Opinion ID: 4199980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: SynQor’s Patents

Text: A. SynQor’s Asserted Improvement over the Prior Art The SynQor Patents claim to improve prior art sys- tems by separating the isolation and regulation functionality of DC-DC converters into two steps and using a single isolation stage to drive multiple regulation stages. See ’290 patent Fig. 1, col. 4 ll. 40–54; ’021 patent Fig. 5, col. 5 ll. 6–12. The single isolation stage drives an “intermediate bus” that is fed to multiple on-board regulator components. See -2288 J.A. 1117–19. 2 The regulators can be smaller, less expensive, and more efficient compared to regulators used in on-board, integrated isolat- ing/regulating converters. SynQor portrays this separation of isolation and regulation stages as the key invention of the SynQor Patents and “a revolutionary new power architecture” developed by SynQor’s CEO—Dr. Martin Schlecht—who is the sole named inventor on the 2 Filings from the respective appeals are identified by “-2283” and “-2288.” 6 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. SynQor Patents. -2288 Open. Br. at 2. According to SynQor, the new two-stage architecture, which became known as “Intermediate Bus Architecture” (IBA), was “hailed in the field, copied by SynQor’s competitors, and widely adopted by the industry.” Id. B. Disputed Claims of the SynQor Patents The SynQor Patents’ claims tailor their coverage of IBA’s general schema by including limitations that require specific circuit features. First, all of the claims require separate isolation and regulation stages comprising (1) a “non-regulating” isolation stage and (2) a plurality of “non-isolating” regulation stages. See generally ’290 patent col. 17 l. 9–col. 18 l. 35; ’021 patent col. 6 l. 21–col. 8 l. 60. Second, all claims of the ’290 patent and claims 49–50 of the ’021 patent require the regulation to be done by switching regulators. See generally ’290 patent col. 17 l. 9–col. 18 l. 35; -2288 J.A. 115 (reciting claims 49–50 of the ’021 patent, added during reexamination). SynQor argues that switching regulators provide more efficient regulation than linear regulators used in prior art converters. Third, for the non-regulating isolation stage, all claims of the ’021 patent require “substantially uninterrupted flow of power” through a transformer’s “primary and secondary winding circuits.” See generally ’021 patent col. 6 l. 21–col. 8 l. 60. The ’021 patent’s specification describes circuitry that regulates the flow of power across the primary and secondary windings by setting a “duty cycle” for periodically reversing the directional flow of current across the primary winding. See id. col. 3 l. 62– col. 4 l. 18. The ’021 patent explains that power is always flowing through the isolation stage, except during “brief switch transitions.” ’021 patent col. 4 ll. 8–11. Finally, both patents include dependent claims that limit input and output voltages to ranges appropriate for VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 7 converters that receive DC power from a front end converter and output DC power to drive logic circuitry. See, e.g., ’290 patent col. 18 ll. 7–9 (claim 7); ’021 patent col. 7 ll. 40–42 (claim 25). SynQor argues that restricting circuit operation to these voltage ranges distinguishes prior art power systems that were not designed for powering telecommunications or computer systems. The sole independent claim of the ’290 patent, claim 1, covers an IBA converter implemented with switching regulators: A DC-DC power converter system providing plural regulated DC outputs, each having a regu- lated voltage, comprising: a DC input; a non-regulating isolating converter com- prising: a primary transformer winding circuit having at least one primary winding that receives power from the DC input; and a secondary transformer winding circuit having at least one second- ary winding coupled to the at least one primary winding and having plural controlled rectifiers, each having a parallel uncontrolled rec- tifier and each in circuit with a secondary winding, each controlled rectifier being turned on and off in synchronization with a voltage waveform of the at least one pri- mary winding to provide a non- regulated, isolated DC output; and 8 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. plural non-isolating switching regula- tors, each receiving power from the non- regulated, isolated DC output of the non- regulating isolating converter and each providing one of the regulated DC outputs having a regulated voltage. ’290 patent col. 17 ll. 9–30 (emphasis added). Claim 7 of the ’290 patent is exemplary of the dependent claims in the SynQor Patents that specify in- put/output voltage ranges for telecommunications or computer systems: A power converter system as claimed in claim 1 wherein each regulated voltage of each of the regulated DC outputs is of a voltage level to drive logic circuitry. ’290 patent col. 18 ll. 7–9 (emphasis added). Claim 1 of the ’021 patent is very similar to claim 1 of the ’290 patent, but includes the “substantially uninterrupted flow of power” limitation present in all claims of the ’021 patent: A power converter system comprising: a normally non-regulating isolation stage comprising: a primary winding circuit; a secondary winding circuit cou- pled to the primary winding cir- cuit, the secondary winding circuit comprising a secondary trans- former winding in series with a controlled rectifier having a paral- lel uncontrolled rectifier, the sec- ondary winding circuit providing a VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 9 normally non-regulated output of the isolation stage; and a control circuit which controls du- ty cycle of the primary winding circuit, the duty cycle causing sub- stantially uninterrupted flow of power through the primary and secondary winding circuits during normal operation; and a plurality of non-isolating regulation stages, each receiving the non-regulated output of the isolation stage and regulat- ing a regulation stage output. ’021 patent col. 6 ll. 22–39 (emphasis added). III. Prior Proceedings Involving SynQor’s Patents
In 2007, SynQor sued certain of its major competi- tors—but not Vicor—for infringing five of its patents, including the ’021 patent and a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190 (the ’190 patent). 3 All of the asserted patents involved IBA, with its separate isolation and regulation stages. In 2010, a jury found all asserted claims not invalid and infringed. The defendants appealed, arguing that, inter alia, there was no substantial evidence to support the jury’s nonobviousness verdict. SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1372, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (SynQor I). We rejected defendants’ arguments and affirmed because, inter alia, SynQor had “introduced extensive objective evidence of nonobviousness at trial, including commercial success, industry recognition, initial (pre-invention) skepticism of experts, 3 The SynQor Patents trace priority back to the ’190 patent. 10 VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. unexpected results, and copying by competitors.” Id. at 1377. 4 In so holding, we linked this evidence to the IBA two-stage architecture as claimed in the patents: The record links this convincing evidence to the claimed invention thus supplying a nexus to the claimed intermediate bus architecture. For ex- ample, the record shows that even Defendants’ engineers were highly skeptical of the claimed invention, at one point describing it as a “whopper in terms of technical challenge.” Another engi- neer stated “that separating isolation from regulation . . . almost surely would cost more in dollars, efficiency, and board space.” Further, Defendants’ expert McAlexander admitted that “there is cer- tainly an element of commercial success [to SynQor’s] architecture,” and SynQor’s expert, Dr. Leeb, testified that “there were significant efforts [by Defendants] to copy . . . SynQor’s products.” Id.
In August 2009, one of the defendants in SynQor I, Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., requested inter partes reexamination of SynQor’s ’190 patent. See Murata Mfg. 4 Our discussion of the objective evidence appeared in connection with analysis of U.S. Patent No. 7,269,034 (the ’034 patent). The ’034 patent is a grandparent of the ’290 patent and, like the ’021 patent, claims priority to the ’190 patent. While the claims of the ’034 patent cover a semi-regulated isolation stage, they still cover IBA’s general design of separating isolation and final regulation stages. ’034 patent col. 17 l. 21–col. 20 l. 17. Indeed, all of SynQor’s patents discussed in this opinion cover IBA, which was the focus of our objective evidence analysis in SynQor I. VICOR CORP. v. SYNQOR, INC. 11 Co. v. SynQor, Inc., Reexamination Control No. 95/001,207, 2013 WL 4427009, at  (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2013) (Murata). The PTO granted the request and initiated reexamination. The examiner rejected certain claims, and SynQor appealed to the Board. SynQor presented the same objective evidence of secondary considerations discussed in SynQor I to the Board in support of its nonobviousness arguments. The Board found a nexus between SynQor’s evidence and the disputed claims and reversed all examiner rejections, holding that the challenged claims were patentable over the prior art combinations proposed by Murata.
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).