Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01673/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01673-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dome Patent L.P.
Appellant
Michelle K. Lee
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DOME PATENT L.P.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MICHELLE K. LEE, DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND 

TRADEMARK OFFICE,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-1673

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia in No. 1:07-CV-01695.

______________________ 

Decided: September 3, 2015 

______________________ 

JAMES W. DABNEY, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by MITCHELL EPNER, STEPHEN S. RABINOWITZ. 

 

SCOTT WEIDENFELLER, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, 

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

NATHAN K. KELLEY, WILLIAM LAMARCA. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, SCHALL, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/03/2015
2 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

HUGHES, Circuit Judge.

Dome owns a patent for making contact-lens material. 

On reexamination, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

found that the claimed method at issue was obvious and 

therefore unpatentable. The district court agreed with 

the Patent Office that the claimed method was unpatentable. On appeal, Dome challenges both the standard of 

review employed by the district court and the court’s 

ultimate conclusion on obviousness. Because we conclude 

that the district court applied the proper legal standard 

and because its factual findings were not clearly erroneous, we affirm. 

I 

Dome owns U.S. Patent No. 4,306,042, which concerns 

the polymer science behind making contact-lens materials 

that are rigid and gas permeable. During the relevant 

time period, contact-lens makers required contact-lens 

materials to be optically clear, sufficiently rigid for machining and polishing, oxygen permeable, and hydrophilic. 

To meet these four requirements, contact-lens makers 

used plastic polymers. 

A polymer is a chain or network of molecules called 

monomers. The process of synthesizing a polymer from 

monomers of a single type is called polymerization. When 

two or more different types of monomers are reacted, i.e., 

copolymerized, a copolymer is formed and the constituent 

compounds are known as comonomers. Polymers or 

copolymers can have many different structures, including 

linear chains, branched chains, cross-linked networks, 

and mixtures thereof. 

Contact-lens makers can produce materials that have 

varying physical properties by varying the types of monomers used and the resulting polymer’s structure. For 

example, using one type of cross-linking agent over another may increase the gaps in a polymer’s structure, 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 3

affecting oxygen permeability. Or using hydrophilic 

monomers, sometimes referred to as “wetting agents,” in a 

linear polymer chain can increase the polymer’s ability to 

attract or hold water. By contrast, using hydrophobic 

monomers to create a polymer can decrease the polymer’s 

affinity for water. 

The first practical plastic contact lens was made of 

plexiglass, or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Although clear, rigid, and hydrophilic, PMMA was not sufficiently oxygen permeable to allow users to wear the 

lenses for extended periods of time. After a few hours, a 

user had to remove PMMA lenses to allow the cornea to 

absorb ambient oxygen, which is needed to ensure, among 

other things, that the eye’s cells and nerves remain 

healthy. Given these limitations on PMMA lenses, polymer scientists began exploring other combinations of 

monomer types and polymer structures to create a material similar to PMMA, but with increased oxygen permeability. 

In the early 1970’s, major advances in polymer science 

led to the discovery that silicone could be incorporated 

into plastics by mixing siloxane-based compounds with 

methyl methacrylate (MMA), a monomer in PMMA. One 

particular siloxane-based compound known as “Tris,” or 

1,1,1-tris(trimethylsiloxy)methacryloxypropylsilane, was 

identified as a strong candidate because, when mixed 

with MMA, it led to materials with exceptional oxygen 

permeability. A significant drawback to this combination, 

however, was that Tris is hydrophobic, and it caused the 

polymer to be hydrophobic. To offset this drawback, 

polymer scientists in the late 1970’s and the 1980’s would 

combine other hydrophilic comonomers, wetting agents,

and cross-linking agents with Tris, hoping to strike an 

acceptable balance between oxygen permeability, optical 

clarity, rigidity, and hydrophilicity. 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/03/2015
4 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

Claim 1 of the ’042 patent covers a method of making 

one such combination. The method comprises making 

Tris and then copolymerizing it with an ester of acrylic or 

methacrylic acid (e.g., MMA), a surface wetting agent,

and an oxygen permeable siloxane-based cross-linking 

agent (a multifunctional1 siloxanyl alkyl ester). Claim 1 

recites, in relevant part: 

A method of making an oxygen permeable material for the manufacture of contact lens by the synthesization of the monomer 1,1,1-

tris(methylsiloxy)methacryloxypropylsilane 

(a siloxanyl alkyl ester) by the following procedures: . . . 

(f) forming an oxygen permeable contact lens material by copolymerizing from 5% to 90% by 

weight of the 1,1,1-tris(trimethylsiloxy)

methacryloxypropylsilane prepared above; 3% to 

90% by weight of an ester of acrylic or methacrylic 

acid; from 0.05% to 90% by weight of a surface 

wetting agent, from 0.01% to 90% by weight of an 

oxygen permeable crosslinking agent selected 

from the class of multifunctional siloxanyl alkyl

esters in the presence of a free radical or a photo 

initiator.

’042 patent, col. 5 ll. 38–64. 

In December 1997, Dome filed suit against six makers 

of contact lenses for alleged infringement of the ’042 

patent. Shortly after, one defendant requested ex parte 

1 Copolymers with cross-linked networks, such as 

the types covered by the ’042 patent, can be formed by 

employing a “multifunctional” comonomer. Two or more 

ends of a multifunctional comonomer have the ability to 

join with other comonomers to form a cross-link between 

polymer chains, like a rung of a ladder. 

 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 5

reexamination of the ’042 patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 302 

(1994). In June 1999, the Patent Office ordered reexamination and, as a result, the district court stayed litigation 

pending a final determination in the reexamination 

proceeding. The Patent Office confirmed the patentability 

of claims 2, 3, and 4 of the ’042 patent, but it found claim 

1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006). 

Dome then filed suit in September 2007 against the 

Patent Office in the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia under 35 U.S.C. §§ 145 and 306 

(2006), requesting that the district court enjoin the Patent 

Office from cancelling claim 1 of the ’042 patent and that 

it direct the Patent Office to issue a reexamination certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 307 (2006). Following a bench 

trial, the district court held claim 1 of the ’042 patent 

invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and entered 

judgment in favor of the Patent Office. 

The district court concluded that the ’042 patent 

would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at 

the time of filing in view of the prior art, including U.S. 

Patent Nos. 4,120,570 (Gaylord), 4,152,508 (Ellis), and 

4,235,985 (Tanaka).

Gaylord discloses a polymer for making rigid, gaspermeable contact lenses. Gaylord’s disclosures represent 

a significant breakthrough in contact-lens materials. It is 

one of the first teachings of using siloxane-based monomers, including Tris, with MMA for the purpose of making contact lenses. In fact, the record indicates that Tris

and similar siloxane-based compounds became an “industry standard” in the manufacture of contact lenses following this breakthrough. J.A. 2085. 

Gaylord teaches that a suitable polymer can be made 

by combining Tris, MMA, methacrylic acid as a hydrophilic wetting agent, and a hydrophilic cross-linking 

agent, such as ethylene glycol dimethacrylate. See Gaylord col. 1 l. 53 – col. 2 l. 44; col. 3 ll. 63–65; col. 5 ll. 39–

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/03/2015
6 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

51; col. 6 ll. 3–12. But unlike the ’042 patent, Gaylord 

does not teach using a hydrophobic, siloxane-based crosslinking agent. See Gaylord col. 6 ll. 3–12.

Ellis discloses a “silicone-containing hard contact lens 

material” that, like Gaylord, can include Tris, MMA, a 

hydrophilic wetting agent, and a hydrophilic cross-linking 

agent, including ethylene glycol dimethacrylate. Ellis 

col. 1 ll. 1–3; col. 3 ll. 7–24; col. 3 ll. 64–68; col. 4 ll. 24–27; 

col. 4 ll. 4–7. Ellis also teaches the inclusion of a fifth 

monomer called an itaconate ester, which “gives increased 

rigidity, hardness and some degree of wettability.” Ellis 

col. 2 ll. 1–3.

Tanaka discloses a polymer suitable for continuouswear contact lenses, and it teaches using a variety of 

cross-linking agents. Like Gaylord and Ellis, Tanaka 

teaches using a hydrophilic compound, including ethylene 

glycol dimethacrylate, as a cross-linking agent. Tanaka 

col. 8 ll. 2–6. But Tanaka also teaches, among other 

things, that using hydrophobic siloxane-based compounds

are preferably employed as cross-linking agents because 

of their ability to enhance oxygen permeability in the 

resulting polymer. Tanaka col. 8 ll. 10–46.

Tanaka differs from Gaylord in that, rather than using Tris, Tanaka teaches using a different siloxane-based 

monomer, containing both hydrophobic alkylsiloxy ester 

groups (siloxane-based groups) and internal hydrophilic

glycerol or polyether groups. See Tanaka col. 2 l. 64 – 

col. 3 l. 5. Tanaka teaches that this replacement for Tristype monomers can be combined with MMA. See Tanaka 

col. 2 l. 64 – col. 3 l. 5; col. 7 ll. 39–41. According to 

Tanaka, this approach is more effective than using Tristype monomers because simply offsetting the hydrophobic 

properties of Tris by copolymerizing it with hydrophilic 

monomers can lead to an “opaque” product, “a fatal defect 

for use as contact lens materials. Therefore, the polymerization ratio of the hydrophilic monomer to the [Tris-type] 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 7

monomer is limited to produce a transparent copolymer . . . .” Tanaka col. 3 ll. 35–40; see also Tanaka 

col. 3 ll. 6–34. Tanaka suggests that alternatively one 

might reduce the number of siloxane-based molecules in 

the polymer to reduce hydrophobicity, but then the oxygen permeability of the resulting polymer becomes too 

low. Tanaka col. 3 ll. 41–45. Tanaka explains that “[i]n 

any case, there cannot be obtained a polymer suited for 

preparing a contact lens which can be comfortably worn 

continuously for a long period of time” when Tris-type 

monomers are employed. Tanaka col. 3 ll. 48–51. 

In the district court action, Dome did not dispute that

the prior art disclosed the compounds recited in claim 1 of 

the ’042 patent. The district court found that a person of 

ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the 

prior art and that the prior art did not teach away from 

the claimed invention, notwithstanding the disclosures in 

Tanaka regarding Tris-type monomers. Additionally, the 

court found that Dome’s proffered evidence of objective 

indicia did not indicate nonobviousness. Accordingly, the

court agreed with the Board’s conclusion that claim 1 is

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

appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(C). 

II

Before reaching Dome’s appeal of the obviousness 

conclusion, we first address Dome’s allegation that the 

district court erred by only requiring the Patent Office to 

show that claim 1 of the ’042 patent is obvious by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than by clear and 

convincing evidence. We conclude that the district court 

correctly applied the preponderance of the evidence 

standard. 

Dome’s appeal arises from an ex parte reexamination 

of the ’042 patent. Ordinarily, the Patent Office in such a 

proceeding must establish by a preponderance of the 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 7 Filed: 09/03/2015
8 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

evidence that the reexamined claims are not patentable. 

Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

If an ex parte reexamination results in the claims being 

rejected as unpatentable, the decision can be appealed

directly to this court. See 35 U.S.C. § 141. 

Alternatively, for ex parte reexaminations filed before 

November 29, 1999, a complaint can be filed in district 

court against the Patent Office. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.303(a) 

(2012); 35 U.S.C. § 145 (“The [district] court may adjudge 

that such applicant is entitled to receive a patent for his 

invention, . . . and such adjudication shall authorize the 

Director to issue such patent . . . .”). “The thrust of such a 

complaint is that the decision of the board is erroneous on 

the facts, the law, or both. Indeed, the board’s decision is 

the jurisdictional base for the suit. . . . [I]t is in essence a 

suit to set aside the final decision of the board.” Fregeau 

v. Mossinghoff, 776 F.2d 1034, 1036–37 (Fed. Cir. 1985).

Accordingly, if the Patent Office decides after an ex 

parte reexamination that a preponderance of the evidence 

establishes the claimed subject matter is not patentable, 

§ 145 authorizes the district court to review whether that 

final decision is correct. The § 145 action in such a case

does not concern the different question of whether, as part 

of a defense to an infringement action, clear and convincing evidence establishes that an issued and asserted

patent should be held invalid. See id. at 1037 (“it cannot 

seriously be contended that a § 145 action is other than 

one to overturn the board’s decision”).

Citing 35 U.S.C. § 282 and Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. 

Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011), Dome argues that the 

district court erred by refusing to hold the Patent Office to 

the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof. 

According to Dome, the presumption of validity in § 282 

applies to its claimed invention because the district court 

action concerns a claim that the Patent Office previously 

allowed to be patented. Accordingly, Dome argues the 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 8 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 9

Supreme Court’s holding that “§ 282 requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clear and convincing evidence,” 

131 S. Ct. at 2242, also applies in Dome’s § 145 action. 

The § 145 action before the district court did not involve a defense to a charge of infringement of an issued 

patent. Section 282 therefore does not apply in this 

instance. See 35 U.S.C. § 282. The district court here was 

reviewing the Patent Office’s reexamination of claimed 

subject matter, and its final determination that the 

subject matter is not patentable, to ascertain whether 

Dome was entitled to receive a patent. Only if the district 

court found in favor of Dome would the Patent Office be 

authorized to issue a patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 145. And 

only after the patent issued would it be entitled to the 

presumption of validity under § 282 and, consequently, 

could not be held invalid absent clear and convincing 

evidence. 

The clear and convincing evidence standard in the litigation context “stems from our suggestion that the party 

challenging a patent in court ‘bears the added burden of 

overcoming the deference that is due to a qualified government agency presumed to have done its job.’” Sciele 

Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd., 684 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 

2012) (quoting PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v. ViaCell, 

Inc., 491 F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). But “[i]n 

reexamination proceedings, ‘a preponderance of the 

evidence must show nonpatentability before the [Patent 

Office] may reject the claims of a patent application.’” 

Rambus, 731 F.3d at 1255 (quoting Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 

849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). This standard is 

“substantially lower than in a civil case, . . . [and] there is 

no presumption of validity.” In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 

1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). 

“[A]n examiner is not attacking the validity of a patent, but is conducting a subjective examination of claims 

in the light of prior art.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857–58 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 9 Filed: 09/03/2015
10 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

(Fed. Cir. 1985); see also id. at 857 (“litigation and reexamination are distinct proceedings, with distinct parties, 

purposes, procedures, and outcomes”). When the Patent 

Office institutes ex parte reexamination, it reopens prosecution to determine whether the claimed subject matter

should have been allowed in the first place. At that point,

there is no need to presume that the Patent Office had 

“done its job” in the previous examination. Accordingly, 

the presumption of validity is no longer applicable.

Our conclusion aligns with the purpose of the reexamination process, which includes allowing the Patent Office

to take a second look at “patents thought ‘doubtful.’” In re 

Etter, 756 F.2d at 857 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 66-1307, at

3–4 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6460, 6462). 

“In a very real sense, the intent underlying reexamination 

is to ‘start over’” in the Patent Office. Id. We would

hinder this intent if we required the district court here to 

presume that the reexamined claim is valid because of the 

Patent Office’s previous determination and, consequently,

to impose a burden to defend its own subsequent reexamination decision by clear and convincing evidence. Thus, 

the district court did not err by requiring the Patent 

Office to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

reexamined claim is obvious.

III 

We now address the district court’s obviousness determinations. A patent may not issue “if the differences 

between the subject matter sought to be patented and the 

prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole 

would have been obvious at the time the invention was 

made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 

U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006).2 Obviousness is a question of law 

2 Because the application for the ’042 patent was 

filed before March 16, 2013, the pre-Leahy-Smith America 

 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 10 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 11

based on underlying factual findings, including: “(1) the 

scope and content of prior art; (2) differences between 

prior art and claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the 

art; and (4) objective indicia of nonobviousness.” Par

Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 

U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)). We review the ultimate conclusion 

of obviousness de novo and the underlying factual findings for clear error. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 

F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

A 

If all elements of a claim are found in the prior art, as 

is the case here, the factfinder must further consider the 

factual questions of whether a person of ordinary skill in 

the art would be motivated to combine those references, 

and whether in making that combination, a person of 

ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of 

success. Id. at 1164. The Supreme Court has cautioned, 

however, that an obviousness determination cannot be 

confined by formalistic rules. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex 

Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Rather, courts must take 

an “expansive and flexible approach” to the question of 

obviousness. Id. at 415.

Evidence of a motivation to combine prior art references may flow from “‘the nature of the problem to be 

solved.’” Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 

1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Ruiz v. A.B. Chance 

Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, the 

record supports the district court’s finding that a person 

of ordinary skill understood that high oxygen permeability in contact-lens materials was desirable. And this 

understanding would have motivated a person of ordinary 

Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), 

version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 applies.

 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 11 Filed: 09/03/2015
12 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

skill to combine the Tris monomer disclosed in Gaylord 

with the Tris-type cross-linking agent disclosed in Tanaka

to increase the oxygen permeability of a contact lens. 

Gaylord, for example, teaches that the previously 

used contact-lens material, PMMA, is rigid and durable 

but relatively impermeable to oxygen. Gaylord col. 1

ll. 24–30. Gaylord explained it would be “highly desirable” to provide a contact-lens material that has “increased 

oxygen permeability, is wettable,” and has improved 

mechanical properties. Gaylord col. 1 ll. 39–44. To meet 

that need, Gaylord discloses using siloxane-based compounds, including Tris-type monomers. See Gaylord col. 1

ll. 44–51; col. 2 ll. 32–44. Similarly, Ellis teaches that 

oxygen permeability is “directly related” to the silicone 

content in contact lenses. Ellis col. 1 ll. 29–30. And 

Tanaka explains that contact lenses with poor oxygen 

permeability would make it “impossible to wear them 

continuously for a long period of time.” Tanaka col. 1 ll.

30–32. Tanaka therefore “preferably employed” siloxanebased cross-linking agents, including some that are

hydrophobic, because the oxygen permeabilities of the 

obtained cross-linked copolymers are high. Tanaka col. 8

ll. 10–46.

The testimonies from Dome’s experts also support the 

district court’s conclusion. Dr. Mark Melamed testified 

that “it’s essential that there be an adequate flow of 

oxygen either through the lens or around the lens.” J.A. 

1805; see also J.A. 1804–05 (“it’s essential that there be a 

constant flow of oxygen to the entry surface of the cornea 

in order for a contact lens to be worn safely for a period of 

time”). A “chief” issue during Dr. Melamed’s practice was 

“the ability to get oxygen across a contact lens,” while 

“maintaining a nice even tear film over the contact lens 

and over the cornea,” i.e., hydrophilicity, was considered a 

“secondary problem” related to contact lens comfort levels. 

J.A. 1807. And another of Dome’s experts, Dr. Timothy 

Long, testified that those in the field were turning to 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 12 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 13

siloxane-based compounds to enhance a polymer’s oxygen 

permeability. See J.A. 1746 (“It has great oxygen permeability. It’s one of the big driving forces for people in the 

contact lens field to use it.”). Accordingly, the district 

court did not clearly err in finding that the evidence 

disclosed a motivation to combine the prior art.

B 

Dome argues that a person of ordinary skill would not 

have been motivated to combine Gaylord with Tanaka 

because the prior art teaches away from using Tris with 

siloxane-based cross-linking agents. To improve Gaylord’s disclosures, Dome asserts, a person of ordinary skill 

would have been inclined to introduce hydrophilic crosslinking agents, instead of hydrophobic siloxane-based

cross-linking agents, to offset the hydrophobicity of Tris, 

but Tanaka warned against this approach. As an alternative, Tanaka suggested designing a new amphiphilic or 

hydrophilic monomer to replace Tris altogether. 

“[W]hen the prior art teaches away from combining 

certain known elements, discovery of a successful means 

of combining them is more likely to be nonobvious.” KSR, 

550 U.S. at 416. A reference teaches away from a claimed 

invention when a person of ordinary skill, “upon reading 

the reference, would be discouraged from following the 

path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

But “[t]he degree of teaching away will of course depend 

on the particular facts.” Id.; see also id. (“A known or 

obvious composition does not become patentable simply 

because it has been described as somewhat inferior to 

some other product for the same use.”). And “there is no 

rule that a single reference that teaches away will mandate a finding of nonobviousness.” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 

1165; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“Rigid preventative 

rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense . . . 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 13 Filed: 09/03/2015
14 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent 

with it.”). Additionally, just because “better alternatives” 

may exist in the prior art “does not mean that an inferior 

combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.” In re 

Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing 

Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553).

Here, Tanaka discloses potential disadvantages associated with using Tris-type monomers. It explains that, 

outside of certain unspecified limits, if hydrophilic monomers are copolymerized with hydrophobic Tris-type 

monomers to offset hydrophobicity, the copolymer “is 

liable to become opaque.” Tanaka col. 3 ll. 6–36. Tanaka 

explains that opacity is a “fatal defect” for the copolymer’s 

use as a material for contact lenses, and thus offsetting 

hydrophobic Tris-type monomers with hydrophilic monomers “is limited.” Tanaka col. 3 ll. 36–41. Tanaka does 

not further identify the mentioned limits, but it goes on to 

disclose an alternative for Tris-type monomers. See 

Tanaka col. 3 ll. 52–59. 

The record, however, supports the district court’s finding that other prior art references disclose roadmaps on 

how to offset the disadvantages associated with using 

Tris-type monomers to obtain a material suitable for 

contact lenses. 

Ellis acknowledges that “[i]t has been difficult to obtain high oxygen permeability while still maintaining 

other properties . . . when oxygen permeability is derived 

from the silicone content” in a polymer. Ellis col. 1 ll. 30–

34. Ellis then teaches how to effectively overcome this 

difficulty without compromising the resulting material’s 

clarity. Ellis teaches several examples of using Tris with 

hydrophilic monomers in varying concentrations and 

concludes that “[i]n all cases, the polymers are optically 

clear and meet required standards of contact lenses.” 

Ellis col. 7 ll. 15–17; see also id. col. 5 l. 50 – col. 7 l. 13; id.

col. 7 ll. 19–21. Ellis also discloses that “many variations 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 14 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 15

are possible within the scope of keeping the physical 

properties,” stating that “[f]or example, two or more 

siloxanyl alkyl ester monomers can be used instead of a 

single such monomer for that component of the system.” 

Ellis col. 7 ll. 30–36.

Gaylord similarly acknowledges the issues identified 

by Tanaka and then sets out a solution, one that does not

compromise the resulting polymer’s use as a material for 

contact lenses. Gaylord teaches that “[w]hile some of the 

copolymers are inherently wettable by human tears, it 

may be necessary to improve the wettability of others.” 

Gaylord col. 5 ll. 39–41. For example, “wettability can be 

imparted to the copolymer by the addition of from about 

0.1% to about 10% by weight of one or more hydrophilic 

monomers to the copolymerization mixture” or by other 

treatments, including corona discharge, oxidizing, or 

soaking in aqueous solutions. Id. col. 5 ll. 42–58. Gaylord

also lists examples “illustrat[ing] the preparation and 

properties of copolymers containing varying proportions of 

a siloxanyl monomer, [MMA], and a hydrophilic monomer 

(hydroxyethyl methacrylate).” Gaylord col. 9 l. 67 – 

col. 10 l. 2. Many of these examples resulted in “transparent” materials. See Ellis col. 9 l. 66 – col. 10 l. 24. 

The district court found that while Tanaka warns that 

constructing a lens with Tris-type materials can be difficult, the other two references plainly teach that Tris could 

be used effectively to make contact lenses. Accordingly, 

the district court concluded that a person of ordinary skill 

would not have been dissuaded from combining the prior 

art, particularly in light of Gaylord and Ellis. The record 

supports these factual findings. 

While Dome’s argument that the claimed subject matter would not have been obvious in light of Tanaka’s 

disclosures is plausible, “[t]he burden of overcoming the 

district court’s factual findings is, as it should be, a heavy

one.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 15 Filed: 09/03/2015
16 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

1556, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Our standard of review 

requires that we uphold the district court’s factual findings on this point, rather than revisiting them de novo. In 

this case, the district court did not clearly err in finding a 

person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to 

combine the identified prior art to arrive at the claimed 

invention, notwithstanding Tanaka’s disclosures regarding Tris-type compounds. 

C 

Dome also challenges the district court’s handling of 

evidence relating to objective indicia of nonobviousness. 

Dome argues first that the district court erred by improperly shifting the burden onto Dome to prove nonobviousness once the Patent Office established a prima facie case 

of obviousness. 

While we have held that a district court has erred “by 

making its finding that the patents in suit were obvious 

before it considered the objective considerations and by 

shifting the burden of persuasion to [the patentee],” In re 

Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule 

Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the 

legal framework used by the district court in this case was 

not improper. 

Before reaching its ultimate conclusion of obviousness, the district court first considered whether the Patent Office had demonstrated that a person of ordinary 

skill would have been motivated to combine the compounds recited in claim 1 of the ’042 patent and that there 

would have been a reasonable expectation of success. The 

court also considered whether the prior art taught away 

from the claimed invention. After finding in favor of the 

Patent Office on these points, the court agreed with Dome 

that a product, the Boston IV contact lens, embodies claim 

1 of the ’042 patent and that the Boston IV contact lens

achieved some commercial success. Nevertheless, the 

court found that the evidence relating to the Boston IV 

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 16 Filed: 09/03/2015
DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE 17

contact lens was not particularly strong. Next, after 

considering the parties’ arguments and making the relevant findings of fact, the court concluded that claim 1 of 

the ’042 patent is obvious as a matter of law. Indeed, the 

court’s opinion, when read as a whole, shows that the 

court considered and made factual findings on all evidence relating to objective indicia before reaching its 

ultimate conclusion on obviousness. 

Dome also argues that the district court erred by refusing to consider Dome’s proffer of evidence relating to

objective indicia of nonobviousness. We have consistently 

stated that “all evidence pertaining to the objective indicia of nonobviousness must be considered before reaching 

an obviousness conclusion.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, 

Inc.,724 F.3d 1343, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The district 

court here did not refuse to consider Dome’s evidence. 

Rather, the court found that Dome was entitled to a 

presumption that the commercial success of the Boston IV 

contact lens relates to the claimed invention. Nonetheless, the court found that the evidence was “not particularly strong.” J.A. 57. The court also gave “little weight” 

to testimony relating to the reasons for the Boston IV 

contact lens’s commercial success. J.A. 6 n.4. Moreover, 

the court found that Dome’s own expert testified that the 

commercial success of the Boston IV contact lens was in 

part due to other economic and commercial factors not 

related to the allegedly novel aspects of the claimed 

invention. Dome does not challenge these findings.

After having accepted all evidence relating to the four

Graham factors—including evidence relating to commercial success—the district weighed the evidence and then 

made findings of fact. Only after considering all of the 

evidence did the court reach its obviousness conclusion. 

Thus, we conclude that the court did not err in its consideration of the evidence relating to objective indicia of 

nonobviousness.

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 17 Filed: 09/03/2015
18 DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE

IV

We have considered Dome’s remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. Because the district court did 

not commit reversible error in its determination that the 

claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a 

person of ordinary skill during the relevant time period, 

we affirm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1673 Document: 36-2 Page: 18 Filed: 09/03/2015