Opinion ID: 4199980
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rejection I: Anticipation by Steigerwald

Text: SynQor raises two arguments challenging the Board’s decision that Steigerwald anticipates certain claims of the ’021 patent. First, SynQor argues that the Board improperly relied on a new—and erroneous—ground of rejection on rehearing. -2288 Open. Br. at 26 (citing -2288 J.A. 7). Second, SynQor argues that the Board erred by “failing to consider SynQor’s argument that Steigerwald does not teach ‘substantially uninterrupted’ power flow in the alternative synchronous rectifier embodiment” due to timing of the synchronous rectifiers. Id. Both arguments are unpersuasive, and we therefore affirm the Board’s holding of anticipation by Steigerwald. First, SynQor argues that the Board erred by finding, for the first time on rehearing as a new ground for rejection, that average current in Figure 2a of Steigerwald ’539 “showed that power was constantly flowing in the secondary winding circuit of the Steigerwald converters.” Id. at 27. In SynQor’s view, the Board relied on this finding to conclude that Steigerwald ’539 discloses the “substantially uninterrupted flow of power” limitation in the claims. 28 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. SynQor also contends that this finding is erroneous and unsupported by substantial evidence. Id. at 35. Vicor responds that the “thrust of the rejection” on this issue “has not changed since the initial request for reexamination” and that the Board was merely responding to an argument raised by SynQor for the first time in its request for rehearing. -2288 Resp. Br. at 9. In addition, Vicor argues that the Board’s average-current finding on rehearing was irrelevant because the Board’s initial decision fully and independently addressed the rejection as initially presented, and the Board did not alter its original decision on rehearing. -2288 Oral Argument at 20:42–21:16, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20 16-2288.mp3. We agree with Vicor on this latter point. In this case, it was not enough for SynQor to “show the existence of error.” In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). SynQor was also required to “show that the error was in fact harmful because it affected the decision below.” Id.; 5 U.S.C. § 706 (“[In reviewing the Agency decision] the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.”); see also Munoz v. Strahm Farms, Inc., 69 F.3d 501, 504 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The correction of an error must yield a different result in order for that error to have been harmful and thus prejudice a substantial right of a party.”); Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 116 (1943) (“He who seeks to have a judgment set aside because of an erroneous ruling carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted.”). SynQor failed to show prejudicial error in this instance because, as explained below, the Board also adopted the Examiner’s original findings, which are supported by substantial evidence as an independent basis to support the conclusion that Steigerwald discloses substantially uninterrupted power flow through its windings. See -2288 J.A. 25. VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 29 Second, SynQor argues that the Board erred by failing to consider its argument that Steigerwald lacks substantially uninterrupted power flow due to switching delays of Steigerwald’s synchronous rectifiers. The allegedly overlooked argument posits that, even if power flow is uninterrupted in the uncontrolled-rectifier embodiment of Steigerwald ’090, incorporating Steigerwald ’539’s synchronous rectifiers into the circuit would create interruptions in power flow due to short delays in activating transistor gate terminals of the synchronous rectifiers. SynQor identifies Figure 10e from Steigerwald ’539 as depicting these short “off periods.” Vicor responds that, “even if interruptions were to occur because of the waveform in Fig. 10e, the claims do not require absence of any interruption. Rather, the claims require the duty cycle to cause ‘substantially uninterrupted’ power flow in normal operation.” -2288 Resp. Br. at 31 (emphasis omitted). We agree with Vicor. The Board expressly acknowledged SynQor’s allegedly overlooked argument in its opinion. See -2288 J.A. 5. While the Board’s opinion is not crystal clear in explaining the bases for its decision, the Board’s opinion sufficiently addressed SynQor’s argument by adopting the examiner’s observation that Steigerwald meets the uninterrupted power flow limitation because “[t]he [Steigerwald] isolation stage includes two transformers that operate in opposite phase, each at a complementary 50% duty cycle. ‘As a consequence, the energy storage capacitor Ce is always transformer coupled to the dc out- put.’” -2288 J.A. 25 (quoting Steigerwald ’539, J.A. 626, 3:33–38). This finding is supported by the disclosures of Steigerwald ’539 and is, therefore, supported by substantial evidence. The ’021 patent expressly contemplates interruptions in power flow like those depicted in Steigerwald ’539’s Figure 10e. ’021 patent col. 4 ll. 8–11 (“[D]uring normal operation[,] the isolation stage is operated at a fixed duty cycle in which power is always flow30 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. ing from input to output (except during the brief switch transitions).” (emphasis added)). B. Rejection II: Obviousness over Steigerwald in View of Person of Ordinary Skill’s Knowledge The Board held that claims 23, 25, and 27–30 of the ’021 patent, which include voltage-range limitations, would have been obvious because a skilled artisan “would have implemented those voltages as the result of routine design choice for a circuit for use in particular operating environments.” -2288 J.A. 30. SynQor argues that this decision was erroneous because Steigerwald teaches away from implementing its circuit in computer or telecommunications applications by requiring use of relatively small capacitors and larger voltages than those recited in the claims. Vicor counters that the Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the form of expert testimony, which averred that a person skilled in the art would have understood Steigerwald’s circuit to be implementable in computer and telecommunications applications using the claimed voltages. We agree with Vicor that the Board’s decision on these claims is supported by the substantial evidence cited by Vicor. See -2288 J.A. 30 (Board discussing expert testimony). In addition, regarding the secondary considerations evidence that SynQor presented in connection with these claims, the Board’s finding that such evidence was “principally” directed to “features of the [anticipated] independent claims,” and is therefore of lesser probative value, is supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., J.A. 13–18, 30–32 (Board discussing secondary considerations evidence). Therefore, we affirm the Board’s decision on rejection II. C. Rejection III: Obviousness over Steigerwald and Pressman For the reasons already discussed, we vacate and remand the Board’s decision on this rejection for reconsideration of whether it would have been obvious to VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 31 incorporate Pressman’s switching regulators into Steigerwald’s circuit. As discussed in § I.B., supra, the Board must reconsider the weight to be accorded SynQor’s proffered secondary considerations evidence in the SynQor Patents’ respective reexaminations. This reconsideration should include analysis of whether there is a nexus between the secondary considerations evidence and the switching regulators at issue here for rejection III. D. Rejection IV: Obviousness over Steigerwald, Pressman, and Admitted Prior Art Rejection IV addressed claim 50 of the ’021 patent, which combines the switching regulator limitation in claim 49 with voltage range limitations addressed above with respect to rejection II. For the reasons above, we vacate and remand the Board’s decision on this rejection for reconsideration of whether it would have been obvious to incorporate Pressman’s switching regulators into Steigerwald’s circuit. The Board’s findings related to the voltage range limitations of claim 50 are supported by substantial evidence, for the reasons given above in connection with rejection II. Again, as noted above, we vacate and remand the Board’s secondary considerations decision for this rejection. See § I.B., supra.