No Slater did not intentionally set it up.
From the article:
> In this case, Slater trekked out into the jungle and carefully set up the equipment at the right spot, leaving it to the curious macaque to peer into the lens and press a button.
This is incorrect.
Slater originally stated - on the record - that he left his equipment lying around momentarily unattended when he was distracted by some other task (eating or something, I forget the details) and the monkey came along and took the photo. There was no 'setup' or placement or intention for the equipment to be used by passing animals.
It was only later when there were disputes over the copyright that he changed his story to claim to have deliberately set up the circumstances to encourage the taking of the photograph by the monkey. However, this didn't stand up to scrutiny because if he had of deliberately set up the circumstances then he would have been granted the copyright as there is precedent for this - other nature photographers/videographers who set up cameras with the specific intent of being activated by wildlife (for example timer-delayed or motion-detecting) are granted copyright in those works.
However, the copyright office rejected the copyright on this basis (that he had not planned this setup).
Then the theory was floated that the monkey owned the copyright and therefore its 'guardians' were entitled to control it. And it's this theory, that the monkey owns the copyright, that has been rejected in the circuit ruling.