? And is there some neutral ground in between the two that is
`
`neither “low” nor “high”? The patent provides no guidance, leaving the determination to
`
`unpredictable variations in the views of those skilled in the art.
`
`51.
`
`Neither prosecution history—the ’736 or ’637—provides any clarification of what
`
`qualifies or does not qualify as a “low impedance load.”
`
`52.
`
`ParkerVision’s proposed construction does nothing to remedy the ambiguity in
`
`the term “low impedance load.” ParkerVision simply argues that “low impedance load” should
`
`be given its “plain-and-ordinary meaning,” with no explanation of what that is, or how one of
`
`ordinary skill could determine what constitutes a “low impedance load” in the context of these
`
`patents. In fact, ParkerVision’s proposed construction would not even resolve the basic question
`
`of whether an impedance may be determined to be low based on its absolute value (e.g. 100
`
`ohms) or whether a determination of low impedance must be with respect to some other
`
`impedance in the system (e.g. the load impedance is ten times smaller than an output impedance).
`
`Given that ParkerVision’s proposed construction does not even resolve the most basic of
`
`questions regarding the meaning of “low impedance load,” in my opinion, ParkerVision’s
`
`proposed construction still leaves the meaning of the phrase “low impedance load” indefinite.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 33-20 Filed 08/23/21 Page 18 of 30
`
`B.
`
`“Said Energy Discharged From Said Capacitor Provides Sufficient Power to
`Drive the Low Impedance Load”
`
`Claim Term
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`
`Indefinite
`
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning
`
`“said energy discharged from
`said capacitor provides
`sufficient power to drive the
`low impedance load”
`(’673 claim 5)
`
`
`
`53.
`
`The phrase “said energy discharged from said