IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Samsung’s obviousness challenge to Power2B’s interactive device patent revived on appeal, (Feb 12, 2025)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., LL.B., LL.M.

PTAB improperly construed the term “impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot,” excluding disclosed embodiments and leading to an erroneous non-obviousness finding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. against Power2B, Inc.’s interactive device patent. The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB had improperly construed the claim term “impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot,” leading to an erroneous determination that Samsung’s cited prior art did not disclose the limitation at issue. The appellate court found that the PTAB’s narrow construction excluded embodiments described in the patent specification and conflicted with intrinsic evidence, necessitating a reevaluation of Samsung’s obviousness challenge under the corrected claim construction (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B, Inc., No. 23-1630 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2025)).

Background. The appellant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., is a multinational technology company specializing in consumer electronics, semiconductors, and display technologies. It develops and manufactures interactive touchscreen devices, mobile phones, and advanced sensor-based input systems that rely on optical and electromagnetic detection technologies. The appellee, Power2B, Inc., is a technology company focusing on user interface innovations and interactive device technologies. It owns patents related to touchscreen interactions, electromagnetic sensors, and light-based input detection systems for electronic devices.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170 (the '170 patent), is owned by Power2B and is titled “Interactive Devices.” It covers methods and devices for user interaction with touch-sensitive screens, including those that rely on light-based sensing technologies. It discloses systems where user interactions with an interactive surface are detected either by a light-emitting stylus or by interrupting light beams emitted from the device.

Samsung’s IPR challenge focused on claims 1, 2, 6–8, 13–14, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 26, and 30, arguing that they were unpatentable as obvious over prior art references, specifically U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2002/0118177 (Newton) and 2003/0034439 (Reime). These references disclose interactive screen technologies that detect user inputs by interpreting interruptions in emitted light or reflections from an object, such as a stylus or a finger.

The PTAB instituted review and initially agreed with Samsung's implicit claim construction, allowing an object to "impinge" by interrupting electromagnetic radiation. However, in its final written decision, the Board adopted a narrower construction, requiring that impingement involves an area of reflected or projected radiation rather than merely an interruption of radiation. Based on this interpretation, the PTAB found that neither Newton nor Reime disclosed the impingement limitation and ruled that Samsung had failed to demonstrate the claims were obvious. Samsung appealed the PTAB’s decision.

Claim construction. The Federal Circuit reviewed the PTAB’s claim construction de novo, finding that the Board had construed the term “impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot” too narrowly. The PTAB limited the term to instances where electromagnetic radiation is reflected or projected onto an interactive surface. This interpretation excluded embodiments described in the patent’s specification, where impingement also included interruptions or blockages of electromagnetic radiation by a user’s finger or non-light-emitting stylus.

Citing Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, 882 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court reiterated that claim construction should align with the intrinsic record, including the patent specification and prosecution history. It found that the ’170 patent’s specification supported a broader interpretation, as certain embodiments expressly disclosed detecting user interactions based on the interruption of light beams.

The appellate court also rejected the PTAB's reliance on claim differentiation to justify its construction, explaining that dependent claim 28, which recited an "impingement point of the object," did not limit independent claim 1 to exclude impingement by interruption. Instead, claim 28 further specified an aspect of impingement that was already included within the broader claim scope.

Obviousness. Because the PTAB’s claim construction error fundamentally affected its obviousness analysis, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s finding that Newton and Reime failed to disclose the impingement limitation. Under the correct construction, both references arguably taught impingement by interruption—Newton described a system where a user’s finger interrupted emitted light beams and Reime disclosed a method of detecting touchpad input by interpreting reflected or blocked light.

Conclusion. Thus, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s decision, instructing it to reconsider the obviousness analysis based on a corrected interpretation of the impingement limitation.

The Case is No. 23-1630.

Judge: Stark, L.

Attorneys: Benjamin Haber (O'Melveny & Myers LLP) for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Mark Thomas Deming (Polsinelli PC) for Power2B, Inc.

Companies: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Power2B, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent FedCirNews