NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

INTEL CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1046, 2022-1047

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-

01154, IPR2018-01240.

______________________ 

Decided: June 27, 2023

______________________ 

JAMES MURPHY DOWD, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale 

and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also 

represented by DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, THOMAS 

SAUNDERS, Washington, DC; JAMES M. LYONS, Boston, MA. 

 ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by ROBERT BREETZ, DAVID B. COCHRAN, JOSEPH M. SAUER, Cleveland, OH; KELLY 

HOLT, New York, NY; JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 06/27/2023
2 INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

Before HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. 

Intel Corporation appeals two decisions of the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 10 and 15–20 of U.S. 

Patent No. 8,698,558 patentable. Because the Board 

properly construed “boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” to require a “selective boost” and because the 

Board’s finding that Kwak does not anticipate is supported 

by substantial evidence, we affirm. 

I 

A 

Mobile devices transmit our phone calls, text messages, 

and other data through radio frequency (RF) signals. To 

transmit data, RF signals need to travel between mobile 

devices and base stations in a wireless network. The further a signal must travel, the more power is required. To 

provide that extra power, mobile devices use a variety of

power amplifiers to increase the power of the RF signal to 

a sufficient level. “A [power amplifier] typically receives its 

power in the form of a supply voltage from a power supply 

generator[.]” Appellant’s Br. 4. The power amplifier will accept an input signal carrying data, and then produce an 

output signal that replicates the input signal, but with proportionally greater power. 

There are several techniques available to boost the 

power supply that are relevant to this appeal. For example, 

envelope amplifiers can be used to track the RF input signal’s upper bound and adjust how much power is supplied, 

but can be inefficient because it loses power due to heat

dissipation. Similarly, switchers can also supply power at 

certain frequencies, but without dissipating voltage as 

heat. Hybrid supply generators combine features of envelope amplifiers and switchers to gain the advantages of 

both and can use one or the other depending on the RF 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 06/27/2023
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 3

signal. And finally, when a device’s battery is too low, boost 

converters can be used to boost the battery voltage to a 

higher voltage. 

B 

Qualcomm Corporation owns the ’558 patent, titled 

“Low-Voltage Power-Efficient Envelope Tracker,” which 

describes various techniques for managing the power supply necessary to transmit RF signals, while also extending 

battery life. The ’558 patent describes two improvements 

to hybrid supply generators: (1) adding an offset current to 

a switcher, which senses an input current and generates a 

switching signal to charge and discharge an inductor that 

provides a supply current; and (2) connecting a boost converter to an envelope amplifier, which selectively operates 

by using a supply voltage or a boosted voltage. ’558 patent 

at 1:34–54, 1:61–2:2. An annotated version of Figure 5 of 

the ’558 patent shows these elements, with the boost converter in blue, envelope amplifier in purple, switcher in yellow, and the offset current in pink:

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 06/27/2023
4 INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

’558 patent at Fig. 5 (coloring added by parties). Claims 10 

and 15 are representative of the claims at issue in this appeal:

Claim 10: 

An apparatus for generating supply voltages, comprising:

means for generating a boosted supply voltage 

based on a first supply voltage, the boosted supply voltage having a higher voltage than the 

first supply voltage; and 

means for generating a second supply voltage 

based on the envelope signal and the boosted 

supply voltage, wherein the means for generating the second supply voltage incorporates an 

envelope amplifier that produces the second 

supply voltage using an operational amplifier 

(op-amp) that receives the envelope signal and 

provides an amplified signal, a driver that receives the amplified signal and provides a first 

control signal and a second control signal, a Pchannel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS) 

transistor that receives the first control signal, 

a source that receives the boosted supply voltage 

or the first supply voltage, and a drain providing the second supply voltage and an N-channel metal oxide semiconductor (NMOS) 

transistor that receives the second control signal at a gate and provides a second supply voltage through a drain, and a source for circuit 

grounding.

’558 patent at 12:25–45 (emphasis added). 

Claim 15: 

An apparatus comprising: 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 06/27/2023
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 5

an inductor operative to receive a switching signal 

and provide a supply current; and 

a switcher operative to sense an input current and 

generate the switching signal to charge and 

discharge the inductor to provide the supply 

current, the switcher adding an offset to the input current to generate a larger supply current 

via the inductor than without the offset, 

wherein the switcher comprises

a summer operative to sum the input current and 

an offset current and provide a summed current, 

a current sense amplifier operative to receive the 

summed current and provide a sensed signal, 

and 

a driver operative to receive the sensed signal and 

provide at least one control signal used to generate the switching signal for the inductor.

’558 patent at 13:19–34. 

C 

In June 2018, Intel filed two petitions for inter partes

review, collectively challenging claims 10–11 and 15–20 of 

the ’558 patent.1 In one petition, Intel alleged that (1) 

claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Kwak2; (2) 

1 As these petitions were filed prior to November 13, 

2018, the claims are given their “broadest reasonable construction.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1340 & 

n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

2 T.W. Kwak, et al., A 2 W CMOS Hybrid Switching 

Amplitude Modulator for EDGE Polar Transmitters, IEEE

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 06/27/2023
6 INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

claim 16 is obvious in view of Kwak; and (3) claim 19 is obvious in view of Kwak combined with Choi3. Intel alleged 

that Kwak disclosed the claimed “switcher operative to 

sense an input current and generate the switching signal 

to charge and discharge the inductor to provide the supply 

current, the switcher adding an offset to the input current 

to generate a larger supply current via the inductor than 

without the offset,” relying specifically on Figures 5 and 6. 

J.A. 4049-56.

In the other petition, Intel alleged that (1) claim 10 is 

obvious in view of Chu4 combined with Choi and 

J. SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS 2666–76 (2007). Kwak discloses a 

type of hybrid supply generator, called a “hybrid switching 

amplifier,” that includes a linear amplifier and a switching 

amplifier. J.A. 14. Figures 5 and 6 are relevant to this appeal. The Board found that Figure 5 of Kwak disclosed a 

“hybrid supply generator with a feedforward path so the 

input signal can directly control the switching amplifier.” 

J.A. 14. The Board further found that Figure 6 “depicts the 

detailed circuit of the hybrid switching amplifier [with] a 

different summing circuit . . . and integrator . . . than the 

one depicted in Figure 5 . . . . ” J.A. 17. 

3 Jinsung Choi, et al., Envelope Tracking Power Amplifier Robust to Battery Depletion, Microwave Symposium 

Digest (MTT), 2010 IEEE MTT-S INTERNATIONAL 1074–77 

(2010). Choi discloses “[a] wideband envelope tracking 

power amplifier” with an integrated boost converter to 

keep a stable operation of the power amp supply modulator. J.A. 28.

4 Wing-Yee Chu, et al., A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2 mV 

Ripple PA Regulator for CDMA Transmitters, IEEE J.

SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS 2809–19 (2008). 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 06/27/2023
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 7

Hanington5; and (2) claim 11 is obvious in view of Chu combined with Choi, Hanington, and Myers6. Intel alleged that 

the boost converter disclosed in Choi, when combined with 

the transistor disclosed in Chu, “receiv[es] the boosted supply voltage,” as claimed in claim 10, J.A. 5076, and that it 

would have been obvious to modify the envelope amplifier 

disclosed in Chu to operate selectively with either a battery 

supply or boosted voltage. 

The Board instituted review on all grounds in Intel’s 

petitions. But the Board found all claims, other than claim 

11, patentable. 

First, the Board construed “a source that receives the 

boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” in claim 

10 (and the corresponding phrase in claim 19) to require 

that “the envelope amplifier be capable of operating, selectively, based on the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage.” J.A. 12, 45. In other words, the Board 

construed the phrase to require both voltage options to be 

available, and for the envelope amplifier to be able to 

switch between the first supply voltage and the boosted 

supply voltage, as needed—a feature referred to as “selective boost” in the final written decisions. Based on this construction, the Board found that the combination of Kwak 

and Choi did not render claims 10 or 19 unpatentable, because the references only disclosed an envelope amplifier 

that receives a boosted supply voltage. Thus, the envelope 

amplifier could not perform the required selective boost. 

Second, the Board found that Kwak did not anticipate 

claims 15, 17, 18, or 20 because, while Kwak disclosed each 

5 Gary Hanington, et al., High-Efficiency Power Amplifier Using Dynamic Power-Supply Voltage for CDMA 

Applications, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY 

& TECHNIQUES 47:8 (1999). 

6 U.S. Patent No. 5,929,702. 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 7 Filed: 06/27/2023
8 INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

of the limitations of claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 across Figures 

5 and 6 of the reference, it did not do so “in an embodiment 

as arranged in the claims.” J.A. 20. Relying on our precedent in Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052,

1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Board found that Intel had 

failed to establish that a person of skill in the art would “at 

once envisage” the claimed arrangement or combination of 

elements. And while the Board at first found that Kwak 

rendered claim 16 obvious based on the disclosures in Figures 5 and 6, the Board reversed course after Qualcomm 

requested rehearing, finding that Intel’s obviousness argument incorporated its anticipation argument for claim 15, 

and that Intel did not provide a motivation to combine the 

different embodiments of Kwak. 

Intel now appeals.

II

Claim construction is a legal issue we review de novo, 

based on underlying factual findings that are reviewed for 

substantial evidence. Perfect Surgical Techs., Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Anticipation is a question of fact that we review for substantial 

evidence. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 

780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

III

On appeal, Intel challenges two aspects of the Board’s 

decision. First, Intel argues that the Board erred in construing “a source that receives the boosted supply voltage 

or the first supply voltage” to require a selective boost, and 

that the Board should have applied the ordinary meaning 

of “or.” Second, Intel argues that the Board erred in finding 

that Kwak does not disclose a single embodiment in Figures 5 and 6, and that alternatively, the Board failed to 

consider that the functionalities of Figures 5 and 6 could be 

combined. We address each argument in turn. 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 8 Filed: 06/27/2023
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 9

A 

Intel argues that the Board erred in reading a “selective boost” limitation into claims 10 and 19. Intel relies on 

our past constructions of claims containing “or,” in arguing 

that “or” describes a series of alternatives, so that when a 

claim recites “A” or “B,” prior art disclosing either “A” or 

“B” satisfies the claim. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 

(Fed. Cir. 2001); see SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 

F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Game & Tech. Co. v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 926 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 

Intel argues that the Board improperly “narrow[ed] the 

claims to require that the envelope amplifier be able to receive both a first supply voltage and the boosted supply 

voltage and select between them,” thereby reading a “selective boost” limitation into the claim language. Appellant’s 

Br. 34 (emphasis in original). Under what Intel considers 

to be the “correct” construction, the combinations involving 

Kwak and Choi—which undisputedly disclose a boosted 

supply voltage—would render claims 10 and 19 obvious. 

We disagree. Intel’s argument only considers “or” in 

isolation but does not consider the context in which 

“boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” is used. 

“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of 

the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 

F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999). While “or” can refer to 

alternatives, that is not a hard-and-fast rule. Here, the 

Board properly analyzed the phrase in context, and determined that the claimed invention required an envelope amplifier to receive both a boosted supply voltage and a first 

supply voltage and select between the two. Specifically, the

Board considered the ’558 patent’s specification and its earlier IPRs addressing claims 6, 8, and 13 to determine that 

“the amplifier must be able to receive both the boosted supply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost) 

as recited in the claims.” J.A. 10, 12. For example, the 

Board relied on the following passage from the ’558 patent: 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 9 Filed: 06/27/2023
10 INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

[T]he envelope amplifier may further receive the 

first supply voltage and may generate the second 

supply voltage based on either the first supply voltage or the boosted supply voltage. For example, the 

envelope amplifier may generate the second supply 

voltage (i) based on the boosted supply voltage if 

the envelope signal exceeds a first threshold and/or 

if the first supply voltage is below a second threshold or (ii) based on the first supply voltage otherwise.

’558 patent at 1:42–50. 

We agree with the Board’s analysis and come to the 

same conclusion based on the claim construction evidence 

provided.7 Thus, we affirm the Board’s construction of 

“boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” and the 

corresponding phrases in claims 10 and 19. 

B 

Next, Intel argues that the Board erred in finding that 

Kwak does not anticipate claims 15, 17, 18, or 20. Intel first

argues that the Board’s determination that Figures 5 and 

6 of Kwak are multiple embodiments is not supported by 

substantial evidence, and that instead the Board should 

have treated those figures as a single embodiment because 

the caption of Figure 6 describes a “[d]etailed block diagram of the hybrid switching amplifier.” Appellant’s Br. 44 

(emphasis added). Intel alternatively argues that, if Figures 5 and 6 disclosed different embodiments, the Board 

erred by requiring all claim elements to be found in one 

single embodiment in the reference, without considering 

7 This construction is also consistent with how the 

Board construed corresponding phrases in claims 6, 8, and 

13. See Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-1587, 2021 

WL 4772765, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021). 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 10 Filed: 06/27/2023
INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 11

whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would 

combine the embodiments as arranged in the claims. 

We disagree with Intel’s first argument and need not 

consider the second. Before the Board, Intel only advanced 

its theory that Figures 5 and 6 of Kwak disclosed a single 

embodiment, but never advanced a theory that Figures 5 

and 6 were separate embodiments that a person having ordinary skill in the art would combine. The Board considered Kwak’s disclosures and expert testimony to conclude 

that Figure 6 was not merely a “more detailed” implementation of Figure 5 but was a separate and different embodiment. J.A. 19. The Board noted that Figure 6 of Kwak 

disclosed “a summing circuit operating on input current 

and offset current that differs from the voltage circuit signals shown in Figure 5” and that the “feedforward node in 

Figure 6 differs from that shown in Figure 5.” J.A. 19. The 

Board also noted that Intel’s expert testimony did not address the differences between Figures 5 and 6 and relied 

instead on testimony from Qualcomm’s expert that the two 

figures disclosed separate embodiments. This constitutes 

substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination

that Figures 5 and 6 were not a single embodiment, and we 

will not disturb this determination on appeal. 

Furthermore, we will not consider Intel’s argument 

about whether Figures 5 and 6, as separate embodiments, 

could still anticipate the challenged claims because Intel 

did not raise that argument before the Board. Throughout 

the proceedings before the Board, Intel only advanced a position that Figures 5 and 6 were a single embodiment, rather than distinct embodiments that a person having 

ordinary skill in the art could still combine as arranged in 

the claims. Intel has described no exceptional circumstances excusing its failure to raise this argument before 

the Board and has therefore forfeited that argument. In re 

Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 

2020) (“[A] position not presented in the tribunal under review will not be considered on appeal in the absence of 

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 11 Filed: 06/27/2023
12 INTEL CORPORATION v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

exceptional circumstances.”). Accordingly, we affirm the 

Board’s finding that Kwak does not anticipate claims 15, 

17, 18, or 20. 

IV

We have considered Intel’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. Therefore, we affirm the Board’s 

final determination finding claims 10 and 15–20 patentable. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 22-1046 Document: 44 Page: 12 Filed: 06/27/2023