Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01562/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01562-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Man Machine Interface Technologies LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE 

TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1562

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/012,469.

______________________ 

Decided: April 19, 2016

______________________ 

KELLY W. CUNNINGHAM, Cislo & Thomas LLP, Los 

Angeles, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

DANIEL M. CISLO. 

JEREMIAH HELM, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for 

appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by THOMAS W.

KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

Man Machine Interface Technologies (“Man Machine”) 

appeals the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

(“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 

7–10, and 17 of Man Machine’s U.S. Patent No. 6,069,614 

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/19/2016
2 IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC

(“ ’614 patent”). For the reasons below, we affirm-in-part, 

reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand. 

BACKGROUND

Man Machine’s ’614 patent, titled “Man Machine Interface via Display Peripheral” is directed to a remote 

control device for making selections on television or 

computer screens. Claim 1 requires that the body of the 

device be “adapted to be held by the human hand.” 

Claim 1 also requires a multi-function “thumb switch 

being adapted for activation by a human thumb.” The 

thumb switch, which controls cursor movement and object 

selection on the screen, includes an annular switch (4) 

including four switches that surround a center switch (3), 

as shown below in Figure 2A. 

’614 patent Fig. 2A. 

Claim 1, which is representative of the challenged 

claims, reads as follows:

1. A remote control device adapted for use by a 

human to control and select from a screen, the 

screen including a plurality of choices and a cursor, the remote control device comprising: 

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/19/2016
IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC 3

a body adapted to be held by the human hand, 

the body having a top side and a bottom side; 

a thumb switch positioned on the top side of 

the body, the thumb switch being adapted for activation by a human thumb, the thumb switch being adapted to perform multiple functions; 

wherein the thumb switch includes a center 

switch, an annular switch, and a cover plate, the 

annular switch including only four switches and 

the cover plate covers the four switches, wherein 

the annular switch surrounds the center switch, 

the annular switch being adapted to operate independently from the center switch; 

wherein the annular switch is adapted to effect movement of the cursor between the plurality 

of choices and the center switch is adapted to effect selection of one of the choices identified by the 

cursor; 

electronic means adapted to generate a signal 

upon activation of one of the switches; and

transmitting means for transmitting the signal from the electronic means.

’614 patent (reexamination certificate) col. 1 ll. 26–45

(emphases added). 

A third party requested ex parte reexamination of the 

’614 patent, which the PTO granted. The examiner 

rejected the claims as anticipated and obvious, relying 

primarily on Japanese Patent No. 58-219634 (“JP ’634”), 

which, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, discloses a deskbound mouse. JP ’634 further discloses a “cursor locking 

key” surrounded by four “cursor moving keys” operable by 

a user’s finger to control cursor movement on a screen. 

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/19/2016
4 IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC

JP ’634 Figs. 1, 2. 

The examiner construed the claim term “adapted to be 

held by the human hand” in the ’614 patent broadly to 

include various “forms of grasp or grasping by a user’s 

hand,” such as the grasping of the mouse disclosed in 

JP ’634. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 2426. The examiner 

similarly interpreted the claim term “thumb switch” 

broadly, as “merely requir[ing] that a switch . . . be capable of being enabled/activated by a thumb but . . . not 

preclud[ing] another digit, i.e. index finger.” J.A. 2428. 

Based on this broad claim interpretation, the examiner 

rejected claim 1 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 

over JP ’634 and claims 1, 4, 7–10, and 17 as obvious 

under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by JP ’634 in combination with one 

or more secondary references.1 Man Machine appealed to 

the Board, which affirmed the examiner’s rejections. The 

Board held that (1) the claim term “adapted to be held by 

the human hand” did not exclude various forms of grasp 

by the human hand, including grasping of a desk-bound 

mouse; and (2) the claim term “thumb switch” did not 

exclude switch activation by another digit or item such as 

 

1 Given the effective filing date of the claims of the 

’614 patent, the versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that 

apply here are those in force preceding the changes made 

by the America Invents Act. See Leahy–Smith America

Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 293 

(2011).

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/19/2016
IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC 5

a pen “so long as the switch of the device is capable of 

being enabled by a user’s thumb.” J.A. 10. In so holding,

the Board emphasized that “Appellant has not cited to a 

definition of ‘a body adapted to be held by the human 

hand’ or ‘thumb switch’ in the Specification that would 

preclude the Examiner’s broader reading.” J.A. 11. This 

appeal followed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A). 

DISCUSSION

A. Claim Construction

“[W]e review the Board’s ultimate claim constructions 

de novo and its underlying factual determinations involving extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence.” Prolitec, 

Inc. v. Scentair Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1358 

(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Teva Pharm. U.S.A., Inc. v. 

Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841–42 (2015)). In this case, 

“because the intrinsic record fully determines the proper 

construction, we review the Board’s claim constructions 

de novo.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 

1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In reexamination, claims are 

given their broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) 

consistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 

F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “While the Board must 

give the terms their broadest reasonable construction, the 

construction cannot be divorced from the specification and 

the record evidence.” In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 

(Fed. Cir. 2011). 

We have noted that the phrase “adapted to” generally 

means “made to,” “designed to,” or “configured to,” though 

it can also be used more broadly to mean “capable of” or 

“suitable for.” In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon 

Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (referencing dictionaries)). Here, “adapted to,” as used in the 

’614 claims and specification, has the narrower meaning, 

viz., that the claimed remote control device is made or 

designed to be held in the human hand and the thumb 

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/19/2016
6 IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC

switch is made or designed for activation by a human 

thumb. 

The ’614 specification describes how the body of the 

remote control device is preferably elongated and rounded 

to be held in the hand. See ’614 patent col. 2 ll. 29–31, 

id. col. 6 ll. 5–7, id. Figs. 1, 2A. It further describes how 

the hand “with the help of palm and its fingers grips the 

Remote control device body.” Id. col. 7 ll. 34–35. The 

specification also discusses that “the index finger switch is 

positioned on the opposite side of the thumb switch, to 

naturally align with the index finger position when the 

remote control device is held in the hand.” Id. col. 2

ll. 35–38. 

Moreover, the specification expressly distinguishes 

the remote control device from a desk-bound device like 

the one disclosed in JP ’634. The Summary of the Invention touts that “a user would employ a casual and relaxed 

attitude as the remote control device is not desk [bound] 

and therefore position bound by where it is placed on the 

desk.” Id. col. 4 ll. 33–36. Rather, it is “conveniently held 

in user’s left or right hand,” where it is “thus free to be 

held and moved around.” Id. col. 4 ll. 37–39. Continuing, 

the Summary of the Invention states that the benefits of 

the invention include “ease of use as the device is not desk 

bound, while being used or not used, [and] therefore can 

be kept and held in more user convenient positions and 

postures.” Id. col. 4 ll. 41–43. The broadest reasonable 

interpretation of a claim term cannot be so broad as to 

include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the specification. 

Based on the language in the specification, we reject 

the Board’s unreasonably broad construction and construe 

“adapted to be held by the human hand” to mean “designed or made to be held by the human hand.” The 

proper understanding of “adapted to be held by the human hand” would not include gripping a desk-bound

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 6 Filed: 04/19/2016
IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC 7

device such as, for example, the desk-bound mouse disclosed in JP ’634.

Similarly, we reject the Board’s overly broad construction of “thumb switch being adapted for activation by the 

human thumb.” Claim 1 expressly requires a thumb

switch, not a finger switch; the Board’s construction 

ignores the term “thumb” in “thumb switch.” And the 

claim goes on to further require that the thumb switch be 

“adapted for activation by a human thumb.” ’614 patent 

(reexamination certificate) col. 1 ll. 32–33. 

The Board also erred by not interpreting “thumb 

switch” in light of the specification. This court’s cases on 

BRI make clear that the proper BRI construction is not 

just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest 

reasonable construction in light of the specification. 

Proxyconn, 789 F.3d at 1298 (“A construction that is 

unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably reflect 

the plain language and disclosure will not pass muster.” 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Here, 

the Summary of the Invention states that the thumb 

switch is a “slightly bigger than thumb size circle or oval 

that is contoured to the contours of a thumb.” ’614 patent

col. 2 ll. 3–5. The specification repeatedly refers to the 

multi-function switch as a “thumb switch.” See, e.g., 

id. col. 6 ll. 13–17, 29–65. The specification further states 

that the multi-function thumb switch is sized “such that it 

enables a human thumb to activate by pushing one or 

other of the switch’s functions without physically separating the thumb from the multi-function switch.” Id. col. 5 

l. 67 – col. 6 l. 4. And the specification repeatedly refers 

to pressure applied to the thumb switch as “thumb pressure.” See, e.g., id. col. 2 ll. 8–13, 14–26, id. col. 8 ll. 44–

49. Activation of the switch by another finger is simply 

not contemplated by the ’614 patent’s written description. 

The Board’s broad construction of “thumb switch being adapted for activation by a human thumb” as being 

merely capable of activation by a human thumb is unreaCase: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 7 Filed: 04/19/2016
8 IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC

sonable in view of the specification’s clear teaching that 

the patentee intended a narrower meaning. As we have 

explained, “[a]bove all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims and 

specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical 

Commc’ns RF, LLC, No. 2015-1364, 2016 WL 692369, at 

*5 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016). Thus we reject the Board’s 

unreasonable construction, instead construing “thumb 

switch being adapted for activation by a human thumb” in 

view of the specification to mean “thumb switch being

made or designed for activation by a human thumb.” 

B. Anticipation

A patent is invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 102 if a single prior art reference discloses each and 

every limitation of the claimed invention. Schering Corp.

v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

JP ’634, teaching a desk-bound device with a switch 

activated by a user’s palm or finger, does not disclose the 

properly construed claim limitations “adapted to be held 

by the human hand” and “thumb switch being adapted for 

activation by a human thumb.” Because the Board’s 

anticipation rejection was based on erroneous claim 

constructions and the rejection is not supported under the 

proper constructions, we reverse the Board’s finding that 

JP ’634 anticipates claim 1 of Man Machine’s ’614 patent. 

C. Obviousness

The examiner also rejected the claims as obvious over 

JP ’634 combined with one or more prior art references. 

The only combination before us on appeal is U.S. Patent 

No. 5,594,509 (“Florin”) in view of JP ’634, so we limit our 

review to that combination. As depicted below in Figure 1, Florin discloses a hand-held remote control device 

with a thumb switch that is used to select images on a 

screen.

 

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 8 Filed: 04/19/2016
IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC 9

Florin Fig. 1 (in part). 

As the examiner properly found, Florin discloses a 

remote control body that is held by a human user. Florin 

also teaches a center button activated by a human thumb. 

While Florin’s thumb switch may not include the claimed 

“annular switch including only four switches and the 

cover plate cover[ing] the four switches,” JP ’634 discloses 

an annular switch made of four switches covered by a 

cover plate that controls cursor movement. A1720–21. 

The examiner relied on evidence from the request for 

reexamination showing a motivation to combine Florin 

and JP ’634: “In the same field of endeavor of interactive 

cursor controls, . . . the combination of JP ’634 with Florin 

is no more than a known base system (Florin) combined 

with a known improvement . . . .” J.A. 1721–22. Man 

Machine, however, did not introduce or rely on objective 

indicia of nonobviousness. See Oral Argument at 3:53–

4:28, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.us 

courts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2015–1562.mp3 (conceding 

that patentee did not rely on objective considerations of 

nonobviousness). 

Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying 

factual findings that are reviewed for substantial evidence, including what a reference teaches and whether 

there would have been sufficient motivation to combine 

the prior art. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 

(Fed. Cir. 2012). Even under the proper, narrower conCase: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 9 Filed: 04/19/2016
10 IN RE: MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TECHS. LLC

struction of “adapted to be held by the human hand” and 

“thumb switch adapted for activation by a human thumb,”

substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual findings 

underlying its obviousness determination. Based on these 

factual findings, we agree that claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 

would have been obvious over the combination of Florin 

and JP ’634. Therefore, we affirm the obviousness rejection made in view of Florin and JP ’634.2 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, we reverse the Board’s anticipation rejection based on improper claim constructions. 

Even as properly construed, however, we affirm the 

Board’s determination that claims 1, 4, 8, and 10 would 

have been obvious over Florin in view of JP ’634. We 

vacate and remand the obviousness rejections of claims 7, 

9, and 17 for proceedings consistent with this opinion, and 

in particular, for determination of whether those claims 

would have been obvious under the correct claim constructions. 

AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, 

VACATED-IN-PART, REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

 

2 We cannot consider the obviousness rejections of 

claims 7, 9, and 17 because neither party introduced those 

arguments on appeal besides challenging the claim constructions on which they are based. Accordingly, we 

vacate those rejections and remand for the Board to 

consider the obviousness rejections of claims 7, 9, and 17 

in view of the correct claim constructions.

Case: 15-1562 Document: 45-2 Page: 10 Filed: 04/19/2016