Court Opinion

ID: 9364122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 16:01:03.917502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:35.840246
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2211   Document: 40     Page: 1    Filed: 01/18/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                     SYNQOR, INC.,
                       Appellant

                            v.

                VICOR CORPORATION,
                        Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2021-2211
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,861.
                   ______________________

                Decided: January 18, 2023
                 ______________________

    STEVEN J. HOROWITZ, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL,
 argued for appellant. Also represented by THOMAS D. REIN,
 PAUL J. ROGERSON; MICHAEL D. HATCHER, Dallas, TX.

    MATTHEW A. SMITH, Smith Baluch LLP, Washington,
 DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by ELIZABETH A.
 LAUGHTON.
                  ______________________

  Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
                        Judges.
Case: 21-2211     Document: 40      Page: 2     Filed: 01/18/2023

 2                          SYNQOR, INC.   v. VICOR CORPORATION

 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
     In 2017, we affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and re-
 manded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) deci-
 sion in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
 8,023,290 (’290 patent). Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 869
 F.3d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (SynQor III). On remand,
 the Board held all of the ’290 patent’s claims unpatentable
 under 35 U.S.C § 103 over two different combinations of
 references. Because the Board’s fact findings are sup-
 ported by substantial evidence and its unpatentability de-
 termination is correct as to the second combination of
 references, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
      The ’290 patent is entitled “High Efficiency Power Con-
 verter” and claims a system for DC-DC power conversion—
 i.e., converting a direct current (DC) source from one volt-
 age level to another. ’290 patent col. 17 l. 9 – col. 18 l. 35.
 The ’290 patent is part of a patent family owned by SynQor,
 Inc. (SynQor) involving DC-DC conversion, and we have
 previously discussed that technology in SynQor III. See
 869 F.3d at 1312–15. The ’290 patent family describes a
 “two-stage architecture” for DC-DC converters, which
 SynQor refers to as “Intermediate Bus Architecture” (IBA).
 Id. at 1314. The ’290 patent claims a particular type of IBA
 converter implemented using switching regulators. Id.;
 ’290 patent col. 17 ll. 26–30.
     In SynQor III, we reviewed the Board’s decision affirm-
 ing an examiner’s reexamination decision withdrawing six
 proposed rejections of the ’290 patent and vacated and re-
 manded with respect to four proposed rejections: (i) two
 rejections based on a combination of JP ’446 1 and Stei-
 gerwald ’539 2 (Rejections III and IV), and (ii) two rejections

     1   Japanese Patent App. Pub. No. H05-64446.
     2   U.S. Patent No. 5,274,539.
Case: 21-2211     Document: 40     Page: 3    Filed: 01/18/2023

 SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION                           3

 based on a combination of Steigerwald ’090 3 and Press-
 man 4 (Rejections V and VI). 869 F.3d at 1320–24. We in-
 structed the Board to consider SynQor’s secondary
 considerations evidence for nonobviousness in light of a
 previous SynQor decision by our court that held that claims
 of a SynQor patent related to the ’290 patent and directed
 to “IBA’s basic arrangement” were anticipated. Id. at 1322
 (citing Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 603 F. App’x 969, 975
 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (SynQor II)). More specifically, we in-
 structed the Board to consider whether SynQor’s secondary
 considerations evidence “is attributable to IBA—as antici-
 pated in SynQor II—or to other features in the SynQor Pa-
 tents’ claims.” Id. We observed that SynQor II might be
 “particularly relevant for the proposed rejections . . . given
 SynQor’s almost singular focus on IBA as a general concept
 in its prior arguments before the Board on the [secondary
 considerations] evidence.” Id.
     On remand, the Board reversed the examiner’s with-
 drawal decision, found no nexus between SynQor’s second-
 ary considerations evidence and the claims of the ’290
 patent, and entered new grounds of rejection for claims 1–
 15 based on proposed Rejections III–VI. J.A. 17246–48,
 J.A. 17253–56. In view of the new rejections, SynQor re-
 quested that the examiner reopen prosecution. J.A. 17357–
 419. After considering SynQor and Vicor Corp.’s (Vicor) re-
 marks regarding inter alia obviousness, the examiner
 maintained the Board’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–
 15 based on Rejections III–VI. J.A. 17954.
     The Board subsequently affirmed the examiner’s deter-
 mination as to claims 1–15, finding that the prior art ref-
 erences set forth in Rejections III–VI taught all the
 limitations of the claims and that a skilled artisan would

     3  U.S. Patent No. 5,377,090.
     4  Abraham I. Pressman, Switching and Linear
 Power Supply, Power Converter Design (1977).
Case: 21-2211    Document: 40      Page: 4     Filed: 01/18/2023

 4                         SYNQOR, INC.   v. VICOR CORPORATION

 have been motivated to combine the references. J.A. 52–
 67, 71–87, 91–96. After reconsidering the secondary con-
 siderations evidence in view of SynQor’s additional re-
 marks, the Board nonetheless found no nexus between
 such evidence and the claimed invention. J.A. 67–71, 87–
 90. Accordingly, the Board found that Vicor’s evidence of
 obviousness outweighed SynQor’s evidence of nonobvious-
 ness. J.A. 71, 90.
     SynQor timely appealed the Board’s decision. We have
 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determi-
 nation de novo and its underlying factual findings for sub-
 stantial evidence. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
 917 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
      Relevant here, factual findings underlying an obvious-
 ness determination include: (1) whether a skilled artisan
 would have been motivated to modify the teachings of a ref-
 erence, and (2) whether there is a nexus between secondary
 considerations of nonobviousness and the claimed inven-
 tion. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1327, 1331–
 32 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A patentee may establish nexus by
 showing that the secondary considerations evidence is a
 “direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed
 invention.” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d
 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Huang, 100
 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). For patents claiming com-
 binations of prior art features, a patentee must show that
 the secondary considerations evidence is “attributable to
 the claimed combination of [prior art features], as opposed
 to, for example, prior art features in isolation or unclaimed
 features.” Id. at 1378 (citing Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v.
 Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
     SynQor argues the Board: (1) erred in declining to ap-
 ply issue preclusion to Rejections III and IV, Appellant’s
Case: 21-2211     Document: 40      Page: 5    Filed: 01/18/2023

 SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION                            5

 Br. 29–40; (2) improperly relied on conclusory assertions
 regarding the knowledge of a skilled artisan as to Rejec-
 tions III and IV, id. 41–54; (3) failed to articulate a motiva-
 tion to combine for Rejections V and VI, id. 54–66; and (4)
 erred in evaluating the secondary considerations evidence,
 id. 66–74. We disagree with SynQor as to its third and
 fourth arguments regarding Rejections V and VI and sec-
 ondary considerations. Because our decision on these ar-
 guments resolves the parties’ dispute as to claims 1–15, we
 do not address SynQor’s remaining arguments.
         I. Rejections V and VI: Obviousness over
              Steigerwald ’090 and Pressman
      The Board found, and SynQor does not challenge, that:
 (1) Steigerwald ’090 discloses each limitation of claim 1, ex-
 cept that it discloses “series regulators” instead of the
 claimed “switching regulators,” and (2) Pressman discloses
 the missing “switching regulators.” J.A. 76, 79. The Board
 determined that a skilled artisan would have been moti-
 vated to modify Steigerwald ’090’s circuit using Pressman’s
 switching regulators for certain circuit outputs—the non-
 pulsed bias voltage outputs “used for control and receive
 functions.” J.A. 79–80, 87; see also id. 79–86. The Board
 reasoned that using switching regulators for the non-
 pulsed bias voltage outputs would “improve efficiency as
 taught by Pressman” “relative to linear [i.e., series 5]

     5    The Board’s opinion uses the terms “linear regula-
 tors” and “series regulators” interchangeably. Compare
 J.A. 64 (referring to Steigerwald ’090’s regulators 50, 51,
 60, and 61 as “linear regulators”), with J.A. 76, 79 (refer-
 ring to Steigerwald ’090’s regulators 50, 51, 60, and 61 as
 “series regulators”). To the extent the Board’s opinion re-
 fers to linear regulators, we understand it to refer to Stei-
 gerwald ’090’s series regulators.
Case: 21-2211     Document: 40     Page: 6     Filed: 01/18/2023

 6                         SYNQOR, INC.   v. VICOR CORPORATION

 regulators when used in Steigerwald ’090’s configuration.”
 J.A. 79–81, 86. Substantial evidence supports this finding.
     Specifically, the Board’s finding is supported by Press-
 man itself and by the testimony of Dr. Vinciarelli, Vicor’s
 expert. Pressman discloses a circuit that uses a “switching
 postregulator.” Pressman at 82–83, Fig. 3–4B. Pressman
 teaches that this circuit can “generate a multiplicity of dif-
 ferent output voltages at high efficiency” due to “the use of
 switching postregulators” and that this efficiency could not
 be achieved with “series-pass postregulators.” Pressman
 at 83 (emphasis added). Dr. Vinciarelli, in turn, explains
 that Pressman’s series-pass regulators are “equivalent to”
 Steigerwald ’090’s series regulators. J.A. 17753–54 ¶ 8.
 Thus, Pressman provides an express motivation to combine
 the two references by teaching that its switching regula-
 tors, which can be used in place of Steigerwald’s ’090 series
 regulators, improve efficiency.
      SynQor makes four arguments on appeal, but two are
 unpersuasive and two are forfeited. First, SynQor argues
 that the Board’s analysis failed to explain why a skilled ar-
 tisan would have been motivated to select Steigerwald ’090
 and Pressman for combination. Appellant’s Br. 55–56,
 58–61, 64–66 (citing WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1337). But it is
 undisputed that (1) the claims and Steigerwald ’090 are
 analogous art, both directed to two-stage DC-DC convert-
 ers, and (2) Pressman discloses a benefit to using switching
 regulators in a two-stage DC-DC converter circuit—such as
 those disclosed in Steigerwald ’090—to improve efficiency.
 As such, the Board articulated a valid motivation to com-
 bine, and no further explanation is required. See Polaris
 Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1070–71
 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing WBIP, 829 F.3d at 1337).
     Second, SynQor argues that adding switching regula-
 tors to the non-pulsed bias voltage outputs would not im-
 prove the efficiency of Steigerwald ’090’s circuit because
 bias voltages draw almost no power. Appellant’s Br. 63–64
Case: 21-2211    Document: 40      Page: 7    Filed: 01/18/2023

 SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION                          7

 (citing J.A. 17489–90 ¶¶ 31–32). We have reviewed
 SynQor’s cited expert testimony, but find little support for
 SynQor’s attorney argument. See J.A. 17489–90 ¶¶ 31–32.
      SynQor’s remaining two arguments were not presented
 to the Board: (1) skilled artisans would not have been mo-
 tivated to select Steigerwald ’090’s circuit for modification
 because two-stage architectures had been discredited, Ap-
 pellant’s Br. 57–58; and (2) Pressman teaches away from
 using a two-stage architecture, id. 61–62, 65. SynQor for-
 feited these arguments by not first raising them to the
 Board, and we decline to address these fact-bound conten-
 tions in the first instance. See In re Google Tech. Holdings
 LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that an
 argument not presented to the tribunal under review is for-
 feited absent exceptional circumstances).
     Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board’s
 finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
 combine Steigerwald ’090 and Pressman.
                II. Secondary Considerations
      We agree with the Board that SynQor’s secondary con-
 siderations evidence is not tied to the claimed combination
 of features in the ’290 patent—i.e., an IBA converter using
 switching regulators. Instead that evidence is associated
 with IBA without any requirement for switching regula-
 tors. 6 The Board relied on SynQor’s expert, Dr. Schlecht,

     6    The record shows that SynQor’s understanding of
 “IBA” does not require using switching regulators, given
 that it refers to “IBA” to describe its patent claims across
 multiple patents collectively, including claims that do not
 recite switching regulators. See, e.g., J.A. 1199–1200,
 1212, 1242 (discussing secondary considerations evidence
 related to the ’290 patent and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,072,190
 and 7,272,021), 18052 (“[A]ll the ’290 Patent claims require
Case: 21-2211    Document: 40      Page: 8     Filed: 01/18/2023

 8                         SYNQOR, INC.   v. VICOR CORPORATION

 who testified that certain indicia of secondary considera-
 tions—e.g., commercial success, skepticism, widespread
 adoption, and industry praise—were due to aspects of IBA
 unrelated to switching regulators. See Declaration of Mar-
 tin F. Schlecht, Sc.D., filed May 2, 2012 in Reexamination
 Control No. 95/001,861, ¶¶ 59, 61, 63, 109, 112, 114; J.A.
 88 (citing J.A. 17246–47). We agree with the Board’s as-
 sessment that Dr. Schlecht’s testimony only ties the sec-
 ondary considerations evidence to IBA converters without
 any discussion as to the significance of switching regula-
 tors, and thus there is no nexus.
      SynQor’s arguments fail because it has not shown that
 its relied-on success, skepticism, adoption, or praise, etc.,
 were a “direct result of the unique characteristics of the
 claimed invention”—in this case, were “attributable to the
 claimed combination of [prior art features], as opposed to,
 for example, prior art features in isolation or unclaimed
 features.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–74, 1378 (citation
 omitted). We do not discern any showing by SynQor on ap-
 peal before this court or in the Board proceeding that there
 was a nexus between its secondary considerations evidence
 and the claimed combination of features in the ’290 pa-
 tent—i.e., an IBA converter using switching regulators.
 See Appellant’s Br. 68–74; J.A. 17416–19, 18050–53. 7 The

 the regulation stages to be switching regulators whereas
 the anticipated ’190 Patent claims and ’021 Patent claims
 are more broadly worded to allow all types of non-isolating
 regulation stages.”).
     7   Before the Board, SynQor argued that it was enti-
 tled to a presumption of nexus, but it does not argue this
 now on appeal. J.A. 17417–18, 18052–53. Relatedly,
 SynQor argues for the first time in its reply brief that its
 secondary considerations evidence was “reasonably com-
 mensurate” with the claims of the ’290 patent. Appellant’s
Case: 21-2211    Document: 40     Page: 9   Filed: 01/18/2023

 SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION                        9

 only evidence before the Board was that the secondary con-
 siderations evidence was tied to aspects of IBA unrelated
 to switching regulators.
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered SynQor’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
 substantial evidence supports the Board’s fact findings
 that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to com-
 bine Steigerwald ’090 and Pressman and SynQor’s second-
 ary considerations evidence lacks an adequate nexus with
 the ’290 patent claims. We therefore affirm the Board’s de-
 cision.
                       AFFIRMED

 Reply Br. 31. SynQor did not make either of these argu-
 ments in its opening brief, and thus these arguments are
 waived. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]rguments not
 raised in the opening brief are waived.”).