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

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
Appellant
v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.,
Appellee
______________________
2023-1896
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
00563.
______________________
Decided: August 29, 2024
______________________
G EORGE CHRISTOPHER BECK, Foley & Lardner LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
by BRADLEY ROUSH ; J OHN CUSTER, K EVIN M. L ITTMAN,
L UCAS I. SILVA, Boston, MA; ELEY T HOMPSON, Chicago, IL.
ROBERT C OURTNEY , Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneap-
olis, MN, argued for appellee. Also represented by
MICHAEL T IMOTHY HAWKINS ; T HOMAS H. REGER , II, Dallas,
TX.
______________________
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 1 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
2
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Quectel Wireless Solutions Co. Ltd. (Quectel) peti-
tioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for inter
partes review (IPR) of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,216
(’216 patent), owned by Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips).
The Board determined the challenged claim to be un-
patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Quectel Wireless Sols.
Co. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2021-00563, 2022
WL 4280566, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 13, 2022) (Decision).
Philips appeals. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and re-
mand for further proceedings.
BACKGROUND
The ’216 patent relates to techniques for radio commu-
nication systems to regulate the power of communications
transmitted between base stations and mobile stations.
Uplink communications are those transmitted from a mo-
bile station to a base station, and downlink communica-
tions are those transmitted from a base station to a mobile
station. ’216 patent col. 3 ll. 22–25. The mobile and base
stations exchange two types of information: (1) user traffic,
such as speech or packet data, and (2) control information,
which sets and monitors various parameters of the trans-
mission channel to enable the base and mobile stations to
exchange user traffic. Id. col. 1 ll. 17–23.
The control information enables power control between
the base and mobile stations. As the ’216 patent explains,
power control of signals transmitted from a mobile station
to the base station is needed “so that the [base station] re-
ceives signals from different [mobile stations] at approxi-
mately the same power level, while minimi[z]ing the
transmission power required by each [mobile station].” Id.
col. 1 ll. 25–29. Furthermore, power control of signals
transmitted from the base station to a mobile station is
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 2 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
3
needed “so that the [mobile station] receives signals from
the [base station] with a low error rate while minim[z]ing
transmission power, to reduce interference with other cells
and radio systems.” Id. col. 1 ll. 29–33. Radio communica-
tion systems typically use closed-loop power control, in
which 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. 33–37.
Problems with closed-loop power control arise if there
is an interruption in data transmission. “[A]fter the trans-
mission is interrupted, the power control loops may take
some time to converge satisfactorily. Until such conver-
gence is achieved data transmissions are likely to be re-
ceived in a corrupted state if their power level is too low, or
to generate extra interference if their power level is too
high.” Id. col. 1 ll. 47–52. The ’216 patent purports to ad-
dress these problems by providing means “for setting the
initial transmission power after a pause in transmission to
that before the pause adjusted by an offset.” Id. col. 1
ll. 65–67.
Claim 9 of the ’216 patent recites:
A secondary station for use in a radio communica-
tion system having a communication channel be-
tween the secondary station and a primary station,
the channel including an uplink and a downlink
control channel for transmission of control infor-
mation, including power control commands, and a
data channel for the transmission of data, the sec-
ondary station comprising:
power control means for adjusting the power of the
uplink control and data channels in response to the
downlink power control commands;
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 3 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
4
means for setting an initial transmission power af-
ter an interruption in transmission to that before
the interruption adjusted by an offset; and
means for determining the offset from a difference
between a last transmission power and a weighted
average of the transmission power over a predeter-
mined period before the interruption in transmis-
sion.
Id. at claim 9.
Quectel’s IPR Petition challenged claim 9 of the ’216
patent as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,337,988 (Agin) in
view of U.S. Patent No. 6,512,925 (Chen). The Board insti-
tuted review and issued a Final Written Decision finding
claim 9 unpatentable over Agin and Chen. Philips appeals.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
“In an appeal from an IPR decision, we review the
Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings
for substantial evidence.” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l
Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Ob-
viousness is a question of law based on underlying factual
findings, including the scope and content of prior art refer-
ences and the existence of a reason to combine those refer-
ences.” Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d
1056, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “A finding is supported by sub-
stantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the ev-
idence to support the finding.” Id.
I
Philips first argues that the Board erred by failing to
explicitly construe the term “offset” in claim 9’s recitation
of “means for setting an initial transmission power after an
interruption in transmission to that before the interruption
adjusted by an offset.” According to Philips, the Board
should have explicitly construed “offset” to mean “a one-
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 4 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
5
time adjustment applied to initial transmission power fol-
lowing an interruption.” Appellant’s Br. 48.
Philips did not proffer this definition in either its Pa-
tent Owner’s Preliminary Response or its Patent Owner’s
Response. Nor did Quectel proffer or request any formal
definition of “offset” in its Petition or Petitioner’s Reply.
Philips waited until its Surreply to first articulate its pre-
ferred understanding of “offset,” but merely asserted it
without any explanation. Moreover, this Surreply argu-
ment was presented in the context of distinguishing the
claimed “offset” from prior-art reference Agin’s “step size,”
rather than in any request for the Board to construe the
term. J.A. 381–86. The Board accordingly concluded: “Pa-
tent Owner [Philips] does not appear to be seeking an ex-
plicit construction of the claim term ‘offset,’ although we
acknowledge ample arguments from Patent Owner, with
counter-arguments from Petitioner [Quectel]. As such, we
consider both parties[’] arguments . . . outside of the con-
text of claim construction.” Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at
*4. We see no reason to disagree with the Board’s under-
standing of the parties’ arguments, and the Board thus did
not err by not providing a construction of “offset.”
II
Next, Philips contends that the Board erred in finding
that Agin discloses the claimed “means for setting an ini-
tial transmission power after an interruption in transmis-
sion to that before the interruption adjusted by an offset.”
’216 patent at claim 9 (emphases added). Philips chal-
lenges the Board’s obviousness analysis for this limitation
on two grounds, which we address in turn.
First, Philips argues that the Board erred in concluding
that Agin teaches the claimed “offset.” Agin discloses a
“power control step size”  that may be set to a value of 1
or 2. See Agin col. 7 ll. 17–24. The Board found that Agin’s
step size teaches the claimed “offset.” Philips contends that
this was error because Agin does not “identically disclose
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 5 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
6
the function recited in the claim” given that the Board, at
one point, indicated that an offset is distinct from a step
size adjustment. Appellant’s Br. 49. But the Board con-
cluded that “an offset applying a single step size alteration
is not distinguishable from the application of a step size.”
Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at *8 (emphasis added); see
also Quectel Wireless Sols. Co. Ltd. v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., No. IPR2021-00563, 2023 WL 2602868, at *2
(P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2023). As the Board noted, the ’216 pa-
tent itself teaches that the offset may be “quanti[z]ed to an
available power control step size before it is applied.” ’216
patent col. 2 ll. 45–46. The Board also relied on Quectel’s
expert testimony to arrive at its conclusion. Decision, 2022
WL 4280566, at *8. Substantial evidence supports the
Board’s finding that Agin teaches the claimed “offset.”
Second, Philips contends that the Board erred in con-
cluding that Agin teaches applying an offset to an “initial
transmission power,” as claimed. Philips argues that “Agin
is silent as to the initial transmission power after an inter-
ruption” and, moreover, “the specific teachings of
Agin . . . demonstrate that Agin’s step size adjustment
could not be applied to the initial transmission.” Appel-
lant’s Br. 51.
Quectel’s Petition relied on Agin’s description of its Fig-
ure 2, reproduced below, to teach the claimed “means for
setting an initial transmission power after an interruption
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 6 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
7
in transmission to that before the interruption adjusted by
an offset.”
Agin FIG. 2.
As recounted by Quectel and depicted in Agin’s Figure
2, “Agin describes setting the power control step size to
 = 1” (step 17) or “ = 2” (step 18). J.A. 128 (citing Agin
col. 5 ll. 44–53). In parallel, Agin’s base station determines
whether to employ an “‘up’ power control command” (step
13) or a “‘down’ power control command” (step 12) by deter-
mining whether the measured signal-to-inference ratio
(SIR) of the received signal from the mobile station is
greater or less than a target SIR (step 11). Agin col. 1 ll.
40–47; id. col. 5 ll. 31–38. Then, “1 or 2 is combined with
the ‘up’ or ‘down’ power control command to obtain a result-
ing power control command” (step 19). J.A. 128 (citing
Agin col. 5 ll. 54–57). Agin’s base station then sends the
resultant, combined power control command to the mobile
station, instructing the mobile station to either increase or
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 7 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
8
decrease its transmittal power level by the power control
step size. Agin col. 1 ll. 43–47.
Notably, Agin recognizes that “downlink transmissions
from a [base station] to a [mobile station] may momentarily
be interrupted.” Id. col. 1 ll. 62–63. “During these trans-
mission interruptions . . . the [base station] does not send
any more power control commands to the [mobile station],
and the uplink signals from this [mobile station] are no
longer power controlled.” Id. col. 2 ll. 4–8. Philips argues
that, based on this disclosure, “Agin’s system cannot possi-
bly adjust its initial transmission following an interruption
by a step size . . . since it does not receive [a] power control
command during the interruption.” Appellant’s Br. 55–56.
Put another way, “Agin could not possibly apply a step size
adjustment to the initial transmission [after an interrup-
tion], because Agin’s closed loop power control algorithm
requires receipt of a power command for the mobile station
to know whether to increase or decrease its power.” Id. at
51–52. Philips raised this argument in both its Patent
Owner Response and its Surreply. J.A. 325–26; J.A. 378–
79.
The Board did not account for this argument in its Fi-
nal Written Decision. Instead, it found that “[b]oth parties
agree that Agin’s power control command instructs the
[mobile station] regarding the step size for increasing or
decreasing power after the interruption.” Decision, 2022
WL 4280566, at *8. The Board concluded it was “per-
suaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have in-
terpreted Agin as setting an initial transmission power
after an interruption in transmission to that before the in-
terruption adjusted by a step size.” Id. But the Board
failed to address Philips’s argument as to how Agin’s sys-
tem would adjust the initial transmission following an in-
terruption without having received any power control
commands during the interruption.
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 8 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
9
Because the Board’s analysis on this point was too con-
clusory and did not address an argument timely raised be-
low, we vacate the Board’s finding. See, e.g., Provisur
Techs., Inc. v. Weber, Inc., 50 F.4th 117, 123–24 (Fed. Cir.
2022). We remand for the Board to re-evaluate whether
Agin teaches this limitation, taking into account Philips’s
argument discussed above.
III
Philips argues next that the Board erred in finding that
a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Agin
in view of Chen. Quectel’s Petition and the Board’s deci-
sion relied on the combination of Agin and Chen to teach
the claimed “means for determining the offset from a dif-
ference between a last transmission power and a weighted
average of the transmission power over a predetermined
period before the interruption in transmission.” Philips
raises three arguments challenging the Board’s motiva-
tion-to-combine findings, though we find each unpersua-
sive.
Philips contends that “nothing in Agin suggests apply-
ing an average (much less a weighted average) to deter-
mine the magnitude of the modified step size adjustment
2.” Appellant’s Br. 62. The Board disagreed, relying on
Agin’s discussion of “statistics” to make a contrary finding.
Agin teaches that “[p]arameters T’ and δ2 may . . . be deter-
mined based on statistics on power control results for a
transmission period before said transmission interruption;
for example the largest the [sic] variations of a received sig-
nal power before the interruption, the largest δ2 and T’, and
vice-versa.” Agin col. 6 ll. 10–14 (emphasis added). The
Board reasonably found that this disclosure in Agin “is suf-
ficient to suggest the use of different types of statistics, in-
cluding those disclosed by Chen,” i.e., a weighted average.
Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at *10. Philips additionally
argues that Agin’s use of statistics to determine certain
“parameters” is limited to determining T’ and δ2, which
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 9 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
10
“have nothing to do with an offset that is applied to the in-
itial transmission.” Appellant’s Br. 62. This appears to be
a reiteration of Philips’s argument that δ2 is a step size but
not an offset, which we rejected above.
Philips also contends that the Board erred because
Chen teaches a weighted average of power levels across
multiple base stations, rather than claim 9’s required
“weighted average of the transmission power over a prede-
termined period before the interruption in transmission” at
a single base station. Id. at 63. The Board considered and
rejected this argument, reasonably concluding that alt-
hough “Chen is utilizing a weighted average for one pur-
pose, [the Board was] not persuaded that one of ordinary
skill in the art could not review the disclosure of Chen and
see its application to other aspects of computing an adjust-
ment to power levels [such as in Agin].” Decision, 2022 WL
4280566, at *10; see also id. at *11 (referring to Quectel’s
argument that Philips’s “arguments are akin to bodily in-
corporation and the disclosure elements of Agin and Chen
need not be physically combinable to render claim 9 obvi-
ous”). We also find reasonable the Board’s determination
that “Chen discusses other options, i.e., ‘a number of possi-
ble methods,’ that can utilize a single base station in mak-
ing a power control decision, such that ordinarily skilled
artisans would have applied the weighted average in Agin
as Petitioner has asserted.” Id. at *11.
Additionally, Philips argues the Board erred as a mat-
ter of law by concluding that the “teachings of Chen could
be incorporated into Agin” and “fail[ing] to explain why an
ordinary artisan would modify Agin in view of Chen.” Ap-
pellant’s Br. 64. We disagree. The Board considered “mul-
tiple rationales for the combination of Agin and Chen,
including the benefits of Chen’s techniques, the predicta-
bility of such a combination, improvements in performance
and transmission quality, reducing uncertainty, [and]
smoothing power levels,” Decision, 2022 WL 4280566, at
*11, to conclude that “one of ordinary skill in the art would
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 10 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
11
have been motivated to make the combination,” id. at *12.
The Board also “[w]eigh[ed] the testimonies of Drs. Ding
and Jackson,” Quectel’s and Philips’s expert witnesses, re-
spectively, and “determine[d] Dr. Ding’s testimony to be
more persuasive.” Id. Substantial evidence supports the
Board’s determination that a skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine Agin and Chen.
IV
Finally, Philips argues that the Board erred in conclud-
ing that the combination of Agin and Chen discloses the
claimed “means for determining the offset from a difference
between a last transmission power and a weighted average
of the transmission power over a predetermined period be-
fore the interruption in transmission.” Philips presents
two arguments on this point.
First, Philips contends that the Agin-Chen combina-
tion would create an “absurd result.” Appellant’s Br. 66.
Specifically, “if a weighted average of prior transmission
power were somehow used to determine Agin’s modified
step size δ2,” Philips contends that Agin would need “to con-
tinually calculate the magnitude of the adjustment for
every transmission, frustrating the very purpose of Agin’s
closed loop algorithm.” Appellant’s Br. 65–66. Philips did
not present this argument to the Board and therefore for-
feited it. See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d
858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have regularly stated and
applied the important principle that a position not pre-
sented in the tribunal under review will not be considered
on appeal in the absence of exceptional circumstances.”).
Second, Philips contends that the prior art does not
teach the claimed “weighted average of the transmission
power over a predetermined period before the interruption
in transmission,” because Agin does not disclose a weighted
average, and “Chen’s weighted average is computed based
on values of current powers at multiple base stations.” Ap-
pellant’s Br. 66–67. According to Philips, the Board’s
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 11 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 11 of 12 --

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v.
QUECTEL WIRELESS SOLUTIONS CO. LTD.
12
“Final Written Decision did not address the fact that
Chen’s techniques do not involve a weighted average of a
mobile station’s prior power levels during a predetermined
time period before an interruption.” Id. at 67. But the
Board considered and rejected this argument. See Deci-
sion, 2022 WL 4280566, at *10. The Board found that
“Chen discusses other options, i.e., ‘a number of possible
methods,’ that can utilize a single base station in making a
power control decision, such that ordinarily skilled arti-
sans would have applied [Chen’s] weighted average in Agin
as Petitioner has asserted.” Decision, 2022 WL 4280566,
at *10 (quoting Chen col. 10 ll. 47–56). Substantial evi-
dence supports the Board’s finding.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Philips’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
vacate the Board’s finding that the prior art teaches the
claimed “means for setting an initial transmission power
after an interruption in transmission to that before the in-
terruption adjusted by an offset” and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the
Board’s other determinations.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND
REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1896 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 08/29/2024

-- 12 of 12 --