Court Opinion

ID: 9407226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 13:01:07.847507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.412700
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1046   Document: 44     Page: 1   Filed: 06/27/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                INTEL CORPORATION,
                      Appellant

                            v.

            QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                  2022-1046, 2022-1047
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
 01154, IPR2018-01240.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: June 27, 2023
                 ______________________

     JAMES MURPHY DOWD, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
 and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also
 represented by DAVID LANGDON CAVANAUGH, THOMAS
 SAUNDERS, Washington, DC; JAMES M. LYONS, Boston, MA.

     ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, ar-
 gued for appellee. Also represented by ROBERT BREETZ, DA-
 VID B. COCHRAN, JOSEPH M. SAUER, Cleveland, OH; KELLY
 HOLT, New York, NY; JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Washington, DC.
                   ______________________
Case: 22-1046      Document: 44      Page: 2   Filed: 06/27/2023

 2              INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

     Before HUGHES, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
     Intel Corporation appeals two decisions of the Patent
 Trial and Appeal Board finding claims 10 and 15–20 of U.S.
 Patent No. 8,698,558 patentable. Because the Board
 properly construed “boosted supply voltage or the first sup-
 ply voltage” to require a “selective boost” and because the
 Board’s finding that Kwak does not anticipate is supported
 by substantial evidence, we affirm.
                               I
                               A
     Mobile devices transmit our phone calls, text messages,
 and other data through radio frequency (RF) signals. To
 transmit data, RF signals need to travel between mobile
 devices and base stations in a wireless network. The fur-
 ther a signal must travel, the more power is required. To
 provide that extra power, mobile devices use a variety of
 power amplifiers to increase the power of the RF signal to
 a sufficient level. “A [power amplifier] typically receives its
 power in the form of a supply voltage from a power supply
 generator[.]” Appellant’s Br. 4. The power amplifier will ac-
 cept an input signal carrying data, and then produce an
 output signal that replicates the input signal, but with pro-
 portionally greater power.
     There are several techniques available to boost the
 power supply that are relevant to this appeal. For example,
 envelope amplifiers can be used to track the RF input sig-
 nal’s upper bound and adjust how much power is supplied,
 but can be inefficient because it loses power due to heat
 dissipation. Similarly, switchers can also supply power at
 certain frequencies, but without dissipating voltage as
 heat. Hybrid supply generators combine features of enve-
 lope amplifiers and switchers to gain the advantages of
 both and can use one or the other depending on the RF
Case: 22-1046     Document: 44     Page: 3    Filed: 06/27/2023

 INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED                3

 signal. And finally, when a device’s battery is too low, boost
 converters can be used to boost the battery voltage to a
 higher voltage.
                               B
     Qualcomm Corporation owns the ’558 patent, titled
 “Low-Voltage Power-Efficient Envelope Tracker,” which
 describes various techniques for managing the power sup-
 ply necessary to transmit RF signals, while also extending
 battery life. The ’558 patent describes two improvements
 to hybrid supply generators: (1) adding an offset current to
 a switcher, which senses an input current and generates a
 switching signal to charge and discharge an inductor that
 provides a supply current; and (2) connecting a boost con-
 verter to an envelope amplifier, which selectively operates
 by using a supply voltage or a boosted voltage. ’558 patent
 at 1:34–54, 1:61–2:2. An annotated version of Figure 5 of
 the ’558 patent shows these elements, with the boost con-
 verter in blue, envelope amplifier in purple, switcher in yel-
 low, and the offset current in pink:
Case: 22-1046      Document: 44      Page: 4   Filed: 06/27/2023

 4              INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

 ’558 patent at Fig. 5 (coloring added by parties). Claims 10
 and 15 are representative of the claims at issue in this ap-
 peal:
     Claim 10:
     An apparatus for generating supply voltages, com-
        prising:
     means for generating a boosted supply voltage
        based on a first supply voltage, the boosted sup-
        ply voltage having a higher voltage than the
        first supply voltage; and
     means for generating a second supply voltage
        based on the envelope signal and the boosted
        supply voltage, wherein the means for generat-
        ing the second supply voltage incorporates an
        envelope amplifier that produces the second
        supply voltage using an operational amplifier
        (op-amp) that receives the envelope signal and
        provides an amplified signal, a driver that re-
        ceives the amplified signal and provides a first
        control signal and a second control signal, a P-
        channel metal oxide semiconductor (PMOS)
        transistor that receives the first control signal,
        a source that receives the boosted supply voltage
        or the first supply voltage, and a drain provid-
        ing the second supply voltage and an N-chan-
        nel metal oxide semiconductor (NMOS)
        transistor that receives the second control sig-
        nal at a gate and provides a second supply volt-
        age through a drain, and a source for circuit
        grounding.
 ’558 patent at 12:25–45 (emphasis added).
     Claim 15:
     An apparatus comprising:
Case: 22-1046    Document: 44     Page: 5    Filed: 06/27/2023

 INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED               5

    an inductor operative to receive a switching signal
        and provide a supply current; and
    a switcher operative to sense an input current and
        generate the switching signal to charge and
        discharge the inductor to provide the supply
        current, the switcher adding an offset to the in-
        put current to generate a larger supply current
        via the inductor than without the offset,
        wherein the switcher comprises
    a summer operative to sum the input current and
        an offset current and provide a summed cur-
        rent,
    a current sense amplifier operative to receive the
        summed current and provide a sensed signal,
        and
    a driver operative to receive the sensed signal and
        provide at least one control signal used to gen-
        erate the switching signal for the inductor.
 ’558 patent at 13:19–34.
                              C
     In June 2018, Intel filed two petitions for inter partes
 review, collectively challenging claims 10–11 and 15–20 of
 the ’558 patent. 1 In one petition, Intel alleged that (1)
 claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 are anticipated by Kwak 2; (2)

    1    As these petitions were filed prior to November 13,
 2018, the claims are given their “broadest reasonable con-
 struction.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2016); Personalized Me-
 dia Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1340 &
 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
     2   T.W. Kwak, et al., A 2 W CMOS Hybrid Switching
 Amplitude Modulator for EDGE Polar Transmitters, IEEE
Case: 22-1046      Document: 44      Page: 6   Filed: 06/27/2023

 6              INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

 claim 16 is obvious in view of Kwak; and (3) claim 19 is ob-
 vious in view of Kwak combined with Choi 3. Intel alleged
 that Kwak disclosed the claimed “switcher operative to
 sense an input current and generate the switching signal
 to charge and discharge the inductor to provide the supply
 current, the switcher adding an offset to the input current
 to generate a larger supply current via the inductor than
 without the offset,” relying specifically on Figures 5 and 6.
 J.A. 4049-56.
     In the other petition, Intel alleged that (1) claim 10 is
 obvious in view of Chu 4 combined with Choi and

 J. SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS 2666–76 (2007). Kwak discloses a
 type of hybrid supply generator, called a “hybrid switching
 amplifier,” that includes a linear amplifier and a switching
 amplifier. J.A. 14. Figures 5 and 6 are relevant to this ap-
 peal. The Board found that Figure 5 of Kwak disclosed a
 “hybrid supply generator with a feedforward path so the
 input signal can directly control the switching amplifier.”
 J.A. 14. The Board further found that Figure 6 “depicts the
 detailed circuit of the hybrid switching amplifier [with] a
 different summing circuit . . . and integrator . . . than the
 one depicted in Figure 5 . . . . ” J.A. 17.
      3   Jinsung Choi, et al., Envelope Tracking Power Am-
 plifier Robust to Battery Depletion, Microwave Symposium
 Digest (MTT), 2010 IEEE MTT-S INTERNATIONAL 1074–77
 (2010). Choi discloses “[a] wideband envelope tracking
 power amplifier” with an integrated boost converter to
 keep a stable operation of the power amp supply modula-
 tor. J.A. 28.
      4   Wing-Yee Chu, et al., A 10 MHz Bandwidth, 2 mV
 Ripple PA Regulator for CDMA Transmitters, IEEE J.
 SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS 2809–19 (2008).
Case: 22-1046     Document: 44     Page: 7    Filed: 06/27/2023

 INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED                7

 Hanington 5; and (2) claim 11 is obvious in view of Chu com-
 bined with Choi, Hanington, and Myers 6. Intel alleged that
 the boost converter disclosed in Choi, when combined with
 the transistor disclosed in Chu, “receiv[es] the boosted sup-
 ply voltage,” as claimed in claim 10, J.A. 5076, and that it
 would have been obvious to modify the envelope amplifier
 disclosed in Chu to operate selectively with either a battery
 supply or boosted voltage.
     The Board instituted review on all grounds in Intel’s
 petitions. But the Board found all claims, other than claim
 11, patentable.
     First, the Board construed “a source that receives the
 boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” in claim
 10 (and the corresponding phrase in claim 19) to require
 that “the envelope amplifier be capable of operating, selec-
 tively, based on the first supply voltage or the boosted sup-
 ply voltage.” J.A. 12, 45. In other words, the Board
 construed the phrase to require both voltage options to be
 available, and for the envelope amplifier to be able to
 switch between the first supply voltage and the boosted
 supply voltage, as needed—a feature referred to as “selec-
 tive boost” in the final written decisions. Based on this con-
 struction, the Board found that the combination of Kwak
 and Choi did not render claims 10 or 19 unpatentable, be-
 cause the references only disclosed an envelope amplifier
 that receives a boosted supply voltage. Thus, the envelope
 amplifier could not perform the required selective boost.
     Second, the Board found that Kwak did not anticipate
 claims 15, 17, 18, or 20 because, while Kwak disclosed each

     5   Gary Hanington, et al., High-Efficiency Power Am-
 plifier Using Dynamic Power-Supply Voltage for CDMA
 Applications, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY
 & TECHNIQUES 47:8 (1999).
      6  U.S. Patent No. 5,929,702.
Case: 22-1046      Document: 44       Page: 8   Filed: 06/27/2023

 8              INTEL CORPORATION    v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

 of the limitations of claims 15, 17, 18, and 20 across Figures
 5 and 6 of the reference, it did not do so “in an embodiment
 as arranged in the claims.” J.A. 20. Relying on our prece-
 dent in Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052,
 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Board found that Intel had
 failed to establish that a person of skill in the art would “at
 once envisage” the claimed arrangement or combination of
 elements. And while the Board at first found that Kwak
 rendered claim 16 obvious based on the disclosures in Fig-
 ures 5 and 6, the Board reversed course after Qualcomm
 requested rehearing, finding that Intel’s obviousness argu-
 ment incorporated its anticipation argument for claim 15,
 and that Intel did not provide a motivation to combine the
 different embodiments of Kwak.
     Intel now appeals.
                               II
     Claim construction is a legal issue we review de novo,
 based on underlying factual findings that are reviewed for
 substantial evidence. Perfect Surgical Techs., Inc. v. Olym-
 pus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Antic-
 ipation is a question of fact that we review for substantial
 evidence. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.,
 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
                               III
      On appeal, Intel challenges two aspects of the Board’s
 decision. First, Intel argues that the Board erred in con-
 struing “a source that receives the boosted supply voltage
 or the first supply voltage” to require a selective boost, and
 that the Board should have applied the ordinary meaning
 of “or.” Second, Intel argues that the Board erred in finding
 that Kwak does not disclose a single embodiment in Fig-
 ures 5 and 6, and that alternatively, the Board failed to
 consider that the functionalities of Figures 5 and 6 could be
 combined. We address each argument in turn.
Case: 22-1046    Document: 44      Page: 9    Filed: 06/27/2023

 INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED               9

                              A
      Intel argues that the Board erred in reading a “selec-
 tive boost” limitation into claims 10 and 19. Intel relies on
 our past constructions of claims containing “or,” in arguing
 that “or” describes a series of alternatives, so that when a
 claim recites “A” or “B,” prior art disclosing either “A” or
 “B” satisfies the claim. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352
 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727
 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Game & Tech. Co. v. Ac-
 tivision Blizzard Inc., 926 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
 Intel argues that the Board improperly “narrow[ed] the
 claims to require that the envelope amplifier be able to re-
 ceive both a first supply voltage and the boosted supply
 voltage and select between them,” thereby reading a “selec-
 tive boost” limitation into the claim language. Appellant’s
 Br. 34 (emphasis in original). Under what Intel considers
 to be the “correct” construction, the combinations involving
 Kwak and Choi—which undisputedly disclose a boosted
 supply voltage—would render claims 10 and 19 obvious.
      We disagree. Intel’s argument only considers “or” in
 isolation but does not consider the context in which
 “boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” is used.
 “Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of
 the entire claim in context, not a single element in isola-
 tion.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183
 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999). While “or” can refer to
 alternatives, that is not a hard-and-fast rule. Here, the
 Board properly analyzed the phrase in context, and deter-
 mined that the claimed invention required an envelope am-
 plifier to receive both a boosted supply voltage and a first
 supply voltage and select between the two. Specifically, the
 Board considered the ’558 patent’s specification and its ear-
 lier IPRs addressing claims 6, 8, and 13 to determine that
 “the amplifier must be able to receive both the boosted sup-
 ply voltage and the first supply voltage (a selective boost)
 as recited in the claims.” J.A. 10, 12. For example, the
 Board relied on the following passage from the ’558 patent:
Case: 22-1046     Document: 44      Page: 10   Filed: 06/27/2023

 10             INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

      [T]he envelope amplifier may further receive the
      first supply voltage and may generate the second
      supply voltage based on either the first supply volt-
      age or the boosted supply voltage. For example, the
      envelope amplifier may generate the second supply
      voltage (i) based on the boosted supply voltage if
      the envelope signal exceeds a first threshold and/or
      if the first supply voltage is below a second thresh-
      old or (ii) based on the first supply voltage other-
      wise.
 ’558 patent at 1:42–50.
     We agree with the Board’s analysis and come to the
 same conclusion based on the claim construction evidence
 provided. 7 Thus, we affirm the Board’s construction of
 “boosted supply voltage or the first supply voltage” and the
 corresponding phrases in claims 10 and 19.
                               B
     Next, Intel argues that the Board erred in finding that
 Kwak does not anticipate claims 15, 17, 18, or 20. Intel first
 argues that the Board’s determination that Figures 5 and
 6 of Kwak are multiple embodiments is not supported by
 substantial evidence, and that instead the Board should
 have treated those figures as a single embodiment because
 the caption of Figure 6 describes a “[d]etailed block dia-
 gram of the hybrid switching amplifier.” Appellant’s Br. 44
 (emphasis added). Intel alternatively argues that, if Fig-
 ures 5 and 6 disclosed different embodiments, the Board
 erred by requiring all claim elements to be found in one
 single embodiment in the reference, without considering

      7  This construction is also consistent with how the
 Board construed corresponding phrases in claims 6, 8, and
 13. See Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-1587, 2021
 WL 4772765, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021).
Case: 22-1046    Document: 44     Page: 11    Filed: 06/27/2023

 INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED              11

 whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would
 combine the embodiments as arranged in the claims.
      We disagree with Intel’s first argument and need not
 consider the second. Before the Board, Intel only advanced
 its theory that Figures 5 and 6 of Kwak disclosed a single
 embodiment, but never advanced a theory that Figures 5
 and 6 were separate embodiments that a person having or-
 dinary skill in the art would combine. The Board consid-
 ered Kwak’s disclosures and expert testimony to conclude
 that Figure 6 was not merely a “more detailed” implemen-
 tation of Figure 5 but was a separate and different embod-
 iment. J.A. 19. The Board noted that Figure 6 of Kwak
 disclosed “a summing circuit operating on input current
 and offset current that differs from the voltage circuit sig-
 nals shown in Figure 5” and that the “feedforward node in
 Figure 6 differs from that shown in Figure 5.” J.A. 19. The
 Board also noted that Intel’s expert testimony did not ad-
 dress the differences between Figures 5 and 6 and relied
 instead on testimony from Qualcomm’s expert that the two
 figures disclosed separate embodiments. This constitutes
 substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination
 that Figures 5 and 6 were not a single embodiment, and we
 will not disturb this determination on appeal.
      Furthermore, we will not consider Intel’s argument
 about whether Figures 5 and 6, as separate embodiments,
 could still anticipate the challenged claims because Intel
 did not raise that argument before the Board. Throughout
 the proceedings before the Board, Intel only advanced a po-
 sition that Figures 5 and 6 were a single embodiment, ra-
 ther than distinct embodiments that a person having
 ordinary skill in the art could still combine as arranged in
 the claims. Intel has described no exceptional circum-
 stances excusing its failure to raise this argument before
 the Board and has therefore forfeited that argument. In re
 Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir.
 2020) (“[A] position not presented in the tribunal under re-
 view will not be considered on appeal in the absence of
Case: 22-1046     Document: 44      Page: 12   Filed: 06/27/2023

 12             INTEL CORPORATION   v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED

 exceptional circumstances.”). Accordingly, we affirm the
 Board’s finding that Kwak does not anticipate claims 15,
 17, 18, or 20.
                              IV
      We have considered Intel’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. Therefore, we affirm the Board’s
 final determination finding claims 10 and 15–20 patenta-
 ble.
                         AFFIRMED