PTAB

IPR2015-01828

Qualcomm Inc v. ParkerVision Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Frequency Up-Conversion
  • Brief Description: The ’940 patent discloses methods and systems for frequency up-conversion using a sub-harmonic architecture. The technology involves controlling a switch with an oscillating signal having a frequency that is a sub-harmonic of the desired output frequency to modulate and up-convert a lower-frequency information signal.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 21, 25 and all dependent claims are obvious over Nozawa in view of Philips 4052.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nozawa (a 1993 HAM Journal article) and Philips 4052 (a 1990 datasheet for the 74HC4052 component).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nozawa's single-sideband (SSB) generator circuit, which explicitly uses the 74HC4052 integrated circuit detailed in the Philips 4052 datasheet, discloses all limitations of the challenged independent claims. Specifically, the 1-of-4 decoder within the Philips 4052 chip was asserted to be the claimed "pulse shaping module" that receives an oscillating signal and outputs a "shaped string of pulses." The integrated CMOS switches in the chip constitute the "switch module." Nozawa's audio frequency (AF) input signal was mapped to the "bias signal" or "reference signal," which is gated by the shaped pulses to generate a periodic output signal containing a plurality of harmonics. Finally, Nozawa's explicit inclusion of a low-pass filter (LPF) was argued to satisfy the claim limitation of a filter coupled to the switch module.
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), when analyzing Nozawa's circuit, would have been motivated to consult the Philips 4052 datasheet for the specific component used to understand its internal structure and operational characteristics.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved analyzing a published circuit diagram with the manufacturer's datasheet for a standard, off-the-shelf component, leading to a high and predictable expectation of success.

Ground 2: Claims 21, 25 and all dependent claims are obvious over Nozawa, Philips 4052, and Maas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nozawa (1993 journal article), Philips 4052 (1990 datasheet), and Maas (a 1993 textbook, Microwave Mixers, 2nd Ed.).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on Ground 1, adding Maas to address the limitation of isolating a "desired harmonic." Petitioner argued that its proposed construction for "harmonic" excludes the fundamental frequency (n>1), whereas Nozawa's LPF is designed to isolate the fundamental frequency. Maas was introduced for its explicit teaching on sub-harmonic mixing, a technique where a mixer is driven at a frequency below the desired output (e.g., at half the local oscillator frequency), and a filter is used to select a higher-order harmonic (e.g., the second harmonic) as the output.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Maas with Nozawa's circuit to implement a well-known and advantageous up-conversion technique. Maas explicitly taught that sub-harmonic mixing is desirable because generating a stable, high-frequency signal can be expensive and difficult, making it more practical to generate a lower-frequency signal and filter for a harmonic. This provides a clear rationale to modify Nozawa's circuit to filter for a harmonic other than the fundamental.
    • Expectation of Success: Applying the standard filtering techniques described in a foundational textbook like Maas to the mixer circuit in Nozawa would have been a straightforward modification with a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Claims 283-286, 288, 363-366, and 368 are obvious over Nozawa, Philips 4052, Maas, and Sullivan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nozawa (1993 journal article), Philips 4052 (1990 datasheet), Maas (1993 textbook), and Sullivan (a 1997 article, "Active Doubly Balanced Mixers for CMOS RFICs").
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground specifically targeted dependent claims requiring the switch module to be, progressively, an electronic device, a semiconductor device, a transistor, a field-effect transistor (FET), and a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) FET. While Nozawa and the Philips 4052 datasheet already disclose a CMOS switch, Sullivan was added as further evidence that using CMOS FETs as switches in RF technology was a known and highly encouraged design choice.
    • Motivation to Combine: Sullivan explicitly taught that the "continuing miniaturization of CMOS technology will improve RF CMOS performance" and makes it an "attractive technology for low cost, highly integrated transceivers." A POSITA would be motivated to use CMOS FETs, as taught by Sullivan, when implementing the switches in Nozawa's circuit to achieve these well-understood benefits of cost reduction, performance, and integration.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "switch"/"switch module": Petitioner argued for a structural interpretation ("a device with an input and an output that can take two states, open and closed...") in contrast to the Patent Owner's proposed functional, result-oriented construction from related litigation. This structural view was central to mapping the components of the Philips 4052 chip.
  • "pulse shaping module": Petitioner contended this claim term should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation. The asserted function was "receiving an oscillating signal and outputting pulses at equal or double the frequency, each pulse having a reduced pulse-width-to-period ratio." This construction was critical to arguing that the 1-of-4 decoder in the Philips 4052 chip was an equivalent structure.
  • "harmonic": Petitioner proposed that the proper construction of "harmonic" is "an integer multiple of... 'n•f,' where 'n' is 2, 3, 4, etc.," thereby excluding the fundamental frequency (where n=1). This construction was essential to the argument in Ground 2 that Maas was necessary to motivate filtering for a true harmonic instead of the fundamental frequency.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review of claims 21, 25, 26, 281, 283-286, 288, 289, 293, 363-366, 368, 369, and 373 of the ’940 patent, and requests a final determination that these claims are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103.