NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JAGER PRO, INC.,

Appellant

v.

W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1710, 2022-1711

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

01470, IPR2020-01471.

______________________ 

Decided: November 20, 2023

______________________ 

JONATHON A. TALCOTT, Ballard Spahr LLP, Phoenix, 

AZ, argued for appellant. Also represented by RICHARD 

WILLIAM MILLER, DENNIS ALAN WHITE, JR., Atlanta, GA; 

BENJAMIN NICHOLS SIMLER, Philadelphia, PA.

 SCOTT W. CUMMINGS, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by NAH EUN KIM, Atlanta, GA.

______________________ 

Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2023
2 JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 

Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

CHEN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellant Jager Pro, Inc. (Jager Pro) appeals two decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding 

all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,814,228 (’228 

patent) and 10,098,339 (’339 patent) unpatentable as obvious. W-W Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc., No. IPR2020-

01470, 2022 WL 499520 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) (’228 Decision); W-W Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc., No. IPR2020-

01471, 2022 WL 495334 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) (’339 Decision).1 Because the Board’s findings are supported by 

substantial evidence, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The ’228 and ’339 patents are directed to methods and 

apparatuses to remotely trap wild pigs. Claim 1 of the ’228 

patent reads:

1. A method for capturing a plurality of feral pigs, 

comprising: 

[a] moving at least one portion of an enclosure from 

an open position that permits passage of a plurality 

of feral pigs into the enclosure to a closed position 

that restricts passage of the plurality of feral pigs 

out of the enclosure, [b] wherein in the closed position, the enclosure cooperates with a ground surface to define an enclosure area in which the 

plurality of feral pigs are trapped, [c] and wherein 

the ground surface extends continuously from 

1 Jager Pro does not appear to make any argument 

specific to either the ’228 Decision or ’339 Decision or their 

respective patents. For simplicity, we reference the ’228 

Decision and the ’228 patent in resolving both appeals. 

Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 11/20/2023
JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 3

within the enclosure area to areas surrounding the 

enclosure, 

[d] wherein the enclosure comprises a release 

mechanism that effects movement of the at least 

one portion of the enclosure from the open position 

to the closed position, 

[e] wherein the release mechanism effects movement of the at least one portion of the enclosure 

from the open position to the closed position upon 

receipt of a release signal from a control mechanism that is in communication with a display device, [f] wherein the display device is in 

communication with a camera assembly and configured to: 

receive a wireless detection signal from the 

camera assembly; and 

[g] transmit a wireless control signal upon 

receipt of the wireless detection signal from 

the camera assembly, wherein the wireless 

control signal corresponds to an instruction 

to the control mechanism to generate the 

release signal, and 

[h] wherein, upon detection of a presence of the plurality of feral pigs within the enclosure by the camera assembly, the camera assembly transmits the 

wireless detection signal to the display device.

’228 patent at claim 1.2

2 The bracketed lettering follows the naming conventions adopted by the Board for each limitation of claim 1. 

See ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *4.

Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 3 Filed: 11/20/2023
4 JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 

The Board found the combination of TexasBoars3 and 

Jeong4 taught or suggested the subject matter of claim 1 of 

the ’228 patent. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *2. The 

Board found TexasBoars taught or suggested the mechanical aspects of the claimed enclosure, i.e., the preamble, 

Limitations 1[a]–1[d], and the “release mechanism” function of Limitation 1[e], and Jeong taught or suggested the 

remaining limitations, including the wireless transmission 

of signals from a camera assembly to a display device as 

well as from the display device to a control mechanism according to Figure 1:

J.A. 578, FIG. 1. The Board also considered Jager Pro’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness but did not 

give it substantial weight because Jager Pro had not shown 

3 The Board recorded this reference as “Archived 

copy of a page from TexasBoars’s website (https://texasboars.com/)” for TB1 and “Copy of presentation from TexasBoars’s website” for TB2. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 

499520, at *2 nn.4–5. This website no longer exists, but 

the Joint Appendix includes printed versions of both references at J.A. 520–21 (TB1) and J.A. 522–72 (TB2). This 

opinion collectively refers to both references as “TexasBoars.”

4 Korean Patent Registration No. 10-0688243. 

Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 4 Filed: 11/20/2023
JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 5

it was entitled to a presumption of nexus and made no 

other argument for why nexus existed. ’228 Decision, 2022 

WL 499520, at *54–57. 

Jager Pro appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial 

evidence and its ultimate conclusion of obviousness de 

novo. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1372

(Fed. Cir. 2019). Evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness is only accorded substantial weight when such evidence has a nexus with the claims, and the patent owner 

bears the burden of showing such nexus exists. Id. at 1373. 

The patent owner is entitled to a rebuttable presumption 

of nexus when the evidence is tied to a specific product and 

that product embodies and is coextensive with the claimed 

features. Id.

Jager Pro argues a number of the Board’s findings are 

not supported by substantial evidence, but we disagree 

with each. Jager Pro argues the Board never articulated a 

motivation to combine TexasBoars and Jeong with a reasonable expectation of success—it only found a lack of evidence of teaching away. Appellant’s Reply Br. 15–16. 

Jager Pro mischaracterizes the Board’s analysis. The 

Board found the combination of TexasBoars with Jeong involved a simple substitution of “an animal-instigated closure (e.g., by use of a trip wire) [with] a human-instigated 

closure (e.g., by receiving images of animals in an enclosure 

and pushing a button to send a signal to close the gate)” 

motivated by the advantages realized when these references are combined. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at 

*17, *24; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 

(2007). The Board also found a skilled artisan would understand the remote operability suggested by the combination would give the operator more control and increase the

Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 5 Filed: 11/20/2023
6 JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 

trap’s chance of success. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, 

at *17. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings. 

Jager Pro argues Jeong at most teaches or suggests detection of an animal approaching a trap, not detection of an 

animal within a trap as in limitation 1[h]. Appellant’s Reply Br. 2–7. But this attacks Jeong alone and not the combination of Jeong and TexasBoars. As the Board found, 

“Petitioner d[id] not rely on Jeong as teaching the enclosure recited by claim 1” but rather argued the limitation is 

taught or suggested by Jeong’s system added to TexasBoars’s corral trap. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at 

*39. Thus, Jager Pro’s argument misses the point by focusing on one reference’s disclosure instead of explaining why 

the stated combination fails to teach or suggest the limitation. We agree with the Board that the combination would 

have resulted in a camera assembly positioned in a manner 

to detect pigs located within the corral. 

Jager Pro argues Jeong does not teach or suggest wireless signals because Jeong never expressly refers to any 

signal as “wireless.” Appellant’s Br. 30–34; Appellant’s Reply Br. 9–10. The Board disagreed, observing that Jeong’s 

Figure 1 shows certain elements connected by solid lines 

and other elements connected by broken lines and finding 

that—when read in light of Jeong’s description of a “remote 

control unit” for the disclosed trap—the solid lines suggest 

a wired connection while the broken lines suggest a wireless connection. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *19–

20. On these facts, the Board’s finding with respect to 

Jeong is supported by substantial evidence.

Jager Pro argues the Board’s finding of no presumption 

of nexus was not supported by substantial evidence.5 

5 Jager Pro only argued for a presumption of 

nexus—as opposed to also arguing nexus absent the 

Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 6 Filed: 11/20/2023
JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 7

Appellant’s Br. 52–57. The Board found Jager Pro was not 

entitled to this presumption based on testimony from Jager 

Pro’s expert who explained Jager Pro’s commercial product’s display device transmits a wireless signal directly to 

the release mechanism, which then releases the gate. ’228 

Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *54–55. The Board correctly 

observed this is not what the claim requires—it instead requires a wireless signal sent from a display device to a control mechanism, which in turn then sends another signal 

to a release mechanism to release the gate. Id. The Board 

also considered Jager Pro’s arguments that its product 

manual’s depiction of a “control box” supports a finding of 

nexus because the control box receives wireless signals 

from a display device. Id. at *55. However, the Board reasonably found the manual to be inconclusive because it provides no explanation of the control box receiving wireless 

signals in the manner required by limitation 1[e]. Id. The 

Board’s finding regarding nexus is supported by substantial evidence. 

CONCLUSION

We have considered Jager Pro’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, 

the Board’s decisions are affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

presumption—to the Board. See ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 

499520, at *56.

Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 7 Filed: 11/20/2023