Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC., FKA VELODYNE
`LIDAR, INC.,
`Appellee
`______________________
`
`2020-2070, 2020-2072
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
`00255, IPR2018-00256.
`______________________
`
`Decided: February 4, 2022
`______________________
`
`ERIK BENTON MILCH, Cooley LLP, Reston, VA, argued
`for appellant. Also represented by JENNIFER VOLK;
`ELIZABETH SHRIEVES, Washington, DC; PRIYA B.
`VISWANATH, Palo Alto, CA.
`
` DOUGLAS ETHAN LUMISH, Latham & Watkins LLP,
`Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by
`BRETT MATTHEW SANDFORD; GABRIEL K. BELL, JONATHAN
`M. STRANG, Washington, DC; ANN MARIE WAHLS, Chicago,
`IL.
` ______________________
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`2
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`
`Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`This appeal is about a laser-based system for measur-
`ing distances. While useful for a number of purposes, the
`system is best known for helping autonomous cars sense
`their surroundings. U.S. Patent No. 7,969,558 (“the ’558
`patent”) claims such a system, and appellee Velodyne Lidar
`USA, Inc. markets products incorporating such systems.
`Appellant Quanergy Systems, Inc. also markets products
`employing laser systems. Unsurprisingly, Quanergy chal-
`lenged the validity of multiple claims in the ’558 patent in
`two inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Pa-
`tent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”).
`Quanergy now appeals the two final written decisions
`of the Board in those proceedings. In its decisions, the
`Board held that claims 1–4, 8, 9, 16–19, and 23–25 of the
`’558 patent are not unpatentable as obvious. Quanergy
`Inc.
`(Quanergy
`I),
`Sys.,
`Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar,
`No. IPR2018-00255, 2019 WL 2237114 (P.T.A.B. May 23,
`2019); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (Quan-
`ergy II), No. IPR2018-00256, 2019 WL 2237137 (P.T.A.B.
`May 23, 2019). We affirm both decisions.
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’558 Patent
`The ’558 patent, entitled “High Definition Lidar Sys-
`tem,” relates to a lidar-based 3-D point cloud measuring
`system. ’558 patent, at [54]; id. at col. 3, ll. 3–4. Lidar, or
`ladar, is an acronym for “Laser Imaging Detection and
`Ranging.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 65–66. Think radar—“Radio De-
`tection and Ranging”—but employing light rather than ra-
`dio waves.
`The specification begins by describing the well-known
`use of a pulse of light to measure distance. Id. at col. 1,
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`3
`
`ll. 11–12. First, a laser emitter pulses, emitting a burst of
`light. Id. at col. 1, ll. 13–14. A system then measures the
`time it takes for the pulse of light to return to a detector
`mounted near the laser emitter. Id. at col. 1, ll. 15–17. Us-
`ing that measurement, the system can derive a distance
`with high accuracy. Id. at col. 1, ll. 17–18. The parties
`refer to this technique of measuring distance as pulsed
`time-of-flight (or “ToF”) lidar.
`The specification explains that each distance measure-
`ment is a “pixel,” and a collection of pixels is called a “point
`cloud.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 19–23. Systems may render a point
`cloud as an image or analyze it for other reasons, including
`detecting obstacles. Id. at col. 1, ll. 22–24. According to the
`specification, a number of commercial products are capable
`of rendering a 2-D point cloud. Id. at col. 1, ll. 32–34. Most
`of these devices capture distance measurements using a
`single laser emitter and detector, as well as a moving mir-
`ror. Id. at col. 1, ll. 36–39. These devices can also provide
`for a 3-D point cloud by, e.g., mounting the instrument on
`a gimbal that “nods” the unit up and down to increase the
`field of view or using a prism to divide the laser pulse into
`multiple layers with different vertical angles. Id. at col. 1,
`ll. 47–64.
`The specification criticizes these existing 3-D point
`cloud systems because “the needs for autonomous vehicle
`navigation place unrealistic demands on” them. Id. at
`col. 2, ll. 35–37. According to the specification, some sys-
`tems take excellent pictures but are unsuitable for high-
`way use because they take several minutes to collect a
`single image. Id. at col. 2, ll. 37–40. Others suffer from a
`limited field of view. See id. at col. 2, ll. 40–45. The speci-
`fication explains that “it is necessary to see everywhere
`around the vehicle, almost a full 360 degrees, in order to
`safely navigate today’s highways,” as well as “to have a
`minimum of delay between the actions happening in the
`real world and the imaging/reaction to it.” Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 45–49. The specification estimates that the update rate
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`4
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`of the point cloud—or “refresh rate”—should be at least 5
`times per second and specifies that the vertical field of view
`should extend from above the horizon to as close to the
`ground in front of the vehicle as possible. See id. at col. 2,
`ll. 53–57.
`In this context, the specification discloses its invention
`of a lidar-based 3-D point cloud measuring system, which
`rotates a plurality of laser emitters and detectors. See id.
`at col. 3, ll. 3–9. The invention “provides a more compact
`and rugged unit for gathering 3-D point cloud information.”
`Id. at col. 3, ll. 28–30. The preferred embodiment is a lidar
`system that uses 64 pairs of laser emitters and detectors,
`has a 360-degree horizontal field of view and a 26.8-degree
`vertical field of view, and rotates at a rate of up to 200 Hz.
`Id. at col. 3, l. 67–col. 4, l. 7. The system can collect approx-
`imately 1 million time-of-flight distance points per second,
`and it provides the unique combination of a 360-degree
`field of view, a broad vertical field of view, a high point
`cloud density, and a high refresh rate. Id. at col. 4, ll. 9–13;
`id. at col. 6, ll. 37–41.
`Independent claim 1 is illustrative. It recites:
`A lidar-based 3-D point cloud system comprising:
`a support structure;
`a plurality of laser emitters supported by
`the support structure;
`a plurality of avalanche photodiode detec-
`tors supported by the support structure;
`and
`a rotary component configured to rotate the
`plurality of laser emitters and the plurality
`of avalanche photodiode detectors at a
`speed of at least 200 RPM.
`Id. at col. 7, ll. 59–67.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`5
`
`B. The Prior Art
`Two prior art references are relevant to this appeal.
`1. Mizuno
`Japanese Patent Application No. H3-6407 (“Mizuno”)
`describes a device that measures the outer peripheral
`shape of an object. J.A. 4285. According to Mizuno, con-
`ventional devices determined an object’s shape by revolv-
`ing around the object, scanning a light toward it, and using
`a light detector opposite the light source to measure where
`the object blocks the light. J.A. 4285–86. Mizuno explains
`that these conventional devices could not accurately meas-
`ure the object’s outer peripheral shape because they could
`not measure or detect a recessed portion of the object.
`J.A. 4286.
`To solve this problem, Mizuno teaches the use of a “re-
`flected light-type distance measuring instrument” that is
`on a rotating member and oriented toward the centerline
`of the rotating member, where a measured object is placed.
`J.A. 4286. The instrument emits light toward the center-
`line and measures the distance to the object by detecting
`the reflected light. J.A. 4286. In one embodiment of the
`claimed invention, Mizuno explains that the instrument
`measures the distance to the location of the reflection
`“based on the location at which the light is detected.”
`J.A. 4287. Mizuno further teaches that its device can
`measure surface defects “because the detection position for
`the reflected light will shift.” J.A. 4288.
`Quanergy asserts that Mizuno renders the challenged
`claims of
`the
`’558 patent obvious because
`“Mi-
`zuno . . . teaches and renders obvious a pulsed ToF ‘lidar’
`system.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 16.
`2. Berkovic
`Berkovic is an article published in 2012, entitled “Op-
`tical Methods
`for Distance
`and Displacement
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`6
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`Measurements.” J.A. 6985–7007. It reviews various tech-
`niques for measuring distance to objects, including trian-
`gulation and time-of-flight sensing. See J.A. 6985.
`According to Berkovic, triangulation is “a procedure in
`which a distance or position is determined from considera-
`tions based on the geometries of similar triangles.”
`J.A. 6990. Berkovic reports that commercially available
`triangulation sensors “are generally applicable for distance
`measurements in ranges of approximately 10 mm to 1 m.”
`J.A. 6991–92. Meanwhile, problems arise when using laser
`time-of-flight sensors to obtain accurate measurements at
`distances shorter than tens of meters.1 J.A. 6993.
`C. Procedural History
`Quanergy filed two petitions for inter partes review. In
`one petition, Quanergy challenged claims 1–4, 8, and 9 of
`the ’558 patent as obvious over Mizuno. In the other peti-
`tion, Quanergy challenged claims 16–19 and 23–25 of the
`’558 patent, also asserting obviousness over Mizuno.2 The
`Board instituted review on both petitions. In substantially
`similar final written decisions, the Board held that
`
`
`1 Although Quanergy never asserted the combina-
`tion of Mizuno and Berkovic, it argued that Berkovic
`showed what was known in the state of the art at the time
`and what technologies a skilled artisan might use in a sys-
`tem like Mizuno, including time-of-flight technology.
`Quanergy I, 2019 WL 2237114, at *8.
`2 While Quanergy also asserted that the challenged
`claims were obvious over Mizuno in combination with other
`prior art references, it only appeals the Board’s findings re-
`lating to its Mizuno-only based challenges. We accordingly
`do not discuss either the art mentioned in the other as-
`serted combinations or the Board’s reasons for rejecting
`those challenges.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`7
`
`Quanergy had not shown that the challenged claims were
`unpatentable.
`Four of the Board’s determinations are pertinent to
`these appeals.3 First, the Board construed the term “lidar”
`to mean “pulsed time-of-flight (ToF) lidar.” Quanergy I,
`2019 WL 2237114, at *5. The Board explained that the
`specification exclusively focuses on pulsed time-of-flight li-
`dar: “That basic concept of deriving distance by measuring
`the ‘time’ of travel (i.e., flight) of the laser pulse to and from
`an object underlies the entire description of the ’558 pa-
`tent.” Id. The Board noted that its construction of the term
`“lidar” was consistent with the testimony of both parties’
`experts. Id. at *6. It found no support in the record for the
`testimony of Quanergy’s expert that the term “lidar” in-
`cluded triangulation systems because the only contempo-
`raneous article that the expert cited clearly distinguished
`between triangulation-based and time-of-flight sensors.
`Id.
`Second, the Board found that Mizuno does not disclose
`or suggest a lidar system as construed. Id. at *7. The
`Board relied not only on its own reading of Mizuno, but also
`on the testimony of both parties’ experts, who agreed that
`Mizuno’s system is not a time-of-flight lidar system. Id. at
`*6–7.
`Third, the Board found that a skilled artisan would not
`have used pulsed time-of-flight lidar in Mizuno’s short-
`range measuring device. Id. at *8. According to the Board,
`Berkovic suggests that the accuracy of pulsed time-of-flight
`lidar measurements degrades in shorter ranges. Id.
`Even assuming that Berkovic had suggested the use of
`pulsed time-of-flight lidar for short-range measurement,
`
`3 For brevity, we cite to Quanergy I. Unless other-
`wise noted, all citations to Quanergy I should be under-
`stood to reference the analogous passage in Quanergy II.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`8
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`moreover, the Board found that a skilled artisan would not
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying
`Mizuno’s device to use pulsed time-of-flight lidar. See id.
`at *8, *10, *12. The Board was unpersuaded by Quanergy’s
`assertion that the modification was obvious to try because
`“[t]he only evidence that Quanergy proffers of an expecta-
`tion of success is speculation from its expert about the end-
`less possibilities of Mizuno’s teachings.” Id. at *9. The
`Board faulted Quanergy’s expert for not explaining “how or
`why a skilled artisan would have had an expectation of suc-
`cess in overcoming [the] problems in implementing a
`pulsed [time-of-flight] sensor into a short-range measure-
`ment system such as Mizuno’s” that Berkovic identifies.
`Id. at *10. And it went on to find that other state-of-the-art
`evidence supported its finding that a skilled artisan would
`not reasonably expect to succeed
`in using pulsed
`time-of-flight lidar in short-range measurement devices
`like Mizuno’s system. See id. at *9.
`Fourth, the Board found that, even if Quanergy had
`satisfied the first three of the four factors established in
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), “Velodyne’s
`objective evidence clearly outweighs any presumed show-
`ing of obviousness by Quanergy.”4 Id. at *17. The Board
`presumed a nexus between the claimed invention and Velo-
`dyne’s evidence of unresolved long-felt need, industry
`praise, and commercial success. See id. at *12–13. It ex-
`plained that Velodyne’s expert had provided a detailed
`analysis mapping claim 1 of the ’558 patent to each of Velo-
`dyne’s commercial products, testimony that Quanergy
`
`
`4 The obviousness inquiry requires examination of
`the four Graham factors: (1) the scope and content of the
`prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the
`claims at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the perti-
`nent art, and (4) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.
`See 383 U.S. at 17–18.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`9
`
`never disputed. Id. at *13. The Board noted that Quanergy
`identified a 360-degree horizontal field of view, a wide ver-
`tical field of view, and a dense 3-D point cloud as unclaimed
`features such that Velodyne’s products were not coexten-
`sive with the claimed invention. Id. But the Board found
`that those features were “clearly supported by the chal-
`lenged claims.” Id. For instance, the claims expressly call
`for a 3-D point cloud, and “the density of the [point] cloud
`and 360-degree field of view result directly from ‘rotat[ing]
`the plurality of laser emitters and the plurality of ava-
`lanche photodiode detectors at a speed of at least 200 RPM,’
`as also called for by the claims.” Id. Moreover, the “3-D”
`limitation “necessarily infers both a horizontal and vertical
`field of view.” Id. at *13 n.8.
`The Board denied Quanergy’s requests for rehearing,
`and Quanergy timely appealed to this court. We have ju-
`risdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`II. DISCUSSION
`We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo
`and its factual findings for substantial evidence. In re Van
`Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Substantial evi-
`dence supports a finding if a reasonable mind might accept
`the evidence to support the finding. Nobel Biocare Servs.
`AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1374 (Fed. Cir.
`2018).
`Claim construction is a question of law with underlying
`questions of fact. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys.,
`Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We review the
`Board’s ultimate claim construction and any supporting de-
`terminations based on intrinsic evidence de novo. Person-
`alized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336,
`1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We review any subsidiary factual
`findings involving extrinsic evidence for substantial evi-
`dence. Id.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`10
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`Obviousness is also a question of law with underlying
`questions of fact. Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recrea-
`tional Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`These facts include the scope and content of the prior art
`and any objective indicia of nonobviousness. Bradium
`Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`On appeal, Quanergy argues that the Board erred in
`its construction of the term “lidar.” Quanergy also chal-
`lenges the Board’s obviousness analysis. We address each
`argument in turn.
`A. Claim Construction
`Claim 1 of the ’558 patent requires a “lidar-based” 3-D
`point cloud system. ’558 patent, col. 7, l. 59. The intrinsic
`evidence makes clear that the broadest reasonable inter-
`pretation of “lidar” as used in the ’558 patent is pulsed
`time-of-flight lidar.
`The broadest reasonable interpretation standard ap-
`plies in these IPR proceedings, because Quanergy filed its
`petitions on November 29, 2017, and the ’558 patent is un-
`expired. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH,
`8 F.4th 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2021).5 Under that standard,
`we give claims their broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification as a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`
`5 For petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018,
`the Board applies the claim construction standard articu-
`lated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc). See Changes to the Claim Construction
`Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Be-
`fore the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`51,340, 51,340–41 (Oct. 11, 2018). The Board also applies
`the Phillips standard to claims of an expired patent. Wa-
`sica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272,
`1279 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`11
`
`art would interpret them. Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels,
`812 F.3d 1056, 1061–62 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`The term “lidar” is an acronym for “Laser Imaging De-
`tection and Ranging.” ’558 patent, col. 3, ll. 65–66. Quan-
`ergy proposes that the acronym simply requires the use of
`laser light to perform imaging, detection, and ranging. Ac-
`cording to Quanergy, lidar broadly encapsulates not only
`pulsed time-of-flight techniques, but also techniques like
`triangulation. Velodyne disagrees. Velodyne asserts that,
`like radar, lidar determines distance based on the
`time-of-flight of the transmitted wave.
`We agree with Velodyne. In light of the specification,
`a skilled artisan would interpret lidar to mean pulsed
`time-of-flight lidar. Indeed, the written description focuses
`exclusively on pulsed time-of-flight lidar. It begins by de-
`scribing the well-known use of a pulse of light to measure
`distance, deriving distance from the pulse’s time-of-flight.
`See ’558 patent, col. 1, ll. 11–18. This technique is founda-
`tional to the written description’s ensuing description of
`commercial point cloud systems, their operation, and their
`inability to meet the demands of autonomous vehicle navi-
`gation. Id. at col. 1, l. 32–col. 2, l. 45. For example, the
`patent describes an existing point cloud system that em-
`ploys “a single beam lidar unit” and a gimbal to capture a
`3-D array of distance points. Id. at col. 1, ll. 49–53. It then
`teaches that such a system is limited by the number of
`pulses per second that a single laser can emit. Id. at col. 2,
`ll. 1–3.
`The pulsed time-of-flight technique is also foundational
`to the claimed invention, which purports to be an improve-
`ment on existing 3-D point cloud systems that are inade-
`quate for autonomous vehicle navigation. See id. at col. 2,
`ll. 35–67; id. at col. 6, ll. 37–41. Indeed, when describing a
`particular configuration of lasers and detectors in its lidar
`system, the patent boasts that its preferred embodiment
`“can collect approximately 1 million time of flight (TOF)
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 12 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`12
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`distance points per second.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 9–11 (emphasis
`added); see also id. at col. 4, ll. 13–14 (providing the stand-
`ard deviation of the collected time-of-flight measurements);
`id. at col. 5, ll. 11–15 (explaining that a processor in the
`lidar system controls the laser emitters and detectors and
`“records the time-of-flight” (emphasis added)). The intrin-
`sic evidence makes clear that the term “lidar” means
`pulsed time-of-flight lidar.6
`We are unpersuaded by Quanergy’s arguments on ap-
`peal. First, Quanergy argues that the claims and specifi-
`cation do not restrict the term “lidar” to pulsed time-of-
`flight lidar. Analogizing to Veritas Technologies LLC v.
`Veeam Software Corp., 835 F.3d 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
`Quanergy contends that the “indications in the specifica-
`tion that ‘lidar’ may involve pulsed [time-of-flight] meas-
`urements” do not preclude a broader construction that
`includes triangulation and other techniques. Appellant’s
`Br. 22–23 (citing Veritas, 835 F.3d at 1411).
`We disagree with Quanergy’s characterization of the
`specification as merely indicating that lidar may involve
`
`
`6 Given the clarity of the intrinsic evidence, resort to
`extrinsic evidence is unnecessary. Seabeds Geosolutions
`(US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
`2021). We note, however, that the Board’s findings based
`on extrinsic evidence are consistent with the Board’s con-
`struction. Quanergy failed to challenge these findings in
`its opening brief, and its attempt to do so in its reply brief
`is untimely. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is well es-
`tablished that arguments not raised in the opening brief
`are waived.”); see In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC,
`980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[I]t is evident that the
`court mainly uses the term ‘waiver’ when applying the doc-
`trine of ‘forfeiture.’”).
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 13 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`13
`
`pulsed time-of-flight measurements. As noted, the specifi-
`cation focuses exclusively on pulsed time-of-flight lidar.
`Quanergy’s reliance on Veritas is misplaced. There, we
`affirmed the Board’s construction of the phrase “starting a
`restore of a set of files” as encompassing both file-level and
`block-level restoration.7 See id. at 1411. We explained that
`“nothing in the specification states or fairly implies a limi-
`tation to file-level restoration.” Id. at 1412. While the spec-
`ification generally described starting a restore of files (and
`not blocks), it did not exclude restorations that operate at
`the block-level but result in restoring files. Id. And, alt-
`hough the specification discussed certain steps that would
`be difficult or impossible to perform at the block-level, it
`couched those references “in terms of specific embodi-
`ments, not general requirements of the invention.” Id.
`Critically, the specification did not explain any material
`differences between file-level and block-level restoration.
`Id.
`By contrast, here, the specification fairly implies that
`the term “lidar” only means pulsed time-of-flight lidar. The
`patent describes measuring distance using a pulsed
`time-of-flight technique, identifies the shortcomings of ex-
`isting point cloud systems that collect distance points by
`pulsing light and detecting its reflection, and discloses a
`lidar system that collects time-of-flight measurements. Be-
`cause Veritas is factually distinguishable, we reject Quan-
`ergy’s broader construction of the term “lidar.”
`
`
`7 A file is essentially a named collection of blocks,
`which contain all of the data of the file. Veritas, 835 F.3d
`at 1408. An application restores at the file-level by re-
`questing a file and receiving the data in the blocks corre-
`sponding to the file. See id. An application restores at the
`block-level by requesting the block it needs and receiving
`the data in that block. See id.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 14 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`14
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`Second, Quanergy argues that the Board improperly
`limited the meaning of the term “lidar” to a preferred em-
`bodiment. Not so. The Board did not read limitations from
`a preferred embodiment into the claims. Instead, it consid-
`ered the entire disclosure, which introduces the concept of
`pulsed time-of-flight lidar “[r]ight from the start,” a concept
`that “underlies the entire description of the ’558 patent.”
`Quanergy I, 2019 WL 2237114, at *5.
`Third, Quanergy emphasizes that Velodyne chose to
`claim only “lidar” instead of “pulsed time-of-flight lidar.”
`But this argument assumes its conclusion—that the term
`“lidar” is broader than the Board’s construction “pulsed
`time-of-flight lidar.” As noted, in light of the intrinsic evi-
`dence, a skilled artisan would interpret the term “lidar” to
`mean pulsed time-of-flight lidar.
`Finally, Quanergy argues that its broader construction
`of “lidar”—to include triangulation—is reasonable because
`the ’558 patent at most expands the acronym to “Laser Im-
`aging Detection and Ranging.” As the Board did, we find
`that simply restating what the “lidar” acronym stands for
`does little to explain the term’s meaning in light of the spec-
`ification. Because Quanergy’s broader construction is in-
`consistent with the specification, we find it to be
`unreasonable. See Trivascular, 812 F.3d at 1062 (“Con-
`struing individual words of a claim without considering the
`context in which those words appear is simply not ‘reason-
`able.’”).
`For these reasons, we affirm the Board’s construction
`of the term “lidar” to mean pulsed time-of-flight lidar.
`B. Obviousness
`Quanergy also appeals several of the factual findings
`underlying the Board’s nonobviousness determination.
`First, Quanergy asserts that Mizuno discloses a pulsed
`time-of-flight lidar system. Second, Quanergy challenges
`the Board’s presumption of a nexus between the claimed
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 15 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`15
`
`invention and Velodyne’s evidence of an unresolved
`long-felt need, industry praise, and commercial success.
`Quanergy adds that Velodyne cannot prove a nexus either.
`We address these challenges in turn.
`1. Mizuno
`The Board made several findings as to Mizuno based
`on the expert testimony of both parties and subsidiary find-
`ings as to Berkovic and other state-of-the-art references. It
`found that Mizuno does not disclose or suggest a pulsed
`time-of-flight lidar system. See Quanergy I, 2019 WL
`2237114, at *7. It further found that a skilled artisan
`(a) would not have used pulsed time-of-flight lidar in Mi-
`zuno’s short-range measuring device and (b) would not
`have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying
`Mizuno’s device to use pulsed time-of-flight lidar. See id.
`at *8, *10, *12.
`On appeal, Quanergy only disputes the Board’s find-
`ings that Mizuno neither discloses nor suggests the use of
`a pulsed time-of-flight lidar system. Substantial evidence
`supports those findings. Notably, the testimonies of both
`Velodyne’s and Quanergy’s experts support the Board’s
`findings. Velodyne’s expert opined that a skilled artisan
`“would immediately recognize Mizuno as a triangulation
`system.” J.A. 8065 (¶ 127). He explained that Mizuno de-
`tects light reflected at an angle using position or image sen-
`sors, neither of which are used in pulsed time-of-flight lidar
`systems. And, while Quanergy’s expert described Mizuno’s
`device as a specular reflection system instead of a triangu-
`lation system, he agreed that Mizuno’s device is not a
`time-of-flight lidar system. He also conceded that Mizuno
`measures distance to the target based on where it receives
`a reflected laser beam, not when as lidar systems do.
`Quanergy disagrees with the Board’s analysis of its ex-
`pert testimony. According to Quanergy, its expert was de-
`scribing only one particular embodiment of Mizuno’s device
`when he stated that Mizuno’s device was not a pulsed
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 16 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`16
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`time-of-flight lidar system. The Board rejected this argu-
`ment as an attempt to draw an arbitrary distinction in the
`testimony of its expert between one of Mizuno’s figures and
`Mizuno’s disclosure as whole. Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velo-
`dyne LiDAR, Inc. (Quanergy III), No. IPR2018-00255,
`2020 WL 2595492, at *8–9 (P.T.A.B. May 21, 2020) (deny-
`ing Quanergy’s request for rehearing); Quanergy Sys., Inc.
`Inc.
`(Quanergy
`IV),
`v.
`Velodyne
`LiDAR,
`No. IPR2018-00256, 2020 WL 2595636, at *8–9 (P.T.A.B.
`May 21, 2020) (same). We are similarly unpersuaded by
`Quanergy’s attempt to downplay its expert’s admission
`that Mizuno’s device is not a time-of-flight lidar system.
`Quanergy finally relies on its expert’s testimony on re-
`direct that “Mizuno could use a time-of-flight pulsed Li-
`DAR system,”8 as well as its expert’s ultimate conclusion
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Mizuno
`would have found it obvious to use a pulsed time-of-flight
`system. Appellant’s Br. 25–26 (citing J.A. 9114–15); see
`also, e.g., Quanergy III, 2020 WL 2595492, at *9. Under
`our standard of review, we sustain a finding of the Board
`that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in record,
`even if the Board reasonably could have drawn other incon-
`sistent findings from the same record. See Elbit Sys. of
`Am., LLC v. Thales Visionix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1356
`(Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, we agree with the Board that the
`testimony of Quanergy’s expert on redirect is “incomplete,
`unspecific, and ultimately conclusory.” E.g., Quanergy III,
`2020 WL 2595492, at *10. The Board acted within its dis-
`cretion when it chose not to credit that testimony. See id.
`On the entirety of the record, substantial evidence supports
`the Board’s finding that one of skill in the art would not
`have been motivated by Mizuno to use a pulsed
`time-of-flight system.
`
`
`8 Quanergy misattributes this testimony to Velo-
`dyne’s expert.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-2070 Document: 51 Page: 17 Filed: 02/04/2022
`
`QUANERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. VELODYNE LIDAR USA, INC.
`
`17
`
`2. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness
`The Board gave substantial weight to Velodyne’s objec-
`tive evidence of unresolved long-felt need, industry praise,
`and commercial success. Substantial evidence supports
`the Board’s presumption of a nexus and its thorough anal-
`ysis of each objective indicia.
`Evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness, if pre-
`sent, must always be considered before reaching a determi-
`nation on the issue of obviousness. E.g., Stratoflex, Inc. v.
`Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538–39 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
`In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release
`Capsule Patent Litigation, 676 F.3d 1063, 1076–77
`(Fed. Cir. 2012). To accord substantial weight to such evi-
`dence, it “must have a ‘nexus’ to the claims, i.e., there must
`be ‘a legally and factually sufficient connection’ between
`the evidence and the patented invention.” Teva Pharms.,
`8 F.4th at 1360 (quoting Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster
`LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
`We presume a nexus “when the patentee shows that
`the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product
`and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is co-
`extensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC