Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01578/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
SynQor, Inc.
Appellee
Vicor Corporation
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VICOR CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

SYNQOR, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1578

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,702.

______________________ 

Decided: March 13, 2015

______________________ 

 MATTHEW A. SMITH, Turner Boyd LLP, Redwood City, 

CA, argued for appellant.

CONSTANTINE L. TRELA, JR., Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by JILL 

BROWNING, ARNOLD TURK, GARY V. HARKCOM, BRUCE 

HAROLD STONER, JR., Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C., 

Reston, VA.

______________________ 

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2015
2 VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 

Before TARANTO, MAYER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit 

Judges.

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an inter partes reexamination of 

U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 (“the ’190 patent”), owned by 

SynQor, Inc. (“SynQor”). The examiner rejected claims 20-

23, 27, 29, 30, 32, and 33 as anticipated by two prior art 

patents to Steigerwald, all but one remaining claims as 

obvious over the Steigerwald patents in view of other 

references, and all claims as obvious over other references. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) 

reversed all rejections, Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., No. 

2014-001733 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014), and third-party 

requestor Vicor Corporation (“Vicor”) appeals. 

We reverse as to the anticipation rejection and vacate 

and remand each obviousness rejection.

BACKGROUND

I 

A 

The ’190 patent, entitled “High Efficiency Power Converter,” issued on July 4, 2006, and claims priority to an 

application filed January 23, 1998. 

It describes a direct current-to-direct current (“DC-toDC”) power converter that takes direct current power as 

input and outputs direct current at a different voltage 

level. The claimed invention accomplishes this conversion 

using two stages: an isolation stage, followed by a plurality of regulation stages. The invention’s isolation stage 

uses what the patent sometimes calls controlled rectifiers 

and sometimes calls synchronous rectifiers. See, e.g., ’190 

Patent col.6 ll.22-41. Any difference between the terms is 

immaterial for present purposes.

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2015
VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 3

The ’190 patent issued with 33 claims, of which claims 

1, 20, 27, 30, and 33 are independent. During this reexamination, SynQor amended its claims to add dependent 

claims 34-38. 

Claim 20 is the patent’s broadest system claim: 

A power converter system comprising:

a DC power source;

a non-regulating isolation stage comprising:

a primary transformer winding circuit having at 

least one primary winding connected to the 

source; and

a secondary transformer winding circuit having at 

least one secondary winding coupled to the at 

least one primary winding and having plural controlled rectifiers, each having a parallel uncontrolled rectifier and each connected to a secondary 

winding, each controlled rectifier being turned on 

and off in synchronization with the voltage waveform across a primary winding to provide an output; and

a plurality of non-isolating regulation stages, each 

receiving the output of the isolation stage and 

regulating a regulation stage output.

The ’190 patent has been the subject of both infringement litigation before this court and a prior inter partes 

reexamination. Vicor was not a party to either proceeding.

In SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., the jury 

found that claims 2, 8, 10, and 19 were infringed and were 

not invalid as anticipated or obvious, and the trial court 

denied judgment as a matter of law. No. 2:07-CV-497-

TJW-CE, 2011 WL 3625051 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2011). 

This court affirmed, holding that sufficient evidence 

supported the jury’s finding that the asserted prior art did 

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/13/2015
4 VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 

not teach or suggest a converter with “a plurality of nonisolated regulation stages.” 709 F.3d 1365, 1374-75 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 648 (SynQor I).1

Inter Partes Reexamination No. 95/001,207 confirmed 

the patentability of claims 1-33 in a certificate issued 

September 15, 2014. The examiner considered the two 

Steigerwald patents at issue here, among other references. Information Disclosure Statement by Patentee, 

Reexamination No. 95/001,207 (May 8, 2014).

B 

Two prior art patents to Steigerwald et al. are at issue: U.S. Patent No. 5,274,539 (filed Dec. 4, 1991) (“Steigerwald ’539”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,377,090 (filed Jan. 

19, 1993) (“Steigerwald ’090”). 

Both patents teach DC-to-DC power converters and 

are directed to similar fields of invention, specifically, 

power converters for supplying pulsed loads. Steigerwald 

’090 cites Steigerwald ’539 as a related patent and incorporates it by reference as follows:

This application is related to commonly assigned 

U.S. Pat. No. 5,274,539 of R. L. Steigerwald and 

R. A. Fisher, issued Dec. 28, 1993, and to commonly assigned abandoned U.S. patent application 

Ser. No. 811,631 of R. L. Steigerwald, filed Dec. 

1 Defendants presented evidence about Steigerwald 

’090 during the trial, but jurors were instructed to disregard testimony about its relationship to the ’190 patent’s

claims. Transcript of Jury Trial at 43-50, SynQor, Inc. v. 

Artesyn Techs., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00497-RWS (E.D. Tex. 

Dec. 17, 2010) (Dkt. 901). When it affirmed the denial of 

judgment as a matter of law, this court discussed only 

references not at issue here. SynQor I, 709 F.3d at 1374.

 

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/13/2015
VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 5

23, 1991, both of which are incorporated by reference herein.

Steigerwald ’090 col.1 ll.6-12. The two patents issued from 

separate applications.

1 

Steigerwald ’539 teaches a converter that has a single

regulation stage followed by a single isolation stage. In its 

primary embodiment, the isolation stage uses diodes as 

rectifiers. In an alternative embodiment, Steigerwald ’539 

teaches substituting controlled rectifiers for the diodes:

In other alternative embodiments, such as those 

of FIGS. 7-9, synchronous rectifiers SRa and SRb 

are used instead of diodes CRa and CRb of FIGS. 

4 and 6.

Steigerwald ’539 col.4 ll.58-60. 

Figure 4, for example, shows where this substitution 

takes place. In Figure 4, the output of a pre-regulator 

circuit 30 feeds into the isolation stage, which is a capacitance-multiplying converter 20. Diodes CRa and CRb are 

within the capacitance-multiplying converter: 

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/13/2015
6 VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 

2 

Steigerwald ’090 teaches a converter that has a single 

isolation stage followed by a plurality of regulation stages. 

These regulation stages allow Steigerwald ’090 to provide 

multiple output voltages. The isolation stage uses diodes 

as rectifiers, and Steigerwald ’090 does not disclose using 

controlled rectifiers in place of the diodes.

Its only figure, Figure 1, is as follows:

Although no item 20 is labeled on this figure, Steigerwald ’090’s specification explains that Figure 1 shows 

a power module that “includes a capacitance-multiplying 

converter 20.” The specification further says that the 

items with labels prefixed CR are diode rectifiers, and 

that they are within the capacitance-multiplying converter. Steigerwald ’090 col.2 ll.14-40.

Steigerwald ’090 explains the capacitance-multiplying 

converter in Figure 1 using language that is identical, 

apart from a rearranged sentence, to Steigerwald ’539’s 

description of that converter in its Figure 4. Compare 

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/13/2015
VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 7

Steigerwald ’090 col.2 ll.14-33 with Steigerwald ’539 col.3 

ll.14-32.

C 

The examiner’s rejections relied on two additional prior art references: Abraham I. Pressman, Switching and 

Linear Power Supply Converter Design, Hayden Book Co., 

NJ (1977) (“Pressman”) and J.A. Cobos & J. Uceda, Low 

Output Voltage DC/DC Conversion, IEEE (1994) (“Cobos”). Their teachings are not relevant to our disposition 

of this appeal.

II

A 

The examiner instituted inter partes reexamination

and ultimately rejected all claims, including both issued 

claims 1-33 and new claims 34-38. Right of Appeal Notice, 

Reexamination No. 95/001,702 (Nov. 26, 2011).

The examiner found that Steigerwald ’090 incorporates the text and drawings of Steigerwald ’539 by reference. He reasoned that Steigerwald ’090 expressly 

incorporates Steigerwald ’539, the two are directed to the 

same type of converter, and their figures and text teach 

“nearly identical” isolation stages. Id. at 8-9. 

The examiner then concluded that the combined reference teaches applying Steigerwald ’539’s alternative 

embodiment, which replaces diodes in the isolation stage

with controlled rectifiers, to Steigerwald ’090, which 

teaches an isolation stage that uses diodes, followed by 

multiple regulation stages. Id. at 3 (adopting proposed 

rejection from Corrected Request for Inter Partes Reexamination, Reexamination No. 95/001,702, at 8-14 (Sept. 

8, 2011)). He accordingly rejected claims 20-23, 27, 29, 30, 

32, and 33 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by the 

combined reference. Id.

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/13/2015
8 VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 

All other claims, apart from new claim 34, were rejected as obvious over the combined Steigerwald reference 

in view of various permutations of Cobos, Pressman, and 

the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. 

at 4-7.

The examiner also rejected all claims as obvious over 

Cobos in view of Pressman. Id. at 5-6.

B 

SynQor appealed, and the Board reversed all rejections. Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., No. 2014-001733 

(P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014).

The Board first reversed the anticipation rejection. It 

found that Steigerwald ’090 “does not identify any particular sections or specific subject matter [within Steigerwald ’539] to be associated with particular

embodiments,” and concluded that it incorporates no more 

than Steigerwald ’539’s text. Id., slip op. at 7. The Board 

then found that the combined reference did not teach a 

single embodiment that has an isolation stage that uses 

controlled rectifiers, followed by multiple regulation 

stages. In reaching this conclusion, the Board did not 

consider whether the combined reference taught applying 

Steigerwald ’539’s alternative embodiment to Steigerwald 

’090. Instead, it reasoned that Steigerwald ’090 does not 

teach “swapping around” Steigerwald ’539’s stages to 

create an isolation stage followed by multiple regulation 

stages. Id., slip op. at 7-8.

The Board then reversed each of the obviousness rejections that were based on the Steigerwald patents

because it found that a person of skill in the art would not 

have been motivated to combine the Steigerwald patents’

teachings. Id., slip op. at 9-13, 17-18. 

Finally, the Board reversed the obviousness rejections 

over Cobos and Pressman. Relevant here, it concluded 

that SynQor had shown commercial success “sufficient to 

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/13/2015
VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 9

overcome the Examiner’s conclusion” that the claims were 

nonobvious over those references. Id., slip op. at 21.

DISCUSSION

I 

An invention is not patentable if “the invention was 

patented or described in a printed publication . . . more 

than one year prior to the date of the application.” 35 

U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006).2

A patent claim is invalid as anticipated if “the four 

corners of a single, prior art document describe every 

element of the claimed invention, either expressly or 

inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art 

could practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 

F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Other material may be

considered as part of the single document if the host 

document incorporates it by reference. Id.

A host document incorporates material by reference if 

it “identif[ies] with detailed particularity what specific 

material it incorporates and clearly indicate[s] where that 

material is found in the various documents.” Id. Whether 

the host document describes the material with sufficient 

particularity is determined from the point of view of a 

person of reasonable skill in the art. Id. at 1283. 

This court reviews the Board’s legal conclusions de 

novo and its factual determinations for substantial evidence. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 

2013). Anticipation is a question of fact, while incorporation by reference, and therefore “what material . . . consti2 Because the application that led to the ’190 patent 

was filed before the America Invents Act was adopted, the 

prior version of §§ 102 and 103 applies. 

 

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/13/2015
10 VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 

tutes the single reference” for anticipation purposes, is a 

question of law. Advanced Display Sys., 212 F.3d at 1283. 

On appeal, SynQor asserts that, although Steigerwald 

’090 expressly incorporates Steigerwald ’539, it fails to 

identify specific portions of Steigerwald ’539’s teaching 

with the “detailed particularity” required for incorporation. If Steigerwald ’090 incorporates Steigerwald ’539’s 

text, SynQor contends that the combined reference does 

not anticipate because it does not teach applying Steigerwald ’539’s substitution of controlled rectifiers for 

diodes to Steigerwald ’090’s embodiment.

We reject both arguments. As the examiner observed, 

the two patents teach an isolation stage that is “nearly 

identical.” Right of Appeal Notice, Reexamination No. 

95/001,702, at 9 (Nov. 26, 2011). The top left portion of 

Steigerwald ’090’s Figure 1 shows the same circuit as the 

portion of Steigerwald ’539’s Figure 4 labeled the capacitance-multiplying converter 20. The patents’ specifications describe this stage identically apart from variations 

in item numbers and one rearranged sentence. Compare 

Steigerwald ’539 col.3 ll.14-32 with Steigerwald ’090 col.2 

ll.14-33. Most compellingly, Steigerwald ’090’s specification refers to the “capacitance-multiplying converter 20” 

even though no item 20 is labeled in its own figures. 

Instead, the converter is labeled in Figure 4 of Steigerwald ’539. A person of ordinary skill in the art would 

have understood that Steigerwald ’090 identifies the

capacitance-multiplying converter in Steigerwald ’539 

with detailed particularity. 

We therefore hold that Steigerwald ’090 incorporates 

by reference at least those teachings of Steigerwald ’539 

that relate to its capacitance-multiplying converter 20. 

The incorporated teachings include Steigerwald ’539’s 

alternative embodiment, which teaches a substitution 

that takes place within the isolation stage:

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/13/2015
VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 11

In other alternative embodiments, such as those 

of FIGS. 7-9, synchronous rectifiers SRa and SRb 

are used instead of diodes CRa and CRb of FIGS. 

4 and 6.

Steigerwald ’539 col.4 ll.58-60; see also id. at fig.4 (showing that diodes CRa and CRb are within the capacitancemultiplying converter 20).

SynQor argues that this substitution, even if taught 

by the combined reference, does not apply to the converter 

of Steigerwald ’090 because that embodiment is “separate 

and distinct.” For support, it points to the Board’s conclusion that the substitution “is contrary to the express 

purpose of both patents.” SynQor also highlights differences between the circuits’ induction stages, including

Steigerwald ’090’s use of series regulators and addition of 

various connections.

These arguments are unavailing. First, “teaching 

away is not relevant to an anticipation analysis.” Krippelz 

v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Second, the differences SynQor identifies in the inventions’ isolation stages occur at their periphery and would 

not stop a person of skill in the art from recognizing the 

overall identity between them. The differences also appear driven by the circuits’ reversed ordering of the isolation and regulation stages; for example, SynQor tells us 

that Steigerwald ’090’s isolation stage includes series 

regulators because it is not preceded by a regulation 

stage. Brief of Appellee at 29. 

We accordingly hold that the combined reference 

teaches substituting controlled rectifiers for diodes within 

the capacitance-multiplying converter 20 of both Steigerwald ’539’s Figure 4 and Steigerwald ’090’s Figure 1.

The combined reference teaches a single embodiment that 

anticipates all elements of representative claim 20, and 

we reverse the Board’s conclusion to the contrary.

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/13/2015
12 VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 

II

An invention is not patentable if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the 

prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole 

would have been obvious at the time the invention was 

made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which 

said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006). 

This test requires consideration of four factors, among 

them “objective evidence of nonobviousness” such as

commercial success. Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 

F.3d 1372, 1375, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

We vacate and remand each of the Board’s obviousness rejections for further consideration in light of our 

conclusion that the combined Steigerwald reference 

anticipates claims 20-23, 27, 29, 30, 32, and 33.

The Board’s reversal of the obviousness rejections 

that involved the Steigerwald patents was premised on its 

conclusion that the combined reference did not anticipate 

those claims.

While the obviousness rejection over Cobos and 

Pressman does not directly involve the Steigerwald patents, the teachings of the combined Steigerwald reference may be relevant to any objective evidence of 

nonobviousness. For example, commercial success is 

evidence of obviousness only when there is a “nexus . . . 

between the merits of the claimed invention and evidence 

of commercial success.” Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA 

Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Vicor 

should have the opportunity to argue that SynQor’s 

evidence of commercial success is attributable not to the 

claimed invention, but to the prior art converter taught by 

the combined Steigerwald references.

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 12 Filed: 03/13/2015
VICOR CORPORATION v. SYNQOR, INC. 13

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-1578 Document: 37-2 Page: 13 Filed: 03/13/2015