Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01821/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Danfoss Power Electronics A/S
Appellee
Hayward Industries, Inc.
Appellant
Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA, INC., DANFOSS 

POWER ELECTRONICS A/S,

Appellees

______________________ 

2019-1821

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,006.

______________________ 

Decided: June 12, 2020 

______________________ 

KEITH E. TOMS, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, MA, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by LEE CARL 

BROMBERG; SCOTT S. CHRISTIE, TIMOTHY PATRICK HOMLISH,

MARK NIKOLSKY, Newark, NJ; STEVEN HALPERN, Hayward 

Industries, Inc., Berkeley Heights, NJ. 

 KRISTIN GRAHAM NOEL, Quarles & Brady, LLP, Madison, WI, argued for appellees. Also represented by JOEL 

AUSTIN, RAYE LYNN DAUGHERTY, MICHAEL PIERY, Milwaukee, WI. 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 06/12/2020
2 HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA

 ______________________ 

Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. 

Hayward Industries, Inc. (“Hayward”) appeals from a 

decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversing an 

examiner’s decision to reject claims of U.S. Patent No. 

7,854,597 (“the ’597 patent”) as anticipated and reversing 

the examiner’s decision to reject claims of the ’597 patent 

as obvious. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool 

& Spa, Inc. (Board Decision), No. 2016-002780, 2019 WL 

990776 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019). For the reasons set forth 

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

BACKGROUND

I 

Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. and Danfoss Low 

Power Drives (collectively “Pentair”) are assignees of the 

’597 patent, which is directed to a pool pumping system. 

The system includes a pump, a variable speed motor, and 

a controller connected to the motor. The controller may operate independently or may be connected to an auxiliary 

device that operates the pump in a master/slave mode. 

Claim 1 of the ’597 patent, the sole independent claim,

recites 

1. A pumping system for at least one aquatic application, the pumping system receiving information 

from a user, the pumping system comprising:

a pump;

a motor coupled to the pump;

a control system operating as a master controller, 

the control system including an automation system, the control system including a remote 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 06/12/2020
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA 3

keypad and display connected to the automation 

system; and

a pump controller located remotely from the control system, the pump controller coupled to at 

least one of the pump and the motor, the pump 

controller operating as a slave controller when 

connected to the control system,

the pump controller in digital communication 

with the motor and the control system,

the pump controller transmitting information 

to and receiving information from the control 

system over at least one communication link,

the pump controller operating the motor to 

substantially optimize energy consumption

based on the information entered into the remote keypad by the user and received from 

the control system,

the pump controller operating independently 

to control the motor to optimize energy consumption when disconnected from the control 

system.

’597 patent col. 13, ll. 33–58 (emphasis added to indicate 

disputed claim limitations). 

The prior art reference at issue in this case is U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0061004 (“Discenzo”). Discenzo 

discloses a control system for control of pumps and motors 

to provide optimized performance of a pumping system. 

Discenzo teaches various pumping systems, some of which 

are connected to a host computer for the purpose of receiving and sending information to control the system. 

II

Hayward filed a request for inter partes reexamination 

of the ’597 patent, asserting that all claims were 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 3 Filed: 06/12/2020
4 HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA

unpatentable. The Board found that claims 1–16, 18–32, 

34–37, 40–43, and 45–57 were patentable, reversing the examiner’s rejection of the claims, and affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the remaining claims. Hayward Indus., 

Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., No. 2016-002780, 

2016 WL 4549097, at *6 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2016). The 

Board found that Discenzo did not teach the interrelated 

master/slave relationship of the ’597 patent claims and 

therefore the examiner’s rejection was in error. Id. at *3. 

Hayward appealed to this court. See Hayward Indus., 

Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc. (Hayward I), 721 F. 

App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We reversed the Board’s finding that Discenzo did not teach the interrelated master/slave relationship of the ’597 claims because it was 

unsupported by substantial evidence. Id. at 976–78. We 

affirmed the Board’s construction of “optimize energy consumption” as “a reduction of energy consumed over time 

relative to the ultimate pumping application/function.” Id. 

at 980. Because the Board found that Discenzo did not 

teach the interrelated master/slave relationship of the ’597 

claims, however, it did not consider whether Discenzo 

taught the “optimize energy consumption” limitation. Id.

at 978. Accordingly, we remanded to the Board to make

findings on that question. Id. We additionally remanded 

to the Board to determine whether claims 33 and 59 were 

obvious in view of the combination of Discenzo and U.S. 

Patent No. 6,253,227 (“Tompkins”). 

On remand, the Board found that Discenzo did not

teach the “optimize energy consumption” limitation because it found that Discenzo was primarily focused on optimization of an overall system rather than optimization of 

a pump component. Board Decision, No. 2016-002780, 

2019 WL 990776, at *2. The Board further asserted that 

Discenzo failed to teach switching between the independent mode and the master/slave mode. Id. As a result, the 

Board once again reversed the examiner’s rejection of 

claims 1–16, 18–32, 34–37, 40–43, and 45–57, finding that 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 4 Filed: 06/12/2020
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA 5

Discenzo did not anticipate the claims. Id. at *3. Because 

the Board found that Discenzo did not teach the “optimize 

energy consumption” limitation, and because Hayward did 

not assert that Tompkins taught that limitation, the Board 

found that Discenzo and Tompkins did not render claims 

33 and 59 obvious. Id. 

Hayward appeals from the Board’s Decision After Remand, asserting that Discenzo teaches the “optimize energy consumption” limitation, the Board exceeded the 

scope of this court’s mandate in Hayward I, and the case 

must be remanded for findings on obviousness. We have 

jurisdiction to decide the appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

Anticipation is a question of fact, as is the question of 

what a prior art reference teaches. In re NTP, Inc., 654 

F.3d 1279, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We review the factual 

findings of the Board for substantial evidence. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[T]he interpretation by an appellate court of its own mandate is properly 

considered a question of law, reviewable de novo.” Laitram 

Corp v. NEC Corp., 115 F.3d 947, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

This appeal presents three issues. First, Hayward argues that the Board’s determination that Discenzo fails to 

teach the “optimize energy consumption” limitation is unsupported by substantial evidence. Second, Hayward contends that the Board exceeded the scope of our mandate by 

addressing automatic switching between the master/slave 

mode and the independent mode. Third, Hayward argues 

that the Board failed to address claims 33 and 59. We address these issues in turn below.

I 

We first consider whether Discenzo teaches the “optimize energy consumption” limitation found in claim 1 of 

the ’597 patent. A prior art reference anticipates a claim if 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 5 Filed: 06/12/2020
6 HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA

it discloses all of the claimed limitations and the limitations are arranged in the same way as in the claim. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 

1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015). An anticipating prior art reference 

may anticipate the claimed invention expressly or implicitly, and the full scope of the prior art reference’s disclosure 

is considered. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 

1368, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Additionally, prior art references should be considered for all that they teach, rather 

than being limited to a particular embodiment or the 

claimed invention of the prior art. Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek 

LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

Hayward argues that the Board’s finding that Discenzo 

does not teach the “optimize energy consumption” limitation is unsupported by substantial evidence. According to 

Hayward, Discenzo teaches optimizing energy consumption of the pumping component as well as of the global system, such that it teaches the limitation of claim 1 of the 

’597 patent. Pentair argues that the Board correctly found 

that Discenzo teaches only optimizing energy consumption 

of the global system but does not teach optimizing energy 

consumption of the pumping component. 

The Board found that Discenzo failed to teach the “optimize energy consumption” limitation because Discenzo 

was not concerned with component optimization. According to the Board, Discenzo’s discussion of optimization was 

related only to global system optimization and that energy 

consumption could be a secondary consideration. The 

Board’s decision excludes specific disclosures in Discenzo 

that teach not only system optimization, but also component optimization. 

Discenzo teaches “optimizing system and/or component 

efficiency, although it will be recognized that other performance characteristics of a motorized system may be optimized individually or in combination,” with energy usage 

being included in a list of potential performance 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 6 Filed: 06/12/2020
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA 7

characteristics that may be optimized. Discenzo ¶ 51. This 

paragraph of Discenzo clearly states that performance 

characteristics may be optimized at the system and at the 

component level. The Board’s conclusion that the same 

paragraph of Discenzo places energy consumption as a secondary consideration to revenue generation ignores that 

Discenzo does not require that energy consideration be a 

secondary consideration. Rather, Discenzo explains that in 

some situations, the goals of optimization of other performance characteristics may lead to less than optimal energy 

consumption. Discenzo ¶ 51. The fact that the system may 

operate at less than optimal energy consumption does not 

mean that Discenzo does not also teach that energy consumption can be optimized for the system and/or the component. 

Pentair argues that Discenzo ¶ 51 only teaches optimization of the performance characteristics, including energy 

usage, at the system level, but not at the component level. 

This argument ignores disclosures elsewhere in Discenzo 

that teach control of both the components and the system 

that takes into consideration various performance characteristics. Discenzo teaches that its invention “provides for 

controlled operation of motors and motorized systems, 

wherein operation thereof takes into account . . . one or 

more other performance characteristics or metrics, related 

to the motorized system and/or component devices 

therein.” Discenzo ¶ 16. Thus, Discenzo not only teaches 

optimizing performance characteristics on the system 

level, but also at the component level. 

At oral argument, Pentair argued that Discenzo ¶ 51 

fails to teach the “optimize energy consumption” limitation 

because it fails to explain how optimization occurs, although it teaches that the optimization of energy consumption of the pump may occur. See Oral Arg. at 26:19–28:00, 

http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=19-

1821.mp3. Pentair pointed to the Board’s statement that 

“Discenzo simply is not concerned with component 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 7 Filed: 06/12/2020
8 HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA

optimization and so we do not actually know whether Discenzo optimizes any particular component at any given 

time as claimed.” Board Decision, No. 2016-002780, 2019 

WL 990776, at *2. The claims of the ’597 patent do not 

require that the component operate to optimize energy consumption in any particular way, but merely require that 

the component optimizes energy consumption in some way. 

The Board additionally faulted Hayward for a failure 

to explain where Discenzo teaches the arrangement of the 

components as claimed. Pentair argues that Hayward relies on disjointed and optional examples from Discenzo to 

teach the claimed arrangement of the “optimize energy consumption” limitation and that Discenzo does not itself 

teach that arrangement. Hayward contends, however, that 

Discenzo’s teachings of how to configure the system also 

contemplate the optimization of those components. 

In order to anticipate a patent, a prior art reference 

“must not only disclose all elements of the claim . . . but 

also must disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the 

claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 

1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The anticipatory reference must 

“show all of the limitations of the claims arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claims.” Id. A prior 

art reference, however, does not need to include an “express 

discussion of the actual combination to anticipate,” but 

may instead teach that the disclosed elements may be combined such that one of skill in the art could implement the 

combination. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 

1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 

1383). 

Discenzo teaches the elements of the claim and explains that they may be optimized in various systems. Although Discenzo teaches optimization and the arrangement 

of components in different embodiments of the patent, Discenzo also explains that these features may be combined. 

Discenzo further teaches that “the optimization aspects of 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 8 Filed: 06/12/2020
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA 9

the invention may be employed across a plurality of controllers operating various actuators . . . and motorized systems.” Discenzo ¶ 158. Discenzo additionally states that 

“while a particular feature of the invention may have been 

disclosed with respect to only one of several implementations, such feature may be combined with one or more other 

features of the other implementations as may be desired 

and advantageous.” Discenzo ¶ 180. Based on these disclosures, Discenzo provides substantial evidence that it 

teaches the limitations as claimed in the ’597 patent. 

The Board’s findings that Discenzo does not teach the 

“optimize energy consumption” limitation ignore the explicit disclosures of Discenzo and are therefore unsupported by substantial evidence.

II

Hayward argues that the findings of the Board that go 

beyond the “optimize energy consumption” limitation exceed the scope of this court’s mandate in Hayward I. The 

Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 729, 1997 

WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “Unless remanded by 

[an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.” 

Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 

(Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Our mandate in Hayward I remanded to the Board “the 

question of whether Discenzo also discloses the ‘optimize 

energy consumption’ limitation.” 721 F. App’x at 978. Hayward argues that in addition to considering the question of 

the mandate, the Board also imposed an additional limitation that the system automatically switch between modes, 

which is an extension of this court’s finding in Hayward I

that Discenzo teaches both the master/slave mode and independent mode of operation required by the claims of the 

’597 patent. We agree with Hayward that the Board 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 9 Filed: 06/12/2020
10 HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA

exceeded the scope of our mandate in Hayward I. In addition to making factual findings that Discenzo does not disclose the “optimize energy consumption” limitation, the 

Board also made factual findings regarding whether Discenzo teaches switching between the master/slave mode 

and the independent mode. These findings do not relate to 

the “optimize energy consumption” limitation and instead

revisit the question of whether Discenzo teaches the two 

modes, which we decided in Hayward I. 721 F. App’x at 

976–78.

We therefore vacate the Board’s findings that go beyond the question of whether Discenzo teaches the “optimize energy consumption” limitation. 

III

In Hayward I we also remanded to the Board the question of whether claims 33 and 59 of the ’597 patent were 

obvious over the combination of Discenzo and Tompkins. 

721 F. App’x at 982. The Board concluded that its findings 

that Discenzo did not teach the “optimize energy consumption” limitation necessitated the conclusion that the combination of Discenzo and Tompkins did not render claims 33 

and 59 obvious. Claims 33 and 59 of the ’597 patent depend 

from claim 1 and Hayward’s obviousness contentions relied 

on Discenzo to teach the limitations of claim 1. Because we 

find that Discenzo teaches the “optimize energy consumption” limitation, we vacate the Board’s conclusion that 

claims 33 and 59 are not obvious. We remand the single 

question of whether the combination of Discenzo and 

Tompkins render claims 33 and 59 obvious. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, we reverse the Board’s conclusion that Discenzo does not teach the “optimize energy consumption” limitation and does not anticipate claims 1–16, 

18–32, 34–37, 40–43, and 45–57 of the ’597 patent. We further vacate the Board’s findings beyond whether Discenzo 

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 10 Filed: 06/12/2020
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PENTAIR WATER POOL AND SPA 11

teaches that limitation as exceeding the scope of our mandate. We also vacate the Board’s conclusion that claims 33 

and 59 of the ’597 patent are not obvious and remand to the 

Board the single question of whether claims 33 and 59 are 

obvious in view of the combination of Discenzo and Tompkins.

REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED 

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-1821 Document: 55 Page: 11 Filed: 06/12/2020