Opinion ID: 2752200
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Resilient legs each having a bent”

Text: The claims of the ’484 patent also recite “a plurality of resilient legs extending inwards from said first or second two opposite sides . . . and said resilient legs each having a bent.” ’484 patent, 3:23–26. The parties stipulated to the district court that the “bent” in the resilient leg should be construed as “material that extends from the resilient leg in a generally different direction.” J.A. 172. Similar to the “rotation” limitation, the district court’s order did not expressly find or explain why the claimed “resilient legs . . . having a bent” are present in Smithers. Dr. Carman stated that Smithers discloses “a plurality of resilient legs (33 and 34) extending inward from the side” and that these “resilient legs are curved thus defining a bent leg and also has a bent at the intersection of resilient legs 33/34 with edge 32.” J.A. 561. Although the district court never expressly incorporated Dr. Carman’s opinions as its own, even if it had, Dr. Carman’s opinions are inconsistent with the stipulated construction of the term “bent.” Namely, Dr. Carman’s report does not explain how the curved beams of Smithers teach resilient legs with a bent (“material that extends from the resilient leg in a generally different direction”), where that bent is then either placed on “pads,” in “recesses,” or directly on the top surface of the heat dissipater, as claimed in the ’484 patent. Instead, Dr. Carman merely assumes that “the curved beam is equivalent to [a] resilient leg with [a] bent.” J.A. 606. The record lacks any analysis or findings as to why the claimed resilient legs, each having a bent, would have been an obvious modification over the curved MALICO, INC v. COOLER MASTER USA INC. 15 beams in Smithers. On remand, the district court must engage in such an analysis and articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity to enable our review. C. “Pair of positioning columns” and “pair of retaining edges” Claims 1 and 2 recite that the retaining device has “a pair of positioning columns formed on first two opposite sides [and] a pair of retaining edges formed on second two opposite sides.” ’484 patent, 3:20–22. The district court construed “positioning columns” as “material that aligns the retaining device and the heat dissipater, preventing movement.” J.A. 181:15–17. Neither party requested a construction of “retaining edges.” As with the two limitations discussed above, the district court’s opinion was also silent on whether Smithers disclosed the “pair of positioning columns” and the “pair of retaining edges” recited in the claims of the ’484 patent. Dr. Carman, on the other hand, opined that Smithers “has a pair of positioning columns 38 formed on a first two opposite sides and a pair of retaining edges 36/37 formed on second two opposite sides.” J.A. 561. Even if the district court had adopted this opinion as its own, neither Dr. Carman nor the district court provides any discussion as to how the four positioning columns 38 shown in the Smithers reference disclose the same “pair of positioning columns formed on first two opposite sides” recited in the claims of the ’484 patent. ’484 patent, 3:20–21 (claim 1), 4:10–11 (claim 2). Similarly, neither the district court nor Dr. Carman explained why the eight flanges 36/37 (two on each corner of the retaining device) could disclose the same “pair of retaining edges formed on second two opposite sides” recited in the claims of the ’484 patent. Id. at 3:21–22 (claim 1), 4:11–12 (claim 2). For these reasons, and for reasons similar to the two limitations discussed previously, the district court must examine the disclosures of the ’484 patent, the teachings of Smithers and 16 MALICO, INC v. COOLER MASTER USA INC. any other prior art references, and provide actual findings comparing the prior art to the claims of the ’484 patent. D. Secondary Considerations Malico also argues that the district court erred in failing to consider Malico’s evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. True enough, evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness must always, when present, be considered in the obviousness analysis. See In re Cyclobenzaprine, 676 F.3d 1063, 1075–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012). However, in this case, the district court first found that the evidence on which Malico relies was inadmissible under Rule 37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Malico is not appealing this evidentiary ruling. Consequently, Malico presented no admissible evidence of secondary considerations. We see no error in the district court’s consideration of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.