1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Bar No. 109506
`Christina J. McCullough, Bar No. 245944
`R. Tyler Kendrick, admitted pro hac vice
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 Third Avenue, 49th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Tel: 206.359.8000
`Fax: 206.359.9000
`RAlsalam@perkinscoie.com
`CMcCullough@perkinscoie.com
`RKendrick@perkinscoie.com
`Daniel T. Shvodian, Bar No. 184576
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`Tel: 650.838.4300
`Fax: 650.737.5461
`DShvodian@perkinscoie.com
`Daniel T. Keese, Bar No. 280683
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1120 NW Couch Street, Tenth Floor
`Portland, OR 97209-4128
`Telephone: 503-727-2000
`Facsimile: 503-727-2222
`DKeese@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IMPINJ, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IMPINJ, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`NXP USA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`IMPINJ, INC.’S RESPONSES TO
`DEFENDANT'S SECOND SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Impinj, Inc.
`(“Impinj”) hereby responds to Defendant NXP USA, Inc. (“NXP”) Second Set of Interrogatories
`(Nos. 3-4).
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`Impinj incorporates by reference each of its General Objections contained in its Responses
`and Objections to NXP’s First Set of Interrogatories as if set forth fully herein. These objections
`are in addition to the separate objections in response to NXP’s individual requests below,
`regardless of if they are stated separately herein.
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`
`Separately for each Asserted Claim of each of the Asserted Patents, identify the factual
`and legal bases for Your contention that the Asserted Claims are valid or patentable in view of the
`prior art and bases of invalidity set forth in NXP’s Invalidity Contentions served on January 21,
`2020, including without limitation detailed claim charts that identify, on a claim-by-claim basis,
`each limitation of each Asserted Claim that You contend is missing in the prior art, and identify
`all persons and documents on which You rely in support of Your contention.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`Impinj objects to this Interrogatory for the reasons set forth in its General Objections.
`Impinj further objects to the Interrogatory as premature because the Asserted Claims have not
`been construed, discovery is ongoing, and the issue of validity will be the subject of expert
`testimony. Impinj further objects to this Interrogatory as improperly containing multiple distinct
`interrogatory requests; it should be amended accordingly. Impinj further objects on the grounds
`that NXP’s Invalidity Contentions are improperly vague and fail to comply with the requirements
`of this District’s Patent Local Rules. Impinj also objects to this Interrogatory as premature
`because NXP has provided grossly deficient non-infringement contentions.
`Impinj objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to
`the extent it purports to require Impinj to provide contentions for prior art for which NXP has not
`alleged anticipation or obviousness. Impinj objects to this Interrogatory as vague, overly broad,
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND
`
`SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks Impinj to explain why a limitation is not present in a
`prior art reference where NXP has not alleged that the reference describes that limitation or has
`not identified specific disclosure alleged to correspond to that limitation. Impinj objects to this
`Interrogatory as unduly burdensome to the extent it purports to require Impinj to format its
`response as “claim charts.”
`Impinj further objects to this Interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and
`seeking information unrelated to any claim or defense at issue in this litigation to the extent it
`seeks contentions relating to the validity of claims that Impinj is not asserting in the litigation.
`Impinj will limit its response to claims that remain asserted.
`
`NXP bears the burden of proof on invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. However,
`NXP’s Invalidity Contentions are deficient for at least the following reasons:
`• NXP’s Invalidity Contentions fail to identify the structure or actions in each prior art
`reference that allegedly maps to each claim limitation, or explain how the identified
`structure or actions purportedly do so;
`• NXP’s Invalidity Contentions fail to identify with specificity the actual combinations of
`references alleged to render the claims obvious;
`• NXP’s Invalidity Contentions fail to perform a proper obviousness analysis as laid out in
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), including failing to describe the scope and
`content of the prior art, identify the differences between the claimed invention and the
`prior art, and describe the level of ordinary skill in the art;
`• NXP’s Invalidity Contentions fail to identify a specific rationale to combine references
`and explain why the rationale purportedly applies on a combination by combination basis;
`• NXP’s Invalidity Contentions fail to identify what was allegedly known in the art, identify
`all supporting evidence, and explain why it would have been known to the person of
`ordinary skill in the art;
`• NXP’s Invalidity Contentions for various limitations refer back to disclosure from
`previous limitations but NXP has failed to identify how the disclosure and limitations are
`equivalent. For example, in Exhibit #C-03, NXP alleges that disclosure for claim
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`limitation [1-b(iv)], which recites “adjust the first time duration threshold based on at least
`one aspect associated with the wireless RF input signal selected from a preamble, a
`received packet, a filtered output signal, a data rate, and an expected next packet” is
`contained within its disclosure for claim limitation [1-b(i)], which recites “receive the first
`digital output signal.” NXP has failed to provide any explanation as to how the disclosure
`for element [1-b(i)] teaches claim limitation [1-b(iv)] or how these limitations are
`allegedly equivalent, to the extent NXP asserts as much. By failing to provide specific
`disclosure for each claim limitation, NXP has left Impinj unable to adequately respond to
`this Interrogatory.
`Subject to and without waiving any of Impinj’s objections, Impinj responds as follows:
`In support of its contention that the Asserted Claims are valid and patentable, Impinj may rely
`on the Asserted Patents, the Invalidity References and any related documents or testimony, expert
`witness testimony, and testimony by the inventors of the Asserted Patents or of any cited prior art
`reference. Impinj incorporates by reference all documents that have been or will be filed by
`Impinj as part of the claim construction process. Impinj also incorporates by reference all
`documents that have been or will be filed by Impinj in response to motions and Inter Partes
`Reviews (“IPRs”) filed by NXP or third parties that relate to the validity or enforceability of the
`Asserted Patents.
`With respect to each patent, Impinj responds as follows:
`1. U.S. Patent No. 8,115,597 (“the ’597 patent”)
`a. U.S. Patent No. 8,045,947 (“Mandal ’947”)
`NXP has not shown that Mandal ’947 qualified as prior art under pre-AIA §§ 102(a) or
`(e). The claimed subject matter was conceived on or before January 8, 2003, and reduced to
`practice with reasonable diligence. See, e.g., IMPINJ_NXP_0001565-1720.
`Mandal ’947 fails to disclose a “rectifier for a Radio Frequency Identification tag circuit”
`or “Radio Frequency Identification tag circuit,” as recited by claims 1, 13, and 15. NXP relies on
`disclosure that Radio Frequency Identification (“RFID”) tags need efficient methods from
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`extracting DC power from electromagnetic radiation. However, Mandal ’947 does not disclose
`RFID tag circuits that include the components of the Asserted Claims.
`Mandal ’947 fails to disclose the “rectifier of claim 1, in which the first and second
`intermediate nodes are coupled together, and are coupled to ground,” as recited by claim 12.
`NXP relies on disclosure in Mandel ’947 that does not relate to intermediate nodes and does not
`disclose intermediate nodes that are coupled together and to ground.
`b. Far Field RF Power Extraction Circuits and Systems (“Mandal Thesis”)
`NXP has not shown that Mandal Thesis qualified as prior art under pre-AIA §§ 102(a) or
`(b). The claimed subject matter was conceived on or before January 8, 2003, and reduced to
`practice with reasonable diligence. See, e.g., IMPINJ_NXP_0001565-1720. Additionally, NXP
`has not shown that Mandal Thesis qualified as a printed publication.
`Mandal Thesis fails to disclose a “rectifier for a Radio Frequency Identification tag
`circuit” or “Radio Frequency Identification tag circuit,” as recited by claims 1, 13, and 15. NXP
`relies on disclosure that RFID tags need efficient methods from extracting DC power from
`electromagnetic radiation. However, Mandal Thesis does not disclose RFID tag circuits that
`include the components of the Asserted Claims.
`Mandal Thesis fails to disclose the “rectifier of claim 1, in which the first and second
`intermediate nodes are coupled together, and are coupled to ground,” as recited by claim 12.
`NXP relies on disclosure in Mandal Thesis that does not relate to intermediate nodes and does not
`disclose intermediate nodes that are coupled together and to ground.
`c. Obviousness Generally
`NXP’s purported obviousness combinations are facially deficient because they fail to
`identify specific combinations of references and specific rationales. By way of example, NXP
`states only the following regarding purported obviousness of the Asserted Claims of the ’597
`patent based on Mandal ’947:
`To any extent that Mandal ’947 does not anticipate asserted claims
`1, 12, 13, and 15, it renders those claims obvious based on its
`disclosures, its express teachings, suggestions, and motivations to
`combine its disclosures, and the knowledge of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NXP’s purported obviousness contentions for Mandal Thesis provide essentially the same,
`boilerplate language that fails to provide Impinj with notice of NXP’s theories. NXP has thus
`failed to make any obviousness case for the ’597 patent, despite bearing the burden on the issue
`of invalidity. As there are no obviousness contentions for Impinj to rebut, Impinj will provide
`non-obviousness contentions if and when NXP provides obviousness contentions.
`d. “Additional Prior Art”
`NXP has failed to identify any way in which the “additional prior art” listed in NXP’s
`Invalidity Contentions is allegedly relevant to any invalidity argument. In particular, NXP has
`failed to identify “specifically where and how in each alleged item of [additional prior art] each
`limitation of each asserted claim is found” and similarly failed to provide “an explanation of why
`the [additional prior art] renders the asserted claim obvious,” as required by the Patent Local
`Rules. NXP’s Invalidity Contentions therefore do not state a basis for anticipation or obviousness
`based in whole or in part on any piece of “additional prior art.”
`2. U.S. Patent No. 8,600,298 (“the ’298 patent”)
`a. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0152044 (“’044 Pub.”)
`The ’044 Pub. does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit,” as recited in claims 1
`and 15. The ’044 Pub. instead discloses a “data recovery” method where digital pulses are
`assigned a 0, 1, or null value. The “date recovery” method is not “an interference rejection
`circuit.”
`The ’044 Pub. does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “receive
`a first digital output signal,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. NXP does not identify any alleged
`disclosure in the ’044 Pub. of an interference rejection circuit configured to receive a first digital
`output signal.
`The ’044 Pub. does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to”
`“determine a first time duration threshold,” as recited in claim 1. NXP does not identify any
`alleged disclosure in the ’044 Pub. of an interference rejection circuit configured to determine a
`first time duration threshold.
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`The ’044 Pub. does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “derive a
`second digital output signal responsive to the first digital output signal by substantially removing
`digital pulses shorter than the first time duration threshold while substantially retaining digital
`pulses longer than the first time duration threshold,” as recited in claim 1. NXP does not identify
`any alleged disclosure in the ’044 Pub. of an interference rejection circuit configured to derive a
`second digital output signal responsive to the first digital output signal as claimed in the Asserted
`Claims.
`The ’044 Pub. does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “adjust
`the first time duration threshold based on at least one aspect associated with the wireless RF input
`signal selected from a preamble, a received packet, a filtered output signal, a data rate, and an
`expected next packet.” The ’044 Pub. instead discloses a “data recovery” method where digital
`pulses are assigned a 0, 1, or null value. The “data recovery” method is not an interference
`rejection circuit.” NXP does not identify any alleged disclosure in the ’044 Pub. of an
`interference rejection circuit configured to determine the first time duration threshold that is
`adjusted as recited in the Asserted Claims. Further, the ’044 Pub. instead discloses first, second,
`and third calibration waveforms that “are used to calibrate data symbols.” The first, second, and
`third calibration waveforms do not adjust the first time duration threshold as recited in the
`Asserted Claims.
`The ’044 Pub. does not disclose “[t]he tag circuit of claim 1, wherein the interference
`rejection circuit determines the first time duration threshold from at least one of a frame-sync tari
`symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal, a data rate associated with the
`modulated wireless RF input signal, and a statistic of a characteristic of a received data packet,”
`as recited in claim 2. For the reasons explained above, the ’044 Pub. does not disclose all claim
`limitations for independent claim 1. NXP does not identify any alleged disclosure in the ’044
`Pub. of an interference rejection circuit configured to determine the first time duration threshold.
`The ’044 Pub. instead discloses a “data recovery” method where digital pulses are assigned a 0, 1,
`or null value. But the “data recovery” method is not an interference rejection circuit” as recited in
`the Asserted Claims. Further, the ’044 Pub. discloses first, second, and third calibration
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`waveforms that “are used to calibrate data symbols.” But the first, second, and third calibration
`waveforms do not “determine the first time duration threshold from at least one of a frame-sync
`tari symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal, a data rate associated with the
`modulated wireless RF input signal, and a statistic of a characteristic of a received data packet.”
`For the reasons stated above, the ’044 Pub. does not disclose “an interference rejection
`circuit configured to: receive the first digital output signal, determine a first low number
`corresponding to a first time duration threshold, derive a second digital output signal responsive
`to the first digital output signal by substantially removing digital pulses with artifact numbers less
`than the first low number while substantially retaining digital pulses with artifact numbers greater
`than the first low number,” as recited in claim 15.
`For the reasons stated above, the ’044 Pub. does not disclose “the tag circuit of claim 15,
`wherein the interference rejection circuit determines the time duration threshold from at least one
`of a frame-sync tari symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal, a data rate
`associated with the modulated wireless RF input signal, and a statistic of a characteristic of a
`received data packet,” as recited in claim 17.
`b. U.S. Patent No. 3,997,798 (“’798 Patent”)
`To the extent the preamble is limiting, the ’798 Patent does not disclose “A Radio
`Frequency Identification (RFID) tag circuit comprising,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. NXP does
`not identify any alleged disclosure in the ’798 Patent of an RFID tag circuit.
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “a demodulator configured to: receive a modulated
`wireless RF input signal from an RFID reader, and derive a first digital output signal responsive
`to the modulated wireless RF input signal, wherein the first digital output signal comprises a
`sequence of digital pulses,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. NXP does not identify any alleged
`disclosure in the ’798 Patent of a demodulator as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to:”
`“receive the first digital output signal,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. The ’798 Patent instead
`discloses a circuit arrangement for gating out signals, where a digital pulse sequence is fed into
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`the input of the circuit arrangement.” The digital pulse sequence is not the same as “the first
`digital output signal,” which is “responsive to the modulated wireless RF input signal.”
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to:” “derive
`a second digital output signal responsive to the first digital output signal by substantially
`removing digital pulses shorter than the first time duration threshold while substantially retaining
`digital pulses longer than the first time duration threshold,” as recited in claim 1. The ’798 Patent
`instead discloses an output pulse sequence that contains longer pulses of an input sequence
`displaced by the time tp + tt and shortened in comparison to the input pulses received by the
`circuit arrangement. The input pulses described in the ’798 Patent are not substantially retained
`as part of the output pulse sequence. Further, as stated above, the ’798 Patent does not disclose
`“the first digital output signal” from which the second digital output signal is responsive as
`discussed above.
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to:” “adjust
`the first time duration threshold based on at least one aspect associated with the wireless RF input
`signal selected from a preamble, a received packet, a filtered output signal, a data rate, and an
`expected next packet,” as recited in claim 1. The ’798 patent instead describes a circuit
`arrangement with a test period that may be freely programmed and can be varied. The test period
`disclosed in the ’798 Patent is not the first time duration threshold adjusted based on at least one
`aspect associated with the wireless RF input signal as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “[t]he tag circuit of claim 1, wherein the interference
`rejection circuit determines the first time duration threshold from at least one of a frame-sync tari
`symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal, a data rate associated with the
`modulated wireless RF input signal, and a statistic of a characteristic of a received data packet,”
`as recited in claim 2. For the reasons explained above, the ’798 Patent does not disclose all claim
`limitations for independent claim 1. Further, the ’798 patent instead describes a circuit
`arrangement with a test period that may be freely programmed and can be varied. The test period
`disclosed in the ’798 patent is not the first time duration threshold determined from at least one of
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`a frame-sync tari symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal as recited in the
`Asserted Claims.
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “a counter configured to generate artifact numbers by
`counting time durations of the digital pulses,” as recited in claim 15. The ’798 Patent at the
`output pulse only retains part of the input pulse if it is longer than the test period. The partial
`retention of an input pulse longer than the test period is not based on an artifact number generated
`by counting time durations of digital pulses.
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to”
`“determine a first low number corresponding to a first time duration threshold,” as recited in
`claim 15. The ’798 Patent instead describes a circuit arrangement with a test period that may be
`freely programmed and can be varied. The test period described in the ’798 Patent is not a first
`low number corresponding to a first time duration threshold.
`The ’798 Patent does not disclose “derive a second digital output signal responsive to the
`first digital output signal by substantially removing digital pulses with artifact numbers less than
`the first low number while substantially retaining digital pulses with artifact numbers greater than
`the first low number,” as recited in claim 15. For the reasons explained above, the ’798 Patent
`does not disclose generating “artifact numbers.” The ’798 Patent instead discloses an output
`pulse sequence that contains longer pulses of an input sequence displaced by the time tp + tt and
`shortened in comparison to the input pulses received by the circuit arrangement. The input pulses
`described in the ’798 Patent are not substantially retained as part of the output pulse sequence.
`For the reasons stated above, the ’798 Patent does not disclose “[t]he tag circuit of claim
`15, wherein the interference rejection circuit determines the time duration threshold from at least
`one of a frame-sync tari symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal, a data rate
`associated with the modulated wireless RF input signal, and a statistic of a characteristic of a
`received data packet,” as recited in claim 17.
`c. EPCTM Radio-Frequency Identity Protocols, Class-1 Generation-2 UHF
`RFID, Protocol for Communications at 860 MHz - 960 MHz, Version 1.0.8
`(“Gen2 v1.0.8”)
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`To the extent it is limiting, Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “A Radio Frequency
`Identification (RFID) tag circuit comprising,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead
`discloses physical and logical requirements for a passive-backscatter, Interrogator-talks-first
`(ITF), radio-frequency identification system that comprises readers and tags. NXP relies on
`disclosure that does not relate to the RFID tag circuit as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “a demodulator configured to: receive a modulated wireless
`RF input signal from an RFID reader, and derive a first digital output signal responsive to the
`modulated wireless RF input signal, wherein the first digital output signal comprises a sequence
`of digital pulses,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead discloses a protocol
`describing various aspects of interrogator to tag communications and backscatter signals. NXP
`relies on disclosure that does not relate to the demodulator as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit,” as recited in claims 1 and
`15. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead discloses a protocol describing various aspects of interrogator to tag
`communications and backscatter signals. NXP relies on disclosure that does not relate to the
`interference rejection circuit as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “receive
`the first digital output signal,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead discloses
`various aspects of interrogator to tag communication and specifies certain aspects about what
`constitutes a valid signal pulse. NXP relies on disclosure that does not relate to the interference
`rejection circuit configured to receive the first digital output signal as recited in the Asserted
`Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “determine
`a first time duration threshold,” as recited in claim 1. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead discloses various
`aspects of interrogator to tag communication. NXP relies on disclosure that does not relate to the
`interference rejection circuit configured to determine a first time duration threshold as recited in
`the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “derive a
`second digital output signal responsive to the first digital output signal by substantially removing
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`digital pulses shorter than the first time duration while substantially retaining digital pulses longer
`than the first time duration threshold,” as recited in claim 1. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead discloses
`various aspects of interrogator to tag communication. NXP relies on disclosure that does not
`relate to the interference rejection circuit as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “adjust the
`first time duration threshold based on at least one aspect associated with the wireless RF input
`signal selected from a preamble, a received packet, a filtered output signal, a data rate, and an
`expected next packet,” as recited in claim 1. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead discloses various aspects of
`interrogator to tag communication. NXP relies on disclosure that does not relate to the
`interference rejection circuit as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “[t]he tag circuit of claim 1, wherein the interference
`rejection circuit determines the first time duration threshold from at least one of a frame-sync tari
`symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal, a data rate associated with the
`modulated wireless RF input signal, and a statistic of a characteristic of a received data packet,”
`as recited in claim 2. For the reasons stated above, Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose the limitations
`of claim 1. Further, NXP relies on disclosure that does not relate to the interference rejection
`circuit as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “a counter configured to generate artifact numbers by
`counting time durations of the digital pulses,” as recited in claim 15. Gen2 v1.0.8 instead
`discloses aspects of interrogator to tag communications. NXP relies on disclosure that does not
`relate to the counter as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “determine
`a first low number corresponding to a first time duration threshold,” as recited in claim 15. Gen2
`v1.0.8 instead discloses various aspects of interrogator to tag communication. NXP relies on
`disclosure that does not relate to the interference rejection circuit as recited in the Asserted
`Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit configured to” “derive a
`second digital output signal responsive to the first digital output signal by substantially removing
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`digital pulses with artifact numbers less than the first low number while substantially retaining
`digital pulses with artifact numbers greater than the first low number,” as recited in claim 15. For
`the reasons explained above, Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose generating “artifact numbers.”
`Further, Gen2 v1.0.8 instead describes various aspects of interrogator to tag communication.
`NXP relies on disclosure that does not relate to the interference rejection circuit as recited in the
`Asserted Claims.
`For the reasons stated above, Gen2 v1.0.8 does not disclose “[t]he tag circuit of claim 15,
`wherein the interference rejection circuit determines the time duration threshold from at least one
`of a frame-sync tari symbol encoded in the modulated wireless RF input signal, a data rate
`associated with the modulated wireless RF input signal, and a statistic of a characteristic of a
`received data packet,” as recited in claim 17.
`d. EPCTM Radio-Frequency Identity Protocols, Class-1 Generation-2 UHF
`RFID, Protocol for Communications at 860 MHz - 960 MHz, Version 1.0.9
`(“Gen2 v1.0.9”)
`To the extent it is limiting, Gen2 v1.0.9 does not disclose “A Radio Frequency
`Identification (RFID) tag circuit comprising,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. Gen2 v1.0.9 instead
`discloses physical and logical requirements for a passive-backscatter, Interrogator-talks-first
`(ITF), radio-frequency identification system that comprises readers and tags. NXP relies on
`disclosure that does not relate to the RFID tag circuit as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.9 does not disclose “a demodulator configured to: receive a modulated wireless
`RF input signal from an RFID reader, and derive a first digital output signal responsive to the
`modulated wireless RF input signal, wherein the first digital output signal comprises a sequence
`of digital pulses,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. Gen2 v1.0.9 instead discloses a protocol
`describing various aspects of interrogator to tag communications and backscatter signals. NXP
`relies on disclosure that does not relate to the demodulator as recited in the Asserted Claims.
`Gen2 v1.0.9 does not disclose “an interference rejection circuit,” as recited in claims 1 and
`15. Gen2 v1.0.9 instead discloses a protocol describing various aspects of interrogator to tag
`
`
`Case No. 4:19-cv-03161-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`IMPINJ’S RESPONSES TO 2ND SET
`OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`NXP EX 1012
`NXP v. Impinj
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`communications and backscatter signals. NXP