Opinion ID: 212849
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Analogous Art

Text: A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed.Cir.1992). Two separate tests define the scope of analogous art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004). A reference is reasonably pertinent if . . . it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem. Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports use of that reference in an obviousness rejection. Id. Whether a prior art reference is analogous is a question of fact. Id. at 658. Innovention argues that the Laser Chess articles are non-analogous art because the '242 patent's inventors were concerned with making a non-virtual, three-dimensional, laser-based board game, a project that involves mechanical engineering and optics, not computer programming. The district court appears to have agreed, finding that the Laser Chess references were non-analogous art since each discloses an electronic version of the '242 patent. Innovention Toys, 665 F.Supp.2d at 653. The court, however, failed to consider whether a reference disclosing an electronic, laser-based strategy game, even if not in the same field of endeavor, would nonetheless have been reasonably pertinent to the problem facing an inventor of a new, physical, laser-based strategy game. In this case, the district court clearly erred in not finding the Laser Chess references to be analogous art based on this test as a matter of law. See Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed.Cir.2010) (holding as a matter of law that prior art padlock seals were analogous since directed to the same problem of preventing the ingress of contaminants into the locking mechanism). The '242 patent and the Laser Chess references are directed to the same purpose: detailing the specific game elements comprising a chess-like, laser-based strategy game. Specifically, the '242 patent describes (1) the game's components, including the game board, '242 patent col.4 ll.45-56, and various types of playing pieces, id. col.6 l.48-col.7 l.24; (2) the game's specific rules, including how the pieces may move on the game board during a player's turn, id. col.3 ll.21-28, col.8 l.49-col.9 l.17; and (3) the game's ultimate objective, namely, illuminating an opponent's key playing piece with a laser beam, id. col.6 ll.45-47. The specification even distinguishes prior art patents based on these game elements, stating that U.S. Patent 3,516,671 lacks the unique elements and rules of the ['242 patent's] invention, id. col.1 ll.47-50, and U.S. Patent 6,702,286 contemplates a game in which the objective is not to illuminate playing pieces, but rather to maneuver one's pieces to flank (or surround) those of the opposing player, id. col.2 ll.16-21. The Laser Chess references likewise describe specific playing pieces, rules, and objectives to create a chess-like, laser-based strategy game. Both Laser Chess and Advanced Laser Chess disclose, for example, (1) various game pieces, each with unique capabilities, J.A. 1775-77, 1784-85; (2) rules for each player's turn, J.A. 1777-78, 1785-86; and (3) an ultimate objective of eliminating an opponent's king piece, J.A. 1775, 1784. Accordingly, the '242 patent and the Laser Chess references relate to the same goal: designing a winnable yet entertaining strategy game. The '242 patent's specification confirms that game design was one objective facing its inventors. In particular, the specification states that [s]trategy games may differ in a variety of ways, such as in board layout, the number and types of playing pieces, and the manner in which each piece moves on the game board, and that [e]ach of these variations affects the strategy of the play and the degree of skill required to play the game. '242 patent col.2 ll.19-46. The specification thus admonishes that if the game elements are overly simplistic, the game is too easy, will usually end in a draw or a predictable manner, and quickly become uninteresting for the average player. Id. col.2 ll.49-54. Conversely, according to the specification, if the game elements are overly complicated, the game takes too long to learn [and] is frustrating and uninteresting for the average player. Id. col.2 ll.57-60. The specific combination of game elements disclosed and claimed in the '242 patent thus deals with the problem of game design, and game elements from any strategy game, regardless how implemented, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering [this] problem. Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. Basic game elements remain the same regardless of the medium in which they are implemented: whether molded in plastic by a mechanical engineer or coded in software by a computer scientist. And, as MGA's evidence shows, inventors of numerous prior art patents contemplated the implementation of their strategy games in both physical and electronic formats. Innovention Toys, 665 F.Supp.2d at 650 n. 23. For example, the Swift patent states that [a]lthough the preferred embodiment is played by two players, obvious modifications of the game allow for . . . a single player playing against a computer. Swift col.2 ll.47-51. Thus, because no reasonable jury could find that the Laser Chess references do not qualify as analogous prior art, and the district court erred in not so concluding as a matter of law. Because of its error, the district court failed to properly consider the scope and content of the relevant prior art as well as the differences between that art and the claimed invention, including whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the Laser Chess references with the Swift patent in light of the standard articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 L.Ed.2d 705 (2007). We therefore remand these factual determinations to the district court to consider in the first instance. Furthermore, should the district court conclude that MGA has made out a prima facie case of obviousness based on the Laser Chess articles and the Swift patent, the court must then determine whether Innovention's secondary considerations overcome MGA's prima facie case.