Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01264/USCOURTS-ca13-23-01264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bell Semiconductor LLC
Appellee
NXP B.V.
Appellant
NXP Semiconductors N.V.
Appellant
NXP USA, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

BELL SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,

Appellant

v.

NXP B.V., NXP USA, INC., NXP SEMICONDUCTORS 

N.V.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________

2023-1260, 2023-1262, 2023-1263, 2023-1264

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-

00966, IPR2021-00967.

______________________

Decided: December 5, 2024

______________________

BLAIR A. SILVER, Irell & Manella LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by JASON SHEASBY,

HONG ANNITA ZHONG, Los Angeles, CA. 

 TRUMAN FENTON, Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, 

Austin, TX, argued for cross-appellants. Also represented 

by BRIAN C. BANNER. 

 ______________________

Case: 23-1264 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 12/05/2024
2 BELL SEMICONDUCTOR LLC v. NXP B.V.

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

In this consolidated appeal, Bell Semiconductor LLC 

(“Bell”) appeals from the final written decisions in two inter 

partes reviews (“IPRs”), determining that 23 claims of U.S. 

Patents 8,049,340 (“the ’340 patent”) and 8,288,269 (“the 

’269 patent”) were unpatentable. NXP B.V. and related 

entities (collectively, “NXP”) cross-appeal the final written 

decisions in those same IPRs with respect to 11 of the 

remaining 16 challenged claims that the Board determined 

had not been shown to be unpatentable. NXP B.V. v. Bell

Semiconductor, LLC, No. IPR2021-000966 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 

2022) (“’340 Decision”), J.A. 1–81; NXP B.V. v. Bell 

Semiconductor, LLC, No. IPR2021-000967 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 

2022) (“’269 Decision”), J.A. 82–138.

1 For the following 

reasons, we affirm the decisions of the Board. 2

BACKGROUND

The ’340 patent is “directed to the design of an 

integrated circuit package that minimizes parasitic 

1 The final written decisions consolidated in this 

appeal share similar analyses of the issues relevant to the 

parties’ disputes. Unless otherwise indicated, we cite the

’340 Decision as representative.

2 NXP’s principal brief, in part, purports to challenge 

the Board’s determination with respect to claims 12, 15,

and 16 of the ’269 patent, requesting that this court 

“instead find these claims obvious.” NXP Principal Br. at 

77; see also id. at 62 (statement of the issues). However, 

the Board did find those claims obvious, ’269 Decision, J.A. 

135–37, and NXP appears to have dropped claims 12, 15,

and 16 from its conclusion statement in reply, see NXP 

Reply Br. at 20. For that reason, we will assume the 

statement in NXP’s principal brief was a typographical 

error rather than an improperly raised cross-appeal.

Case: 23-1264 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 12/05/2024
BELL SEMICONDUCTOR LLC v. NXP B.V. 3

capacitance between metal layers in a ball grid array

integrated circuit package.” ’340 patent at col. 1, ll. 10–13. 

Independent claim 1 of the ’340 patent claims “[a]n 

integrated circuit package substrate comprising” a series of 

electrically conductive and insulating layers, wherein the 

second electrically conductive layer includes “a plurality of 

cutouts . . . for reducing parasitic capacitance.” Id. at col. 

6, ll. 36–54. The ’269 patent is a continuation of the ’340 

patent and claims methods of “forming” those electrically 

conductive and insulating layers. See ’269 patent at col. 6, 

l. 39–col. 8, l. 45. 

NXP petitioned for IPR, asserting that the challenged 

claims of both patents would have been obvious over U.S. 

Patent 6,765,298 (“Chin”) alone or in combination with 

other references. The Board found that claims 1, 4, and 

12–17 of the ’340 patent and claims 1, 4, 7, and 9–20 of the 

’269 patent had been shown to be unpatentable, but that 

claims 2, 3, 5–11, 18, and 19 of the ’340 patent and 2, 3, 5, 

6, and 8 of the ’269 patent had not been shown to be 

unpatentable. ’340 Decision, J.A. 79; ’269 Decision, J.A. 

136. Both Bell and NXP timely appealed. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying 

findings of fact. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 

427 (2007). We review the Board’s legal conclusion on 

obviousness de novo and its findings of fact for substantial 

evidence. HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC, 

877 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

I

On appeal, Bell primarily argues that the Board’s 

obviousness analysis was both legally and factually flawed 

because the Board failed to consider Chin as a whole. 

According to Bell, when properly considered, Chin does not 

teach the use of its invention with integrated circuit 

Case: 23-1264 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 12/05/2024
4 BELL SEMICONDUCTOR LLC v. NXP B.V.

package substrates, only printed circuit boards, and that 

all challenged claims of the ’340 and ’269 patents are 

limited to integrated circuit package substrates. NXP 

responds that Bell’s arguments are based on the erroneous 

premise that the Board’s analysis of Chin should have been

limited to the preferred embodiments disclosed in Chin and 

that Bell attempts to improperly frame issues of fact as 

issues of law. We agree with NXP. 

The question of obviousness requires “an expansive 

and flexible approach.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. Bell seems 

to argue that single-reference obviousness requires a more 

rigid test that looks to the preferred embodiment—or in 

Bell’s words: “final device”—of the primary reference and 

requires the Board to “identify any reason(s) to abandon its 

key features.” Bell Principal Br. 24–29. However, rigid 

approaches to the question of obviousness have repeatedly

been rejected. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415; see also LKQ 

Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280, 

1293 (Fed. Cir. 2024). We therefore disagree with Bell that 

the Board somehow legally erred in its single-reference 

obviousness analysis of Chin. The remaining questions are 

therefore ones of fact, i.e., the scope and content of the prior 

art and differences between the prior art and the claims at 

issue, reviewed for substantial evidence. See Graham v. 

John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).

The Board’s findings of fact with respect to Chin were 

supported by substantial evidence. The Board determined 

that Chin discloses the key limitation of claim 1 that 

requires “cutouts formed in the second electrically 

conductive layer for reducing parasitic capacitance,” ’340 

patent at col. 6, ll. 44–46, because “Chin expressly states 

that it includes [holes in the second electrically conductive 

layer] to reduce the corresponding pad’s parasitic 

capacitance,” ’340 Decision, J.A. 34. This conclusion was

not unreasonable. In fact, the very first sentence of the 

detailed description of Chin states “[a] landing pad’s 

parasitic capacitance may be reduced by forming patterned 

Case: 23-1264 Document: 4 Page: 4 Filed: 12/05/2024
BELL SEMICONDUCTOR LLC v. NXP B.V. 5

holes in one or more reference potential layers below the 

landing pad.” Chin at col. 3, ll. 45–47. The Board also 

considered Bell’s arguments regarding the additional 

disclosures of Chin and correctly rejected them. See ’340 

Decision, J.A. 35–38 (“Patent Owner’s arguments 

regarding the ‘second half of Chin’s methodology’ are 

misplaced.”). The Board’s finding that Chin teaches the 

key limitation of claim 1 was therefore supported by 

substantial evidence. 

Similarly, the Board’s finding that a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would have understood that Chin “expressly 

suggests implementing its invention in an [integrated 

circuit] package substrate” was not unreasonable. ’340 

Decision, J.A. 21. Chin states that its invention is 

applicable to “multi-layered substrates,” Chin at col. 1, l. 8, 

“semiconductor implementations,” id. at col. 6, ll. 1–3, and 

“a substrate used inside a [Ball Grid Array] package,” id.

at col. 1, ll. 56–58. Relying on those disclosures and expert 

testimony, the Board concluded that a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would have understood Chin’s disclosure to 

apply to an integrated circuit package substrate. ’340 

Decision, J.A. 22. That conclusion was reasonable given 

the above disclosures of Chin and therefore was supported 

by substantial evidence. Because the Board determined 

that Chin applied to both integrated circuit package 

substrates as well as printed circuit boards, we need not 

resolve Bell’s argument that the claims are limited to 

integrated circuit package substrates.

We have considered Bell’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the forgoing reasons, we find 

that the Board did not err in its unpatentability 

determination with respect to claims 1, 4, and 12–17 of the 

’340 patent and claims 1, 4, 7, 9–20 of the ’269 patent.

II

On cross-appeal, NXP focuses on the claims that 

require the cutouts to be the same size as the contact pads, 

Case: 23-1264 Document: 4 Page: 5 Filed: 12/05/2024
6 BELL SEMICONDUCTOR LLC v. NXP B.V.

see, e.g., ’340 patent at col. 6, ll. 62–64 (“wherein the cutouts 

have the same dimensions as the contact pads”), and the 

claims that require a specific location for a “routing layer,” 

see, e.g., ’340 patent at col. 6, ll. 59–60 (“the second 

electrically conductive layer being a routing layer”). 

NXP argues that the Board legally erred by not 

considering key evidence in Chin that teaches same-sized 

cutouts and by misapplying its construction of “routing 

layer.” Bell responds that NXP presents new unsupported 

arguments on appeal and that the Board’s findings should 

be affirmed as supported by substantial evidence. We 

agree with Bell.

The Board did not ignore key evidence in Chin that 

teaches same-sized cutouts as argued by NXP. The Board 

accurately characterized NXP’s expert testimony as 

conclusory and correctly pointed out that the only evidence 

in NXP’s petition was a citation of their expert’s declaration 

that parrots the language of the petition. See ’340 Decision, 

J.A. 49; see also J.A. 364, 1599. The Board also correctly 

evaluated NXP’s underdeveloped “obvious to try”

argument. See ’340 Decision, J.A. 53–54. Subsequent 

attorney argument made for the first time on appeal cannot 

save a petition the Board reasonably concluded was 

evidentiarily deficient. See Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, 

S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A]rguments of 

counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the 

record[.]” (citation omitted)).

Similarly, the Board did not misapply its construction 

of “routing layer” as argued by NXP. In fact, the Board did 

not construe “routing layer.” Instead, in discussing an 

untimely and forfeited argument by NXP that “routing 

layer” was non-limiting, the Board merely stated that 

“‘routing layer’ is limiting and requires at least one routing 

trace.” ’340 Decision, J.A. 44–45. And even if that was a 

construction of “routing layer,” NXP fails to persuasively 

explain how that construction changes the Board’s finding 

Case: 23-1264 Document: 4 Page: 6 Filed: 12/05/2024
BELL SEMICONDUCTOR LLC v. NXP B.V. 7

of a lack of motivation to relocate Chin’s routing layer to 

the location required by the claims. See id. at J.A. 42–44. 

The Board’s finding that Chin does not teach or disclose the 

routing layer location limitations was therefore supported 

by substantial evidence. 

We have considered NXP’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. For the forgoing reasons, we find 

that the Board did not err in finding that claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 

11, and 18 of the ’340 patent and 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 of the ’269

patent had not been shown to be unpatentable. NXP does

not appeal the Board’s findings with respect to claims 7–10 

and 19 of the ’340 patent, which the Board also found had 

not been shown to be unpatentable. 

CONCLUSION

Having fully considered the parties’ arguments, we 

affirm the Board’s determinations in IPR2021-000966 and 

IPR2021-000967. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1264 Document: 4 Page: 7 Filed: 12/05/2024