Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01533/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01533-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc.
Appellant
Genesis Attachments, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALLIED ERECTING AND DISMANTLING CO., INC.,

Appellant

v. 

GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC,

Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1533

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,352.

______________________ 

Decided: June 15, 2016

______________________ 

 DANIEL H. BREAN, The Webb Law Firm, Pittsburgh, 

PA, argued for appellant. Also represented by RICHARD L.

BYRNE, JAMES G. PORCELLI. 

 RYAN WAYNE MASSEY, Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, 

Troy, MI, argued for appellee. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, DYK, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge.

Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. (“Allied”) 

appeals the United States Patent Trial and Appeal 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

2

Board’s (“PTAB”) decision, on inter partes reexamination, 

concluding that claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,121,489 

(“the ’489 patent”) would have been obvious over German 

prior art reference DE 297 15 490 U1 (“Caterpillar”) (J.A. 

131–44) and U.S. Patent No. 4,283,866 (“Ogawa”) (J.A. 

145–51). See Genesis Attachments, LLC v. Allied Erecting 

& Dismantling Co., No. IPR2014-001006, 2014 WL 

7274949 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014); (PTAB decision denying 

rehearing) (J.A. 2–8). For the reasons set forth below, we 

affirm the PTAB’s decision.

BACKGROUND

I. The ’489 Patent

The ’489 patent, entitled “Multiple Tool Attachment 

System,” is directed to heavy machinery tools used for 

construction and demolition that can be attached to a 

universal body, which in turn can be attached to “multiple 

tools, such as a heavy-duty metal cutting shear, a plate 

shear, a concrete crusher, [or] a grapple.” ’489 patent col. 

1 ll. 22–24. Traditionally, such tools (i.e., shears, crushers, grapples, etc.) were designed independently, such 

that “one type of tool associated with each body [] can 

have the greatest possible utility and application.” Id. col. 

1 ll. 60–62. According to the ’489 patent, this approach 

did “not provide a system for easily changing tools or a 

system which allows complete[ly] separate tools to efficiently share a common structure.” Id. col. 2 ll. 30–32. As 

a result, one purpose of the ’489 patent is “to provide a 

multiple tool attachment system which is easily converted 

between a plurality of distinct tools.” Id. col. 2 ll. 44–46. 

To achieve this objective, the ’489 patent describes a 

“quick change feature[]” that enables different demolition 

tools to be efficiently substituted for one another. Id., 

Abstract. 

Figure 1 of the ’489 patent (illustrated below) is illustrative of the claimed invention. It depicts a shear (10) 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

3

attached to a body (18), which is then attached to a piece 

of demolition equipment, such as a backhoe (not illustrated). Body (18) is referred to as a “universal body . . . 

because it remains common to a series of tools or tool 

units [i.e., jaw sets] in the attachment system.” Id. col. 5 

ll. 60–61. 

Id. fig 1; J.A. 80. 

The body (18) depicted above in Figure 1 is referred to 

as a “universal body . . . because it remains common to a 

series of tools or tool units [i.e., jaw sets] in the attachment system.” Id. col. 5 ll. 59–61. As illustrated in Figure 1, each jaw set of the shear has a main pin (16) about 

which jaws (12 and 14) can rotate. “A bridge housing 48 

surrounds the main pin 16 and is utilized for quickly and 

easily attaching the main pin 16 and the associated jaw 

set to the universal body 18.” Id. col. 6 ll. 56–59. 

Figure 57 (depicted below) of the ’489 patent illustrates the structure of the bridge housing. Sides (19) of 

universal body (18), (see Figure 1) terminate at receiving 

member (42) that fits between two bridge housing plates 

(405 and 406). Receiving member (42) has a curved 

surface (412) formed via a cutaway that engages with 

cylindrical sleeve (408), and surrounds main pin (16) (see

Figure 1). When receiving member (42) is engaged with 

sleeve (408), apertures (52) will be aligned and keeper 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

4

pins (50) can be inserted to attach the bridge housing to 

the universal body. Id. col. 6 ll. 63–65. 

Id. fig.57. 

Independent claim 1 (as amended) is representative of 

the claimed invention and recites: 

A tool set for coupling to the receiving 

member of a body having hydraulically powered 

blades, the tool set comprising: 

a pair of movable blades pivoted together about 

a main pivot pin; 

a bridge housing encasing the main pivot pin, 

wherein the bridge housing is separate from the 

movable blades; 

wherein the blades are movable relative to the

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

5

bridge housing; 

wherein the bridge housing with the main 

pivot pin intact therein is adapted to be detachably connected to the receiving member and the 

pair of movable blades is adapted to be detachably 

connected to at least one hydraulic cylinder such 

that the tool set may be removed from or attached 

to the body without the need to disengage or engage the main pivot pin from the blades, thereby 

providing a quick release system for attaching the 

tool set to the body; and 

wherein the bridge housing has an aperture 

adapted to be mated with a matching aperture of 

the receiving member through a removable keeper 

pin to secure the bridge housing to the receiving 

member. 

Id. col. 15 ll. 26–44 (emphases added to reflect disputed 

claim language); see J.A. 124 (amendment to claim 1). 

Bridge housing (48), which allows for various jaw sets 

to be quickly and easily attached and detached, is an 

embodiment of the bridge housing recited in claim 1 of the

’489 patent. The attachment and detachment method 

provides for main pin (16) and its surrounding bearing 

structure, including the bridge housing, which encases the 

main pin, to remain attached to the jaw set when it is 

removed from the universal body. Id. col. 6 l. 67–col. 7 l. 

3. At issue is whether the PTAB was correct in holding 

that Caterpillar and Ogawa, when combined, render 

obvious the claimed invention as a whole. 

II. Prior Art

A. Caterpillar

The operation of demolition tools requires the replacement of its jaws, “either because the blades or their 

cutting edges have become worn or because other, more 

appropriate jaws must be installed to demolish different 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

6

materials.” J.A. 133. The prior art required the laborintensive process of first dismantling the swivel bearing 

and then individually uninstalling the jaws of the tool set 

from the housing. J.A. 133. To overcome this disadvantage, Caterpillar teaches a system where “the jaws 

can be replaced as a unit in a simple manner.” J.A. 134. 

Caterpillar discloses a demolition tool with a housing that 

can be attached to a piece of construction equipment such 

as an excavator, and has “two jaws that work together 

[that] can be pivoted relative to each other.” J.A. 132. 

The “first jaw is detachably connected to the housing 

by means of [a] first and second mounting device[].” 

J.A. 132. The first jaw is attached to the housing by two 

pins and does not move with respect to the housing during 

operation. J.A. 137. The second jaw “is connected on one 

hand by means of the swivel bearing to the first jaw and 

on the other hand is held by the drive device, which is 

preferably a hydraulic cylinder which is mounted on the 

housing.” J.A. 134. By making the “first and second 

mounting devices . . . independent of the swivel bearing,” 

the swivel bearing “functions only as the mutual swivel 

mounting of the two jaws and does not function as their 

attachment to the housing.” J.A. 134. Accordingly, by 

immobilizing the first jaw, Caterpillar decouples the pivot 

pin from the mounting mechanism as suggested by other 

prior art. See J.A. 134. Caterpillar’s design thereby 

enables the quick-change functionality of the jaw sets. 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

7

 

J.A. 142 (fig.1). 

Figure 1 of Caterpillar (depicted above) depicts a lateral view of a scrap metal shear with housing (11) to 

which first jaw (13) and second jaw (14) are attached. 

J.A. 142. First jaw (13) is attached to housing (11) by 

means of mounting devices (19) and (20). J.A. 137. The 

first jaw (13) includes a pair of opposing side walls (13a)

(not shown in Fig. 1) having mounting devices (19) and 

(20) which are used to attach first jaw (13) to housing 

(11). J.A. 137. Mounting device (19) includes grooves (22) 

with receptacle segment (22b) in the side walls (13a) for 

receiving pin (21), and mounting device (20), which includes bore hole (23) in side walls (13a) for receiving 

locking pin (25). J.A. 137–38. Via swivel bearing (15), 

first jaw (13) supports second jaw (14), which is coupled 

with hydraulic cylinder (16) at bearing (18). J.A. 137. 

“The jaws are removed [by] . . . releas[ing] the first jaw 13 

from . . . housing 11, [and] only [] socket pin 25 must be 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

8

extracted, whereupon [] pin 21 can be easily extracted 

from [] groove[] 22.” J.A. 138. The opening and closing of 

the shear is achieved by actuation of hydraulic cylinder 

(16), which allows for second jaw (14) to be swiveled 

around swivel bearing (15) relative to both first jaw (13) 

and housing (11). J.A. 137. 

B. Ogawa

Ogawa discloses “[a] convertible bucket attachment 

for excavation and clasping.” Ogawa, Abstract. Figure 4a 

(reproduced below) depicts a side view of the bucket 

attachment, including bucket proper (1) and sub-bucket 

(2). Id., fig.4a. Both buckets are pivotally connected to 

the distal end of arm (11) via a main pin (5′) such that a 

hydraulic cylinder can cause both buckets to rotate. Id.

col. 2 ll. 2–17; id. col. 2 l. 59–col. 3 l. 47. Through a linkage system, a single hydraulic cylinder is able to rotate 

and operate both buckets. Id. col. 1 ll. 6–14. 

Id. fig.4a; see also id. col. 4 ll. 13–40. 

One purpose of Ogawa is to provide for a greater degree of movement between the back and fore buckets of 

the apparatus. See id. col. 1 ll. 49–55 (stating that in the 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

9

prior art, “provision of a cylinder actuator between the 

back and the fore bucket . . . imposed a substantial limitation on the distance of range in which both bucket members can be operatively moved relative to each other, and 

prevented the range of angular movement of the members 

from being as wide as 180 [degrees]”). 

III. Procedural History

On May 5, 2010, Genesis Attachments, LLC (“Genesis”) filed a petition for inter partes reexamination, asserting the ’489 patent was unpatentable because it was 

anticipated and obvious over different prior art references. During reexamination, Allied amended claims 1, 7, 

and 17–19, and added new claims 20 and 21. See J.A. 

124–30. The amendments and new claims recited, inter 

alia, that the bridge housing “encas[ed]” the main pivot 

pin, and both blades were “movable” relative to the bridge 

housing. See J.A. 124, 127–28. A United States Patent 

and Trademark Office (“PTO”) examiner allowed the 

amended claims, withdrew his initial rejections, see J.A. 

2087 (rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, and 12–19 of the 

’489 patent as anticipated by Ogawa), and confirmed the 

patentability of claims 1–21, see J.A. 1579–80. Genesis 

appealed the examiner’s decision to the PTAB. See J.A. 

37–75 (“Decision on Appeal”). 

On appeal, the PTAB concluded that claims 1–3, 13, 

14, and 17–20 would have been obvious over Caterpillar 

in view of Ogawa. See J.A. 72–73. Because the PTAB 

reversed the examiner’s decision finding the amended 

claims patentable, it noted that its decision constituted a 

new ground of rejection and allowed Allied to reopen 

prosecution or request rehearing. See J.A. 68 (citing 37 

C.F.R. § 41.77(a)–(b)).1 The PTAB then remanded to the 

 

1 37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) (2012) recites: 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

10

examiner to determine whether claims 4–12, 15–16, and 

21 of the ’489 patent would have also been obvious over 

Caterpillar in view of Ogawa and in further view of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,546,683 (“Clark”). J.A. 69. 

Allied elected to reopen prosecution and submitted a 

second round of amendments to claims 1, 7, and 17–19. 

See J.A. 124–28. The examiner found the amendments 

did not overcome the PTAB’s ground of rejection based on 

Caterpillar and Ogawa, J.A. 1250–51, and that claims 4–

12, 15–16, and 21 were “unpatentable over Caterpillar in 

view of Ogawa and further in view of Clark,” J.A. 1251. 

The PTAB then issued a new decision affirming the 

examiner’s rejections. See J.A. 10–35 (New Decision). 

Like its Decision on Appeal, the PTAB again found that 

“Caterpillar ‘teaches one of ordinary skill in the art the 

desirability of simplifying disassembly of jaws, and discloses a mechanism for doing so.’” J.A. 19 (quoting J.A. 

65). The PTAB also found that Ogawa provides two 

movable blades to enable a wide range of angular movement. See J.A. 19. Accordingly, the PTAB concluded that 

 

Should the [PTAB] reverse the examiner’s determination not to make a rejection proposed by a 

requester, the [PTAB] shall set forth in the opinion in support of its decision a new ground of rejection . . . . Any decision which includes a new 

ground of rejection . . . shall not be considered final for judicial review. When the [PTAB] makes a 

new ground of rejection, the owner, within one 

month from the date of the decision, must exercise 

one of the following two options with respect to 

the new ground of rejection to avoid termination 

of the appeal proceeding as to the rejected claim: . 

. . 1) Reopen prosecution . . . ; [or] (2) Request rehearing. 

37 C.F.R. § 41.77(b) (emphasis added)

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 10 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

11

based on these disclosures, a person of ordinary skill in 

the art could have modified Caterpillar to provide for a 

“wide range of angular movement.” J.A. 20. 

Allied submitted a Request for Rehearing. J.A. 1113–

23. The PTAB denied this request and reaffirmed the 

rejections. See J.A. 2–8. This appeal followed. This court 

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

(2012). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Legal Framework

Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006) is a mixed 

question of law and fact. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., 

Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The PTAB’s 

ultimate determination of obviousness is a legal conclusion, which we review de novo. In re Baxter Int’l, Inc., 678 

F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We review the PTAB’s 

underlying factual findings, including what a reference 

teaches and the differences between the prior art and the 

claimed invention, for substantial evidence. See id. (citing 

Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 

(1966)). We also review the PTAB’s “finding of a motivation to combine [] for substantial evidence.” In re Kahn, 

441 F.3d 977, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “A 

finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding.” K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 

1362, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). 

A patent claim is unpatentable as obvious “if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented 

and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a 

whole would have been obvious at the time the invention 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 11 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

12

was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.”2 

35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006). 

II. The ’489 Would Have Been Obvious in Light of Caterpillar and Ogawa

At issue is whether it would have been obvious to 

modify Caterpillar to make both blades movable as taught 

by Ogawa, while retaining Caterpillar’s quick change 

functionality. Allied argues that “[n]o substantial evidence in the record exists that would allow the [PTAB] to 

conclude that [Caterpillar and Ogawa] taught the elements of the claimed invention or rendered it obvious.” 

Allied Br. 29. Allied presents two distinct arguments in 

support of its position. First, Allied challenges the 

PTAB’s finding of a motivation to combine Caterpillar and 

Ogawa. Specifically, Allied argues that “the [PTAB] 

relied on improper hindsight, in the absence of any valid 

reasoning or supporting evidence, for its obviousness 

conclusion.” Id. (capitalization modified). Second, Allied 

contends that “Caterpillar expressly teaches away from 

combining its teachings with Ogawa.” Id. at 32 (capitalization modified). Specifically, Allied argues that the 

PTAB’s “reasoning would fundamentally redesign and 

reconstruct Caterpillar to change its principle of operation 

and [thus] result in an inoperable device.” Id. at 38

(capitalization modified). We address each of these arguments in turn. 

 

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) 

amended § 103. See Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 3(c), 125 Stat. 

284, 287 (2011). However, because the application that 

led to the ’489 patent was filed before March 16, 2013, the 

version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 that applies here is the one in 

force preceding the changes made by the AIA. See id.

§ 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293. 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 12 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

13

A. Substantial Evidence Supports the PTAB’s Finding of 

a Motivation to Combine Caterpillar and Ogawa

According to Allied, contrary to the PTAB’s assertion, 

“making the second jaw in Caterpillar movable involves a 

massive, nonobvious reconstruction of the device that not 

only changes its principle of operation, but renders the 

device inoperable as a result.” Id. at 40. Allied contends

that the modification of Caterpillar in view of Ogawa 

would not only “result [in] substantial redesign and 

reconstruction,” id. at 44, but also “would [not] have been 

obvious to a [person having ordinary skill in the art],” id.

at 45. 

Although the PTAB acknowledged that its “suggested 

modification to Caterpillar would entail design and structural changes,” J.A. 67, it nonetheless determined:

it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill 

in the art to apply the teaching of Ogawa with respect to articulation of both grasping members 

and wide range of angular movement to thereby 

modify Caterpillar so that the first jaw 13 with 

the teeth thereon also pivots about the swivel 

bearing 15 like second jaw 14, while also maintaining the simplified mounting and disassembly 

via the [side] walls 13a with their [mounting devices] 19, 20 so that the jaws can be disassembled 

in a simple manner as specifically taught therein. 

J.A. 66 (citation omitted). 

Contrary to Allied’s position, “it is not necessary that 

[Caterpillar and Ogawa] be physically combinable to 

render obvious the [’489 patent].” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 

1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also In re Etter, 756 F.2d 

852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions 

that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the 

references could be physically combined but whether the 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 13 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

14

claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings 

of the prior art as a whole.”). “The test for obviousness is 

not whether the features of a secondary reference may be 

bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary 

reference,” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 

1981). See also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425), but rather 

whether “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to 

combine the teachings of the prior art references to 

achieve the claimed invention,” Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 

480 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

Upon determining that side walls 13a of Caterpillar 

serve a similar quick release function as the bridge housing of the ’489 patent, it would have been obvious to a 

person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the immobilized jaw of Caterpillar (first jaw 13) in order to provide 

for a wider range of motion as taught by Ogawa, to make 

the jaw set more efficient. For example, a wider range of 

motion would augment the jaw sets’ grasping capabilities. 

See J.A. 66 (asserting a skilled artisan would seek to 

modify the jaws of Caterpillar in order to provide a “wide 

range of angular movement”); see also J.A. 23 (referring to 

the “desirability of allowing for wide openings” (citation 

omitted)). Although modification of the movable blades 

may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by 

Caterpillar, “[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not 

necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, 

S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 

(citation omitted). As articulated by the PTAB, a skilled 

artisan could modify Caterpillar in view of Ogawa by 

treating the first jaw like the second. That is, by pivoting 

the first jaw around the swivel bearing. See J.A. 20. Such 

a design allows for a greater degree of movement between 

the jaws, without impacting the quick change functionality (i.e., the ability to mount and disassemble the jaw in a 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 14 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

15

simple manner) provided by the holding fixtures via side 

walls 13a. See J.A. 20. 

B. Caterpillar Does Not Expressly Teach Away from 

Ogawa

Allied also argues that Caterpillar expressly teaches 

away from Ogawa because “the main pivot pin function[s] 

as both the pivot point for the jaws and the means for 

attaching the jaws to the frame.” Allied Br. 33 (emphasis 

added). According to Allied, because “the teachings of 

Ogawa would encourage a [person having ordinary skill in 

the art] to do exactly what Caterpillar says they should 

not do––have the main pivot pin for both jaws also mount 

the jaws to the frame,” id. at 37, “Caterpillar undisputedly teaches away from the combination with Ogawa,” id. at 

38 (citation omitted). 

In its decision denying rehearing, the PTAB took the 

same position it articulated in its New Decision. See J.A. 

3–4. The PTAB stated that “it is well known in the art to 

provide tools with jaws wherein only one of the jaws is 

movable and the other is fixed . . . or wherein both of the 

jaws are movable. . . .” J.A. 4 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the PTAB determined “it would have been obvious 

to . . . apply the teachings of Ogawa with respect to articulation of both grasping members and wide range of angular movement to thereby modify Caterpillar to allow the 

blades to be opened wider or to minimize movement of the 

object as it is grasped.” J.A. 22–23 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

Caterpillar does not expressly teach away from Ogawa. “A reference may be said to teach away when a 

person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, 

would be discouraged from following the path set out in 

the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent 

from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re 

Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Contrary to 

Allied’s contention that the PTAB incorrectly relied on 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 15 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

16

Ogawa because its precise structure (i.e., two separate 

hydraulic cylinders) is criticized by Caterpillar, the disadvantage underscored by Caterpillar does not militate 

against finding the combination proper. Caterpillar 

expresses doubt as to whether an optimal design feature 

may have the main pivot pin for both jaws also mount the 

jaws to the frame in order to effect the quick change 

functionality. See J.A. 133 (asserting that the “design 

possibilities of the pin structure are severely restricted on 

account of its dual function as a swivel bearing and as a 

detachable mounting of the jaws, which in turn means 

that an optimum design with regard to both desired 

functions can be achieved only with very great difficulty, if 

at all”) (emphases added)); see also Allied Br. 34 (asserting that “Caterpillar specifically teaches that having both 

jaws pivotally mounted to the frame via the main pivot 

pin is expected to work poorly”). There is no teaching 

away from the combination of Caterpillar and Ogawa 

because the combination does not utilize the pivot pin 

attachment mechanism of Ogawa. There is no teaching 

away in Caterpillar from using the Ogawa feature of two 

movable jaws. 

In any event, the PTAB grounded its modification of 

Caterpillar on Ogawa’s teaching of two movable blades 

and “wide range of angular movement.” J.A. 20. Thus, 

contrary to Allied’s contention, Ogawa’s disclosure of the 

need for two separate cylinders is extraneous to the 

PTAB’s decision. According to the PTAB, “the claims of 

the ’489 patent [would have been] obvious whether only a 

single . . . or two cylinders are used.” J.A. 29. 

We have considered Allied’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. 

CONCLUSION

Because we find that substantial evidence supports 

the PTAB’s finding of a motivation to combine and that 

Caterpillar does not expressly teach away from Ogawa, 

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 16 Filed: 06/15/2016
ALLIED ERECTING & DISMANTLING CO. 

v. GENESIS ATTACHMENTS, LLC

17

we affirm the PTAB’s determination that the ’489 patent 

would have been obvious in view of Caterpillar and Ogawa. The decision of the United States Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board is

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1533 Document: 35-2 Page: 17 Filed: 06/15/2016