US 7483686

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 7483686:

US Patent 7483686: Universal Platform Module and Methods and Apparatuses Relating Thereto Enabled by Universal Frequency Translation Technology

• Title: Universal platform module and methods and apparatuses relating thereto enabled by universal frequency translation technology
• Assignee: ParkerVision Inc [cite: Original Assignee]
• Inventors: David F. Sorrells, Michael J. Bultman, Robert W. Cook, Richard C. Looke, Charley D. Moses, Jr.
• Filing Date: 2004-10-27
• Issue Date: 2009-01-27
• Abstract: A universal platform module (UPM) is provided that includes at least one universal frequency translation (UFT) module implemented for signal reception, transmission, and/or processing. The UPM also includes a control module for operating the UFT module for any selected platform or combination of platforms. Devices including the UPM can utilize protocols and/or bearer services and/or combinations thereof to exchange and/or process information with other components on any given network or communication medium. The UPM allows for multi-platform operations, including apparent simultaneous or actual simultaneous multi-operation, with benefits such as lower power consumption, fewer parts, and more effective signal transmission and reception.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent contains several independent claims that describe methods, apparatuses, and universal platform modules (UPMs) related to signal processing and communication using Universal Frequency Translation (UFT) technology. These claims can be grouped by their core innovative concepts:

1. Method for Electromagnetic Signal Processing (Claims 1, 37): This claim describes a method for processing an electromagnetic (EM) signal by performing frequency translation using a universal frequency translation (UFT) module. The key aspect is that the UFT module is operated at an aliasing rate (frequency) that is equal to or less than twice the frequency of the input EM signal (i.e., below the Nyquist rate) to generate a down-converted output signal.
2. Apparatus for Electromagnetic Signal Processing (Claims 13, 49): This claim describes an apparatus designed to process an EM signal. It includes a universal frequency translation (UFT) module that is configured to perform frequency translation of the EM signal by operating at an aliasing rate that is equal to or less than twice the frequency of the input EM signal, thereby producing a down-converted output signal.
3. Universal Platform Module (UPM) for Devices (Claims 25, 61, 97, 109, 145): This claim defines a UPM for a device, comprising at least one universal frequency translation (UFT) module. This UFT module is implemented for tasks such as signal reception, transmission, or processing. The UPM further includes a control module that is configured to operate the UFT module for any chosen communication platform or a combination of platforms.
4. Method for Operating a Multi-Mode Communications Device (Claims 73, 121): This claim outlines a method for operating a multi-mode communications device. The method involves selecting a specific communication platform from a plurality of available platforms and then operating a universal frequency translation (UFT) module to perform frequency translation (e.g., down-conversion or up-conversion) for signals associated with the selected platform.
5. Apparatus for Operating a Multi-Mode Communications Device (Claims 85, 133): This claim describes an apparatus for a multi-mode communications device. It includes a selection module that is capable of selecting a communication platform from multiple available platforms. The apparatus also features a universal frequency translation (UFT) module configured to perform frequency translation (e.g., down-conversion or up-conversion) for signals corresponding to the selected platform.

Litigation Status (as of April 26, 2026):
The patent US7483686 expired on 2021-04-29 [cite: Expired - Lifetime]. While this specific patent is expired, the patent family has been involved in litigation, including an Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-00796) which is currently pending and instituted, and US cases filed in the Texas Western District Court (e.g., 6:23-cv-00389, 6:23-cv-00375). [cite: PTAB case IPR2024-00796 filed (Pending - Instituted), US case filed in Texas Western District Court] However, no specific direct litigation concerning US7483686 has been found in the CAFC 2026 dockets. The CAFC dockets for 2026 show general intellectual property cases but do not explicitly mention this patent number.

US patent 7483686 is involved in the following known litigation:

1. PTAB Case IPR2024-00796

   • Plaintiff(s)/Petitioner: MediaTek, Inc., MediaTek USA, Inc., MTK Wireless Limited (UK), Gaintech Co. Limited, and MediaTek Investment Singapore Pte. Ltd.
   • Defendant(s)/Patent Owner: ParkerVision, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2024-00796 [cite: Google Patents (initial search results)]
   • Filing Date: May 21, 2024
   • Current Status: Pending - Instituted [cite: Google Patents (initial search results)]

2. US Case filed in Texas Western District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): ParkerVision, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
   • Case Number: 6:23-cv-00375-ADA
   • Filing Date: 2023 (the exact day of filing is not available from the provided search results, but the case number indicates filing in 2023). Documents within the case, such as an "Agreed Scheduling Order," were filed on January 4, 2024, and a "Joint Claim Construction Chart" on May 3, 2024, confirming activity in this case.
   • Current Status: Active. A "Reply Claim Construction Brief" was filed by defendants on April 15, 2024.

3. US Case filed in Texas Western District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): ParkerVision, Inc.
   • Defendant(s): NXP Semiconductors N.V., NXP B.V., NXP USA, Inc. d/b/a NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
   • Case Number: 6:23-cv-00389-ADA
   • Filing Date: May 19, 2023
   • Current Status: A motion to stay the case, pending Inter Partes Reviews concerning other related patents, was granted on May 27, 2025. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted the IPR petitions filed by Texas Instruments on November 26, 2024, and NXP's petitions and requests for joinder on December 19, 2024. A Markman hearing was held on June 14, 2024, and its report and recommendation were adopted by the court. The trial date was rescheduled from August 18, 2025, to February 9, 2026.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 7483686, which is currently in "Final Written Decision" status. This means that a decision has been issued by the PTAB regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. The defensive posture for a defendant will depend on the specific outcome of this Final Written Decision, particularly which claims, if any, were invalidated or sustained.

IPR2024-00796 — MediaTek Inc. et al. v. ParkerVision, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-05-21
• Status: Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided information.
• Petition grounds: The available information indicates that MediaTek challenged claims, and there was a discussion about claim construction, particularly for terms like "switch" / "switch module," "universal frequency down-converter," and "modulated carrier signal." The petition likely asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, typical for IPRs, arguing anticipation or obviousness based on prior art.
• Institution decision: The institution decision is not explicitly detailed in the provided information, but the "Final Written Decision" status indicates that the IPR was instituted. Discussions around claim construction referenced previous rulings by federal judges related to the same ParkerVision technology and patent specification, suggesting that claim construction was a key aspect of the petition and institution.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The provided information states that the case is in "Final Written Decision" status, but the specific outcome regarding which claims were canceled or sustained is not detailed in the provided snippets. The context mentions ParkerVision's arguments regarding how the patented technology down-converts a radio frequency signal.
• Settlement / termination: Not explicitly mentioned in the provided information.
• Appeal: Not explicitly mentioned in the provided information.
• Defensive value: The defensive value of this proceeding depends entirely on the outcome of the Final Written Decision. If claims are invalidated, it significantly weakens the patent owner's position for those specific claims. If claims are sustained, it strengthens the patent's validity against similar prior art arguments. Without the specific claim-level outcome, a definitive defensive value cannot be stated.

Strategic summary

As of the current information, only one IPR proceeding, IPR2024-00796, has reached a Final Written Decision for US Patent 7483686. The status indicates a decision has been rendered, but the specific claims that were canceled or sustained are not provided in the available data. This lack of detail prevents a clear understanding of whether the patent has been narrowed.

Regarding estoppel, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally bars petitioners (and their privies) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised during an IPR that resulted in a Final Written Decision. However, recent Federal Circuit precedent has clarified that IPR estoppel applies only to invalidity grounds that the claimed invention was patented or described in a printed publication under § 102 or § 103, not to other invalidity theories like "known or used by others, on sale, or in public use" even if the same prior art evidence could have been raised. Without knowing the specific prior art and grounds challenged in IPR2024-00796, it's impossible to precisely map the estoppel landscape for future defendants. However, any defendant (or privy of MediaTek) would be estopped from challenging the claims of 7483686 based on the same or substantially the same prior art patents or printed publications that were or could have been raised in IPR2024-00796.

The provided information indicates ParkerVision Inc. has been involved in other IPRs for different patents, with various outcomes including "Final Written Decision" and "Not Instituted - Procedural." This suggests an active enforcement and defense strategy by ParkerVision regarding its patent portfolio. Unified Patents has been involved in some IPRs against ParkerVision patents, but the provided information does not confirm their involvement in IPR2024-00796 on US7483686.

Recommended next steps

The most critical next step for a defendant is to obtain and review the full Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00796 to understand the claim-level outcomes. This document will explicitly state which claims, if any, were found unpatentable and which were sustained. This will dictate the validity of any infringement theories built upon those claims. The decision can be accessed through the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.

Since the status is "Final Written Decision," the statutory 1-year trial deadline from institution has passed. Any appeal to the Federal Circuit would typically follow the issuance of the Final Written Decision. A check of the Federal Circuit's docket and CourtListener for "IPR2024-00796" or "MediaTek Inc. v. ParkerVision, Inc." would reveal if an appeal has been filed and its current status.

Inventors

• David F. Sorrells (ParkerVision Inc)
• Michael J. Bultman (ParkerVision Inc)
• Robert W. Cook (ParkerVision Inc)
• Richard C. Looke (ParkerVision Inc)
• Charley D. Moses, Jr. (ParkerVision Inc)

No unusual patterns noted regarding inventor departures based on the provided information.

Original assignee

ParkerVision Inc. The company primarily focuses on the development and marketing of its proprietary semiconductor technology for use in wireless communication products. They have shipped products embodying their claims, particularly in the realm of RF (radio frequency) receivers and transmitters. ParkerVision Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

There are no recorded assignment conveyances for US7483686 on the USPTO Assignment Center.
The Google Patents legal events indicate that the patent was assigned to PARKERVISION, INC. on 2004-10-27 when the application was filed. This is likely the initial assignment from the inventors to the company, which often occurs at the time of application filing and may not always be recorded as a separate "assignment" event in the same way a transfer between unrelated entities would be.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7483686
    2004 : Application filed by ParkerVision Inc
    2009 : Patent granted to ParkerVision Inc
    2021 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The patent remains with the original operating company, ParkerVision Inc.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. ParkerVision Inc. is not identified as a known NPE.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There is no chain of assignments to evaluate for recurring correspondents.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. No assignments are recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is litigation activity associated with this patent family (IPR2024-00796, US case in Texas Western District Court 6:23-cv-00389, and 6:23-cv-00375), without recorded assignments, it's impossible to determine if any transfers occurred within 6 months prior to these lawsuits.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of ParkerVision Inc. filing for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — unclear. Without assignment records or SEC filings/news articles specifically detailing such an arrangement, it's not possible to determine if privateering is occurring.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is not currently assigned to a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignments for US7483686 on the USPTO Assignment Center, making it impossible to reconstruct an ownership chain or identify any NPE/troll patterns based on transfers. While there is current litigation activity associated with the patent, the absence of assignment records prevents an assessment of whether these lawsuits are related to NPE assertion or operating-company assertion.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html?patent_number=7483686

The following are the most relevant prior art references for US patent 7483686, identified from its "Priority claimed from" section. These patents are part of the same family and provide the foundational "universal frequency translation technology" upon which US7483686 builds its "universal platform module."

Most Relevant Prior Art for US7483686:

1. US 6,370,371 B1

   • Full Citation: US 6,370,371 B1, "Applications of universal frequency translation," issued April 9, 2002.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Application Ser. No. 09/261,129 was filed on March 3, 1999.
   • Brief Description: This patent broadly describes universal frequency translation (UFT) technology and its various applications. These applications include frequency down-conversion, frequency up-conversion, enhanced signal reception (ESR), and unified down-conversion and filtering (UDF). It details the use of a UFT module for these signal processing tasks, including a system where a transmitter generates redundant spectrums for robust signal reception and a UFU module for generating harmonically rich signals.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US6370371B1 is foundational to the UFT technology that US7483686 utilizes. Any claims in US7483686 that define a universal platform module (UPM) solely by the inclusion of UFT modules and their basic function (e.g., frequency down-conversion, up-conversion, enhanced signal reception, or unified down-conversion and filtering), or methods of performing these individual frequency translation operations, would likely be anticipated by this patent. For instance, a claim in US7483686 describing a module performing frequency down-conversion through aliasing with a control signal is directly taught by US6370371B1.

2. US 6,704,549 B1

   • Full Citation: US 6,704,549 B1, "Multi-mode, multi-band communications system and methods and apparatuses relating thereto," issued March 9, 2004.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Application Ser. No. 09/476,330 was filed on January 3, 2000.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a communications system designed to operate across multiple communication modes and frequency bands. It likely leverages UFT technology to reduce the complexity and component count typically associated with multi-mode/multi-band devices, enabling a more flexible and integrated communication architecture.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses the concept of multi-mode and multi-band operation, which is a core feature of the "universal platform module" (UPM) in US7483686. Claims in US7483686 related to a universal platform module providing multi-mode or multi-band communication capabilities by employing UFT modules, particularly where it generally describes supporting various communication standards or frequency ranges, could be anticipated.

3. US 7,006,805 B1

   • Full Citation: US 7,006,805 B1, "Methods and apparatuses for controlling components in universal frequency translation applications," issued February 28, 2006.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Application Ser. No. 09/476,093 was filed on January 3, 2000.
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on the control mechanisms for components used in universal frequency translation applications. It describes how various UFT modules and associated circuitry can be managed and configured to execute specific frequency translation and signal processing functions, potentially including dynamic adjustments of UFT parameters for different operational requirements.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7483686 states that its UPM "includes a control module for operating the UFT module for any selected platform or combination of platforms." This directly overlaps with the subject matter of US7006805B1. Claims in US7483686 that detail the functionality of a control module in operating, selecting, or configuring UFT modules for various platforms or modes, especially those describing dynamic management of UFT parameters, could be anticipated by this prior art.

4. US 6,853,690 B1

   • Full Citation: US 6,853,690 B1, "Universal frequency translation methods and apparatuses with impedance matching," issued February 8, 2005.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Application Ser. No. 09/525,615 was filed on March 14, 2000.
   • Brief Description: This patent details universal frequency translation (UFT) methods and apparatuses that specifically incorporate impedance matching techniques. It focuses on optimizing energy transfer and improving the signal-to-noise ratio within UFT modules (referred to as energy transfer modules) through the use of L-match circuits, resonant tank circuits, and bypass networks, as well as by dynamically adjusting aperture width and aliasing rate.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7483686's description extensively covers impedance matching, energy transfer, and various resonant circuit configurations (e.g., L-match, tank circuits, bypass networks) within the context of the UFT module. Any claims in US7483686 that specify such impedance matching techniques, resonant structures, or methods for optimizing energy transfer and signal-to-noise ratio within a UFT module would be highly susceptible to anticipation by US6853690B1.

5. US 6,879,817 B1

   • Full Citation: US 6,879,817 B1, "DC offset, re-radiation, and I/Q solutions using universal frequency translation technology," issued October 11, 2005.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Application Ser. No. 09/526,041 was filed on March 14, 2000.
   • Brief Description: This patent focuses on addressing specific technical issues encountered in down-converting electromagnetic (EM) signals using UFT technology. It describes methods and apparatuses for reducing or eliminating DC offset voltages and re-radiation, and for implementing I/Q (in-phase/quadrature) modulation/demodulation solutions to improve receiver dynamic range during frequency translation.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7483686's UPM integrates UFT modules into receivers and transmitters. Claims in US7483686 that describe a UPM or a UFT module incorporating features or methods for mitigating DC offset, eliminating re-radiation, or utilizing I/Q solutions during frequency translation would be anticipated by US6879817B1, as these are specific technical improvements to the underlying UFT operation.

The previous searches confirm the priority dates and general knowledge about multi-mode devices and SDRs.

• US6061551: Priority date 1997-04-10. This is definitely prior art to US7483686's earliest priority date of 1999-03-03.
• US6370371B1: Priority date 1997-04-10. This is also prior art. US7483686 claims priority from US09/261,129 (which is US6370371B1). This means the disclosure of US6370371B1 is relevant.

The concept of Software Defined Radio (SDR) was also known in the 1990s. Joseph Mitola defined SDR in the early 90s as reprogrammable and reconfigurable radios through software. Early operational SDRs like Speakeasy were developed by the U.S. Navy between 1991 and 1995. SDRs aim to implement conventionally analog hardware components (mixers, filters, amplifiers, modulators, demodulators) in software, allowing a radio to receive and transmit widely different radio protocols based on software. This shows a clear desire and existing effort in the art to create flexible, multi-mode radios using programmable components.

Therefore, the argument for obviousness is strong.

Final Plan:

1. State the legal standard for obviousness.
2. Identify the independent claims of US7483686.
3. Characterize the Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA).
4. Present the relevant prior art:
   • US6,061,551 (and/or US6,370,371B1) for the UFT module.
   • General knowledge of multi-mode communication devices and the concept of Software Defined Radio (SDR) prior to 1999.
5. Perform the obviousness analysis, addressing each group of independent claims (UFT signal processing, UPM/multi-mode operation) by identifying the differences and providing the motivation to combine.## Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7483686 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates whether the claims of US Patent 7483686, with a priority date of 1999-03-03, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention.

Legal Standard for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is unpatentable "if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." The Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. emphasized that obviousness can be shown by identifying a reason that would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine existing prior art elements in the way claimed, even if that reason is only implicit in the prior art or the problem itself.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

At the time of the invention (i.e., prior to March 3, 1999), a PHOSITA in the field of this patent would likely have been an electrical engineer or an RF (radio frequency) systems engineer with several years of experience in designing communication circuits and systems. This individual would possess knowledge of modulation/demodulation techniques, frequency conversion, and the architecture of multi-standard radio systems. They would also be familiar with the inherent challenges associated with integrating multiple communication standards into a single device, such as complexity, size, and power consumption.

Independent Claims of US7483686

The independent claims of US7483686 can be broadly categorized into two groups:

1. Method and Apparatus for Electromagnetic Signal Processing (Claims 1, 13, 37, 49): These claims describe fundamental methods and apparatuses for performing frequency translation on an electromagnetic (EM) signal using a universal frequency translation (UFT) module, specifically by operating the UFT module at an aliasing rate equal to or less than twice the frequency of the EM signal to generate a down-converted output signal.
2. Universal Platform Module (UPM) and Multi-Mode Communication Devices (Claims 25, 61, 73, 85, 97, 109, 121, 133, 145): These claims focus on a UPM for a device, comprising at least one UFT module implemented for signal reception, transmission, and/or processing, along with a control module for operating the UFT module for any selected communication platform or combination of platforms. Corresponding methods and apparatuses for operating multi-mode communication devices are also claimed.

Prior Art References

The following prior art references are relevant for the obviousness analysis:

1. US Patent 6,061,551, "Method and System for Down-converting Electromagnetic Signals": This patent, explicitly referenced multiple times in US7483686, has a priority date of April 10, 1997. [cite: 6,061,551, 1997-04-10] It thoroughly discloses the core Universal Frequency Translation (UFT) module and its operation for frequency down-conversion by sampling an input EM signal with a control signal at an aliasing rate that is below the Nyquist rate. The patent describes down-conversion to intermediate frequencies (IF), baseband, or converting FM signals to non-FM signals. [cite: 6,061,551, 20B-20F] US7483686 itself states that "Exemplary time domain and frequency domain drawings illustrating direct down-conversion of analog and digital AM and PM signals to demodulated baseband signals, and exemplary methods and systems thereof, are disclosed in the co-pending U.S. patent application entitled “Method and System for Down-converting Electromagnetic Signals,” Ser. No. 09/176,022, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 6,061,551."
2. US Patent 6,370,371 B1 (US09/261,129): This patent has a priority date of April 10, 1997, and its application (Ser. No. 09/261,129) is a parent application from which US7483686 claims priority. [cite: 6,370,371 B1, 1997-04-10] Its abstract describes a UFT module that down-converts an EM signal by sampling it with a control signal at an aliasing frequency less than twice the EM signal's frequency.
3. General Knowledge in the Art regarding Multi-Mode Communication Devices and Software Defined Radio (SDR) (prior to March 3, 1999):
   • The concept of Software Defined Radio (SDR), where radio communication system components typically implemented in analog hardware are instead implemented by software, was defined by Joseph Mitola in the early 1990s.
   • Early operational SDRs, such as the Speakeasy system, were developed by the U.S. Navy between 1991 and 1995.
   • The goal of SDR was to create radios that could be reprogrammed and reconfigured through software to receive and transmit widely different radio protocols (waveforms).
   • Prior to 1999, wireless communication was rapidly developing with new standards and protocols, leading to a demand for multi-band and multi-mode devices like cellular phones supporting different standards (e.g., IS-95, GSM). These conventional devices often required "specialized circuitry for each type of protocol and/or bearer service." [cite: the present invention, 25] The objective of reducing hardware content, emphasizing digital signal processing (DSP), and enhancing receiver flexibility was a known motivation for SDR approaches.
   • Control modules or logic for managing different operational modes and selecting communication platforms in multi-mode devices were also well-established elements in communication system design.

Obviousness Analysis

A. Claims 1, 13, 37, 49 (UFT Signal Processing)

These claims recite a method and apparatus for performing frequency translation on an EM signal using a UFT module by operating it at an aliasing rate equal to or less than twice the EM signal's frequency to generate a down-converted output signal.

The core technology of the UFT module for down-conversion at an aliasing rate is extensively detailed in US Patent 6,061,551. US7483686 itself cites US6,061,551 for describing "Method and System for Down-converting Electromagnetic Signals," including the concepts of aliasing rates below the Nyquist rate and generating down-converted signals from under-samples. [cite: FIGS. 20B-20F, Exemplary time domain and frequency domain drawings] Given that US6,061,551 has an earlier priority date (1997-04-10) than US7483686 (1999-03-03), the subject matter of these claims is directly disclosed by, and thus rendered obvious over (or anticipated by), US6,061,551. The description of UFT in US6,370,371 B1, a parent application, further reinforces this conclusion.

B. Claims 25, 61, 73, 85, 97, 109, 121, 133, 145 (Universal Platform Module and Multi-Mode Communication)

These claims describe a Universal Platform Module (UPM) that integrates a UFT module with a control module to operate the UFT for any selected communication platform or combination of platforms in a device.

1. Differences from Prior Art:
   The principal difference between these claims and US6,061,551 (or US6,370,371B1) alone is the explicit integration of the UFT module within a "Universal Platform Module" and the addition of a "control module for operating the UFT module for any selected platform or combination of platforms." While US6,061,551 teaches the UFT, it does not specifically teach its integration into a universal, multi-platform radio architecture managed by a control module in this manner.

2. Motivation to Combine:
   A PHOSITA in 1999 would have faced the challenge of designing multi-mode communication devices that could operate across various communication standards (e.g., GSM, CDMA, Bluetooth) without incurring the cost, size, and power penalties associated with multiple, dedicated RF front-ends. The concept of Software Defined Radio (SDR) was well-known, driving the desire for more flexible and reconfigurable radio architectures.

   The UFT technology, as taught by US6,061,551, offers inherent flexibility because its frequency translation characteristics (e.g., down-converted frequency) are determined by the frequency of its control signal (the aliasing rate). [cite: the aliasing rate of control signal 2006, the aliasing rate of the control signal 2006] A PHOSITA, recognizing this reconfigurability of the UFT module, would have been highly motivated to combine it with a conventional control module (which was already used to manage different operational modes in existing multi-mode devices).

   The motivation for this combination would be to:

   • Reduce complexity and cost: By using a single, reconfigurable UFT module instead of multiple specialized RF chains, the number of parts and manufacturing complexity could be significantly reduced. [cite: Universal platform modules]
   • Enhance flexibility and adaptability: A control module could dynamically adjust the UFT's operating frequency/aliasing rate based on the selected communication platform (protocol and/or bearer service), allowing the same hardware to adapt to different standards, frequency bands, and modulation schemes. This directly addresses the known problem of "Conventional platforms require specialized circuitry for each type of protocol and/or bearer service." [cite: platforms]
   • Improve performance metrics: As US7483686 itself notes, the UPM "exhibit[s] multiple advantages by using UFT modules. These advantages include, but are not limited to, lower power consumption, longer power source life, fewer parts, lower cost, less tuning, and more effective signal transmission and reception." [cite: Universal platform modules] These were all well-known and highly desirable goals in the design of communication systems prior to 1999.

Therefore, a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine the UFT module (from US6,061,551) with a conventional control module to create a "universal platform module" capable of dynamically adapting to various communication platforms. This combination would be driven by the well-recognized need for more efficient and flexible multi-mode communication devices, as exemplified by the ongoing development of Software Defined Radio.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analysis:

• Claims 1, 13, 37, and 49 of US7483686, directed to the fundamental method and apparatus of UFT frequency translation at an aliasing rate, would have been obvious over (or anticipated by) US Patent 6,061,551, which extensively discloses this technology with an earlier priority date.
• Claims 25, 61, 73, 85, 97, 109, 121, 133, and 145 of US7483686, which describe a Universal Platform Module (UPM) for multi-mode communication utilizing a UFT module controlled by a selection module, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. The combination of US Patent 6,061,551 (teaching the UFT module's flexible frequency translation) with the general knowledge in the art regarding the need for flexible, multi-mode radio architectures (as embodied in the SDR concept) and the use of control modules to manage diverse communication platforms would have provided a clear motivation to implement such a system. The known benefits of reduced complexity, cost, and enhanced adaptability would have driven this combination.