Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Filed: December 18, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DR. MICHAEL FARMWALD
`and
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARKERVISION,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, BART A. GERSTENBLITH,and
`JON B. TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 8
`Filed: December 18, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`DR. MICHAEL FARMWALD
`and
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`PARKERVISION,INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, BART A. GERSTENBLITH,and
`JON B. TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TORNQUIST,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Jnter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947 .
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`On June 12, 2014, Dr. Michael Farmwald and RPX Corporation
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper1, “Pet.”) requesting an -
`
`inter partes review of claims1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202 of U.S. Patent
`No. 6,061,551 (“the 551 patent”). On September 24, 2014, ParkerVision,
`
`Inc. (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper7,
`
`“Prelim. Resp.”’) to the Petition. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a), which providesthat an inter partes review may notbeinstituted
`
`“unless .. . there is a reasonablelikelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition.”
`
`Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determinethat there is a reasonablelikelihoodthat Petitioner would prevail
`with respect to each of claims 1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202 ofthe
`
`’551 patent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we authorize an interpartes
`
`review tobeinstituted as to these claims on the groundsset forth below.
`
`_
`
`A. Related Proceedings
`Theparties represent that the 551patent is asserted in ParkerVision,
`__
`Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00719 (M.D.Fla.). Paper 5, 1; Pet. 1.
`USS. Patent No. 6,266,518, which stems from the same parent application as
`the °551 patent, is the subject of a petition for inter partes review in
`
`IPR2014-00946. Paper5, 1.
`
`B. The ’551] Patent
`_ The ’551 patentis directed to a method and apparatus for down-
`converting electromagnetic (EM)signals to intermediate frequency (IF)
`
`signals or demodulated basebandsignals by aliasing the EM signalat an
`
`aliasing rate. Ex. 1001, 1:23-24, 2:53-56, 22:34-36. An aliasingrate is a
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`sampling rate that “is equal to, or less than, twice the frequency of the EM -
`
`carrier signal,” and preferably “is much less than the frequencyofthe carrier
`signal.” Id. at 23:28-32.
`|
`Figure 82A of the 551 patent is reproduced below:
`
`9202
`
`FIG. 82A
`
`8214 pH 8216
`
`
`
`
`
`8212
`
`
`8208
`STORAGE
`CAPACITANCE
`
`8206
`
`wrenenee-fee
`
`8204
`
`ENERGY TRANSFER
`SIGNAL
`
`|
`(PULSE WITH A NON-
`NEGLIGIBLE APERTURE)
`
`6210
`
`Figure 82A illustrates an exemplary energy transfer system for down-
`
`converting an input EM signal. Jd. at 66:55—56. In this embodiment, energy
`
`transfer signal 8210 includesa train of energy transfer pulses having non-
`
`negligible pulse widths. Jd. at 67:3-5. These pulses control switch
`
`module 8206, causing the switch to open and close. Jd. at 67:1-3.. When the
`
`switch is closed, energy from the input EM signalis transferred to storage
`
`capacitance 8208. Jd. at 67:14—25. The ’551 patent discloses that the non-
`
`negligible amountof transferred energyis sufficient to “efficiently” down-
`
`convert the input EM signal. Jd. at 67:26—30.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`The relationship between the frequency of the EM carriersignal, the
`aliasing rate, and the intermediate frequency of the down-converted signalis
`
`set forth in the ’551 patent as: Fico= n-F4r + Fir, where Fcis the frequency of
`
`the EM carrier signal; F4,z is the aliasing rate; n identifies a harmonic or sub-
`harmonic ofthe aliasing rate; and Fy is the intermediate frequency ofthe
`down-converted signal. /d. at 23:48-61. In one example provided in the
`’551 patent, by under-sampling a 901 MHz EMcarriersignal at 150 MHz
`using a sub-harmonicof6, an intermediate signal frequency of 1 MHz is
`obtained. Id. at 30:8-10. According to the °551 patent, conventional
`systems “cannoteasily offer, or do not allow,” the level of flexibility in _
`frequency selection provided by the disclosed method and apparatus. Id. at
`31:9-10.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Claims | and 23 are the independentclaims involvedin this
`proceeding. Claims 25, 161, 193, and 202 directly depend from independent
`
`claim 23. Independent claims.1 and 23 are illustrative of the challenged
`
`claims and are reproduced below:
`
`1. A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a lower
`frequency signal, comprising the stepsof:
`
`(1) receiving a carrier signal;
`
`(2) transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the
`carrier signal, at an aliasing rate that is substantially equal to a
`frequency of the carrier signal plus or minus frequency of the
`lower frequency signal, divided by n, where n represents a
`harmonic or sub-harmonicofthe carrier signal; and
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`(3) generating a lower frequency signal from the transferred
`energy.
`Ex. 1001, 115:9-20.
`
`23. An apparatus for down-converting a carrier signal to a
`lower frequency signal, comprising:
`
`an energytransfer signal generator;
`
`a switch module controlled by said energy transfer signal
`generator; and
`
`a storage module coupledto said switch module;
`wherein said storage module receives non-negligible amounts
`. of energy transferred from a carrier signal at an aliasing rate
`that is substantially equal to a frequency of the carrier signal
`plus or minus a frequency of the lower frequency signal,
`divided by n where n represents a harmonic or sub-harmonic of
`the carrier signal, wherein a lower frequency signal is generated
`from the transferred energy.
`
`Id. at 116:24—36.
`
`D. The Prior Art
`
`Petitionerrelies on the following prior art references, as well as a
`Declaration of Dr. Asad A. Abidi, dated June 7, 2014 (Ex. 1004):
`
`Polly Estabrook, The direct conversion receiver: Analysis and design
`ofthe front-end components, 1-396 (1989) (Ph.D.diss., Stanford
`Univ.) (Ex. 1022, “Estabrook”);
`
`Peter A. Weisskopf, Subharmonic Sampling ofMicrowave Signal
`Processing Requirements, MICROWAVE JOURNAL, 239-40, 242-44,
`246-47 (May 1992) (Ex. 1023, “Weisskopf”’); and
`
`G. Avitabile, et al., S-band digital downconverterfor radar
`applications based on GaAs MMICfast sample-and-hold, 143 (6) TEE
`PROC.- CIRCUITS, DEVICES, AND SYST., 337-42 (1996) (Ex. 1024,
`“Avitabile”).
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`E. Alleged Grounds of Unpatentability
`Claims challenged
`
`
`
`
`
`Weisskopf 102(b)|1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202
`
`
`
`Estabrook 102(b)|1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202
`
`
`
`Avitabile § 102(b)|1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202 ©
`
`Il. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`In an interpartes review, “Ta] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`patent in whichit appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In determining the
`broadest reasonable construction, we presumethat claim termscarry their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d
`
`1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This presumption may be rebutted when a
`
`patentee, acting as a lexicographer, sets forth an alternate definition of a
`
`term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and
`
`‘precision. Jn re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`
`1. Non-negligible
`amounts ofenergy
`
`Independentclaims | and 23 require the transfer of “non-negligible
`
`amounts of energy.” Ex. 1001, 115:12, 116:31-32. This term is not defined |
`
`explicitly in the 551 patent. The District Court construed the term to mean
`“transferring energy in amounts that are distinguishable from noise.”
`Ex. 1008, 13. In support of applying this construction in the present
`proceeding, Patent Ownercontendsthat the Specification repeatedly °
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`describes “non-negligible amounts of energy” with reference to noise.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 22—24. For example, the 551 patentstates:
`
`In accordance with an aspect of the invention, methods
`and systems are disclosed below for down-converting EM
`signals by transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from
`the EM signals. The resultant down-converted signals have
`sufficient energy to allow the down-converted signals to be
`distinguishable from noise. The resultant down-converted
`signals also have sufficient energy to drive lower impedance
`circuits without buffering.
`
`Ex. 1001, 63:27—34 (emphasis added); see also id. at 66:44—46 (noting that
`
`non-negligible transferred energy “significantly improvesthe signal to noise
`
`ratio andsensitivity to very small signals”).
`Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s proposed construction is
`deficient because the 551 patent does not provide any guidance“as to what
`
`the magnitude of the noise or received signal may be.” Pet. 12. According
`
`to Petitioner, in contrast to noise, “negligible” and “non-negligible” amounts
`
`of energy are consistently described in the °551 patent Specification as being
`the direct and proximate result of using a “negligible”or “non-negligible”
`
`sampling aperture. Jd. at 13. In support of this argument, Petitioner
`identifies portions ofthe Specification that discuss the significance ofnon-
`negligible apertures on the amountof energy transferred:
`
`In an embodiment, the present invention transfers energy
`from an EM signalby utilizing an energy transfer signal instead
`of an under-sampling signal. Unlike under-sampling signals
`that have negligible aperture pulses, the energy transfer signal
`includes a train ofpulses having non-negligible apertures that
`tend away from zero. This provides more time to transfer
`energy from an EM input signal. One direct benefit is that the
`input
`impedance of the system is reduced so that practical
`impedance matching circuits can be implemented to further
`improve energy transfer and thus overall efficiency. The non-
`
`_
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent6,061,551
`
`negligible transferred energy significantly improves the signal
`to noise ratio and sensitivity to very small signals, as well as
`permitting the down-converted signal to drive lower impedance
`loads unassisted. Signals that especially benefit
`include low
`poweronestypified by RF signals.
`Ex. 1001, 66:34—49 (emphasis added). Petitioner furtherasserts that,
`
`consistent with its construction, the ’551 patent Specification describes two
`
`sampling systemsthat are identical in structure, with one using a negligible
`
`aperture and obtaining negligible amounts of energy transfer, and the other
`
`using a non-negligible aperture and obtaining non-negligible amounts of
`energy transfer. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001, 63:40—59, 65:32-66:24, 67:1—25,
`67:57-61).
`
`Neither proposed constructionis entirely satisfactory. With respect to
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction, the 551 patent discloses that
`negligible amounts of energy “may notbe sufficient” to distinguish received
`
`low energy signals (such as RF signals) over noise, but does not define
`
`negligible amounts of energy as being indistinguishable from noise.
`Ex. 1001, 63:18-26. Thus, although all non-negligible amounts of energy
`are distinguishable from noise,not all negligible amounts of energy are
`indistinguishable from noise. Accordingly, on this record, we are not
`
`persuadedthat the ability to distinguish a signal over noise necessarily
`
`determines whetherthat signal has a non-negligible amountof energy.
`With respect to Petitioner’s proposed construction, although the
`°551 patent strongly suggests that sampling RF signals with a non-negligible
`
`aperture will produce non-negligible amounts of energy, the 551 patentalso
`
`discloses that an EM signal mayinclude “all frequencies greater than zero
`
`hertz.” Ex. 1001, 14:32-34. Petitioner does not identify a disclosure in the
`
`’551 patent to support its argumentthat for all possible EM signals a non-
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`negligible aperture will result in non-negligible energy transfer. In addition,
`Patent Ownerasserts that other elementsofthe circuit, such as the size of the
`
`capacitor and the use of impedance matchingcircuits, may affect the amount
`
`of energy transferred from the input EM signal. Prelim. Resp. 20-21.
`
`Theordinary and customary meaning of the term “negligible”is:
`
`“minor, unimportant,trifling, trivial, inconsequential.” Ex. 3001, OXFORD
`
`DESK DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS529 (1997). In view of the ambiguity
`
`discussed above with respect to both Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s
`
`proposed constructions, we will give the term “non-negligible amounts of
`energy”its ordinary and customary meaningas usedin the Specification of .
`the °551 patent, which is: “amounts of energy that are not minor,
`
`- unimportant, or inconsequential.” See In re Translogic, 504 F.3d at 1257.
`
`2. Energy transfer signal generator
`Petitioner contends that an “energy transfer signal generator”is not a
`
`term ofart, but is defined in the ’551 patent Specification as “an apparatus
`
`that generates control signals with non-negligible apertures.” Pet. 23 (citing
`Ex. 1001, 66:34-39). Accordingto Petitioner, “non-negligible apertures”
`are “objectively defined by dependent claim 98 of the °551 patent, which
`establishes that apertures of ‘one tenth of one percent of approximate half
`cycles of the carrier signal’ are necessarily non-negligible.” Jd. (citing
`
`Ex. 1001, 121:24—28). In contrast, Patent Owner arguesthat an “energy
`transfer signal generator,” as used in the challenged claims,isa “signal
`
`generator that outputs pulses.” Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 67:3-5,
`
`67:51—54, Fig. 83C).
`
`The ’551 patent’s examples and embodimentsoften, if not always,
`
`—
`
`_ describe the energy transfer signal as including “a train of pulses having
`
`9
`
`
`
`TPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`non-negligible apertures that tend away from zero.” Ex. 1001, 66:36—39,
`67:5-8, 69:30-33. The dependent claims, however, suggest that an “energy
`transfer signal” is broader in scope than these embodiments. Specifically,
`claim 2 requires an “energy transfer signal” that-is used to transfer energy
`from the carrier signal. Jd. at 115:20-23. Claim 3, which depends from
`claim 2, further requires “a train ofpulses having non-negligible apertures
`that tend away from zero timein duration.” Id. at 115:24-27. Sucha
`limitation would be superfluous if an “energy transfer signal” were defined
`as including “a train ofpulses having non-negligible apertures that tend
`away from zero.” See, e.g., Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the presence of a dependentclaim that
`
`addsa particular limitation raises a presumptionthat the limitation in
`question is not found in the claim from which it depends); 35 USC. § 1124
`4 (“A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference
`
`all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.”). Thus, we decline to limit
`
`an “energy transfer signal” to pulses or signals having non-negligible
`apertures.
`.
`
`Based onthe foregoing, we give the term “energy transfer signal
`
`generator” its ordinary and customary meaning:“a generator that outputs
`
`energy transfer signals.”
`
`3. Output impedance matchcircuit
`
`Petitioner asserts that this term should be construed to mean “a circuit
`
`with an input impedance approximately matching the output impedance of
`the down-conversion circuitry.” Pet. 25. Patent Ownerassertsthat this term
`should be construed,as it wasin the district court proceeding, to mean “a
`
`circuit configured to transfer desired power from the apparatusto a load.”
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`Prelim. Resp. 27; Ex. 1008, 27-29. In support of this construction, Patent
`Ownerpoints to disclosures in the °551. patent indicating that “to optimize
`powertransferred through the receiver system .
`. ., each component should
`
`be impedance matched with adjacent components”andthat “the storage
`
`module should have an impedanceat the desired output frequencies that is
`
`preferably greater than or equalfo the loadthat is intended to be driven.” Jd.
`
`at 27—28 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:23-41, 105:30-43).-
`
`Patent Owner’s citations do not support its broad construction. As
`
`noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s construction doesnot actually require
`
`that a circuit modify the impedance,only that a subjective amount of
`
`“desired power”transfer through the receiver system to a load. Pet. 24.
`Patent Ownerhasnotdirectedusto credible evidence establishing that an
`output impedance matchcircuit exists any time a circuit is configured to
`transfer a “desired” amount of powerto a load, and the Specification does
`
`not suggest otherwise. For example, the ?551 patent discloses that
`
`impedance matchingis used to “optimize” the amount of powertransferred,
`
`and can be achieved “in various manners, including providing the necessary
`load impedancedirectly or the use ofan impedance matchcircuit.” Ex.
`
`1001, 105:48—51 (emphasis added).
`
`Patent Owner’s citations to therecord, however, provide guidance as
`
`to the correct construction. For example, the 551 patent indicates that “each
`
`component should be impedance matched with adjacent components” and
`that the method of matching mayinclude “an impedance matchcircuit.” See
`
`Ex. 1001, 25:23-27, 105:30-43, 48-51. Therefore, at this stage of the
`
`proceeding, we construe an “output impedance matchcircuit”as “a circuit
`
`designed to match approximately the impedance of one componentwith the
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`output impedance of an adjacent component.” Ex. 1001, 25:23-41, 105:30-
`
`43. This construction is consistent with, but broader than, Petitioner’s
`
`proposedconstruction of “a circuit with an input impedance approximately
`
`matching the output impedance of the down-conversioncircuitry,” as we
`decline to limit the placement ofthe match circuit in the definition of
`“output impedance matchcircuit.” See, e.g., id. at claim 25 (requiring that
`
`the “output impedance matchcircuit” be “coupled to an output of said
`
`apparatus”), claim 162 (requiring an “output impedance match circuit
`
`coupled between said storage module and an apparatus output”).
`
`B. Weisskopf
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Weisskopf. Pet. 51-60. Weisskopf
`is directed to a method for down-converting microwave and mm-wave
`|
`carrier signals to intermediate signals using sub-harmonic sampling.
`Ex. 1023, 239.' Figure 2 of Weisskopf is depicted below:
`
`R
`
`Ch
`
`PULSE
`
`Fig. 2 An ideal subharmonic sampling model.
`
`Figure 2 of Weisskopf depicts an ideal sub-harmonic sample-and-hold
`
`system. The “source”is the microwave signal to be sampled, R, is the
`
`' Weisskopf contains two different page numbers. Ourcitations are to the
`original page numbersof the published document.
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`source impedance,R, is the load impedance ofthe buffer amplifier, and C,
`identifies the hold capacitor. Jd. at 240.
`
`In the Weisskopf device, a pulse is generated to signal the gate, or
`
`switch, to open and close, thereby creating a “sampling aperture.” Jd.
`
`During this aperture, “the source signal is applied to the hold capacitor C;,
`via the gate.” Jd. Weisskopfdiscloses that maximum energywill be
`
`transferred to the hold capacitor “when the sampling aperture is one-half the
`period of the frequency ofthe ... sampled carrier.” Jd. at 243. In this
`| embodiment, down-conversion is accomplished with “great efficiency and
`withoutloss offidelity,” with “most” of the sampled energy converted to the
`
`baseband spectral replica. Id. at 240, 243.
`
`I. Claims I and 23
`
`Petitioner asserts that Weisskopf discloses every elementof claims|
`__
`and 23. According to Petitioner, Weisskopf discloses down-converting a
`carrier signal to a lower frequencysignal by: (1) receiving a microwave
`carrier signal; (2) transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the
`carrier signal toa capacitor C,, using an aliasing rate and sub-harmonic of
`the carrier signal; and (3) generating a lower frequency signal from the
`“transferred energy. See Pet. 51-55. Petitioner further asserts that Weisskopf
`discloses the additional elementsof claim23, including “an energy transfer
`signal generator,” a “switch module controlled by said energy transfer signal
`generator,” and “a storage module coupled to said switch module.” Jd. at
`
`56-57.
`
`With respect to the amount of energy transferred from the carrier
`
`signal, Petitioner asserts that Weisskopfdiscloses adjusting various circuit
`
`parameters, such as the size of the capacitor and the sampling aperture, to
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`“maximize energy transfer from the carrier signal,” such that “most” of the
`
`energy from the EM signalis transferred to the baseband spectral replica.
`
`Pet. 52-53. According to Petitioner, this process of maximizing the
`
`transferred energy ensuresthat a “non-negligible amountof energy”is
`
`transferred from the input EM signal. Jd.
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that “maximizing” energy does not disclose
`
`anything, as the energy could be zero. Prelim. Resp. 36. We are not
`
`persuaded by this argumentbecauseit ignores Weisskopf’s disclosure of
`sampling 18.5 GHz signals (non-zero energy), maximizing stored kinetic
`
`energy in the capacitor, and transferring “most” of this sampled energy to
`
`the spectral replica. See, e.g., Ex. 1023, 240, Fig. 3; see also EWP Corp.v.
`
`Reliance UniversalInc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“A reference
`
`must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology andis not
`
`limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to
`
`protect.”). In short, Weisskopf’s examples anddisclosures are not directed
`to zero energy applications.
`
`Patent Ownerfurther asserts that Weisskopf’s disclosure of
`
`maximizing the transferred energy does notteach transferring “non-
`
`negligible amounts of energy” because Weisskopfdiscloses maximizing
`“kinetic energy,” quantified by the equation q’/C,, while Dr. Abidi uses the
`equation % q’(t)/C to refer to the energy stored in the capacitor at a time(t).
`
`Prelim. Resp. 35-36. According to Patent Owner, because the two equations
`
`differ by a factor of two, Petitioner’s entire argumentis called into question.
`
`Id. Weare notpersuaded by this argument because, although the two
`equations diverge by a factor of two, conditions that maximize X also
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`maximize 4X. Thus, regardless of which equation is used, Weisskopf
`
`discloses maximizing the energy stored in the capacitor.
`
`Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded thata circuit that
`maximizes the energy transferred from a microwave EMsignalto a
`capacitor, and converts “most”of the transferred energy to the spectral
`
`replica “withoutloss offidelity,” transfers “non-negligible amounts of
`
`energy,” 1.e., amounts that are not minor, unimportant, or inconsequential.
`
`Weare persuaded,therefore, that Petitioner has presented sufficient
`
`evidence to demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that claims1
`
`and 23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Weisskopf.
`
`2. Claim 25
`
`Claim 25 requires that “said circuit comprises an output impedance
`matchcircuit coupled to an output of said apparatus.” Ex. 1001, 116:42—-45.
`
`Petitioner argues that, because Weisskopftransmits a “desired” amount of
`
`energy from the capacitor, it discloses “an output impedance match circuit”
`
`under Patent Owner’s “desired energy transfer” claim construction. Pet. 57.
`
`Petitioner further argues — relying on Patent Owner’s arguments before the
`
`District Court — that the use of a low impedanceloadis,byitself, sufficient
`
`to satisfy the impedance matchcircuit limitation. Jd.
`
`Weare not persuadedby Petitioner’s arguments. First, we did not
`
`adopt Patent Owner’s proposedconstruction of an “output impedance match
`
`circuit” to require only that a device transfer “desired” power from the
`
`capacitor. Second, Petitioner has not directed us to credible evidence
`
`establishing that “an output impedance matchcircuit” is present whenever a
`
`load to be driven has low impedance. Accordingly, Petitioner has not
`
`presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`likelihood that claim 25 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`
`Weisskopf.
`
`3. Claims 161 and 193
`Claim 161 requires that the “storage device comprises a capacitive
`storage device sized to store substantial amounts of energyrelative to energy
`contained in a percentage of half cycles of a carrier signal, whereby said
`
`capacitive storage device integrates the transferred energy.” Ex. 1001,
`
`125:18—23. Claim 193 requires that “the aliasing rate is substantially equal
`
`to [the] frequency of the carrier signal divided by n, and the lower frequency
`
`signal is a demodulate basebandsignal.” Jd. at 127:3-6.
`
`With respect to claim 161, Petitioner asserts that Weisskopfdiscloses
`
`optimizing the size of the capacitor to maximize energy transfer, and may
`integrate the energy over multiple samples. Pet. 58 (citing Ex. 1023, 240-
`42). With respect to claim 193, Petitioner argues that Weisskopfdiscloses
`
`using an aliasing rate to perform “frequency conversion to baseband.” Jd. at
`
`58-59 (citing Ex. 1023, 240:1—3). Patent Owner presents no argument with
`
`respect to these challenged claims.
`
`Upon review. of Weisskopfand Petitioner’s arguments, we are
`
`persuadedthat Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that claims 161 and 193 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
`by Weisskopf.
`|
`
`4. Claim 202
`
`Claim 202 requires, in relevantpart, that “the transferring of energy
`
`substantially prevents accurate voltage reproduction ofthe carrier signal
`
`during the apertures.” Ex. 1001, 128:29-31.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`Dr. Abidi, testifying in support ofPetitioner’s position regarding
`dependentclaim 202, asserts that when the switch closes in the device of
`
`Weisskopf, the voltage on the capacitor will “evolve with time.” Ex. 1004,
`
`30. According to Dr. Abidi, this effect can be seen in Figure 83B of the
`
`551 patent which showsdips in the waveform during the sampling
`
`apertures. Jd. Underthe conditions disclosed in Weisskopf, Dr. Abidi
`
`contendsthat this change in voltage during the energytransfer step “will not
`
`be an accurate reproductionof the input waveform.” Jd.
`Patent Ownerasserts that: (1) Weisskopf does not expressly disclose
`the recited limitation; (2) Petitioner does not present a coherent inherency
`
`argument; and (3) Dr. Abidi has not established that Weisskopf will
`necessarily operate according to his equations. Prelim. Resp. 47-48. Atthis
`stage ofthe proceeding,we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument.
`Dr. Abidi, applying the data explicitly disclosed in Weisskopfto purportedly
`
`knowncalculations and behaviors ofelectrical circuits, provides
`uncontroverted testimony that, during the sampling apertures, an accurate
`voltage reproduction ofthe carrier signal is prevented. Ex. 1004, 30. Patent
`
`Ownerdoesnot address the substanceof these arguments. Prelim. Resp.
`47-48. Thus,at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner has presented -
`
`sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`claim 202 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Weisskopf.
`
`5. Conclusion
`
`Based on the foregoing,Petitioner has presented sufficient evidence to
`demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihoodthat claims 1, 23, 161, 193,
`
`and 202 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Weisskopf. For the
`
`reasonsset forth above,Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that claim 25 is anticipated
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Weisskopf.
`.
`.
`|
`C. Estabrook
`Petitioner contendsthat claims 1, 23, 25, 161, 193, and 202 are
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Estabrook. Pet. 36-44. Estabrook
`‘is directed to the analysis and design of a direct conversion receiver.
`Ex. 1022, 17 In one'example, Estabrook discloses down-converting a signal
`from 909 MHz to an intermediate frequency of 9 MHz. Id. at 40-41, 46.
`
`Figure 14(a) of Estabrook is reproduced below:
`
`lin
`
`Zout (f)
`Zin(i)
`Figure 14(a) discloses the circuit diagram for one embodimentofEstabrook.
`Id. at 37. According to Petitioner, “IRF” designates a carrier signal and
`
`“TLO” designates a local oscillator that provides a control signal to the
`| diode. Pet. 36, 40. A capacitive storage device (“output capacitor’)is
`designated C,p, a source impedance Rs, and a load impedance R;. Ex. 1022,
`
`34.
`
`In order to minimize conversion loss (C;,), or maximize the energy
`
`transferred from the EM signalto the output, Estabrook discloses that the
`on-time for the diode should be approximately 50% of the period of the
`
`? Estabrookcontains twodifferent page numbers. Ourcitationsare to the
`original page numbersof the published documentlocatedin the top,right-
`hand cornerof each page.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`incoming signal. Jd. at 21, 71; see also id. at 34 (noting that “[m]inimization
`
`of conversionlossis, of course, an important element of mixer design.”).
`
`1. Claims 1 and 23
`
`Petitioner asserts that Estabrook discloses each limitation of
`
`independent claims 1 and 23, including down-converting a carrier signal to a
`
`lower frequencysignal by receiving a carrier signal, transferring non-
`negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal to a storage module at
`an aliasing rate, and generating a lower frequency signal from the transferred
`
`energy. Pet. 36-39. With respect to the additional requirements of claim 23,
`
`Petitioner asserts that Estabrook discloses “an energy transfer signal
`generator,” in the form oflocal oscillator “ILO,” a “switch module
`controlled by said energy transfer signal generator,” in the form ofa diode,
`
`and a “storage module coupled to said switch module,” in the form of
`
`capacitor “Cp.” Id. at 40-41.
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that claims | and 23 are not anticipated by
`Estabrook because Petitioner has not shownthat the reference discloses,
`
`expressly or inherently, the transfer of non-negligible amounts of energy to
`
`‘the storage device. Prelim. Resp. 32-33. At this stage of the proceeding, we
`
`are not persuaded by this argument.
`
`Estabrook discloses the use of a switch ‘““ON time” of 2 the period of
`
`the control signal, in order to maximize the transfer of current from the RF
`
`input. See Ex. 1022, 68, 71. Estabrook further discloses optimizing the
`
`internal components of the mixer to minimize conversion loss between the
`
`source (EM signal) and the load. Jd. at 21 (noting that conversionloss,
`whichis the ratio ofpoweravailable at the source to powerdelivered to the
`load, should be minimized for “efficient translation” of the input signal to
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`the intermediate frequency). Because Estabrook discloses maximizing the
`energy obtained from the EM signal, and further discloses minimizing
`
`conversion loss between the signal and the load, we are persuaded that
`
`Estabrook discloses “transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the
`
`carrier signal.”
`|
`With respect to claim 23, Patent Ownerasserts that Estabrookis
`additionally deficient in that it does not disclose “a signal generator that
`outputs pulses.” Prelim. Resp. 36.. Weare not persuaded bythis argument
`as it is predicated on a claim construction that we did not adopt, 1.e., that an
`“energy transfer signal generator’ must output “pulses.” Jd.
`
`Based onthe foregoing, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that claims 1 and 23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
`Estabrook.
`
`2. Claim 25
`
`Claim 25 requires “an output impedance match circuit coupled to an
`
`output of said apparatus.” Ex. 1001, 116:42-45. Petitioner asserts that the
`
`_ required circuit is disclosed in Figure 13 of Estabrook, which is reproduced
`
`below. Pet. 41-42.
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00947
`Patent 6,061,551
`
`Local Oscillator
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IF Signal
`OUT
`
`Z Mixer Circuit
`
`Figure 13; Block diagram of a single ended mixer.
`
`Figure 13 is a block diagram of a single ended mixerthat utilizes an output
`
`matchingcircuit. Ex. 1022, 34, 36, Fig. 13.
`
`__
`
`Patent Ownerasserts that Petitioner improperly relies upon two
`
`different embodiments,i.e., Figures 13 and 14, to establish anticipation.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 39. We are not persuaded by this argument because Estabrook
`
`indicates that Figure 14 is the circuit diagram for the circuit described in
`
`Figure 13. Ex. 1022, 34,38. Thus, on this record, the two figures relied
`
`uponbyPetitioner depict structure and data from the same embodiment.
`
`Based on the foregoing, we are persuadedthat Petitioner has
`
`presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that
`
`claim 25 is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Estabrook.
`
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
