Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01647/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01647-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Black & Decker, Inc.
Appellant
Positec USA, Inc.
Cross-Appellant
RW Direct, Inc.
Cross-Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

BLACK & DECKER, INC.,

Appellant

v.

POSITEC USA, INC., RW DIRECT, INC.,

Cross-Appellants

______________________ 

2015-1646, 2015-1647

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in 

No. IPR2013-00502.

______________________ 

Decided: May 18, 2016

______________________ 

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL BROCK, Harness, Dickey & 

Pierce, PLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, argued for appellant. 

Also represented by MICHAEL E. HILTON, Troy, MI.

ROBERT HERMAN EICHENBERGER, Middleton Reutlinger, Louisville, KY, argued for cross-appellants. Also 

represented by ROBERT J. THEUERKAUF. 

SARAH E. CRAVEN, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2016
2 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

argued for intervenor Michelle K. Lee. Also represented 

by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER, JEREMIAH 

HELM. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

These appeals arise from an inter partes review of 

U.S. Patent No. 5,544,417 (the ’417 patent) owned by 

Black & Decker, Inc. The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted review on the petition of Positec USA, Inc. and RW 

Direct, Inc. (collectively, Cross-Appellants). In its final 

written decision, the Board found: (1) claims 16 and 17 

unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over U.S. 

Patent No. 4,498,237 (Mack); and (2) claims 7 and 10 not 

obvious over Mack and U.K. Patent Application GB 2 115 

665 A (Laverick). Black & Decker appeals the Board’s 

finding that claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious; 

Cross-Appellants appeal the Board’s finding that claims 7 

and 10 would not have been obvious. For the reasons 

stated in this opinion, we reverse the Board’s decision that 

claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious and affirm its 

decision that claims 7 and 10 would not have been obvious. 

BACKGROUND

I. The ’417 Patent

The ’417 patent is directed to a manner of mounting a 

motor in the housing of a string trimmer. ’417 patent, 

1:22–28. Specifically, the patent discloses the use of a 

“motor mounting plate” supported by the string trimmer’s 

housing such that the motor does not contact the interior 

surface of the housing. Id. 

The claimed invention’s motor-mounting scheme allegedly decreases manufacturing costs of prior art string 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2016
BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 3

trimmers by eliminating the need for “ribs” molded into 

the interior surface of the housing otherwise necessary to 

prevent the motor from moving. Id. at 1:41–2:8. As the 

patent specification explains:

While [the prior art] mounting arrangement operates satisfactorily to support a motor within a 

housing of a string trimmer, this mounting arrangement does require relatively preciselypositioned ribs on the interior surfaces of the 

housing halves. These ribs somewhat complicate 

the construction of the two housing halves, which 

are typically molded from plastic and requires 

more complex and expensive molds or dies for 

producing the two housing halves. Additionally, if 

the ribs are not relatively precisely positioned or 

of a relatively precise height, then the motor may 

be able to wobble or otherwise move or cause vibration during operation of the string trimmer. 

Still further, precisely formed and positioned ribs 

are often difficult to achieve when certain types of 

plastic are used to construct the housing.

Id. at 1:52–66.

The ’417 patent describes a string trimmer that uses a 

rib-less housing as show in the patent’s Figure 3: 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/18/2016
4 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

The motor (36) makes no direct contact with the inner 

surface of the housing (30). Id. at 5:25–31. Rather, the 

motor is attached to the housing via a motor mounting 

plate assembly (38). Id. at 4:30–33. During manufacture, 

the motor is attached to the motor mounting plate assembly. Id. at 2:36–39. The assembly’s plate member (40) is 

then inserted into a groove that is “formed circumferentially about an interior of each housing half,” thereby 

holding the structure in place. Id. at 2:34–42.

Claims 7 and 16 are the independent claims at issue 

in these appeals. Claim 7 is an apparatus claim. It 

states:

7. A line trimming apparatus for trimming vegetation, comprising:

a trimming line;

a motor drivingly connected to the line;

a housing having an interior wall surface, 

said interior wall surface including a 

mounting area in the form of a groove 

formed thereon; and

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/18/2016
BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 5

a mounting plate assembly fixedly secured 

to said motor for mounting said motor 

within said housing such that said at least 

a portion of said mounting plate assembly 

is supported within said groove in said interior wall surface of said housing such 

that said motor is supported within said 

housing without the need for direct contact of any portion of said motor with said 

interior wall surface of said housing.

Id. at 8:35–49. Claim 16 is a method claim. It states:

16. A method for assembling an outdoor power 

tool, the method comprising:

forming a first housing section having a 

circumferential groove formed in an interior wall thereof;

forming a second housing section having a 

circumferential groove formed in an interior wall thereof; 

fixedly securing a motor mounting plate to 

a motor;

inserting a portion of said motor mounting 

plate into said circumferential groove in 

said second housing section;

placing said first housing section against 

said second housing section to cause a portion of said mounting plate to engage 

within said circumferential groove in said 

interior wall of said first housing section, 

to thereby cause said mounting plate to be 

supported at a plurality of positions by 

said circumferential grooves, to thereby 

enable said motor to be supported within 

said first and second housing sections 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/18/2016
6 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

without said motor contacting any portion 

of said interior walls of said first and second housing sections; and

securing said first housing section to said 

second housing section.

Id. at 10:11–31. Dependent claims 10 and 17 include 

additional limitations related to the motor mounting plate 

assembly. Id. at 9:8–14, 10:32–41.

II. Procedural History

Cross-Appellants requested inter partes review of 

claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12–14, 16, and 17 of the ’417 patent. In response, Black & Decker disclaimed claims 1, 2, 

4, 5, and 12–14. The Board then instituted review of 

claims 7, 10, 16, and 17 on the following grounds: 

(1) claims 7 and 10 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103(a) as obvious over Laverick and Mack; and 

(2) claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable under 

35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Mack. In its final 

written decision, the Board found that claims 7 and 10 

would not have been obvious over Laverick and Mack and 

claims 16 and 17 would have been obvious over Mack. 

Positec USA, Inc. v. Black & Decker Inc., IPR2013-00502, 

2015 WL 5440722, at *1 (PTAB Jan. 29, 2015) (Final 

Written Decision). 

Laverick discloses a prior art string trimmer. Laverick, 1:4–9. Its housing consists of two “clam-shell” portions joined longitudinally. Id. at 1:92–97. Each portion 

contains a rib molded into the inner surface of the housing. Id. at 2:24–27. The rib works in conjunction with 

other design features, including flanges on the motor that 

engage a groove on the inner surface of the housing, to 

hold the string-trimmer’s motor in place. Id. at 2:17–44. 

Mack discloses an electric-powered hair trimmer. 

Mack, 1:6–7. Like Laverick, Mack’s housing consists of 

two “clam-shell” portions joined longitudinally. Id. at 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/18/2016
BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 7

2:31–35. The inner surfaces of Mack’s portions include a 

groove designed to hold a mounting structure for the 

trimmer’s motor. Id. at 3:18–24. The motor is attached to 

the mounting structure with a motor mounting yoke made 

of spring grade wire. Id. at 3:5–24.

With respect to claims 7 and 10, the Board focused its 

analysis on the “fixedly secured” and “without the need 

for direct contact” limitations of the claims. The Board

construed “fixedly secured” to mean “fastened such that 

relative movement is prevented.”1 Final Written Decision, 

2015 WL 5440722, at *4. The Board then found that 

Mack did not disclose this limitation. It explained that 

the flex in the spring grade wire used to attach the motor 

to the mounting structure coupled with the small contact 

surface between the motor and the mounting structure 

allowed the motor to move. Id. at *10–11, *12. The Board 

also found that Laverick did not disclose the “without the 

need for direct contact” limitation as its housing directly 

contacted the motor at multiple points in order to hold the 

motor in place. Id. at *12. Finally, the Board rejected 

Cross-Appellants’ argument that “one of ordinary skill in 

the art would have arrived at the ‘fixedly secured’ and 

‘without need for direct contact’ limitations simply by 

scaling-up Mack’s mounting plate assembly for use with 

Laverick’s bigger motor.” Id. at *13. The Board thereby 

concluded that the claims would not have been obvious. 

Turning to claims 16 and 17, the Board’s analysis 

again focused on the “fixedly securing” and “without . . . 

contacting” limitations. Consistent with its analysis of 

claims 7 and 10, the Board found that Mack did not 

disclose the “fixedly securing” limitation. Id. at *16. 

 

1 In construing the claim this way, the Board rejected a broader construction proposed by CrossAppellants: “securely placed or fastened.” Final Written 

Decision, 2015 WL 5440722, at *4.

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/18/2016
8 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

However, the Board found that a person of ordinary skill 

“would have known” how to fixedly secure Mack’s motor 

and “could have” done so “using bolts or screws instead of 

the spring grade wire.” Id. Because the person of ordinary skill also would have understood that Mack’s motor 

did not contact the inner surface of its housing, the Board 

found claims 16 and 17 obvious. Id. at *16–17.

Black & Decker filed a timely appeal from the Board’s 

decision, and Cross-Appellants filed a cross-appeal.2 We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

For clarity, we address the issues on appeal in the 

same order they were initially addressed by the Board. 

Therefore, we depart from our normal practice and address the cross-appeal first.

I. Claim Construction

Cross-Appellants challenge the Board’s construction 

of “fixedly secured” (claim 7) and “fixedly securing” (claim 

16) to mean “fastened/fastening such that relative movement is prevented.” Cross-Appellants contend that the 

terms should be more broadly construed as “fixedly se-

 

2 The Director intervened on two narrow grounds: 

(1) Cross-Appellants waived any appeal to the Board’s 

decision not to institute review on certain grounds; and 

(2) the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer did not require 

the Board to give effect to Black & Decker’s contemporaneous argument-based disclaimer of patent claim scope 

during the inter partes review proceeding. CrossAppellants did not challenge the Board’s institution 

decision in their appeal. Moreover, we do not reach the 

issue of prosecution disclaimer in resolving the parties’ 

appeals. We thus do not address the Director’s arguments.

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/18/2016
BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 9

cured or fastened.” Cross-Appellants’ Opening Br. at 34 

(“Positec respectfully asks this Court to reverse the 

Board’s claim construction . . . and adopt Positec’s proposed construction: ‘securely placed or fastened.’ Under 

the proper broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms 

do not require fastening ‘such that relative movement is 

prevented.’” (emphasis in original)).

We apply the framework established in Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 

(2015), when reviewing a claim construction adopted by 

the Board. Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 

1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under that framework, we 

review the Board’s ultimate claim construction de novo

with any underlying factual determinations involving 

extrinsic evidence reviewed for substantial evidence. Id.

(citing Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841–42).

As an initial matter, we note that the Board applied

the “broadest reasonable interpretation” when construing 

the claims at issue. While this is the proper standard

when construing claims of an unexpired patent, In re 

Cuozzo Speed Techs., 793 F.3d 1268, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 

2015), the ’417 patent expired in October 2014—

approximately three months before the Board’s final 

written decision. Claims of an expired patent are given 

their ordinary and customary meaning in accordance with 

our opinion in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005) (en banc).3 See In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 

46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Despite the Board’s use of an improper standard, applying the Phillips standard, we find that its ultimate 

construction of “fixedly secured/securing” is nonetheless 

correct. The Board properly consulted the ’417 patent’s 

specification in construing the term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

 

3 No party raised this issue in its briefs.

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 9 Filed: 05/18/2016
10 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

1315 (“[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the 

claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is 

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

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The 

specification describes the manner in which the motor and 

mounting plate assembly—the components that are 

“fixedly secured”—are attached as “rigidly coupled.” 

Final Written Decision, 2015 WL 5440722, at *4 (citing 

’417 patent, 5:5–7). The Board properly understood 

“‘rigidly coupled,’ in this context, to signify that the coupled components cannot move relative to one another.” 

Id. The specification further describes the use of threaded 

screws to assemble the motor mounting plate assembly 

and attach it to the motor. Id. (citing ’417 patent, 4:40–

42, 5:8–10). Moreover, Black & Decker during prosecution overcame an anticipation rejection by arguing that

Mack’s motor is attached to the motor mounting assembly 

by “yoke 43 . . . formed from a ‘spring grade wire’” and, 

thus, is not “fixedly secured to the motor mounting plate 

assembly, as is the case with Applicant’s invention.” J.A. 

195 (emphasis in original). Based on the intrinsic evidence, the Board properly concluded that components that 

are “fixedly secured,” in this context, cannot move relative 

to each other.

Cross-Appellants’ arguments in support of their proposed construction miss the mark. First, CrossAppellants claim that various passages in the specification suggest a broader construction of “fixedly secured” 

and “fixedly securing.” Cross-Appellants’ Opening Br. at 

32–33. However, each passage Cross-Appellants cite 

relates to connections between components other than 

those claimed to be “fixedly secured” (i.e., the motor and 

mounting plate assembly). Id. (citing descriptions of 

connections between (1) the motor mounting plate assembly and housing, and (2) the fan and armature shaft). The 

specification explicitly describes the connection between 

the motor and the mounting plate assembly as “rigidly 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 10 Filed: 05/18/2016
BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 11

coupled,” as the Board found. Second, Cross-Appellants

claim that the Board improperly relied upon dictionary 

definitions and Mack in construing the terms. However, 

the Board made clear that its construction was based on 

the ’417 patent’s claims and specification. Final Written 

Decision, 2015 WL 5440722, at *4 (“In light of the Specification, therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation 

of ‘fixedly secured’ is ‘fastened such that relative movement is prevented.’” (emphasis added)). It cited dictionary definitions, J.A. 217–18, and Mack, Final Written 

Decision, 2015 WL 5440722, at *4, only as additional 

support. The Board’s use of extrinsic evidence in this way 

is not improper. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (authorizing the use of extrinsic evidence in claim construction, but 

describing it as “less significant than the intrinsic record” 

(citation omitted)).

II. Obviousness 

Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying 

findings of fact. In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009). The underlying findings of fact include: 

“(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; 

(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the 

invention was made; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if any.” Id.; see also Graham v. John Deere Co., 

383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In an appeal of a Board decision, we review the Board’s underlying factual findings for 

substantial evidence. Merck & Cie v. Gnosis S.P.A., 808 

F.3d 829, 833 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We review the Board’s 

ultimate determination of obviousness de novo. Id.

A. Claims 7 and 10

Cross-Appellants contend that the combination of 

Laverick and Mack teach the two limitations the Board 

found lacking: (1) the motor is “fixedly secured” to the 

mounting plate assembly; and (2) the motor is supported 

within the housing “without the need for direct contact” 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 11 Filed: 05/18/2016
12 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

between the motor and the housing. Cross-Appellants’ 

Opening Br. at 35–44. Cross-Appellants further contend 

that the Board committed legal error when it found that a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would not exercise 

common sense and combine Laverick and Mack to form 

the patented invention. Id. at 44–50.

We hold that the Board’s finding that Mack does not 

disclose the “fixedly secured” limitation is supported by 

substantial evidence. Mack’s motor is attached to the 

mounting structure with a motor mounting yoke made of 

spring grade wire. Mack, 3:5–24. The Board credited the 

testimony of Black & Decker’s expert, Mr. Philip J. 

O’Keefe, that “the flex in the spring grade wire of yoke 43, 

and the small contact surface between motor 25 and flat 

portion 45, allow the motor both to move axially and to 

wobble from side-to-side.” Final Written Decision, 2015 

WL 5440722, at *10 (emphases in original). We find no 

fault in the Board’s decision to credit Mr. O’Keefe’s testimony. See id. at *11. The testimony is consistent with 

Mack’s disclosure, which describes the yoke as working 

with other features of Mack to prevent motor rotation, not 

axial or lateral movement. Mack, 3:18–24. Moreover, 

Cross-Appellants offered no expert testimony of their own 

to rebut Mr. O’Keefe. Because Mack’s motor can “move 

axially” and “wobble from side-to-side,” it is not “fixedly 

secured.”

We further agree with the Board that CrossAppellants did not meet their burden in establishing that 

it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to 

modify Laverick with Mack’s mounting plate assembly in 

a way that would satisfy the “fixedly secured” and “without the need for direct contact” limitations of claim 7.4 

 

4 Because we find that it would not have been obvious to modify Laverick in this way, we need not address 

Cross-Appellants’ argument that the Board failed to 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 12 Filed: 05/18/2016
BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 13

Cross-Appellants contend that a person of ordinary skill 

would substitute the flange and groove assembly in 

Laverick with the plate and groove assembly in Mack. 

Cross-Appellants’ Opening Br. at 48. However, as the 

Board explained, these features serve different purposes. 

Final Written Decision, 2015 WL 5440722, at *13 (stating 

that “Mack’s groove/plate . . . secures Mack’s motor 

against rotation” while “the groove/flange of Laverick . . . 

prevent[s] the motor from wobbling or otherwise moving 

and causing vibration”). Therefore, it is unclear why a 

person of ordinary skill would make this substitution.

And, even assuming that the substitution were made, 

Cross-Appellants presented no evidence to the Board that 

a person of ordinary skill would have made the various 

structural changes necessary to prevent relative movement between the motor and mounting plate without the 

need for direct contact with the housing. As the Board 

explained, “the groove/flange of Laverick is just one 

component of a composite support structure comprising 

precisely molded supporting ribs, protrusions, and surfaces that, together, function to clamp Laverick’s motor 

along its length and to prevent the motor from wobbling 

or otherwise moving and causing vibration.” Id. CrossAppellants offered mere attorney argument to explain

why a person of ordinary skill would remove these various 

structures, including the supporting rib, and instead 

“fixedly secure” the motor by making Mack’s mounting 

arrangement “beefier.” J.A. 791–92 (conceding that 

“[t]here’s no testimony” to support Cross-Appellants’ 

obviousness contention). Based on this record, we agree 

with the Board’s conclusion that it would not have been 

obvious to the person of ordinary skill “to make all of the 

 

consider whether Mack disclosed the “without the need 

for direct contact limitation.” Cross-Appellants’ Opening 

Br. at 43–44.

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 13 Filed: 05/18/2016
14 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

functional and structural changes needed to prevent 

relative movement between the plate and the motor and 

to support the motor without use of direct contact with 

the housing.” Final Written Decision, 2015 WL 5440722, 

at *13.

We therefore affirm the Board’s decision that claims 7 

and 10 would not have been obvious. 

B. Claims 16 and 17

Although the Board properly concluded that apparatus claims 7 and 10 would not have been obvious in 

view of Laverick and Mack, the Board nonetheless concluded that closely-related method claims 16 and 17 

would have been obvious in view of Mack alone. Black & 

Decker contends that the Board committed legal error in 

two ways in finding claims 16 and 17 obvious. First, 

Black & Decker argues that the Board improperly relied 

on figures that are not drawn to scale when it found that 

Mack met the “without . . . contacting” limitation. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 38–45. Second, Black & Decker 

argues that the Board failed to articulate a reason why a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would modify Mack to 

meet the “fixedly securing” limitation. Id. at 45–54. 

We agree that the Board failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would “fixedly secure” the 

motor in Mack. Our precedent requires that the Board 

explain a rationale why a person of ordinary skill would 

have modified Mack’s motor. See Ball Aerosol & Specialty 

Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining that the skilled artisan’s 

motivation “should be made explicit”). In its decision, the 

Board stated that Mack “suggests” the limitation. Final 

Written Decision, 2015 WL 5440722, at *16. It went on to 

state what one of skill in the art “would have known” or 

“could have” done to meet the limitation. Id. This is not 

sufficient. Our precedent required that the Board explain 

why one of skill in the art would have adapted or replaced 

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 14 Filed: 05/18/2016
BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 15

Mack’s motor mounting yoke to ensure that the motor did 

not move relative to the motor mounting structure. The 

Board did not do so.

Moreover, the Board’s finding that Mack suggests 

“fixedly securing” the motor to the mounting structure is 

not supported by substantial evidence. See Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 

1019 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (describing the scope and content of 

the prior art as a factual question reviewed for substantial evidence). The only evidence cited by the Board 

states that the motor is “positioned and supported against 

rotation.” Mack, 3:18–24 (emphasis added). Nothing in 

Mack suggests that the motor should be further supported 

against lateral or axial movement.

In fact, the proposed modification to Mack’s device 

seems to run counter to the intended purpose of Mack’s 

design. The Board stated that “[a] person of ordinary skill 

would have known, for example, that plate 45 could have 

been fixedly secured to motor 25 using bolts or screws 

instead of spring grade wire.” Final Written Decision, 

2015 WL 5440722, at *16. Yet, Mack’s hair trimmer was 

designed to improve on prior art units that had “relatively 

high costs and complex constructions which make assembly, repair and cleaning difficult.” Mack, 1:27–29. Mack 

therefore disclosed “an easily manipulated, efficient, 

quiet, hair trimmer having relatively few components that 

is particularly well-adapted for self-use.” Id. at 1:39–42

(emphasis added). Replacing Mack’s yoke with bolts or 

screws, as the Board suggests, would increase the number 

of components necessary to mount the motor and, thereby,

increase assembly and repair costs. Such a modification 

is inconsistent with Mack’s stated goal.

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 15 Filed: 05/18/2016
16 BLACK & DECKER, INC. v. POSITEC USA, INC. 

We therefore reverse the Board’s decision that claims 

16 and 17 would have been obvious.5

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision that claims 7 and 10 would not have been obvious 

and reverse its decision that claims 16 and 17 would have 

been obvious. 

AFFIRMED-IN PART, REVERSED-IN-PART

COSTS

No Costs. 

 

5 Because we find that it would not have been obvious to modify Mack to meet the “fixedly securing” limitation, we need not address Black & Decker’s argument that 

the Board erred by relying on certain figures in Mack to 

meet the “without . . . contacting” limitation. We likewise 

need not reach Black & Decker’s additional arguments 

regarding analogous art and the effect of claim 16’s preamble on the obviousness analysis.

Case: 15-1647 Document: 3-2 Page: 16 Filed: 05/18/2016