Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 49
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT
`EXHIBIT
`3
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 1 of 48 PageID 8035
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:11-cv-719-J-37TEM
`
`
`
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`
`
`
`QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.; and STERNE,
`KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC,
`
`
`
`
`Counterclaim Plaintiff,
`
`Counterclaim Defendants.
`
`
`
`This cause is before the Court on the construction of forty-four terms that appear
`
`ORDER
`
`in eighty-nine claims of six U.S. patents.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`ParkerVision contends that Qualcomm infringes, either directly or indirectly, the
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,061,551 (“the ’551 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,266,518 (“the
`
`’518 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,370,371 (“the ’371 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,963,734
`
`(“the ’734 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,496,342 (“the ’342 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,724,845 (“the ’845 Patent”). The patents-in-suit relate to methods, systems, and
`
`apparatuses used to convert electromagnetic signals from higher frequencies to lower
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 2 of 48 PageID 8036
`
`
`
`
`frequencies. Such down-conversion is used, for instance, in the operation of cellular
`
`
`
`telephones and similar devices.
`
`
`
`The parties have requested pretrial claim construction by the Court. The parties
`
`presented a non-adversarial tutorial on the technology on July 24, 2012 (Doc. No. 146,
`
`July 24, 2012 Hr’g Tr.); submitted two joint statements (Doc. Nos. 110, 114); filed
`
`opening and closing briefs together with documents in support (Doc. Nos. 119, 120,
`
`121, 122, 136, 137, 138, 139); and presented arguments at a claim construction hearing
`
`(Doc. No. 163, Aug. 8, 2012 Hr’g Tr.). The Court also appointed a technical advisor,
`
`Richard Egan of O’Keefe, Egan, Peterman & Enders, LLP. (Doc. No. 162.)
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court now turns to the construction of the disputed claim terms.1
`
`STANDARDS
`
`Claim construction is a matter of law. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1330
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Federal Circuit directs district courts construing claim
`
`terms to focuses on intrinsic evidence—that is, the claims, specification, and
`
`prosecution histories—because intrinsic evidence is “the most significant source of the
`
`legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
`
`F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim terms must
`
`be interpreted from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time
`
`of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`
`
`Claim construction starts with the claims, id. at 1312, and remains centered on
`
`the words of the claims throughout, Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc.,
`
`1 The parties have agreed to the construction of a number of claim limitations
`(see Doc. No. 141, pp. 11–12; Doc. No. 137, p. 20), which the Court hereby adopts as
`stipulations.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 3 of 48 PageID 8037
`
`
`
`
`256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In the absence of an express intent to impart a
`
`
`
`different or unique meaning to claim terms, the terms are presumed to have their
`
`ordinary meaning. Id. Claim limitations, however, must be read in view of the
`
`specification and prosecution history. Id. Indeed, the specification is often “the single
`
`best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`For ease of reference, the Court’s analysis of the forty-four disputed claim
`
`limitations proceeds in roughly the same order and format as presented by the parties in
`
`their Corrected Joint Claim Construction Pre-Hearing Statement. (Doc. No. 141.) Where
`
`possible, the Court discusses the construction of similar terms together.
`
` 1. Sampling and Similar Terms
`
`
`
`In the claims identified in the table below, the patents-in-suit use the terms
`
`“sampling,” “under-samples,” “sub-sampling,” and “sub-sample.” The parties dispute the
`
`meaning of these terms as follows:
`
`Term
`
`“Sampling”
`
`Claims
`
`1, 2, 3, 12, 17,
`24, 27, and 82
`of the ’518
`Patent
`
`
`ParkerVision
`
`“capturing energy of
`a signal at discrete
`times”
`
`Qualcomm
`
`“reducing a
`continuous signal to
`a discrete signal”
`
`
`“sampling at an
`aliasing rate using
`negligible apertures”
`
`
`
`“sampling at an
`aliasing rate”
`
` 5
`
` and 13 of the
`’734 Patent2
`
`
`“Under-
`samples”
`
`
`2 The term “under-sample” is also used in claims 97 and 98 of the ’518 Patent.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 5 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 4 of 48 PageID 8038
`
`
`
`
`
`Term
`
`“Sub-sampling”
`
`
`“Sub-sample”
`
`Claims
`
`77, 81, 90, and
`91 of the ’518
`Patent3
`
`
`1, 2, 22, 23, 25,
`and 31 of the
`’371 Patent
`
`
`ParkerVision
`
`
`
`Qualcomm
`
`“sampling/sample at
`a sub-harmonic
`rate””
`
`
`The Court first considers the parties’ arguments as they relate to “sampling.” The Court
`
`then considers the arguments that relate to the remaining terms.
`
`
`
`
`
` A. “Sampling”
`
`ParkerVision contends that the term “sampling” used in the claims of the ’518
`
`Patent refers to the capturing of energy at discrete times, which is how one skilled in the
`
`art would understand the term in the context of these patents. (Doc. No. 122, pp. 9–10.)
`
`Qualcomm argues that one skilled in the art would understand the term sampling to
`
`refer to the process by which a continuous signal is reduced to a discrete signal. (Doc.
`
`No. 119, pp. 3–4.) Qualcomm also argues that ParkerVision’s definition improperly
`
`inserts the concept of “capturing energy” into this term. (Id. at 4.) ParkerVision asserts
`
`that Qualcomm’s definition does not place the term in the proper context and merely
`
`adopts “basic” terminology. (Doc. No. 122, p. 10.)
`
`
`
`The patents-in-suit do not expressly define the term sampling, nor is the term
`
`defined or expanded upon in the file wrappers. The specification of the ’518 Patent
`
`introduces the concept of sampling as follows:
`
`
`3 See Doc. No. 141, p. 2. The Court notes that “sub-sampling” or a similar term is
`also found in claims 32, 77, 78, 90, and 93 of the ’518 Patent.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 6 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 5 of 48 PageID 8039
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Conventional signal processing techniques follow the Nyquist sampling
`theorem, which states that, in order to faithfully reproduce a sampled
`signal, the signal must be sampled at a rate that is greater than twice the
`frequency of the signal being sampled. When a signal is sampled at less
`than or equal to twice the frequency of the signal, the signal is said to be
`under-sampled, or aliased. Conventional signal processing thus teaches
`away from under-sampling and aliasing, in order to faithfully reproduce a
`sampled signal.
`
`’518 Patent col. 18 ll. 15–24; see also ’551 Patent col. 19 ll. 45–53.
`
`
`
`Similarly, Professor Alan Oppenheim4 introduces the concept of sampling, which
`
`is significant enough to merit a chapter in his textbook, as follows:
`
`Under certain conditions, a continuous-time signal can be completely
`represented by and recoverable from knowledge of its values, or samples,
`at points equally spaced in time. This somewhat surprising property
`follows from a basic result that is referred to as the sampling theorem.
`This theorem is extremely important and useful. It is exploited, for
`example, in moving pictures, which consist of a sequence of individual
`frames, each of which represents an instantaneous view (i.e., a sample in
`time) of a continuously changing scene.
`
`Alan V. Oppenheim, et al., Signals & Systems 514 (2d ed. 1996). Sampling is useful,
`
`teaches Professor Oppenheim, because “processing discrete-time signals is more
`
`flexible and is often preferable to processing continuous-time signals.” Id. Sampling is
`
`therefore
`
`an extremely attractive and widely employed method for using discrete-
`time system technology to implement continuous-time systems and
`process continuous-time signals: We exploit sampling to convert a
`continuous-time signal to a discrete-time signal, process the discrete-time
`signal using a discrete-time system, and then convert back to continuous
`time.
`
`Id. at 514–15.
`
`
`
`In sum, while the specifications of the patents-in-suit do not explicitly define the
`
`term “sampling,” they introduce the term by referring to what was well-known in the art
`
`
`4 Qualcomm cites to this text in support of its contentions.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 7 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 6 of 48 PageID 8040
`
`
`
`
`and use the term in a manner consistent with how it is used in the art. Moreover, the
`
`
`
`patents-in-suit continue to use the term in its commonly understood sense, even when
`
`other well-known terms of art are expressly redefined or modified in the description. For
`
`example, the term “aliasing,” which has a commonly understood meaning to those
`
`skilled in the art and is used in that way in some places in the disclosure, see id., is
`
`expressly re-imagined by the inventors to broadly refer to the energy transfer
`
`techniques disclosed in the patents, as well as the more conventional signal processing
`
`technique of under-sampling, ’518 Patent col. 20 ll. 55–59; see also ’551 Patent col. 20
`
`ll. 7–11 (defining the term aliasing as referring both to “down-converting an EM signal by
`
`under-sampling the EM signal at an aliasing rate and to down-converting an EM signal
`
`by transferring energy from the EM signal at the aliasing rate”).
`
`
`
`Given this contrast, the term’s well-known meaning to those skilled in the art, and
`
`the lack of an explicit definition in the specifications, the Court concludes that the term
`
`“sampling” as used in the claims of the ’518 Patent refers to “reducing a continuous-time
`
`signal to a discrete-time signal.”
`
`
`
`
`
` B. “Sub-Sampling”; “Sub-Sample”; and “Under-Samples”
`
`These terms appear in the claims of the ’518 Patent, the ’371 Patent, and the
`
`’734 Patent. The ’518 Patent matured from a continuation of the application that was
`
`issued as the ’551 Patent. Thus, the ’518 Patent has the same specification as the ’551
`
`Patent. The ’371 Patent and the ’734 Patent, however, do not claim priority to the ’551
`
`Patent but instead “incorporate by reference,” among other things, the teachings of the
`
`’551 Patent. See, e.g., ’371 Patent col. 1 ll. 10–27.
`
`
`
`ParkerVision contends that one skilled in the art would understand these terms to
`
`“refer to sampling at an aliasing rate, i.e., at a rate that is less than or equal to twice the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 8 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 7 of 48 PageID 8041
`
`
`
`
`frequency of the signal being sampled.” (Doc. No. 122, p. 11.) Qualcomm, on the other
`
`
`
`hand, contends that “under-sampling” should be understood to mean “sampling at an
`
`aliasing rate using negligible apertures,” and that the terms “sub-sample” and “sub-
`
`sampling” mean sampling “at a sub-harmonic rate.” (Doc. No. 119, pp. 4–6.) These
`
`meanings, according to ParkerVision, improperly limit the scope of the claims. (Doc. No.
`
`136, pp. 5–7.)
`
`
`
`The terms “sub-sample” and “sub-sampling” generally do not appear in the
`
`patents-in-suit except in the claims.5 To the extent they are discussed, they are
`
`introduced in the specifications during a discussion about the usefulness of the Nyquist
`
`sampling theorem. See ’518 Patent col. 18 ll. 15–24; ’551 Patent col. 19 ll. 45–53. The
`
`specifications note that “[w]hen a signal is sampled at less than or equal to twice the
`
`frequency of the signal, the signal is said to be under-sampled, or aliased.” ’518 Patent
`
`col. 18 ll. 15–24. Thus, according to the specification, “under-sampling” refers to a
`
`signal that was sampled at less than or equal to twice the frequency of the signal.
`
`Because the parties agree that the term “aliasing rate” means sampling at a rate “that is
`
`less than or equal to twice the frequency of the carrier signal,” (Doc. 141, p. 11), the
`
`meaning of “under-sampling” therefore could be simplified to “sampling at an aliasing
`
`rate.”
`
`
`
`Qualcomm contends that “under-sampling” must also refer to an aliasing rate
`
`using negligible apertures. Figure 45 of the ’518 Patent, for example, is a Venn diagram
`
`that suggests that “under-sampling” is a distinct concept from “transferring energy.”
`
`Qualcomm’s arguments spring from this inference, as well as an inference drawn from
`
`
`5 “Sub-sampling” also appears in the title of a master thesis publication listed on
`page 10 of the ’518 Patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 9 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 8 of 48 PageID 8042
`
`
`
`
`the general structure of the specification, which discusses under-sampling separately
`
`
`
`from transferring energy. According to Qualcomm, the time duration of the apertures
`
`used to sample the input signal is one of the critical distinctions between under-
`
`sampling and transferring energy. (Doc. No. 119, p. 5.) Qualcomm therefore points to a
`
`passage from the ’551 Patent stating that “under-sampling systems utilize a sample and
`
`hold system controlled by an under-sampling signal” that “include[] a train of pulses
`
`having negligible apertures that tends toward zero time in duration,” as support for its
`
`contention that under-sampling must also refer to an aliasing rate using negligible
`
`apertures. (Id.)
`
`
`
`The patents-in-suit, however, do not use the term “under-sample” as narrowly as
`
`Qualcomm contends. While the specifications sometimes use the term “under-sampling”
`
`to distinguish certain systems from those systems that implement the disclosed
`
`transferred energy methods, the specifications use the term more broadly in other
`
`places.6 The ’734 Patent, for example, uses the term “under-sample” to refer to systems
`
`that transfer energy. See ’734 Patent col. 12 ll. 46–52. Indeed, that patent refers to the
`
`“charge transferred during a pulse” as “an under-sample.” Id. Further, the ’845 Patent
`
`teaches, in connection with a “non-negligible aperture,” that the “general concept is to
`
`under-sample the carrier while over sampling the information.” ’845 Patent col. 189
`
`ll. 23–26. The claims of the ’518 Patent containing the term “under-sampling” similarly
`
`use that term in its broader sense. Claim 97 of the ’518 Patent, for example,
`
`
`6 A patent may, in some circumstances, use a term having multiple meanings.
`See Ying-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 535 F.3d
`1322, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (concluding that a claim term may have two different
`meanings).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 10 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 9 of 48 PageID 8043
`
`
`
`
`encompasses a method having the step of “under-sampling the first signal over aperture
`
`
`
`periods to transfer energy from the first signal.” ’518 Patent col. 120 ll. 55–57.
`
`
`
`In view of the use of “sampling” in the specification of the ’734 Patent, and the
`
`use of the term “under-sampling” in the claims of the ’518 Patent, the Court concludes
`
`that ParkerVision’s proposed construction—“capturing energy of a signal at discrete
`
`times”—is the better one.
`
`
`
`As for the terms “sub-sample” and “sub-sampling,” the Court concludes that it
`
`would be improper to conflate the addition of the prefix “sub” to sampling in the claims of
`
`the ’518 Patent and the ’371 Patent with the discussion in the specifications concerning
`
`sub-harmonic frequencies. The Court concludes that the claims of the ’518 Patent use
`
`the terms as synonyms for the term “under-sample.” See, e.g., Tandon Corp. v. U.S.
`
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023–24 (Fed. Cir. 1987). For example, claim 32
`
`recites a “method of claim 29, wherein in step (2) the first signal is sub-sampled.” ’518
`
`Patent col. 116 ll. 35–36. Step (2) of claim 29 is directed to “sampling the first signal
`
`over aperture periods to transfer energy from the first signal.” Id. at col. 116 ll. 25–26.
`
`Additionally, claim 94 of the ’518 Patent embraces an “apparatus of claim 93, wherein N
`
`indicates: a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the aliasing rate.” ’518 Patent col. 120 ll. 53–
`
`54. Claim 93 claims an apparatus having a “means for generating an energy transfer
`
`signal that is used to control said sub-sampling, the energy transfer signal having an
`
`aliasing rate determined according to: (a frequency of the first signal +/- a frequency of
`
`the second signal) divided by N.” Id. at col. 120 ll. 41–46. Qualcomm’s proposed
`
`construction conflicts with how “sub-sampling” is used in these and other claims. As
`
`such, the Court declines to adopt Qualcomm’s construction for the terms “sub-sample”
`
`and “sub-sampling.”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 11 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 10 of 48 PageID 8044
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In view of the above, the Court construes “under-sampling,” “sub-sampling,” and
`
`
`
`“sub-samples” to mean “sampling at an aliasing rate.”
`
` 2. “Transferring . . . Energy” and Similar Terms
`
`
`
`In the claims identified in the table below, the patents-in-suit use several
`
`limitations directed at “transferring . . . energy,” which the Court will refer to as
`
`“transferring energy” or “energy transfer” terms. The parties dispute the meaning of
`
`these terms as follows:
`
`ParkerVision
`
`“transferring energy
`(i.e., voltage and
`current over time) in
`amounts that are
`distinguishable from
`noise”
`
`Qualcomm
`
`“moving sufficient
`energy from the
`carrier signal into
`storage to cause
`substantial distortion
`of the carrier signal”
`
`Term
`
`“transferring
`non-negligible
`amounts of
`energy from
`the carrier
`signal”
`
`
`“sampling the
`carrier signal
`. . . to transfer
`energy”
`
`
`“transferring a
`. . . portion of
`the energy . . .
`of the carrier
`signal”
`
`
`Claims
`
`1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12,
`16, 20, 39, 41,
`50, 54, 55, 57,
`92, 93, 108,
`113,7 and 126
`of the ’551
`Patent
`
`
`1, 2, 3, 12, 17,
`24, and 27 of
`the ’518 Patent
`
`
`41 and 50 of
`the ’551
`Patent; and 5
`and 6 of the
`’845 Patent
`
`
`7 In claim 113 of the ’551 Patent, this term is recited as “the step of transferring
`controlled substantial amounts of energy from the carrier signal during aperture
`periods.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 12 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 11 of 48 PageID 8045
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Term
`
`“receives non-
`negligible
`amounts of
`energy
`transferred
`from a carrier
`signal”
`
`Claims
`
`23, 24, 25, 26,
`31, 32, 135,
`149, 150, 161,
`192, 193, 195,
`196, 198, 202,
`and 203 of the
`’551 Patent
`
`
`“sub-sampling
`the first signal
`. . . to transfer
`energy”
`
`
`77, 81, 90, and
`91 of the ’518
`Patent
`
`ParkerVision
`
`“receives energy
`(i.e., voltage and
`current over time)
`from the carrier
`signal in amounts
`that are
`distinguishable from
`noise”
`
`
`“transferring energy
`(i.e., voltage and
`current over time) in
`amounts that are
`distinguishable from
`noise”
`
`
`
`
`Qualcomm
`
`“stores sufficient
`energy transferred
`from the carrier
`signal to cause
`substantial distortion
`of the carrier signal”
`
`
`“moving sufficient
`energy from the
`carrier signal into
`storage to cause
`substantial distortion
`of the carrier signal”
`
`ParkerVision argues that the dispute between the parties turns on what is meant
`
`by “non-negligible amounts of energy.” (Doc. No. 122, pp. 4–5.) ParkerVision contends
`
`that one skilled in the art would, after reading the all of the disclosures in the patents-in-
`
`suit, recognize that these terms refer to techniques that involve transferring non-
`
`negligible energy in amounts distinguishable from noise. (Id.) Qualcomm, on the other
`
`hand, contends that these terms should be understood in the context of the “alleged
`
`novelty of the claimed method of down-conversion by ‘transferring . . . energy.’” (Doc.
`
`No. 119, pp. 6–9.) Qualcomm argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand this term to mean moving energy from the carrier signal into storage
`
`sufficient to cause substantial distortion of the carrier signal. (Id.) In support, it points to
`
`statements made by ParkerVision during the prosecution of a related U.S. patent
`
`application and a European patent application. (Id.)
`
`The specifications teach that methods and systems for down conversion work by:
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 13 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 12 of 48 PageID 8046
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the EM signals. The
`resultant down-converted signals have sufficient energy to allow the down-
`converted signals to be distinguishable from noise. The resultant down-
`converted signals also have sufficient energy to drive lower impedance
`circuits without buffering.
`
`’551 Patent col. 63 ll. 29–34. Continuing, the specifications teach:
`
`Unlike under-sampling signals that have negligible aperture pulses, the
`energy transfer signal includes a train of pulses having non-negligible
`apertures that tend away from zero. This provides more time to transfer
`energy from an EM input signal. One direct benefit is that the input
`impedance of the system is reduced so that practical impedance matching
`circuits can be implemented to further improve energy transfer and thus
`overall efficiency. The non-negligible transferred energy significantly
`improves the signal to noise ratio and sensitivity to very small signals, as
`well as permitting the down-converted signal to drive lower impedance
`loads unassisted. Signals that especially benefit include low power ones
`typified by RF signals. One benefit of a non-negligible aperture is that
`phase noise within the energy transfer signal does not have as drastic of
`an effect on the down-converted output signal as under-sampling signal
`phase noise or conventional sampling signal phase noise does on their
`respective outputs.
`
`Id. at col. 66 ll. 36–54.
`
`
`
`Rather than address these and other portions of the specifications, Qualcomm
`
`relies on statements made during the prosecution of a subsequent patent, the
`
`prosecution of a foreign counterpart application, and a press release. The Court does
`
`not find these statements persuasive. The comments in the U.S. application appear to
`
`have been made not to define transferring energy but rather to distinguish the storage
`
`devices that were the subject of that subsequent application from the devices used
`
`when a signal is under-sampled.
`
`
`
`As for the statements made during the prosecution of the European application,
`
`the Federal Circuit has cautioned “against indiscriminate reliance on the prosecution of
`
`corresponding foreign applications in the claim construction analysis.” AIA Eng’g Ltd. v.
`
`Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 657 F.3d 1264, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Such caution is warranted
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 14 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 13 of 48 PageID 8047
`
`
`
`
`here because the language that Qualcomm points to in the foreign prosecution was
`
`
`
`offered in support of the addition of the following limitation: “wherein said transferring of
`
`energy substantially prevents accurate voltage reproduction of the modulated carrier
`
`signal during the time apertures.” (Doc. No. 120-7.) This limitation is not the same as
`
`those at issue in this case. Further, the Court has not been presented with the context in
`
`which these statements were made, that is, the claims that the limitation modified, the
`
`requirements of foreign laws to which the applications are responding, and the
`
`examination practices of the foreign office. See, e.g., AIA Eng’g Ltd., 657 F.3d at 1279.
`
`As such, the import and relevance of these statements are murky at best.
`
`
`
`While the Court finds ParkerVision’s definition more persuasive, the Court sees
`
`no reason to explicitly define “energy” as ParkerVision does in its proposed claim
`
`construction. One skilled in the art clearly would know what is meant by energy. The
`
`parenthetical is unnecessary and will be omitted from the Court’s construction of these
`
`terms.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Court will construe “transferring non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy from the carrier signal,” “sampling the carrier signal . . . to transfer energy,” and
`
`“transferring a . . . portion of the energy . . . of the carrier signal” to mean “transferring
`
`energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.” The remaining terms, “receives
`
`non-negligible amounts of energy transferred from a carrier signal” and “sub-sampling
`
`the first signal . . . to transfer energy,” to mean “receives energy from the carrier signal
`
`in amounts that are distinguishable from noise” and “transferring energy in amounts that
`
`are distinguishable from noise,” respectively.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 15 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 14 of 48 PageID 8048
`
`
`
`
` 3. “Lower Frequency Signal”
`
`
`
`
`
`“Lower frequency signal” appears in claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25,
`
`26, 31, 32, 39, 41, 50, 54, 55, 57, 92, 93, 108, 113, 126, 135, 149, 150, 161, 192, 193,
`
`195, 196, 198, 202, and 203 of the ’551 Patent and claims 1, 2, 22, 23, 25, and 31 of
`
`the ’371 Patent. The parties offer the following constructions of this limitation:
`
`ParkerVision
`
`“a signal with frequency below the
`carrier signal frequency”
`
`Qualcomm
`
`“a signal with frequency below the
`carrier signal frequency and above
`the baseband frequency”
`
`
`
`
`
`The dispute between the parties turns on whether this claim limitation embraces
`
`the baseband
`
`frequency. ParkerVision argues
`
`that
`
`the plain
`
`language used
`
`encompasses all frequencies lower than that of the carrier signal. (Doc. No. 122, pp. 7–
`
`8.) It contends further that there has been no lexicography or disclaimer which would
`
`limit the scope of this claim term in a way that would exclude the baseband frequency.
`
`(Id. at 7.)
`
`
`
`Qualcomm asserts that this term was explicitly defined in the specification to
`
`exclude the baseband frequency. (Doc. No. 137, pp. 6–7.) Qualcomm reaches this
`
`conclusion because the specification of the ’551 Patent states that “the terms lower
`
`frequency, intermediate frequency, intermediate and IF are used interchangeably
`
`herein,” ’551 Patent col. 14 ll. 46–47, and “[w]hen a modulated carrier signal is down-
`
`converted to a lower frequency signal, the lower frequency signal is referred to herein
`
`as an intermediate frequency (IF) signal FIP,” id. at col. 19 ll. 15–18. According to
`
`Qualcomm, “the specification identifies direct conversion to baseband as a special case,
`
`distinct from down-conversion utilizing an intermediate frequency.” (Doc. No. 137, p. 7.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 16 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 15 of 48 PageID 8049
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On their face, the words chosen by the patentee do not evince the intent to
`
`
`
`exclude the baseband frequency. Thus, ParkerVision’s definition—“a signal with
`
`frequency below the carrier signal frequency”—more closely aligns with the plain
`
`language of the claim. The statements from the specification to which Qualcomm points
`
`do not show an intention to exclude the baseband frequency. The first statement is
`
`taken from the portion of the specification that defines the term “intermediate
`
`frequency.” The specification states:
`
`The term intermediate frequency (IF) signal, when used herein, refers to
`an EM signal that is substantially similar to another EM signal except that
`the IF signal has a lower frequency than the other signal. An IF signal
`frequency can be any frequency above zero HZ. Unless otherwise stated,
`the terms lower frequency, intermediate frequency, intermediate and IF
`are used interchangeably herein.
`
`’511 Patent col. 14 ll. 42–48. The final sentence in this passage does not imply that the
`
`terms “lower frequency,” “intermediate frequency,” “intermediate,” and “IF” are identical.
`
`Rather, that sentence informs the reader that the identified terms may be used
`
`interchangeably, which is to say that the description of the invention is drafted so as to
`
`allow one of these terms to be exchanged with another without loss of function.
`
`
`
`The second statement is taken from the portion of the specification of the ’551
`
`Patent in which the patentees discuss the demodulation of the carrier signal. Id. at
`
`col. 19 ll. 6–43. The specification introduces this concept by referencing a common
`
`problem in the technical field—that is, “it is generally impractical to demodulate the
`
`baseband signal FMB directly from the modulated carrier signal FMC”—and a well-known
`
`solution to that problem—that is, the down-conversion of the carrier signal to a
`
`frequency lower than the carrier signal but higher than the baseband signal. Id. at
`
`col. 19 ll. 10–14. The statement cited by Qualcomm is an extension of this discussion
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 17 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 16 of 48 PageID 8050
`
`
`
`
`that identifies the latter as an “intermediate frequency.” When taken in context, one
`
`
`
`skilled in the art would recognize that the lower frequency signal in this discussion can
`
`be either (1) the baseband signal or (2) an intermediate frequency.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes the term “lower frequency signal” to mean “a
`
`signal with frequency below the carrier signal frequency.”
`
` 4. “Harmonic or Sub-Harmonic of the Carrier Signal” and Similar Terms
`
`
`
`In the claims identified in the table below, the patents-at-issue use the terms “n
`
`represents a harmonic or sub-harmonic of the carrier signal” and “n indicates a
`
`harmonic or sub-harmonic of the carrier signal.” The parties’ proposed meanings of
`
`these terms are as follows:
`
`ParkerVision
`
`“n is 0.5 or an integer
`greater than or equal
`to 1”
`
`Qualcomm
`
`“n is 0.5 or an integer
`greater than 1”
`
`Claims
`
`1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12,
`16, 20, 23, 24,
`25, 26, 31, 32,
`39, 41, 50, 54,
`55, 57, 92, 93,
`108, 113, 126,
`135, 149, 150,
`161, 192, 193,
`195, 196, 198,
`202, and 203 of
`the ’551 Patent
`
`
`1, 2, 3, 12, 17,
`24, 27, and 82
`of the ’518
`Patent
`
`Term
`
`“where n
`represents a
`harmonic or
`sub-harmonic
`of the carrier
`signal”
`
`
`“wherein N
`indicates a
`harmonic or
`sub-harmonic
`of the carrier
`signal.”
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties dispute whether the terms “harmonic or sub-harmonic of the carrier
`
`signal” embrace the situation where “n” is equal to 1. Qualcomm argues that when n
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 37-3 Filed 09/20/21 Page 18 of 49
`Case 3:11-cv-00719-RBD-TEM Document 243 Filed 02/20/13 Page 17 of 48 PageID 8051
`
`
`
`
`equals 1, the specifications teach that the corresponding aliasing rate is the
`
`
`
`“fundamental frequency,” which it contends is different than a harmonic or sub-
`
`harmonic. (Doc. No. 119, p. 13.)
`
`
`
`The Court declines to adopt Qualcomm’s construction. The specifications teach
`
`that n can be equa