Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 2:25 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 5 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • overbrook10 overbrook10 Apr 22, 2013 3:16 PM Flag

    What Say You, crj?

    CVrj - would you care to comment on pvnotes rants about the Tayloe patent? Is this as invalidating, in your opinion, as Mike makes out?

    BTW, seems like Mike is now on overdrive - something must be going on. He just posted another "article" on Seeking Alpha debunking Parkervision's theories, its chances in this lawsuit, and damages.It will be interesting if some discovery surfaces tying Mike to communications with Qualcomm. Also, I find the next to last Exhibit on the latest motion by Parkervision most interesting. Hmmmm Qualcomm having a near monopoly on the chipset market? And if some/all/part of that is based on PV's technology? Now consider that in connection with the statements of Sterne, Rivette and Caswley. Everything is starting to click into place.

    Bash on Mike - the trial is coming down the road inexorably - and then we will all know for sure.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I agree with his assertion that Tayloe is not really voltage sampling, unless by voltage sampling you mean AVERAGE voltage sampling. However, I disagree that it invalidates '551.

      Tayloe uses the average value at 4 different sample points synced to the carrier frequency to drive differential amplifiers that generate a baseband signal. '551 describes a system that charges the capacitors over an approximate half cycle of the waveform when they are connected to the RF input and discharges the capacitors through the LOW impedange baseband output. Tayloe does not have the "discharge" step. High impedance differential amplifiers do not discharge the capacitors.

      • 3 Replies to crj_
      • : '551 describes a system that charges the capacitors over an approximate half cycle of the : '551 describes a system that charges the capacitors over an approximate half cycle of the waveform when they are connected to the RF input and discharges the capacitors through the LOW impedange baseband output.

        It looks like a tutorial on claim interpretation would be useful. For infringement or invalidity analysis one only looks at the actual claim, not the patent body. The Markman defines the meaning of the words used in the claim.

        Here is claim 1 from the ‘551 patent in its entirety:

        1.A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a lower frequency signal, comprising the steps of:
        (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-harmonic of the carrier signal; and
        (3) generating a lower frequency signal from the transferred energy.

        Notice that is no mention of capacitors, discharging the capacitors or of the impedance of load, and so these are not relevant to the analysis of the claim. Every element of this claim is in Tayloe, thus the claim is invalid by anticipation.

        Not that it matters, but you are also wrong about what Tayloe describes. It does, in fact, explicitly describe how the storage capacitor discharged over multiple cycles through a low impedance load. It’s just that, for purposes of claim analysis, this is not in this claim.

        There are different claims from other patents which are somewhat closer to your comment, but I can show how they are precisely described by Tayloe, and so also anticipated.

        I noticed that Trublrvrprkr made the same mistake a month ago - bringing in extraneous elements from the body of the patent to "disprove" invalidity when the claim itself is all that matters.

      • Thanks crj - you are one of the gems on this Board

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • Are you saying that an independent claim of the 551 patent teaches a "discharge" step?

        If so, which claim number? The leading claim doesn't appear to be that specific, and all Tayloe needs to do to invalidate the 551 patent is to teach the independent claims -

        "1. A method for down-converting a carrier signal to a lower frequency signal, comprising the steps of:

        (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-harmonic of the carrier signal; and

        (3) generating a lower frequency signal from the transferred energy."

    • "And if some/all/part of that is based on PV's technology?"

      If that was the case I rather fancy that ParkerVision itself would have suggested so. You need to face the fact that the pre-suit reverse-engineering of the Qualcomm chip did not reveal ParkerVision's technology.

 
PRKR
1.31-0.07(-5.07%)Sep 15 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
NasdaqGSMon, Sep 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
21Vianet Group, Inc.
NasdaqGSMon, Sep 15, 2014 4:00 PM EDT
JDS Uniphase Corporation
NasdaqGSMon, Sep 15, 2014 4:15 PM EDT