crj - some months ago you posted a very trenchant analysis of each of the prior art references listed in Qualcomm's Answer and Counterclaim. You distinguished each of those references - demonstrating that none of them applied to this case. No one ever posted a statement that disputed your analysis.
Qualcomm has just filed its 3rd Amended Answer and Counterclaim. In this Answer, Qualcomm lists a whole new set of prior art references in its latest Answer - and has apparently deleted all of the prior art references that it listed in its 2nd Amended Complaint (??). I was wondering - could you please give us your take on each of those new references? Thanks.
BTW- it's interesting that one of the prior art references that Qualcomm lists in its Answer is Parkervision's very own Cameraman 2000 video camera!
Thanks for the kind words, especially "trenchant", which I had to look up :-) .
I did look at Document 248 and what struck me most were the references to old Ham Radio documents, e.g:
R. Schetgen, et al. , “The ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs,” The American Radio Relay League, Inc., 1994, Ch. 15.
D. van Graas, “The Fourth Method: Generating and Detecting SSB Signals,” QEX, Sept. 1990, pp. 7-11.
D. DeMaw, “Practical RF Design Manual,” Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982, pp. 118-136, 188-213.
Many other references are also relatively old.
It seems to me that QCOM is following pvnotes lead and saying that PRKRs technology is merely a rehashing of a passive mixer, a technology that has been around for a long time.
I find it hard to believe that Sterne, who himself has an Extra Class Amateur radio license (the highest level attainable), would not recognize such old technology when he sees it. Paul Prucnal would certainly be familiar with basic RF mixing. He pronounced PRKRs technology novel. While it certainly is possible that Sterne et al have put one over on the patent office, I find it highly unlikely. The only people calling this old technology are the ones with the most to lose.
I really think the only question here is whether QCOM infringes, not whether PRKRs technology is valid.
: PRKRs technology is merely a rehashing of a passive mixer
From crj: PRKRs technology is merely a rehashing of a passive mixer, a technology that has been around for a long time.
From tampa: not the baseband processing/control driving the aperture size and rates of multiple parallel switches
That's because the claim-in-suit *are* just a rehashing of very old ideas. Both of you are confusing the body of the patent with the actual claims-in-suit. Only the claims matter for validity (or for infringement). Take the first claim of the '551 patent (asserted in this suit):
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.
That is the entire claim. The terms have been construed by the court. There is no references to *any* details of baseband processing, control of aperture size, or of parallel switches. It is exactly a rehash of very old ideas, and there are patents and papers dating back to the 1940’s that exactly describe every element of this claim. There is no way that this claim is valid! It doesn’t matter that some of them are ham radio ideas – they are perfectly good anticipating prior art.
Nearly all of the other claims-in-suit are similar and are just as obviously invalid. I don’t care whether Sterne knew about the prior art or not – it exists and it invalidates the claims in this case.
I repeat my offer – I’m happy to mail a document describing in detail how any given claim is invalidated by prior art.
Seems most of the discussion is on the aliasing device (a switch; which is the basic frequency conversion element in most mixers) and not the baseband processing/control driving the aperture size and rates of multiple parallel switches. Though a switch (diode or transistor) was widely used, the baseband processing wasn’t easily possible 20 or more years ago. I think D2D novelty must be evaluated WITH the baseband/control circuitry included.
crj - thanks one again for an "incisive" analysis. I took, was struck by some of the references which seem to be from old reference books. I was also shaking my head about the inclusion of Parkervision's Cameraman 2000 product. How in the world does that invalidate these patents? I would appreciate your take on the patents cited.
Q may be arguing that PV did not invent passive mixing in order to directly downconvert. My understanding is that the novelty in the PV technology is not that it uses a passive mixer to downconvert - but that the manner in which is does so was completely new - which provided substantial advantages in terms of decreased power requirements, smaller component requirements, longer battery life, less heat, better noise-to-signal ratio, etc.
According to the carefully worded statements of Robert Sterne, Doug Cawley and Kevin Rivette, this new technology has "made possible much of the current generation of smartphones, tablets, Blue-tooth" and similar devices. It further seems that they are claiming that this technology is being used rather widely in the mobile market by many other companies- aside from Qualcomm.I find it hard to believe that such credible, substantial individuals would make such strong statements without an abundance of proof. These are not the type of guys who are going to make fools out of themselves in public - especially for a company with such a checkered past as Parkervision.
As for Keith Hummel - he is a great lawyer - but in this case he has made several weak - almost laughable - claims -that makes you shake your head - as in "what did we miss?" However, in fact, there was nothing to miss - they were in fact weak claims and were shown to be such. By this, I mean, for example, such weak claims as 1) suing the Sterne law firm; 2) seeking an injunction against past conduct (??); 3) asserting inequitable conduct claims for "burying" and late discloure of references; (to be continued)