NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: EUGENE H. LUOMA,

Appellant

______________________ 

2019-2315

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,754.

______________________ 

Decided: March 11, 2022

______________________ 

ROBERT GREENSPOON, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig 

PLLC, Chicago, IL, for appellant Eugene H. Luoma. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Eugene H. Luoma appeals from an inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

that affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 

10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,873. GT Water Prods., 

Inc. v. Luoma, No. 2015-003755, 2015 WL 4552062 

(P.T.A.B. July 27, 2015) (Board Decision). The Board found 

Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2022
2 IN RE: LUOMA

that Hymes1 anticipated claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, and 11 and 

held that claims 5 and 10 would have been obvious over 

that same reference. For the following reasons, we affirm. 

I 

The ’873 patent relates to “an apparatus for removing 

hair from a drain[.]” ’873 patent at 1:8–9. Claim 1 is representative for purposes of this appeal:

1. Apparatus for removing hair from a drain, comprising:

(a) an elongate, flexible strip;

(b) the elongate, flexible strip having a plurality of barbed portions, the barbed portions being adapted to grip hair in the

drain, wherein the barbed portions are oriented at an acute angle to the axis of the 

elongate strip, wherein the vertex of the 

angle points away from the handle; and

(c) a handle, wherein the handle is a distinct structural element from the elongate, 

flexible strip.

(emphasis added to handle limitation). A passage in the 

written description describes an embodiment of the 

claimed handle: 

A handle 22 is attached to the flexible strip 12 at 

the proximal end 14. Preferably, the handle 22 is 

integrally molded with the strip 12. The handle 

may have an aperture 24 therethrough to allow the 

handle to be gripped by a person’s fingers, as best 

seen in FIGS. 3 and 4. 

1 U.S. Patent No. 834,135 (Hymes).

Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2022
IN RE: LUOMA 3

Operation of the device is shown in FIGS. 3, 4, and 

5. Turning to FIG. 3, a person grips the device 10 

by its handle 22, preferably by inserting a finger 

through the aperture 24. The device 10 is then inserted into the drain D, with the distal end 16 leading, as shown by the arrow in FIG. 3.

Id. at 2:12–21. That description references figure 3, which 

provides a helpful visual: 

II

Luoma first argues the Board adopted an unreasonably 

broad construction of the handle limitation. He distinguishes a handle—something “designed or made specifically to be held, grasped, or operated by a hand”—from 

something that is handleable. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 9. 

And he faults the Board for not limiting the claimed handle

according to this distinction. We do not agree.

The broadest reasonable interpretation of the handle 

limitation does not require any particular structure or design purpose. See In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253, 1255 

(Fed. Cir. 2014) (In inter partes reexamination proceedings, 

claims are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation 

consistent with the specification.”). Nothing in the claim 

Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 03/11/2022
4 IN RE: LUOMA

language or written description requires the handle have 

some structural feature specifically designed for holding—

like a finger depression, an aperture, or a knob. Contra 

Appellant’s Br. 10 (arguing Hymes lacks such structure). 

The written description has no redefinition of the word 

handle, nor does it contain a disavowal of claim scope. The 

handle is simply the portion of the apparatus that a user 

grips. See ’873 patent at 2:12–21. Certainly, the handle 

must be structurally distinct from the elongate, flexible 

strip. Id. at claim 1. But that does not limit the claimed 

handle to a particular design. Accordingly, we agree with 

the Board’s construction. See Board Decision at *7 (construing “a handle” to mean the portion held by the user that 

is distinct from the elongate, flexible strip). 

Applying this construction, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Hymes teaches the claimed

handle. See Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 869 F.3d 1309, 

1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reviewing findings in an inter partes 

reexamination for substantial evidence). Hymes’ sewer 

opener “consists of a number of concentric coils [B] composed of a continuous strip of spring-steel properly tempered so as to readily conform to the change required in 

practical use.” Hymes ll. 17–21. Those concentric coils B 

“may by drawn out longitudinally,” id. ll. 30–31, and “can 

be manipulated in a small space by being uncoiled as it is 

inserted in the passage to be opened,” id. ll. 60–62 (emphasis added). Also, those coils are described as distinct from 

another structural element of the sewer opener, the working end. That working end has a spear point C and several 

barbs D:

Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 03/11/2022
IN RE: LUOMA 5

Id. Fig. 1; see also id. ll. 36–45. Based on this disclosure, 

the Board found Hymes taught a structure held by the user 

and distinct from the elongate, flexible strip (i.e., the working end). See Board Decision at *7. And we cannot say that 

finding is unsupported by substantial evidence.

III

Luoma also argues that substantial evidence does not 

support the Board’s finding that Hymes’ working end is an

“elongate, flexible strip.” He claims that end is “short, 

straight, unbent, [and] inflexible.” Appellant’s Br. 3. But 

there is no indication in this record that Luoma presented 

that argument below. See Board Decision at 5 (summarizing Luoma’s arguments). So it is not clear whether Luoma 

has preserved this argument. See, e.g., Cal. Ridge Wind 

Energy LLC v. United States, 959 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. 

Cir. 2020) (“We may deem an argument forfeited when a 

party raises it for the first time on appeal.”). Even so, we 

do not agree with Luoma on the merits.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

the working end in Hymes is elongate and flexible. Hymes 

repeatedly describes embodiments of its sewer opener as 

“composed of a strip of tempered spring-steel” or “composed 

of a continuous strip of spring[ ]steel.” E.g., Hymes ll. 18–

19, 27–28 (emphases added). This suggests the sewer 

opener has the same spring-like properties throughout, including at the working end. Hymes further describes how

the opener’s continuous, spring-steel form allows it to “be[] 

uncoiled as it is inserted in the passage to be opened, and 

when withdrawn the resilience is so great as to automatically return to the coiled position.” Id. ll. 58–64. This also 

supports a finding that the working end is flexible. And 

Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 03/11/2022
6 IN RE: LUOMA

the working end of Hymes is depicted in the figures as elongate: 

Id. Fig. 3. In light of this evidence, we cannot say the 

Board’s findings were unsupported. 

IV

Based on the foregoing, we hold the Board correctly 

construed the claimed handle. And under that construction, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that 

Hymes teaches that handle. Likewise, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Hymes teaches an 

elongate, flexible strip. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 03/11/2022