Recent

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

Parkervision Inc. Message Board

  • fudfighter3 fudfighter3 Oct 26, 2013 8:15 AM Flag

    One reason the appeal is certain to succeed

    Dalton ignored the express intent of the lead inventor to impart a "unique meaning" (see 5) to the term "non-negligible".

    A. From one of the rulings -

    1. Claim construction is a matter of law.

    2. The Federal Circuit directs district courts construing claim terms to focuses on intrinsic evidence - that is, the claims, specification, and prosecution histories - because intrinsic evidence is "the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language."

    3. Claim terms must be interpreted from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the invention.

    4. Claim construction starts with the claims, and remains centered on the words of the claims throughout.

    5. In the absence of an express intent to impart a different or unique meaning to claim terms, the terms are presumed to have their ordinary meaning.

    B. From the lead inventor's sworn testimony during the Tutorial hearing -

    Sorrells unambiguously used the terms "negligible" and "non-negligible" as though they were synonymous with "insubstantial" and "substantial", and in one of his responses the ParkerVision attorney confirmed the intended meaning!

    Cawley: "Is this the only way that people put together impulse samplers?"

    Sorrells: "No. There's another method, called "track and hold," which seeks to even produce a higher level or quality of voltage sampler in its output. It does this by using an improvement in the architecture of an impulse sampler such that even a smaller or more negligible amount of current flows."

    Cawley: "the object of track and hold was to further minimize the already insubstantial amount of current that passed when the switch closed?"

    Sorrells: "Yes ..... the less current that flows during the switch closer, the higher the quality or more representative of the output voltage sample."

    Sorrells: "An energy sampler, by contrast, has a small input amplifier and it allows non-negligible amounts of current to flow ..."

    contd ...

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • OMG! Someone please help Fud. Ok... I will ;) Fud... With all due respect I think you are way off base. You clearly do not SEE all the facts in front you (which are undeniable). Its nothing personnel but if I were you I would not bet against Parker. To be honest... I covered my short position and went Long... I am not going to get caught in front of this train. Too much in Parker's favor at this point. Its Parker's time to shine... they just won a huge lawsuit... why would anyone in their right mind bet against that. Not me... I am on the Long Train!! Its the smart move.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Here's the main claim of the main patent -

      [ 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. }

      Judge Dalton was already aware from the Tutorial hearing of the intended meaning of "non-negligible" in the context of the claimed invention. Yet he defined "non-negligible" as "distinguishable from noise" - effectively changing item (2) of that claim to read as follows -

      (2) transferring amounts of energy from the carrier signal, at an aliasing rate .....

      In so doing he effectively removed from the patent a fundamental differentiator of the claimed invention - that, unlike the established technologies, D2D needs a much smaller input amplifier because it transfers substantial amounts of energy from the carrier signal.

      D2D is the only physical embodiment of the claimed invention those patents were intended to protect. The Appeal Court judges will start by formulating their own "Markman" definitions, tailored to ensure that the scope of the patents is limited to D2D as described during the sworn testimony of its lead inventor and in ParkerVision's promotional material supplied by Qualcomm during the trial process.

      • 2 Replies to fudfighter3
      • Instead of saying the Fed Cir/appellate court will formulate their own Markman/interpretation of the patent claims, its fair to say that is very likely but also that we don't know. I have said I don't think PV's patents are valid and that Q (and most likely other RF companies) do not infringe/use them, however, I also admitted that the district court may, as they often have done in the past, erred in their decisions. And while I think Qualcomm has much better than typical grounds for appeals, I am not the fellow human idiot rendering such wise decisions. Courts are run by people who must use their own brains and may carry their own prejudice into the process. So, we shall all have to see how the odds,based on what we can reason is likely, will come to pass.

        Why argue these points over and over.. no amount of reasoning will end greed of winning the patent-investment Ponzi Scheme lottery.

      • Fud - Can you quote the "intended meaning" you reference from the tutorial transcript?

        Your pattern is to leave that out, and then ignore me every time I point out to you that the jury found Q infringed Q's own proposed definition (Claim 202, Patent 551);

        Then you drop this topic for a couple week;

        Then you come back with the same unsupported, indefensible position.

        Fud:
        Judge Dalton was already aware from the Tutorial hearing of the intended meaning of "non-negligible" in the context of the claimed invention.

    • Loefflerhelmut - do try to keep up with the discussion. Re your -

      "Jury already decided that and the patent office... LOL!!!"

      - neither the jury nor the patent office assigned a definition to "non-negligible amounts of energy".

      The judge accepted ParkerVision's proposed definition of that term. The jury subsequently returned a verdict of infringement based upon that definition.

      Because Dalton's decision was fundamentally flawed the jury's verdict will be overturned by the Appeal Court judges - who will ignore Dalton's "Markman" rulings and start by assigning definitions of their own.

      Clearly they will not make the same mistake as Dalton in defining "non-negligible" as "distinguishable from noise" as there would then effectively be no difference between -

      "transferring non-negligible amounts of energy from the carrier signal"

      and

      "transferring energy from the carrier signal".

      When they assign a definition which reflects the effect described by ParkerVision and Sorrells - the transfer of so much energy that the carrier signal is substantially distorted and a much smaller input amplifier is needed - the Qualcomm architecture will no longer fall within the scope of the patents.

      • 2 Replies to fudfighter3
      • FUD, This requirement is necessary to distinguish the invention from a voltage sampler. What definition do you propose the court use? Can I ask how you know the QCOM circuit doesn’t draw non-negligible energy from the carrier? We didn’t get to see Fox’s analysis, but Prucnal showed this in simulation with the QCOM circuit values. The QCOM schematics were on the court screen. Though I haven't simulated the circuit, the values of the caps and the load impedance were consistent with a circuit that would draw energy from the carrier. A voltage sampler would have a smaller cap and high impedance load. You can interpret that claim any way you want, as both D2D and QCOM’s circuit perform the same way; not as voltage samplers, nor continuous mixers.

      • and what will be your position if the appeals court agrees with Dalton and not you?

    • go back to law school.........you have no idea of what the "LAW: requires

    • Nothing is ever certain except death and taxes, AH!!! HMMMM! Get lost stupid shtt. HMMM!

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • I challenge you to point out any testimony QCOMS arrogant, Iranian so-called expert Whose name I forgot)gave during his examination that supports your so-called reversible error. He gave none, instead he said that Sorrells, the inventor, wasn't qualified re "state of the art" but that he was extraordinarily qualified. The jury LOVED that comment. Give it up' its only just begun.

      • 2 Replies to nubuzzman
      • That's because the jury is comprised of people like yourself. Read the various court documents and prior art and merchant chips that use the same basic circuit that Qualcomm does. Patents cannot be filed retroactively to claim what has come before. This will likely take 2-3 years to become clear as QCOM appeals the ruling.

        However, a more immediate question for investors is whether the award justifies the operation of the company and the stock price. PRKR has gone for ~15 years without significant revenues. It still has a capital valuation that makes it dicey to get a large round of funding, say $100-150 million needed to build a legal war chest. Most chips that RF goes into are much lower in price and volume than Qualcomm's. The average licensing fee might be $1-3 million. Some patent licensing firms manage to build a business on licensing many patents with few, if any, blockbusters similar to this award. They don't have the same financial baggage.

      • You don't follow?

        Had Sorrells and his buddies intended the term "non-negligible" to be interpreted as "distinguishable from noise" there would have been no point in including that term. Their claimed invention would simply have entailed -

        "(2) transferring energy from the carrier signal, at an aliasing rate ....."

        Do you now understand why Dalton's decision to accept ParkerVision's proposed definition is grounds for an appeal?

    • Nice try.

      It looks like you got screwed by your wetdream shorts that didn't do well. Your FUD messages won't work...as there will be 2nd round of trial - calculating the damages. That part..will send PRKR stock price to moon easily.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Continuation ...

      Dalton's ruling that the term "non-negligible" should be defined as "distinguishable from noise" was fundamentally flawed. Clearly the inventor cannot have intended the term to be interpreted in that manner, as it effectively renders the term superfluous in the main patent claim -

      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.

 
PRKR
0.255-0.005(-2.00%)Feb 5 4:00 PMEST