Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 65
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 1 of 65
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 1 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 2 of 65
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`PARKERVISION, INC.,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00562
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF PARKERVISION’S
`OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 2 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 3 of 65
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Introduction. ........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Intel seeks to re-argue terms this Court construed previously. .......................................... 1
`
`Technology background. ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`The patents-in-suit. ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`The patents-in-suit pertain to up-conversion and down-conversion of
`RF signals. Transmitter/up-conversion – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,050,508 and
`8,190,108................................................................................................................. 2
`
`B.
`
`Receiver/down-conversion– U.S. Patent No. 6,049,706 ........................................ 6
`
`V.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,706 – DisputeD terms for construction ........................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`M.
`
`“down-convert and delay module” (claims 1, 7) .................................................... 7
`
`“said input sample”, “said sample” (claims 1, 6, 7, 34) .......................................... 9
`
`“delay module” (claims 1, 7, 34, 140) .................................................................. 10
`
`“harmonic” / “harmonics” (’706 patent, claims 1, 6, 7, 28, 34; ’508
`patent, claim 1) ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`“pulse widths that are established to improve energy transfer” (claim 2) ............ 17
`
`“means for under-sampling” (claim 6) ................................................................. 20
`
`“first delaying means” (claim 6) ........................................................................... 23
`
`“second delaying means” (claim 6) ...................................................................... 25
`
`“integral filter/frequency translator” (claim 28) ................................................... 30
`
`“frequency translator” (claim 34) ......................................................................... 33
`
`“energy transfer signal comprising a train of pulses” (claims 106, 176) .............. 34
`
`“modulated signal” (claim 127) ............................................................................ 35
`
`“filter tuning means” (claims 134) ........................................................................ 36
`
`VI.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,050,508 – Disputed Terms For Construction ....................................... 43
`
`A.
`
`“pulse shaping means” (claim 1) .......................................................................... 43
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 3 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 4 of 65
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`“aperture generation means” (claim 1) ................................................................. 46
`
`“gating means” (claim 1) ...................................................................................... 47
`
`“gating” (claim 1) ................................................................................................. 51
`
`“bias signal” (claim 1) .......................................................................................... 53
`
`“generating a string of multiple pulses from said string of pulses” (claim 1) ...... 54
`
`VII. U.S. Patent No. 8,190,108 – Disputed Claim Constructions ............................................ 57
`
`“control signal” (claim 1)...................................................................................... 57
`
`“third switch” (claim 1) ........................................................................................ 58
`
`“pulse shaper” (claim 6) ........................................................................................ 59
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 4 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 5 of 65
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Empak, Inc.,
`268 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ……………………………………………20, 23, 25, 49
`
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) …………………………………………..……………..14
`
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ………………………………………………………..19
`
`
`JVW Enters. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ………………………………………………………..26
`
`
`Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp.,
`325 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ……………………………………………20, 22, 23, 49
`
`
`TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 777 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ……………………………………………………8, 9, 34
`
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) …………………………………………….8, 11, 31, 33
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §112……………………………………………………………………………passim
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 5 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 6 of 65
`
`
`
`Introduction.
`
`The patents-in-suit relate to how wireless devices (e.g., cell phones) process radio signals.
`
`ParkerVision’s constructions stay true to the intrinsic evidence. Intel, on the other hand, ignores
`
`the language of the specifications and excludes disclosed embodiments, improperly injects
`
`limitations, and applies Section 112 ¶ 6 for terms that do not include “means” language. Indeed,
`
`Intel seeks to re-argue positions, which this Court has already rejected in its January 28, 2021
`
`Claim Construction Order in Case No. 6:20-cv-00108 (ECF No. 75). For the foregoing reasons,
`
`ParkerVision’s constructions should be adopted and Intel’s constructions should be rejected.
`
`
`
`Intel seeks to re-argue terms this Court construed previously.
`
`Term
`“under-sample(s)”/ “under-
`sampling” (’706 patent,
`claims 1, 6, 7, 28, 34)
`
`Court’s Prior Construction
`“sampling at less than or
`equal to twice the frequency
`of the input signal”
`
`“storage module” (’706
`patent, claims 105, 114,
`164, 175, 179, 186, 190)
`
`“switch” (’706 patent,
`claims 105, 164, 175, 186;
`’108 patent, claim 1)
`
`“a module of an energy
`transfer system that stores
`nonnegligible amounts of
`energy from an input
`electromagnetic signal”
`Plain-and-ordinary meaning
`wherein the plain-and-
`ordinary meaning is “an
`electronic device for opening
`and closing a circuit as
`dictated by an independent
`control input”
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“samples at less than or equal to
`twice the frequency of the input
`signal using negligible
`apertures (i.e., pulse widths)
`that tend towards zero time in
`duration”
`“a module that stores a
`nonnegligible amount of energy
`from an input electromagnetic
`(EM) signal”
`
`“an electronic device for
`opening and closing a circuit”
`
`The terms “under-sample(s)”/ “under-sampling,” “storage module,” and “switch” are in
`
`
`
`dispute in this case (“562 case”). The Court, however, has already construed these terms in
`
`related Case No. 6:20-cv-00108 (“108 case”) and rejected Intel’s constructions. See Ex. 1, Claim
`
`Construction Order dated January 28, 2021, ParkerVision Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108,
`
`ECF No. 75. Intel seeks to re-argue these terms. But there are no new issues that Intel raises for
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 6 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 7 of 65
`
`this Court to consider. Indeed, the parties have agreed to rely on their briefing from the 108 case
`
`for the terms “under-sample(s)”/ “under-sampling,” “storage module,” and “switch” in the 562
`
`case. For the reasons set forth in ParkerVision’s briefs in the 108 case, the Court in this case
`
`should adopt its prior constructions. See ParkerVision Inc. v. Intel Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00108, ECF Nos. 51, 57, 65; see also Ex. 1.
`
`
`
`Technology background.
`
`When two wireless devices (e.g., cellular phones) communicate, an RF signal (high-
`
`frequency signal) containing information (e.g., voice) (lower frequency signal) is sent from a
`
`transmitting device to a receiving device. At the transmitting device, the information is up-
`
`converted to an RF signal and sent over the air; at the receiving device, the RF signal is down-
`
`converted to recover the information carried on the RF signal. A discussion of wireless
`
`technology is set forth in ParkerVision’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in the 108 case. See
`
`Plaintiff ParkerVision’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, ParkerVision Inc. v. Intel Corp., No.
`
`6:20-cv-00108, ECF No. 51 at Sections II-III.
`
`
`
`The patents-in-suit.
`
`A.
`
`The patents-in-suit pertain to up-conversion and down-conversion of RF
`signals. Transmitter/up-conversion – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,050,508 and
`8,190,108
`
`Figure 54A of the ’508 patent (below) illustrates components of an exemplary up-
`
`conversion system, which would be incorporated into a transceiver chip of a wireless device.1
`
`The up-conversion system includes a switch 5420 (orange), a control signal (green), a bias signal
`
`5422 (blue) and an antenna 5402 (purple).
`
`
`1 Figure 54A illustrates components of both up-conversion (transmission) and down-conversion
`(reception) systems. The down-conversion (reception) system components are grayed out as they
`are not relevant to a discussion of the up-conversion (transmission) system.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 7 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 8 of 65
`
`
`
`As shown above, in the transmit mode, the switches 5406 and 5408 are positioned as
`
`shown by the pink lines.2 An oscillator (not shown) generates an oscillating (sinusoidal) signal
`
`5436 (green sinusoidal wave form), which is transmitted to and shaped by the pulse shaper 5438
`
`(yellow) into a string of pulses 5440 (green square wave form). The string of pulses 5440
`
`controls the opening and closing of the switch 5420 (orange).
`
`
`
`2 Figure 54A uses the symbol
`to represent the switch position for signal transmission and the
`symbol
` to represent the switch position for signal reception. The switches are positioned
`towards the
`during transmission and towards the
` during reception.
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 8 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 9 of 65
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The annotations in Figure 54A above illustrate how information (baseband/low frequency
`
`signals) is up-converted to a high frequency RF signal (modulated carrier signal). In particular,
`
`up-conversion occurs by repetitively turning the switch 5420 ON (closed) and OFF (opened).
`
`As shown in Figure 63D above, the switch is turned ON (closed) by sending a pulse
`
`(green) to the switch. The switch is kept ON (kept closed) for the duration of the pulse (i.e.,
`
`during a non-negligible aperture (purple) of the pulse). As shown by the repetitive string of
`
`pulses, this opening/closing of the switch continues over time.
`
`As shown in Figure 54A (above left), when the switch is ON (closed) during the aperture,
`
`the bias signal 5422 (blue) passes to ground 5442. As shown in Figure 54A (above right), when
`
`the energy pulse stops, the switch is turned OFF (opened) and the bias signal 5422 (blue) is sent
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 9 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 10 of 65
`
`to the antenna 5402.
`
`
`
`Figure 63E above (left) illustrates an exemplary reference (bias) signal 6206. As shown
`
`in Figure 63F above (right), repetitively turning the switch ON (closed) and OFF (open) affects
`
`the shape of reference (bias) signal 6206, resulting in a square wave signal 6212. The valleys in
`
`the signal 6212 are created when the switch is turned ON (closed) and portions of the reference
`
`(bias) signal passes to ground 5422. The peaks in the signal 6212 are created when the switch is
`
`turned OFF (opened).
`
`
`
`The signal 6212 (Figure 63F) is referred to as a harmonically rich signal because the
`
`signal 6212 is actually made up of numerous sinusodial signals (harmonics) such as those signals
`
`shown above in Figures 63G and 63H. The combination of sinusodial signals (harmonics) form
`
`the signal 6212.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 10 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 11 of 65
`
`
`
`As shown above, the harmonically rich signal 6212 (Figure 63F) passes through a filter
`
`5426 on its ways to the antenna 5402. The filter 5426 filters out certain harmonics so that only a
`
`subset of all harmonics are transmitted from the antenna 5402. This filtering produces a clean
`
`signal that can carry the information over the air.
`
`B.
`
`Receiver/down-conversion– U.S. Patent No. 6,049,706
`
`
`
`The ’706 patent pertains to how a receiving wireless device down-converts an RF signal.
`
`Down-conversion is described in Plaintiff ParkerVision’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00108 (ECF No. 51), which is briefly summarized below.
`
`
`
`The figures above illustrate components of the receiving device that are used to extract
`
`information (e.g., voice) from the received RF signal. In order to obtain and process the
`
`information that was sent from the transmitting device, the receiving device must down-convert
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 11 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 12 of 65
`
`the RF signal to a lower frequency signal. As shown above, the system uses a switch 5308,
`
`capacitor 5310, and control signal 5306 having pulses with non-negligible apertures. ’706 patent,
`
`32:9-18. The control signal 5306 (green) turns the switch ON (closed) and OFF (open). As
`
`shown by the blue line, when the switch 5308 is ON (closed), energy (1) flows to the capacitor
`
`5310 and a low impedance load (not shown), and (2) is stored in the capacitor 5310. As shown
`
`by the orange line, when the switch is OFF (open), energy stored in capacitor 5310 flows to a
`
`low impedance load.
`
`
`
`As shown above, turning the switch ON and OFF results in the creation of the
`
`blue/orange waveform, which is the down-converted signal 5312 contained within the RF signal.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,049,706 – Disputed terms for construction
`
`A.
`
`“down-convert and delay module” (claims 1, 7)
`
`
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`Not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`Intel’s Construction
`Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`Function: under-sample an input signal to
`produce an input sample of a down-converted
`image of said input signal, and to delay said
`input sample
`
`Structure: the down convert and delay module
`2624 in Fig. 26 and described at 26:1-27:21
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 12 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 13 of 65
`
`and 28:20-41, that includes the switches 2650
`and 2654, the scalers 2690A and 2690B, and
`the capacitors 2652 and 2656; and equivalents
`thereof
`
`The term is straight-forward and does not require a construction. Despite the structural
`
`
`
`nature of “down-convert and delay module,” Intel asserts that the term implicates 35 U.S.C.
`
`§112, ¶ 6. Intel is incorrect. First, the term does not use the word “means.” Thus, there is a
`
`presumption that §112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339,
`
`1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (noting that “failure to use the word ‘means’ also created a
`
`rebuttable presumption—this time that former § 112, para. 6 does not apply.”). Second, the
`
`claims recite a definite structure. Indeed, the claims do not simply recite a “module,” but recite a
`
`specific type of module – “down-convert and delay module.” A “down-convert and delay
`
`module” has a known structure that incorporates components/circuits such as a switch (the
`
`opening and closing of which down-converts a signal) and a capacitor/storage element (for
`
`storing/delaying a signal).3 See, e.g., ’706 patent, 28:24-25.
`
`Indeed, dependent claims 3 and 4 make it clear that the “down-convert and delay
`
`module” includes such structural components/circuits. And the dependent claims must be
`
`considered in determining the applicability of § 112, ¶ 6. See, e.g., TEK Global, S.R.L. v. Sealant
`
`Sys. Int’l, Inc., 920 F.3d 777, 786 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he dependent claims suggest that § 112,
`
`¶ 6 does not govern. Indeed, they ‘add limitations that either describe particular structural
`
`features or flesh out whether the term has a particular structural meaning.’”). In particular,
`
`dependent claim 3 not only discloses the structural components/circuits of the “down-convert
`
`
`3 Notably, Intel’s own construction identifies the structure as switches and capacitors.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 13 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 14 of 65
`
`and delay module” – switch, storage element (e.g., capacitor), nodes and reference potential
`
`(e.g., ground) – but also describes their physical connections: “a switch and a storage element,
`
`wherein a first node of said storage element is coupled to a node of said switch, and a second
`
`node of said storage element is coupled to a reference potential.” ’706 patent, 45:39-43. Claim 4
`
`includes similar structural components. Id. at 45:44-48. Thus, the presumption against §112, ¶ 6
`
`stands. See TEK Global, 920 F.3d at 786.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the term is not subject to §112, ¶ 64 and it should be given its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`“said input sample”, “said sample” (claims 1, 6, 7, 34)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“the sample of the image that has been down-
`converted”
`
`The claim language is straightforward and no construction is necessary. The terms “said
`
`
`
`input sample” and “said sample” simply refer back to their respective antecedent bases. Claims 1
`
`and 7,5 for example, recite “a down-convert and delay module to under-sample an input signal to
`
`
`4 Even if §112, ¶ 6 applies (which it doesn’t), Intel’s construction is wrong. First, Intel’s
`construction is missing one of the functions of the “down-convert and delay module” set forth in
`the claims – “under-sampl[ing] said input signal according to a control signal.” See ’706 patent,
`45:29-30. Second, Intel’s construction is missing relevant structures of the “down-convert and
`delay module.” Intel seeks to limit the structure to an embodiment of a system that under-
`samples using negligible apertures (Figure 26) while excluding an embodiment that under-
`samples using non-negligible apertures (Figures 53A, 53A-1). Intel’s reasons for excluding the
`non-negligible apertures embodiment is its view that “under-sampling” is performed only using
`negligible apertures. But after briefing and oral arguments at the hearing, this Court has already
`rejected Intel’s position in the 108 case. The Court declined to limit the construction of “under-
`sampling” to sampling using negligible apertures in the Court’s January 28, 2021 Claim
`Construction Order. See Ex. 1 at 3. As such, Intel’s construction of the structure is missing the
`switches and capacitors in Figures 53A and 53A-1. Finally, Intel’s structure is missing the
`“down-convert and delay module” 1708, 1908, 2308 of Figures 17, 19 and 23, respectively,
`which are described, e.g., in Section 3.4.2.1. See ’706 patent 27:65-32:25.
`5 Claim 6 of the ’706 patent uses similar language: “(a) means for under-sampling an input signal
`to produce an input sample of a down-converted image of said input signal and (b) first delaying
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 14 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 15 of 65
`
`produce an input sample of a down-converted image of said input signal, and to delay said input
`
`sample.” ’706 patent, 45:15-18; 46:9-12. As such, “said input sample” simply refers back to the
`
`“input sample of a down-converted image of said input signal.” Similarly, claim 34 recites “a
`
`frequency translator to produce a sample of a down-converted image of an input signal, and to
`
`delay said sample.” Id. at 48:46-48. As such, “said input sample” simply refers back to the
`
`“sample of a down-converted image of an input signal.”
`
`As written, the claims require a relationship between the sample and the input signal – the
`
`sample is taken from the input signal. But Intel seeks to negate this claimed relationship. Intel
`
`attempts to change the meaning of the claims to remove this relationship so that the sample that
`
`is delayed is no longer tied to the input signal.
`
`With regard to claims 1, 6 and 7, not only does Intel inexplicably re-arrange the claim
`
`language as written6 – changing “sample of a down-converted image” to “sample of the image
`
`that has been down-converted” – and change “input sample” to “sample,” but Intel omits the
`
`critical language “of said input signal.” Similarly, with regard to claim 34, Intel re-arranges the
`
`claim language as written and omits the language “of an input signal.” By removing “of [said/an]
`
`input sample” in all of the claims, Intel seeks to sever the relationship between the sample and
`
`the input signal.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Intel’s attempt to re-write the claim language should be
`
`rejected and the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`C.
`
`“delay module” (claims 1, 7, 34, 140)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`Not subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`means for delaying said input sample.” ’706 patent, 45:54-56. As such, the same arguments
`apply.
`6 By re-arranging the claim language, Intel hopes to obfuscate its re-write of the claims.
`
`Intel’s Construction
`Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 15 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 16 of 65
`
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`Function: delay instances of an output signal /
`further delay one or more of said delayed and
`down-converted input samples
`
`Structure: structure including “first delay
`module 2628,” “second delay module 2630”
`shown in Fig 26, “delay module 3204” shown
`in Fig. 32 and described at 35:1-18; the
`sample and hold circuit 4501 and 4503 in Fig.
`45 and described at 32:44-33:19; or an analog
`delay line having a combination of capacitors,
`inductors and/or resistors described at 35:19-
`27; or equivalents thereof that operate to
`delay samples/instances of a signal presented
`at its input by a known amount.
`
`
`
`The term is straight-forward and does not require a construction. Despite the structural
`
`nature of “delay module,” Intel asserts that the term implicates 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. Similar to its
`
`position on the “down-convert and delay module,” Intel is incorrect. Once again, the term does
`
`not use the word “means.” Thus, there is a presumption that §112, ¶ 6 does not apply.
`
`Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. And the claims recite a definite structure. Indeed, the claims do
`
`not simply recite a “module,” but recite a specific type of module – “delay module.” A “delay
`
`module” has a known structure that incorporates components/ circuits, such as a capacitor (for
`
`storing/delaying a signal).7 See e.g., ’706 patent, Figures 17, 19, 23, 32, 34; 34:60-35:31.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the term is not subject to §112, ¶ 68 and it should be given its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`7 Notably, Intel’s own construction identifies the structure as including capacitors.
`8 Even if §112, ¶ 6 applies (which it doesn’t), Intel’s construction is wrong. Intel’s structure is
`missing the “delay modules” 1722A, 1722B, 1722C in Figure 17, “delay modules” 1912, 1914 in
`Figure 19, and “delay modules” 2316, 2318 in Figure 23, which are described, e.g., in Section
`3.4.2.2. See, e.g., ’706 patent, Figures 32, 34; 34:60-35:31.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 16 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 17 of 65
`
`D.
`
`“harmonic” / “harmonics” (’706 patent, claims 1, 6, 7, 28, 34; ’508 patent,
`claim 1)
`
`Patent No.
`“harmonic”
`(’706 patent, claims 1, 6,
`7, 28, 34)
`
`“harmonic(s)”
`(’508 patent, claim 1)
`
`ParkerVision’s Construction
`“A sinusoidal component of a
`periodic wave that has a
`frequency that is an integer
`multiple of the fundamental
`frequency of the periodic
`waveform and including the
`fundamental frequency as the
`first harmonic”
`“a frequency or tone that, when
`compared to its fundamental or
`reference frequency or tone, is
`an integer multiple of the
`fundamental frequency of the
`periodic waveform and
`including the fundamental
`frequency as the first harmonic”
`
`Intel’s Construction
`“A sinusoidal component of a
`periodic wave that has a
`frequency that is an integer
`multiple of the fundamental
`frequency of the periodic
`wave”
`
`“Sinusoidal components of a
`periodic wave each of which
`have a frequency that is an
`integer multiple of the
`fundamental frequency of the
`periodic wave”
`
`Since the ’706 and ’508 patents both include the term “harmonic(s),” ParkerVision will
`
`
`
`address these patents together.
`
`Though the parties use different language, with one key exception, the parties’
`
`constructions are fundamentally the same. At bottom, the parties’ dispute is whether the
`
`“fundamental frequency” of a periodic waveform is a “harmonic.” Consistent with
`
`ParkerVision’s construction, the lexicography in the specifications demonstrate that the
`
`“fundamental frequency” is a “harmonic.”9 Indeed, the “fundamental frequency” is referred to in
`
`the specification as “the first harmonic.” And, as discussed below, another district court (that
`
`construed ParkerVision’s patents) held that the fundamental frequency is a harmonic. Thus,
`
`ParkerVision’s construction includes the fundamental frequency as one of the frequencies of a
`
`
`9 It is notable that in litigation ParkerVision brought against Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court
`for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando) involving the same patent disclosure, Qualcomm, a
`highly sophisticated party and the industry leader in wireless chip technology, agreed to the
`construction ParkerVision proposes in this case. Ex. 2, Order dated Apr. 29, 2020 at 10.
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 17 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 18 of 65
`
`periodic waveform i.e., one of the harmonics.
`
`On the other hand, Intel’s construction purposefully remains silent regarding the
`
`fundamental frequency, hoping to avoid raising a red flag to the Court at this time and preserve a
`
`non-infringement argument. Intel omits reference to the “fundamental frequency” because, as
`
`Intel stated during the parties’ meet-and-confer, Intel’s position is that the “fundamental
`
`frequency” is not one of the harmonics of a periodic wave. In other words, Intel seeks to exclude
`
`the fundamental frequency as being a harmonic. But, as set forth below, Intel is wrong.
`
`Wireless devices include wireless chips. These chips are responsible for transmitting
`
`information (e.g., voice and data) over the air. In order to transmit the information, the
`
`transmission components of the chip create a signal (a continuous periodic waveform) that
`
`carries the information. This continuous periodic waveform, in turn, is made up of a number of
`
`sinusoidal signals referred to as harmonics. See Section IV.A above.
`
`Notably, every waveform has a first harmonic (fundamental frequency) as well as
`
`additional harmonics (second harmonic, third harmonic, and so on) whose frequencies are a
`
`function of the first harmonic (fundamental frequency). As such, the fundamental frequency
`
`being the first harmonic is not merely an embodiment; the fundamental frequency is always a
`
`harmonic.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 18 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 19 of 65
`
`
`
`Figure 19E of the ’508 patent, above, illustrates a periodic waveform 1912 (blue) that is
`
`generated by a wireless device. Figure 19F shows the first harmonic (fundamental frequency ff),
`
`the third harmonic, and the fifth harmonic.10 See also Figure 19G (showing the fundamental
`
`frequency ff as the first harmonic). Notably, the fundamental frequency is a harmonic.
`
`The ’508 patent and ’706 patent are directed to different technologies11 and each patent
`
`has its own lexicography regarding the meaning of “harmonic.” Intel’s constructions ignore this
`
`difference.12 Nevertheless, in both cases, the lexicography demonstrates that the fundamental
`
`frequency is a harmonic. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004) (“[T]he inventor’s written description of the invention, for example, is relevant and
`
`controlling insofar as it provides clear lexicography ….”).
`
`
`10 As shown above, the third and fifth harmonics are functions of the fundamental frequency ff.
`The third harmonic has a frequency that is three times the fundamental frequency ff (i.e., 3 x ff);
`the fifth harmonic has a frequency that is five times the fundamental frequency ff (i.e., 5 x ff).
`11 The ’508 patent is directed to how a signal is up-converted for transmission from a wireless
`device, whereas the ’706 patent is directed to how a signal is down-converted after being
`received by a wireless device.
`12 Intel’s construction for the ’508 patent ignores the lexicography and, instead, improperly uses
`the lexicography from the ’706 patent.
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00562-ADA Document 37 Filed 02/15/21 Page 19 of 64Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 36-8 Filed 03/16/22 Page 20 of 65
`
`The ’706 patent provides the following lexicography:
`
`Harmonic: A harmonic is a sinusoidal component of a periodic wave. It has a
`frequency that is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency of the periodic
`wave. In other words, if the periodic waveform has a fundamental frequency of
`“f” (also called the first harmonic), then it has harmonics at frequencies of ‘n•f,’
`where ‘n’ is 2, 3, 4, etc. The harmonic corresponding to n=2 is referred to as the
`second harmonic, the harmonic corresponding to n=3 is referred to as the third
`harmonic, and so on.
`
`’706 patent, 9:39-47.
`
`The ’508 patent provides the following lexicography:
`
`Harmonic: A harmonic is a frequency or tone that, when compared to its
`fundamental or reference frequency or tone, is an integer multiple of it. In other
`words, if a periodic waveform has a fundamental frequency of ‘f' (also called the
`first harmonic),13 then its harmonics may be located at frequencies of ‘n•f,’ where
`‘n’ is 2, 3, 4, etc. The harmonic corresponding to n=2 is referred to as the second
`harmonic, the harmonic corresponding to n=3 is referred to as the third harmonic,
`and so on.
`
`’508 patent, 9:53-61.
`
`
`
`Indeed, the fact that the fundamental frequency is a harmonic (“the first harmonic”) (i.e.,
`
`that the first harmonic is one the claimed harmonics) is discussed throughout the specifications.
`
`As shown in FIG. 19, if rectangular waveform 1908 has a fundamental frequency
`of f1 (also known as the first harmonic), the third harmonic will have a frequency
`of 3 • f1, the fifth harmonic will have a frequency of 5 • f1, and so on.
`
`Id. at 20:11-15.
`
`The most basic waveform which is continuous and periodic is a sine wave. It has
`but one harmonic, which is at the fundamental frequency. This is also