Opinion ID: 4199980
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vicor’s Reexamination of the ’190 Patent

Text: In September 2011, Vicor requested inter partes reexamination of the ’190 patent. The PTO granted the reexamination request and chose to keep Vicor’s reexamination of the ’190 patent separate from Murata’s reexamination. Vicor cited four prior art references in its request for reexamination: Steigerwald ’090, 5 Steigerwald ’539 6 (collectively, Steigerwald), Cobos, 7 and Pressman. 8 Steigerwald ’090 incorporates Steigerwald ’539 by reference. The examiner rejected certain claims as anticipated by Steigerwald. The examiner also rejected claims as obvious over combinations of the four references. SynQor appealed to the Board, and the Board sided with SynQor, reversing all rejections. Vicor appealed. 5 U.S. Patent No. 5,377,090. 6 U.S. Patent No. 5,274,539. 7 J.A. Cobos & J. Uceda, Low Output Voltage DC/DC Conversion, IEEE 20th Int’l Conf. on Indus. Elecs., Control and Instrumentation, at 1676–81 (September 5–9, 1994). 8 Abraham I. Pressman, Switching and Linear Power Supply, Power Converter Design (1977). 12 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. We reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 603 F. App’x 969, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (SynQor II). Steigerwald ’090, we held, incorporates Steigerwald ’539 by reference, and the combined reference discloses an alternative embodiment of a power converting system having a non-regulating isolation stage and a plurality of non-isolating regulation stages, in which the uncontrolled rectifiers in Steigerwald ’090 are replaced with controlled rectifiers from Steigerwald ’539. 9 Id. at 974–75. We concluded that “[t]he combined reference teaches a single embodiment that anticipates all elements of representative claim 20” of the ’190 patent, that is, a two-stage DC-DC power converter system having a non-regulating isolation stage and a plurality of non-isolating regulation stages. Id. We also vacated the Board’s nonobviousness determinations of the remaining claims, which relied in part on the same objective evidence of nonobviousness discussed in SynQor I and submitted to the Board in Murata, and remanded for further consideration in light of our anticipation decision. Id. Regarding the objective evidence of nonobviousness, we instructed the Board to reconsider whether a nexus exists between the proffered secondary considerations evidence and the merits of the claimed invention in light of our conclusion that representative claim 20 is anticipated: [T]he teachings of the combined Steigerwald ref- erence may be relevant to any objective evidence of nonobviousness. For example, commercial suc- cess is evidence of obviousness only when there is a “nexus . . . between the merits of the claimed in- vention and evidence of commercial success.” Iron 9 We refer to “Steigerwald” hereinafter as this alternative embodiment incorporating Steigerwald ’539’s controlled rectifiers into Steigerwald ’090’s DC-DC power converter circuit. VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 13 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. SynQor II, 603 F. App’x at 975–76. 10 Representative claim 20 of the ’190 patent, which we held was anticipated in SynQor II, covers a very similar invention to those of the currently disputed claims of the SynQor Patents in the present appeals. Claim 20 recites: A power converter system comprising: a DC power source; a non-regulating isolation stage compris- ing: 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 second- ary winding coupled to the at least 10 On remand from our decision in SynQor II, the Board issued a decision—on the same date that it issued a decision in the ’290’s reexamination and a decision on rehearing in the ’021’s reexamination—holding that all challenged claims of the ’190 patent were unpatentable. The Board held that the objective indicia evidence was insufficient to overcome the examiner’s other cited evidence of obviousness, despite finding a nexus between the objective indicia evidence and the claims of the ’190 patent. 14 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. one primary winding and having plural controlled rectifiers, each having a parallel uncontrolled rec- tifier and each connected to a sec- ondary winding, each controlled rectifier being turned on and off in synchronization with the voltage waveform across a primary wind- ing 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. ’190 patent col. 18 ll. 29–44. The disputed claims of the SynQor Patents cover the same two-stage power converter system, with the addition of limitations directed to, for example, (1) switching regulators in all claims of the ’290 patent and claims 49–50 of the ’021 patent, (2) substantially continuous power flow across transformer windings in all claims of the ’021 patent (which replaces language in claim 20 of the ’190 patent reciting “being turned on and off in synchronization with the voltage waveform across a primary winding”), and (3) input/output voltage range limitations in various dependent claims of both patents. IV. Vicor’s Reexaminations of the ’290 and ’021 Patents (the Present Appeals) A. Reexamination of the ’290 Patent Vicor requested reexamination of the ’290 patent in December 2011. The PTO granted the request and adopted Vicor’s proposed grounds for rejection. Rejections I–II held that claims 1–15 were obvious over Steigerwald ’090, Cobos, and Pressman. Rejections III–IV held that the VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 15 same claims were obvious over JP ’446, 11 Steigerwald ’539, and Kassakian. 12 Rejections V–VI held that the same claims were obvious over Steigerwald and Pressman. After the Board issued its Murata decision on the ’190 patent, the examiner withdrew all rejections and adopted the Murata Board’s positions that (1) Steigerwald ’090 and Cobos could not be combined for rejections I–II because of frequency incompatibility between the references’ circuits, (2) a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Steigerwald and Pressman for rejections V–VI because Steigerwald taught away from incorporating Pressman’s switching regulators, and (3) all challenged claims were “not obvious based on objective indicia of non-obviousness.” See -2283 J.A. 417-18 (citing Murata, -2283 J.A. 1709-45). With respect to rejections III–IV, the examiner relied exclusively on evidence of secondary considerations in withdrawing the rejections involving Vicor’s proposed combination of JP ’446, Steigerwald ’539, and Kassakian, without addressing the remaining three factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City: (1) “the scope and content of the prior art,” (2) “differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” and (3) “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). Vicor appealed to the Board. The Board affirmed the examiner. Regarding pro- posed rejections I–II, the Board held that a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to combine Cobos’s controlled rectifiers with Steigerwald ’090’s circuit because of frequency incompatibilities between the references’ circuits, crediting Dr. Schlecht’s testimony on this 11 Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. H05-64446. 12 John G. Kassakian & Martin F. Schlecht, High- Frequency High-Density Converters for Distributed Power Supply Systems, 76 Proc. IEEE 362 (Apr. 1988). 16 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. issue. 13 As to proposed rejections III–IV, the Board affirmed the examiner’s decision to withdraw the rejections based solely on the objective evidence. For proposed rejections V and VI, the Board adopted the Murata Board’s determination that there was no motivation to combine Steigerwald and Pressman because Pressman’s switching regulators would introduce inductance into the conductive path of Steigerwald’s output, in contravention of statements in the Steigerwald patents’ prosecution history discouraging inclusion of inductance in the output’s path. During Vicor’s reexamination of the ’290 patent, SynQor presented much of the same objective evidence of nonobviousness that it had presented in SynQor I, in the Murata reexamination, and in SynQor II. The Board found SynQor’s arguments regarding the objective evidence to be persuasive and adopted the analysis of secondary considerations set out in Murata. Although the Board acknowledged our decision in SynQor II, the Board did not address SynQor II’s finding that the basic IBA architecture recited in the claims was already known in the art. The Board concluded that all disputed claims of the ’290 patent were patentable over the prior art presented by Vicor. B. Reexamination of the ’021 Patent Vicor requested reexamination of the ’021 patent in May 2011. The PTO granted the request and adopted Vicor’s proposed rejections. SynQor added new claims 49–50 during the reexamination, which required use of switching regulators. Rejection I held that claims 1, 9, 15, 21, 24, 26, 31, 39, 45, and 47 were anticipated by Steigerwald. Rejection II held that claims 22, 23, 25, and 27– 13Proposed rejections I–II did not rely on Stei- gerwald or Pressman for disclosure of controlled rectifiers. VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 17 30 were obvious over Steigerwald in view of the knowledge of a person skilled in the art. Rejection III held that claim 49 was obvious over Steigerwald and Pressman. Rejection IV held that claim 50 was obvious over Steigerwald, Pressman, and admitted prior art. The examiner maintained all rejections and issued a right of appeal notice. SynQor appealed. In this reexamination, the Board affirmed all rejections. Regarding rejection I, the Board affirmed anticipation by Steigerwald, finding, inter alia, that substantially uninterrupted power flowed through the windings of Steigerwald ’090’s transformer. For rejection II, the Board affirmed the examiner’s finding that the claimed input and output voltage ranges would have been obvious design choices for a person skilled in the art. The Board also considered SynQor’s objective evidence of nonobviousness in connection with rejection II and held that, although “substantial evidence” of secondary considerations existed in the record, the evidence “principally” related to “features of the independent claims” that were held to be anticipated in SynQor II and therefore did not outweigh evidence of obviousness. -2288 J.A. 31–32. Although that ruling is not consistent with the Board’s evaluation of the same secondary consideration evidence in the ’290’s reexamination (see § IV.A., supra), the Board did not explain in either decision why it weighed the same evidence differently and reached different outcomes in its decisions for the two related patents. Regarding rejections III–IV, the Board held that a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine Steigerwald and Pressman, ruling oppositely on the same issue presented in the ’290’s reexamination. Specifically, the Board held that it would have been obvious to insert Pressman’s switching regulators into Steigerwald ’090’s circuit, despite statements discouraging this combination in the prosecution history of Steigerwald ’090. 18 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. SynQor requested rehearing of the Board’s decision. On rehearing, the Board confirmed its prior holdings. Regarding rejection I, the Board stated that Steigerwald’s input is “always connected to the output of the secondary winding circuit” and, therefore, that there is “continuous power flow” through Steigerwald’s windings. Id. at 9. On rejections III–IV, the Board more specifically identified a motivation to combine Steigerwald and Pressman by citing Pressman’s teaching that switching regulators could improve the efficiency of circuit regulation. The Board also reconsidered the objective evidence and held that, while the evidence did “tend to somewhat support a case of nonobviousness,” there was nevertheless strong evidence of obviousness that outweighed such evidence. Id. at 18. Thus, the Board appeared to arrive at different conclusions in the ’290 and ’021’s respective reexaminations as to the persuasiveness of the objective evidence presented in both reexaminations. The Board concluded that all disputed claims of the ’021 patent were unpatentable. Vicor and SynQor timely appealed the Board’s respective decisions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).