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`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 Kwak2; (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 Choi3. 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 Chu4 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
`
`Hanington5; and (2) claim 11 is obvious in view of Chu com-
`bined with Choi, Hanington, and Myers6. 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
`
`