Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01222/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hubbell Incorporated
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1222

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 90/012,086.

______________________ 

Decided: April 7, 2016

______________________ 

WILLIAM EUGENE BRADLEY, Michael Best Friedrich, 

Washington, DC, for appellant.

 THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Office of the Solicitor, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for 

appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by MICHAEL 

SUMNER FORMAN, JEREMIAH HELM. 

______________________ 

Before DYK, PLAGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Hubbell Incorporated owns U.S. Patent No. 7,323,639, 

which describes and claims certain adaptable weatherproof covers for electrical outlets and methods of installing such covers. In an ex parte reexamination of the 

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2016
2 IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED

’639 patent, an examiner determined that the products 

and methods of claims 1–23 would have been obvious over 

various combinations of the prior-art references Hayduke, 

Berlin, Hartmann, and Shotey, and the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections on 

appeal and rehearing. Ex parte Hubbell Inc., No. 2014-

3866, 2014 WL 1398353 (PTAB Apr. 9, 2014) (Hubbell); 

Ex parte Hubbell Inc., No. 2014-3866, 2014 WL 4640118 

(PTAB Sept. 16, 2014) (Rehearing Op.). Hubbell appeals, 

arguing that each of Hayduke and Berlin teaches away 

from the combinations relied on by the Board, there is 

insufficient evidence of motivation to combine Hartmann 

and Berlin, and the Board failed to consider evidence of 

commercial success. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’639 patent describes a “cover that may interchangeably and safely accommodate virtually all commonly encountered electrical devices used in conjunction with 

electrical device boxes.” ’639 patent, col. 2, lines 1–4. The 

“electrical device” is an outlet, light switch, etc., inside a 

box of the sort commonly recessed in or mounted on a 

wall. Id., col. 1, lines 31–35. Figure 12 is illustrative:

Fig. 12

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/07/2016
IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED 3

In Figure 12, the cover 100 includes a base plate 110 and 

an adapter plate 150. The base plate may use keyholes 

170—which permit adjustments after partial insertion—

for attachment to the electrical device (the latter, not 

shown, would be to the right of the cover in Figure 12). 

Id., col. 7, lines 24–45. The adapter plate—which may fit 

just one device, e.g., a two-plug outlet, or may be adaptable to fit different devices, see id., col. 8, lines 8–63—may 

also include keyholes that extend fully through the adapter plate and align with the underlying keyholes in the 

base plate. Id., col. 10, lines 37–41. Although not shown 

in Figure 12, the base plate may also include at least one 

removable hinge and an attached protective cover (which 

would go to the left in Figure 12). Id., col. 13, lines 9–14.

Claim 1, which is representative in this appeal, reads:

1. An in-use weather protective electrical outlet 

cover for an electrical outlet comprising at least 

one socket face and at least one mounting screw 

aperture, the electrical outlet cover comprising: 

a base assembly comprising an adapter coupled 

to a base;

wherein the adapter has at least one opening extending through the adapter, the at least one 

opening comprising a size large enough to receive the at least one socket face, the at least 

one opening configured to surround the at 

least one socket face when the base assembly 

is installed on the electrical outlet;

wherein the base assembly comprising at least 

one base hinge member on a side of the base 

assembly and at least one keyhole slot extending through the base assembly, the keyhole 

slot positioned to align with the at least one 

mounting screw aperture when the base assembly is installed on the electrical outlet; and

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 3 Filed: 04/07/2016
4 IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED

a protective cover comprising at least one cover 

hinge member configured for hinged attachment to the at least one base hinge member;

wherein the at least one keyhole slot is accessible 

for selective adjustment of the base assembly 

after the base assembly is installed on the electrical outlet. 

Id., col. 16, lines 30–52 (emphasis added). 

Following submission of a request for ex parte reexamination of the ’639 patent, an examiner identified 

substantial new questions of patentability based on 

combinations of various prior-art references. The examiner rejected claims 1–23 for obviousness, primarily based 

on the combination of Hayduke and Hartmann and, 

separately, Berlin and Hartmann. 

U.S. Patent No. 6,133,531 to Hayduke et al. discloses 

a weatherproof outlet cover assembly for protecting an 

outdoor electrical outlet. Hayduke teaches a base plate 

that includes a keyhole slot, a protective cover attached 

by a hinge, and an adapter plate. Hayduke does not 

disclose holes in the adapter plate to make the underlying 

base-plate keyhole slots accessible after the adapter plate 

is installed. U.S. Patent No. 5,280,135 to Berlin et al. 

discloses a weatherproof protective outlet cover that 

includes a base plate and a protective housing attached 

via a hinge. Berlin does not teach a keyhole slot in the 

base plate but instead uses standardized screw holes to 

attach the base plate to the electrical device. U.S. Patent 

No. 1,557,526 to Hartmann describes a plate that attaches to an electrical outlet that includes a hook for supporting an electrical fixture. The plate includes a keyhole 

slot, and the hook, positioned in front of the keyhole slot, 

includes a hole to make the keyhole slot accessible

Hubbell appealed the rejection of claims 1–23 to the 

Board. With respect to the combination of Hayduke and 

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 4 Filed: 04/07/2016
IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED 5

Hartmann, Hubbell argued that because neither reference 

discloses a keyhole slot that is accessible after installation, Hartmann does not provide motivation to modify 

Hayduke. Hubbell also asserted that Hayduke teaches 

away from including holes in the adapter plate, other 

than those exposing the outlet itself. For the combination 

of Berlin and Hartmann, Hubbell argued that because 

Hartmann does not disclose an accessible-afterinstallation keyhole, one of skill in the art would not have 

been motivated to substitute Berlin’s round screw hole 

with a keyhole slot. Hubbell also presented evidence that 

products embodying the ’639 patent have been commercially successful. 

The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 

1–23. Regarding the Hayduke and Hartmann combination, the Board first found that Hartmann discloses a 

keyhole slot accessible after installation. Hubbell, 2014 

WL 1398353, at *5. The Board then adopted, id., the 

examiner’s rationale that one of skill in the art would 

have been motivated to combine Hayduke and Hartmann 

“to allow for aligning, tightening and loosening of the 

mounting screws after the base assembly is installed on 

the electrical socket,” J.A. 471–72. The Board also determined that Hubbell did “not provide[ ] explicit evidence

from Hayduke specifically discouraging or discrediting 

providing [ ] accessibility” to the keyhole slot. Hubbell, 

2014 WL 1398353, at *6. 

With respect to the Berlin and Hartmann combination, the Board agreed with the examiner that one of 

ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to 

modify the screw hole in Berlin to use a keyhole slot of the 

sort taught by Hartmann. Id. at *9–10. The Board 

identified several reasons for such use of a keyhole slot in 

place of a screw hole: “to allow removal of the outlet cover 

without completely removing the mounting screws, aligning the socket faces of the outlet cover after installation, 

and allowing tightening of the outlet cover after installaCase: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 5 Filed: 04/07/2016
6 IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED

tion.” Id. at *9. “[G]iven the ease of installation and 

alignment provided by Hartmann’s keyhole slots for 

outlet covers,” the Board determined, one skilled in the 

art would have been motivated to make this modification 

to Berlin. Id.

The Board addressed Hubbell’s evidence of commercial success and found it insufficiently tied to the asserted 

invention. Id. at *6–7. In particular, the Board noted 

that the products embodying the invention sold for an 

average price of less than half of the average price of the 

comparator product. Id. at *7. Because the commercial 

success “may have been reasonably attributable in part or 

in whole to its significantly lower price rather than to the 

unique characteristics of the claimed invention,” the 

Board said that it was “unpersuaded that the sales figures for [allegedly patent-covered products] are due to the 

claimed invention rather than price or a myriad of other 

factors.” Id. 

Hubbell requested rehearing, arguing that the Board 

did not fully consider its teaching-away arguments. The 

Board granted the request in part, but it did not change 

the result. The Board explained further why it found that 

neither Hayduke nor Berlin teaches away from the proposed combinations with Hartmann. Rehearing Op., 2014 

WL 4640118, at *1–3.

Hubbell appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 141(b), challenging 

the Board’s rejection of claims 1–23 for obviousness. We 

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

DISCUSSION

Whether a claimed invention would have been obvious 

is a question of law, based on factual determinations 

regarding the scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, the 

level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 6 Filed: 04/07/2016
IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED 7

F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We review the Board’s 

compliance with the governing legal standards de novo 

and its underlying factual determinations for substantial 

evidence. Id.

Hubbell first challenges the Board’s rejection of a 

number of claims for obviousness over Hayduke and 

Hartmann, treating claim 1 as representative. The only 

element of claim 1 that Hubbell argues is missing from 

Hayduke is a keyhole slot that is accessible after installation. And Hubbell does not dispute in this court that 

Hartmann discloses a base plate with a keyhole slot

accessible after installation. Hubbell’s argument is that 

one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified 

Hayduke by adopting this feature of Hartmann to include 

the claim-required keyholes because Hayduke teaches 

away from keyhole slots that are not covered after installation. In particular, Hubbell points to a passage in

Hayduke that reads: “The cover 10 of the present invention further preferably includes a pivotal wall plate 

insertable within the back body 40 for preventing direct 

access to the box which contains the outlets.” ’531 patent, 

col. 9, lines 64–67 (emphasis added). Hubbell suggests 

that this passage teaches away from adding holes in the 

adapter plate that would make the keyhole slot accessible 

after installation because such holes would not prevent 

direct access to the outlet box.

The Board did not err in determining that this statement in Hayduke does not teach away from making the 

keyhole slots of Hayduke accessible. The passage, which 

discusses a preferred embodiment, “does not teach away

. . . [as] it merely expresses a general preference for an 

alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or 

otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention 

claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 

Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Hubbell does 

not identify any passage in Hayduke that explicitly discredits or discourages direct access to the outlet box, and 

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 7 Filed: 04/07/2016
8 IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED

the cited statement does no more than articulate a preference for an adapter plate that prevents direct access. 

That stated preference is insufficient to teach away from 

the claimed invention. See id.; In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 

1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Moreover, to the extent that Hayduke aims to prevent 

any “substantial direct access” to the electrical box, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the 

combination of Hayduke and Hartmann would not be 

inconsistent with that goal. Rehearing Op., 2014 WL 

4640118, at *1. The Board found that “the heads of the 

mounting screws block direct access to the box.” Id.

(emphasis in original). “[T]he combination of Hayduke 

and Hartman[n] would not interfere with the function of 

[the adapter plate] in preventing direct access to the 

underlying electrical box containing the outlets because 

the screws would block any access through the openings” 

in the adapter plate. Id. at *2. The Board’s interpretation of Hayduke and blocking access is reasonable, further 

supporting its rejection of Hubbell’s teaching-away contention.

Hubbell also challenges the Board’s rejection of numerous claims for obviousness over Berlin and Hartmann. 

Hubbell treats claim 1 as representative and asserts that 

Berlin teaches away from using keyhole slots. Berlin’s 

weatherproof cover is fastened to an outlet box using 

threaded screws that pass through threaded screw holes 

in the base plate, and those “holes are sized and adapted 

to conform to the standards for electrical outlets and 

boxes.” ’135 patent, col. 4, lines 21–23. Hubbell suggests 

that this statement would have discouraged one from 

replacing screw holes with keyhole slots, which do not 

conform to size and location standards. 

The Board properly found no teaching away and, more 

affirmatively, a motivation to adopt keyholes. Berlin’s 

stated preference for standardized screw holes does not 

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 8 Filed: 04/07/2016
IN RE: HUBBELL INCORPORATED 9

disparage or discredit alternatives such that it teaches 

away from the claimed invention. DePuy Spine, 567 F.3d 

at 1327. And the Board properly determined that one of 

ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to

replace the screw holes with keyhole slots: “Hartmann’s 

teaching of using keyhole slots to permit mounting the 

assembly of Berlin without the need to completely remove 

the requisite mounting screws is persuasive of a useful 

purpose for the modification.” Hubbell, 2014 WL 

1398353, at *10. Motivation may be found, in other 

words, in the Hartmann keyholes’ enabling the Berlin 

cover to be installed, adjusted, and removed without 

complete withdrawal of the mounting screw.

Hubbell further contends that the Board erred in its 

consideration of the evidence of commercial success. We 

see no error. Hubbell submitted a declaration and sales 

figures from 2006–2012 that show that three allegedly 

patent-covered products outsold a product that does not 

embody the claimed invention. J.A. 618–25. But the

Board found that the allegedly patent-covered products 

were in fact “priced significantly lower than” the product 

not covered by the patent. Hubbell, 2014 WL 1398353, at 

*7. In light of that evidence-supported finding, the Board 

determined that it could not find that the success of the 

allegedly patent-covered products was attributable to the 

claimed invention. The Board did not err in that determination or, therefore, in not finding a commercialsuccess basis for coming to a different conclusion about 

obviousness than the rest of the analysis warranted.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s rejection of claims 1–23.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1222 Document: 41-2 Page: 9 Filed: 04/07/2016