Monthly Archives: September 2019

Campbell’s Primary Reference in Design Patent Challenge was Mmm Mmm Good

Posted on by

In Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc., [2018-2029, 2018-2030] (September 26, 2019) the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, Board determinations that U.S. Patent Nos. D612,646 and D621,645 were nonobvious from the cited prior art.

The ‘645 and ‘646 patents are directed to ornamental design for a gravity feed dispenser display.

The Figures from U.S. Patent Nos. D612646 and D621645

The figures are identical except that the edges at the top and bottom of the cylindrical object lying on its side and the stops at the bottom of the dispenser are shown in broken lines in the ‘645 patent, and there is a small circle shown in broken lines near the middle of the label area.

Campbells filed IPR against both designs, arguing that the designs were obvious in view of (1) Linz in view of Samways, (2) Samways, or (3) Samways in view of Linz.

Linz (left) and Samways (right)

The Board held that Campbells did not establish unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence because it found that neither Linz nor Samways was similar enough to the claimed designs to constitute a proper primary reference.

In the design patent context, the ultimate inquiry under section 103 is whether the claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved. To determine whether one of ordinary skill would have combined teachings of the prior art to create the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design, the fact finder must first find a single reference, a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design. To identify a primary reference, one must: (1) discern the correct visual impression created by the patented design as a whole; and (2) determine whether there is a single reference that creates “basically the same” visual impression. If a primary reference exists, related secondary references may be used to modify it.

The Board found that Linz was not a proper primary reference because it does not disclose any object, including the size, shape, and placement of the object in its display area and fails to disclose a cylindrical object below the label area in a similar spatial relationship to the claimed design. The Federal Circuit reversed for lack of substantial evidence support. Accepting the Board’s description of the claimed designs as correct, the Federal Circuit found that the ever-so-slight differences in design, in light of the overall similarities, do not properly lead to the result that Linz is not “a single reference that creates ‘basically the same’ visual impression” as the claimed designs.

The Board also found that Samways was not a proper primary reference. The Board found that significant modifications would first need to be made to Samways’ design, such as combining two distinct embodiments of the utility patent, which was “not a design in existence.” The Board found that considering the designs as a whole, the design characteristics of Samways are not basically the same as the claimed design. The Federal Circuit agreed, saying accepting the Board’s description of the claimed designs as correct, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Samways is not a proper primary reference. The Federal Circuit noted numerous differences, and concluded that given these differences, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Samways does not create basically the same visual impression as the claimed designs.

The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the Board to consider obviousness with Linz as a primary reference.

Board Misread and Mischaracterized Features of the Claims, and Thus Failed to Appreciate that the Claims Provide a Technical Solution to a Technical Problem

Posted on by

In Sipco, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., [2018-1635] (September 25, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s construction of “low power transceiver” and its finding that U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 does not satisfy the second part of §42.301(b) defining “technological invention.” § 42.301(b). Because the Board did not address the applicability of the first part of § 42.301(b), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.

The Board found that the term “low-power” as used in the claims did not necessarily require that the device transmit and receive signals only within a “limited transmission range.” The Federal Circuit reversed, construing “low-power” to mean “a device that transmits and receives signals at a power level corresponding to limited transmission range.”

The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s conclusion that the claims recite an apparatus “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service” under AIA § 18(d)(1) was not arbitrary and capricious. The definition of a covered business method patent is not limited to products and services of only the financial industry, or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial institutions such as banks and brokerage houses. § 18(d)(1) on its face covers a wide range of finance-related activities.

While SIPCO argued before the Board and on appeal that because it disclaimed claims 3 and 4, the Board should not have relied on them in analyzing whether the ’842 patent is CBM eligible. However, SIPCO ultimately conceded at oral argument that a patent may be CBM eligible based on a single claim and that the Board could have properly relied on claims 3 or 4.

The Federal Circuit then turned to the Board’s decision as to whether the ’842 patent qualifies as a “technological invention” under § 18(d)(1). Section 18(d)(1) excludes “patents for technological inventions” from CBM review. However, Congress did not define technological invention, instead leaving it to the USPTO to issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention. 37 C.F.R. § 42.301:

In determining whether a patent is for a technological invention solely for purposes of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods (section 42.301(a)), the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: [1] whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and [2] solves a technical problem using a technical solution.

If each part of this definition is satisfied, then the patent is not eligible for CBM review.

The Federal Circuit held that the Board misread and mischaracterized the features of claim 1 in its analysis of dependent claims 3 and 4, it did not appreciate that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem, under part 2 of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301. The Federal Circuit said that the question of whether a patent is for a “technological invention” is fact-specific and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Federal Circuit said that the problem solved by the claims is technical in nature. The Board limited its characterization of the “problem” being solved to an example problem provided in the background that is resolved by the claims—automating machine service requests. But it is clear from both the claims and the specification that the claimed invention implements a communication system that connects an unconnected, remote device with a central station.

The Federal Circuit identified the technical problem solved by the claims as: how to extend the reach of an existing communication system from a central location to a remote, unconnected device while protecting against unwanted interference with the transmitted signals. The Federal Circuit found that the claims solved this problem with a technical solution. Because SIPCO’s claims combine certain communication elements in a particular way to address a specific technical problem with a specific technical solution, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding that the patent does not satisfy the second part of its “technological invention” regulation.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board did not analyze whether the ’842 patent satisfied the first part of § 42.301(b) because it found that the patent did not satisfy the second part. Rather than address this issue in the first instance on appeal, the Federal Circuit remanded the case for the Board to address the first part of § 42.301(b) under the proper claim construction.

Judge Reyna dissented because the majority’s opinion was contrary to basic tenants of claim construction set forth in Phillips, and the deference owed to underlying factual findings under Teva. Judge Reyna said that the majority reached its own construction by improperly reading a functional limitation into the claim from a preferred embodiment. Further, the Board’s construction rests on factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence, including expert testimony on the meaning of the claim term “low-power transceiver” to a person of ordinary skill in the art.

Federal Circuit Holds that a Basket is Not a Chair

Posted on by

In Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., [2018-2214] (September 12, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an action alleging Home Expressions baskets infringed U.S. Patent No. D677946 on a Pattern For a Chair.

The application that resulted in the ‘946 patent was filed as a “design for a Furniture Part,” although none of the drawings illustrate a chair, any furniture, or any furniture part. The USPTO objected to the title because PTO regulations require that the title designate a “particular article,” and the use of “Part” was too vague to constitute an article of manufacture. The Examiner suggested that the title be amended to “Pattern for a Chair,” and the applicant complied.

U.S. Patent No. D677946, Fig. 1

The district court construed the scope of the ’946 patent to be limited to the design pattern illustrated in the patent figures as applied to a chair, explaining that “[t]he scope of a design patent is limited to the ‘article of manufacture’—i.e., the product—listed in the patent,” and granted Home expressions motion to dismiss.

The Federal Circuit noted that Curver’s appeal was essentially a request for a patent on a surface ornamentation per se. The Federal Circuit said that Curved acknowledged that the law has never sanctioned granting a design patent for a surface ornamentation in the abstract such that the patent’s scope encompasses every possible article of manufacture to which the surface ornamentation is applied, and the Federal Circuit declined to construe the scope of a design patent so broadly merely because the referenced article of manufacture appears only in the claim language, rather than the figures.

The Federal Circuit, pointing out that it was a case of first impression, addressed the question whether claim language specifying an article of manufacture can limit the scope of a design patent, even if that article of manufacture is not actually illustrated in the Figures. Given that long-standing precedent, unchallenged regulation, and agency practice all consistently support the view that design patents are granted only for a design applied to an article of manufacture, and not a design per se, the Federal Circuit held that claim language can limit the scope of a design patent where the claim language supplies the only instance of an article of manufacture that appears nowhere in the figures.

Objective Indicia Supported PTAB’s Finding of Non-Obviousness

Posted on by

In Henny Penny Corporation v. Frymaster LLC, [2018-1596] (September 12, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 1–3, 5–12, 17–21, and 23 of U.S. Patent 8,497,691 were not unpatentable as obvious.

The ‘691 Patent relates to deep fryers, and in particular to TPM sensors that detect accumulating impurities in the cooking oil, and alert the operator when to change oil.

Henny Penny originally argued the claims were the obvious result of replacing the Kauffman analyzer with the Iwaguchi sensor. However, Henny Penny changed its position arguing that Kauffman’s analyzer could simply be modified. The Board refused to consider this impermissible new theory of unpatentability raised for the first time on reply.

As to Henny Penny’s original argument the Board found that the disadvantages from the proposed modification out-weighed the uncertain benefits of the modification. The Board further found that evidence of secondary considerations supported nonobviousness. Frymaster sub-mitted evidence that it marketed a product called the “Oil Quality Sensor” (“OQS”) that won praise from two industry organizations and one customer. The Board also determined that each award specifically praised the TPM sensor in the OQS. While the Board recognized that the individual claim elements were in the prior art, it found that the praise was directed to the claimed combination as a whole. Accordingly, the Board found that the two industry awards weighed in favor of patentability, as did, to a lesser extent, the customer award.

The Federal Circuit found that the Board did not abuse its discretion by holding Henny penny to the obviousness theory in its petition. Because of the expedited nature of IPR proceedings, it is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim. Accordingly, an IPR petitioner may not raise in reply an entirely new rationale for why a claim would have been obvious.

As to the original obviousness contention, the Federal Circuit noted that the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another, and found that the Board’s analysis was consistent with these principles. As to the secondary considerations supporting non-obviousness, the Federal Circuit rejected Henny Penny’s argument that there was no nexus between the evidence and the claimed invention. The Federal Circuit agreed that the identified objective indicia must be directed to what was not known in the prior art, and what was not known in the prior art may well be the novel combination or arrangement of known individual elements.

The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination of non-obviousness.