NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WONDERLAND NURSERYGOODS CO., LTD.,

Appellant

v.

BABY TREND, INC., DENNY TSAI, BETTY TSAI,

Appellees

______________________ 

2017-1295, 2017-1297

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2015-00841, IPR2015-00842.

______________________ 

Decided: April 19, 2018

______________________ 

 GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC, 

argued for appellant. Also represented by DOUGLAS 

PEARSON; MARK A. FINKELSTEIN, Irvine, CA; JOSHUA R.

NIGHTINGALE, Pittsburgh, PA; JOSEPH M. SAUER, Cleveland, OH.

R. TREVOR CARTER, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for appellees. Also represented by 

REID E. DODGE, ANDREW M. MCCOY; JOEL SAYRES, Denver, 

CO.
2 WONDERLAND NURSERYGOODS CO. v. BABY TREND, INC. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and MOORE, Circuit

Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Wonderland Nurserygoods Co. appeals two inter 

partes review decisions. In IPR2015-00841, the Patent 

Trial and Appeal Board determined claims 20–28 of 

U.S. Reissue Patent RE43,919 were anticipated by U.S. 

Patent No. 6,004,182 (“Pasin”) and would have been 

obvious over Pasin in combination with U.S. Patent 

No. 7,063,096 (“Stoeckler”). It also determined claims 15–

19 were anticipated by Australian Patent No. 715,883 

(“Bidwell”) and would have been obvious over Bidwell in 

combination with Stoeckler. It further concluded claim 29 

would have been obvious over the combination of Bidwell 

and Stoeckler. In IPR2015-00842, the Board concluded 

claims 1–5 and 8–29 would have been obvious over U.S. 

Patent No. 3,924,280 (“Vaiano”), in combination with 

Paisin, and the combination of Vaiano, Pasin, and Stoeckler. Because the Board erred in its claim construction, 

which applies to all claims, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

The ’919 patent discloses an easy to assemble baby 

crib in which a fabric member is positioned on a bed 

frame structure. ’919 patent at 1:43–46. Independent 

claims 1, 8, 15, and 20 contain limitations reciting either 

“a fabric member” or “an enclosure member.” The remaining challenged claims depend from these claims. In 

the IPRs the Board construed “a fabric member” to mean 

“one or more pieces of fabric” and “an enclosure member” 

to mean “one or more members.” J.A. 17, 151. Applying 

these constructions, the Board determined that Vaiano, 

Pasin, and Stoeckler taught these limitations. In 
WONDERLAND NURSERYGOODS CO. v. BABY TREND, INC. 3

IPR2015-00842, the Board also stated that Vaiano taught 

“a single, continuous member.” J.A. 171. 

Wonderland timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo 

and its fact findings for substantial evidence. CRFD 

Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 

2017). Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying facts. Id. at 1340. Anticipation is a question of fact. 

Id. at 1338. We review claim construction de novo except 

for subsidiary fact findings, which we review for substantial evidence. Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In 

IPR proceedings, the Board gives claims their broadest 

reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns 

RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 751 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

I 

The Board erred in its constructions of “a fabric member” and “an enclosure member.” The Board’s constructions allow for the claimed crib to have multiple fabric 

members and enclosure members. Although the use of 

the singular articles “a” and “an” often means “one or 

more” when the transitional phrase “comprising” is used, 

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 

1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in this instance, the Board’s construction is inconsistent with the use of the terms in the 

claims.

The ordinary language of the claims indicates that a 

single fabric or enclosure member is capable of separating 

the interior of the claimed crib from the exterior. Claim 1 

requires the fabric member “define a surrounding wall” 

and “delimit an enclosed space.” Claims 8 and 15 require 

the enclosure member “surround[] an enclosed space.” 
4 WONDERLAND NURSERYGOODS CO. v. BABY TREND, INC. 

Claims 15 and 20, moreover, provide that the “enclosure 

member includ[es] a plurality of side panels.” Under the 

Board’s construction, each side panel would constitute an 

“enclosure member,” so there would be no meaningful 

distinction between the terms. We conclude that “a fabric 

member” and “an enclosure member” must be unitary 

structures able to “delineate” or “surround[]” an “enclosed 

space.”

This construction is consistent with the examples disclosed in the specification. The preferred embodiment, 

depicted in Figure 3, shows the fabric member as a single 

element with four side panels and four sleeve portions 

formed by sewing, and the fabric member is the element 

defining a surrounding wall around the bed frame structure. ’919 patent at 2:35–43. The side panels are part of 

the unitary fabric member and are not separately described or identified as “members” in the patent. See ’919 

patent at 2:42–45. Although we must be careful not to 

read limitations from the specification into the claims, the 

specification’s use of the claim terms in a manner consistent with their use in the claims further supports our 

conclusion.

The Board and Appellees Baby Trend, Inc., Denny 

Tsai, and Betty Tsai (collectively “Baby Trend”) emphasize the role of the prosecution history in the claim construction, but read in context, the prosecution history 

does not support the Board’s construction. Wonderland 

amended reissue claim 8 during prosecution to remove the 

express limitation that the enclosure member was 

“formed in a single body,” and amended reissue claim 20 

to remove the express limitation that the plurality of side 

panels be “connected [to] one another along joining edge 

portions.” The Board determined these amendments 

indicated an intention to not limit the claims to cribs with 

only a single enclosure member. The prosecution history 

suggests, however, these changes were part of a series of 

changes emphasizing that the “fabric/enclosure member 
WONDERLAND NURSERYGOODS CO. v. BABY TREND, INC. 5

surrounds an enclosed space adapted for receiving a baby 

therein,” J.A. 1853, made in response to the examiner’s 

citation to a prior art reference directed to chairs. Rather 

than broadening the claims, these amendments sought to 

distinguish from prior art.

Properly construed, therefore, “a fabric member” and 

“an enclosure member” refer to unitary elements that 

separate the interior of the claimed crib from the exterior.

II

The Board’s alternative finding that the claims are 

unpatentable under the construction we now adopt is not 

supported by substantial evidence. The prior art cited 

does not teach the “a fabric member” or “an enclosure 

member” limitations as properly construed. On appeal, 

Baby Trend relies on Vaiano for a disclosure of these 

limitations under the constructions we have adopted. It 

argues the Board’s finding that Vaiano taught a single, 

continuous member is supported by substantial evidence. 

We disagree.

Although the Board states that “Vaiano refers to netting 32 as a single, continuous member,” J.A. 171, the 

citation the Board provides does not stand for that proposition. The cited passage in the specification reads in its 

entirety: 

Secured to the posts 10 and the peripheral edge of 

floor 9 is a netting 32, preferably of nylon or other 

synthetic material. The upper edge of net 32 is 

attached at 34 to an annular bumper 36 of suitable fabric enclosing a resilient core 38 of rubber or 

plastic material secured to the upper portions of 

posts 10.

J.A. 2770. This does not indicate that the netting is a 

single, continuous member. The Board also cites Figure 1 

of Vaiano, depicted below.
6 WONDERLAND NURSERYGOODS CO. v. BABY TREND, INC. 

Baby Trend suggests this depicts a continuous, single 

member because some of the lines of the netting in the 

back corner align. The lines at the other corners, however, do not. While it is possible that a single, continuous 

piece could be used in Vaiano, that is not the question 

before us. Instead, we ask whether Vaiano discloses a 

single, continuous piece. Substantial evidence does not 

support the Board’s finding that it does.

Baby Trend’s argument that the Board inherently 

adopted its expert’s testimony discussing Vaiano’s disclosure is unavailing. The Board cited Baby Trend’s Petition

for IPR and stated that it found the arguments therein 

“persuasive[].” J.A. 171. It did not, however, cite to Baby 

Trend’s expert’s declaration or make any reference to 

expert testimony. When the Board intends to rely on 

extrinsic evidence, it does so expressly. A single citation 

to 10 pages in a petition does not incorporate by reference 

every piece of evidence referenced therein. Similarly, 

Baby Trend may not rely on statements made by Administrative Patent Judges at the oral hearing that were not 

included in the Board’s written decisions. 

CONCLUSION

Applying the proper claim constructions, we find the 

record does not contain substantial evidence supporting

the Board’s findings of anticipation and conclusions of 

obviousness. We have considered Baby Trend’s remaining 

arguments and find them unpersuasive. Therefore, the 

judgments of the Board are reversed.

REVERSED