*2 Before N EWMAN , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges . R EYNA Circuit Judge .
Appellant Intel Corporation appeals a final written de- cision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluding that Intel did not meet its burden to show certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,154,356 are unpatentable as anticipated or obvious. Initially, Intel filed five petitions for inter partes review challenging the same claims of the ’356 Pa- tent on different grounds. See Appellee’s Br. 11–12. The Board concluded in each inter partes review that Intel failed to show unpatentability of the challenged claims. See id. The above-captioned appeals stem from one of those final written decisions. J.A. 1–46.
In the above-captioned appeals, Intel contends that claims 1, 7–8, 10–11, and 17 of the ’356 Patent are un- patentable. Appellant’s Br. 15. Notably, in another of In- tel’s appeals, we determined that claims 1–8, 10–11, and 17–18 of the ’356 Patent are unpatentable as obvious. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. , No. 20-2092 (Fed. Cir. 2022). *3 Accordingly, the present appeals are moot. See BTG Int’l Ltd. v. Amneal Pharms. LLC , 923 F.3d 1063, 1076–77 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (concluding the claims at issue were un- patentable as obvious and consequently dismissing other appeals challenging the same claims). Intel’s appeal of IPR2019-00047, and Qualcomm’s cross-appeal, are hereby dismissed as moot.
DISMISSED OSTS
No costs.