Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 21
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE 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
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.’S SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`“Low impedance load” is not indefinite and should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning (’736 patent, claims 26, 27; ’673 patent, claim 5). .............................................. 1
`
`“Said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient power to drive the low
`impedance load” is not indefinite and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning
`(’673 patent, claim 5). ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`The Court has twice considered the construction of the “storage” terms and it should
`continue to adopt its construction here. .............................................................................. 6
`
`“Voltage of the input modulated carrier signal is not reproduced or approximated at the
`capacitor during the apertures or outside of the apertures” is not indefinite and should be
`given its plain and ordinary meaning (’673 patent, claim 2). ........................................... 10
`
`Defendants’ arguments as to “other indefinite terms” are without merit. ........................ 13
`
`Defendants’ arguments with respect to nonce words and means-plus-function claims
`should be rejected. ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`VII. The Court should stand behind its previous constructions and reject Defendants’
`supposed “plain and ordinary” constructions. .................................................................. 14
`
`VIII. Contrary to their assertion, Defendants’ construction of “harmonic” does not follow the
`patent’s disclosures and lexicography. ............................................................................. 14
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`
`
`
`
`“[Wherein said storage elements comprise] a capacitor that reduces a DC offset voltage
`in said first-down converted signal and second down converted signal.” ........................ 14
`
`“Sampling aperture.”......................................................................................................... 15
`
`“A down-converted signal being generated from said sampled energy.” ......................... 15
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`CardioFocus, Inc. v. Cardiogenesis Corp.,
`827 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D. Mass. 2011) ..........................................................................................1
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc.,
`264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................10
`
`Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ontario Paper Co.,
`261 U.S. 45 (1923) .....................................................................................................................1
`
`Freeny v. Apple Inc.,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120446 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2014) ......................................................1
`
`Input/Output, Inc. v. Sercel, Inc.,
`No. 5:06CV236, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98316, 2007 WL 6196070
`(E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2007) ..........................................................................................................1
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................1, 11
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...............................................................................................................1, 3
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ'ns Int'l, Ltd.,
`844 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................4
`
`Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc.,
`311 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .........................................................................................10, 11
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016) .....................................................................................9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6 ........................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 4 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`I.
`
`“Low impedance load” is not indefinite and should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning (’736 patent, claims 26, 27; ’673 patent, claim 5).
`
`The term “low impedance load” is not indefinite. Defendants are wrong when they argue
`
`that the absence of a specific numerical boundary in the specification between low and high
`
`impedance loads constitutes a lack of construability, so as to render the term “low impedance
`
`load” indefinite. Defendants’ Reply Claim Construction Brief (“Defs. Reply Br.”) at 1-2. That is
`
`simply not the law. The law requires only that the specification provides guidance (and objective
`
`bounds) to a skilled person (who can impart his/her own knowledge of circuits) as to what
`
`constitutes a low impedance load. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898,
`
`910 (2014).1 The degree may be determined by looking to the functionality obtained by the
`
`invention. See Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Indeed, on several occasions, district courts have held the claim term “low” – the same
`
`term that is at issue here – not to be indefinite. See Freeny v. Apple Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`120446, at *15-*19 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2014) (finding “low power communication signals” not
`
`indefinite); CardioFocus, Inc. v. Cardiogenesis Corp., 827 F. Supp. 2d 36, 43-44 (D. Mass.
`
`2011) (finding “low hydroxyl ion content” not indefinite); Input/Output, Inc. v. Sercel, Inc., No.
`
`5:06CV236, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98316, 2007 WL 6196070, at *30 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2007)
`
`(finding “low mechanical spring constant” not indefinite).
`
`And here, the patents are not silent on what constitutes a low impedance load.
`
`Importantly, the specification provides an express standard against which to measure “low”: the
`
`
`1 The Supreme Court cites with approval Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ontario Paper Co., 261
`U.S. 45, 58, 65-66 (1923), where the Court upheld claim language requiring a wire to be placed
`at a “high” or “substantial” elevation because “readers . . . skilled in the art of paper making and
`versed in the use of the . . . machine” would have “no difficulty . . . in determining . . . the
`substantial [elevation] needed” for the machine to operate as specified. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910
`n.5.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 5 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`“low impedance load” must be low enough to allow for “non-negligible amounts of energy” to
`
`be transferred and become part of the down-converted signal in an energy transfer system. See,
`
`e.g., ’673 patent, 66:29-36; 70:40-49; 100:28-31. In fact, Defendants concede that “non-
`
`negligible amounts of energy” is not indefinite because Defendants specifically include the term
`
`“non-negligible amounts of energy” in its construction of storage module/element/device. As
`
`such, the patent provides a standard by which a “low impedance load” can be determined.
`
`
`
`In particular, the specification discloses two types of systems – (1) energy transfer
`
`(energy sampling) system and (2) sample-and-hold (voltage sampling) system. An energy
`
`transfer system uses a low impedance load, and a sample-and-hold system uses a high impedance
`
`load. See ’673 patent, 70:34-50. A low impedance load has an impedance value that allows for
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 6 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`energy itself to form the down-converted signal – the crux of an energy transfer system.2 Indeed,
`
`ParkerVision’s expert, Dr. Steer, explains how a skilled person would read the specification to
`
`understand, with reasonable certainty, the meaning of a low impedance load and how to achieve
`
`an energy transfer system. Steer Decl. ¶¶49-64.
`
`Defendants posit – “Would 900,000 ohms be a ‘low’ impedance? 500,000 ohms?
`
`100,000 ohms? 50,000 ohms?” Defs. Reply Br. at 2. But by doing so, Defendants ignore the
`
`relevant issue. The issue is not about what impedance values to use in the abstract but, rather,
`
`what impedance values achieve an energy transfer system (transferring non-negligible amounts
`
`of energy) as opposed to a sample-and-hold system (holding a sampled voltage value). Again,
`
`Dr. Steer explained how a skilled person would know this from the specification. Steer Decl.
`
`¶¶56-58.
`
`Defendants further state that “any impedance less than infinity will allow some energy to
`
`be discharged from the capacitor when its switch is open. . . . The question is, how much energy
`
`must be discharged such that the impedance crosses over from ‘high’ to ‘low.’” Defs. Reply Br.
`
`at 3. But Defendants turn a blind eye to the express disclosures of the patents, which repeatedly
`
`answer this question: non-negligible amounts of energy. See, e.g., ’673 patent, 66:29:36; 69:47-
`
`50; 70:40-49; 100:28-31; 101:24-27.
`
`Because the claim/specification “inform[s] those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`
`invention with reasonable certainty,” Defendants fail to demonstrate indefiniteness. Nautilus,
`
`
`2 A high impedance load, on the other hand, is used in a sample-and-hold system to prevent
`discharge of energy, allowing the system to take readings of voltage in a holding device – the
`crux of a sample-and-hold system.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 7 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`572 U.S. at 910; see Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publ'ns Int'l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”).
`
`II.
`
`“Said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient power to drive the
`low impedance load” is not indefinite and should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning (’673 patent, claim 5).
`
`Defendants criticize ParkerVision for addressing “most of its argument” to claim 1 of the
`
`’673 patent because that claim does not recite the “sufficient power” term at issue. See Defs.
`
`Reply Br. at 4. But claim 5 depends from claim 1 so the claims must be read together.
`
`Defendants ignore the relationship between the claims so that they can muddle their argument
`
`about reading limitations into the claim and “sufficient” being supposedly superfluous. Indeed,
`
`Defendants confuse the language in the claims and, once again, ignore the specification’s
`
`disclosures.
`
`Defendants also mischaracterize ParkerVision’s interpretation of the claim language,
`
`asserting “[ParkerVision] summarily argues that ‘sufficient power’ effectively means ‘a non-
`
`negligible amount of energy.’” Id. at 4-5. Not true. Instead, ParkerVision carefully explained in
`
`its opening brief that the term “said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient
`
`power to drive the low impedance load” means that the capacitor provides a non-negligible
`
`amount of energy to the low impedance load for the duration of time the switch is open. See PV
`
`Resp. Br. at 20. Defendants conveniently omit this critical portion of ParkerVision’s analysis.
`
`Claim 1 states that “the demodulated baseband signal [i.e., the down-converted signal] is
`
`generated from (i) the accumulating of the energy transferred to the capacitor each time the
`
`switch is closed and (ii) the discharging of said some of the previously accumulated energy into
`
`the load circuitry each time the switch is opened.” Dependent claim 5 then recites that “the load
`
`circuitry comprises a low impedance load, and wherein said energy discharged from said
`
`capacitor provides sufficient power to drive the low impedance load.”
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 8 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`Defendants’ “surplusage” argument conflates the concept of low impedance load with the
`
`amount of energy stored in the capacitor. As explained above, a “low impedance load” is a load
`
`that provides a path for the discharge of energy from a storage element so that energy forms a
`
`down-converted signal. The claims make it clear that the low impedance load in claim 5 is part
`
`of the load circuitry, and that the “sufficient power to drive the low impedance load” in claim 5
`
`comes from discharging some of the previously accumulated energy into the load circuitry each
`
`time the switch is opened. Each claim element is distinct, and thus, there is no “surplusage” as
`
`Defendants contend.
`
`Further, Defendants are wrong when they say that ParkerVision’s arguments are
`
`contradictory and create additional ambiguity. Those are just bare assertions; Defendants ignore
`
`the patent specification (they do not cite to it at all) and the context of the claimed technology.
`
`As ParkerVision explained in its opening brief, the claims of the ’673 patent track the energy
`
`transfer system shown in FIG. 82B. Defendants do not take issue with this.
`
`In an energy transfer system, a down-converted signal is formed from both: (1) the
`
`energy from the input EM signal (carrier RF signal) when the switch is ON (closed) and (2)
`
`energy discharged from the energy storage module (capacitor) when the switch is OFF (open).
`
`PV Resp. Br. at 18; Steer Decl. ¶¶ 66-68. The specification explains this further in its discussion
`
`of FIGS. 57E and 57F.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 9 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`FIG. 57E (above) shows a segment 5712 of the down-converted signal 5716 of FIG. 57F.
`
`The down-converted signal of FIG. 57E is made up of two portions 5710A (blue, from the switch
`
`when the switch is ON (closed)) and 5710B (orange, from the storage capacitor when the switch
`
`is OFF (open)). ’673 patent, 88:37-47. Thus, for the down-converted signal to be formed, it must
`
`have both the blue and orange portions to be a complete signal that can be processed. Steer Decl.
`
`¶¶ 69-70.
`
`Accordingly, in the context of the specification’s disclosures and the language in claims 1
`
`and 5, “said energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient power to drive the low
`
`impedance load” is not indefinite. Instead, in view of the specification and claim language, “said
`
`energy discharged from said capacitor provides sufficient power to drive the low impedance
`
`load” has a plain and ordinary meaning; it simply means that the capacitor provides a non-
`
`negligible/sufficient amount of energy (sources current) to the low impedance load for the entire
`
`duration of time the switch is open. And as mentioned in ParkerVision’s opening brief, this
`
`understanding of the claim term is consistent with other disclosures in the specification, e.g., the
`
`specification’s description of the down-converted signal being “distinguishable from noise,”
`
`having “sufficient energy to drive lower impedance circuits without buffering,” and “driv[ing]
`
`lower impedance loads unassisted,” all of which Defendants do not address. See PV Resp. Br. at
`
`20.
`
`III. The Court has twice considered the construction of the “storage” terms and it
`should continue to adopt its construction here.
`
`Despite the fact that this Court has twice incorporated “energy transfer system” into its
`
`construction of the storage terms, Defendants assert that ParkerVision’s (and, thus, the Court’s)
`
`inclusion of “energy transfer system” is meritless. Defs. Reply Br. at 10.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 10 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, ParkerVision is not importing or adding extraneous
`
`limitations from the specification.3 A storage element/module/device is a specific type of
`
`component used in an energy transfer system, a system that is specifically configured to drive a
`
`low impedance load so that energy can be used in the formation of a down-converted signal. See
`
`PV Resp. Br. at 22-25. This is the claimed invention.4
`
`Defendants seek to ignore the entirety of the specification’s teachings by misreading
`
`passages from the specification. See Defs. Reply. Br. at 8. Contrary to Defendants’ position, the
`
`passage cited in column 66 of the ’518 patent is a general statement applicable across the entire
`
`patent and not limited to a specific embodiment:
`
`The energy transfer system 8202 includes a switching module 8206 and a storage
`module illustrated as a storage capacitance 8208. The terms storage module and
`storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding
`module and holding capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding
`capacitances, as use above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of
`energy from an under-sample input EM signal with the intent of ‘holding’ a
`voltage value. Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer
`to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.
`
`’518 patent, 66:12-23. “As used herein” refers to the use of these terms (which are contained
`
`throughout the figures and specification) in general, not to a specific embodiment. See also id. at
`
`53:24-58:29 (discussing sample and hold systems); 65:56-67:39, 97:14-101:67 (discussing
`
`energy transfer systems).
`
`
`3 Despite Defendants’ attribution of a motive behind ParkerVision’s construction, ParkerVision
`seeks to insert low impedance load because it is following the Court’s most recent construction
`of the term, which is consistent with ParkerVision’s prior construction.
`4 Defendants assert that lexicography or disclaimer is needed in order to include “energy transfer
`system” or “driving a low impedance load.” Reply Br. at 7. Not so. The Court was correct in its
`prior construction, which construed the storage terms in view of the intrinsic evidence.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 11 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`Notably, Defendants avoid discussing how the technology actually works. Recognizing
`
`the weakness of their argument, Defendants misrepresent an earlier district court decision in the
`
`Middle District of Florida (and related Federal Circuit decision) to argue collateral estoppel. But
`
`there is no estoppel.
`
`Defendants point to the construction of the “means for integrating the energy over the
`
`aperture periods” in claim 90 of the ’518 patent. Defendants then assert that the MDFL
`
`“construed claim 90 of the ’518 patent as covering a storage module as disclosed in Figure 68.”
`
`Defs. Reply Br. at 9. Defendants purposefully ignore critical information. First, whereas the
`
`terms in this case are “storage module”/storage element”/“storage device,” the term at issue in
`
`the MDFL was a broader “means” term – “means for integrating the [transferred energy/energy]
`
`over the aperture periods.” Defendants ignore the fact that these claim limitations are different,
`
`and that means-plus-function terms are interpreted under different statutory provisions than
`
`terms that do not invoke means-plus-function treatment. The MDFL never provided a
`
`construction of, nor did the Federal Circuit consider the construction of a “storage circuitry” in
`
`isolation.
`
`Second, Defendants assert that the Federal Circuit rejected ParkerVision’s energy transfer
`
`system argument when it invalidated the claim in view of Weisskopf. But once again,
`
`Defendants ignore the term being considering was a broader means-plus function term. That the
`
`Federal Circuit found the sample-and-hold circuit of Weisskopf includes a “means for
`
`integrating” is not a rejection of ParkerVision’s assertion that storage element/module/device are
`
`elements of an energy transfer system.
`
`In addition, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, claim differentiation is not an issue.
`
`Defendants assert that ParkerVision’s inclusion of “driving a low impedance load” is
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 12 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`inconsistent dependent claim 26 which recites that a storage element is coupled to low
`
`impedance load.5 First, Defendants appear to misunderstand the technology and ParkerVision’s
`
`construction. ParkerVision’s construction recites that a storage module/element/device stores
`
`non-negligible amounts of energy, where the energy itself is what is driving the low impedance
`
`load. Energy driving a load is not the same as a storage element (in which the energy is stored)
`
`being coupled to a load. Second, claim 26 does not merely recite that the storage element is
`
`coupled to a low impedance load; claim 26 is narrower, reciting what portion of (and when) the
`
`energy is being discharged.
`
`Finally, even if Defendants were correct (which they are not) and claim 26 presented a
`
`claim differentiation issue, Defendants ignore that “[c]laim differentiation is a guide, not a rigid
`
`rule” and “cannot ‘overcome . . . a contrary construction dictated by the written description or
`
`prosecution history.’” Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1,
`
`2016) (citing Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012)). Here, the specification makes clear that all energy transfer system embodiments “drive
`
`lower impedance loads.”’518 patent, 62:14-17 (“The energy transfer embodiments of the
`
`invention provide enhanced signal to noise ratios and sensitivity to very small signals, as well as
`
`permitting the down-converted signal to drive lower impedance loads unassisted.”); 65:67-66:3
`
`(in “Introduction to Energy Transfer” section, stating: “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.”); 66:61-66
`
`
`5 Defendants also point to claim 1 (which recites a “capacitor”) and claim 5 (which recites a low
`impedance load) of the ’673 patent. Claim 1, however, merely refers to a “capacitor” not a
`storage element/module/ device and, thus, cannot serve as the basis for a claim differentiation
`argument.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 13 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`(“Another benefit of the energy transfer system 8202 is that the non-negligible amounts of
`
`transferred energy permit the energy transfer system 8202 to effectively drive loads that would
`
`otherwise be classified as low impedance loads in under-sampling systems and conventional
`
`sampling systems.”). Defendants’ argument cannot overcome the specification’s express and
`
`repeated disclosures that driving a low impedance load is a feature of an energy transfer system
`
`and, specifically, the energy stored in a storage module/element/device.
`
`IV.
`
`“Voltage of the input modulated carrier signal is not reproduced or approximated
`at the capacitor during the apertures or outside of the apertures” is not indefinite
`and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning (’673 patent, claim 2).
`
`Recognizing that the term is a straightforward concept, Defendants abandon their original
`
`theory, and instead parse out “approximated” from the rest of the term to conjure up a new
`
`indefiniteness argument. Defendants now assert that it is unclear how a skilled person determines
`
`“when the voltage on the capacitor approximates the input, and when it does not.” Reply Br. at
`
`13. In doing so, Defendants once again incorrectly imply that a lack of precision (or a strict
`
`numerical boundary) constitutes a lack of construability, so as to render the term indefinite. See
`
`id. But that is simply not the law.
`
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that words denoting approximation do not
`
`render patent claims so unclear as to prevent a person of skill in the art from ascertaining the
`
`scope of the claim. See, e.g., Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002) (“Expressions such as ‘substantially’ are used in patent documents when warranted by the
`
`nature of the invention, in order to accommodate the minor variations that may be appropriate to
`
`secure the invention.”); Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
`(terms, like “about” and “substantially,” are “descriptive term[s] commonly used in patent claims
`
`to ‘avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’”) (quoting Pall Corp. v.
`
`Micron Seps., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Indeed, the very nature of the technology at
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 14 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`issue here makes absolute precision impractical, if not impossible. The claims and specification
`
`of the patent were therefore drafted so as not to impose precise numerical limitations but instead
`
`account for “minor variations that may be appropriate to secure the invention.” See Verve, 264
`
`F.3d at 1367. The term “approximated” simply means “approximate” rather than “perfect” or
`
`“exact.”
`
`The specification provides clear guidance as to how one of ordinary skill in the art can
`
`readily apply the term-in-dispute, particularly in light of how the claimed invention functions.
`
`See Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In particular, the
`
`’673 specification explains that, in an energy transfer environment, non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy from an input carrier signal allows the storage element “to store energy transferred from
`
`the input EM signal [] without substantial concern for accurately reproducing the original,
`
`unaffected voltage level of the input EM signal.” ’673 patent, 70:17-25. FIGS. 83A and 83E
`
`below (showing exemplary timing diagrams of an energy transfer system) further illustrate this
`
`functionality.
`
`As shown above, in an energy transfer system, the voltage level of the down-converted
`
`signal (~4.0 mV, shown in the green boxes) is at least 1 mV lower than the voltage level of the
`
`input EM signal (~5.0 mV, shown in the red boxes). A POSITA would understand that this
`
`demonstrates, in energy transfer systems, the voltage of the input modulated carrier signal is not
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 15 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`reproduced or approximated at the capacitor during the apertures or outside of the apertures.
`
`Steer Decl. ¶80.
`
`In contrast, the ’673 specification discloses that “[a]n advantage of under-sampling
`
`[voltage sampling] is that the high impedance input allows accurate voltage reproduction of the
`
`under-sampled EM signal.” ’673 patent, 66:14-16.
`
`
`
`The specification further describes exemplary timing diagrams of a voltage sampling
`
`system (FIGS. 79A and 79E shown above):
`
`Note that the voltage level of the down-converted signals illustrated in FIGS. 79E
`and 79C are substantially close to the voltage level of the input EM signal 7804.
`The under-sampling system 7802 thus down-converts the input EM signal 7804
`with reasonable voltage reproduction, without substantially affecting the input
`EM signal 7804.
`
`’673 patent, 67:41-46.
`
`As show above, the voltage level of the down-converted signal (blue box) illustrated in
`
`FIG. 79E is substantially equal to the voltage level of the input EM signal 7804 (red box). As
`
`such, in voltage sampling systems, the voltage of the input modulated carrier signal is
`
`reproduced or approximated at the capacitor during the apertures or outside of the apertures.
`
`Steer Decl. ¶76.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 16 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`The ’673 specification thus provides context for understanding the meaning of the term,
`
`particularly in light of the function of the claimed energy transfer system. For the foregoing
`
`reasons, the term is not indefinite and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`V.
`
`Defendants’ arguments as to “other indefinite terms” are without merit.
`
`Defendants’ responsive brief does not raise any new issues regarding the other disputed
`
`terms alleged to be indefinite. See Defs. Reply Br. at 13-14. For the reasons set forth in
`
`ParkerVision’s responsive claim construction brief and the attached declaration, ParkerVision’s
`
`constructions should be adopted.
`
`VI. Defendants’ arguments with respect to nonce words and means-plus-function claims
`should be rejected.
`
`The Court already considered and rejected Defendants’ arguments that a “down-convert
`
`and delay module . . .,” the “delay module” terms, a “frequency translator . . .,” and a “frequency
`
`down-conversion module” are nonce words that should be construed in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. In each of those cases, the term “means” is not used and therefore there is a
`
`presumption that §112, ¶ 6 does not apply; the terms connote definite structure (e.g. a switch, a
`
`capacitor, storage element, etc.); dependent claims make clear that the terms-at-issue include
`
`structural components/circuits; and Defendants’ constructions omit relevant structures described
`
`in the patent specifications. The Court should reject Defendants’ parroted arguments and stand
`
`behind its constructions.
`
`As to “means for under-sampling an input signal to produce an input sample of a down-
`
`converted image of said input signal” and “first delaying means for delaying said input sample,”
`
`ParkerVision articulated the arguments and rationale supporting its constructions in its opening
`
`brief and previous Intel briefs.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00945-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/12/21 Page 17 of 20Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-22 Filed 03/16/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`VII. The Court should stand behind its previous constructions and reject Defendants’
`supposed “plain and ordinary” constructions.
`
`Defendants’ responsive brief does not raise any new issues regarding the terms “integral
`
`filter/frequency translator to filter and down-convert an input signal,” “modulated signal”/”
`
`modulated carrier signal,” “universal frequency downconverter (UFD),” “DC offset voltage,”
`
`and “switch” / “switching “device” / “switching module” / “switch module.” See Defs. Reply Br.
`
`at 14-15. For the reasons set forth in ParkerVision’s responsive claim construction brief and the
`
`attached declaration, ParkerVision’s constructions (which are the same as the Court’s previous
`
`constructions), should be re-adopted.
`
`VIII. Contrary to their assertion, Defendants’ construction of “harmonic” does not follow
`the patent’s disclosures and l