Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 25
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF PARKERVISION’S
`REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 2 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction. ....................................................................................................................1
`
`ParkerVision’s description of the patented technology is accurate. ...................................1
`
`III.
`
`Intel avoids providing this Court with a complete picture of the patented technology. ......2
`
`IV.
`
`Intel seeks to improperly dismiss previous claim construction rulings. .............................4
`
`V.
`
`Disputed terms for construction. ......................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`Energy “storage” module/element/device terms. ..................................................5
`
`“modulated carrier signal” (’528 patent, claims 1, 5, 14) ......................................7
`
`“switch” (’528 patent, claims 1, 5, 17; ’444 patent, claim 3; ’474 patent;
`claim 1; ’513 patent, claim 19; ’518 patent, claim 50; ’736 patent,
`claims 1, 11; ’673 patent, claims 1, 13); “switching device” (’725 patent,
`claim 1; ’528 patent, claim 8); “switching module” (’902 patent, claim 1) ............8
`
`“sampling aperture” (’528 patent, claim 1) ...........................................................9
`
`“a down-converted signal being generated from said sampled energy”
`(’902 patent, claim 1) ......................................................................................... 10
`
`“the [] switch is coupled to the [] storage element at a [] node and
`coupled to a [] reference potential” (’474 patent, claim 1) .................................. 14
`
`“under-samples” (’444 patent, claim 2; ’474 patent, claim 6) ............................. 16
`
`The six terms (11 claims) into which Intel seeks to inject “aliasing rate” ............ 17
`
`“a capacitor that reduces a DC offset voltage in said first down-converted
`signal and said second down-converted signal” (’444 patent, claim 4) ................ 20
`
`J.
`
`“DC offset voltage” (’444 patent, claim 4) ......................................................... 21
`
`K.
`
`Terms alleged to be indefinite. ........................................................................... 21
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 3 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction.
`
`Intel continues to push its false narrative regarding the patented technology and fails to
`
`provide any basis as to why well-reasoned, prior court constructions of disputed terms are wrong.
`
`Tellingly, Intel purposefully avoids providing details as to how the patented technology actually
`
`works because this would expose the flaws in Intel’s constructions.
`
`II.
`
`ParkerVision’s description of the patented technology is accurate.
`
`Intel attempts to create the false narrative, arguing that ParkerVision is trying to change
`
`what the patents-in-suit say about the patented technology. See D.I. 58 (“Intel. Resp. Br.”) at 2-
`
`5. With this narrative, Intel implies that ParkerVision’s description of the technology strays from
`
`the intrinsic evidence.1 Id. Intel is wrong.
`
`In particular, Intel points out that the patents-in-suit refer to “under-sampling systems”
`
`and “energy transfer systems.” Intel then complains that ParkerVision describes “under-sampling
`
`systems” as “voltage” sampling systems, and “energy transfer systems” as “energy” sampling
`
`systems. But that’s what they are.2
`
`In particular, the patents-in-suit pertain to the use of sampling to down-convert a signal.
`
`Context is key here. Specifically, there are only two things that can be sampled to down-convert
`
`a signal: (1) voltage and (2) flow of energy over time (current). Ex. 1 ¶15 (“Steer Decl.”).
`
`Voltage is sampled by taking and holding input voltage values (using a “holding” module)3.
`
`
`1 Intel asserts that it does not agree with other yet-to-be identified portions of ParkerVision’s
`technology description. Intel Resp. Br. at 5 n. 5. Yet, after two briefs and two expert
`declarations, Intel has still not fully explained the technology or how ParkerVision got it wrong.
`2 Intel’s assertion that the patents do not use the term “voltage” sampling or “energy” sampling is
`beside the point. See Intel Resp. Br. at 2.
`3 Contrary to Intel’s position, so-called “under-sampling systems” are “voltage” sampling
`systems. Indeed, when discussing “under-sampling systems,” the patents refer to a sample and
`hold system. A sample and hold system is a “voltage” sampling system because sample and hold
`systems use the change in discrete measurements in voltage to create a down-converted
`signal.’518 patent, 31:44-48 (“[T]he under-sample points 1905 correlate to voltage points 1908.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 4 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`Current, which is the flow of electrons, is sampled by transferring and capturing energy over
`
`time (using a “storage” module). Id. As such, there are only two systems that can sample to
`
`down-convert a signal – the same two systems discussed in the patents-in-suit: (1) “voltage”
`
`sampling system (referred to in the patents as “under-sampling systems”) and (2) “energy”
`
`sampling system (referred to in the patents as “energy transfer” systems). Id. The patents-in-suit
`
`merely use “under-sampling systems” as a naming convention to connote “voltage” sampling
`
`systems and distinguish “voltage” sampling systems from “energy” sampling (energy transfer)
`
`systems. Id. at ¶16. This is the reason why ParkerVision’s description of the technology in its
`
`opening brief refers to “voltage” sampling systems and “energy” sampling systems. ParkerVision
`
`is not trying to change what the invention is; it is simply describing the technology.
`
`III.
`
`Intel avoids providing this Court with a complete picture of the patented
`technology.
`
`There are complexities to the technology in this case. Unlike ParkerVision who explains
`
`specifically how the patented technology down-converts a radio frequency signal, Intel focuses
`
`on naming conventions and tries to avoid providing the Court with a complete picture of the
`
`technology. Notably, Intel presents the technology in drips and drabs – only so much as it
`
`believes necessary to push its narrative. This is no accident. With a proper understanding of the
`
`technology, Intel’s constructions do not withstand scrutiny.
`
`Instead of focusing on important details, Intel makes broad pronouncements regarding the
`
`technology. First, Intel devotes significant pages in its briefs arguing that down-converting at an
`
`aliasing rate is “the” invention and, therefore, all claims in all of the patents must include the
`
`
`… [E]ach voltage point 1908 can be held at a relatively constant level until the next voltage point
`is received. This results in a stair-step output which can be smoothed or filtered if desired…”);
`see also id. at 32:41-48, 34:1-8; 34:66-35:6; 36:24-31; 37:19-26; 41:34-41; 42:38-45; 44:10-17;
`45:13-20; 50:22-28; 51:61-67.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 5 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`concept of an aliasing rate. The implication is that the claims are missing this concept. But as
`
`discussed in Section IV.H below, the claims already include the concept of an aliasing rate. See
`
`also D.I. 51 (“ParkerVision Op. Br.”) at 28-34; D.I. 57 (“ParkerVision Resp. Br.”) at 4-5, 23-30.
`
`Intel simply does not like where the aliasing rate language is found in the claims. So, under the
`
`guise of construction, Intel seeks to inject additional instances of aliasing rate into the claims to
`
`support its non-infringement case.
`
`Second, Intel devotes significant pages attempting to convince the Court that “under-
`
`sampling” is synonymous with the use of negligible apertures. Not only has another district court
`
`already rejected this same argument, but the patent specification directly contradicts that
`
`argument. The specification explains that under-sampling is performed by an energy transfer
`
`system using non-negligible apertures. See e.g., ’518 patent, 67:5-10 (“FIGS. 83A-F illustrate
`
`example timing diagrams for the energy transfer system 8202 in FIG. 82. . . . FIG. 83C illustrates
`
`an example under-sampling signal 8304, including energy transfer pulses 8306 having non-
`
`negligible apertures . . . .”), 4 92:25-27, 63-65; 120:54-58 (claim 97); see also ParkerVision
`
`Resp. Br. at 2-3, 20-22. The claims of the patents-in-suit also demonstrate that energy transfer
`
`systems, which use non-negligible apertures as the specification explains, perform under-
`
`sampling. For example, claim 97 of the ’518 patent recites “under-sampling . . . to transfer
`
`energy.” Transfer of energy is performed by an “energy transfer system.” Independent claim 1 of
`
`the ’474 patent recites a “storage element(s),” which Intel admits connotes an energy transfer
`
`system. D.I. 53 (“Intel Op. Br.”) at 36. Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, then recites
`
`“under-sampl[ing] an input signal.” see also ParkerVision Resp. Br. at 2-3, 20-22. 5
`
`
`4 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis has been added.
`5 Figures 84A-D also disclose an energy transfer system. “The operation of the energy transfer
`system 6302 shall now be described with reference to the flowchart 4619 and the timing
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 6 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`Intel seeks to improperly dismiss previous claim construction rulings.
`
`As set forth in the chart below, three federal Judges construed terms related to the same
`
`ParkerVision technology/patent specification that is in dispute here. Each Judge provided a well-
`
`reasoned opinion for his construction. Indeed, Intel has not identified any errors in the Judges’
`
`reasoning. There simply are none. Instead, unhappy with these constructions, Intel baselessly
`
`asserts that the Court should not adopt any of these constructions. And Intel goes as far as falsely
`
`asserting that when construing the term “universal frequency down-converter,” the Jacksonville
`
`court was unaware of the language in a patent specification. But Intel is just flat wrong.6
`
`Though not binding on this Court, these constructions should not be rejected out of hand
`
`as Intel suggests. ParkerVision’s arguments, which are consistent with the reasoning of the three
`
`Judges and the intrinsic record, demonstrate that these prior constructions are correct.
`
`Terms
`“under-samples”
`
`Prior Court Constructions
`“sampling at an aliasing rate” / “sampling at
`less than or equal to twice the frequency of
`the input signal”
`
`
`
`diagrams of FIGS. 84A-84D.” ’518 patent; 92:63-65. And the specification states that the FSK
`signal 816 having frequency 8412 in Figure 84B is “under-sampled.” Id. at 92:25-26 (“When the
`second frequency 8412 is under-sampled, the PSK signal 8404 has a frequency of approximately
`1 MHZ . . .”).
`
`6 With regard to “universal frequency down-converter,” Intel falsely asserts that the Jacksonville
`court was oblivious to certain facts.
`
`
`But in that case, it does not appear that either party brought to the court’s
`attention (or that the court recognized) that the ’371 patent, like the Asserted
`Patents in this case, incorporates the ’551 patent by reference into its
`specification. . . . It appears, therefore, that the court was not made aware of
`ParkerVision’s description of its “present invention” as a structure that down-
`converts by aliasing.
`
`
`Intel Resp. Br. at 17. The court order, however, makes it clear that the court was well aware of
`these facts. D.I. 51-2 at 6 (noting that “[t]he ’371 patent . . . ‘incorporate[s] by reference,’ among
`other things, the teachings of the ’551 Patent. See, e.g., ’371 Patent col. 1 ll. 10-27.”)
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 7 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`“switch” / “switch module”
`
`“universal frequency down-converter”
`
`“modulated carrier signal”
`
`D.I. 51-2 at 10 (Judge Dalton)
`“device with an input and output that can take
`two states, open and closed, as dictated by an
`independent control input”
`
`D.I. 51-3 at 32. (Judge Byron)
`“circuitry that generates a down-converted
`output signal from an input signal”
`
`D.I. 51-2 at 38 (Judge Dalton)
`“electromagnetic signal at transmission
`frequency having at least one characteristic
`that has been modulated by a baseband
`signal”
`
`D.I. 51-1 at 28-29 (Judge Davis)
`
`V.
`
`Disputed terms for construction.
`
`A.
`
`Energy “storage” module/element/device terms.
`
`Claim Terms
`“energy storage element”
`
`’528 patent, claim 1
`
`“energy storage module”
`
`’902 patent, claim 1
`
`
`“energy storage element”
`
`’513 patent, claim 19
`’736 patent, claims 1, 11
`
`
`“energy storage device”
`
`’673 patent, claim 13
`
`“storage element”
`
`’444 patent, claim 3
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`“an element of an energy
`transfer system that stores non-
`negligible amounts of energy
`from an input electromagnetic
`signal for driving a low
`impedance load”
`“a module of an energy transfer
`system that stores non-negligible
`amounts of energy from an input
`electromagnetic signal for
`driving a low impedance load”
`“an element of an energy
`transfer system that stores non-
`negligible amounts of energy
`from an input electromagnetic
`signal for driving a low
`impedance load”
`“a device of an energy transfer
`system that stores non-negligible
`amounts of energy from an input
`electromagnetic signal for
`driving a low impedance load”
`“an element of an energy
`transfer system that stores non-
`negligible amounts of energy
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“an element that stores a non-
`negligible amount of energy from
`an input electromagnetic (EM)
`signal”
`
`“a module that stores a non-
`negligible amount of energy from
`an input electromagnetic (EM)
`signal”
`
`“an element that stores a non-
`negligible amount of energy from
`an input electromagnetic (EM)
`signal”
`
`“a device that stores a non-
`negligible amount of energy from
`an input electromagnetic (EM)
`signal”
`
`“an element that stores a non-
`negligible amount of energy from
`an input electromagnetic (EM)
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 8 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`’474 patent, claim 1
`
`
`“storage module”
`
`’725 patent, claim 1
`
`
`
`from an input electromagnetic
`signal for driving a low
`impedance load”
`“a module of an energy transfer
`system that stores non-negligible
`amounts of energy from an input
`electromagnetic signal for
`driving a low impedance load”
`
`signal”
`
`“a module that stores a non-
`negligible amount of energy from
`an input electromagnetic (EM)
`signal”
`
`The specification specifically distinguishes “storage” modules from “holding” modules.
`
`FIG. 82A illustrates an exemplary energy transfer system 8202 for down-
`converting an input EM signal 8204. 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 used above, identify
`systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled 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, 66:11-23.
`
`Intel continues to focus improperly on a single sentence (red above) while ignoring the
`
`other relevant language in that same paragraph. By doing so, Intel is trying to omit key
`
`distinguishing features. See ParkerVision Op. Br. at 14-17; ParkerVision Resp. Br. at 6-10.
`
`Tellingly, Intel’s opening brief provides no substantive reason based on the intrinsic
`
`evidence as to why “energy transfer system” should not be included in the construction of
`
`“storage” terms. Yet now in its responsive brief, Intel asserts that “insert[ing] the requirement
`
`that the storage terms be part of an ‘energy transfer system’ is not supported by the intrinsic
`
`evidence.” Intel Resp. Br. at 36. Not only has Intel now changed its position, but that assertion is
`
`a gross misrepresentation of the specification’s disclosures.
`
`In fact, Intel’s own statements in its opening brief demonstrate why the inclusion of
`
`“energy transfer system” in the “storage” terms is appropriate. First, Intel admitted there are only
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 9 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`two systems disclosed in the patent (1) energy transfer and (2) under-sampling. Intel Op. Br. at
`
`8-9. Second, Intel acknowledged that “the specifications state that the ‘energy transfer’ mode
`
`uses ‘a storage module’ . . . whereas the ‘under-sampling’ [sample and hold] mode utilizes a
`
`‘holding module’ . . . .” Id. at 35-36. Logically, if there are only two systems and a “storage”
`
`module is only used in an energy transfer system, then, consistent with ParkerVision’s
`
`construction, a “storage” module must necessarily be a module of an energy transfer system.
`
`Indeed, the specification, as ParkerVision previously discussed, makes it clear that
`
`“storage” modules/elements/devices are inseparably intertwined with energy transfer systems.
`
`See ParkerVision Op. Br. at 5-15.
`
`With regard to ParkerVision’s language “for driving a low impedance load,” Intel has not
`
`raised any new issues that ParkerVision’s briefs have not already addressed. For the foregoing
`
`reasons, ParkerVision’s construction should be adopted.
`
`B.
`
` “modulated carrier signal” (’528 patent, claims 1, 5, 14)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`“electromagnetic signal at transmission
`frequency having at least one characteristic
`that has been modulated by a baseband
`signal”
`
`
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“a carrier signal that is modulated by a
`baseband signal”
`
`Intel does not (and cannot) dispute that ParkerVision’s construction is technically
`
`accurate. Indeed, in July 2019, the Jacksonville court expressly adopted this construction, which
`
`both Qualcomm and ParkerVision had agreed to. D.I. 51-1 at 28-29. As such, the construction
`
`became the Jacksonville court’s construction – a fact that Intel ignores in its brief. Though not
`
`binding on this Court, the Jacksonville court’s construction demonstrates another court’s
`
`thinking on this term and provides yet another data point for this Court to consider.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 10 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`Tellingly, Intel avoids any technical discussion to assist the Court’s understanding of this
`
`term. Instead, Intel paints broad brush strokes. In particular, Intel asserts that its construction is
`
`correct because it “tracks the patents’ express definition of the term.” Intel Resp. Br. at 37. But
`
`this is incorrect. Intel’s construction is incomplete because it ignores the fact that “carrier signal”
`
`is nested within the definition of “modulated carrier signal” and expressly defined in the patent:
`
`“The term carrier signal, when used herein, refers to an EM wave having at least one
`
`characteristic that may be varied by modulation, that is capable of carrying information via
`
`modulation.” ’528 patent, 21:36-39. ParkerVision’s construction simply marries the definition of
`
`these two terms. And, given that there are a number of signals involved in the process of down-
`
`converting, ParkerVision also includes “at a transmission frequency” to clarify for a jury that a
`
`carrier signal is the electromagnetic signal that is transmitted over the air. See ParkerVision Op.
`
`Br. at 17-19; ParkerVision Resp. Br. at 10-11. For the foregoing reasons, ParkerVision’s
`
`construction should be adopted.
`
`C.
`
`“switch” (’528 patent, claims 1, 5, 17; ’444 patent, claim 3; ’474 patent;
`claim 1; ’513 patent, claim 19; ’518 patent, claim 50; ’736 patent, claims 1,
`11; ’673 patent, claims 1, 13); “switching device” (’725 patent, claim 1; ’528
`patent, claim 8); “switching module” (’902 patent, claim 1)
`
`
`
`
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`“an electronic device for opening and closing
`a circuit as dictated by an independent control
`input”
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“an electronic device for opening and closing
`a circuit”
`
`Not only has ParkerVision explained why the intrinsic evidence supports its language “as
`
`dictated by an independent control input,” but the Orlando court considered and rejected the
`
`same types of arguments that Intel raises here for omitting this language. See D.I. 51-3 at 24-32.
`
`And, in April 2019, the Orlando court construed “switch” and “switching module” as a “device
`
`with an input and output that can take two states, open and closed, as dictated by an independent
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 11 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`control input.”7 D.I. 51-3 at 32. Though Intel attempts to dismiss the Orlando court’s
`
`construction, Intel provides no reasons demonstrating that the Orlando court got it wrong.
`
`Indeed, Intel has not raised any new arguments regarding these terms. For the foregoing reasons,
`
`ParkerVision’s construction or the Orlando court’s construction which include “as dictated by an
`
`independent control input” should be adopted.
`
`D.
`
`“sampling aperture” (’528 patent, claim 1)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`“a period of time during which the claimed
`switch is in its closed (on) state, thereby
`reducing a continuous-time signal
`to a
`discrete-time signal”
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“a period of time during which the switch is
`in its closed (i.e., on) state as part of the
`process of reducing a continuous-time signal
`to a discrete-time signal”
`
`
`
`At bottom, Intel’s only argument is that its construction is more technically accurate than
`
`ParkerVision’s construction. Intel Resp. Br. at 39. ParkerVision disagrees. Intel’s language
`
`injects substantial ambiguity into the term as to what steps constitute “part” of the process.
`
`ParkerVision Op. Br. at 23; ParkerVision Resp. Br. at 15. Notably, the Jacksonville court
`
`expressly adopted ParkerVision’s construction.8 See D.I. 51-1 at 28-29. ParkerVision’s
`
`construction here merely adopts the Jacksonville court’s construction. Though not binding on
`
`this Court, the Jacksonville court’s construction demonstrates another court’s thinking on this
`
`term and provides yet another data point for this Court to consider. Moreover, as ParkerVision
`
`previously stated, “it is the occurrence of an aperture that causes the switch to reduce a
`
`continuous-time signal to a discrete-time signal.” ParkerVision Op. Br. at 22. For the foregoing
`
`reasons, ParkerVision’s construction should be adopted.
`
`
`7 ParkerVision’s construction is consistent with the Orlando court’s construction. As such, either
`of these constructions are proper constructions.
`8 Intel misleadingly asserts that no court ever ruled on the construction of “sampling aperture.”
`Intel Resp. Br. at 40 n. 15. By expressly adopting the parties’ construction of “sampling
`aperture,” the Jacksonville court ruled on this construction.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 12 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`E.
`
`“a down-converted signal being generated from said sampled energy” (’902
`patent, claim 1)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`“a lower frequency signal formed from
`sampled energy transferred from the
`electromagnetic signal when the switch
`module is closed and from sampled energy
`discharged from the storage module when the
`switch module is open”
`
`Intel’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively, “a down-converted signal being
`created from sampled energy stored in the
`energy storage module”
`
`
`
`
`
`Intel continues to twist the language of the claim and again avoids any discussion of how
`
`the technology actually works. The claim language, however, makes it clear that a down-
`
`converted signal is generated from the sampled energy from the energy transfer module as a
`
`whole, not just its storage module component as Intel’s construction suggests.
`
`In particular, claim 1 recites “an energy transfer module having a switch module and an
`
`energy storage module.” Claim 1 then recites “said energy transfer module sampling the
`
`electromagnetic signal at an energy transfer rate… to obtain sampled energy” and “a down-
`
`converted signal being generated from said sampled energy.” As such, consistent with how the
`
`technology is described in the specification, the down-converted signal is generated with energy
`
`from both the switch and the storage module. See ParkerVision Op. Br. at 23-26; ParkerVision
`
`Resp. Br. at 16-17. That the claim language also recites that “said sampled energy” is stored in a
`
`storage module does not change this fact. Indeed, that language is entirely consistent with how
`
`the technology works. Energy stored in a storage module is discharged when the switch is OFF
`
`(open) and forms part of a down-converted signal. See ParkerVision Op. Br. at 7-9.
`
`Indeed, the use of “said” in “said sampled energy” with reference to the storage module
`
`demonstrates that the sampled energy had already been recited in the claims i.e., it is the second
`
`instance of the use of “sampled energy.” As such, the claim’s reference of the down-converted
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 13 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`signal being generated from “said sampled energy” is referring back to the sampled energy from
`
`the energy transfer module, not the storage module contained therein.9
`
`Recognizing the weakness of its position and hoping to sway the Court, Intel asserts that
`
`ParkerVision’s construction excludes the embodiment of Figure 65. Intel Resp. Br. at 43-44.
`
`This is false. Intel’s analysis of Figure 65 is purposefully devoid of any details because even the
`
`most cursory analysis of the specification’s disclosure regarding Figure 65 would reveal how
`
`Intel is misleading the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown above, the system of Figure 65 includes a switch module 6502 (blue) and a
`
`storage module 6506 (orange). The storage module is simply represented by a box. In making its
`
`argument, Intel glosses over the fact that there is a circuit configuration inside the box and
`
`ignores the specification’s discussion of Figure 65.
`
`
`9 Intel reads the claim as if “sampled energy” was first discussed with regard to the energy
`storage module. In particular, Intel reads the claim as if it read: “the energy storage module
`storing sampled energy” and “a down-converted signal being generated from said sampled
`energy.” That is not how the claim is written.
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 14 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In particular, Figures 68G and 82A illustrate the circuit configuration inside of the
`
`storage module (orange). Indeed, the specification states that Figure 65 is using the timing
`
`diagram of Figures 83A-F: “For example, operation of the switch module 6502 and the storage
`
`module 6506 is now described for down-converting the EM signal 1304 to an intermediate
`
`signal, with reference to the flowchart 4607 and the example timing diagrams in FIGS. 83A—F.”
`
`’902 patent, 102:40-44. By no coincidence, Figures 83A-F is the same timing diagram that is
`
`used for the storage module (orange) in Figure 82A (above right). Id. at 70:55-56. This is
`
`because the system of Figures 65 works similarly to Figure 82A, which generates a down-
`
`converted signal from energy from the switch and the capacitor. See ParkerVision Op. Br. at 6-9.
`
`Indeed, the specification states that the switch module and storage module cooperate to
`
`transfer energy from the EM signal and down-convert the energy: “the switch module 6502 and
`
`the storage module 6506 cooperate to transfer energy from the EM signal 1304 and down-
`
`convert it to an intermediate signal.” Id. at 102:47-50. Similar to Figure 82A, “the switch module
`
`6502 closes during each energy transfer pulse to couple the EM signal 1304 to the storage
`
`module 6506. . . . While the EM signal 1304 is coupled to the storage module 6506, non-
`
`negligible amounts of energy are transferred from the EM signal 1304 to the storage module
`
`6506.” Id. at 102:51-59. And, similar to Figure 82A, “[t]he storage module 6506 outputs the
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 15 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`transferred energy as the down-converted signal 1308B.” Id. at 102:62-64. Notably, the
`
`specification does not say that the down-converted signal is just from the stored energy in the
`
`storage module (i.e., in the capacitor). Instead, the specification states that the down-converted
`
`signal is generated from the transferred energy from the storage module. Such transferred
`
`energy includes (1) energy that passes through the storage module from the switch when the
`
`switch is ON (closed) and (2) energy stored in the storage module (in the capacitor) and
`
`discharged when the switch is OFF (open). The specification further states that “[t]he storage
`
`module 6506 can output the down-converted signal 1308B as an unfiltered signal such as signal
`
`shown in FIG. 83E, or as a filtered down-converted signal (FIG. 83F).” Id. at 102:64-67.
`
`
`
`As shown above, Figure 83E illustrates that the down-converted signal is made up of (1)
`
`energy (blue) from the switch module that passes through the storage module when the switch
`
`module is ON (closed) and (2) energy (orange) stored in and subsequently discharged from the
`
`storage module when the switch module is OFF (open). See ParkerVision Resp. Br. at 16-17.
`
`Indeed, if the down-converted signal did not include energy that passes through the storage
`
`module when the switch is ON (closed), the down-converted signal would not be continuous, as
`
`shown in FIG. 83E-F. If, as Intel asserts, the down-converted signal only contains energy
`
`(orange) from the storage module (i.e., discharged when the switch is OFF (open)) and no energy
`
`(blue) from the input when the switch is ON (closed), the down-converted signal would be filled
`
`with gaps or incomplete.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 65 Filed 12/11/20 Page 16 of 24Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-6 Filed 03/16/22 Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, ParkerVision’s construction should be adopted.
`
`F.
`
`“the [] switch is coupled to the [] storage element at a [] node and coupled to
`a [] reference potential” (’474 patent, claim 1)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“the sw