Vicor Corporation v. Synqor, Inc.
706 F. App'x 673
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- SynQor owns U.S. Patent No. 7,564,702 claiming a DC-DC converter architecture: (1) a non-regulating isolation step-down converter, (2) controlled rectifiers in the isolation stage, and (3) plural non‑isolating switching post‑regulators. Claim 1 is representative.
- Vicor requested an inter partes reexamination of the ’702 patent relying mainly on Cobos, Pressman, and Kassakian as prior art, asserting obviousness under two principal combinations: Cobos-in-view-of-Pressman and Pressman-in-view-of-Kassakian.
- The PTO examiner adopted rejections based on those combinations; SynQor argued Cobos teaches a regulated isolation stage and that Pressman lacks a motivation/teaching to remove Pressman’s preregulator or to incorporate Kassakian’s synchronous rectifiers into Pressman.
- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board credited SynQor’s evidence (including inventor testimony) and reversed the examiner’s rejections, finding Cobos’s isolation stage was generally regulated and that a skilled artisan would not be able to readily adapt Kassakian’s experimental synchronous rectifiers to Pressman’s square‑wave topology.
- Vicor appealed. The Federal Circuit reviews Board factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo; it affirms the Board’s decision that the challenged claims are non‑obvious.
Issues
| Issue | Vicor's Argument | SynQor's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cobos discloses a non‑regulating isolation component | Cobos supplies a non‑regulated isolation stage (so combination with Pressman would render claims obvious) | Cobos’s PWM architecture inherently includes feedback/regulation; 3.3V output indicates tight regulation | Board’s finding that Cobos discloses a regulated isolation stage is supported by substantial evidence; rejection reversed |
| Whether Pressman’s Figures 3‑3 and 3‑4(B) would be obvious to combine to yield a non‑regulating isolation stage | Combining 3‑3 and 3‑4(B) (removing the preregulator) is obvious because Pressman contemplates omitting the preregulator | Pressman lacks suggestion to remove the preregulator to create an unregulated isolation stage | Court found Board erred in part because Pressman contemplates omitting the preregulator, but error was harmless given other grounds rejecting obviousness |
| Whether Kassakian’s synchronous rectifiers could be incorporated into Pressman | Kassakian teaches synchronous (controlled) rectifiers that could replace diodes in Pressman | Kassakian describes experimental resonant‑topology rectifiers without guidance to adapt them to Pressman’s square‑wave design; testimony indicated high expertise required | Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding a person of ordinary skill would not know how to adapt Kassakian to Pressman; independent basis to affirm non‑obviousness |
| Credibility of inventor/expert testimony (Dr. Schlecht) | Vicor: testimony is biased and should not be credited | SynQor: Board may weigh and credit testimony despite interest; additional record evidence supports findings | Board permissibly weighed credibility and its factual findings are supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361 (2016) (standard of review for Board legal and factual determinations)
- K/S Himpp v. Hear–Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362 (2014) (definition of substantial evidence)
- In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357 (2012) (waiver of arguments not raised before the Board)
- In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (2000) (obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings)
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (Graham factual framework for obviousness)
- Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279 (2010) (deference to Board credibility determinations)
- In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (1981) (discussion of bodily incorporation versus combining teachings)