`
`Document:72
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 10/16/2023
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the federal Circuit
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`STMICROELECTRONICS,INC.,
`Appellee
`
`KATHERINEK. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
`COMMERCEFOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
`PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE,
`Intervenor
`
`2022-1435, 2022-1771
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
`00985, IPR2020-01492, IPR2021-00355, IPR2021-00702.
`
`Decided: October 16, 2023
`
`KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, ar-
`gued for appellant.
`
`TYLER R. BOWEN, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ,
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1435
`
`Document:72
`
`Page:2_
`
`Filed: 10/16/2023
`
`2
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS,INC.
`
`Also represented by CHAD S.
`argued for appellee.
`CAMPBELL; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH; PHILIP ALCIDE
`MORIN, San Diego, CA; THERESA H. NGUYEN, Seattle, WA;
`JONATHAN IRVIN TIETZ, Washington, DC.
`
`PETER JOHN SAWERT, Office of the Solicitor, United
`States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
`gued for intervenor. Also represented by BENJAMIN T.
`HICKMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN
`RASHEED.
`
`Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN,Circuit Judges.
`
`Dyk, Circuit Judge.
`
`Monterey Research, LLC (“Monterey”) appeals IPR de-
`cisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) find-
`ing claims 1—21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134 unpatentable.
`Weaffirm.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The *134 patent is titled “Memory Device with Fixed
`Length Non Interruptible Burst” and is directed to
`“memory devices generally and, more particularly,
`to a
`memory device that transfers a fixed number of words of
`data with each access.” 7134 patent, col. 1, ll. 1-8. “Access-
`ing multiple locations in response to a single address is
`called a burst modeaccess.” Id. at col. 1, Il. 14-15. Accord-
`ing to the patent, these “bursts” of data were difficult to
`achieve in conventional Dynamic Random Access Memory
`(“DRAM”) “becauseof the need to refresh” data within the
`memorycell “once every few milliseconds” meaning bursts
`would be interrupted. Jd. at col. 1, Il. 22-27. The 134 pa-
`tent claims to resolve this issue by teaching non-interrupti-
`ble bursts of a predetermined length.
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc. “STMicro”) challenged claims
`1-21 of the ’134 patent as obvious over a combination of
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-1435 Page:3_Filed: 10/16/2023Document:72
`
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS,INC.
`
`3
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,115,280 (“Wada”) and U.S. Patent No.
`5,584,033 (“Barrett”) in IPR2020-00985. Qualcomm Inc.
`(“Qualcomm”) challenged claims 1—7 and 9-21 of the ’134
`patent as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,600,605
`(“Schaefer”) and obvious over Schaefer and other refer-
`ences in [PR2020-01492. The Board found claims 1—21 of
`the ’134 patent were obvious over the combination of Wada
`and Barrett. Additionally, the Board found claims 1-5,7,
`9, 10, 12-18, 20, and 21 of the ’134 patent were anticipated
`by Schaefer and claims 1—7 and 9—21 were obvious over
`Schaefer and other references. Monterey appeals. Qual-
`comm withdrew from the Schaefer appeal (Appeal No.22-
`1771), and the Patent and Trademark Office intervened to
`defend the Board’s decision.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`“Obviousnessis a mixed question of fact and law.” No-
`vartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Lid., 853 F.3d 1316, 13827
`(Fed. Cir. 2017). The Board’s legal conclusion of obvious-
`ness is subject to de novo review, while “factual findings
`are reviewed for substantial evidence.” Okajima uv.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Substan-
`tial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
`mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
`Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1988).
`
`Weaffirm that the ’134 patent was obvious over the
`combination of Wada and Barrett and conclude that the
`Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
`Because weaffirm the Board’s obviousness determination
`based on Wada and Barrett, we decline to reach the issue
`of anticipation or obviousness over Schaeferor the question
`of whether STMicro is a proper party to the Schaefer ap-
`peal.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`