UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Qualcomm Incorporated Qualcomm Atheros, Inc.

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Qualcomm Incorporated Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. Petitioners v. ParkerVision, Inc. Patent Owner Case IPR Patent 6,091,940 PETITIONERS REPLY BRIEF

2 Table of Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION... 1 II. ARGUMENT... 3 A. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Krauss and Ariie B. The Krauss/Ariie combination satisfies the to gate / gating limitations C. The Krauss/Ariie combination satisfies the switch module limitation D. Dr. Birkett s conclusory declaration is entitled to no weight and presents irrelevant arguments E. Patent Owner s inherency arguments reflect a misunderstanding of the Petition and the law on obviousness III. CONCLUSION i-

3 Table of Authorities Page(s) Cases In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380 (Fed.Cir.1994) Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718 (Fed.Cir.2002) In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175 (CCPA 1979) DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) Ecolab v. FMC, 569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004)... 3 In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995)... 15, 19 Malico, Inc. v. Cooler Master USA Inc., 594 Fed. Appx. 621 (Fed. Cir. 2014) In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)... 9 ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, 621 F. App x 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015) In re Rhoads, No , 2016 WL (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2016) Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ii-

4 Table of Authorities (continued) Page(s) Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628 (Fed. Cir. 1987) W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) Winner Int l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000)... 8 Statutes 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Other Authorities 37 C.F.R (a) iii-

5 I. INTRODUCTION This IPR boils down to one straightforward question: whether it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Krauss and Ariie. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, the only other arguments that Patent Owner raises fall as well. The combination of Krauss and Ariie indisputably has the claimed gate / gating and switch module limitations, and Patent Owner s arguments to the contrary are red herrings. Attempting to defeat the combination of Krauss and Ariie, Patent Owner ignores Ariie s express disclosure, which encouraged persons of ordinary skill in the art to use Ariie s FET mixer in systems such as the one described in Krauss Fig. 16-3(a). Ariie s unchallenged disclosure provides a compelling reason to use Ariie s FET mixer with Krauss modulator, explaining that Ariie s mixer is more compact and power efficient. The combination would result in a fully-functioning upconverter that meets every element of the challenged 940 claims. Ignoring Ariie s express disclosure, Patent Owner raises an irrelevant, incorrect, and unsupported smokescreen. Patent Owner notes that Krauss mixers perform an additional unclaimed function suppressing the carrier. Thus, Patent Owner argues that replacing Krauss mixers with Ariie s mixers would result in a device that would no longer suppress the carrier, and contends that the combination would therefore be inoperable for its intended purpose. Patent Owner s 1.

6 argument is a red herring. Nothing in the challenged claims requires the carrier to be suppressed, and as the 940 patent itself demonstrates, many upconverters did not perform that additional (unclaimed) feature. To the contrary, as Dr. Larson explains in his testimony, persons of ordinary skill in the art could easily have viewed the combination (which does not suppress the carrier) as an improvement over Krauss. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the Krauss/Ariie combination. Patent Owner s remaining arguments against the Krauss/Ariie combination are makeweights. Patent Owner argues that Ariie s FET mixer, when used in other combinations and environments, could be used as something other than for gating or as a switch module. The question is not whether Ariie s FET mixer could be used as a paperweight or something else in other combinations. Rather, the question is whether, when combined with Krauss, Ariie s FET mixer meets the to gate / gating and switch module elements. On that issue, Patent Owner is silent. Petitioners expert, Dr. Larson, offered unrebutted testimony that Ariie s FET mixer, when used in the proposed Krauss/Ariie combination (which has a control signal that toggles between on and off), necessarily satisfies the gating and switch module limitations. Patent Owner failed to address, much less refute, Petitioners evidence on these claim elements. Consequently, each instituted claim of the 940 patent is invalid as obvious in view of the combination of Ariie and 2.

7 Krauss. The Board should enter a final written decision finding all instituted claims unpatentable. II. ARGUMENT A. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Krauss and Ariie. The threshold question for the Board is whether a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Krauss and Ariie. Krauss discloses an orthogonal modulator ; Ariie expressly explains that the Ariie mixer should be used in orthogonal modulators. (Paper 1 at 23.) Moreover, as the Petition explains, Ariie provides a strong motivation to swap Krauss mixer for Ariie s mixer, explaining that the Ariie mixer is a low-power-consumption or zero-power consumption mixer which operates at a low voltage and can be easily integrated to make it compact. (Id. at (quoting Ex. 1004, Ariie at col. 2:20-23).) Persons of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Ariie s mixer in Krauss modulator, resulting in a more compact and power-efficient design. Nothing more is required. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ( [T]he question is whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the combination, not whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest that the combination is the most desirable combination available. ). 3.

8 Patent Owner did not respond to any of Petitioner s evidence, or try to rebut the motivation to swap Krauss mixers for Ariie s. Instead, Patent Owner offers unsupported and erroneous attorney argument, contending that substituting Ariie s unbalanced mixers for Krauss s double-balanced mixers would fundamentally change the principle of operation of the Krauss transmitter, resulting in a different type of transmitter that is unsatisfactory and inoperable for its intended purpose. (Paper 16 at 39.) Patent Owner does not provide any explanation or any evidence that the combination of Krauss and Ariie would be unsatisfactory to anyone, much less inoperable. To the contrary, the combination of Krauss and Ariie would result in a fully-functioning upconverter that meets every element of the challenged 940 claims. Unable to muster any evidence that the combination is inoperable or unsatisfactory, Patent Owner and Dr. Birkett point to an irrelevant distinction between Krauss and Ariie s mixers Krauss mixers suppress the carrier, while Ariie s mixers do not. (Paper 16 at 38.) The distinction is irrelevant. First, suppressing the carrier is an unclaimed feature that is irrelevant to the question before the Board; the 940 patent does not describe or claim suppressing the carrier. Using Ariie s mixer in Krauss modulator would result in an operable upconverting device that has all of the features of the 940 claims at issue, and nothing more is required. 4.

9 Second, using Ariie s mixers in Krauss modulator would not have created an inoperable device, or otherwise contradict anything in Krauss. To the contrary, the first page of Krauss Chapter 16 the chapter that contains the mixer described in the Petition acknowledges that a transmitter can use either suppressed-carrier or full carrier approaches. (Ex. 1030, Krauss at 500.) In addition, Patent Owner elicited testimony from Dr. Larson that a single sideband transmitter upconverts perfectly well (and is not inoperable) in either case. As Dr. Larson testified, depending on the application you may or may not transmit the carrier, but in either case, the design is operable. (Ex at 132:2-18; see also Ex at 188:5-191:4.) In some applications, electing not to suppress the carrier (which was Ariie s choice) can be a net positive and can assist in demodulating the signal, as Dr. Larson testified: [I]n cases where you want to have a really inexpensive system, you might want to transmit the carrier along with the sideband, so that you can use the receiver carrier to regenerate the carrier. A simple example of this is AM radio. Another example might be this socalled vestigial sideband system, which was used for television for many, many years, like VHF TV. (Ex at 188:17-22; 189:4-11.) Multiple prior art references confirm Dr. Larson s testimony. For example, The ARRL Handbook (Ex. 1019) recognized the usefulness of transmitting the carrier for certain applications, including specifically for AM radio and vestigial sideband television systems as Dr. Larson discussed. (See Ex. 1019, ARRL at ( Vestigial sideband (VSB), full-carrier 5.

10 AM is like the DSB variety with one sideband partially filtered away for bandwidth reduction. Commercial television systems that transmit AM video use VSB AM. Single-sideband, full-carrier AM is akin to full-carrier DSB with one sideband missing. Commercial and military communicators may call it AM equivalent (AME) or compatible AM (CAM)-compatible because it can be usefully demodulated in AM and SSB receivers and because it occupies about the same amount of spectrum space as SSB. ).) 1 Likewise, The Electronics Handbook confirms Dr. Larson s testimony that transmitting the carrier can be beneficial for simple, low-complexity applications. (Ex. 1031, The Elecs. Handbook at and 1186.) 2 Dr. Larson s testimony, Krauss, ARRL, and The Electronics Handbook all show that single-sideband large-carrier transmitters were wellknown in the art, the relative benefits and drawbacks of carrier suppression were 1 The ARRL Handbook for Radio Amateurs was published in 1994 and therefore its statements may be taken for the truth of the matter asserted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(16), Statements in Ancient Documents. (Ex at 2 (showing 1994 copyright).) 2 According to the records of the US Copyright Office, The Electronics Handbook was published on September 16, (Ex. 1032, US Copyright Office Catalog Record.) The US Copyright Office s record of publication is a public record and subject to an exception to the rules on hearsay pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). The statements in The Electronics Handbook may also be taken for the truth of the matter asserted pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 803(16), Statements in Ancient Documents, in light of the book s September 16, 1996 publication date. Evidence of public availability is further confirmed by the UC Berkeley Library Web Catalog, which reports that The Electronics Handbook was catalogued into the Berkeley library system on October 25, (See Ex. 1033, UC-Berkeley OskiCat Library Field 005 and Ex. 1034, Library of Congress, Control Fields Information for Field 005.) 6.

11 known, and determining whether to suppress the carrier signal was nothing more than a well-known design choice. And a person skilled in the art would have understood that combining the teachings of Krauss and Ariie was not only obvious, but that doing so offered design benefits such as low receiver complexity that were desirable in for certain applications, including AM Radio or VHF TV. (Ex. 1031, The Elecs. Handbook at 1186 (providing table with advantages and disadvantages of modulation schemes); Ex. 1019, AARL at 10-11; and Ex at 189:4-21.) Patent Owner offers no evidence to the contrary, and no expert would argue that the combination of Krauss and Ariie is inoperable as an upconverter. Single-sideband, large carrier transmitters were well-known, had widely recognized benefits, and were commonly used in AM Radio and VHF TV, as the uncontradicted evidence establishes. (Ex at 188:17-22; 189:4-11; see also Ex at 189:18-21 (noting that well-known VHF TV transmitters transmitted the carrier for many, many years ).) Third, even if suppressing the carrier is viewed as a benefit, Patent Owner cannot defeat obviousness merely by identifying a design tradeoff in combining Ariie and Krauss. Even if the combination trades one feature (suppressing the carrier) for another feature (achieving a more compact, low or zero power design), the combination is obvious, and Ariie indisputably encouraged it, especially for 7.

12 applications needing simple, compact, power-efficient transmitters. Winner Int l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ( The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another. ). Thus, the Board should find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Krauss and Ariie, and the combination of the two references is obvious. B. The Krauss/Ariie combination satisfies the to gate / gating limitations. Once the Board concludes that the combination of Krauss and Ariie is obvious, Patent Owner s remaining arguments fall as well. Patent Owner contends that Ariie fails to teach explicitly the to gate limitations. But Ariie does not need to disclose the concept of gating explicitly Ariie describes the same gating structure shown in the 940 patent s preferred embodiment, as shown below. 8.

13 940 Patent Fig. 32a Ariie Fig. 1 (Annotations to Ariie, Figure 1 are from Ex. 1002, Larson Decl. at ) Ariie shows the same structure found in the 940 patent, including the gate (G) that performs the gating function. But even if that were not enough, Patent Owner is focusing on the wrong question. The issue is not whether Ariie, by itself, explicitly teaches the gating limitations. Rather, the question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Krauss and Ariie meets the limitation. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the record conclusively shows that the Krauss/Ariie combination necessarily discloses the gating limitations. Ariie not only shows the same gating structure depicted in the 940 patent, but Krauss also discloses rectangular 9.

14 wave gating pulses that would control Ariie s gate. (Paper 1 at 28-29; Ex at 161.) In particular, Krauss discloses a rectangular signal having two states, on and off, which would necessarily operate Ariie s FET as a gate or switch. Persons of ordinary skill in the art recognized that a rectangular waveform would cause the FET to act as a switch, and Patent Owner offers no alternative explanation. For example, RF Microelectronics notes that the switching operation in mixers can be viewed as multiplication of the input by a rectangular waveform. (Ex. 1035, Razavi at 184.) See also Ex. 1036, Dobrovolny at 3:27-31 and Fig. 3c (noting that FETs driven by a rectangular wave local oscillator produced very sharp switching transitions ); Ex. 1036, Dobrovolny at 3:2-8 (describing MESFETS 22 and 26 as switches and characterizing them as alternating between open and closed). Patent Owner does not dispute that Krauss Figure 16-3(c) shows the rectangular signal that would operate Ariie s FETs as switches, toggling between on (when the signal is high) and off (when the signal is low). Krauss Figure 16-3(c) Rectangular waveforms control switching 10.

15 As shown below, Krauss rectangular wave D would control Ariie s FET Q1. When D is high, the switch/gate is closed, and when the signal is low, the switch is open. Ariie s Switch in Krauss Figure 16-3(a) with Ariie FET Q1 Element [1a] (Paper 1 at ) Likewise, Krauss rectangular wave E would control another instance of Ariie s FET Q1. When E is high, the switch/gate is closed, and when the signal is low, the switch is open: 11.

16 Combination of Krauss Figure 16-3(a) with Ariie FET Q1 Element [1b] (Paper 1 at ) Patent Owner does not offer any other interpretation of the Krauss/Ariie combination. Instead, Patent Owner and its expert, Dr. Birkett, argue that Ariie s FET could be used in a different way. But that is not the question. The question is whether the local oscillator signal (e.g., the carrier signal) connected to the gate of FET Q1 causes the FET to open and close, thereby connecting or disconnecting the data signal (e.g., signal Ss) from the output of the mixer and Dr. Birkett never addresses this issue. The rectangular control signal has only two states, off and on, and Patent Owner does not argue otherwise. The Krauss/Ariie combination discloses the claimed gating limitations. 12.

17 C. The Krauss/Ariie combination satisfies the switch module limitation. The Board s construction of switch module is a device with an input and output that can take two states, open and closed. (Paper 8 at 11 (emphasis added).) Patent Owner only disputes whether Ariie s FET Q1 satisfies the latter part of the Board s construction i.e., that FET Q1 is a device that can take two states, open and closed. 3 Patent Owner argues that Ariie is insufficient because (i) Ariie does not use the words switch or open and closed and (ii) it is possible to operate Ariie s mixer not as a switch. Patent Owner s arguments fail for several reasons. First, Patent Owner misapplies the Board s construction. The construction merely requires the device that can take two states, open and closed. (Paper 8 at 11.) Patent Owner does not dispute that Ariie s FET Q1 can take two states, open and closed. Rather, Patent Owner and Dr. Birkett argue that Ariie s FET Q1 can also do other things. But if Ariie s FET Q1 can take two states, open and closed, it meets the Board s construction. Nothing further is required. See DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding invalidity as a matter of law because patentee s argument introduced a limitation found neither 3 Patent Owner concedes that FET Q1 is a device with an input and output. (Paper 16 at 19 ( The disclosed FET (labeled Q1 in Ariie Fig. 1) has a drain input and a gate input. ); ( The FET Q1 combines the carrier signal Sc and the data signal Ss and outputs the mixed signal So.... ).) 13.

18 in the... claims nor the parties stipulated construction ); Ecolab v. FMC, 569 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 632 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, Patent Owner dwells on Dr. Larson s observation that it is possible in principle for FET Q1 to be used in other modes even though, when combined with Krauss square wave, it s operating as a switch. (Ex at 146:19-23.) Dr. Larson s recognition that in other modes Ariie s FET could operate differently is irrelevant. The only question is whether, when combined with Krauss, Ariie s mixer meets the Board s construction. 4 The evidence is uncontradicted on that point; when combined with Krauss (which uses a square wave control signal) [i]t s operating as a switch. (Ex at 146:19-23; see also Paper 1 at 25-30; see also Ex ; ( carrier signal Sc is the oscillating signal that toggles FET Q1 on and off to gate a bias signal connected to the drain of the FET.).) Second, neither the claims nor the Board s construction require Ariie to use the word switch. To invalidate a claim, a prior art reference does not need to use 4 Although not necessary for invalidity, Ariie s disclosure confirms that Ariie itself teaches using the FET as a switch. For example, Ariie teaches that when the mixer s FET is in operation, the FET has no voltage drop from drain to source. (Ex. 1004, Ariie at col. 2:38-43 and 4:34-46.) This operation is consistent with the 940 patent, which describes that when a switch is closed ( on or in operation) the input and output voltages become equal (i.e., no voltage drop from drain to source). (Ex. 1001, 940 at col. 36:33-52.) 14.

19 the same words, as the Federal Circuit recently held in another ParkerVision case. ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, 621 F. App x 1009, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ( We have held, however, that the failure of a reference to disclose a claim limitation in the same words used by the patentee is not fatal to a claim of invalidity ). Rather, if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the prior art meets the limitation regardless of the language the prior art uses the limitation is satisfied. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, Dr. Larson provides unrebutted testimony that Ariie s FET Q1 can take two states, open and closed, and thus, is a switch under the Board s construction. (Ex ; Ex at 146:19-23 (testifying on cross-examination that FET Q1 operates as a switch, between two states, off and on.) Patent Owner cites no evidence to the contrary. Third, Patent Owner s argument contradicts the 940 patent itself, as Ariie discloses the same structure shown in the 940 patent s preferred embodiment. In particular, Figure 32a of the 940 patent depicts FET 3201 as a preferred embodiment of a switch module for upconversion. (Ex at ) The text describing Figure 32a states, the switch is a transistor, such as, but not limited to, a field effect transistor (FET). (Ex. 1001, 940 at col. 36:59-64.) Dr. Larson s declaration notes that Ariie s FET Q1 has the same structure as FET 3201, and both are used in transmitters for upconversion. (Id.) Figure 32a of the 940 patent, 15.

20 showing FET 3201, and Ariie Figure 1, showing FET Q1, are shown side-by-side below. Each transistor has a single gate, a drain, and a source. 940 Patent Fig. 32a Ariie Fig. 1 The 940 patent expressly acknowledges that it was apparent to persons skilled in the art how to implement FETs as switches: One skilled in the relevant art(s) will recognize that any one of a number of switch designs will fulfill the scope and spirit of the present invention as described herein. In an embodiment of the invention, the switch 2816 is a semiconductor device, such as a diode ring. In another embodiment, the switch is a transistor, such as a field effect transistor (FET). (Ex. 1001, 34:17-24 (emphasis added).) Other switch designs and implementations will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art(s). (Ex. 1001, 34:44-45 (emphasis added).) Dr. Larson confirms that it was well known by those of skill in the art [that] a switch can be implemented using a field effect transistor (FET). (Ex at 74.) Patent Owner cannot reasonably dispute that the switch module limitation is present in the combination of Krauss and Ariie. Ariie s FET, like the FET in the 16.

21 940 patent, is a device that can take two states, and thus, it satisfies the switch module limitation. The figures below, from Petition sections addressing elements [1a] and [1b], illustrate how FET Q1 would be connected within Krauss transmitter. (Paper 1 at ( [I]t would have been obvious to a POSA to substitute a mixer like that in Ariie Fig. 1 for each double-balanced mixer in Krauss Fig. 16-3(a). ).) In this combination of Krauss and Ariie, the square wave signal (yellow-wire) controls the Ariie FET such that it opens and closes, switching the bias signal (red wire) such that it either passes through the FET (when the FET is closed) or is output along the blue-highlighted wire (when the FET is open): Combination of Krauss Figure 16-3(a) with Ariie FET Q1 (Paper 1 at and ) The combination of Krauss and Ariie meets the Board s construction of switch module ; when used in Krauss modulator, Ariie s mixer is indisputably a device... that can take two states: open and closed. Patent Owner did not 17.

22 address or respond to Petitioner s evidence, so the foregoing evidence and analysis stands unrebutted. In addition, as discussed in Section II.B above, the prior art expressly recognizes that when Ariie s FET Q1 is controlled with a rectangular wave (as it would be in the proposed combination with Krauss), that the operation of the mixer is viewed as a switching operation. (See, e.g., Ex. 1035, Razavi, RF Microelectronics at 184 ( the switching operation in mixers can be viewed as multiplication of the input by a rectangular waveform. ).) D. Dr. Birkett s conclusory declaration is entitled to no weight and presents irrelevant arguments. Dr. Birkett s conclusory opinions are entitled to no weight. 37 C.F.R (a) ( Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight. ); see Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Dr. Birkett fails to provide the underlying facts or data, and even then, addresses irrelevant side issues, as discussed above. E. Patent Owner s inherency arguments reflect a misunderstanding of the Petition and the law on obviousness. Patent Owner mistakenly suggests that proof of obviousness requires a showing that any claim element not expressly disclosed by the prior art is inherently present. That is not the law. Inherency and obviousness are distinct 18.

23 concepts. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1983). And without considering the doctrine of inherency, [a] claimed invention may be obvious even when the prior art does not teach each claim limitation, so long as the record contains some reason that would cause one of skill in the art to modify the prior art to obtain the claimed invention. Malico, Inc. v. Cooler Master USA Inc., 594 Fed. Appx. 621, 626 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 728 (Fed.Cir.2002)). The instituted grounds in the Petition do not rely on, and do not require, a showing of inherent anticipation to prove obviousness. Rather, the arguments in the Petition reflect the legal standard for proving obviousness, which requires that the disclosures of Krauss and Ariie must be interpreted as a skilled artisan would, in light of his knowledge of the art. In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Additionally, it is established that a reference must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests. In re Rhoads, No , 2016 WL , at *5 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2016) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed.Cir.1994) and In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179 (CCPA 1979)). III. CONCLUSION Petitioners respectfully request that the Board find that claims 1, 2, 18, 81-84, 88-91, 94, , and 264 of the 940 patent are unpatentable as 19.

24 obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in light of the teachings of Krauss and Ariie, and that claims 86, 93, 256, and 263 of the 940 patent are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in light of the teachings of Krauss, Ariie, and Sullivan. 20.

25 Dated: September 13, 2016 COOLEY LLP ATTN: Patent Group 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC Tel: (703) Fax: (202) By: Respectfully submitted, COOLEY LLP /Timothy S. Teter/ Timothy S. Teter Reg. No. 47,134 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH WORD COUNT LIMITS Pursuant to 37 C.F.R (d), I certify that this Petition complies with the type-volume limits of 37 C.F.R (c)(1). According to the word processing system used to prepare it, this Reply contains 4,134 words, excluding parts that are exempted by 37 C.F.R (c). Respectfully submitted, COOLEY LLP By: /Timothy S. Teter/ Timothy S. Teter Reg. No. 47,

26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.6(e) and (b), the undersigned certifies that on September 13, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioners Reply Brief was served via electronic mail on the following counsel of record for Patent Owner: Thomas F. Presson tpresson@parkervision.com and Michael T. Renaud Michael J. McNamara William A. Meunier PVIPRs@mintz.com Respectfully submitted, COOLEY LLP By: /Timothy S. Teter/ Timothy S. Teter Reg. No. 47, v14