Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. POWER2B, INC., Cross-Appellant 2023-1629, 2023-1631, 2023-1753, 2023-1745 Appeals…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Appellants
v.
POWER2B, INC.,
Cross-Appellant
______________________
2023-1629, 2023-1631, 2023-1753, 2023-1745
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2021-
01239, IPR2021-01266.
______________________
Decided: March 31, 2025
______________________
COKE M ORGAN STEWART , O’Melveny & Myers LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented
by WILLIAM F INK; BENJAMIN HABER , ABIGAIL G RACE
MCF EE , N ICHOLAS WHILT , RYAN K EN Y AGURA, Los Angeles,
CA; T HOMAS MCCLINTON HARRIS , Newport Beach, CA.
MARK T HOMAS D EMING, Polsinelli PC, Chicago, IL, ar-
gued for cross-appellant. Also represented by ADAM P ETER
D ANIELS , Los Angeles, CA; J ASON WIETJES , Dallas, TX.
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 1 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 2
______________________
Before H UGHES , MAYER , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
HUGHES , Circuit Judge.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electron-
ics America, Inc. appeal a final written decision of the Pa-
tent Trial and Appeal Board holding claims 15–18, 21, 22,
and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850 and claims 26, 29,
36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 of U.S. Patent No.
9,569,093 were not shown to be unpatentable. Power2B,
Inc. cross-appeals the Board’s holding that claims 31 and
41 of the ’850 patent and claims 1, 5, 8, and 12–13 of the
’093 patent are unpatentable. For the following reasons, we
affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and re-
mand.
I
Power2B owns the ’850 and ’093 patents, which share
a specification and claim priority to an application dated
April 3, 2006. Both relate to interactive displays that can
determine the relative position of objects in front of them
and execute corresponding functions. See, e.g., J.A. 360–61
(Fig. 23A–23E), 411–12 (50:7–51:25). The displays include
a pixel array, a sensor configured to sense the position of
an object using light reflected by the object, circuitry con-
figured to provide an input representative of the position of
the object, and a detector assembly arranged on at least one
edge of the display. See e.g., J.A. 419–20 (65:50–67:15).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electron-
ics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung) filed for inter
partes review of the ’850 and ’093 patents, challenging as
obvious the claims relating to a detector assembly and the
claims relating to object position sensing. Although Sam-
sung contended that these claims did not need explicit con-
struction, the Board construed a “detector assembly” as
requiring “two or more detector elements that detect
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 2 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 2 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 3
electromagnetic radiation” arranged along “one edge.” J.A.
20, 29–30. Applying this construction, the Board found that
Samsung’s asserted prior art did not disclose the detector
assembly claims. Samsung timely appealed, challenging
the Board’s construction and patentability determination.
The Board further construed the claims directed to ob-
ject position sensing as including responsiveness to an ob-
ject’s touch and held that these claims were disclosed by
Samsung’s asserted prior art. Power2B cross-appealed, ar-
guing that these claims should be construed to exclude
touching and that the Board’s findings of obviousness were
not supported by substantial evidence. We address each ar-
gument in turn.
II
Claim construction is a question of law we review de
novo. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, 882 F.3d 1132, 1133
(Fed. Cir. 2018); Trustees of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec
Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Obviousness is a “mixed question of law and fact.” Ho-
logic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357, 1361
(Fed. Cir. 2018). The Board’s ultimate obviousness deter-
mination is reviewed de novo, id., but what a prior art ref-
erence discloses is a question of fact, Adasa Inc. v. Avery
Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2022), re-
viewed for substantial evidence, Hologic, 884 F.3d at 1361.
Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (citations omitted).
III
Samsung’s appeal concerns those claims directed to a
detector assembly: claims 15–18, 21–22, and 30 of the ’850
patent and claims 26, 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48–49, and 56–58
of the ’093 patent. Opening Br. at 5. Claim 15 of the ’850
patent is representative and reads:
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 3 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 3 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 4
An integrated display and input device, compris-
ing:
a pixel array configured to provide a visu-
ally sensible output;
at least one sensor configured to sense at
least a position of at least one object with
respect to the pixel array when the at least
one object has at least a predetermined de-
gree of propinquity to the pixel array;
circuitry configured to receive an output
from the at least one sensor and to provide
a non-imagewise input that is representa-
tive of the position of the at least one object
relative to the pixel array;
and wherein the at least one sensor in-
cludes a detector assembly arranged at
least one edge of a viewing plane defining
plate.
J.A. 419–20 (emphasis added).
Claim 16 of the ’850 patent depends from claim 15 and
requires that the detector assembly be arranged “along the
at least one edge of the viewing plane defining plate.” J.A.
420 (67:14–15). The remaining dependent claims, claims
17–18, 21–22, and 30 of the ’850 patent, either require or
depend from claims that require “an arrangement of detec-
tor elements” or a “plurality of . . . detectors.” J.A. 420
(67:16–67:25; 67:34–67:47; 68:47–68:50).
Claims 1 and 26 of the ’093 patent combined are sub-
stantially similar to claim 15 of the ’850 patent and recite:
1. An integrated display and input device, compris-
ing:
a pixel array operative to provide a visually
sensible output;
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 4 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 4 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 5
at least one sensor operative to sense a po-
sition of an object with respect to the pixel
array when the object is within a predeter-
mined degree of propinquity to the pixel ar-
ray;
at least one illuminator that provides back-
lighting and illuminates the object within
the predetermined degree of propinquity;
and circuitry that receives an output from
the at least one sensor and provides a non-
imagewise input representing the position
of the object relative to the pixel array to
utilization circuitry.
J.A. 514.
26. The integrated display and input device accord-
ing to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor com-
prises a detector assembly arranged at an edge of a
viewing plane defining plate.
J.A. 515 (emphasis added).
Claims 29, 36, 37, and 38 of the ’093 patent, which de-
pend directly and indirectly from claim 26, require a detec-
tor assembly to include an “arrangement of detector
elements,” and in claims 36 and 38, a “plurality of . . . de-
tectors.” J.A. 515 (69:11–69:13, 69:32–69:40). Independent
claim 44 requires a detector assembly to include “a support
substrate” and “at least one sensor [that] detects electro-
magnetic radiation.” J.A. 515 (69:67–70:20). The remaining
detector assembly claims, claims 45–46, 48–49, and 56–58,
depend directly or indirectly from claim 44. J.A. 515
(70:21–70:27; 70:32–70:40; 71:16–71:27).
Samsung petitioned for inter partes review of the ’850
and ’093 patents, challenging all detector assembly claims
as obvious in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
2003/0034439 (Reime), which is directed to a method and
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 5 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 5 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 6
system for “detecting the presence of an object at a touch
pad.” J.A. 1891 ([0007]). During the IPR proceedings, the
parties contested the construction of the term “detector as-
sembly.” Samsung argued that it should be given its plain
and ordinary meaning while Power2B argued that it re-
quired at least two detector elements. In both its Final
Written Decisions, the Board agreed with Power2B that
“detector assembly” should be construed to mean “two or
more detector elements that detect electromagnetic radia-
tion.” J.A. 20, 73; see J.A. 19, 71 (“We find that this lan-
guage is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning
for detector assembly in light of the [’850/’093] patent Spec-
ification.”).
The detector assembly claims also all require the detec-
tor assembly to be “arranged [at an edge / at least one edge
/ along the at least one edge / about at least one edge] of a
viewing plane defining plate.” J.A. 419–20, 515–16. Alt-
hough the parties did not present the Board with any pro-
posed constructions of these “edge” terms, the Board’s
analysis of whether the prior art disclosed the “edge” claim
elements appeared to construe them as requiring that a de-
tector assembly be arranged at “one edge.” J.A. 29–30, 100.
Applying this implied construction, the Board held that
the detector assembly claims were not shown to be un-
patentable. The Board found that al-though two of Reime’s
light receivers are detector elements that comprise a detec-
tor assembly, Samsung could not show that Reime dis-
closes a detector assembly that satisfies the “edge” terms
because Reime’s receivers “are centered on opposite edges
of the plate” and not arranged along “one edge.” J.A. 29–31,
100–01.
IV
Samsung argues that the Board was incorrect to con-
strue the term “detector assembly” to require “two or more
detector elements” when “nothing in the language of claim
15 from the ’850 patent or claim 26 from the ’093 patent
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 6 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 6 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 7
requires the “detector assembly” to include more than one
detector element—or any other specific element(s).” Open-
ing Br. at 14–15.1 We agree with Samsung.
A
The claimed “detector assembly” is properly construed
as requiring at least one detector element. The broad claim
language in claim 15 of the ’850 patent and claim 26 from
the ’093 patent requires only a “sensor” that “includes” or
“comprises” a “detector assembly arranged” on “at least one
edge” or “at an edge” of “a viewing plane defining plate.”
J.A. 420, 515. There is no requirement for two or more de-
tector elements in the claim language. Samsung asks us to
construe a “detector assembly” to include at least one de-
tector element and at least one additional component, but
there is no support in the claim language for an additional
component either. The claims only require an “assembly”
that includes at least one “detector” element.
In reaching its conclusion to the contrary, the Board
reasoned that the specification and dependent claims were
consistent with a requirement that a detector assembly in-
clude “two or more detector elements.” See, e.g., J.A. 19
1 Power2B argues that Samsung forfeited the argu-
ment that a “detector assembly” could be construed to in-
clude only a single detector element. Cross-Appellant
Response Br. at 45–48. We disagree. In its petitions, Sam-
sung argued that the term “detector assembly” should be
afforded its plain and ordinary meaning, and in response
to Power2B’s proposal that the term should be narrowed to
require “two or more detector elements,” Samsung clarified
its position that “the claims are indifferent to . . . whether
the detector assembly includes a single detector element or
multiple detector elements.” J.A. 7562. Because this argu-
ment was made before the Board, it was sufficiently pre-
served for appeal.
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 7 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 7 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 8
(“[D]ependent claims 17 and 18 recite having a plurality of
detector elements.”). However, as Samsung argues, de-
pendent claims, such as claims 17 and 18 of the ’850 patent,
support our broader construction. Where Power2B wanted
to specify that more than one detector element was re-
quired, it did so expressly using plural language. Depend-
ent claims 17–18, 21–22, and 30 of the ’850 patent and
dependent claims 29 and 36–38 of the ’093 patent require
or depend from claims that require an “arrangement of de-
tector elements,” plural, and/or a “plurality” of detector el-
ements. The doctrine of claim differentiation teaches that
a limitation in the dependent claims can give rise to a pre-
sumption that the limitation is not present in the inde-
pendent claims. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing cases discussing
“the presumption that an independent claim does not have
a limitation that is introduced for the first time in a de-
pendent claim”). Although Power2B argues that the “de-
pendent claims are consistent with” a requirement of two
or more detector elements, see Cross-Appellant Response
Br. at 50, the intrinsic evidence provides no basis to read
such a limitation into the independent claims.
The fact that the specification repeatedly refers to pre-
ferred embodiments in which a detector assembly includes
multiple detector elements similarly does not justify im-
porting such a limitation into the independent claims. See,
e.g., Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
527 F.3d 1300, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Th[e] description of
a preferred embodiment, in the absence of a clear intention
to limit claim scope, is an insufficient basis on which to nar-
row the claims.”); Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco
Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 992 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[J]ust as the
preferred embodiment itself does not limit claim terms . . .
inferences drawn from the description of an embodiment of
the invention cannot serve to limit claim terms . . . as they
are insufficient to require a narrower definition of a dis-
puted term.”). Though the Board and Power2B both note
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 8 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 8 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 9
that the specification “consistently” describes the detector
assembly as comprising two or more detector elements, see
Cross-Appellant Response Br. at 51–52; J.A. 19, 71, the
preferred embodiments cannot limit otherwise broad
claims in the absence of an unmistakable disavowal of
claim scope.
The prosecution history does not alter our conclusion.
Power2B made no attempt during prosecution to limit the
term “detector assembly” to require “two or more detector
elements.” See J.A. 1712–13.
B
We reverse the Board’s decisions as to claims 15 and 16
of the ’850 patent and claim 26 of the ’093 patent. In its
Final Written Decisions, the Board found that Reime
teaches every limitation of claim 15 of the ’850 patent and
claim 26 of the ’093 patent except for a detector assembly,
comprising of at least two detector elements, arranged at
one edge. J.A. 26–31, 96–101.
It is not disputed that Reime teaches one detector ele-
ment on one edge. In Figure 6A, for example, Reime
teaches that one group of optical sensor components can be
placed on each side of a four-sided touch pad, resulting in
one light receiver on each side. J.A. 1880 (Fig. 6A), 1895
([0082]); see also J.A. 1876–84 (Figs. 2A–2D,4A–4B, 5A–
5H, 6A–6B, and 9C–9F, all depicting one receiver, either
receiver 30 or 32, on one edge of the touch pad). The Board
also acknowledged that Reime teaches receivers “centered
on opposite edges of the plate.” J.A. 30–31, 101. Because
the Board found Reime discloses at least one detector ele-
ment on one edge of a touch screen, we conclude that claim
15 of the ’850 patent and claim 26 of the ’093 patent are
unpatentable as obvious in view of Reime. Because claim
16 has the same claim limitations as claim 15, we find that
claim 16 of the ’850 patent is also obvious.
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 9 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 9 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 10
C
Our construction of “detector assembly” does not re-
solve the patentability of the dependent claims that explic-
itly require multiple detectors arranged at an edge of a
touch screen—specifically, claims 17–18, 21–22, and 30 of
the ’850 patent and claims 29 and 36–38 of the ’093 pa-
tent—or claims that explicitly require a detector assembly
to comprise of at least one detector and a support sub-
strate—specifically, claims 44–46, 48–49, and 56–58 of the
’093 patent. Because these claims all either incorporated
the limitations of claim 15 of the ’850 patent or claim 26 of
the ’093 patent, or otherwise relied on a showing that claim
26 of the ’093 patent was disclosed by the prior art, the
Board did not analyze whether Reime taught the addi-
tional limitations in these claims. It instead relied on its
analysis of claim 15 of the ’850 patent and claim 26 of the
’093 patent to find that Samsung had not shown these
claims to be unpatentable. J.A. 31, 101–02.
We vacate the Board’s decisions as to these remaining
claims and remand for the Board to evaluate Samsung’s
obviousness contentions under the correct construction of
“detector assembly.” The Board will need to evaluate, in the
first instance, whether the additional limitations in these
challenged claims are disclosed by Reime.
D
To guide the Board’s analysis on remand, Samsung
asks us to clarify the proper reading of the “edge” terms in
the detector assembly claims. Oral Arg. at 25:15–28:05.2 To
the degree the Board imposed an additional limitation by
construing the terms “at an edge” and “at least one edge”
to require that an entire detector assembly be located on
2 Available at https://oralargu-
ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=23-1629_1104202
4.mp3.
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 10 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 10 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 11
“one edge,” we agree with Samsung that this construction
was incorrect.3
Properly construed, the terms “at an edge” and “at least
one edge” require a detector assembly to be arranged along
one or more edges of a viewing plane defining plate. As a
general rule, we construe terms such as “an” and “at least
one” to mean one or more. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc.
v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“That
‘a’ or ‘an’ can mean ‘one or more’ is best described as a
rule . . . . The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited:
a patentee must ‘evince a clear intent’ to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to
‘one.’ The subsequent use of definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’
in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not
change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that
non-singular meaning.”) (internal citations omitted); Rhine
v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Use of
the phrase ‘at least one’ means that there could be only one
or more than one.”). There is nothing in the claim language,
specification, or prosecution history that compels a depar-
ture from this convention, as the record does not demon-
strate that Power2B ever intended to limit the detector
assembly claims to a “one edge” requirement. Power2B
does not contend that such limiting language exists. And
without such limiting language, “one edge” cannot be the
3 Power2B argues that Samsung forfeited the argu-
ment that the “edge” terms need not be arranged on only
“one edge.” Cross-Appellant Response Br. at 48–50. We dis-
agree. To the degree the Board implied a new construction
of the “edge” terms for the first time in its Final Written
Decisions, Samsung properly responded on appeal. See Ax-
onics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2023) (“[P]arties in an IPR must be permitted to respond to
a new claim construction adopted by the Board sua sponte
after the institution decision.”) (citing Qualcomm Inc. v. In-
tel Corp., 6 F.4th 1256, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 11 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 11 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 12
proper reading of “at an edge” or “at least one edge” in ac-
cordance with our caselaw.
In summary, we (1) construe the term “detector assem-
bly” to require at least one detector element; (2) reverse the
Board’s holding that claims 15 and 16 of the ’850 patent
and claim 26 of the ’093 patent are nonobvious in view of
Reime; (3) vacate the Board’s findings that claims 17–18,
21–22, and 30 of the ’850 patent and claims 29, 36–38,
44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 of the ’093 patent are not un-
patentable and remand for the Board to evaluate whether
Reime renders these claims obvious; and (4) clarify that ar-
ranging a detector assembly “at,” “along,” or “about” “at
least one edge” or “an edge” does not limit the detector as-
sembly to being arranged entirely on “one edge” as the
Board apparently determined.
V
Power2B’s cross-appeal concerns those claims directed
to position sensing, which we will call the “propinquity”
claims: claims 31 and 41 of the ’850 patent and claims 1, 5,
8, and 11–13 of the ’093 patent. Cross-Appellant Response
Br. at 11, 29–31. These claims all require a sensor or pixel
array which can sense the relative position of an object
when it “[has at least / is within] a predetermined degree
of propinquity.” J.A. 420–21, 514. Claim 31 of the propin-
quity claims at issue in the’850 patent is representative
and recites:
A position sensing assembly comprising:
a plate defining a surface;
at least one pixel array including a plural-
ity of detector elements configured to detect
electromagnetic radiation at a baseline
level, the at least one pixel array being con-
figured to sense a position of an object with
respect to the surface according to locations
of ones of the plurality of detector elements
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 12 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 12 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 13
at which at least one of the amount of radi-
ation detected and the change in the
amount of radiation detected exceed a pre-
determined threshold, the at least one pixel
array being configured to sense at least a
position of at least one object with respect
to the at least one pixel array when the at
least one object has at least a predetermined
degree of propinquity to the at least one
pixel array;
circuitry configured to receive an output
from the at least one pixel array and to pro-
vide a non-imagewise input that is repre-
sentative of the position of the at least one
object relative to the at least one pixel ar-
ray; and
wherein the change in the amount of radi-
ation detected results from ones of the plu-
rality of detector elements detecting
reflected light from the object in addition to
detecting the radiation at the baseline
level.
J.A. 420–21 (68:51–69:6) (emphasis added).
Claim 1 of the ’093 patent, recited in Section III, is rep-
resentative of the propinquity claims at issue in the ’093
patent. See J.A. 514 (67:45–67:58). Also on cross-appeal is
claim 11 of the ’093 patent. Claim 11 depends indirectly
from claim 1 and requires utilization circuitry to “distin-
guish at least between directions of motion of the object to-
wards and away from the device.” J.A. 514 (68:17–68:20).
Samsung challenged claims 31 and 41 of the ’850 pa-
tent as obvious in view of U.S. Patent Application Publica-
tion No. 2005/0219229 (Yamaguchi), and claims 1, 5, 8, and
11–13 of the ’093 patent as obvious in view of Reime, alone
or in combination with U.S. Patent Application Publication
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 13 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 13 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 14
No. 2002/0021278 (Hinckley). During the proceedings,
Power2B advocated for “a predetermined degree of propin-
quity” to be construed as “a specified proximity distance es-
tablished in advance and does not include touching.” E.g.
J.A. 6912. The Board rejected this position and instead
agreed with Samsung that the plain and ordinary meaning
of “at least” or “within” “a predetermined degree of propin-
quity” encompasses “touching” or zero distance. J.A. 11,
63–64 (“[W]hether propinquity and touching are mutually
exclusive . . . is inapposite. The claims do not recite having
a particular propinquity. Rather, they recite ‘[having at
least /] is within a predetermined degree of propinquity,’
without reciting a lower bound. The plain meaning thus in-
cludes a degree of propinquity, and being closer.”) (internal
citations omitted) (emphasis in original). The Board fur-
ther determined that “propinquity” means “proximity,” and
that “a predetermined degree of propinquity” is not a spec-
ified distance established in advance. J.A. 16, 69. Turning
to obviousness, the Board held that Samsung had shown
all propinquity claims to be unpatentable.
VI
Power2B argues that the Board incorrectly construed
the phrase “predetermined degree of propinquity” to in-
clude touching. Cross-Appellant Response Br. at 64. Even
if we disagree, Power2B asserts that “the Board’s ultimate
obviousness findings were not supported by substantial ev-
idence.” Id. Accordingly, Power2B asks us to reverse the
Board’s determination that the propinquity claims were
disclosed by the prior art. We decline to do so, as we disa-
gree with Power2B’s proposed claim construction and as-
sessment of the Board’s obviousness analysis.
A
As an initial matter, Samsung contends that
Power2B’s cross-appeal concerning the “propinquity”
claims is collaterally estopped by a related IPR. Samsung’s
Reply Br. at 43–50. In a prior IPR of Power2B’s U.S. Patent
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 14 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 14 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 15
No. 8,610,675, the Board issued a Final Written Decision
rejecting Power2B’s argument that the phrase at least “a
predetermined degree of propinquity” should be construed
to exclude touching. J.A. 14905. Claim 1 of the ’675 patent
had a “propinquity” term nearly identical to that in claim
31 of the ’850 patent and claim 1 of the ’093 patent, and the
Board agreed with Samsung that, properly construed to in-
clude touching, the term was disclosed by Reime and Ya-
maguchi. J.A. 14986–87, 14934–35. Power2B did not
appeal that decision. Because we agree on the merits with
Samsung that the Board had substantial evidence for its
finding that the “propinquity” claims of the ’850 and ’093
patents are obvious, we need not determine if collateral es-
toppel also precludes Power 2B from prevailing in its cross-
appeal.
B
The propinquity claims require a pixel array or sensor
configured to sense the “position” of an object “with respect
to” the pixel array when the object “is within” or “has at
least” “a predetermined degree of propinquity” to the pixel
array. J.A. 420, 514. We agree with the Board that the
plain and ordinary meaning of “at least” or “within” “a pre-
determined degree of propinquity” includes touching the
display, or zero distance.
The Board and the parties agree that “propinquity”
means “proximity.” Power2B urges that this proximity-
based limitation means “determining an object is at a spe-
cific distance away from the surface,” which only covers ob-
jects that are near, but not touching, the device. Cross-
Appellant Response Br. at 64–65. However, there is a dif-
ference between a claim that is indifferent to touch and one
that excludes touch. The language of the “propinquity”
claims falls into the former category. Power2B’s proposed
construction replaces a “predetermined degree” of proxim-
ity with a “specific distance” and requires “proximity” to
exclude touching. The claims do not recite a specific
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 15 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 15 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 16
propinquity or proximity, and Power2B’s cross-appeal does
not point to any authority which defines proximity to ex-
clude touch.
Neither the specification nor the dependent claims pro-
vide a basis for reading in Power2B’s proposed construc-
tion. Even if Power2B’s position were correct, and the
specification’s exemplary figures and dependent claims al-
ways used “propinquity” to refer to a set distance away
from the pixel array, see Cross-Appellant Response Br.
at 67–70, this does not provide a basis to import such a dis-
tinction into the broad claim language. See, e.g., Decision-
ing.com, Inc., 527 F.3d at 1314; Johnson Worldwide
Assocs., Inc., 175 F.3d at 992.
Moreover, the specification and the dependent claims
support our construction. In Figures 20A and B of the ’850
patent, for example, the specification discloses detecting an
object’s position regardless of whether it is touching or
near, but not touching, the surface. J.A. 410 (48:26–29)
(“When the user’s fingers’ touch, as in FIG. 20B, or is lo-
cated in propinquity to, as in FIG. 20A, plate 1508, the light
reflected from the fingers is detected by one or more of de-
tector elements 1504[.]”). Claims that depend on claim 31
of the ’850 patent, such as claim 34, add a separate require-
ment for a “utilization circuitry . . . configured to distin-
guish at least between positions of the at least one object
when touching and not touching the device.” J.A. 421
(69:16–19). As Samsung argues, “in order for claim 34’s cir-
cuitry to be able to distinguish between positions of touch-
ing and not touching, independent claim 31 must
encompass touching . . . in the range of proximity the sys-
tem can sense, otherwise the utilization circuitry would not
be able to make its determination.” Samsung Reply Br.
at 52. The Board found this argument convincing, reason-
ing that if the propinquity claims excluded touching, there
would be no touching position for claim 34’s circuitry to dis-
tinguish. J.A. 13. We agree.
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 16 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 16 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 17
We have considered Power2B’s remaining claim con-
struction arguments regarding the propinquity claims and
find them unconvincing. The fact that the “specification re-
peatedly uses the term ‘propinquity’ to describe and depict
an object positioned at a pre-established distance,” Cross-
Appellant Response Br. at 67, for instance, says nothing of
the full scope of “propinquity”—only that objects hovering
nearby are included. Because the specification and depend-
ent claims distinguish between touch-based operations and
propinquity-based operations, Power2B also asks us to in-
fer that these two kinds of operations cannot both respond
to touching. Id. at 68–69. Power2B misunderstands that
the question here is the scope of propinquity-based func-
tionality (i.e., whether such functionality can be triggered
by the touching of a display in addition to hovering adja-
cent to the display), not the difference between touch-based
and propinquity-based operations. While it is true that the
’850 patent and the ’093 patent incorporate hardware that
can respond to touch input “akin to the click of a conven-
tional mouse,” e.g., J.A. 412 (51:9–14), this does not clarify
which object interactions fall within the claimed propin-
quity-based operations.
In summary, Power2B’s proposed construction is
overly narrow and unsupported by the intrinsic record. The
Board properly concluded that the plain meaning of “at
least” or “within” “a predetermined degree of propinquity”
includes “a degree of propinquity, and being closer,” which
includes touching. J.A. 11, 64.
C
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual find-
ings that Samsung’s asserted prior art references taught
the “predetermined degree of propinquity” claim limita-
tions. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s holding that
claims 31 and 41 of the ’850 patent and claims 1, 5, 8, 11–
13 of the ’093 patent are unpatentable as obvious in view
of the prior art.
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 17 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 17 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 18
Regarding the ’850 patent claims, the Board deter-
mined that Yamaguchi teaches detecting an object’s posi-
tion when it has at least a predetermined degree of
propinquity. J.A. 41–42. This determination is supported
by substantial evidence. Yamaguchi is directed to “an im-
age display device including the capability of detecting an
object position.” J.A. 32 (citing J.A. 1836 ([0003])). The im-
age display incorporates a matrix of light-emitting and
photo-detection cells. Light-emitting cells in the display
emit light in accordance with image data, while photo-de-
tection cells detect light reflected by an object. J.A. 33–34;
see also J.A. 1836–37 ([0016]–[0019]). The Board recog-
nized that Yamaguchi Figure 5 explicitly teaches sensing
an object’s position when it is “brought into contact or close
proximity with the display” by comparing the photo-detec-
tion signal produced by the object against a predetermined
threshold. J.A. 41 (citing J.A. 1842 ([0118])), J.A. 42 (citing
J.A. 1848 ([0169])). The Board also afforded “significant
weight” to testimony from Samsung’s expert that Yamagu-
chi’s threshold to respond and sense an object in close prox-
imity is established “at some predetermined degree of
propinquity, i.e., a level of nearness to the device [that] has
been set.” J.A. 42. We give deference to “the Board’s find-
ings concerning the credibility of expert witnesses.” Yorkey
v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The Board’s finding that Reime teaches detecting the
position of an object when it is “within a predetermined de-
gree of propinquity” as claimed by the ’093 patent is also
supported by substantial evidence. J.A. 83–86. Reime de-
tects an object’s location using one or more groups of “opti-
cal sensor components” including two light emitters and
one light receiver “at different locations” around a touch
pad. J.A. 1891 ([0008]). Reime depicts objects interacting
with the touchpad and explains:
When a user uses an object such as a pencil 100 or
a finger 100’ (FIG. 2A) to touch the touch pad 5,
some light 110 emitted from the emitter 10
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 18 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 18 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 19
encounters the surface of the object 100. Part of the
light 110 reflects off the object 100 and is received
by the receiver 30. . . . The amount of light received
by the receiver 30 can be measured from the output
signal 130. . . . [T]he presence of the object 100
near the emitters 10, 20 and the receiver 30 would
cause a change in the output signal 130. . . . With
a series of such measurements, it is possible to
track the positions of the object 100 and thus its
movement.
J.A. 1894 ([0073]). The Board cited to this portion of
Reime’s specification to find that Reime teaches detecting
of an object’s position via a change in output signal.
J.A. 83–84. In view of Power2B’s arguments that a “prede-
termined degree of propinquity” should exclude touching,
the Board also clarified that Reime discloses that “it is not
necessary for the object [] to physically touch” the display
in order for the object to be interpreted as “touching the
surface” because the touch pad will determine an object’s
position whenever there is a sufficient change in output
signal. J.A. 84 (citing J.A. 1894 ([0074])). Thus, Reime dis-
closes a touch pad that is responsive to objects that are
near, but not necessarily touching, the touch pad. Id.
On cross-appeal, Power2B repeats its argument before
the Board that Reime and Yamaguchi are not responsive
to an object’s “predetermined degree” of proximity because
they only teach operations to determine an object’s position
in two-dimensional space, i.e., its x-y coordinate, and nei-
ther teaches how to measure an object’s position in three
dimensions, i.e., by also determining the object’s position
along the z-axis. Cross-Appellant Response Br. at 70–71,
73. The Board correctly responded that nothing in the plain
language of the propinquity claims requires calculating an
object’s distance on a z-axis. J.A. 43, 84. The limitation only
requires sensing an object’s “position” when it is “within”
or “has at least” “a predetermined degree of propinquity” to
the pixel array. Therefore, the Board reasoned that “the
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 19 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 19 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 20
plain and ordinary meaning of ‘position’ is broad enough to
cover both two-dimensional and three-dimensional posi-
tions.” J.A. 85. We agree and affirm that both Yamaguchi’s
and Reime’s teachings cover the “propinquity” limitation.
Finally, Power2B challenges the Board’s determina-
tion that claim 11 of the ’093 patent was obvious in view of
a combination of Reime and Hinckley. Cross-Appellant Re-
sponse Br. at 31. The Board properly credited testimony
from Samsung’s expert that “one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify Reime to include
Hinckley’s features and benefits.” J.A. 107. Hinckley re-
lates to “devices with displays” which can be activated
“based on whether [they are] being handled, [their] orien-
tation, and/or whether [they are] being gestured toward.”
J.A. 1908 ([0002], [0009]). Hinckley teaches touch sensors,
tilt sensors, and proximity sensors which can be used sep-
arately or in combination to control activation of a device.
E.g., J.A. 1909 ([0029]), 1911–12 ([0062]–[0066]). As the
Board recognized, Hinckley’s disclosure of a “proximity
sensor” which can determine when the user is “close” to the
device, when “the user takes the device away from their
mouth,” and in other embodiments, when the user is “ges-
turing toward the device,” is sufficient to demonstrate that
Hinckley “teaches distinguishing between an object moving
towards or away from a device” as required by the addi-
tional limitation in claim 11. J.A. 106–07.
VII
We hold that the Board’s construction of the “detector
assembly” limitation was erroneous. We therefore reverse
the Board’s construction, reverse the Board’s conclusion
that claims 15 and 16 of the ’850 patent and claim 26 of the
’093 patent are not unpatentable as nonobvious in view of
the prior art, and vacate and remand the Board’s conclu-
sion that claims 17–18, 21–22, and 30 of the ’850 patent
and claims 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48–49, and 56–58 of the ’093
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 20 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 20 of 21 --

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. POWER2B, INC. 21
patent are not unpatentable for further proceedings in view
of our claim construction.
We hold that the Board’s factual findings regarding
claims 31 and 41 of the ’850 patent and claims 1, 5, 8, 11–
13 of the ’093 patent are supported by substantial evidence,
and we affirm the Board’s conclusion that these claims are
unpatentable as obvious in view of the prior art.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART,
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs awarded to Appellant Samsung.
Case: 23-1629 Document: 68 Page: 21 Filed: 03/31/2025

-- 21 of 21 --