Court Opinion

ID: 9890540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 15:01:39.59595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:40.082112
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1430   Document: 54     Page: 1    Filed: 10/13/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

            MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
                   Appellant

                            v.

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

                  2022-1430, 2022-1773
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00989, IPR2020-01493.
                  ______________________

                Decided: October 13, 2023
                 ______________________

    DONALD LEE JACKSON, Davidson Berquist Jackson &
 Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA, argued for appellant.

    BENJAMIN T. HICKMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United
 States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
 gued for intervenor. Also represented by PETER J. AYERS,
Case: 22-1430     Document: 54      Page: 2     Filed: 10/13/2023

 2                           MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. VIDAL

 THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED, PETER
 JOHN SAWERT.
               ______________________

      Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 DYK, Circuit Judge.
     Monterey Research, LLC (“Monterey”) appeals the Pa-
 tent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) final written
 decisions in IPR2020-00989 (the “’989 IPR”) and IPR2020-
 01493 (the “’1493 IPR”). In the ’989 IPR, the Board found
 claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, and 20 of U.S. Patent
 No. 6,765,407 (the “’407 patent”) unpatentable as obvious
 in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,728,871 (“Vorbach”). In the
 ’1493 IPR, the Board found claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 of
 the ’407 patent unpatentable as anticipated by the
 PIC16C7X Datasheet (“PIC16”) and claims 2, 9, and 16 un-
 patentable as obvious in view of PIC16 and AN594 Appli-
 cation Note (“AN594”). We affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
     The ’407 patent, entitled “Digital Configurable Macro
 Architecture,” concerns a programmable digital device,
 which utilizes a programmable digital circuit block. The
 programmable digital circuit block can be “programmed to
 perform any one of a variety of predetermined digital func-
 tions by changing the contents of a few registers therein.”
 ’407 patent, J.A. 59, col. 2, ll. 5–7. “[T]he circuit compo-
 nents of the programmable digital circuit block are de-
 signed for reuse in several of the predetermined digital
 functions such that to minimize the size of the programma-
 ble digital circuit block.” ’407 Patent, J.A. 59, col. 2, ll. 9–
 13.
      Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) filed a petition
 for inter partes review, challenging claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17,
 and 20 of the ’407 patent. AMD argued the claims were
 unpatentable as obvious over Vorbach.            The Board
Case: 22-1430    Document: 54      Page: 3   Filed: 10/13/2023

 MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. VIDAL                           3

 instituted review on the challenged claims in the ’989 IPR.
 The Board found that 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, and 20 were un-
 patentable as obvious over Vorbach. Monterey appeals this
 decision (Appeal No. 22-1430).
     Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) filed a petition for inter
 partes review, challenging claims 1–3, 7–10, and 14–17 of
 the ’407 patent. Qualcomm argued claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14,
 15, and 17 were anticipated by PIC16. The Board insti-
 tuted review of the challenged claims in the ’1493 IPR. The
 Board determined that claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, and 17 were
 anticipated by PIC16 and claims 2, 9, and 16 were obvious
 in view of PIC16 and AN594. Monterey appeals the
 Board’s determinations (Appeal No. 22-1773).
     The two appeals were consolidated. AMD and Qual-
 comm decided not to participate in these appeals. The PTO
 intervened to defend the Board’s decisions.
                        DISCUSSION
     “In reviewing the Board’s determination on the ques-
 tion of obviousness, we review the Board’s legal conclusions
 de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.”
 Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, 998
 F.3d 1337, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks,
 citation, and alterations omitted). “What a reference
 teaches and the differences between the claimed invention
 and the prior art are questions of fact which we review for
 substantial evidence.” In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793
 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
      In the ’989 IPR (Appeal No. 22-1430), we see no legal
 error in the Board’s obviousness determination based on
 Vorbach and conclude that it was supported by substantial
 evidence. Because we affirm the Board’s obviousness de-
 termination based on Vorbach, we need not reach the an-
 ticipation and obviousness determinations based on PIC16
 in the ’1493 IPR (Appeal No. 22-1773).
                        AFFIRMED