Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 29
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 29
`
`EXHIBIT 32-8
`EXHIBIT 32-8
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 29
`
`EXHIBIT 32-8
`EXHIBIT 32-8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 29
`
`(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:3)(cid:3)
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 3 of 29
`
`IPR2020-01302
`U.S. Patent No. 7,539,474
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________________
`
`Intel Corporation
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,539,474
`
`Issue Date: May 26, 2009
`Title: DC OFFSET, RE-RADIATION, AND I/Q SOLUTIONS USING
`UNIVERSAL FREQUENCY TRANSLATION TECHNOLOGY
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2020-01302
`__________________________________________________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY TO PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 4 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`V.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`INTEL AVOIDS PROVIDING THE BOARD WITH A COMPLETE
`PICTURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY. ............................................................ 3
`III. THE TEXAS COURT’S UPDATED CONSTRUCTION. ............................. 5
`IV.
`INTEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF “STORAGE ELEMENT” IS WRONG. ... 6
`A. A “Storage Element” Is Only An Element Of An Energy Transfer
`System. .................................................................................................. 6
`B. A “Storage Element” Drives A Low Impedance Load. ........................ 9
`Larson does not disclose a “switch.” ............................................................. 10
`A. A FET Is Not Necessarily A Switch ................................................... 10
`B.
`The FETs In Figure 5.36 Of Larson Are Not Switches ...................... 13
`VI. Larson does not disclose a “Storage element.” ............................................. 15
`VII. Butler does not disclose a “Pulse” ................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 5 of 29
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In its Reply, Intel abandons its original invalidity theories and expressly
`
`concedes that the prior art references – Larson and Bulter – cited in the Petition do
`
`not invalidate the challenged claims of the ’474 patent. Indeed, the parties agree that
`
`the ’474 patent claims are directed to a down-conversion technique called sampling
`
`which is not taught or suggested by Intel’s cited prior art. See Paper 23 (“Reply”),
`
`13. (“Thus, assuming that the Board agrees with the parties that the remaining claims
`
`require down-conversion by sampling, Intel agrees that Larson and Butler do not
`
`invalidate those claims.”).1 For at least this reason, challenged claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and
`
`9-11 of the ’474 patent are not invalid.
`
` Recognizing the deficiencies in its Petition, Intel now proclaims that “the
`
`claims are invalid because down-conversion by sampling—though not disclosed in
`
`Larson or Butler—was well known prior to the filing date of the ’474 patent.” Id.,
`
`13. But Intel points only to “sample-and-hold (voltage sampling) solutions for down-
`
`conversion” as being well known. Id. As explained in Patent Owner’s Response, the
`
`patent discusses two fundamentally different and competing technologies that down-
`
`convert by sampling: (1) energy transfer (energy sampling) and (2) sample and hold
`
`(voltage sampling). See Paper 16 (“POR”), 38. And the challenged claims are
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis has been added.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 6 of 29
`
`directed to only one of these technologies – energy transfer (i.e., energy sampling).
`
`Id. Intel purposefully omits this critical distinction from its Reply in an attempt to
`
`conceal the holes in Intel’s deficient obviousness challenge. For this additional
`
`reason, challenged claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9-11 are not invalid.
`
`Furthermore, Intel has not demonstrated that its primary references (Larson
`
`and Butler) render obvious – let alone anticipate – the challenged claims of the ’474
`
`patent. Intel persists in arguing that Larson and/or Bulter disclose the claimed
`
`“switch[es],” “storage element[s],” and “pulse[s].” See Reply, 14. But this assertion
`
`directly contradicts Intel’s own characterization of the prior art (as failing to disclose
`
`systems that down-convert by sampling). Indeed, Intel fails to appreciate that while
`
`both non-linear mixing and energy sampling use similar components (e.g.,
`
`transistors, capacitors), these components are used in different ways in a circuit to
`
`create a desired result.
`
`But the way in which the components are used is significant and make these
`
`systems fundamentally different and competing systems. Whereas a non-linear
`
`mixer using a continuous time-varying resistor forms a down-converted signal by
`
`mixing (multiplying) two signals (an RF signal and an LO signal) together, energy
`
`sampling uses a switch and forms a down-converted signal from the energy
`
`transferred from an RF signal. See Ex.-2027 ¶150 (citing Ex.-2015, 884), ¶184.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 6 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 7 of 29
`
`Intel improperly seeks to ignore these differences. These differences,
`
`however, are why the challenged claims of the ’474 patent specifically recite
`
`“switch,” “storage element” (an element of an energy transfer (energy sampling)
`
`system), and “pulse.” These terms distinguish an energy sampling/transfer system
`
`from a non-linear mixing system. For at least this additional reason, challenged
`
`claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9-11 are not invalid.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`INTEL AVOIDS PROVIDING THE BOARD WITH A COMPLETE
`PICTURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY.
`This case involves complex wireless technology. Unlike ParkerVision, who
`
`focuses on how the technology actually works, Intel relies on naming conventions
`
`and tries to avoid providing the Board 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 invalidity arguments do not withstand
`
`scrutiny.
`
`
`
`Instead of focusing on important details, Intel makes broad generalizations
`
`about the technology. For example, Intel devotes pages in its Reply arguing that
`
`down-converting at an aliasing rate is “the” invention and, therefore, all claims must
`
`include the concept of an aliasing rate, which “necessarily involves sampling.” See
`
`Reply, 10-12, n.6. But Intel’s discussion of “aliasing rate” is inapplicable. Notably,
`
`Intel is seeking to add this “aliasing rate” into the broader module term (“frequency
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 7 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 8 of 29
`
`down-conversion module”) and pull the concept of “aliasing rate” away from where
`
`the patentees already included equivalent language in the claims – i.e., the
`
`component terms (switch, storage element) and wherein clauses (e.g., claim 6:
`
`“wherein: the first switch under-samples the input signal according to the first
`
`control signal…”).
`
`
`
`Tellingly, Intel avoids any technical discussion to assist the Board’s
`
`understanding of the scope of the prior art. Instead, Intel paints broad brush strokes.
`
`According to Intel, for example, the parties agree that “the two references cited in
`
`the Petition[]… are mixers2 and thus do not disclose down-conversion by sampling.”
`
`Reply, 2. But ParkerVision did not make that broad pronouncement, as Intel
`
`suggests. Instead, ParkerVision carefully articulated the fundamental differences
`
`
`2 It is important to note that the term “mixer” has changed meaning over time. As
`
`used today, the term “mixer” commonly refers to frequency translation, including
`
`down-conversion and up-conversion systems. Ex.-2027 ¶163. As ParkerVision’s
`
`expert, Dr. Michael Steer, explained in his declaration, “the term ‘mixer’ really says
`
`nothing about how a circuit operates or the specific configuration of the circuit. As
`
`such, when analyzing a component referred to as a ‘mixer’ one needs to look at the
`
`operation and configuration of the circuit to determine the technology that is being
`
`implemented. Id. Tellingly, Intel makes no such effort.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 8 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 9 of 29
`
`between non-linear mixing (Larson/Bulter) and energy sampling (ParkerVision’s
`
`claimed invention). See POR, 20-29. Indeed, the differences between these
`
`technologies are critical to understanding why Intel’s prior art fails to invalidate the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`III. THE TEXAS COURT’S UPDATED CONSTRUCTION.
`The parties dispute whether a “storage element” is an element of an “energy
`
`transfer system.” In its Response, ParkerVision explained why it is. See POR, 55-
`
`60. The Texas District Court (“Texas Court”) has now twice agreed with
`
`ParkerVision. Yet, before this Board, Intel persists in making the exact same flawed
`
`arguments that it made to the Texas Court – arguments that omit critical context and
`
`ignore how the technology is actually described in the patent.
`
`Since ParkerVision filed its POR, the Texas Court revisited its construction
`
`of “storage module” (which the parties agree is synonymous with “storage element”)
`
`in a related patent. See D.I. 61, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., Case No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00562-ADA (W.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2021). The Texas Court construed “storage
`
`module” as “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.” Id. The Texas Court’s addition of “for driving a low impedance load” to its
`
`original construction supports ParkerVision’s interpretation of (and provides
`
`clarification regarding) what it means for a system to be an “energy transfer system”
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 9 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 10 of 29
`
`as set forth in ParkerVision’s proposed construction of “storage element.” See POR,
`
`52, 55-60.
`
`IV.
`
`INTEL’S CONSTRUCTION OF “STORAGE ELEMENT” IS
`WRONG.
`The Texas Court has now twice considered and rejected Intel’s construction
`
`and its arguments. While the Board is not bound to the Texas Court’s construction,
`
`it is informative.
`
`A “Storage Element” Is Only an Element of an Energy Transfer
`System.
`The ’474 patent specification (which incorporates the ’551 patent) states that
`
`the “energy transfer” system uses “a storage module” that “store[s] non-negligible
`
`amounts of energy,” whereas the “under-sampling” (i.e., sample-and-hold) system
`
`utilizes a “holding module” that “store[s] negligible amounts of energy.” Ex.-2020.
`
`66:55-67. As such, there should be no dispute that “energy transfer system” should
`
`be included in the construction as ParkerVision proposes.
`
`Tellingly, Intel provides no substantive technical arguments based on the
`
`intrinsic evidence as to why including “an element of an energy transfer system” is
`
`technically incorrect. Instead, Intel points to a single sentence from the specification
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 10 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 11 of 29
`
`(red below) and asserts that this passage is enough to define the “storage” element.3
`
`It is not.
`
`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. . . . Storage
`modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems
`that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal.
`Ex.-2020, 66:55-67.
`
`The entire paragraph above is describing a “storage” module/element in the
`
`context of an energy transfer system (green above), which is the only type of system
`
`that has a “storage” module/element. Indeed, this passage is found in the section
`
`entitled “0.1.2 Introduction to Energy Transfer.” See Ex.-2020, 66:33. As such, there
`
`is no basis for Intel to argue against including “energy transfer system.”
`
`
`3 Intel cites to another portion of the specification for the proposition that the goal of
`
`the storage module is to store non-negligible amounts of energy. See Reply, 4.
`
`Though storage of non-negligible amounts of energy is certainly one goal, it is not
`
`the only goal nor is this feature the only thing that defines what it means to be a
`
`“storage” element.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 11 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 12 of 29
`
`The inclusion of “energy transfer system” in “storage element” is appropriate.
`
`First, in its Reply, Intel admits that there are only two systems disclosed in the patent:
`
`(1) “transferring energy” and (2) “under-sampling.” See Reply, 11. Second, the ’474
`
`patent states that a “storage” element is used only in an energy transfer system. Ex.-
`
`2020, 66:55-59. Logically, if there are only two systems and a “storage” element is
`
`used only in an energy transfer system, then a “storage” module/element must
`
`necessarily be an element of an energy transfer system. Indeed, the specification
`
`makes it clear that “storage” modules/elements are inseparably intertwined with
`
`energy transfer systems. See POR, 33-36, 38-45, 55-60.
`
`Further, Intel argues that Intel’s construction of “storage element” is the same
`
`as ParkerVision’s proposed construction of “storage module” in a previous IPR
`
`(IPR2014-00948). Reply, 5. But this cuts against Intel’s argument. In 2014, claim
`
`terms were interpreted according to their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) –
`
`a different standard than the Board uses today. In 2018, the USPTO eliminated the
`
`BRI standard and harmonized its claim construction standard with the district courts.
`
`In IPR2014-00948, ParkerVision focused on the red passage above. The PTAB’s
`
`current claim construction standard, however, requires considering more than just
`
`the red passage, which ParkerVision has done here.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 12 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 13 of 29
`
`A “Storage Element” Drives a Low Impedance Load.
`A “low impedance load” goes to the heart of what makes an element, a
`
`“storage” element (used in energy sampling) as opposed to a “holding” element
`
`(used in voltage sampling/sample-and-hold). Unlike a low impedance load, a high
`
`impedance load causes an element to “hold” energy, making it a “holding” element,
`
`not a “storage” element.4 This is the reason the specification specifically makes a
`
`point to say that “holding” modules/elements hold “negligible amounts of
`
`energy…with the intent of ‘holding’ a voltage value.’” Ex.-2020, 66:63-65. Intel
`
`does not address this language.
`
`Indeed, the way in which “holding” modules/elements “hold” a voltage value
`
`is by using a high impedance load. See, e.g., Ex.-2027 ¶¶169, 171. As such, a
`
`“storage” module/element is not using a high impedance load.
`
`So what type of load is a “storage” module/element using? The specification
`
`explains that with regard to loads in sampling systems, it is a binary choice – it is
`
`either high or low impedance: “Recall from the overview of under-sampling that
`
`loads can be classified as high impedance loads or low impedance loads.” Ex.-2020,
`
`67:32-33. As such, because a “storage” module/element is not using a high
`
`4 A high impedance load restricts the flow of current. A low impedance load provides
`
`little resistance to electrical current. Ex.-2027 ¶275.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 13 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 14 of 29
`
`impedance load, it must necessarily be using a low impedance load. This portion of
`
`the specification should not be ignored and, therefore, is included in ParkerVision’s
`
`construction. Moreover, the specification states that in energy transfer systems
`
`driving a low impedance load is a benefit (it necessarily occurs). Id., 67:37-42.
`
`Intel asserts, however, that claim 68 of the ’551 patent (which depends from
`
`claim 1) relates to an energy transfer method that can drive both high impedance and
`
`low impedance loads. Reply, 7. Intel is wrong. Instead, claim 68 of the ’551 patent
`
`actually recites “the step of transferring sufficient energy from said carrier signal to
`
`drive loads without additional buffering or amplification, including high impedance
`
`loads and low impedance loads.” Ex.-2020, 119:1-5.
`
`The claim is not limited to a method that is performed only in an energy
`
`transfer system. This is why claim 68 recites “drives loads” and refers to high and
`
`low impedance loads. And the claim makes no mention of where the energy is going
`
`after being sampled from the carrier signal. Indeed, neither claim 1 nor 68 attempts
`
`to define a “storage element” or an “energy transfer system;” neither of those terms
`
`are included in the claims.
`
`V.
`
`LARSON DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “SWITCH.”
`A FET Is Not Necessarily A Switch
`For the first time in its Reply, Intel defines “switch.” While the parties’
`
`constructions of “switch” are different, the parties agree that a “switch” is an
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 14 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 15 of 29
`
`electronic device for opening and closing a circuit. The transistors cited in Intel’s
`
`prior art, however, operate as continuous time-varying resistors – not switches.
`
`Unlike a switch, a continuous time-varying resistor does not open and close a circuit.
`
`Notably, Intel attempts to conflate all FETs with switches, and interprets
`
`“switch” as including any FET used to interrupt the flow of current. See Reply, 15.
`
`In particular, Intel asserts that “‘an electronic device for opening and closing a
`
`circuit’—does not require two distinct states (conducting and non-conducting) but
`
`instead requires only ‘opening and closing a circuit.’” Id. But Intel’s interpretation
`
`ignores the plain meaning of the term, its use in the ’474 patent, and prior court’s
`
`constructions.5
`
`As used in the ’474 patent (by incorporating the ’551 patent) and understood
`
`by a POSITA, a switch is a binary-state device that toggles between open (OFF) and
`
`closed (ON). See, e.g., Ex.-2027 ¶¶184, 221-222. Indeed, the specification
`
`repeatedly describes the operation of a switch as “closed by the energy transfer
`
`
`5 Though Intel attempts to dismiss the Orlando court’s construction (see Ex.-2028,
`
`32), 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.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 15 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 16 of 29
`
`pulses” and “opened after energy transfer pulses.” See, e.g., Ex.-2020, 74:17-21;
`
`75:28-32; 77:5-9; 78:17-23. Intel’s own expert confirms this understanding to be
`
`correct.
`
`A transistor acts like a switch that either completes a circuit (which
`allows current to flow) or breaks a circuit (which stops the flow of
`current). If the transistor is turned ON, it will allow current to flow from
`source to drain (or from drain to source, depending on the type of
`transistor). If the transistor is turned OFF, it will not allow current to
`flow. The state of the transistor—ON or OFF—is controlled by a signal
`applied at the gate.
`Ex.-1002, ¶52.
`
`As previously explained in the POR, FETs behave in different ways
`
`depending on the needs of the circuit/system. POR, 27. In sampling systems, FETs
`
`are used as switches in order to take samples of the RF signal. Id. (citing Ex.-2027
`
`¶221). In non-linear mixers, on the other hand, FETs are commonly used as a
`
`continuous time-varying resistor (but not as a switch) to effectuate down-conversion
`
`of a signal to a lower frequency signal. POR, 27-28 (citing Ex.-2027 ¶223).
`
`Unlike a FET used as a switch, a FET used as a continuous time-varying
`
`resistor does not open and close; it does not have two states. Importantly, as a
`
`continuous time-varying resistor, a FET can increase/reduce the flow of current.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 16 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 17 of 29
`
`One can think of a FET used in this way as throttling the current.6 Ex. 2027 ¶226.
`
`Intel effectively concedes that Larson’s FETs operate in this same way (i.e., as
`
`continuous time-varying resistors): “It is undisputed that the resistance of Larson’s
`
`FETs varies over time, causing more or less current to flow … This variation in
`
`resistance gradually opens and closes the circuit….” Reply, 15. 7
`
`The FETs In Figure 5.36 Of Larson Are Not Switches
`In its Petition, Intel relies on the circuit of Figure 5.36 of Larson to invalidate
`
`the claims of the ’474 patent.
`
`6 Throttling of current cannot be achieved using a switch. Ex. 2027 ¶226.
`7 Intel’s reliance on the patent description of a switch as “need not being an ideal
`
`switch device” is beside the point.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 17 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 18 of 29
`
`
`As shown above, Intel identifies the FETs (green) of Figure 5.36 of Larson as
`
`
`
`“switches.” But Larson itself – despite configuring and referring to other FETs in
`
`other circuits (circuits which were not identified in the grounds of the Petition) as
`
`switches – does not identify the FETs in Figure 5.36 as switches. See, e.g., Ex.-1005,
`
`270-271 (referring to Figure 5.31: “This mixer operates as an alternating switch…the
`
`LO simply switches the two upper FETs on and off on alternate half cycles.”).
`
`Instead, Larson discloses that a “FET resistive mixer” (such as the mixer in Figure
`
`5.36 of Larson above) uses “time-varying channel resistance” and “operates entirely
`
`in its linear region, where the channel is effectively a gate-voltage-controlled
`
`resistor.” Ex.-1005, 273-274. Larson itself therefore provides an objective indication
`
`that a POSITA would not identify the FETs in Figure 5.36 as switches.
`
`To support its contention that “Larson discloses such switches,” Intel relies
`
`on the Reply Declaration of Vivek Subramanian, Ph.D. See Reply, 15-22. But Dr.
`
`Subramanian’s analysis is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. As an initial
`
`matter, Dr. Subramanian fails to differentiate junction-gate field-effect transistors
`
`(JFETs) and metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors (MOSFETs). But
`
`there are marked differences in the current-voltage characteristics of a JFET and
`
`MOSFET (as previously noted by ParkerVision’s expert, Dr. Michael Steer, see Ex.-
`
`2027 ¶207-216) that cannot be ignored.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 18 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 19 of 29
`
`Indeed, Dr. Subramanian repeatedly refers to the characteristics of a MOSFET
`
`when describing the operation of a JFET as disclosed in Larson. See, e.g., Ex.-1037
`
`¶¶ 21-22 (conflating the “pinch-off voltage” of a JFET with the “threshold voltage”
`
`of a MOSFET”). In fact, the term “JFET” never appears in his declaration at all.8
`
`In addition, Dr. Subramanian relies on Dr. Steer’s textbook description of a
`
`“Class B” amplifier (and the characteristics of a MOSFET) to coin a new term, a
`
`“Class B FET.” Ex.-1037 ¶¶19-20. Dr. Subramanian then asserts that “Larson
`
`similarly discloses that its FETs are biased at or near the edge of the cutoff/pinch off
`
`region, i.e., like class B FETs.” During his deposition, Dr. Subramanian
`
`acknowledges, however, that Larson does not refer to any part of Figure 5.36 as a
`
`“Class B FET,” “Class B amplifier,” or a “Class B mixer.” See Ex. 2029, 112:20–
`
`113:13. Because of the inconsistencies throughout Dr. Subramanian’s testimony, the
`
`Board should give it no weight.
`
`VI. LARSON DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “STORAGE ELEMENT.”
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9-11 recite a “storage element.” As set forth in Section
`
`IV.a, the term “storage element” is reserved by the ’474 patent for an element of an
`
`energy transfer (energy sampling) systems. Larson discloses a non-linear mixing
`
`system – a fundamentally different and competing technology to ParkerVision’s
`
`
`8 The term “MESFET,” a type of JFET, only appears once.
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 19 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 20 of 29
`
`energy transfer (energy sampling) system. Although Intel concedes this point, it
`
`ignores this distinction.
`
`
`In an energy transfer system, the energy stored in a “storage element”
`
`becomes part of (is incorporated into) the down-converted signal (as a result of the
`
`energy being transferred to and driving a low impedance load). See, e.g., Ex.-2027
`
`¶¶184, 185 192. Because the flow of energy itself forms the down-converted signal,
`
`the storage element must store non-negligible amounts of energy. Id., ¶263.
`
`
`
`Larson is different – i.e., Larson is not including energy from a capacitor in
`
`the down-converted signal. The capacitors in Larson merely operate to allow or
`
`prevent/block signals from passing between the FETs and the RF connection. The
`
`capacitors, however, do not store energy which forms the down-converted signal as
`
`is done in an energy transfer system. As such, none of the capacitors in Larson is an
`
`“element of an energy transfer system.” Ex. 2027 ¶¶341-342.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 20 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 21 of 29
`
`
`
`Instead, Larson discloses a FET resistive mixer. The operation of an energy
`
`transfer/sampling system, however, is fundamentally different than the operation of
`
`a FET resistive mixer. Whereas a non-linear mixer forms a down-converted signal
`
`by mixing (multiplying) two signals (an RF signal and an LO signal) together, an
`
`energy transfer system uses sampled energy from the RF signal to form a down-
`
`converted signal. Ex. 2027 ¶343.
`
`
`
`Moreover, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Larson to use
`
`sampled energy from the RF signal to form a down-converted signal as is done in an
`
`energy transfer system. Indeed, all teaching, suggestion, and motivation in Larson
`
`demonstrates that Larson relates only to a non-linear mixing system, which mixes
`
`(multiplies) two signals together. As such, for this additional reason, none of the
`
`capacitors in Larson is an “element of an energy transfer system.” Ex. 2027 ¶344.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Larson does not anticipate claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-11
`
`of the ’474 patent.
`
`VII. BUTLER DOES NOT DISCLOSE A “PULSE”
`
`Claim 7 of the ’474 patent recites down-converting an input signal according
`
`to a first and second control signal wherein “the first control signal comprises a first
`
`pulse; and the second control signal comprises a second pulse.” In its Petition, Intel
`
`points to LO signals in Larson and Butler as allegedly disclosing the claimed
`
`“pulses.” Paper 3 (“Pet.”), 66-68. But as explained in the POR, Larson and Bulter
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 21 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 22 of 29
`
`explicitly show that the LO signal presented to the FETs are sinusoids, not pulses.
`
`POR, 67,77.
`
`
`The difference between sinusoids and pulses is apparent from the diagram
`
`
`
`above illustrating different types of LO signals that can be generated by a local
`
`oscillator. The LO signal can be (1) a sine or sinusoidal wave, (2) a square wave, (3)
`
`a pulse or (4) an impulse. Ex. 2027 ¶103. As shown above, a sine or sinusoidal wave
`
`is a continuous signal with a value that changes smoothly over time. A square wave,
`
`train of pulses and train of impulses are each signals that have two values, and unlike
`
`a sine wave, have abrupt transitions between those values. Ex. 2027 ¶¶104-107.
`
`
`
`In Reply, Intel newly contends that “a POSITA would have understood
`
`sinusoidal waveforms like those PO argues are used by Larson and Butler to have
`
`pulses.” To support this new position, Intel relies, for the first time, on U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,084,363 (“Mizumoto”) as allegedly demonstrating the level of skill in the art.
`
`See Reply, 25. Not only is Mizumoto outside the field of technical endeavor relevant
`
`here, but this new reference fails to show a sinusoid wave having pulses. Instead,
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 22 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 23 of 29
`
`Mizumoto discloses “a piezoelectric element for driving a member constituting a
`
`camera or other precision devices … .” Ex.-1044, 3:31-37. “When the piezoelectric
`
`element is displaced gradually, the driven member is moved along with the drive
`
`shaft by being frictionally coupled to the drive shaft and when the piezoelectric
`
`element is displaced abruptly, the drive shaft stays in a stationary state by inertia by
`
`surpassing the frictional coupling force in respect of the drive shaft.” In other words,
`
`the “sine wave drive pulse,” referenced by Intel, is just a sinewave that drives a
`
`piezoelectric device. The piezoelectric device, in turn, responds to the sinewave as
`
`though it were a train of pulses.
`
`
`
`Figure 1(a) of Mizumoto (above), which Intel also cites, illustrates the
`
`
`
`conventional sinewave. Accordingly, a POSITA would not understand a sinusoidal
`
`waveform to have pulses in light of the teachings of Mizumoto.
`
`
`
`Intel also improperly relies on expert testimony (and Ex.-1050) for the new
`
`proposition that “it would have been obvious to modify the references to use
`
`rectangular pulses, such as those generated by digital circuitry, which is preferred to
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 117-8 Filed 03/21/22 Page 23 of 28Case 6:21-cv-00520-ADA Document 37-9 Filed 03/30/22 Page 24 of 29
`
`analog circuitry in certain implementations.” Reply, 25. Under the guise of
`
`presenting its new theory and evidence about the level of skill in the art, Intel is
`
`combining the alleged teachings reflected by the new references with Butler. These
`
`combinations were not bases for unpatentability set forth in Intel’s Petition, and Intel
`
`cannot now raise them after the fact in its Reply.
`
`Regardless, Intel’s Reply provides no evidence or explanation in support of
`
`its new theory that it would have been obvious to “use rectangular pulses, such as
`
`those generated by digital circuity,” instead of a sinusoid. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d
`
`1365, 1370 (“Even when obviousness is base
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
