Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01299/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01299-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Orbital Technologies Corporation
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

______________________ 

2014-1298, -1299

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination Nos. 90/011,864 and 90/011,865. 

______________________ 

Decided: January 20, 2015

______________________ 

HEATHER D. REDMOND, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, of 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for appellant. With her 

on the brief was NATHANIEL P. LONGLEY. 

 JEREMIAH S. HELM, Associate Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, 

argued for appellee. With him on the brief were NATHAN 

K. KELLEY, Solicitor, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Deputy Solicitor, and FARHEENA Y. RASHEED, Associate Solicitor. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, CLEVENGER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

Patent owner Orbital Technologies Corporation (“Orbital”) appeals from two decisions of the Patent Trial and 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/20/2015
2 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

Appeal Board (“Board”) of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (“PTO”) affirming the examiner’s 

rejection of all claims of two related patents for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Ex parte Orbital Techs. 

Corp., No. 2013-4262, Reexamination No. 90/011,864, 

2013 WL 1289496 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013) [hereinafter 

’018 Board Decision]; Ex parte Orbital Techs. Corp., No. 

2013-4264, Reexamination No. 90/011,865, 2013 WL 

1289497 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013) [hereinafter ’008 Board 

Decision]. The same examiner conducted both reexaminations. We consolidated the cases for argument and now 

address them together. In re Orbital Techs. Corp., No. 

2014-1298 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2014) (order consolidating 

for oral argument); In re Orbital Techs. Corp., No. 2014-

1299 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2014) (same). 

Orbital challenges both the examiner’s use of a machine translation of the key prior art reference that was 

not provided to Orbital before the close of reexamination 

and the obviousness rejections.

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

Because Orbital waived any claims arising from the 

examiner’s use of the machine translation when it did not 

accept his offer to reopen reexamination with the translation on the record, and because the Board did not err in 

finding that the patents’ claims would have been obvious 

to a person of ordinary skill in the art, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

I 

This appeal arose from the separate ex parte reexaminations of two related patents, Reexamination No. 

90/011,864 of U.S. Patent No. 7,220,018 B2 (filed Dec. 15, 

2004) (“the ’018 patent”) and Reexamination No. 

90/011,865 of its continuation U.S. Patent No. 7,473,008 

B2 (filed Mar. 22, 2007) (“the ’008 patent”). Both patents 

are entitled “Marine LED Lighting System and Method” 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/20/2015
IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 3

and are directed to a method and apparatus of lighting an 

open-top marine habitat using an LED lighting system. 

A. The ’018 Patent

The ’018 patent issued on May 22, 2007 from an application that claims priority to December 15, 2003. It has 

eight claims, of which claims 1 and 5 are independent.

Claim 1 is representative of the issues on appeal:

1. A combination marine habitat and lighting system therefor comprising:

a marine habitat having an open top defined by a 

top edge and

a lighting system including:

a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when 

said housing is connected to said top edge and an 

opposite outer side;

an LED light source mounted to the inner side of 

said housing, said LED light source comprising at 

least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm;

a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs;

a controller connected with said power source for 

controlling the activation status and the intensity 

of one or more of said individual LEDs; and

a cooling system provided in said housing. 

B. The ’008 Patent

The ’008 patent issued on January 6, 2009 from a continuation of the application that led to the ’018 patent and 

claims priority to the same date. A terminal disclaimer 

limits it to the ’018 patent’s term.

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/20/2015
4 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

The ’008 patent is subject to a prior ex parte reexamination, Reexamination No. 90/009,662, in which the 

examiner proposed to reject all eighteen issued claims as 

anticipated or obvious. Ex Parte Reexamination Non-Final 

Office Action, Reexamination No. 90/009,662 (Nov. 16, 

2010). In response, the patent owner amended independent claims 1 and 15 to add a limitation to “cooling means 

for dissipating heat generated by the LED light source,” 

and claims 2 and 8 to add limitations not relevant here. 

The examiner found claims 1-7 and 15-18 patentable as 

amended based on the conclusion that the prior art did 

not disclose or make obvious the cooling means limitation. 

Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination Certificate, 

Reexamination No. 90/009,662 (July 1, 2011). The examiner also rejected claims 8-14, which the patentee then 

cancelled.

Following the prior reexamination, the ’008 patent recites claims 1-7 and 15-18, of which claims 1 and 15 are 

independent. Claim 1 is representative: 

1. A combination marine habitat and lighting system, comprising:

a marine habitat having an open top defined by a 

top edge; and

a lighting system comprising:

a housing connectable to the top edge to substantially cover the open top, the housing including an 

inner side facing the open top when the housing is 

disposed over the top edge, and an opposite outer 

side; and

an LED light source mounted to the inner side of 

the housing, the LED light source comprising at 

least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm. 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/20/2015
IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 5

II

A. Tomofuji 

The key prior art reference is Japanese Patent No. 9-

308409 A to Tomofuji, published December 2, 1997 

(“Tomofuji”). Tomofuji teaches a cooling device for an 

aquarium lighting system.

Its original text is in Japanese with accompanying 

numbered figures. Two translations of its text are relevant in these proceedings: an English translation of its 

abstract (“the Abstract Translation”), and a machine 

translation of its full text (“the Machine Translation”).

The Abstract Translation describes Tomofuji’s teaching as follows, with reference to the accompanying Figure 

1:

PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide the subject cooling device so designed that, even if the 

temperature inside the cover of an illuminator 

mounted on an aquarium fish basin rises abnormally high due to e.g. lighting of an illuminating 

lamp, the heated air is forcedly exhausted out of 

the cover to always keep the temperature inside 

the cover so as to prevent illuminator damage 

and/or fire accident.

SOLUTION: This cooling device has such scheme 

that the upper surface of an illuminator cover 3 

mounted on the top of an aquarium fish basin 1 is 

provided with an air releasing portion 11 comprising many vents 12, the reverse side of the air releasing portion 11 is equipped with a fan motor, 

and the heated air generated inside the cover 3 

due to e.g. lighting of an illuminating lamp is exhausted through the air releasing portion 11 out 

of the clover 3 by the revolution of the fan motor.

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/20/2015
6 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

Tomofuji’s full Japanese text includes this and seven 

other figures.

The Machine Translation is a full-text translation of 

Tomofuji that was done by a computer and is available for 

free online through the Japan Patent Office. See Industrial Property Digital Library, http://www.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/

homepg_e.ipdl (search the Patent and Utility Model 

Gazette Database for kind code “A” and number “1997-

308409”). It opens with a disclaimer about its accuracy 

and does not translate all words in the patent, instead 

substituting a placeholder. The Machine Translation is 

frequently ungrammatical and poorly punctuated, which 

renders its teaching difficult to follow.

B. Other References 

Six other prior art references were relied upon below: 

(1) Kuiper et al., PCT Application WO 91/18970 (Dec. 12, 

1991) (“Kuiper”); (2) Ignatius et al., U.S. Patent No. 

5,278,432 (filed Aug. 27, 1992) (“Ignatius”); (3) Lebens et 

al., U.S. Patent No. 6,305,818 (filed July 28, 2000); (4) 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/20/2015
IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 7

Janssen et al., Photosynthetic Efficiency of Dunaliella 

Tertiolecta Under Short Light/Dark Cycles, 29 Enzyme & 

Microbial Tech. 298-305 (2001); (5) Tazawa et al, Japanese Patent No. H10-162609 (published June 19, 1998); 

and (6) Masuda et al., Japanese Patent No. 6-319410

(published Nov. 22, 1994), which is cited only in the 

reexamination of the ’008 patent.

On appeal Orbital challenges Board conclusions based 

on Kuiper and Ignatius. Kuiper describes “a method of 

cultivating a phototrophic aquatic organism in an aqueous environment” in which illumination provides energy 

to the organism. Kuiper at 1 ll.1-7. It teaches that LEDs 

are a preferred light source because they “save an enormous amount of energy in comparison with normal 

sources of artificial light,” id. at 4 ll.14-19, and that they 

can be arranged in many configurations and used either 

inside or outside the aqueous environment, id. at 7 ll.14-

29.

Ignatius is directed to an “apparatus for providing radiant energy to enhance and test plant growth” that 

preferably uses LED arrays stored in modular housings. 

Ignatius at col.1 ll.5-10. It teaches that LEDs and fluorescent lamps can be substituted for each other, id. at col.3 

ll.34-38, and describes LEDs’ advantages over fluorescent 

lamps, including that they achieve “minimal heat output” 

for the amount of light provided, id. at col.2 ll.62-65. 

Ignatius also teaches the use of “air vents” and an “internal fan” as part of a system that dissipates heat generated 

within the housing by the LED array. Id. at col.4 l.64-col.5 

l.12.

III

A. Ex Parte Reexamination 

Two anonymous requests for ex parte reexamination 

were filed on August 17, 2011, one seeking reexamination 

of claims 1-8 of the ’018 patent, and the other reexaminaCase: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/20/2015
8 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

tion of claims 1-7 and 15-18 of the ’008 patent. Every 

substantial new question of patentability (“SNQ”) and 

ground for rejection in the requests relied on Tomofuji in 

combination with other references.

Neither request provided an English translation of 

Tomofuji’s full text. Instead, the requests included the 

Abstract Translation and Tomofuji’s original Japanese 

text, with accompanying figures. They discussed Tomofuji 

using only these materials. 

On August 29, 2011, the examiner obtained the Machine Translation of Tomofuji’s full text from the Japan 

Patent Office’s website, which he later acknowledged

relying on throughout the proceedings. The examiner then 

found that both requests raised an SNQ as to all challenged claims and accordingly instituted an ex parte 

reexamination of each patent. 

The SNQ determination for the ’018 patent stated 

that an “English Translation [of Tomofuji] is provided 

herewith,” Order Granting Request for Ex Parte Reexamination, Reexamination No. 90/011,864 (Sept. 8, 2011). The 

SNQ determination for the ’008 patent, which issued 

second, did not include this statement. The Machine 

Translation was not attached to either determination, and 

they do not otherwise directly reference Tomofuji’s full 

text.1 Orbital did not challenge either SNQ determination.

The examiner then issued Non-Final Rejections rejecting all claims under reexamination as obvious over 

Tomofuji in combination with other references. For sup1 Both SNQ determinations discuss Tomofuji by citing only to its figures. They name parts of the figures that 

the Abstract Translation does not define—the “housing 2,” 

“light sources 4,” and “cooling fan 21”—without explaining 

the names’ source.

 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/20/2015
IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 9

port the examiner cited specific paragraphs of Tomofuji’s 

full text as well as its figures.2

Orbital traversed all rejections. Its response in the 

’018 patent’s reexamination “note[d] that the Office Action 

relies on paragraphs 0001 to 0006 for rejections and no 

translation of these paragraphs has been made available.” 

Orbital did not otherwise discuss the examiner’s use of 

Tomofuji’s full text. 

The examiner then issued a Final Rejection of all 

claims in both reexaminations. When discussing Tomofuji, 

he once again cited its full text and figures.

B. Appeal to the Board

Orbital appealed both reexaminations to the Board on 

June 20, 2012. In addition to challenging the obviousness 

rejections, its appeal briefs noted that neither the requestor nor the examiner had provided it with a translation of 

Tomofuji’s full text. Orbital argued for the first time that 

these omissions rendered both the SNQ determinations 

and the rejections invalid. 

On September 4, 2012, the examiner and counsel for 

Orbital discussed the translation’s omission. The examin2 In the action for the ’018 patent, the examiner 

frequently cited paragraphs 1 through 6 of Tomofuji’s text 

as teaching a marine habitat and lighting system designed to prevent overheating the water, and once referred to paragraph 6 as teaching means to maintain the 

water at an appropriate temperature. In the action for the 

’008 patent, the examiner several times cited paragraph 

15 as showing cooling means by which a fan pushed 

heated air out of the housing, and paragraph 3 as teaching that the light source can be set at a level sufficient to 

support marine growth.

 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/20/2015
10 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

er filed an interview summary describing their conversation as follows:

Mr. Longley was telephoned regarding a procedural oversight in not providing a translation of 

the Tomofuji reference. This translation was inadvertently not provided to Patent Owner or 

placed into the file history even though one was 

obtained by Examiner during prosecution. Examiner asked Mr. Longley as a courtesy whether it 

would be desirable to attach the translation as an 

appendix to an Examiner’s Answer or to re-open 

prosecution and provide it in a non-final rejection.

Mr. Longley agreed to accept the translation as an 

appendix to an Examiner’s Answer, but also recognized it was within the discretion of the PTO to 

re-open prosecution.

In its own interview summary, Orbital did not dispute 

that the examiner had offered to reopen the reexaminations, and did not argue that it had accepted. Instead, 

Orbital repeated that reopening reexamination was 

within the examiner’s discretion. The examiner did not 

reopen the reexaminations, and the Machine Translation 

was attached to the Examiners’ Answer in each appeal.

The Board affirmed. In both cases, it first found that 

Orbital had waived its argument that the Machine Translation’s omission from the record invalidated the decision 

to institute reexamination. Patent owners may appeal 

SNQ determinations to the Board “only if the patent 

owner first requests reconsideration before the examiner,” 

Clarification on the Procedure for Seeking Review of a 

Finding of a Substantial New Question of Patentability in 

Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings, 75 Fed. Reg. 36357, 

36357 (June 25, 2010), and the Board determined that 

Orbital had failed to do so. ’018 Board Decision at *2-4; 

’008 Board Decision at *2-4. 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/20/2015
IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 11

The Board also affirmed the examiner’s obviousness 

rejections. In both cases, the Board found that Tomofuji 

teaches every element of the subject patent’s claim 1 

except for the use of LEDs rather than fluorescent lamps 

as the light source. ’018 Board Decision at *10; ’008 Board 

Decision at *10. The Board adopted the examiner’s finding that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the 

art to replace Tomofuji’s fluorescent bulbs with an LED 

light source. ’018 Board Decision at *11; ’008 Board 

Decision at *11. It reasoned that Kuiper teaches the use of 

LEDs in a combination marine habitat and lighting 

system, while Ignatius teaches that LEDs can be cooled 

with a fan system, ’018 Board Decision at *11; ’008 Board 

Decision at *11, and that LEDs are interchangeable with 

fluorescent lights, ’018 Board Decision at *13; ’008 Board 

Decision at *14. The Board also agreed with the examiner 

that a person of skill in the art would be motivated to 

replace Tomofuji’s fluorescent bulbs with LEDs by Kuiper’s teaching that LEDs are more energy-efficient than 

fluorescent lighting. ’018 Board Decision at *11; ’008

Board Decision at *11. 

The Board rejected Orbital’s argument that LEDs’ 

greater energy efficiency means they do not require 

cooling: “Kuiper and Ignatius each teach, essentially, that 

LEDs emit less heat than other lights. Skilled artisans, 

given the combined teachings, would have recognized that 

enough LEDs at a sufficient size or power for a desired 

application necessarily would create heat which would 

require cooling, like Tomofuji’s fluorescent light system 

and Ignatius’s LED system.” ’018 Board Decision at *11 

(citations omitted); see also ’008 Board Decision at 11. 

Orbital petitioned for rehearing, which the Board denied. Ex parte Orbital Techs. Corp., No. 2013-4262, Reexamination No. 90/011,864 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2013) 

[hereinafter ’018 Rehearing Decision]; Ex parte Orbital 

Techs. Corp., No. 2013-4264, Reexamination No. 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/20/2015
12 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

90/011,865 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2013) [hereinafter ’008

Rehearing Decision]. 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and 

its factual findings for substantial evidence. In re Baxter 

Int'l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A finding 

is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind 

might accept the evidence as adequate to support the 

finding. Id. (citing Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 

197, 229 (1938)).

I 

Orbital challenges the examiner’s consideration of the 

Machine Translation. The Board found that “Orbital 

chose not to re-open prosecution before the Examiner,” 

instead preferring to continue its appeal. ’008 Rehearing 

Decision at 9; see also ’018 Rehearing Decision at 10 (“The 

record shows that Orbital chose the right to appeal to ask 

the Board to vacate the SNQ Order, instead of re-opening 

prosecution.”). We conclude that substantial evidence 

supports this finding, and hold that Orbital waived any 

claims it may have had arising from the fact that it was 

not provided the Machine Translation. 

Orbital agrees that the examiner offered to reopen the

reexaminations with the translation on the record, and 

does not argue that it accepted this offer. Instead, Orbital 

contends that the offer was conditional, requiring it to 

waive all claims arising from the reexamination proceedings thus far. Its evidence for this argument is that it told 

the examiner it reserved its right to appeal the SNQ 

determinations based on the prior art of record, and the 

examiner did not reopen reexamination thereafter. 

The record does not support Orbital’s contention that 

the offer was conditional. Further, its argument confuses 

agreeing to waive an otherwise valid claim with losing a 

claim when it becomes moot. Had the examiner reopened 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 12 Filed: 01/20/2015
IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 13

the reexaminations with the translation, Orbital would 

have lost its ability to appeal the earlier final rejections 

based on the translation’s absence. Orbital could not have 

avoided this result by bargaining with the examiner. 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion

that Orbital chose to appeal its existing claims to the 

Board, rather than to return to reexamination with the 

translation, and the examiner acted in accordance with 

that choice. ’018 Rehearing Decision at 10; ’008 Rehearing 

Decision at 11. Orbital did so knowing that the examiner 

had used a translation it had not seen, and it cannot now 

undo its decision. We therefore conclude that Orbital 

waived any claims it might have had arising from the fact 

that it was not provided with the Machine Translation of 

Tomofuji before the close of reexamination.

II

On appeal Orbital presents three challenges to the 

Board’s obviousness conclusions. 

First, Orbital contends that substituting LEDs into 

the system taught by Tomofuji would not result in the 

claimed inventions, which require the lights to be 

“mounted to” or “disposed on” the inner side of the housing, because Tomofuji’s Figures 1 through 3 show the 

fluorescent lamps 4 mounted to a light reflector 7 that is 

itself attached to the housing: 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 13 Filed: 01/20/2015
14 IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 

Tomofuji figs. 2, 3. This argument reads the claims too 

narrowly. Nothing in their language requires the lamps to 

be attached directly to the housing without intervening 

material. 

Second, Orbital argues that a person of ordinary skill 

in the art could not have adapted Tomofuji’s system to

cool LEDs, which its expert testifies generate heat not in 

their bulbs but in their electronics. Tomofuji, like the 

claimed inventions, teaches a system for dissipating heat 

generated inside the housing generally. Compare Abstract 

Translation (“the heated air generated inside the cover 3 

due to e.g. lighting of an illuminating lamp” is forced out 

by a fan) with ’008 Board Decision at *12 (the “cooling 

system” limitation is a means-plus-function limitation 

corresponding to “a fan/air cooled system that draws air 

from the light system and exhaust[s it] from the light 

housing”). Further, Ignatius teaches the use of a fanbased system to cool LEDs. Ignatius at col.4 l.64-col.5 l.12.

Orbital therefore shows no reason to disturb the Board’s 

conclusion that Tomofuji’s fan-based system could be used 

to cool LEDs. See ’018 Board Decision at *10-11; ’008

Board Decision at *10-11. 

Third, Orbital contends that the prior art does not 

suggest the use of LED bulbs in Tomofuji’s invention 

because LED bulbs generate less heat than fluorescent 

bulbs. The Board considered and properly rejected this 

argument. ’018 Board Decision at *11-12; ’008 Board 

Decision at *11-12. Kuiper and Ignatius teach that LEDs 

generate less heat than fluorescent bulbs, not that they 

generate no heat at all. As the Board found, LEDs in 

sufficient size or quantity would benefit from cooling, and 

this is sufficient motivation for a skilled artisan to cool 

them. ’018 Board Decision at *11; ’008 Board Decision at 

*11-12. 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that it would have been obvious for a person having 

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 14 Filed: 01/20/2015
IN RE ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 15

ordinary skill in the art to use the LED bulbs taught by 

Ignatius and Kuiper in the invention of Tomofuji. We 

further hold that the Board’s conclusion that this would 

be motivated by Kuiper’s teaching that LED lights are 

more energy-efficient than fluorescent bulbs was supported by substantial evidence.

III 

Finally, Orbital maintains that the Machine Translation’s poor quality, untranslated words, and accuracy 

disclaimer render it insufficient evidence of Tomofuji’s 

teaching to support a prima facie case of obviousness. 

At oral argument, the court expressed concern about 

the dangers of relying on low-quality machine translations as evidence of the prior art, especially in cases 

involving technologies more complex than the marine 

habitats at issue here. Oral Argument at 18:27-21:28, In 

re Orbital Techs. Corp., Nos. 2014-1298, -1299 (Nov. 5, 

2014), available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oralargument-recordings. The PTO agreed that there may 

well be cases where machine translations of the quality 

shown in this case are inadequate evidence of a reference’s contents. Id. at 21:00.

Without blessing the use of machine translations in 

all cases, we find that the Machine Translation used here 

provided adequate evidence of Tomofuji’s contents because of the simplicity of the technology and the teachings 

of Tomofuji’s figures. It was therefore sufficient to support 

the examiner’s obviousness case.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 14-1299 Document: 40-2 Page: 15 Filed: 01/20/2015