Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`NUCURRENT, INC.,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Appellee
`______________________
`
`2021-1605, 2021-1606, 2021-1607
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-
`01217, PGR2019-00049, PGR2019-00050.
`______________________
`
`Decided: July 14, 2022
`______________________
`
`WILLIAM MILLIKEN, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox,
`PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also repre-
`sented by MICHAEL BRADLEY RAY, JONATHAN TUMINARO,
`JON WRIGHT.
`
` CHETAN BANSAL, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC,
`argued for appellee. Also represented by STEPHEN BLAKE
`KINNAIRD, NAVEEN MODI, JEFFREY PADE, JOSEPH PALYS,
`ALLAN SOOBERT; PAUL ANDERSON, Houston, TX.
`______________________
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`2
`
`NUCURRENT, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`Before NEWMAN, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
`STOLL, Circuit Judge.
`NuCurrent appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board’s final written decisions in three post-grant proceed-
`ings concluding that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent
`Nos. 9,941,729 and 10,063,100 are unpatentable as obvi-
`ous. Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s
`conclusions, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`The patents are directed to a compact antenna capable
`of operating at multiple frequency bands. ’100 patent col. 4
`ll. 4–7, col. 4 l. 63–col. 5 l. 19. The written description ex-
`plains that the antenna includes “a first, outer coil,” (e.g.,
`coil portion 144), “a second, interior coil,” (e.g., coil portion
`146), id. at col. 10 ll. 26–30, col. 28 ll. 34–40, and “a plural-
`ity of terminal connections that are strategically placed on
`[] first and second inductor coils,” (e.g., electrical connec-
`tion points 148, 150, 152), id. at col. 11 ll. 32–44, col. 28
`ll. 13–16.
`
`
`
`Id. Fig. 9.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`NUCURRENT, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`3
`
`According to the written description, “[c]onnecting the
`various terminals in different combinations . . . provides
`the antenna . . . with different adjustable inductances
`which, in turn, modifies the operating frequency or operat-
`ing mode of the antenna.” Id. at col. 13 ll. 32–33. Claim 1
`of the ’100 patent is representative and recites in relevant
`part:
`
`1. An electrical system, comprising:
`a) an antenna, comprising:
`i) a first conductive wire forming a first coil
`
`. . .
`
`ii) a second conductive wire forming a sec-
`ond coil . . .
`iii) a third gap separating an outermost
`turn of the second coil from the innermost turn
`of the first coil . . .
`iv) a first terminal electrically connected to
`the first end of the first coil, a second terminal
`electrically connected to the second end of the
`second coil and a third terminal electrically con-
`nected to either of the first or second coils;
`b) a control circuit electrically connected to at
`least one of the first, second and third antenna
`terminals, wherein the control circuit is config-
`ured to control the operation of the antenna;
`c) wherein a tunable inductance is generatable
`by electrically connecting two of the first, second,
`and third terminals . . . .
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`4
`
`NUCURRENT, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`Id. at col. 32 l. 40–col. 33 l. 15 (emphasis added to relevant
`claim elements).1
`Samsung filed a petition for inter partes review
`(IPR2019-01217) of various claims of the ’729 patent, and
`two petitions for post-grant review (PGR2019-00049 and
`PGR2019-00050) of various claims of the ’100 patent.
`J.A. 1–42, J.A. 43–64, J.A. 65–96. In its petitions, Sam-
`sung relied on Riehl,2 the primary prior art reference, to
`teach an antenna having (1) two coils and (2) first, second,
`and third terminals connected to the coils that are electri-
`cally connectable in various combinations to produce differ-
`ent inductances. J.A. 313–46, J.A. 4812–36.
`During the post-grant proceedings, neither Samsung
`nor the patent owner NuCurrent offered constructions for
`any terms in the proceedings. J.A. 313, J.A. 461–62,
`J.A. 4811–12, J.A. 4944. The Board instituted review in
`each proceeding. J.A. 426, J.A. 2922, J.A. 4905. In its final
`written decisions, the Board determined that it did not
`need to explicitly construe any terms in the challenged pa-
`tents. J.A. 11–12, J.A. 51–52, J.A. 72–73. The Board ulti-
`mately concluded that each of the challenged claims were
`unpatentable as obvious. J.A. 40, J.A. 63, J.A. 95. The
`Board also determined that the claims were unpatentable
`for lack of written description. J.A. 63.
`NuCurrent appeals. We have jurisdiction under
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`
`1 The ’729 and ’100 patents share a written descrip-
`tion and have similar claims. The parties—and our court,
`in this opinion—thus focus on the ’100 patent and
`PGR2019-00049.
`2 U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0035383.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`NUCURRENT, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`5
`
`DISCUSSION
`Obviousness is a legal question based on underlying
`findings of fact. Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th
`1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2022). We review the Board’s ulti-
`mate obviousness determination de novo and underlying
`factual findings for substantial evidence such that a “rea-
`sonable fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s deci-
`sion.” OSI Pharms., LLC v. Apotex Inc., 939 F.3d 1375,
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
`1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Claim constructions are sim-
`ilarly legal questions that we review de novo. Dyfan, LLC
`v. Target Corp, 28 F.4th 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`On appeal, NuCurrent argues that the Board’s obvious-
`ness determination “rests on an incorrect claim construc-
`tion of the term ‘terminal.’” Appellant’s Br. 39. According
`to NuCurrent, “a ‘terminal’ is a point on a coil that is avail-
`able for connection to external circuitry.” Id. at 40. Nu-
`Current asserts that because the “claimed ‘terminals’ are
`terminals for the antenna, not for the coils,” the claimed
`“terminals” must be available for connection to circuitry ex-
`ternal to the antenna. Id. at 47. NuCurrent further alleges
`that the Board “implicitly construed the term more broadly
`than its ordinary meaning, concluding that an interior con-
`nection point of a coil that is not available for circuitry ex-
`ternal to the antenna can qualify as a terminal.” Id. at 39.
`Under its proffered construction, NuCurrent contends that
`Riehl “discloses only two terminals, but the challenged
`claims require three,” and thus the Board’s obviousness de-
`termination “cannot stand.” Id. In response, Samsung as-
`serts that “the Board never construed the term,” Appellee’s
`Br. 41, and that the Board “found the prior art (Riehl) dis-
`closed the claimed terminals even under NuCurrent’s in-
`terpretation of that term,” id. at 40.
`We affirm the Board’s conclusion on obviousness for
`two reasons. First, setting aside Samsung’s waiver argu-
`ment and concerns over whether the Board construed
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`6
`
`NUCURRENT, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`“terminal” to include connections for internal (as opposed
`to external) circuity, we cannot adopt the claim construc-
`tion that NuCurrent advocates on appeal. We conclude
`that the proper construction of “terminal” in light of the in-
`trinsic evidence is not limited to connections available to
`external circuitry. Indeed, we find no support for NuCur-
`rent’s construction in the intrinsic record—not one refer-
`ence to “terminal” within the written description requires
`the terminal be available for connection to only external
`circuitry, suggesting that the term “terminal” can encom-
`pass connections to internal circuitry as well. Nor does the
`claim language support NuCurrent’s construction—the
`claims require nothing more than an antenna comprising
`terminals electrically connected to the coils and connecta-
`ble to a control circuit. ’100 patent col. 32 l. 40–col. 33 l. 15.
`Second, even under NuCurrent’s proposed construc-
`tion, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
`Riehl teaches the three terminals as claimed. The Board
`cited and relied on testimony from Samsung’s expert,
`Dr. Baker, that a person of ordinary skill would have un-
`derstood that Riehl discloses three terminals. J.A. 29–34
`(citing J.A. 678–82), J.A. 85–90 (citing J.A. 5119–23). For
`example, as illustrated below in Dr. Baker’s annotated ver-
`sion of Figure 5, Riehl shows two coils (L2 and L3) and
`three connection points (connection points 1, 2, and 3):
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 7 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`NUCURRENT, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`7
`
`
`
`J.A. 678, 5119. According to Dr. Baker, a person of ordi-
`nary skill would have understood that each of Riehl’s three
`connection points is a component of a terminal because
`“they allow for connections between the coils and, for ex-
`ample, the capacitors C2a, C2b, and C2q.” J.A. 679, 5120.
`Relying on Dr. Baker’s unrebutted declaration, the Board
`found that such a capacitor network was “external cir-
`cuitry.” J.A. 34–35 (citing J.A. 679), J.A. 89–90 (citing
`J.A. 5120). In his declaration, Dr. Baker explained that a
`person of ordinary skill would have understood a terminal
`to comprise not only Riehl’s connection points, but also ad-
`ditional conductive material used to connect external cir-
`cuitry to those connection points on the coil. J.A. 679, 5120.
`Crediting Dr. Baker’s testimony as consistent with Riehl’s
`disclosure and that of the ’100 patent, the Board found that
`Riehl’s interconnection points teach the claimed “termi-
`nals” even under NuCurrent’s construction because they
`are physically available for connection to external circuitry,
`such as the matching network capacitors C2a, C2b, and
`C2q. J.A. 33 (citing J.A. 679), J.A. 86–89 (citing J.A. 5120).
`Indeed, the ’100 patent states that “the first electrical con-
`nection point 148 may serve as the first terminal 34, the
`third electrical connection point 152 may serve as the sec-
`ond terminal 36 and the second electrical connection point
`150 may serve as the third terminal 35,” ’100 patent col. 28
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1605 Document: 55 Page: 8 Filed: 07/14/2022
`
`8
`
`NUCURRENT, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`
`ll. 28–32, and that “terminal leads 154, 156, 158, such as
`electrically conductive wires, may be attached to these elec-
`trical connection points to create antenna terminals,” id. at
`col. 28 ll. 25–28.
`Because the Board’s finding that Riehl teaches three
`terminals is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm
`the Board’s obviousness determination. We therefore need
`not reach the Board’s finding regarding lack of written de-
`scription.3
`
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered NuCurrent’s remaining argu-
`ments and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above,
`we affirm.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`3 We are doubtful that the Board got the written de-
`scription issue right, but we do not reach the issue having
`affirmed on obviousness.
`
`