NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________ 

DALI WIRELESS INC.,

Appellant

v.

COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Appellee

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Intervenor

______________________ 

2020-1045

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00571.

______________________ 

Decided: September 6, 2023

______________________ 

STEFAN SZPAJDA, Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by ALEXANDRA O.

FELLOWES, CRISTOFER LEFFLER, DAVID DOUGLAS 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2023
2 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

SCHUMANN, CLIFF WIN, II; ERIC F. CITRON, Gupta Wessler 

PLLC, Washington, DC; KEVIN RUSSELL, Goldstein, Russell & Woofter LLC, Washington, DC. 

 PHILIP P. CASPERS, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & 

Lindquist PA, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by WILLIAM F. BULLARD, SAMUEL A. HAMER. 

 SARAH E. CRAVEN, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA 

YASMEEN RASHEED. 

 ______________________ 

Before HUGHES, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

LINN, Circuit Judge. 

Dali Wireless Inc. (“Dali”) appeals from a Final Written 

Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) 

holding that claims 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 of Dali’s U.S. 

Patent Number 9,531,473 (“’473 patent”) are anticipated 

and obvious over prior art reference Wu,1 and claims 9, 10, 

14–17 of the same patent are obvious over a combination of 

Wu and Sabat.2 See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., IPR No. 2018-00571 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019) 

(“Board Opinion”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319.

Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determinations of anticipation and obviousness of claims 6–

8, 11–13, and 18–21 over Wu, and because substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination of obviousness of 

claims 9, 10, 14–17 over the combination of Wu and Sabat, 

we affirm. 

1 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0128676.

2 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0180426.

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 2 Filed: 09/06/2023
DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 3

DISCUSSION 

I 

The ‘473 patent discloses a distributed antenna system 

that “enables a high degree of flexibility to manage, control, 

enhance, [and] facilitate the usage and performance of a 

distributed wireless network.” ’473 patent, Abstract. In 

such systems, downlink data is sent from a base station to 

any number of digital access units and, in turn, to various 

remote units located about an area of desired coverage. 

The remote units convey select information to user devices, 

such as cell phones. Software embedded in the digital access units and remote units determines “the appropriate 

amount of radio resources . . . to meet desired capacity and 

throughput objectives.” Id. at 11:44–50.

A single limitation of independent claim 11 is at the

center of the debate over the unpatentability of claims 6–8, 

11–13, and 18–21. That limitation is referred to as the “capable of sending” limitation: “wherein the host unit is capable of sending a digital representation of any downlink 

signal it receives to any of the plurality of remote units.” 

(Emphases added).3 Dali also argues error in the Board’s 

treatment of the “packetizing” limitations of dependent 

claims 9, 10, 14–17.4

3 Dali also cited at oral argument the so-called “configurable to transmit” limitation at the end of claim 11 but 

conceded that it did not challenge that limitation in its 

brief as part of this appeal. Oral Arg. at 2:46–55, 3:15–30, 

No. 20-1045, available at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20-1045_0710202 

3.mp3. 4 Claims 15 and 17 depend from claims 14 and 16, 

respectively. The parties do not raise any issues on appeal 

concerning claims 15 or 17 that differ from their contentions regarding claims 14 and 16.

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 3 Filed: 09/06/2023
4 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

II

Beginning with the “capable of sending” limitation, we 

note that Dali first asked the Board to construe that limitation as requiring a “host unit . . . capable of sending a 

digital representation of a specific downlink signal it receives to a specific one of the plurality of remote units.” 

Board Opinion at 12 (emphasis added). Dali explained 

that its construction required the host unit to be capable of 

sending a specific signal to “only one remote unit without 

sending it to any other remote units.” Id. at 13. The Board 

rejected this construction because the specification describes upconverters at the remote units that can selectively broadcast from among the resources the remote unit 

receives and thus control the uplink resources themselves. 

Id. at 13–14. The Board concluded that it need not explicitly construe the claim in the manner requested by Dali. 

Id. at 14.

The Board then held claims 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 anticipated and obvious over Wu. Wu describes a “carrier 

channel distribution system” to route channels to remote 

transceiver units (“RTUs”). Wu at ¶ 11. Wu’s base transceiver station (“BTS”) has a matrix switch, 250, and host 

units, 230 and “can include multi-band transceiver 260.” 

Id. at ¶¶ 15, 34. The transceiver sends analog channels to 

a matrix switch, which “routes analog channels 270 to an 

appropriate host unit 230 according to a [routing] policy 

255 for distribution to remote regions or RTUs.” Id. at 

¶¶ 38, 40. The Board held that Wu disclosed all the limitations of claim 11: the signal source read on the transceiver, the claimed host unit read on the combination of 

Wu’s matrix switch and host unit 230, and the claimed remote units read on the RTUs. Board Opinion at 17–22. As 

particularly relevant here, the Board held that Wu disclosed the “capable of sending” limitation because “Wu’s 

matrix switch allows individual carrier channels to be 

routed, via host units, to specific connected remote units.” 

Id. at 23. 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 4 Filed: 09/06/2023
DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 5

The Board next addressed claims 9, 10, and 14–17 and 

construed the term “packetizing” as framing data and adding information that describes the source or destination of 

the data. Id. at 9–12. The Board then held claims 9, 10, 

14–17 obvious over a combination of Wu and Sabat. Sabat 

discloses a communication system with distributed remote 

units using a DDR hub between a host digital base station 

and the digital remote units and vice versa. Sabat at ¶¶ 15, 

16, 34–37, FIGs 3, 6. Sabat teaches that the hub may use 

the CPRI standard for communications and incorporates 

the specifications of that standard by reference into the patent. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 31, 32. As discussed further, infra, the 

CPRI specification discloses but does not require using “addresses” such as ethernet addresses and an “address table” 

that “maps a CPRI port to an address.” J.A. 1161. 

The Board held that Sabat taught using CPRI for communications between a host unit and base station. The 

Board also held that CPRI disclosed using addressing information, which “would have taught or suggested to one of 

ordinary skill in the art that the host unit would frame data 

being transmitted to the base station and address that data

. . . so that packets arrive at their intended destination.” 

Board Opinion at 34. 

III

The parties treat claim 11 as representative of claims 

6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 and argue claims 9, 10, 14–17 together. Board Opinion at 24, 31, 35; Appellant’s Opening 

Br. at 13. Dali raises several arguments on the merits of 

the Board’s unpatentability determinations. 

Dali first contends that because Wu is not capable of 

sending only certain selected communications to particular 

remote radio units, the Board could not have properly 

found the claims anticipated or obvious over Wu without 

effectively construing the “capable of sending” limitation to 

encompass a host that broadcasts all communications it receives to all the remote units attached thereto. Dali argues 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 5 Filed: 09/06/2023
6 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

that this essentially replaces “any” as claimed in the “capable of sending” limitation with “all.” Second, Dali contends 

that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s consideration of the separately disclosed host unit 230 and matrix switch of Wu together in what it terms a modified 

diagram in order to meet the claimed “host unit” limitation. 

Third, Dali argues that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s obviousness determinations predicated on 

Wu and Sabat as meeting the “packetizing” limitation of 

claims 9, 10, and 14–17. We address each argument in 

turn. 

A 

Dali first argues that the Board acted arbitrarily in 

making a de facto construction of the “capable of sending” 

limitation by replacing “any downlink signal . . . to any remote unit” with “all downlink signals to all remote units” 

in finding independent claim 11 anticipated and obvious 

over Wu. See Board Opinion at 23–24. Dali contends that 

the Board could not have properly found the claims anticipated or obvious over Wu, because Wu is not capable of 

sending only certain selected communications to specific

remote radio units as recited in the claims. CommScope 

responds that the Board did not make a new construction 

at all, but merely rejected Dali’s argument that claim 11 

required selected signals to be sent to only a single remote 

unit. In CommScope’s view, the Board properly treated the 

combination of Wu’s host unit 230 and matrix switch as 

disclosing and teaching the “capable of sending” limitation

as recited.

We agree with CommScope. The passage of the Board’s 

decision Dali cites reads:

While “sending a digital representation of any 

downlink signal . . . to any of the plurality of 

remote units” may, in the case in which multiple remote units are connected to one of 

Wu’s host units, mean that all such remote 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 6 Filed: 09/06/2023
DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 7

units receive the downlink signal, as discussed supra at Section II.C.2, this is consistent with the “capable of sending” 

limitation.

Id. at 23. This was not a construction replacing “any” with 

“all” in the claim limitation. It was simply a recognition 

that Wu’s host unit 230, acting alone, sends all the channels it receives to all of its connected remote units. The 

Board relied not on that portion of Wu, alone, but considered the combination of Wu’s host unit 230 and matrix 

switch 250 to allow individual carrier channels to be routed 

to specific connected remote units. See Board Opinion at 

23 (“Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing 

that Wu’s matrix switch allows individual carrier channels 

to be routed, via host units, to specific connected remote 

units.”). Because Wu’s matrix switch selectively sends signals to particular Wu host units 230, the Board found it 

inapposite that Wu’s host unit 230 alone sends all the signals it receives to all of its connected remote units. For this 

reason, we reject Dali’s argument that the Board, in finding the claims unpatentable, did so only by improperly construing the “capable of sending” limitation.

B 

Dali argues that substantial evidence does not support 

the Board’s consideration of the separately disclosed host 

unit 230 and matrix switch of Wu together in what it terms 

a modified diagram in order to meet the claimed “host unit” 

limitation. First, Dali contends that the matrix switch in 

Wu is shown inside the signal source BTS 240, while certain embodiments of the claimed invention disclose the signal source as “physically and functionally separate from the 

host unit.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 44 (emphasis in 

original). Dali also argues that grouping Wu’s host unit 

230 and matrix switch together to satisfy the host unit limitation creates a logical conflict with the “signal source” 

claim limitation. Finally, Dali argues that the Board failed 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 7 Filed: 09/06/2023
8 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

to discern a reason to modify Wu to group the host unit and 

matrix together. 

CommScope responds that Wu describes how the matrix switch and host unit 230 function together and argues 

that the Board’s determination of anticipation and obviousness does not require altering Wu’s disclosed components 

to satisfy the claim. CommScope also argues that the 

claims do not require that the host unit is separate from 

the signal source (only that it be coupled to the signal 

source), and even if it does require separation, that Wu

teaches that the transceiver may be remote from the base 

station. Finally, CommScope argues that the Board’s holding is internally consistent in reading the disclosed structure of Wu on each limitation of the claims.

We agree with CommScope. Nothing about the structure of the claim precludes reading the combination of Wu’s 

matrix switch and Wu’s host unit 230 together as meeting 

the claimed host unit. Moreover, there is no modification 

of Wu needed to group the matrix switch and Wu’s host unit 

together for purposes of the unpatentability analysis. The 

Board did not “import the functionality of the separate matrix switch into the host unit,” as Dali contends. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 44. Wu’s host unit 230 and matrix 

switch already function together as part of the base station, 

240, to route channels to remote units. Wu at FIG. 2; id. at 

¶ 15 (describing Figure 2 as showing a schematic of a “base 

transceiver station (BTS) having a matrix switch and host 

units”); id. at ¶ 38 (describing a preferred embodiment, matrix switch “routes analog channels 270 to an appropriate 

host unit 230 according to a policy 255 for distribution to 

remote regions or RTUs. Host units 230 further distribute 

the channels to RTUs over links 215.”); id. at ¶ 39 (describing an example of the routing). See also Board Opinion at 

22 (“[W]e agree that the matrix switch and host units function together to disclose the claimed host unit.”). It is inapposite that Wu itself labels host unit 230 as a “host.” As 

the Board correctly recognized, “identity of terminology is 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 8 Filed: 09/06/2023
DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 9

not required for anticipation.” Board Opinion at 21 (citing 

In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). We discern 

no error in the Board’s treatment of Wu’s host unit 230 and 

matrix switch together as meeting the “capable of sending” 

limitation.

Furthermore, as the Board correctly noted, Dali “does 

not argue a difference—structural, functional, or otherwise—between the identified elements from Wu and the 

claimed host unit,” and does not present any other reason 

why the combination of Wu’s matrix switch and host unit 

230 does not anticipate or render obvious representative 

claim 11. Board Opinion at 21. Dali does not dispute that 

Wu’s matrix switch can allocate certain carrier channels to 

a certain host unit, Appellant’s Opening Br. at 16 (conceding that Wu’s matrix switch performs this function), or that 

Wu’s host units can send the channels to the remote units 

according to the routing policy in the matrix switch. Wu’s 

disclosures support the Board’s findings. Wu repeatedly 

teaches selectively routing certain channels to certain remote units. Wu at ¶ 11 (“The [matrix] switch preferably 

routes the individual channels, individually or combined, 

to RTUs according to a routing policy. The routing policy 

can be reconfigured as desired.”); id. at ¶ 38 (noting that 

the matrix switch can split “individual channels 1–12 . . . 

into individual channels or groups of channels” via an “appropriate host unit 230”); id. at ¶ 40 (noting that the routing policy in the matrix switch determines “how analog 

channels 270 should be routed to host units 230 for further 

distribution to RTUs”); id. at ¶ 47 (noting that the policy 

inside the matrix switch can route a single carrier channel 

to a first RTU and a second carrier channel to a different 

RTU or group the channels together for routing to another 

RTU); id. (noting that the routing policy may “route, distribute, or allocate channels 270 collectively, as groups, individually, or in other desirable configurations”). See also 

Board Opinion at 19 (citing the above paragraphs and finding that Wu teaches “routing each channel individually to 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 9 Filed: 09/06/2023
10 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

one or more RTUs”); id. at 23 (“[W]e are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing that Wu’s matrix switch allows individual carrier channels to be routed, via host units, to specific 

connected remote units.”).5 Substantial evidence thus supports the Board’s findings on anticipation and obviousness 

of claims 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 of the ’473 patent over Wu. 

C 

Dali next argues that substantial evidence does not 

support the Board’s determination that the combination of 

Wu and Sabat discloses the “packetizing” limitation of 

claims 9, 10, and 14–17, and thus that the Board erred in 

holding those claims obvious.

The Board construed “packetizing” to require the inclusion of addressing information—either the source or destination information. Board Opinion at 12. Applying this 

construction, the Board held that Wu alone and Wu in combination with Sabat rendered these claims obvious. With 

respect to the Wu/Sabat combination, the Board held that 

an ordinary artisan would have modified Wu “to use a digital CPRI link as taught by Sabat, between the matrix 

switch of Wu and the multiband transceiver 260,” to “enable the use of a simple digital matrix switch and capitalize 

on the known advantages of digital communications.” Id.

at 31–32 (citing CommScope’s expert Dr. Acampora’s declaration). The Board also held that CPRI disclosed using 

addressing information, which “would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the host unit 

would frame data being transmitted to the base station and 

5 The parties largely argue anticipation and obviousness together. Because the resolution of both anticipation 

and obviousness over Wu is determined by the factual determination of the scope and content of Wu’s disclosure, an 

issue common to unpatentability under both doctrines, we 

resolve the two together herein. 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 10 Filed: 09/06/2023
DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 11

address that data . . . so that packets arrive at their intended destination.” Board Opinion at 34. We affirm the 

Board’s holding of obviousness over the combination of Wu

and Sabat and need not address obviousness over Wu alone 

or Dali’s arguments regarding Wu alone for these claims.

Dali argues that CPRI and Sabat do not disclose “packetizing.” First, Dali argues that the CPRI specification does 

not teach using a CPRI link in the uplink signal to the base 

station from a host unit. CommScope responds that Sabat’s Figures 3 and 6 and the descriptions thereof disclose 

CPRI links between the DDR Hub and the base station, 

and CPRI links are bidirectional by definition.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

Sabat and the CPRI Specification disclose a digital uplink 

between the base station and host unit. Figures 3 and 6 in 

Sabat both show bidirectional arrows between the DDR 

Hub, 310 and 510, and the base station, 302 and 502, and 

Figure 3 labels that link a “Donor Digital Stream.” Sabat

describes that link in Figure 3 as a “direct digital connection to and from the donor base station” using CPRI as the 

“specific digital base station interface.” Sabat at ¶ 31 (emphasis added); id. at FIG. 3. See also id. at FIG. 6 (similar); 

Board Opinion at 30–31. Moreover, the CPRI standard defines CPRI links as bidirectional. J.A. 1084 (CPRI Specification defining “Link” as a “bidirectional interface in 

between two directly connected ports”).

Next, Dali argues that the CPRI Specifications and Sabat do not teach addressing in the uplink because the disclosure of addressing in the CPRI Specification sections 

6.3.2 and 6.3.3 relied on by the Board are limited to describing communications to the remote units, not to the base 

station from the host (i.e., the matrix switch in Wu or the 

DDR Hub in Sabat). CommScope responds that the Board 

reasonably credited Dr. Acampora’s declaration that the 

CPRI Specification suggests using addressing in the uplink 

when an REC is placed in complex network configurations, 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 11 Filed: 09/06/2023
12 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

like that shown in Figure 5D—where one “RE” (radio 

equipment component) is connected to multiple “RECs” (radio equipment control component). See Board Opinion at 

34 (crediting Dr. Acampora’s declaration at J.A. 2475–77 

and J.A. 2480–81).

The Board’s determination that the CPRI Specification 

and Sabat disclose addressing in the uplink is supported 

by substantial evidence from the CPRI Specification, Sabat, and Dr. Acampora’s declaration. The CPRI Specification at Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, titled, respectively, 

“Reception and Transmission of SAPCM by the RE” and 

“Reception and Transmission of SAPIQ by the RE,” J.A. 

1161 (emphases added), describe the use of an “address table” that “defines how SAPIQ logical connections shall be 

switched from one port to another,” and discloses that the 

addressing may be managed by the REC “that has full 

knowledge of the topology and all addresses to all REs.” 

(Emphasis added). It provides two examples of addressing: 

“HDLC or Ethernet address can be used to define a table 

that maps a CPRI port to an address.” Id. Dali does not 

dispute that an Ethernet address is an “address” for purposes of packetizing. The CPRI Specification then recognizes that RECs may be used as networking elements in 

configurations such as those shown in Figures 5D and 5E, 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 12 Filed: 09/06/2023
DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 13

shown above, where one RE is connected to multiple RECs. 

J.A. 1089. In these configurations, the CPRI Specification 

explains that “Reception and Transmission” would use the 

addressing described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3. J.A. 1162 

(emphasis added) (“Reception and Transmission of SAPCM

follow chapter 6.3.2” and “Reception and Transmission of 

SAPIQ follow chapter 6.3.3”); J.A. 2477 (Dr. Acampora declaration explaining the same). Dr. Acampora explained 

that because Figure 5E “requires different logical connections of digital IQ data from a single RE to be sent upstream to two different REC components,” Section 6.3.8 

teaches that addressing may be used to route the signals to 

the appropriate location. J.A. 2480–81. 

Sabat’s Figure 6, shown below, teaches using the CPRI 

links for communications to and from the base station, as 

discussed above. In this embodiment, Sabat shows connecting remote units to multiple base stations, just as in 

the CPRI Specification Figure 5D.

From the above, Dr. Acampora declared that it would 

have been obvious to “communicate upstream signals from 

the host unit to the base station using the known CPRI 

communication protocol, a protocol specifically designed for 

communication with base station components, and a 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 13 Filed: 09/06/2023
14 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

protocol which is specifically taught by Sabat to be useful 

for this purpose,” including the use of addressing in the 

complex network configurations shown in the CPRI Specification and Sabat. J.A. 865, J.A. 2476, J.A. 2480–81. 

From this declaration and the references themselves, the 

Board held “that the host unit would frame data being 

transmitted to the base station and address that data . . . 

so that packets arrive at their intended destination.” 

Board Opinion at 34. This was supported by substantial 

evidence. 

In its Reply Brief, Dali adds a new argument why the 

CPRI Specification and Sabat do not teach addressing in 

the uplink. Dali reasons that the CPRI Specification routes 

channels to their destinations based on their relative position in the bit stream, rather than based on the information 

contained within the packet, as in the ’473 patent. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 12–15. Dali failed to present this argument in its opening brief, and it is thus forfeited. 

Moreover, even if we were to consider the issue, Dali is incorrect because the Board’s construction of “packetizing” 

did not require that the system “address” in any particular 

way, and nothing in the Board’s construction excludes the 

kind of sequential/temporal addressing used by the CPRI 

standard.

Relatedly, Dali argues that there would be no need for 

packetizing in the uplink direction if the signals from the 

remote units to the hub are already packetized at the remote units, as Sabat, Wu, and the CPRI Specification 

teach. CommScope responds that Sabat teaches that the 

uplink, what it calls the “reverse” link, combines the signals from the remote units to create “a single combined reverse-link signal” to the base station in accordance with 

CPRI and that this link would require its own packetizing. 

See Sabat at ¶ 36. Substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s finding. Nothing about the hub receiving individualized packetized information from the remote units in 

Sabat undermines the disclosure and the advantage of 

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 14 Filed: 09/06/2023
DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC 15

combining those signals and packetizing the combined signals for transmission to the base station. See Wu at ¶ 38 

(disclosing that the matrix switch “can combine the channels back into their proper form for transmission within 

bands 263 for transmission via multi-band transceiver” 

(emphasis added)); Sabat at ¶ 36 (disclosing that the DDR 

hub provides a “single combined reverse-link signal” to the 

base station).6

Dali also cursorily argues that none of Wu, Sabat, or 

the CPRI Specification articulated “any reason” for Wu’s 

matrix switch to digitally packetize uplink signals. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 39. CommScope responds that it presented evidence that the CPRI standard was a well-known 

protocol for communications between base station components that allowed digital transport of information over a 

network and provided evidence of the known advantages of 

digital communications, including lower noise when communicating between distant components, and allowing 

communications with digital-only base stations.

The Board’s finding that an ordinary artisan would 

combine Wu’s matrix switch with CPRI uplinks is supported by substantial evidence. As the Board noted, the 

combination was motivated by the advantages of digital 

communication between the host and the base station, 

“such as noise immunity and longer-distance transport,” 

allowing “the use of a simple digital matrix switch,” and 

allowing communication with entirely digital base stations 

such as in Sabat. Board Opinion at 31–32; J.A. 863 (Dr. 

Acampora declaration listing advantages of digital signals, 

including less noise than analog allowing longer distance 

transport of information, less expensive processing, more 

6 As an alternative ground for affirmance, 

CommScope argues that the Board erred in construing 

“packetizing” to require addressing information. We need 

not and do not reach this issue.

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 15 Filed: 09/06/2023
16 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

reliability, easier manipulation, and allowing the omission 

of RF equipment from the transceiver); J.A. 865 (Dr. 

Acampora declaration explaining that using CPRI between 

the matrix switch and the transceiver in Wu would allow 

compatibility with all-digital base stations, such as disclosed in Sabat). As CommScope correctly notes, Wu discloses the use of a transceiver situated remotely from the 

matrix switch, Wu at ¶ 34, a particularly advantageous situation for digital communication, as explained by Dr. 

Acampora. J.A. 863. Dr. Acampora also noted that Wu already teaches using the CPRI link between the remote 

units and the host unit 230, and that it would have been 

obvious to use the same protocol upstream. J.A. 862. We 

see no error.

IV

Dali finally argues that the Board’s decision should be 

vacated because it was issued in violation of the Appointments Clause because Commissioner Hirshfeld was not a 

principal officer and had not been validly appointed as the 

Acting Director of the Patent Office, citing United States v. 

Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021). 

This Court has previously rejected Dali’s position in 

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328, 1332–

40 (Fed. Cir. 2022). This panel is bound by that decision, 

and we therefore reject Dali’s Appointments Clause challenge here.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm. We have carefully considered but do not find merit to Dali’s remaining 

arguments.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1045 Document: 74 Page: 16 Filed: 09/06/2023