ParkerVision loses at CAFC

Footnote 1 of ParkerVision v. Qualcomm begins:



This is ParkerVision’s third attempt to explain away
the inconsistencies in Dr. Prucnal’s testimony.


Within the opinion:


No evidence supports ParkerVision’s newly minted
theory that the signal coming out of the double-balanced
mixer is not the baseband, but instead is a baseband
being “modulated” or “carried” on the carrier signal. As
noted in the panel opinion, Dr. Prucnal repeatedly identified
the output of the mixer as the baseband, see, e.g.,
A10944:1-9 (identifying the output of the crisscrossed
circuit structure shown on page A6992 to be “the baseband”);
A11052:12-13 (identifying the “baseband output”
of the mixer which is shown on A6992); A10988:8-14
(agreeing that the “baseband was coming out of the mixer”
shown on A6992); nowhere did he describe the mixer
output as a baseband being “modulated” or “carried” on a
carrier signal. Contrary to ParkerVision’s assertion, Dr.
Prucnal admitted that the carrier signal (i.e., the RF
signal) has been “eliminated” at the mixer output. See
A10949:2-11.

ParkerVision seizes upon an exchange during trial in
which Qualcomm’s attorney asked Dr. Prucnal to confirm
that “the output of the mixer includes the baseband
signal.” See Pet. at 6 (citing A10943:7-12). At most, that
testimony suggests that something other than the baseband
exists at the output of the mixer; it does not prove
that the carrier signal is part of the output of the mixer,



The petition for re-hearing was denied.

link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/sPARKER%20VISION%202014-1612%20OPINION_PETITION%20FOR%20REHEARING.pdf