Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01447/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01447-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Plas-Pak Industries, Inc.
Appellant
Sulzer Mixpac AG
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

SULZER MIXPAC AG,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-1447

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination

No. 95/001,656.

______________________ 

Decided: January 27, 2015

______________________ 

ANDREW C. RYAN, Cantor Colburn LLP, of Hartford, 

Connecticut, argued for the appellant. 

MATTHEW S. DICKE, K&L Gates LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for the appellee. With him on the brief were 

THOMAS C. BASSO, ALAN L. BARRY, and SUZANNE E.

KONRAD. Of counsel on the brief was MICHAEL T.

MURPHY, of Washington, DC. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/27/2015
2 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. 

Plas-Pak Industries, Inc. (“Plas-Pak”) appeals from 

the inter partes reexamination decision of the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming the examiner’s decision not to reject claims 1–15 of U.S. Patent 

7,815,384 (“the ’384 patent”) as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103 (2006).1 See Plas-Pak Indus., Inc. v. Sulzer Mixpac 

AG, No. 2013007786, 2014 WL 203101 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 

2014) (“Opinion”). Because the Board did not err in 

holding that claims 1–15 would not have been obvious, we 

affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Sulzer Mixpac AG (“Sulzer”) owns the ’384 patent, 

which is directed to a device and methods for mixing and 

dispensing multi-component paints. ’384 patent col. 1 

ll. 20–22. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A device for applying a coating, comprising:

at least two cylindrical cartridges,

a static mixing nozzle in fluid communication with the cartridges, 

a spray tip, in fluid communication with the 

nozzle,

1 Because the application of the ’384 patent was filed 

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

Invents Act version of § 103 applies. See Pub L. No. 112-

29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011); 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006). 

 

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/27/2015
PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG 3

a first flexible hose is disposed between and 

in fluid communication with the nozzle and 

the spray tip, and 

a second hose, in fluid communication with 

the spray tip, for supplying atomization air 

to the spray tip.

Id. col. 11 ll. 20–28. Independent claims 7 and 10 relate 

to methods for applying a coating using the device described in claim 1. See id. col. 12 ll. 1–11, 19–29. 

In June 2011, Plas-Pak filed a request for inter partes 

reexamination of claims 1–15 of the ’384 patent, which 

the USPTO granted. The examiner initially issued a Nonfinal Office Action in which he adopted Plas-Pak’s proposed rejections under § 103 based on combinations of 

references involving U.S. Patent 4,745,011 of Fukuta 

(“Fukuta”), but declined to adopt Plas-Pak’s proposed 

rejections based on combinations of references involving 

U.S. Patent 6,241,125 of Jacobsen (“Jacobsen”). After 

additional briefing by the parties, however, the examiner 

issued a Right of Appeal Notice in which he withdrew the

previously adopted Fukuta-based rejections, maintained 

his refusal to adopt the Jacobsen-based rejections, and 

determined that claims 1–15 of the ’384 patent would not 

have been obvious. Plas-Pak appealed to the Board. 

On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s decision 

not to reject claims 1–15 as obvious. Opinion at *10–11. 

The Board first found that Fukuta discloses pumps, check 

valves, stop valves, and escape valves that are essential to 

Fukuta’s “principle of operation,” i.e., “prevent[ing] backflow even when the propensity for backflow occurs repeatedly and at high velocity.” Id. at *5. In light of that 

finding, the Board rejected Plas-Pak’s argument that it 

would have been obvious to replace Fukuta’s pumps and 

valves with the cylindrical cartridges and mixing gun of 

U.S. Patent 3,989,228 of Morris (“Morris”). Id. at *4. The 

Board reasoned that “Fukuta is directed to th[e] very 

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/27/2015
4 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG

‘manner in which the backflow of the mixture is prevented’ (i.e., by using check valves, stop valves, and escape 

valves). Hence the modification suggested by [Plas-Pak] . 

. . would impact this functionality in a fundamental way 

so as to change the manner in which the apparatus of 

Fukuta functions.” Id. at *5. Because the combination of 

Fukuta and Morris would require “substantial reconstruction” and “affect[] the principle of operation” disclosed in 

Fukuta, the Board held that the claims of the ’384 patent

would not have been obvious over Fukuta in view of 

Morris. Id. at *7. 

The Board then found that Jacobsen discloses a device 

that dispenses fluid materials into a surface crack so as to 

minimize leakage, “but does not disclose dispensing of 

fluid by spraying or that a spray nozzle would attain this 

objective.” Id. at *8. In light of that finding, the Board 

rejected Plas-Pak’s argument that combining the mixing 

gun of Jacobsen with the spray nozzle of U.S. Patent 

Publication 2002/0170982 A1 of Hunter (“Hunter”) would 

have been “nothing more than predictable variation of 

prior art elements according to their established function[s].” Id. The Board reasoned that modifying Jacobsen 

to include Hunter’s spray nozzle, as Plas-Pak suggested, 

would undermine “the specific function of dispensing fluid 

materials directly into surface cracks to minimize leakage” and “render Jacobsen unsuitable for [that] intended 

purpose.” Id. The Board thus held that the claims of the 

’384 patent would not have been obvious over Jacobsen in 

view of Hunter. Id. at *10. 

Plas-Pak timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). 

DISCUSSION

Our review of a Board decision is limited. In re Baxter 

Int’l, Inc. 678 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We review 

the Board’s legal determinations de novo, In re Elsner, 

381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), but we review the 

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/27/2015
PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG 5

Board’s factual findings underlying those determinations 

for substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 

1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. 

NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). 

“[O]bviousness is a question of law based on several 

underlying factual findings,” In re Baxter, 678 F.3d at 

1361, including what a reference teaches, Rapoport v. 

Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1060–61 (Fed. Cir. 2001), and 

whether proposed modifications would change a reference’s “principle of operation,” see In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 

1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding “the Board’s determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk 

would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence”). Where “a patent claims a 

structure already known in the prior art that is altered by 

the mere substitution of one element for another known in 

the field, the combination must do more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 

398, 416 (2007). However, combinations that change the 

“basic principles under which the [prior art] was designed 

to operate,” In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959), or 

that render the prior art “inoperable for its intended 

purpose,” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 

1984), may fail to support a conclusion of obviousness. 

A.

Plas-Pak primarily argues that the Board erred by 

limiting Fukuta’s “principle of operation” to its contribution to the art, i.e., the addition of stop valves to prevent 

backflow. According to Plas-Pak, the Board should have 

instead broadly defined Fukuta’s “principle of operation” 

as the “movement of two separate reactive components 

brought together at a mixer and dispensed through a 

dispenser.” Appellant’s Br. 29. Then, Plas-Pak contends,

adding Morris’ cylindrical cartridges and mixing gun

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/27/2015
6 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG

would have been nothing more than a simple substitution

to effectuate the same end goal of dispensing multicomponent fluids, thus failing to alter Fukuta’s “principle 

of operation.” Simply combining components with wellknown functions to achieve predictable results, Plas-Pak 

contends, would have rendered claims 1–15 obvious. 

Sulzer responds that the Board correctly found that 

Fukuta’s “principle of operation” “is entirely directed to a 

method of coating a two-component mixture using a 

system of pumps and valves to prevent backflow.” Appellee’s Br. 21. Relying on a reference’s contribution to the 

art to understand its “principle of operation” is not error, 

Sulzer contends, and Fukuta undoubtedly touts the

necessary addition of stop valves to combat the prior art’s

well-established backflow problem. Thus, Sulzer argues, 

replacing the pumps and valves as Plas-Pak suggests 

would “change the way the components of Fukuta are 

supplied and dispensed” by removing the very system 

“Fukuta teaches [as] achieving its goal of preventing 

backflow.” Id. at 23. Because combining Fukuta and 

Morris would fundamentally alter Fukuta’s “principle of 

operation,” Sulzer maintains that the combination would 

not have supported a conclusion of obviousness. 

We agree with Sulzer that the Board’s definition of 

Fukuta’s “principle of operation” and the Board’s finding 

that combining Fukuta and Morris would fundamentally 

alter that “principle of operation” are supported by substantial evidence. As the Board noted, Fukuta is expressly “directed to [the] very ‘manner in which the backflow of 

the mixture is prevented.’” Opinion at *5. Indeed, Fukuta is rife with statements defining “the invention” as

adding stop valves to prevent backflow. See, e.g., Fukuta 

col. 1 ll. 46–51 (“[T]he inventors of the present invention 

have proposed placing stop valves disposed between the 

junction and the check valve in addition to the construction of the conventional two-component mixing type 

coating apparatus described above.”); id. col. 2 ll. 19–23 

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/27/2015
PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG 7

(noting that “the present invention [] is characterized . . . 

by closing the stop valves when the spraying operation of 

the gun is stopped”); id. col. 3 ll. 56–58 (“The twocomponent mixing type coating method of the present 

invention uses the stop valves as a backflow prevention 

means . . . .”). “The manner in which the two-component 

mixing apparatus of Fukuta prevents backflow is unique 

in its implementation,” Opinion at *6, and the Board 

correctly limited Fukuta’s “principle of operation” to that 

specific functionality. Therefore, replacing the valves and 

pumps of Fukuta’s system with the cylindrical cartridges 

and mixing gun of Morris, which fail to achieve comparable backflow prevention, see id. (“[The] embodiments of 

Morris do not disclose the functions of check valves 4a, 4b, 

the stop valves 51, 5b, or the escape valve 6 disclosed in 

Fukuta . . . .”), fundamentally alters Fukuta’s “principle of 

operation.” Such a change in a reference’s “principle of 

operation” is unlikely to motivate a person of ordinary 

skill to pursue a combination with that reference. In re 

Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322; In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810. Accordingly, the Board did not err in concluding that claims 1–

15 would not have been obvious over Fukuta in view of 

Morris.2 

B.

Plas-Pak alternatively argues that the Board incorrectly limited Jacobsen’s “intended purpose” to filling 

surface cracks. According to Plas-Pak, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the “piston-driven 

cartridges, static mixing nozzle, and flexible hose of 

Jacobsen would have applications beyond filling cracks.” 

Appellant’s Br. 58. Thus, Plas-Pak contends, Jacobsen 

2 Plas-Pak raised the same arguments with respect 

to the combination of Fukuta and U.S. Patent 5,033,650 of 

Colin, which the Board rejected. Opinion at *7–8. We 

therefore affirm the Board’s findings on that issue as well. 

 

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/27/2015
8 PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG

should instead be understood as “a dispensing kit suited 

in alternate manners of connection for conveying multiple 

components of a reactive material before being discharged 

where and when needed.” Id. at 20. Adding Hunter’s 

spray nozzle would not undermine that broader “intended 

purpose,” Plas-Pak adds, and therefore the combination is 

a predictable variation of prior art elements that would 

have rendered claims 1–15 of the ’384 patent obvious. 

Sulzer responds that the Board’s definition of Jacobsen’s “intended purpose” is supported by substantial 

evidence. According to Sulzer, Jacobsen expressly describes the invention, and not just a specific embodiment, 

as “‘relate[d] to devices usable for dispensing fluid material(s) via conventional dispensing outlet nozzle(s) directly 

into a surface crack of a structure.’” Appellee’s Br. 38 

(quoting Jacobsen col. 1 ll. 13–16). Moreover, Sulzer 

continues, Jacobsen teaches that its “primary goal is to 

minimize or avoid leakage.” Id. at 41. Adding a spray 

nozzle as Plas-Pak suggests would necessarily undermine 

that express goal: “[a]s such, one of ordinary skill in the 

art would have no reason to substitute the controlled 

dispensing nozzle of Jacobsen with the spray nozzle of 

Hunter.” Id. Thus, Sulzer argues, the combination does 

not support a conclusion of obviousness. 

We agree with Sulzer that the Board’s definition of 

Jacobsen’s “intended purpose” and the Board’s finding 

that adding Hunter’s spray nozzle would render Jacobsen 

“inoperable for its intended purpose” are supported by 

substantial evidence. As the Board noted, Jacobsen’s 

dispensing system has the very “specific function of dispensing fluid materials directly into surface[] cracks to 

minimize leakage.” Opinion at *8. Indeed, Jacobsen 

repeatedly recites that limited purpose. See, e.g., Jacobsen col. 1 ll. 13–16 (“This invention relates to devices 

usable for dispensing fluid material(s) via conventional 

dispensing outlet nozzle(s) directly into a surface crack of 

a structure . . . .”); id. col. 1 ll. 63–65 (“The material 

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/27/2015
PLAS-PAK INDUSTRIES v. SULZER MIXPAC AG 9

dispensing tube is then seated against the inlet tube bore 

end to funnel the discharged material directly into the 

underlying crack.”); id. col. 2 ll. 40–45 (“This invention 

relates to devices for establishing leakproof seated connections . . . used in dispensing fluid material from cartridges, for directing such fluid into cracks in an 

underlying structure.”). And Jacobsen does not teach how 

a spray nozzle might accomplish the “intended purpose” of 

“dispensing fluid materials directly into cracks.” Opinion

at *8. Therefore, as the Board found, modifying Jacobsen 

to accommodate the spray nozzle of Hunter would render 

Jacobsen “inoperable for its intended purpose,” and a 

person of ordinary skill would thus not have been motivated to pursue the combination. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 

900; In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374

(Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Board did not err in 

concluding that claims 1–15 would not have been obvious 

over Jacobsen in view of Hunter. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered the remaining arguments and 

find them unpersuasive. Because the Board did not err in 

finding that the prior art combinations would either alter 

Fukuta’s “principle of operation” or render Jacobsen 

“inoperable for its intended purpose,” we affirm the 

Board’s decision to decline to make the proposed obviousness rejections of claims 1–15 of the ’384 patent. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1447 Document: 39-2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/27/2015