PTAB

IPR2015-01831

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 upconverter. The technology accomplishes up-conversion by controlling a switch with an oscillating signal having a frequency that is a sub-harmonic of the desired output frequency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 4, 22, and dependents 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).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Nozawa discloses a transceiver for frequency up-conversion that explicitly uses a "74HC4052" integrated circuit as its core switching component. The Philips 4052 reference, being the manufacturer's datasheet for this exact component, provides detailed schematics confirming its operation as a switch module. Petitioner mapped the audio frequency (AF) input in Nozawa as the claimed "bias signal" and the local oscillator output as the "oscillating signal." The datasheet and Nozawa's circuit diagram allegedly show this oscillating signal controlling the internal CMOS switches of the 74HC4052 to gate the bias signal, thereby generating a periodic output signal rich in harmonics. Finally, Nozawa's circuit explicitly includes a low-pass filter (LPF) coupled to the switch module's output to select the desired frequency.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA analyzing Nozawa’s circuit, which specifies the 74HC4052 component, would be motivated to consult the Philips 4052 datasheet to understand the component's structure, pinout, and operational characteristics. The combination is merely the application of a product datasheet to the product itself.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involves understanding a disclosed circuit with the manufacturer's own specification sheet for a key component.

Ground 2: Claims 4, 22, and dependents are obvious over Nozawa and Philips 4052 in further view of Maas.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nozawa (a 1993 HAM Journal article), Philips 4052 (a 1990 datasheet), and Maas (a 1993 textbook on microwave mixers).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the mapping in Ground 1 but addresses Petitioner's specific claim construction of "harmonics" as excluding the fundamental frequency (n>1). Petitioner contended that while Nozawa discloses a filter, it is a low-pass filter designed to isolate the fundamental frequency, not a "harmonic" under the proper construction. Maas was introduced to supply the teaching of sub-harmonic mixing, a well-known technique where a mixer is intentionally driven at a sub-harmonic of the desired output frequency (e.g., half the LO frequency). Maas explicitly taught then using a filter to select a higher-order harmonic (e.g., the second harmonic) for the final output, thereby achieving the claimed invention.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Maas with Nozawa/Philips 4052 to improve the known circuit. Maas taught that using sub-harmonic mixers was a desirable and standard technique to address the expense, inconvenience, or impossibility of generating a fundamental-frequency local oscillator. Applying this known cost-saving technique to Nozawa's upconverter circuit was presented as an obvious design choice.
    • Expectation of Success: The technique was described as a standard, well-known, and predictable method for use with upconverters, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 3: Claims 113-116, 118, 309-312, and 314 are obvious over Nozawa, Philips 4052, and Maas in further view of Sullivan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Nozawa (a 1993 HAM Journal article), Philips 4052 (a 1990 datasheet), Maas (a 1993 textbook), and Sullivan (a 1997 journal article).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground targets dependent claims requiring the switch module to be a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) field effect transistor (FET). Petitioner asserted that Nozawa itself states the 74HC4052 uses a "C-MOS analog switch" and the Philips 4052 datasheet confirms the device is a "high-speed Si-gate CMOS" device containing FETs. Sullivan was added to reinforce the obviousness of this choice, teaching that CMOS was an "attractive technology for low cost, highly integrated transceivers" and that "CMOS technology provides excellent switches." Thus, using CMOS FETs for the switches in Nozawa's RF circuit was presented as an obvious and encouraged design choice.
    • Motivation to Combine: Sullivan explicitly encouraged the use of CMOS FETs for RF applications like transceivers due to benefits including miniaturization, low cost, and high integration. A POSITA would be motivated to use CMOS FETs, as taught by Sullivan, for the switches in the Nozawa circuit, as it was a known, advantageous technology for that exact application.
    • Expectation of Success: Given that the base component in Nozawa was already a CMOS device and Sullivan described the established advantages of this technology, success was predictable.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "harmonic": Petitioner argued for the construction "a frequency or tone that is an integer multiple of the frequency of the oscillating signal... where 'n' is 2, 3, 4, etc." This construction, which excludes the fundamental frequency (n=1), was critical to Petitioner's argument in Ground 2 that Maas was necessary to teach selecting a true harmonic rather than the fundamental frequency isolated by Nozawa's filter.
  • "switch"/"switch module": Petitioner proposed a structural construction: "a device with an input and an output that can take two states, open and closed..." This was contrasted with the Patent Owner's allegedly improper result-oriented construction ("to generate a periodic signal having a plurality of harmonics..."). Petitioner argued its structural definition was consistent with the specification and necessary for properly mapping the physical switches disclosed in the prior art to the claim limitations.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 4, 22-23, 100, 113-116, 118-119, 309-312, 314-315, and 319 of the ’940 patent as unpatentable.