Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. v. Koninklijke Philips N.v.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.,
Appellant
v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
Appellee
______________________
2023-1155
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
00560.
______________________
Decided: May 9, 2024
______________________
ROBERT COURTNEY , Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneap-
olis, MN, argued for appellant. Also represented by
MICHAEL T IMOTHY HAWKINS ; T HOMAS H. REGER , II, Dallas,
TX.
G EORGE CHRISTOPHER BECK, Foley & Lardner LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by
BRADLEY ROUSH ; J OHN CUSTER, K EVIN M. L ITTMAN, L UCAS
I. SILVA, Boston, MA; ELEY T HOMPSON, Chicago, IL.
______________________
Case: 23-1155 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 1 of 7 --

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
2
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (“Quectel”) appeals
from a final written decision of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the
Board”) holding that Quectel had failed to show claims
11–17 of U.S. Patent 7,089,028 to be unpatentable. Quectel
Wireless Sols. Co. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., IPR2021-
00560, 2022 WL 4112074 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 2022) (“Deci-
sion”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’028 patent, assigned to Koninklijke Philips N.V.
(“Philips”), relates to techniques for mobile communica-
tions systems to regulate the power of radio communica-
tions between mobile stations and immobile base stations.
Uplink communications are those transmitted from the
mobile station to a base station, and downlink communica-
tions are those transmitted from a base station to a mobile
station. In the ’028 patent system, there are dedicated up-
link and downlink control channels and an uplink data
channel. ’028 patent, col. 3 ll. 26–30. Radio communication
systems generally use closed loop power control, where the
mobile station determines the required changes in the
power of transmissions from the base station and signals
those changes to the base station, and vice versa. Id. col. 1
ll. 27–31. According to the specification, conventional
power management techniques took time for power control
loops to converge satisfactorily. Id. col. 1 ll. 40–46. The
’028 patent discloses systems that avoid or minimize failed
data transmissions during convergence. In one claimed
embodiment, after the exchange of a “request” and
“acknowledgement,” the “initial transmission” of “control
information” on the uplink data channel is “determinedly
delayed” until the base station and the mobile station have
had sufficient time to receive the control signals so data
will not be corrupted or lost. Id. col. 8 ll. 4–22. Representa-
tive claim 11 is reproduced below.
Case: 23-1155 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 2 of 7 --

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. v. KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N. V.
3
11. A secondary station, comprising:
means for transmitting a request for resources
to a primary station;
means for receiving an acknowledgment of a re-
ception of the request for resources by the pri-
mary station;
[c] wherein, subsequent to a reception of the
acknowledgement by said secondary station, con-
trol information is initially transmitted on an
uplink control channel and a downlink control
channel between the primary station and said
secondary station;
wherein, subsequent to the reception of the
acknowledgement by said secondary station,
data is initially transmitted on an uplink data
channel from said secondary station to the pri-
mary station; and
wherein the initial transmission of data on the
uplink data channel is determinedly delayed un-
til after the initial transmission of control infor-
mation on the uplink control channel and the
downlink control channel.
Id. (emphasis added).
Quectel petitioned for inter partes review, arguing that
(1) claims 11–12 and 15–17 would have been obvious over
Lomp1 in view of Luddy,2 and (2) claims 11–13 and 15–17
would have been obvious over Lomp in view of Chen.3
The parties disputed the meaning of claim element
11[c], emphasized above, with a similar limitation in inde-
pendent claim 15. Quectel argued that the claimed “initial
1 U.S. Patent 5,799,010 to Lomp et al. (“Lomp”).
2 U.S. Patent 5,953,356 to Luddy (“Luddy”).
3 U.S. Patent 6,067,458 to Chen (“Chen”).
Case: 23-1155 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 3 of 7 --

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
4
transmission” of control information on the uplink and
downlink control channels need not be the first transmis-
sion of control information on those channels, but rather
can be an initial transmission of “that particular message,
that control signal.” Decision at *4 (emphasis omitted)
(quoting J.A. 534, Oral Hearing Tr. 58:4–6). Philips argued
that the claim limitation requires a particular uplink con-
trol channel, a particular downlink control channel, and
the initial transmission of control information on those par-
ticular channels after an acknowledgement. Id. at *3–4.
The Board found that the language of claim limitation
11[c] requires that “subsequent to a reception of the
acknowledgement by said secondary station, control infor-
mation is transmitted for the first time on the particular
claimed uplink and downlink control channels between the
primary station and the secondary station,” with a similar
construction for claim 15’s comparable limitation. Id. at *6.
In reaching that determination, the Board gave great
weight to the plain and ordinary meaning of “initially,” in-
terpreting it as “something that occurs first, or at the be-
ginning.” Id. at *4. It further found its interpretation
supported by the specification. Id. at *4–5. The Board also
rejected Quectel’s argument that that construction im-
ported the term “any” into the claims before “initial trans-
mission.” Id. at *4.
The Board found, both under its determined construc-
tion of “initially transmitted” and under Quectel’s proposed
construction of that term, that neither the Lomp and
Luddy combination nor the Lomp and Chen combination
taught limitation 11[c] or the similar limitation in claim 15.
Id. at *11, *14–15. It therefore found that Quectel had not
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the chal-
lenged claims were unpatentable. Id. at *14–15.
Quectel timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
Case: 23-1155 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 4 of 7 --

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. v. KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N. V.
5
D ISCUSSION
We review de novo the Board’s construction of a claim
term, and any supporting determinations made, based on
the intrinsic record. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC
v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Any
factual findings the Board made regarding extrinsic evi-
dence are reviewed for substantial evidence. Id.
Quectel argues that the Board erred in its construction
of “initially transmitted,” and that the Board’s “alterna-
tive” finding under Quectel’s allegedly proposed construc-
tion still misinterpreted the claim limitation. Specifically,
Quectel argues that the Board’s construction improperly
excludes control information sent after the restoration fol-
lowing an interruption on previously existing control chan-
nels. Appellant’s Br. at 27. Philips responds by arguing
that the Board’s construction was correct, that Quectel for-
feited its main argument on appeal by not making it before
the Board, and that even under Quectel’s proposed con-
struction, the Board’s finding of nonobviousness was sup-
ported by substantial evidence.
Quectel’s main evidence in support of its proposed con-
struction is a portion of the ’028 patent that it did not cite
before the Board: the Abstract’s explanation that power
control is established “by delaying initial transmission of a
data channel (either at the start of a transmission or after
a pause) until after the initial transmission of control chan-
nels.” ’028 patent, Abstract; see also Appellant’s Br. at 31
n.4 (acknowledging that “it did not specifically address the
Abstract in its arguments to the Board”); Oral Arg. at
10:29–32 (acknowledging that Quectel “did not direct the
Board to the Abstract on this”).
As an initial matter, it is unclear whether the Abstract
is referring to a “pause” where there is a break in connec-
tion or where the logical connection is maintained. See ’028
patent, col. 4 l. 64–col. 5 l. 1. It also makes no reference to
a “request” or an “acknowledgement.” Since that portion of
the Abstract was not raised before the Board, we do not
Case: 23-1155 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 5 of 7 --

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.
6
have the benefit of expert testimony on or prior analysis of
its meaning.4 But, regardless, the Abstract’s general de-
scription of the claimed invention does not, on the particu-
lar facts of this case, override the clear language in the
body of the specification. Although a patent’s abstract may
provide useful information in determining the scope of the
invention, see Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209
F.3d 1337, 1341 n.* (Fed. Cir. 2000), we must consider that
its “purpose . . . is to enable the Office and the public gen-
erally to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the
nature and gist of the technical disclosure.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.72(b); see also Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 601 F. App’x 972, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“[W]e do not think that the summary statements . . . in the
Abstract and Summary of the Invention—where full expla-
nations of the term are not expected—are sufficient to jus-
tify a broader reading of [a disputed term].”).
We agree with the Board’s construction of claim ele-
ment 11[c], and the corresponding limitation in claim 15.
We find that it is supported by the ’028 patent specification,
the claim language itself, and the extrinsic record. The
specification explains that “[a]fter the acknowledgement
204 has been sent, two control channels (CON) are estab-
lished, an uplink control channel 206 and a downlink con-
trol channel 208.” ’028 patent, col. 3 ll. 26–29; see also id.
Figures 2 and 3. After those channels are established
“transmissions start on the control channels 206, 208.” Id.
col. 3 ll. 40–41 (emphasis added). Although other portions
of the specification refer to a “pause” or “interruption” in
transmission, see, e.g., id. col. 1 l. 41, col. 4. l. 60–col. 5 l. 5,
they do not do so in reference to an “initial transmission.”
See Decision at *5.
4 Quectel’s expert refers to that portion of the Ab-
stract only in passing as part of his “Subject Matter Over-
view.” J.A. 968, ¶ 30.
Case: 23-1155 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 6 of 7 --

QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD. v. KONINKLIJKE
PHILIPS N. V.
7
Quectel’s interpretation of the “initial transmission” as
being the first of any particular control message is a
strained reading of the claim language. Claim 11 itself
simply says that “control information is initially transmit-
ted,” not control information of a particular type. ’028 pa-
tent, col. 8 ll. 10–11 (emphasis added); see also id. col. 8 ll.
44–45 (similar language in claim 15). Nothing in the claim
language limits the claimed control message to a particular
control message as Quectel suggests. Rather, the Board’s
construction is more consistent with a plain and ordinary
reading of the claims. See Decision at *4 (citing J.A. 1544,
¶ 110; J.A. 501–02, Oral Hearing Tr. 25:19–26:2).
Because we affirm the Board’s claim construction, and
Quectel did not challenge the Board’s invalidity finding un-
der that construction, Appellant’s Br. at 1–2, we therefore
affirm the Board’s determination of claims 11–17 of the
’028 patent as unpatentable as obvious. We need not reach
Quectel’s argument that the Board erred in analyzing the
claims under Quectel’s proposed construction.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Quectel’s remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, the
decision of the Board is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-1155 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 05/09/2024

-- 7 of 7 --