NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,

Appellant

v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2023-1896

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-

00563.

______________________ 

Decided: August 29, 2024

______________________ 

GEORGE CHRISTOPHER BECK, Foley & Lardner LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by BRADLEY ROUSH; JOHN CUSTER, KEVIN M. LITTMAN,

LUCAS I. SILVA, Boston, MA; ELEY THOMPSON, Chicago, IL.

 ROBERT COURTNEY, Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

MICHAEL TIMOTHY HAWKINS; THOMAS H. REGER, II, Dallas, 

TX. 

______________________ 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

2

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (Quectel) petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for inter 

partes review (IPR) of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,216

(’216 patent), owned by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips). 

The Board determined the challenged claim to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Quectel Wireless Sols. 

Co. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2021-00563, 2022 

WL 4280566, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) (Decision). 

Philips appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

The ’216 patent relates to techniques for radio communication systems to regulate the power of communications 

transmitted between base stations and mobile stations. 

Uplink communications are those transmitted from a mobile station to a base station, and downlink communications are those transmitted from a base station to a mobile 

station. ’216 patent col. 3 ll. 22–25. The mobile and base 

stations exchange two types of information: (1) user traffic, 

such as speech or packet data, and (2) control information, 

which sets and monitors various parameters of the transmission channel to enable the base and mobile stations to 

exchange user traffic. Id. col. 1 ll. 17–23. 

The control information enables power control between 

the base and mobile stations. As the ’216 patent explains, 

power control of signals transmitted from a mobile station 

to the base station is needed “so that the [base station] receives signals from different [mobile stations] at approximately the same power level, while minimi[z]ing the 

transmission power required by each [mobile station].” Id.

col. 1 ll. 25–29. Furthermore, power control of signals 

transmitted from the base station to a mobile station is 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

3

needed “so that the [mobile station] receives signals from 

the [base station] with a low error rate while minim[z]ing 

transmission power, to reduce interference with other cells 

and radio systems.” Id. col. 1 ll. 29–33. Radio communication systems typically use closed-loop power control, in 

which the mobile station determines the required changes 

in the power of transmissions from the base station and 

signals those changes to the base station, and vice versa. 

Id. col. 1 ll. 33–37. 

Problems with closed-loop power control arise if there 

is an interruption in data transmission. “[A]fter the transmission is interrupted, the power control loops may take 

some time to converge satisfactorily. Until such convergence is achieved data transmissions are likely to be received in a corrupted state if their power level is too low, or 

to generate extra interference if their power level is too 

high.” Id. col. 1 ll. 47–52. The ’216 patent purports to address these problems by providing means “for setting the 

initial transmission power after a pause in transmission to 

that before the pause adjusted by an offset.” Id. col. 1 

ll. 65–67. 

Claim 9 of the ’216 patent recites: 

A secondary station for use in a radio communication system having a communication channel between the secondary station and a primary station, 

the channel including an uplink and a downlink 

control channel for transmission of control information, including power control commands, and a 

data channel for the transmission of data, the secondary station comprising: 

power control means for adjusting the power of the 

uplink control and data channels in response to the 

downlink power control commands; 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

4

means for setting an initial transmission power after an interruption in transmission to that before 

the interruption adjusted by an offset; and 

means for determining the offset from a difference 

between a last transmission power and a weighted 

average of the transmission power over a predetermined period before the interruption in transmission.

Id. at claim 9.

Quectel’s IPR Petition challenged claim 9 of the ’216 

patent as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,337,988 (Agin) in 

view of U.S. Patent No. 6,512,925 (Chen). The Board instituted review and issued a Final Written Decision finding 

claim 9 unpatentable over Agin and Chen. Philips appeals. 

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

DISCUSSION

“In an appeal from an IPR decision, we review the 

Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 

for substantial evidence.” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l 

Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual 

findings, including the scope and content of prior art references and the existence of a reason to combine those references.” Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 

1056, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding.” Id.

I 

Philips first argues that the Board erred by failing to 

explicitly construe the term “offset” in claim 9’s recitation 

of “means for setting an initial transmission power after an 

interruption in transmission to that before the interruption 

adjusted by an offset.” According to Philips, the Board 

should have explicitly construed “offset” to mean “a oneCase: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

5

time adjustment applied to initial transmission power following an interruption.” Appellant’s Br. 48. 

Philips did not proffer this definition in either its Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response or its Patent Owner’s 

Response. Nor did Quectel proffer or request any formal 

definition of “offset” in its Petition or Petitioner’s Reply. 

Philips waited until its Surreply to first articulate its preferred understanding of “offset,” but merely asserted it 

without any explanation. Moreover, this Surreply argument was presented in the context of distinguishing the 

claimed “offset” from prior-art reference Agin’s “step size,” 

rather than in any request for the Board to construe the 

term. J.A. 381–86. The Board accordingly concluded: “Patent Owner [Philips] does not appear to be seeking an explicit construction of the claim term ‘offset,’ although we 

acknowledge ample arguments from Patent Owner, with 

counter-arguments from Petitioner [Quectel]. As such, we 

consider both parties[’] arguments . . . outside of the context of claim construction.” Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at 

*4. We see no reason to disagree with the Board’s understanding of the parties’ arguments, and the Board thus did 

not err by not providing a construction of “offset.”

II

Next, Philips contends that the Board erred in finding 

that Agin discloses the claimed “means for setting an initial transmission power after an interruption in transmission to that before the interruption adjusted by an offset.” 

’216 patent at claim 9 (emphases added). Philips challenges the Board’s obviousness analysis for this limitation 

on two grounds, which we address in turn. 

First, Philips argues that the Board erred in concluding 

that Agin teaches the claimed “offset.” Agin discloses a 

“power control step size”  that may be set to a value of 1

or 2. See Agin col. 7 ll. 17–24. The Board found that Agin’s

step size teaches the claimed “offset.” Philips contends that 

this was error because Agin does not “identically disclose 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

6

the function recited in the claim” given that the Board, at 

one point, indicated that an offset is distinct from a step 

size adjustment. Appellant’s Br. 49. But the Board concluded that “an offset applying a single step size alteration 

is not distinguishable from the application of a step size.” 

Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at *8 (emphasis added); see 

also Quectel Wireless Sols. Co. Ltd. v. Koninklijke Philips 

N.V., No. IPR2021-00563, 2023 WL 2602868, at *2 

(P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2023). As the Board noted, the ’216 patent itself teaches that the offset may be “quanti[z]ed to an 

available power control step size before it is applied.” ’216 

patent col. 2 ll. 45–46. The Board also relied on Quectel’s 

expert testimony to arrive at its conclusion. Decision, 2022 

WL 4280566, at *8. Substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s finding that Agin teaches the claimed “offset.”

Second, Philips contends that the Board erred in concluding that Agin teaches applying an offset to an “initial 

transmission power,” as claimed. Philips argues that “Agin 

is silent as to the initial transmission power after an interruption” and, moreover, “the specific teachings of 

Agin . . . demonstrate that Agin’s step size adjustment 

could not be applied to the initial transmission.” Appellant’s Br. 51.

Quectel’s Petition relied on Agin’s description of its Figure 2, reproduced below, to teach the claimed “means for 

setting an initial transmission power after an interruption 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

7

in transmission to that before the interruption adjusted by 

an offset.” 

Agin FIG. 2.

As recounted by Quectel and depicted in Agin’s Figure 

2, “Agin describes setting the power control step size to 

 = 1” (step 17) or “ = 2” (step 18). J.A. 128 (citing Agin

col. 5 ll. 44–53). In parallel, Agin’s base station determines 

whether to employ an “‘up’ power control command” (step 

13) or a “‘down’ power control command” (step 12) by determining whether the measured signal-to-inference ratio 

(SIR) of the received signal from the mobile station is 

greater or less than a target SIR (step 11). Agin col. 1 ll. 

40–47; id. col. 5 ll. 31–38. Then, “1 or 2 is combined with 

the ‘up’ or ‘down’ power control command to obtain a resulting power control command” (step 19). J.A. 128 (citing 

Agin col. 5 ll. 54–57). Agin’s base station then sends the 

resultant, combined power control command to the mobile

station, instructing the mobile station to either increase or 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

8

decrease its transmittal power level by the power control 

step size. Agin col. 1 ll. 43–47. 

Notably, Agin recognizes that “downlink transmissions 

from a [base station] to a [mobile station] may momentarily 

be interrupted.” Id. col. 1 ll. 62–63. “During these transmission interruptions . . . the [base station] does not send 

any more power control commands to the [mobile station], 

and the uplink signals from this [mobile station] are no 

longer power controlled.” Id. col. 2 ll. 4–8. Philips argues 

that, based on this disclosure, “Agin’s system cannot possibly adjust its initial transmission following an interruption 

by a step size . . . since it does not receive [a] power control 

command during the interruption.” Appellant’s Br. 55–56. 

Put another way, “Agin could not possibly apply a step size 

adjustment to the initial transmission [after an interruption], because Agin’s closed loop power control algorithm 

requires receipt of a power command for the mobile station 

to know whether to increase or decrease its power.” Id. at 

51–52. Philips raised this argument in both its Patent 

Owner Response and its Surreply. J.A. 325–26; J.A. 378–

79.

The Board did not account for this argument in its Final Written Decision. Instead, it found that “[b]oth parties 

agree that Agin’s power control command instructs the 

[mobile station] regarding the step size for increasing or 

decreasing power after the interruption.” Decision, 2022 

WL 4280566, at *8. The Board concluded it was “persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted Agin as setting an initial transmission power 

after an interruption in transmission to that before the interruption adjusted by a step size.” Id. But the Board 

failed to address Philips’s argument as to how Agin’s system would adjust the initial transmission following an interruption without having received any power control 

commands during the interruption.

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

9

Because the Board’s analysis on this point was too conclusory and did not address an argument timely raised below, we vacate the Board’s finding. See, e.g., Provisur 

Techs., Inc. v. Weber, Inc., 50 F.4th 117, 123–24 (Fed. Cir. 

2022). We remand for the Board to re-evaluate whether 

Agin teaches this limitation, taking into account Philips’s 

argument discussed above.

III

Philips argues next that the Board erred in finding that 

a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Agin 

in view of Chen. Quectel’s Petition and the Board’s decision relied on the combination of Agin and Chen to teach 

the claimed “means for determining the offset from a difference between a last transmission power and a weighted 

average of the transmission power over a predetermined 

period before the interruption in transmission.” Philips 

raises three arguments challenging the Board’s motivation-to-combine findings, though we find each unpersuasive.

Philips contends that “nothing in Agin suggests applying an average (much less a weighted average) to determine the magnitude of the modified step size adjustment 

2.” Appellant’s Br. 62. The Board disagreed, relying on 

Agin’s discussion of “statistics” to make a contrary finding. 

Agin teaches that “[p]arameters T’ and δ2 may . . . be determined based on statistics on power control results for a 

transmission period before said transmission interruption; 

for example the largest the [sic] variations of a received signal power before the interruption, the largest δ2 and T’, and 

vice-versa.” Agin col. 6 ll. 10–14 (emphasis added). The 

Board reasonably found that this disclosure in Agin “is sufficient to suggest the use of different types of statistics, including those disclosed by Chen,” i.e., a weighted average. 

Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at *10. Philips additionally 

argues that Agin’s use of statistics to determine certain 

“parameters” is limited to determining T’ and δ2, which 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

10

“have nothing to do with an offset that is applied to the initial transmission.” Appellant’s Br. 62. This appears to be 

a reiteration of Philips’s argument that δ2 is a step size but 

not an offset, which we rejected above. 

Philips also contends that the Board erred because

Chen teaches a weighted average of power levels across 

multiple base stations, rather than claim 9’s required

“weighted average of the transmission power over a predetermined period before the interruption in transmission” at 

a single base station. Id. at 63. The Board considered and 

rejected this argument, reasonably concluding that although “Chen is utilizing a weighted average for one purpose, [the Board was] not persuaded that one of ordinary 

skill in the art could not review the disclosure of Chen and 

see its application to other aspects of computing an adjustment to power levels [such as in Agin].” Decision, 2022 WL 

4280566, at *10; see also id. at *11 (referring to Quectel’s

argument that Philips’s “arguments are akin to bodily incorporation and the disclosure elements of Agin and Chen 

need not be physically combinable to render claim 9 obvious”). We also find reasonable the Board’s determination 

that “Chen discusses other options, i.e., ‘a number of possible methods,’ that can utilize a single base station in making a power control decision, such that ordinarily skilled 

artisans would have applied the weighted average in Agin

as Petitioner has asserted.” Id. at *11.

Additionally, Philips argues the Board erred as a matter of law by concluding that the “teachings of Chen could

be incorporated into Agin” and “fail[ing] to explain why an 

ordinary artisan would modify Agin in view of Chen.” Appellant’s Br. 64. We disagree. The Board considered “multiple rationales for the combination of Agin and Chen, 

including the benefits of Chen’s techniques, the predictability of such a combination, improvements in performance 

and transmission quality, reducing uncertainty, [and] 

smoothing power levels,” Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at 

*11, to conclude that “one of ordinary skill in the art would 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

11

have been motivated to make the combination,” id. at *12. 

The Board also “[w]eigh[ed] the testimonies of Drs. Ding 

and Jackson,” Quectel’s and Philips’s expert witnesses, respectively, and “determine[d] Dr. Ding’s testimony to be 

more persuasive.” Id. Substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s determination that a skilled artisan would have 

been motivated to combine Agin and Chen.

IV

Finally, Philips argues that the Board erred in concluding that the combination of Agin and Chen discloses the 

claimed “means for determining the offset from a difference 

between a last transmission power and a weighted average 

of the transmission power over a predetermined period before the interruption in transmission.” Philips presents

two arguments on this point.

First, Philips contends that the Agin-Chen combination would create an “absurd result.” Appellant’s Br. 66. 

Specifically, “if a weighted average of prior transmission 

power were somehow used to determine Agin’s modified 

step size δ2,” Philips contends that Agin would need “to continually calculate the magnitude of the adjustment for 

every transmission, frustrating the very purpose of Agin’s 

closed loop algorithm.” Appellant’s Br. 65–66. Philips did 

not present this argument to the Board and therefore forfeited it. See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 

858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have regularly stated and 

applied the important principle that a position not presented in the tribunal under review will not be considered 

on appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances.”).

Second, Philips contends that the prior art does not 

teach the claimed “weighted average of the transmission 

power over a predetermined period before the interruption 

in transmission,” because Agin does not disclose a weighted 

average, and “Chen’s weighted average is computed based 

on values of current powers at multiple base stations.” Appellant’s Br. 66–67. According to Philips, the Board’s 

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 11 Filed: 08/29/2024
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. 

12

“Final Written Decision did not address the fact that 

Chen’s techniques do not involve a weighted average of a 

mobile station’s prior power levels during a predetermined 

time period before an interruption.” Id. at 67. But the 

Board considered and rejected this argument. See Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at *10. The Board found that 

“Chen discusses other options, i.e., ‘a number of possible 

methods,’ that can utilize a single base station in making a 

power control decision, such that ordinarily skilled artisans would have applied [Chen’s] weighted average in Agin 

as Petitioner has asserted.” Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, 

at *10 (quoting Chen col. 10 ll. 47–56). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Philips’s remaining arguments

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

vacate the Board’s finding that the prior art teaches the 

claimed “means for setting an initial transmission power

after an interruption in transmission to that before the interruption adjusted by an offset” and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the 

Board’s other determinations.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 08/29/2024