ParkerVision 2005 AEA

 

November 8, 2005

 

Jeff Parker, CEO ParkerVision

 

Jeff Parker:  Thank you for joining us at AeA today. This is going to be webcast so just FYI we will put this up on our website for a while so anybody that wants to see the presentation or whoever wants to look at this, it will be available.

The theme of our discussion today and this is something that you, probably many of you, saw introduced on our new website a couple weeks ago, is breaking the RF rules. This company has invested a lot of time and energy and dollars in creating a new architecture and a new way of processing radio signals and really breaking out of the old RF architectures and the rules that those architectures inherently limit a whole variety of important aspects up and down the food chain, whether it's consumers who want more battery life or network service providers who are trying to get more capacity on their network, or more features in their handsets. Of course, there's our obligatory partner statement. You know, you have seen that. We can move on.

So let's talk about the, a little bit about our discussion today is going to walk through. We're going to talk a little bit about our focus as a company. As you know we have exited the retail market that we were working on last year with some of our WiFi products that used our energy signal processing technology and we have now moved to a pure focus as an IP and technology provider to the OEM marketplace. We will discuss that further.

We are going to walk through what makes the company's opportunity as robust and exciting as it is, based on our technologies. What is energy signaling processing? How does that break down into the two macro components of a direct to power technology for power amplification and direct to data for RF receiver applications and what we have done to protect the intellectual properties that we've developed.

Our target market we're going to discuss a little bit. What markets are we going after? How big are those markets? What are the trends in those markets? Why do we have a competitive advantage? Why ParkerVision, why now? Why do we believe we can win in these markets? And market strategies: how do we fit into what our customers are trying to do? How do we help them get to their goals?

The convergence of technology and market needs I think is the most exciting aspect of where we are as a company today. This is not a technology we have developed that is multiple years ahead of the needs of the market. We really are converging with where OEM and service providers are trying to go and really fitting the market needs for people who are trying to get to the next step, especially in 3G handsets and beyond.

What do you watch for in our company from here? What's going to happen over the next quarter and two quarters and three quarters? Perhaps up through the end of next year.

Our focus as a company is, very focused on commercialization of our proprietary RF technology products and how we can advance those OEM products and services that people are working on for the next generation. If we kind of step back a year, at last AeA, you would have heard a couple of interesting questions again and again at every presentation.

Question No. 1: Why are you pursuing a retail business model? If I didn't hear that questions fifty times I didn't hear it once. And we explained then that it was a very important goal for the company to showcase our technology and a product that people could get their arms around and understand that energy signal processing. hat we have done in converting old tired analog radio architecture to digital, can bring spectacular benefits that you can really see and feel and touch, no matter where you are in the food chain. We'll talk a little more about that, but this was extremely helpful in getting the traction that OEM marketing has today in our discussion and I'll talk a bit more about that later.

And then the second question has occurred again and again is "Hey, what's your strategy for pursuing a broader OEM opportunity? If your chips and technology can be as good as they claim they are, why aren't you guys focused on the OEM?" What we explained back then was we were working diligently to advance our technology to a place we thought OEMs would really get engaged with us and especially the top tier OEMs that we wanted to target. It was maybe two, three, four months after AeA that we announced our Direct to Power technology. We did get engaged in dialog with OEMs. A couple months after that, we decided that this is absolutely the time for this company to focus on a pure OEM play and we exited retail and today we are pure IP and technology centric company pursuing OEM design.

Since that d2p announcement back in the January or February time frame of this year, we've narrowed our focus out of the retail activities. Everybody in this company is 100% focused on the sales, the marketing, the development, especially of the piece of our technology that we call the d2p or Direct to Power which is a technology that takes data signals, could be analog data, could be digital data, and directly converts them in a single unified to a radio carrier and tower, we're going to talk a lot about that here in a few minutes. In the process, we've been able to reduce our use of capital about 25% because we no longer have to support the marketing expenses of a retail campaign. All of the senior staff in this company is focused exclusively on the business development opportunities and activities of an OEM business.

After we made those introductions the d2p in press releases in the beginning of this year shortly thereafter we were lined up to start doing demonstrations and really then some of those have transitioned into business discussions ‑ how we can do business with these OEMs, but our year has been marked in the majority of the year with the out with the OEMs and showing them the technology actively engaged in how the technology can help their next generation products and what kind of business relationships they're looking for from ParkerVision.

What's our near term focus? Our near term focus, as I've already publicly stated multiple times, is secure design for the technology. It's great that we have a wonderful technology, but now its time to start getting the OEMs to commit to embracing this inside their products.

The way we've been engaged with OEMs is we've been out with the prototypes, actually several different prototypes and different generations of prototypes that demonstrate how the d2p technology works and the value of that for their products, we're going to walk through some of that here in a minute. Our target has been on top tier customers. Our initial goal was focus on the top tier, especially in the cellular and handset space. And depending on the reaction there, we might expand to include other kinds of OEMs and possibly other market spaces. As good fortune would have it, we've been so actively engaged with so many OEMs in the top tier markets that that's where our focus has stopped and that's where the company is exclusively in dialog today.

I believe you'll see the company over the next two, three, or four quarters emerge with a business model that's not purely a chip model. I think you'll see a combination of both chips that companies are interested in purchasing from us, some of them more shorter term and I think you'll also see licensing business model come from us as certain OEMs are interested in how do they include this technology either within other system chips they're developing, or running on fab that they've run on other than the fab that we're running our chips on, which happens to be an IBM fab. In the near term you'll see us continue to increase market awareness about our technology and about our products. The website you saw us revise and turn on a week or two ago, you'll see a lot more information going on that website that'll help you to continue to follow the story of the technology and how it fits into the markets and why OEMs, we believe, will adopt the technology. And hopefully that site over the course of the next year will also start popping up with important partners and official customers in technology that are the top‑tier OEMs that we're speaking to today.

So today we are going to spend a little bit of time talking to you about what we call Energy Signal Processing, which is the umbrella over the components that we're developing. Energy Signal Processing being a technology approach that takes the old analog circuit architectures that have been around now for almost 100 years‑‑I mean, they're not vacuum tubes anymore but they're the same circuits. Marconi would recognize those circuits‑‑and replace them with what we call Energy Signal Processing, which is a digital processing implementation of radio signals both on the receiver as well as the transmitter.

The benefit of ESP technology is you are really liberating people from the constraints of the old analog architectures. And we'll talk a lot about what it means to break these old RF rules and the benefits of doing that, because there are many, many benefits of doing that.

The ESP technology is a result of our engineers and mathematicians really stepping outside of the design limitations that the analog circuits impose upon the designers, and really looking at how to process radio signals in a completely different light. And one of the things that I think is the most exciting about ESP technology in the longer term is not just what it can do for products that people are trying to design today for the next generation of 3G or 3.5G products, but the potential to influence future generations of wireless standards.

Today those standards are based on certain assumptions of what the radio transceiver can and cannot do‑‑how many people can I pack into a spectrum, what kind of adjacent channel rejection can I get, what kind of data rates are practical. Those are strongly influenced by the performance of radio transceivers. We will liberate people from a lot of the constraints that today they have to work around because of these older analog architectures.

So when I try to give a sort of high‑level analogy of what is ESP technology, what could you liken it to or try to compare it to. If you look at most of the wireless, well in fact pretty much all of the wireless digital communication products today, they are based on DSP‑‑Digital Signal Processors. And of course DSPs are in a lot more than just the wireless products, they're in audio music products and video products and really anyplace that you're processing analog audio, video, multimedia signals. DSPs have really become the standard, the norm, the de facto.

And if you think about why they've become so broadly adopted, think about the old music players or cassette tapes or eight‑tracks or records. It didn't make any difference how much money you spent on those analog machines, there was a certain amount of quality you were going to get out of the audio. It was going to have a certain amount of distortion, there was going to be a certain amount of background noise, and it really didn't make any difference how much money you spent.

DSPs come along and the CD digital music era ushers in. I can still remember hearing my first CD and going "Wow. That is crisper, clearer, more depth, less distortion at much less money than any of the old analog processed audio." So, sure, the audio still comes out of a speaker in an analog format, an analog signal, but the processing of that signal through DSPs became digital.

This is the same thing that ESP ‑ energy signal processors ‑ that we've developed are going to do for wireless communications.

When people have purchased our WiFi product, and they've gone from that 1000 foot outdoor distance to a mile, they say, "Why does it do that?" "How do you do that?" It wasn't through stronger transmitters, it was through having ESP. It was through having signal processing that was so much cleaner and noise floors that were so much lower and data packets that were so much better behaved that you could get much much closer to the theoretical perfection of what you'd like to as an engineer in an actual produced product.

So, ESPs have a big role to play in the future. I can tell you that it's ludicrous for me to believe or think that anybody could embrace the concept that analog radio transceiver technology that's been used for a hundred years could possibly be the right foundation going forward to some of the world's most advanced consumer products ever ‑ wireless digital communications. It's crazy!

So, if you can turn that analog processing digital, why wouldn't you do it? Not why would you do it, why wouldn't you do it?

Today we're going to talk about what ESPs do and how some of the benefits can be measured and seen. We can spend a whole day seminar on this. Hopefully, the day will come when we have day seminars for our customers on ESP technology. But today we've only got 45 minutes, so we're going to have to move through this pretty quickly.

What distinguishes energy signal processors from analog is they have the ability to process a radio signal optimally to the energy of that radio signal. Analog cannot process a radio signal in an optimal fashion. There's all kinds of inherent distortion and limitations to the analog processors.

When you can optimally process a radio waveform, you have the ability now to eliminate many circuit process that you don't need anymore. Some of them are redundant, some of them are large, they take up power, they take up size, and ESPs can eliminate that.

Last but not least, ESPs then become the fundamental umbrella over which our direct‑to‑RF power building block (d2p) and direct‑to‑data building block (d2d), receivers and transmitters, can spring forth from.

We're going to spend most of our time today talking about d2p because, frankly, that's where we're getting the traction with the OEMs.

It's a transmit chain replacement technology. If you look at the way a transmitter today is built ‑ let's use your cell phone handset as an example ‑ there are a chain of events that happen from the data domain up to the RF that goes out of your antenna. A d2p replaces all of that hardware from the data domain all the way to the radio domain.

So you no longer need transmitters, you no longer need power amplifiers ‑ at least not the analog ones, and you don't need any of the corresponding filters which are required to clean up some of that analog distortion that happens.

D2p technologies are not base stand dependent, meaning they can take any data waveform ‑ any analog or digital signal and convert that to the RF carrier without being specifically, a priori knowledgeable to what that data signal looks like. And they can produce a carrier at the RF power output that you're looking for in a single, unified step. There are no steps between the data domain and the RF domain at power in a d2p architecture ‑ it's one unified step from point A to point B.

Man 1:  Explain that again.

Jeff Parker:  OK, I have to show you a block diagram ‑ the way it's done traditionally, and then I'll show you how we convert it. Maybe that will help put some more detail to that.

Why are OEMs excited about d2p? Really it's three reasons, categorically.

Well, there's actually a fourth I should put up there now that I'm thinking about it. But number one is size. Today they're trying to pack more features into handsets: mp3 players and video conferencing and cameras and email data services.... And so, how do I pack all of this and not make my handset balloon?

Number two: performance. Building a radio transmitter in a mobile product is a difficult, challenging process especially for 3G and beyond that applications. How do I make those things behave properly over temperature, over voltage, over power ‑ meaning different powers depending upon where I am to the base station and over frequency, because I'm on different channels. It's a very complicated puzzle for analog, their hardware to deal with. And it's a lot of the limitations analog hardware imposes. It causes performance issues in mobile products.

Efficiency: How do I get a stable transmitter over all those operating conditions that doesn't use a lot of power? Because frankly, I've got a little battery. I don't have a lot of power.

Multimode capability: How do I get all the different things that I want to offer to my customer as an OEM in terms of different networks, different geographical solutions.... It's CDMA here, it's Y‑band CDMA there, it's EDGE someplace else, it's GSM, ultimately with WiFi.... How do I get all that packed into this little product called a handset?

And last but not least, my fourth bullet: How do I get it out at a cost that I can make money?

And these are the four reasons why OEMs are excited about d2p. We address all four of those in no small way.

If you look at a traditional handset ‑ and this is kind of hard for you guys to see from where you're sitting. But what you see here: this blue box on the top is a kind of floor plan of a block diagram of a handset. And here I've got my base band processor ‑ my BSP that's putting data. And ultimately I'm trying to get that data from here to go out my antenna.

And what I have to do today is, I have to take that data into a traditional radio frequency transmitter where I go from the data domain to the RF domain. But the transmitted signal is small. It's not enough to go any place. I'm going to have to boost that signal. But even with the little, tiny signal that I just generated for this transmitter there's distortions because of the analog process.

So you know what I have to do? I have to put a filter here. And if I've got a multi‑band transmitter for different frequencies I have multiple filters. And then I take that filter output into power amplifiers that are analog power amplifiers. And I amplify the signal to be large enough in signal power to get to the receiver I'm trying to talk to.

But I've got to go through another filter because, you know what? The signal's been distorted again. And so, it's kind of a one step forward, half a step back, one step forward, half a step back process and that's what [xx] power and size and cost.

The chain here that we call the transmit chain on a single band 3G handset.... You know, this looks fairly simple. It looks like it's only four building blocks. Well, those four building blocks translate probably to 50, 60, 70 components. If it's a multi band you could be up to a couple hundred components. So it's not a particularly elegant affair and it's what people deal with today in the analog world.

We translate that entire chain into a single IC where you take the data out of the base stand into our chip. It translates that into single steps from the data domain to the radio domain, eliminates all those filters that would have normally been here and then comes out in a radio carrier that's at the power level. And yes, we still can go through a filter, though, we don't have a perfect transmit signal. But it's the same filter they're using today, so we don't impose any more requirements on them than they currently have, and then up to the antenna.

This can be a single chip. It can be a single mode, single band. It can be a single mode, multi band. It can be a multi mode, multi band. Typically you'll see for a chip like a d2p you'll have about 10 to 20 little, supporting components depending upon how many bands and how many modes of operation you're trying to deliver.

So that's now a high level block diagram overview of the difference between a traditional approach and a d2p.

This is my favorite part of the discussion. We could get lost here for the next few hours but my CFO won't let me ‑ she'll throw something at me because she says we have a lot more to cover than just these [xx] steps. But frankly this is why OEMs want to do business with Parker Ridge and where we are right now.

When you walk in to an OEM with a new technology and you're one of hundreds that's trying to get their business what you have to quickly do to distinguish yourself is help them understand that not only do you understand their problems, but you have a solution for their problems that doesn't take something with one hand and give it back with another. What we're going to show you here in five or ten minutes is just a taste of how the d2p balances competing objectives that analog transmit chains are not able to balance like a d2p digital architecture can.

So what I'm showing you here is this: We take a d2p demo board, which is a little circuit board that has our d2p technology on it, and we go into an OEM and we hook it up to some Agilent test gear which is pretty much the Cadillac standard, the gold standard in the RF industry. All the OEMs we do business with either have Agilent test gear or the competing gear from a company called Rohde and Schwarz, which is maybe 20% of the market out there.

What that gear allows you to do is to take a radio signal on the transmitter and plug into that equipment and it will do an automatic assessment for you of all of the values of what you're generating. And it will quickly help an OEM determine: Have you really created a transmitted waveform that meets the standard, that meets the government regulations, that really does what is necessary to make it into a product? And so you've got to pass this litmus test. I mean, there's even tests beyond this, but this is a good leap to getting an OEMs attention.

What I'm showing you here is this is a GSM transmitted signal that we put into this piece of Agilent test gear. And this is the screen of the test gear on this screen capture. What you see here is a circle ‑ well, it looks like an ellipse. If this TV were perfect it would look like a circle. And the way this modulated analyzed signal works is the Agilent test gear takes these four areas, which are the vectors of the GSM data and draws a line between them. And if it's a perfect, ideal radio signal you would have a perfect circle.

So a zero degree error in the phase of that circle would be... or in the phase would result in an ideal GSM modulation. The GSM standard says you can have up to five degrees of error which is the distortion. But the peak error can be up to 20 degrees. And this error will relate to data packets that are being lost. It will relate to other non‑ideal conditions that as an OEM you want to avoid. The typical transmitter is going to be probably in the three, four degree range here, and, you know, 10, 12, 15 degree range here. We are at point one eight degree of error.

And this is an error that, you don't see this kind of quality even from base station equipment which is a card, not chips that are plugged into the wall with unlimited amounts of power.

The peak error, which can be up to 20 degrees, is less than half a degree. So, when they see this‑‑and I've actually been in meetings with very experienced RF engineers who will put their nose right up on the screen, and they'll say, "I've never seen anything like that." And that's the first thing that we'll typically show someone.

Now, you'll see this is a 1.9 gigahertz frequency output from this chip. And it's running at full power: two watts for this particular implementation. And the reason those are important is that's the PCS band, which is a harder thing to generate than the cellular band. And this 33 dBm is full power. If you wanted to fudge this, you'd go down in power. You'd say, "Look at this perfect circle!" And then, as you run up in power, you'd see the circle distort. So, we're starting at full power.

The next thing we do is we take the d2p and we change the frequency from 1.9 gigahertz to 1.8 gigahertz. We've moved 100 megahertz over. That's many channels. And guess what happens to the phase error. The phase error goes from 0.18 to 0.14. And the peak goes from 0.48 to [xx]... It got a little better. And they would look at that and they would say, "Wow. That's pretty impressive, over 100 megahertz of frequency spectrum." So we say, "Well, let's go the other direction." And we go just under two gigahertz.

So we've got a 200 megahertz wide spectrum, and your phase error hasn't changed. And it's the best they've ever seen. That's covering, now, the Korean PCS band, the Japanese PCS band, the American PCS band, the European‑‑that doesn't miss any of the PCS bands. And there's another 3G band at 2.1 gig. But to cover 200 megahertz of spectrum, that's an impressive result.

Next thing we do is we put up this test. This is a wideband CDMA test. And we're showing here these are the data vectors that have been analyzed. And what you're seeing here in these yellow lines is the transmitted signal is drawing these data vectors, and this machine is putting that up. And what you want your transmitter to do is to have the smallest possible dot you can, because that gives you the highest data throughput you can get. If you overshoot and undershoot those constellation points, you begin to degrade the signal.

The way that's measured is two ways. One measurement's called rho. Rho is the aggregate measurement of where is the energy in your radio transmitter waveform at any given moment in time, versus where it's supposed to be. If all the energy is exactly where it's supposed to be, you have a rho of one: 100 percent. Can't get better than that. The standard says you can have a 0.944: 94.4 percent. You could think of it like that.

Our rho is 0.99945. And I don't even know if the test here can test beyond that. But you don't see this in the market. You don't see this any place. You don't even see this in base stations, OK?

The EVM, the error vector magnitude, that says: how accurate are these vector points being represented? How much overshoot and undershoot does your transmitter have? You can have up to 17.5 percent. We have 2.3 percent. These are spectacular numbers.

Now, this is run at full power. But let me show you what's very interesting about this. This is 1.8 gigahertz in the PCS spectrum. The voltage power in this chip is only 2.4 volts. And let me tell you the significance of that. The significance of that is your battery in your handset, at full charge, is going to be at 4.2 volts. When it drops, it's going to go down to 2.7. Below 2.7, your handset's not going to work, so you would normally just test this down to 2.7.

But the reason we show this at 2.4 is this shows you that you have margin in your components here, so it'll handle over temperature and manufacturing tolerances, and that you're better than what they require from the batteries they're currently using.

So we then go from 2.4 volts up to 4.2. And you can say, "Well, maybe when you go into the other side of the voltage that you're going to distort the signal." And what you'd see is you go from a 0.999 rho to 0.998. And then we take this signal and we move it from 1.8 gig to almost two gig, back down to 2.4 volts, and you're still at 0.9999 rho and 2.59 percent on the error vector.

What this is showing you is this is not a technology that you're trying to balance BBs on a razor blade, as our CTO likes to say. You have a lot of robust forgiveness in this. The same thing you'd expect to get out of the digital signal processor that you're getting at base band signals, you're getting out of an energy signal processor on the D2P component here.

This is the EDGE waveform. Remember, we saw the four points of the GSM. So you take the GSM signal and you'd make more data points out of it, and you get the EDGE, which is the 2.75G standard. This is a very challenging waveform to create. This is kind of: how do you pack 10 pounds into an 8‑pound bag? This is how the GSM people said, "We can upgrade our networks less expensively before we get to 3G, by layering some things on top of the GSM network."

Well, that's true, but they've put a tremendous burden on the mobile products, because to make this data constellation is not trivial. And you can see this in the specs. You can have up to a nine percent EVM and 30 percent peak. Well, we do this at less than 1.5 percent on the average EVM and less than six percent on the peak. So here, you're sitting at full power, at 3.6 volts, at 1.9 gigahertz, and you've got these wonderful performance metrics.

And now I want to show you something a little different. One of the things an OEM wants to see is, "OK, you've shown me that your signal is pristine; it's really nice. Well, what about the spectrum around the signal that I'm not wanting?" In other words, you have a radio carrier, and if you have a perfect radio carrier, you'd have this nice rectangular‑looking piece of spectrum that you're using, and around that, you wouldn't be using any spectrum or you wouldn't be creating any spectrum.

But any non‑linearities that you have will grow radio, will grow frequency transmitted that you don't want. And we grow it. We don't have a perfectly linear process, so we have some regrowth, just like the analog does.

But what these numbers show you here is the equipment here measures different distances off the center of the frequency you're generating. And if you had zeros up and down here, that would say that you passed the standard. You're not regrowing unwanted spectrum beyond what we allow you to as a standard, but you have no margin for manufacturing. You have no margin over temperature. You have no margin over other operating conditions.

So, what you see here is we have anywhere from 6.8 DDC of margin, minimum, all the way up to ‑21. The bigger the negative number here, the more margin you have. Many transmitters you would see would have margins of one, two, or maybe they'd have numbers that look like this at one operating condition, but they'd be just skirting the edge on the edge of the frequency band, or low power conditions, or some other operating condition.

So, this would tend to be its worst at high voltage because it would tend to want to re‑grow in nonlinearity more quickly and you'll see excellent performance there. So, if I was a skeptic I'd say, "Well, maybe your technology regrows at the low voltage."

So, we go down to the low voltage. We go down to the low voltage, this one, and you'll see we still have excellent results. And then we do one more thing, this is a full power output out of the transmit, out of the V/P. We then drop the power down, from of a watt down to less than 0 dBm.

And what you'll see here is our numbers aren't as good. And this one here you know just skirts by. But that's under an extraordinary condition where you're 3/10 of a volt below what the carrier [sp] can even deliver. So, what this is showing you is that this technology is extraordinary in its quality: its ability to generate the kind of quality waveform that you would expect out of our [sp] transmitter.

This is my last chart of our technology. This is an interesting one. This is showing you‑‑so here's the frequency spectrum and here's power. And this is actually a CDMA 2000 transmitter waveform. Remember I told you before, if you could take a perfect signal, it would be like a rectangle. It'd be like flat here, straight down here, and straight down here.

This blue line is a traditional CDMA transmitter. And you can see it can't get that nice, crisp, rectangular look that you want. So, it's just skirting by here on those specs that are measured at the various points along the way.

Well, the green line is V/P. While it's not perfect, it is so much closer to theoretically what you want to generate. And it's not even a close contest. So, the difference between here and here is what V/P does, which is an enormous benefit. How? More users can get on the spectrum. I can now put people closer. I mean we'll get to that in the presentation. There are a lot of reasons why you want to do that.

CDMA is probably the most challenging transmit waveform to generate because it requires a lot of linearity which is why you see people having problems in here. So, I show you this one because out of all of them, this would be the most difficult one for us to make look like that.

Now, I'm just going to spend a minute on the traditional technology: so what people use today. Well, this is the chart right off of the datasheet of a very high quality wideband CDMA power amp. I won't tell you which company, but it's a very well known company and again a very high quality component. And this is a very great component for an analog component.

What you're going to see here is the challenge people have in trying to use these in a handset. So, this chart here shows you here's the power out of the PA. I can make the power go up. And what these numbers are showing you on this axis is that regrowth area that we don't want. Right? We want this to be as big a negative number as possible. This is the area that's outside of the channel I'm interested in.

Well for wideband CDMA, for this particular measurement you want to be ‑33 or lower. So you can see, "Oh this is very high speed behavior here Jeff. What's the big deal man? The form looks pretty good."

Well, let me show you where the problem comes. You'll see it runs really nice and flat until you get up here to about 25 or 26 dBm and then all of a sudden it goes catastrophically bad.

What that is is these analog power amplifiers all have a compression, what's called a P1 compression point. It uses that. You push the power out of the amplifier as far as you can push it before it goes nonlinear. Once it goes nonlinear, that's what you're going to get. You're going to get a nonlinear result.

So, here's the rub. Why do people push them close to this point? Why do you care about this area? Well, let me tell you why we care about this area. That same component, these are the efficiency curves.

So, here's what it shows you. When you're at about 27 or 28 dBm of power out which is the full power of a wideband CDMA transmitter, you're running at about 40, 45% efficiency. That's pretty good.

But guess what? If I'm pushing power out at that point, look at how close I am to going nonlinear: very close. So, what do I do? Nobody can run them here. You run them back here on the flat part of the curve because you've got to assume over temperature, voltage changes, other operating conditions, I can't go here.

So, where they really run these is right about here: 25dbm. Well, this isn't 25 dBm. What's the efficiency at 25? Well, it's no more than 45 or 50%. At 25 it's just under 30% efficiency.

So when you look at a PA, and one of the important reasons to show you this is you're going to go away from this presentation inevitably a week from now or less you're going to look at some announcement from some PA manufacturer: 48% efficiency A, 50% efficiency A.

Well, that's all true, right here. You can't use it there. And nobody does. So, that's not the story. The story is where do you apply it. And that's not the only story, because the PA is only a part of the power consumption. Right? There's also a transmitter that you use to feed the signal in to that. Well, how much does that draw? So, ultimately it's a bigger job to understand the efficiency of the transmitter than just to look at a single spec sheet on their top headline.

We're not going to share with you today our curves because frankly they're very good, but they're also something I'm going to have to hand you over to our competition right now: let them work for them.

But, I will give you a couple of points on our curves which are very important. On CDMA, at full power out, it's over 50% efficient. So, what's exciting of that to the OEMs about that is our 50% is a real 50%. We have no P1 compression point because we don't put RF into a component and have RF come out of a component.

There is no compression. It's data in our temps [sp]. So, when we set it for full power, that's what you get. They can count on that. The reason we give you the 17 dBm output power is that is the power that most handsets for CDMA and wideband CDMA operate at most of the time. And in our situation we're at 30% efficient.

That compares, by the way, with the analog transmit chain at full power they're going to be in the low 30 percentile, high 20 percentile efficiency. And at the 17 dBm, you're going to see eight to 12%, something like that, efficiency range.

Here on wideband CDMA range, we're at 44% efficient full power. You're going to see analog chains in the mid 20s. And at 17 dBm, we're at 22% efficient versus the analog chains are going to be in the 6%, 8%, 5%, not very efficient.

Audience member:  And efficient is usage of power?

Jeff Parker:  Yes, it's power in versus RF out. So, an the example if I had half a watt going out of my transmitter, and I was using a watt, that'd be 50% efficient.

So, a couple of things I want to point out. All these charts and graphs that you just saw on the d2p, those are all from the same d2p. In other words, I didn't‑‑we don't go to an OEM and say, "We're going to show you this d2p for wideband CDMA. We're going to show you that d2p for CDMA. We're going to show you another one for GSM, a fourth for EDGE."

Those all went through one d2p. So, that's the multimode capability. Now, can you make a more elegant, less expensive d2p that's just single‑band, single‑mode? Of course you can. So there will be a range, there will be a family. And there will be single‑mode d2ps, multimode d2ps, single‑band d2ps, multi‑band d2ps. But I want to point out from our charts we showed you today, that's from a single multimode d2p.

Our receiver technology is also very exciting. I think just the OEMs get excited about adopting that after the d2p, but many of you actually use our WiFi products, you've experienced that for yourself.

One of the things that I think some of the OEMs are beginning to get a hint and a clue and a good idea about when they test our WiFi products is that the d2d is going to have the impact of helping people create networks with fewer dropped calls, better handoff, and better coverage.

Many of you who have experienced our WiFi products, you'll walk out with client product to the edge of reception and you'll notice that when you come back toward the access point that it'll reconnect within a couple of steps, versus a traditional analog radio that you may have to go back halfway to the router.

What does that translate into in the cellular world? It translates into much better handoffs and much better connectivity. So we think the d2d will come, but it's going to come after the d2p.

This is just a chart that shows our WiFi performance and what a lot of people have experienced against the analog radio front end.

Patent protection for our company is obviously very important. It's not our job to do free research and development for the world. So we spent a lot of time and effort and money in protecting our patents.

We currently have 22 issued in the US, 37 foreign, over 90 that are pending. We file multiple patents, typically, a quarter. We have a good, I think, discipline in our company for filing patents as the technology advances, and not waiting for a long time. And we have a firm that we work with on patents that we are very pleased with that we think is probably one of the top independent, maybe the top independent patent firms for electronics in the country.

No question that this is why people are excited about our targets, the market being 3G, because of what we can do for them for battery life and performance.

The size of the market is no big secret. There's going to be over a billion handsets shipped worldwide starting in the next couple years; it's already about three‑quarters of a billion today. The value of the semiconductors that get shipped into that space is almost topping five billion a year if you add up the power amplifiers, transmitters, and receivers for both the cellular and any of the WiFi that goes into a handset. Obviously WiFi outside of that is even bigger, but this chart is just dealing with cellular and WiFi transceivers and PAs that go into handsets.

The market trends are in our favor. This is the time for ParkerVision Technologies to really dovetail purposefully into what people are looking for. They're looking at taking simple handsets and turning them into all sorts of interesting user devices.

Nokia just made an announcement, I think it was last week, that they predicted over a hundred million smart phones will ship next year in the industry. That's amazing if you think about it‑‑a hundred million smart phones. So those smart phones are just a perfect example of the trend in this whole industry and why the d2p architecture is so important for that trend.

The challenges of more power consumption because of new features‑‑how do I get more things on a crowded circuit board, how do I balance size and battery life, how do I get broadband connectivity in both directions. Today, broadband cellular is only broadband cellular from the base station to the handset. It's still fairly narrow‑band back from the base station. We help people with that significantly. And our advantage really translates in all those metrics, in not only 3G, but also 3.5G and 4G, which are already starting to come off the drawing boards now. So our story resonates nicely with OEMs for all the reasons we talked about earlier.

Consumers, same reason. Today we are very focused on OEM dialogs, although as we move through OEM dialogs we also begin to have [xx] and manufacturer dialogues that we're interfacing our components to. A little later, not in the too distant future, you'll begin to see, I believe, the company engaging service providers as well in dialogue. The technology is advanced now to the point where they can really get excited, we believe, hearing what we can do to help their network and helping influence that back to the OEM, who is trying to determine what their next platform technology is.

If you take away anything from today's conversation, what I hope you would take away is ParkerVision is very quickly approaching an inflection point. It's approaching an inflection point because we have a solution to a problem that everybody knows about. We're not explaining to these OEMs, "Oh, do you know you have a problem in battery consumption, or battery life in 3G handsets? Oh, do you know you have a problem in putting both of those products together?"

They know they have these problems, and so our opportunity really for an inflection point is now, which is why I thought it was so exciting to be able to show you those charts of what our component does today in delivering that performance over all those operating conditions. That's what bites most RF companies. When they walk in with a good idea, and the OEM really starts throwing down, they'll find places that it falls apart. They haven't found any place where our technology falls apart.

Legacy technologies: Guys, they have reached their point of diminishing returns. I will be very surprised if five years from now any new designs start that are not digital transceivers. So while you may have an audience out there yipping and yapping today about, "Oh, analog is the way it's always been done," it's ludicrous, for all the reasons we talked about and more that we don't have time to talk about.

The ESP technology will fill those critical gaps and help people with their goal. Breaking the rules of traditional RF, I can tell you OEMs have never been more open to hearing about how you're going to help them break those rules. I think that's our message: we feel we finally have come to our inflection point, and those are the reasons why.

Business Models, very quickly: The S‑chip, I think you'll also see the company have OEMs interested in licensing agreements. Some OEMs will see value in how they can partition the system, in breaking the digital transceiver technology differently than just on the periphery of plugging into chips as they exist today. So I think you'll see Parker Vision as both yet the fab and semi company, but also as a technology provider through IT licensing.

Caller:  These agreements with these OEMs, how is it that our R&D is finally getting exposed?

Jeff Parker:  Say that again?

Caller:  These fiber agreements with these OEMs.

Jeff Parker:  Right now we're not engaging any OEM and asking them to help us do research, because then you get into the unenviable place of saying, "Well, how do you deal with co‑invention? How do you deal with IP contamination?"

So right now when we think of IP licensing, it's, "Hey, Mr. OEM, we've got a core we've developed, and we can port that to whatever processor you want. We'd be happy to license you that core, which you can add to semiconductors with other system functions or you can run on the fab of your choice." But that's more along the lines of what we are working towards, not, "Help us evolve our technology." At least that's not today's current discussions.

I've taken up the entire time including your Q&A. I'm sorry. I tried to go as quickly as possible, but we do have a couple minutes. If you guys have any questions, please feel free now, because I would be happy to try to answer them if I can. [cuts off]