NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

COMAPER CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANTEC, INC., BEST BUY CO., INC., AND MICRO 

ELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________ 

2013-1147 

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 05-CV-1103, 

Judge Petrese B. Tucker. 

______________________ 

Decided: September 6, 2013 

______________________ 

STEPHEN J. DRISCOLL, Saul Ewing, LLP, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of 

counsel was JOSEPH F. POSILLICO, Fox Rothschild, LLP, of 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

ROBERT P. ANDRIS, Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, 

of Redwood City, California, argued for defendantsappellees. With him on the brief was LAEL D. ANDARA.

______________________ 
2 COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER, and MOORE,

Circuit Judges. 

RADER, Chief Judge. 

After a jury verdict upholding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,955,955 (the ’955 patent), the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

granted a JMOL motion rendering some claims invalid as 

anticipated. Because the district court erred in concluding that the jury verdict lacked substantial evidence, this 

court reverses and remands. 

I. 

Comaper Corporation (Comaper) is the owner of 

the ’955 patent. Filed in 1994 and issued in 1999, the ’955 

patent claims a device to cool a computer’s drive bay 

region. See App. 60. The invention is a device inserted 

into a drive bay via a slot in the housing of the computer. 

Id. In 2005, Comaper filed suit against Antec, Inc. and 

others (collectively, Antec), alleging infringement of 

the ’955 patent. See Appellant’s Br. 4. Following a trial 

in 2007, this court affirmed the district court’s claim 

construction and a jury verdict of willful infringement. 

Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). However, because of an inconsistent 

verdict on invalidity (the jury found dependent claims, but 

not claims they depended from, to have been obvious), 

this court remanded in part. Id. at 1354–55. 

In a second trial in 2011, the parties presented evidence only on issues of validity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 

and 103. The jury heard substantial testimony from the 

inventor (Mr. Corcoran) and Antec’s two expert witnesses, 

a computer collector (Mr. Ismail) and a computer historian (Mr. Bickley). During the week-long trial, Antec 

argued that several prior art devices and references 

rendered the claims invalid. However, by agreement, only 

the invalidity of the two independent claims of the ’955 

patent, claims 1 and 12, was submitted to the jury. App. 

3. The jury found that Antec did not prove invalidity. Id.
COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 3 

Antec properly moved for JMOL under §§ 102 and 

103, relying on four prior art devices. On April 2, 2012, 

the district court granted Antec’s motion for JMOL under 

§ 102, holding that two prior art devices anticipated both 

asserted claims. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 867 F. 

Supp. 2d 663 (E.D. Pa. 2012); see App. 10–11, 20. The 

trial court did not reach § 103. Comaper appeals. This 

court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

II. 

This court reviews claim construction without deference. See Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). In contrast, anticipation is a 

question of fact. Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1058 

(Fed. Cir. 2001). A prior art device anticipates only if 

there is clear and convincing evidence that the prior art 

device “disclosed, either expressly or inherently, all the 

structural limitations contained in the asserted apparatus 

claims.” Old Reliable Wholesale, Inc. v. Cornell Corp., 635 

F.3d 539, 545 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see Applied Med. Res. 

Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 147 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998) (a prior art device does not anticipate “simply 

by possessing identically named parts, unless these parts 

also have the same structure or otherwise satisfy the 

claim limitations”). 

This court reviews a district court’s grant of JMOL 

under regional circuit law. Frolow v. Wilson Sporting 

Goods Co., 710 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “The 

Third Circuit exercises plenary review of the grant of a 

motion for JMOL,” and follows the rule that a motion for 

JMOL “should be granted only if, viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is 

no question of material fact for the jury and any verdict 

other than the one directed would be erroneous under the 

governing law.” Id. (quoting McGreevy v. Stroup, 413 

F.3d 359, 363–64 (3d Cir. 2005) (citation omitted)). As 

Antec recognizes, in the Third Circuit it “is only in rare 

instances that a jury’s verdict in a civil case should be 

overturned.” Pitts v. Delaware, 646 F.3d 151, 152 (3d Cir. 
4 COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 

2011). See Appellees’ Br. at 20. Accordingly, this court 

can affirm only if, viewing the evidence most favorably to 

Comaper, the record shows clear and convincing evidence 

of invalidity such that no reasonable jury could find a 

claim was not anticipated. For the following reasons, this 

court does not discern that clear and convincing evidence 

in this record and thus must reverse. 

III. 

The need to cool computer components is as old as 

computers themselves. See Appellees’ Br. 5–7. The ’955 

patent describes a cooling device [100] designed to be 

inserted through a slot defined in the housing of a computer [150] into its drive bay [151]. See ’955 patent fig. 1. 

The asserted claims are not limited to specific types of 

computers, but Figure 1 of the ’955 patent gives some 

context to the claim language: 

Only independent claims 1 and 12 are on appeal. 

Claim 1 claims the cooling device alone, and claim 12 

claims a computer in combination with the device: 

1. A cooling device for a computer, said computer 

having a drive bay region with at least one drive 
COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 5 

bay slot adapted to receive[] said device 

com[p]rising: 

a case configured to mount within said 

drive bay slot of said computer such that 

said case occupies substantially the entire 

drive bay slot, said case having at least a 

first opening [shown as wavy slots in 

[100]] and at least a second opening, when 

mounted within said drive bay, said first 

opening being exposed to ambient air and 

said second opening being within said 

drive bay region of said computer; 

at least one air movement device mounted 

within said case, said air movement device 

being configured in one of two ways, a first 

way in which said air movement device 

draws cooling air through said first opening and exhausts substantially all of said 

cooling air from said case though said second opening into said drive bay region, a 

second way in which said air movement 

device draws air into said case through 

said second opening from and [sic] drive 

bay region and exhausts it through said 

first opening; and 

power supply means for supplying power 

to said air movement device. 

12. In a computer having a drive bay region with 

at least one drive bay slot adapted to receive a 

drive, an improvement comprising: 

a case mounted within said drive bay slot 

of said computer such that said case occupies substantially the entire drive bay 

slot, said case have [sic] at least a first 

opening and at least a second opening, 

said first opening being exposed to ambient air and said second opening being 
6 COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 

within said drive bay region of said computer; 

at least one air movement device mounted 

within said case, said air movement device 

being configured in one of two ways, a first 

way in which said air movement device 

draws cooling air from said first opening 

and exhausts substantially all of said cooling air th[r]ough said case th[r]ough said 

second opening into said drive bay region, 

a second way in which said air movement 

device draws air into said case through 

said second opening from said drive bay 

region and exhausts it through said first 

opening; and 

power supply means for supplying power 

to said air movement device. 

In the prior appeal, this court affirmed the district 

court’s construction of several terms. One of these constructions is dispositive of all issues here: this court held 

that “drive bay slot” means “the relatively narrow opening 

in the housing of the computer that leads to the drive 

bay.” Comaper, 596 F.3d at 1349. 

Despite this interpretation, the district court held in 

the JMOL order now on appeal that no reasonable jury 

could find that the asserted claims were not anticipated 

by two prior art 19-inch rack-mounted drive bay modules. 

Those two rack mounts for computer resources were 

known at trial as the “Fujitsu device” and the “CDC Nova 

3 Mini Module Device.” See Appellees’ Br. 13, 15. Although in the 1980s the standard in personal computers 

(PC) was for PCs to use disk drives that were about 5.25 

inches wide, some computer systems used separate modules (hard drives, tape drives, processors, etc.) mounted in 

“racks.” See Appellant’s Br. 9. “Racks” are frames, or 

computer cabinets, with some electrical structure that can 

hold computing equipment designed for stacking on racks. 
COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 7 

Id.; see Appellees’ Br. 6–7. In the prior appeal, this court 

held that rack-mounted systems were analogous art. 

Comaper, 596 F.3d at 1351. 

In its JMOL opinion, the district court perceived only 

one difference between each asserted claim and the CDC 

Nova 3 Mini Module Device and Fujitsu devices: “the size 

of the devices.” App. 18. It reasoned that because the size 

of the device was “a specification not found anywhere in 

the ’955 patent itself, nor in [the district court’s] claim 

construction,” this difference did not preclude a finding of 

anticipation. Id. For that reason, the district court held 

each device anticipated. Id. 

In light of the prior claim construction and the record 

in this proceeding, this court disagrees. While the claims 

do not recite the size of the device or computer, the relative size of the drive bay slot does matter in terms of the 

claim language, context, and meaning. The record, including photographs and testimony from Mr. Corcoran, 

shows that both prior art devices fit into an opening 

which extended virtually the entire width of the rack. See

Appellees’ Br. 20; Appellant’s Br. 26, 30–31. Thus, neither prior art device had a relatively narrow opening in 

the housing of the computer. On that basis alone, substantial evidence supports the jury’s factual finding of a 

difference between the claimed invention and the prior 

art. The difference would preclude anticipation and 

support the jury verdict. Although there are other differences between each of these two devices and each properly 

construed claim, this difference alone makes the grant of 

JMOL incorrect. 

IV. 

As alternate bases to affirm, Antec argues that two 

other devices it identified in its JMOL motion anticipate 

each claim. Further, Antec asserts that the jury verdict 

rejecting its obviousness defense lacked substantial 

evidence. This court disagrees. 
8 COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 

The third device Antec asserts as anticipatory is the 

PCC2000, a 19-inch wide extraction fan designed for rackmounting. See App. 1563. The evidence showed, however, that prior to the critical date, this device had been 

affixed to the rear of rack systems containing only modular hard drives. See Appellant’s Br. 15, 32. For that 

reason alone, ample evidence supports the jury verdict 

that this device does not anticipate claim 12, because the 

record contains no evidence that the prior art device was 

ever mounted within the drive bay slot of a “computer.” 

See Appellant’s Br. 32. With respect to both asserted 

claims, for the same reasons as with the first two devices, 

the record shows that the extraction fan was not configured to mount in the relatively narrow opening of a drive 

bay slot. Thus, this court cannot affirm on this alternate 

ground. 

The fourth device Antec asserts as anticipatory is the 

AS/400 device. See Appellees’ Br. 17. The jury’s finding 

that this device did not anticipate either independent 

claim is amply supported by the record, since the housing 

of the AS/400 has no “slot” in it, and thus lacks a drive 

bay slot. See App. 1547. Instead, the module is behind a 

solid computer housing that lacks any slots. Further, 

even with the housing removed, a metal grate with no slot 

covers the module. For these and other reasons, this 

court cannot affirm on this alternate basis. 

Finally, this court rejects Antec’s argument that the 

record supports granting JMOL of obviousness by this 

court on appeal. The record shows again that the jury 

verdict of nonobviousness has ample support. Among 

other things, the verdict finds support in the clear differences between each claim and the prior art along with 

testimony about the lack of motivation to combine, the 

discovery of the specific problem, objective criteria, and 

other facts. See Appellant’s Br. 41–43. Antec has not 

shown that, viewing the evidence favorably to Comaper, 

any aspect of the jury verdict lacked substantial evidence. 
COMAPER CORPORATION v. ANTEC, INC. 9 

Thus, this court remands with instructions to enter a 

final judgment for Comaper according to the jury verdict. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED