Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01535/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01535-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
3form, Inc.
Appellant
Lumicor, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

3FORM, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LUMICOR, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1535

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah in No. 2:12-cv-00293-CW-BCW, Judge 

Clark Waddoups.

______________________ 

Decided: February 2, 2017

______________________ 

 SAMUEL C. STRAIGHT, Ray Quinney & Nebeker P.C., 

Salt Lake City, UT, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by ARTHUR B. BERGER, MICHAEL K. ERICKSON,

S. BRANDON OWEN. 

 LAWRENCE D. GRAHAM, Lowe Graham Jones PLLC, 

Seattle, WA, argued for defendant-appellee. 

______________________ 

Before HUGHES, SCHALL, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/02/2017
2 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

3form, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment order 

invalidating both a utility patent and a design patent it 

had asserted against Lumicor, Inc. While we disagree 

with certain claim constructions adopted by the district 

court for the utility patent, we nonetheless agree with the 

district court’s validity analysis, and we affirm. We also 

affirm the court’s invalidation of 3form’s design patent for 

obviousness.

BACKGROUND

3form and Lumicor both sell decorative laminate 

architectural panels having natural items, such as twigs, 

reeds, bamboo, etc., encased within them. One of 3form’s 

products is its “Thatch” product, depicted below: 

Lumicor sells similar competing products, for example its 

“Pampas Reed” panel, depicted below:

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/02/2017
3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 3

3form sued Lumicor, alleging infringement of one of 

its utility patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,008,700, and one of 

its design patents, U.S. Patent No. D621,068. 3form’s 

’700 utility patent describes a process for making decorative laminate panels having “compressible objects embedded inside, wherein the compressible objects would be 

flattened in unnatural shapes under conventional processes.” ’700 patent abstract. “For example, an exemplary decorative laminate product comprises thatch reed, 

willow reed, bamboo, weeds, grasses, twigs and branches 

of a tree or bush, beans, and so forth.” Id. Claim 1, a 

product-by-process claim, is representative:

1. A decorative architectural panel comprising:

one or more compressible objects suspended between two extruded resin sheets formed together 

about the one or more compressible objects using 

a plurality of pressures in a thermosetting process, at least one of the plurality of pressures being greater than or equal to a critical pressure 

sufficient to otherwise compress the one or more 

compressible objects to an unnatural appearing 

conformation; 

wherein the one or more compressible objects 

maintain a substantially natural appearing conformation between the two formed resin sheets.

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/02/2017
4 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

Id. at col. 11 ll. 2–13 (emphases added).

3form’s D’068 design patent claims “[t]he ornamental 

design for an architectural panel with thatch reed design,” D’068 abstract, as shown in Figure 3:

The district court entered summary judgment in Lumicor’s favor, holding 3form’s asserted patents invalid 

over the prior art. The court first construed disputed 

claim terms of the ’700 patent. Pertinent to this appeal 

are the related terms “unnatural appearing conformation,” construed by the district court as “an object that 

has compressed in an amount equal to or greater than 

75% of its thickness in one direction,” and “substantially 

natural appearing conformation,” construed as “any 

conformation where the object has experienced compression of less than 75% of its thickness in one direction.” 

3form, Inc. v. Lumicor, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00293-CW, 2015 

WL 9463092, at *5 (D. Utah Dec. 28, 2015) (Dist. Ct. Op.).

After construing these claim terms, the district court 

determined that U.S. Patent No. 6,743,327 (“Schober”), a 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/02/2017
3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 5

patent assigned to Lumicor president Dennis Schober, 

anticipated the ’700 patent’s two independent claims—

claims 1 and 19—under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The court also 

found all dependent claims anticipated by Schober, except 

claims 4, 7, and 15. The court found those remaining 

claims obvious in view of Schober combined with U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,988,028 and 5,643,666 (collectively, the 

“Eckart patents”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Finally, the 

district court held that one of Lumicor’s products—

“Exhibit 5”—in view of Schober rendered 3form’s D’068 

design patent obvious under § 103.

3form appeals, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

I.

We begin with the district court’s construction of the 

related ’700 patent terms “unnatural appearing conformation” and “substantially natural appearing conformation.”

“[W]e review the district court’s ultimate claim construction de novo with any underlying factual determinations involving extrinsic evidence reviewed for clear 

error.” Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 843 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 

Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831,

841–42 (2015)). Claim construction seeks to ascribe the 

“ordinary and customary meaning” to claim terms as they 

would be understood to a person of ordinary skill in the 

art at the time of invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing 

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 

(Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art 

is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of 

the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, 

but in the context of the entire patent, including the 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/02/2017
6 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

specification.” Id. at 1313. Indeed, the specification is 

“the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term” 

and “[u]sually, it is dispositive.” Id. at 1315 (quoting 

Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). Thus, claims “must be read in 

view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Id. 

(quoting Markman v. Westview Instrs., Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 

979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)).

A.

The district court construed the claim term “unnatural appearing conformation” as “an object that has compressed in an amount equal to or greater than 75% of its 

thickness in one direction.” Dist. Ct. Op., 2015 WL 

9463092, at *5. The court based its construction on a 

single sentence in the specification: 

There are, of course, varying grades of collapse, or 

compression, for any given compressible object, 

such that an “unnatural conformation” may mean 

that an object has compressed to 90% of its thickness in one direction, 75% of its thickness in one 

direction, and so on.

’700 patent col. 4 ll. 40–45. 

The district court adopted its construction despite the 

parties largely agreeing to a different one. Specifically, 

3form proposed that “unnatural appearing conformation” 

means “the appearance of an object when its structural 

integrity collapses, such that the object splits, cracks, or 

substantially deforms.” Dist. Ct. Op., 2015 WL 9463092, 

at *5. Lumicor only disputed the “substantially deforms” 

portion of 3form’s proposed construction, asserting that 

instead of “substantially deforms,” the term requires

“significantly deforms.” Id. We agree with the arguments 

the parties made before the district court regarding this 

term’s construction.

Like the district court, the parties relied on the patent 

specification to define the disputed claim term. But, 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/02/2017
3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 7

unlike the district court, the parties cited the sentence 

preceding the one cited by the district court, which states:

For the purposes of this specification and claims, 

“critical pressure” refers to the pressure at which 

the structural integrity of the object collapses, 

such that the object splits, cracks, or otherwise 

compresses into an unnatural conformation.

’700 patent col. 4 ll. 36–40. The district court read the 

comma structure and use of the disjunctive term “or 

otherwise” in this sentence to limit the term unnatural 

conformation as referring only to the last item in the 

series, “compress[ion],” and excluding “split[ting]” and 

“crack[ing].” We agree with both parties that this sentence provides the clearest guide to the disputed term’s 

meaning. We disagree with the district court’s reading of 

the sentence to omit the specification’s reference to splitting and cracking as examples of an “unnatural conformation.” Contrary to the district court’s reading, we find 

the comma usage actually supports the parties’ interpretation. Because there is no comma separating “otherwise” 

and “compresses,” those terms must be taken together. 

The most natural reading of this clause is thus that 

“otherwise compresses” is a catch-all that sweeps in other 

deformative acts, including those specifically introduced 

earlier in the series—splitting and cracking. 

Further, the stated purpose of the sentence is to define the term “critical pressure” for the “specification and

claims.” ’700 patent col. 4 ll. 36–37 (emphasis added). 

This sentence then defines “critical pressure” in terms of 

the effect such pressure would have on a compressible 

object, including both “split[ting]” and “crack[ing].” Thus, 

when the claims describe a process that applies a “critical 

pressure” that would typically result in an “unnatural 

appearing conformation,” the construction must recognize 

that the specification contemplates not only “comCase: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 7 Filed: 02/02/2017
8 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

press[ion],” but also “split[ting]” and “crack[ing]” resulting 

from such pressure.

We also disagree with the district court’s decision to 

limit the term to a mathematical requirement of 75% 

compression based on a sentence in the specification that 

merely states that there “are varying degrees of collapse, 

or compression” and that an unnatural conformation 

“may” mean that an object has compressed to 90% of its 

thickness or as little as 75% of its thickness “and so on.” 

Id. col. 4 ll. 40–45 (emphasis added). Plucking one of 

these percentages out of a range of possibilities was not a 

proper approach for claim construction. See Conoco, Inc. 

v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[W]hen a claim term is expressed in 

general descriptive words, we will not ordinarily limit the 

term to a numerical range that may appear in the written 

description or in other claims.”) (quoting Renishaw PLC v. 

Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 

(Fed. Cir. 1998)). In addition, because the district court’s 

construction relates only to compression, and not splitting 

and cracking, it does not give proper meaning to the claim 

term as implicitly defined in the patent specification. 

For all these reasons, we adopt 3form’s proposed construction and interpret “unnatural appearing conformation” to mean “the appearance of an object when its 

structural integrity collapses, such that the object splits, 

cracks, or substantially deforms.”1

 

1 As explained earlier, Lumicor proposed a slightly 

different construction—substituting “substantially deforms” with “significantly deforms”—at the district court. 

Dist. Ct. Op., 2015 WL 9463092, at *5. On appeal, Lumicor has not argued for this construction and thus we adopt 

the construction proposed by 3form. 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 8 Filed: 02/02/2017
3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 9

B.

The district court construed “substantially natural 

appearing conformation” as the inverse of its “unnatural 

appearing conformation” construction—i.e., as “any 

conformation where the object has experienced compression of less than 75% of its thickness in one direction.” 

Dist. Ct. Op., 2015 WL 9463092, at *5. For the same 

reasons expressed above in connection with “unnatural 

appearing conformation,” we disagree with the district 

court’s construction of this related term. 

As for the parties, 3form urges us to construe the 

term as “[t]he appearance of an object in a relatively 

uncompressed or natural state, even if not perfectly 

natural or uncompressed,” whereas Lumicor argues that 

the term is indefinite. Id. Lumicor essentially asserts 

that the district court’s construction presents a mathematical test that is difficult, if not impossible, to perform 

in practice, and that 3form’s construction is too subjective 

to provide boundaries on the claim’s scope. We reject 

Lumicor’s indefiniteness argument. “[A] claim must 

‘inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the 

invention with reasonable certainty’ to meet the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.” Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.3d 1388, 1396 

(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrs., 

Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014)). Yet, “absolute precision is unattainable” when drafting patent claims. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2129. Thus, “a patentee need not define 

his invention with mathematical precision in order to 

comply with the definiteness requirement.” Sonix Tech. 

Co. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., No. 2016-1449, 2017 WL 56321, 

at *5 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 5, 2017) (quoting Invitrogen Corp. v. 

Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

Here, 3form’s proposed construction aligns with the 

plain meaning of the term and is supported by the patent 

specification. While perhaps not mathematically precise, 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 9 Filed: 02/02/2017
10 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

we conclude that this construction would properly inform 

one of ordinary skill in the art of the invention’s scope 

with reasonable certainty. Indeed, 3form’s expert explained that 3form’s quality control process involves 

visually inspecting panels to identify those suitable for 

sale and thus one of ordinary skill would understand the 

meaning of “substantially natural appearing conformation” as opposed to an “unnatural appearing conformation.” Lumicor’s Quality Assurance Manager similarly 

testified about Lumicor’s quality control process, describing a visual inspection of “the appearance of the natural 

objects” to determine “whether a panel passes the quality 

assurance inspection to be sent to a customer.” J.A. 464–

65, 75:16–76:22. This evidence supports the notion that a 

person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would understand with reasonable certainty whether objects encased 

within a panel appear suspended in their natural state or 

instead are damaged to the point of appearing unnatural. 

The evidence shows that a person of ordinary skill would 

recognize this quality without relying on specific compression percentages, as the district court’s construction 

required. 

We therefore reject Lumicor’s indefiniteness argument and adopt 3form’s proposed construction of “substantially natural conformation” to mean “[t]he 

appearance of an object in a relatively uncompressed or 

natural state, even if not perfectly natural or uncompressed.” 

II.

We next address the validity of 3form’s ’700 patent. 

Although we hold that the district court erred in construing the terms “unnatural appearing conformation” and 

“substantially natural appearing conformation,” we 

nonetheless affirm its summary judgment of invalidity. 

Because the district court entered its incorrect claim 

constructions in its summary judgment order, the parties’ 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 10 Filed: 02/02/2017
3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 11

summary judgment validity arguments accounted for the 

alternative constructions we have now adopted. Under 

those constructions, we conclude that the ’700 patent is 

nonetheless invalid, and that this determination was ripe 

for summary judgment.

Invalidity must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95

(2011). “Anticipation, though a question of fact, may be 

resolved on summary judgment if no genuine issue of 

material fact exists.” OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. 

Induction Techs., Inc., 701 F.3d 698, 704 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

(citing Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). “We review de novo the determination of whether the evidence in the record raises a 

genuine issue of material fact.” Id. (citing Ormco, 498 

F.3d at 1319). “Similarly, ‘a district court can properly 

grant, as a matter of law, a motion for summary judgment 

on patent invalidity when the factual inquiries into obviousness present no genuine issue of material facts.’” Id.

(quoting Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 716 

(Fed. Cir. 1991)). “When the facts underlying an obviousness determination are not in dispute, we review whether 

summary judgment of invalidity is correct by applying the 

law to the undisputed facts.” Id. (quoting Tokai Corp. v. 

Easton Enters., 632 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). 

Lumicor argued in its motion for summary judgment

that the prior art Schober patent recited most limitations 

of the ’700 patent’s independent claims expressly and 

inherently disclosed the others. The Schober patent’s 

abstract describes: 

(1) a matrix made of polymethylmethacrylate, 

polyvinyl chloride, polycarbonate, or combinations 

thereof; and (2) one or more visible decorative objects that are permanently fixated in the matrix, 

and methods for manufacturing these products. . . . The solid surface products of the invenCase: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 11 Filed: 02/02/2017
12 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

tion provide strikingly beautiful and unusual visual effects that are difficult to describe in words.

3form first contends that Schober does not disclose 

the “compressible objects” limitation. Schober, however,

describes its method as capable for use with objects such 

as twigs, including those from reed and bamboo.2 Although Schober also discloses other, non-compressible 

objects, its explicit disclosure of twigs is sufficient to 

satisfy the “compressible objects” limitation. See Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1376 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“This court rejects the notion that one of 

these ingredients cannot anticipate because it appears 

without special emphasis in a longer list.”).

3form next disputes that the method described in 

Schober necessarily produces a panel having compressible 

objects maintaining a “substantially natural appearing 

conformation.” We disagree. The Schober two-step 

method includes a first, low-pressure encasing step. 

Testimony from 3form’s own expert explained that the 

purpose of this step was to maintain the integrity of the 

encased object. Further, as evidence that the Schober

method would necessarily maintain “substantially natural 

appearing conformation” of compressible objects, Lumicor’s expert used the method described in Schober to 

create test panels. Lumicor’s expert concluded that, to 

the extent one of skill in the art would understand the 

scope of the “substantially natural appearing confor-

 

2 3form argues now on appeal that whether the 

twigs Schober discloses are “compressible objects” as 

described by the ’700 patent is a fact issue not ripe for 

summary judgment. But 3form conceded that twigs are 

compressible objects before the district court. See J.A.

1017 (stating twigs disclosed in Schober are “indisputably 

compressible objects”). Thus, there is no issue of material 

fact requiring resolution.

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 12 Filed: 02/02/2017
3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 13

mation” limitation, his test panels maintained such a 

conformation. 

During his deposition, Lumicor presented 3form’s expert with the test panels that were produced by Lumicor’s 

expert using the Schober method, and 3form’s expert 

could not testify that any of the panels lacked a “substantially natural appearing conformation.”3 Indeed, 3form’s 

briefing to the district court seemed to acknowledge that 

the test panels had a “substantially natural appearing 

conformation.” See, e.g., J.A. 1069–70 (“That Lumicor’s 

expert Dr. Flinn created panels having objects with a 

substantially natural appearing conformation is evidence 

only that the ’327 Patent methods ‘could yield’ such 

panels, which is insufficient.” (citation omitted)). While 

3form’s expert conducted his own tests to counter the 

Lumicor expert testing, the district court found the tests 

inadmissible after 3form’s expert admitted that he did not 

monitor significant control factors, such as time and 

temperature, during his testing. 3form did not challenge 

the district court’s inadmissibility ruling on appeal.

All of the evidence on record therefore shows that applying the Schober method results in panels having a 

“substantially natural appearing conformation,” and we 

thus affirm the district court’s finding of inherent anticipation by Schober of the ’700 patent’s independent claims, 

claims 1 and 19. 

 

3 3form argues that its expert testified that Lumicor’s Exhibit 421 test panel did not maintain “substantially natural appearing conformation.” Lumicor’s expert, 

however, did not use the method disclosed in Schober to 

create that panel. See Oral Arg. at 4:18–5:29; 14:34–

15:40, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.

gov/default.aspx?fl=2016-1535.mp3. 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 13 Filed: 02/02/2017
14 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

The district court also held that Schober anticipates 

dependent claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–14, and 16–18. On appeal, 

3form challenges the district court’s anticipation findings 

for dependent claims 5 and 16, which require that at least 

one of the two extruded resin sheets “comprise extruded 

polycarbonate.” Before the district court, 3form did “not 

dispute [whether] the ’327 Patent [Schober] describes the 

use of polycarbonate,” J.A. 1022, 1028, and it never specifically argued or articulated why Schober’s use of polycarbonate would impact the “substantially natural appearing 

conformation” limitation, as it does now for the first time 

on appeal. We conclude, therefore, that 3form waived its 

separate arguments on these claims. Thus, we affirm the 

district court’s summary judgment holding that Schober 

anticipates dependent claims 2–3, 5–6, 8–14, and 16–18. 

We also conclude that the district court did not err in 

finding claims 4, 7, and 15 obvious in view of the prior art. 

Claims 4, 7, and 15 require use of a PETG-type resin. 

The Eckart patents, which the district court considered in 

combination with Schober, disclose using PETG-type 

resins in decorative laminate panels. Lumicor’s expert 

testified that PETG was one of several widely used resins 

for decorative panels at the time of the invention and that 

a person of ordinary skill would know that all resins work 

equally well in the Schober method. Indeed, Schober 

itself discusses how the Eckart patents use PETG in 

decorative laminate panels. See Schober col. 2 ll. 1–39. 

We conclude that one of skill in the art would have been 

motivated to combine the Schober method with the Eckart 

patents’ suggestion to use PETG as the resin. Again, we 

do not consider 3form’s new argument that using PETG 

would have somehow altered the Schober method’s “substantially natural appearing conformation” of compressible objects, as 3form did not present this argument to the 

district court. Thus, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity of claims 4, 7, and 15 as 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 14 Filed: 02/02/2017
3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 15

being obvious in view of Schober in combination with the 

Eckart patents.

III.

3form challenges the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity of the D’068 patent as obvious. The 

primary reference on which the district court relied in 

invalidating the D’068 patent was one of Lumicor’s own 

panels, known as “Exhibit 5”:

D’068 patent, Figure 3 Exhibit 5

Exhibit 5 uses beach grass, whereas the D’068 patent 

uses reeds. Because Schober describes using reeds in 

place of grass in decorative panels, the district court 

concluded that a designer of ordinary skill would have 

been motivated to substitute Exhibit 5’s beach grass with 

Schober’s reeds and that this combination rendered the 

D’068 patent obvious. 

We agree with the district court. 3form’s expert 

testified that a designer would not have been motivated to 

combine Exhibit 5 with Schober’s reeds because beach 

grass is flat, not cylindrical like a reed. 3form’s expert 

admitted, however, that she had not read the Schober 

patent’s written description and had instead only considered the figures. Thus, 3form’s expert’s opinion was 

formed without considering the motivation to combine 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 15 Filed: 02/02/2017
16 3FORM, INC. v. LUMICOR, INC. 

plainly contemplated by Schober’s specification, i.e., that 

reeds may be a substitute for grass. The obviousness 

inquiry for design patents is not so limited, as it asks 

whether a designer “would have combined teachings of the 

prior art to create the same overall visual appearance as 

the claimed design,” not merely the figures or illustrations. Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., 101 F.3d 100, 

103 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). Because 3form’s 

expert did not consider Schober’s teachings in full, her 

testimony regarding motivation to combine does not 

preclude summary judgment of obviousness. 

In light of the forgoing, we conclude that the district 

court did not err in holding that the D’068 patent is 

invalid as obvious in light of Exhibit 5 combined with 

Schober. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive.4 For the foregoing reasons, 

we modify the district court’s construction of the terms 

“unnatural appearing conformation” and “substantially 

natural appearing conformation,” but conclude nonetheless that all claims of the ’700 patent are invalid as either 

anticipated or obvious. We also affirm the district court’s 

invalidation of the D’068 patent for obviousness. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

 

4 Lumicor moved to strike portions of 3form’s reply 

brief for raising new arguments for the first time. We 

have considered 3form’s arguments that Lumicor asserts 

are untimely and find them unpersuasive. We thus deny 

Lumicor’s motion as moot. 

Case: 16-1535 Document: 60-2 Page: 16 Filed: 02/02/2017