Tuesday, October 06, 2015

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

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


Post a Comment

<< Home