Court Opinion

ID: 9839470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 15:01:31.331913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:54.741790
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-1045    Document: 74    Page: 1   Filed: 09/06/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                 DALI WIRELESS INC.,
                       Appellant

                            v.

        COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
                  Appellee

  KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
  COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
   AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PA-
        TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
                   Intervenor
             ______________________

                        2020-1045
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-
 00571.
                  ______________________

                Decided: September 6, 2023
                  ______________________

    STEFAN SZPAJDA, Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA,
 argued for appellant. Also represented by ALEXANDRA O.
 FELLOWES, CRISTOFER LEFFLER, DAVID DOUGLAS
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74     Page: 2    Filed: 09/06/2023

 2       DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

 SCHUMANN, CLIFF WIN, II; ERIC F. CITRON, Gupta Wessler
 PLLC, Washington, DC; KEVIN RUSSELL, Goldstein, Rus-
 sell & Woofter LLC, Washington, DC.

     PHILIP P. CASPERS, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh &
 Lindquist PA, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellee. Also
 represented by WILLIAM F. BULLARD, SAMUEL A. HAMER.

     SARAH E. CRAVEN, Office of the Solicitor, United States
 Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for interve-
 nor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA
 YASMEEN RASHEED.
                 ______________________

     Before HUGHES, LINN, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 LINN, Circuit Judge.
     Dali Wireless Inc. (“Dali”) appeals from a Final Written
 Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)
 holding that claims 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 of Dali’s U.S.
 Patent Number 9,531,473 (“’473 patent”) are anticipated
 and obvious over prior art reference Wu, 1 and claims 9, 10,
 14–17 of the same patent are obvious over a combination of
 Wu and Sabat. 2 See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wire-
 less Inc., IPR No. 2018-00571 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019)
 (“Board Opinion”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319.
     Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s de-
 terminations of anticipation and obviousness of claims 6–
 8, 11–13, and 18–21 over Wu, and because substantial evi-
 dence supports the Board’s determination of obviousness of
 claims 9, 10, 14–17 over the combination of Wu and Sabat,
 we affirm.

     1   U.S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0128676.
     2   U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0180426.
Case: 20-1045     Document: 74     Page: 3    Filed: 09/06/2023

 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC            3

                        DISCUSSION
                               I
     The ‘473 patent discloses a distributed antenna system
 that “enables a high degree of flexibility to manage, control,
 enhance, [and] facilitate the usage and performance of a
 distributed wireless network.” ’473 patent, Abstract. In
 such systems, downlink data is sent from a base station to
 any number of digital access units and, in turn, to various
 remote units located about an area of desired coverage.
 The remote units convey select information to user devices,
 such as cell phones. Software embedded in the digital ac-
 cess units and remote units determines “the appropriate
 amount of radio resources . . . to meet desired capacity and
 throughput objectives.” Id. at 11:44–50.
     A single limitation of independent claim 11 is at the
 center of the debate over the unpatentability of claims 6–8,
 11–13, and 18–21. That limitation is referred to as the “ca-
 pable of sending” limitation: “wherein the host unit is ca-
 pable of sending a digital representation of any downlink
 signal it receives to any of the plurality of remote units.”
 (Emphases added). 3 Dali also argues error in the Board’s
 treatment of the “packetizing” limitations of dependent
 claims 9, 10, 14–17. 4

     3    Dali also cited at oral argument the so-called “con-
 figurable to transmit” limitation at the end of claim 11 but
 conceded that it did not challenge that limitation in its
 brief as part of this appeal. Oral Arg. at 2:46–55, 3:15–30,
 No.      20-1045,       available    at     https://oralargu-
 ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20-1045_0710202
 3.mp3.
     4    Claims 15 and 17 depend from claims 14 and 16,
 respectively. The parties do not raise any issues on appeal
 concerning claims 15 or 17 that differ from their conten-
 tions regarding claims 14 and 16.
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74      Page: 4    Filed: 09/06/2023

 4        DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

                              II
      Beginning with the “capable of sending” limitation, we
 note that Dali first asked the Board to construe that limi-
 tation as requiring a “host unit . . . capable of sending a
 digital representation of a specific downlink signal it re-
 ceives to a specific one of the plurality of remote units.”
 Board Opinion at 12 (emphasis added). Dali explained
 that its construction required the host unit to be capable of
 sending a specific signal to “only one remote unit without
 sending it to any other remote units.” Id. at 13. The Board
 rejected this construction because the specification de-
 scribes upconverters at the remote units that can selec-
 tively broadcast from among the resources the remote unit
 receives and thus control the uplink resources themselves.
 Id. at 13–14. The Board concluded that it need not explic-
 itly construe the claim in the manner requested by Dali.
 Id. at 14.
      The Board then held claims 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 an-
 ticipated and obvious over Wu. Wu describes a “carrier
 channel distribution system” to route channels to remote
 transceiver units (“RTUs”). Wu at ¶ 11. Wu’s base trans-
 ceiver station (“BTS”) has a matrix switch, 250, and host
 units, 230 and “can include multi-band transceiver 260.”
 Id. at ¶¶ 15, 34. The transceiver sends analog channels to
 a matrix switch, which “routes analog channels 270 to an
 appropriate host unit 230 according to a [routing] policy
 255 for distribution to remote regions or RTUs.” Id. at
 ¶¶ 38, 40. The Board held that Wu disclosed all the limi-
 tations of claim 11: the signal source read on the trans-
 ceiver, the claimed host unit read on the combination of
 Wu’s matrix switch and host unit 230, and the claimed re-
 mote units read on the RTUs. Board Opinion at 17–22. As
 particularly relevant here, the Board held that Wu dis-
 closed the “capable of sending” limitation because “Wu’s
 matrix switch allows individual carrier channels to be
 routed, via host units, to specific connected remote units.”
 Id. at 23.
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74       Page: 5   Filed: 09/06/2023

 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC           5

     The Board next addressed claims 9, 10, and 14–17 and
 construed the term “packetizing” as framing data and add-
 ing information that describes the source or destination of
 the data. Id. at 9–12. The Board then held claims 9, 10,
 14–17 obvious over a combination of Wu and Sabat. Sabat
 discloses a communication system with distributed remote
 units using a DDR hub between a host digital base station
 and the digital remote units and vice versa. Sabat at ¶¶ 15,
 16, 34–37, FIGs 3, 6. Sabat teaches that the hub may use
 the CPRI standard for communications and incorporates
 the specifications of that standard by reference into the pa-
 tent. Id. at ¶¶ 14, 31, 32. As discussed further, infra, the
 CPRI specification discloses but does not require using “ad-
 dresses” such as ethernet addresses and an “address table”
 that “maps a CPRI port to an address.” J.A. 1161.
       The Board held that Sabat taught using CPRI for com-
 munications between a host unit and base station. The
 Board also held that CPRI disclosed using addressing in-
 formation, which “would have taught or suggested to one of
 ordinary skill in the art that the host unit would frame data
 being transmitted to the base station and address that data
 . . . so that packets arrive at their intended destination.”
 Board Opinion at 34.
                              III
     The parties treat claim 11 as representative of claims
 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 and argue claims 9, 10, 14–17 to-
 gether. Board Opinion at 24, 31, 35; Appellant’s Opening
 Br. at 13. Dali raises several arguments on the merits of
 the Board’s unpatentability determinations.
     Dali first contends that because Wu is not capable of
 sending only certain selected communications to particular
 remote radio units, the Board could not have properly
 found the claims anticipated or obvious over Wu without
 effectively construing the “capable of sending” limitation to
 encompass a host that broadcasts all communications it re-
 ceives to all the remote units attached thereto. Dali argues
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74      Page: 6    Filed: 09/06/2023

 6        DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

 that this essentially replaces “any” as claimed in the “capa-
 ble of sending” limitation with “all.” Second, Dali contends
 that substantial evidence does not support the Board’s con-
 sideration of the separately disclosed host unit 230 and ma-
 trix switch of Wu together in what it terms a modified
 diagram in order to meet the claimed “host unit” limitation.
 Third, Dali argues that substantial evidence does not sup-
 port the Board’s obviousness determinations predicated on
 Wu and Sabat as meeting the “packetizing” limitation of
 claims 9, 10, and 14–17. We address each argument in
 turn.
                              A
     Dali first argues that the Board acted arbitrarily in
 making a de facto construction of the “capable of sending”
 limitation by replacing “any downlink signal . . . to any re-
 mote unit” with “all downlink signals to all remote units”
 in finding independent claim 11 anticipated and obvious
 over Wu. See Board Opinion at 23–24. Dali contends that
 the Board could not have properly found the claims antici-
 pated or obvious over Wu, because Wu is not capable of
 sending only certain selected communications to specific
 remote radio units as recited in the claims. CommScope
 responds that the Board did not make a new construction
 at all, but merely rejected Dali’s argument that claim 11
 required selected signals to be sent to only a single remote
 unit. In CommScope’s view, the Board properly treated the
 combination of Wu’s host unit 230 and matrix switch as
 disclosing and teaching the “capable of sending” limitation
 as recited.
     We agree with CommScope. The passage of the Board’s
 decision Dali cites reads:
       While “sending a digital representation of any
       downlink signal . . . to any of the plurality of
       remote units” may, in the case in which mul-
       tiple remote units are connected to one of
       Wu’s host units, mean that all such remote
Case: 20-1045     Document: 74      Page: 7    Filed: 09/06/2023

 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC             7

       units receive the downlink signal, as dis-
       cussed supra at Section II.C.2, this is con-
       sistent with the “capable of sending”
       limitation.
 Id. at 23. This was not a construction replacing “any” with
 “all” in the claim limitation. It was simply a recognition
 that Wu’s host unit 230, acting alone, sends all the chan-
 nels it receives to all of its connected remote units. The
 Board relied not on that portion of Wu, alone, but consid-
 ered the combination of Wu’s host unit 230 and matrix
 switch 250 to allow individual carrier channels to be routed
 to specific connected remote units. See Board Opinion at
 23 (“Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s showing
 that Wu’s matrix switch allows individual carrier channels
 to be routed, via host units, to specific connected remote
 units.”). Because Wu’s matrix switch selectively sends sig-
 nals to particular Wu host units 230, the Board found it
 inapposite that Wu’s host unit 230 alone sends all the sig-
 nals it receives to all of its connected remote units. For this
 reason, we reject Dali’s argument that the Board, in find-
 ing the claims unpatentable, did so only by improperly con-
 struing the “capable of sending” limitation.
                               B
     Dali argues that substantial evidence does not support
 the Board’s consideration of the separately disclosed host
 unit 230 and matrix switch of Wu together in what it terms
 a modified diagram in order to meet the claimed “host unit”
 limitation. First, Dali contends that the matrix switch in
 Wu is shown inside the signal source BTS 240, while cer-
 tain embodiments of the claimed invention disclose the sig-
 nal source as “physically and functionally separate from the
 host unit.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 44 (emphasis in
 original). Dali also argues that grouping Wu’s host unit
 230 and matrix switch together to satisfy the host unit lim-
 itation creates a logical conflict with the “signal source”
 claim limitation. Finally, Dali argues that the Board failed
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74      Page: 8    Filed: 09/06/2023

 8        DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

 to discern a reason to modify Wu to group the host unit and
 matrix together.
     CommScope responds that Wu describes how the ma-
 trix switch and host unit 230 function together and argues
 that the Board’s determination of anticipation and obvious-
 ness does not require altering Wu’s disclosed components
 to satisfy the claim. CommScope also argues that the
 claims do not require that the host unit is separate from
 the signal source (only that it be coupled to the signal
 source), and even if it does require separation, that Wu
 teaches that the transceiver may be remote from the base
 station. Finally, CommScope argues that the Board’s hold-
 ing is internally consistent in reading the disclosed struc-
 ture of Wu on each limitation of the claims.
     We agree with CommScope. Nothing about the struc-
 ture of the claim precludes reading the combination of Wu’s
 matrix switch and Wu’s host unit 230 together as meeting
 the claimed host unit. Moreover, there is no modification
 of Wu needed to group the matrix switch and Wu’s host unit
 together for purposes of the unpatentability analysis. The
 Board did not “import the functionality of the separate ma-
 trix switch into the host unit,” as Dali contends. Appel-
 lant’s Opening Br. at 44. Wu’s host unit 230 and matrix
 switch already function together as part of the base station,
 240, to route channels to remote units. Wu at FIG. 2; id. at
 ¶ 15 (describing Figure 2 as showing a schematic of a “base
 transceiver station (BTS) having a matrix switch and host
 units”); id. at ¶ 38 (describing a preferred embodiment, ma-
 trix switch “routes analog channels 270 to an appropriate
 host unit 230 according to a policy 255 for distribution to
 remote regions or RTUs. Host units 230 further distribute
 the channels to RTUs over links 215.”); id. at ¶ 39 (describ-
 ing an example of the routing). See also Board Opinion at
 22 (“[W]e agree that the matrix switch and host units func-
 tion together to disclose the claimed host unit.”). It is in-
 apposite that Wu itself labels host unit 230 as a “host.” As
 the Board correctly recognized, “identity of terminology is
Case: 20-1045     Document: 74     Page: 9    Filed: 09/06/2023

 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC            9

 not required for anticipation.” Board Opinion at 21 (citing
 In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). We discern
 no error in the Board’s treatment of Wu’s host unit 230 and
 matrix switch together as meeting the “capable of sending”
 limitation.
     Furthermore, as the Board correctly noted, Dali “does
 not argue a difference—structural, functional, or other-
 wise—between the identified elements from Wu and the
 claimed host unit,” and does not present any other reason
 why the combination of Wu’s matrix switch and host unit
 230 does not anticipate or render obvious representative
 claim 11. Board Opinion at 21. Dali does not dispute that
 Wu’s matrix switch can allocate certain carrier channels to
 a certain host unit, Appellant’s Opening Br. at 16 (conced-
 ing that Wu’s matrix switch performs this function), or that
 Wu’s host units can send the channels to the remote units
 according to the routing policy in the matrix switch. Wu’s
 disclosures support the Board’s findings. Wu repeatedly
 teaches selectively routing certain channels to certain re-
 mote units. Wu at ¶ 11 (“The [matrix] switch preferably
 routes the individual channels, individually or combined,
 to RTUs according to a routing policy. The routing policy
 can be reconfigured as desired.”); id. at ¶ 38 (noting that
 the matrix switch can split “individual channels 1–12 . . .
 into individual channels or groups of channels” via an “ap-
 propriate host unit 230”); id. at ¶ 40 (noting that the rout-
 ing policy in the matrix switch determines “how analog
 channels 270 should be routed to host units 230 for further
 distribution to RTUs”); id. at ¶ 47 (noting that the policy
 inside the matrix switch can route a single carrier channel
 to a first RTU and a second carrier channel to a different
 RTU or group the channels together for routing to another
 RTU); id. (noting that the routing policy may “route, dis-
 tribute, or allocate channels 270 collectively, as groups, in-
 dividually, or in other desirable configurations”). See also
 Board Opinion at 19 (citing the above paragraphs and find-
 ing that Wu teaches “routing each channel individually to
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74      Page: 10    Filed: 09/06/2023

 10       DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

 one or more RTUs”); id. at 23 (“[W]e are persuaded by Pe-
 titioner’s showing that Wu’s matrix switch allows individ-
 ual carrier channels to be routed, via host units, to specific
 connected remote units.”). 5 Substantial evidence thus sup-
 ports the Board’s findings on anticipation and obviousness
 of claims 6–8, 11–13, and 18–21 of the ’473 patent over Wu.
                               C
     Dali next argues that substantial evidence does not
 support the Board’s determination that the combination of
 Wu and Sabat discloses the “packetizing” limitation of
 claims 9, 10, and 14–17, and thus that the Board erred in
 holding those claims obvious.
     The Board construed “packetizing” to require the inclu-
 sion of addressing information—either the source or desti-
 nation information. Board Opinion at 12. Applying this
 construction, the Board held that Wu alone and Wu in com-
 bination with Sabat rendered these claims obvious. With
 respect to the Wu/Sabat combination, the Board held that
 an ordinary artisan would have modified Wu “to use a dig-
 ital CPRI link as taught by Sabat, between the matrix
 switch of Wu and the multiband transceiver 260,” to “ena-
 ble the use of a simple digital matrix switch and capitalize
 on the known advantages of digital communications.” Id.
 at 31–32 (citing CommScope’s expert Dr. Acampora’s dec-
 laration). The Board also held that CPRI disclosed using
 addressing information, which “would have taught or sug-
 gested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the host unit
 would frame data being transmitted to the base station and

      5  The parties largely argue anticipation and obvious-
 ness together. Because the resolution of both anticipation
 and obviousness over Wu is determined by the factual de-
 termination of the scope and content of Wu’s disclosure, an
 issue common to unpatentability under both doctrines, we
 resolve the two together herein.
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74      Page: 11     Filed: 09/06/2023

 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC            11

 address that data . . . so that packets arrive at their in-
 tended destination.” Board Opinion at 34. We affirm the
 Board’s holding of obviousness over the combination of Wu
 and Sabat and need not address obviousness over Wu alone
 or Dali’s arguments regarding Wu alone for these claims.
     Dali argues that CPRI and Sabat do not disclose “pack-
 etizing.” First, Dali argues that the CPRI specification does
 not teach using a CPRI link in the uplink signal to the base
 station from a host unit. CommScope responds that Sa-
 bat’s Figures 3 and 6 and the descriptions thereof disclose
 CPRI links between the DDR Hub and the base station,
 and CPRI links are bidirectional by definition.
     Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
 Sabat and the CPRI Specification disclose a digital uplink
 between the base station and host unit. Figures 3 and 6 in
 Sabat both show bidirectional arrows between the DDR
 Hub, 310 and 510, and the base station, 302 and 502, and
 Figure 3 labels that link a “Donor Digital Stream.” Sabat
 describes that link in Figure 3 as a “direct digital connec-
 tion to and from the donor base station” using CPRI as the
 “specific digital base station interface.” Sabat at ¶ 31 (em-
 phasis added); id. at FIG. 3. See also id. at FIG. 6 (similar);
 Board Opinion at 30–31. Moreover, the CPRI standard de-
 fines CPRI links as bidirectional. J.A. 1084 (CPRI Specifi-
 cation defining “Link” as a “bidirectional interface in
 between two directly connected ports”).
     Next, Dali argues that the CPRI Specifications and Sa-
 bat do not teach addressing in the uplink because the dis-
 closure of addressing in the CPRI Specification sections
 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 relied on by the Board are limited to describ-
 ing communications to the remote units, not to the base
 station from the host (i.e., the matrix switch in Wu or the
 DDR Hub in Sabat). CommScope responds that the Board
 reasonably credited Dr. Acampora’s declaration that the
 CPRI Specification suggests using addressing in the uplink
 when an REC is placed in complex network configurations,
Case: 20-1045   Document: 74    Page: 12    Filed: 09/06/2023

 12      DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

 like that shown in Figure 5D—where one “RE” (radio
 equipment component) is connected to multiple “RECs” (ra-
 dio equipment control component). See Board Opinion at
 34 (crediting Dr. Acampora’s declaration at J.A. 2475–77
 and J.A. 2480–81).
     The Board’s determination that the CPRI Specification
 and Sabat disclose addressing in the uplink is supported
 by substantial evidence from the CPRI Specification, Sa-
 bat, and Dr. Acampora’s declaration. The CPRI Specifica-
 tion at Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3, titled, respectively,
 “Reception and Transmission of SAPCM by the RE” and
 “Reception and Transmission of SAPIQ by the RE,” J.A.
 1161 (emphases added), describe the use of an “address ta-
 ble” that “defines how SAPIQ logical connections shall be
 switched from one port to another,” and discloses that the
 addressing may be managed by the REC “that has full
 knowledge of the topology and all addresses to all REs.”
 (Emphasis added). It provides two examples of addressing:
 “HDLC or Ethernet address can be used to define a table
 that maps a CPRI port to an address.” Id. Dali does not
 dispute that an Ethernet address is an “address” for pur-
 poses of packetizing. The CPRI Specification then recog-
 nizes that RECs may be used as networking elements in
 configurations such as those shown in Figures 5D and 5E,
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74     Page: 13   Filed: 09/06/2023

 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC         13

 shown above, where one RE is connected to multiple RECs.
 J.A. 1089. In these configurations, the CPRI Specification
 explains that “Reception and Transmission” would use the
 addressing described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3. J.A. 1162
 (emphasis added) (“Reception and Transmission of SAPCM
 follow chapter 6.3.2” and “Reception and Transmission of
 SAPIQ follow chapter 6.3.3”); J.A. 2477 (Dr. Acampora dec-
 laration explaining the same). Dr. Acampora explained
 that because Figure 5E “requires different logical connec-
 tions of digital IQ data from a single RE to be sent up-
 stream to two different REC components,” Section 6.3.8
 teaches that addressing may be used to route the signals to
 the appropriate location. J.A. 2480–81.
     Sabat’s Figure 6, shown below, teaches using the CPRI
 links for communications to and from the base station, as
 discussed above. In this embodiment, Sabat shows con-
 necting remote units to multiple base stations, just as in
 the CPRI Specification Figure 5D.

     From the above, Dr. Acampora declared that it would
 have been obvious to “communicate upstream signals from
 the host unit to the base station using the known CPRI
 communication protocol, a protocol specifically designed for
 communication with base station components, and a
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74     Page: 14    Filed: 09/06/2023

 14       DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

 protocol which is specifically taught by Sabat to be useful
 for this purpose,” including the use of addressing in the
 complex network configurations shown in the CPRI Speci-
 fication and Sabat. J.A. 865, J.A. 2476, J.A. 2480–81.
 From this declaration and the references themselves, the
 Board held “that the host unit would frame data being
 transmitted to the base station and address that data . . .
 so that packets arrive at their intended destination.”
 Board Opinion at 34. This was supported by substantial
 evidence.
     In its Reply Brief, Dali adds a new argument why the
 CPRI Specification and Sabat do not teach addressing in
 the uplink. Dali reasons that the CPRI Specification routes
 channels to their destinations based on their relative posi-
 tion in the bit stream, rather than based on the information
 contained within the packet, as in the ’473 patent. See Ap-
 pellant’s Reply Br. at 12–15. Dali failed to present this ar-
 gument in its opening brief, and it is thus forfeited.
 Moreover, even if we were to consider the issue, Dali is in-
 correct because the Board’s construction of “packetizing”
 did not require that the system “address” in any particular
 way, and nothing in the Board’s construction excludes the
 kind of sequential/temporal addressing used by the CPRI
 standard.
     Relatedly, Dali argues that there would be no need for
 packetizing in the uplink direction if the signals from the
 remote units to the hub are already packetized at the re-
 mote units, as Sabat, Wu, and the CPRI Specification
 teach. CommScope responds that Sabat teaches that the
 uplink, what it calls the “reverse” link, combines the sig-
 nals from the remote units to create “a single combined re-
 verse-link signal” to the base station in accordance with
 CPRI and that this link would require its own packetizing.
 See Sabat at ¶ 36. Substantial evidence supports the
 Board’s finding. Nothing about the hub receiving individ-
 ualized packetized information from the remote units in
 Sabat undermines the disclosure and the advantage of
Case: 20-1045   Document: 74     Page: 15    Filed: 09/06/2023

 DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC        15

 combining those signals and packetizing the combined sig-
 nals for transmission to the base station. See Wu at ¶ 38
 (disclosing that the matrix switch “can combine the chan-
 nels back into their proper form for transmission within
 bands 263 for transmission via multi-band transceiver”
 (emphasis added)); Sabat at ¶ 36 (disclosing that the DDR
 hub provides a “single combined reverse-link signal” to the
 base station). 6
     Dali also cursorily argues that none of Wu, Sabat, or
 the CPRI Specification articulated “any reason” for Wu’s
 matrix switch to digitally packetize uplink signals. Appel-
 lant’s Opening Br. at 39. CommScope responds that it pre-
 sented evidence that the CPRI standard was a well-known
 protocol for communications between base station compo-
 nents that allowed digital transport of information over a
 network and provided evidence of the known advantages of
 digital communications, including lower noise when com-
 municating between distant components, and allowing
 communications with digital-only base stations.
     The Board’s finding that an ordinary artisan would
 combine Wu’s matrix switch with CPRI uplinks is sup-
 ported by substantial evidence. As the Board noted, the
 combination was motivated by the advantages of digital
 communication between the host and the base station,
 “such as noise immunity and longer-distance transport,”
 allowing “the use of a simple digital matrix switch,” and
 allowing communication with entirely digital base stations
 such as in Sabat. Board Opinion at 31–32; J.A. 863 (Dr.
 Acampora declaration listing advantages of digital signals,
 including less noise than analog allowing longer distance
 transport of information, less expensive processing, more

     6  As an alternative ground for affirmance,
 CommScope argues that the Board erred in construing
 “packetizing” to require addressing information. We need
 not and do not reach this issue.
Case: 20-1045    Document: 74      Page: 16   Filed: 09/06/2023

 16       DALI WIRELESS INC. v. COMMSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

 reliability, easier manipulation, and allowing the omission
 of RF equipment from the transceiver); J.A. 865 (Dr.
 Acampora declaration explaining that using CPRI between
 the matrix switch and the transceiver in Wu would allow
 compatibility with all-digital base stations, such as dis-
 closed in Sabat). As CommScope correctly notes, Wu dis-
 closes the use of a transceiver situated remotely from the
 matrix switch, Wu at ¶ 34, a particularly advantageous sit-
 uation for digital communication, as explained by Dr.
 Acampora. J.A. 863. Dr. Acampora also noted that Wu al-
 ready teaches using the CPRI link between the remote
 units and the host unit 230, and that it would have been
 obvious to use the same protocol upstream. J.A. 862. We
 see no error.
                              IV
     Dali finally argues that the Board’s decision should be
 vacated because it was issued in violation of the Appoint-
 ments Clause because Commissioner Hirshfeld was not a
 principal officer and had not been validly appointed as the
 Acting Director of the Patent Office, citing United States v.
 Arthrex, 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021).
     This Court has previously rejected Dali’s position in
 Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328, 1332–
 40 (Fed. Cir. 2022). This panel is bound by that decision,
 and we therefore reject Dali’s Appointments Clause chal-
 lenge here.
                       CONCLUSION
     For the reasons stated above, we affirm. We have care-
 fully considered but do not find merit to Dali’s remaining
 arguments.

                       AFFIRMED