Opinion ID: 2722157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bridgeport’s Cross Appeal

Text: Bridgeport cross appeals the Board’s decision concerning the priority date of claim 1 and the Board’s affirmance of the patentability of claim 3. The cross appeal concerning claim 1’s priority date implicates not only the patentability of claim 1, but also of claim 4, which depends from claim 1 and was found to be patentable based on claim 1’s priority date. The ’831 patent issued from Pat. Appl. No. 09/941,341 (“the ’341 application), filed on August 29, 2001. That application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/792,185 (’185 application), filed on February 23, 2001, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. App. No. 09/373,427 (“’427 application”), filed on August 13, 1999. The examiner and the Board found that claim 1 was entitled to the August 13, 1999 date of the ’427 application. Like the ’341 application, the ’185 and ’427 applications describe a duplex connector with an oval-shaped inbound end with a large, single cavity and an insert plugging that cavity to divide it into a pair of parallel openings. However, the ’341 application includes, for the first time, a discussion of a housing that does not use this insert, instead having an inbound end with an integrallyformed pair of openings. ’831 Patent col. 2 ll. 42–48. Bridgeport argues that claim 1 of the ’831 patent is entitled only to the August 29, 2001 date of the ’341 application. Bridgeport’s argument centers on the ’831 patent’s description of an insert as distinct from the connector’s housing. See, e.g., ’831 patent col. 1 ll. 52–53 (“[t]he inbound end of the housing is adapted to accept an insert containing” the two openings), col. 2 ll. 6–9 (“The 16 ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. duplex connector of the present invention could be made even simpler by modifying the inbound end of the connector housing to hold the cable retainers. Modified in this manner, the insert could be eliminated . . . .”). Because the ’831 patent’s claim 1 requires that the pair of parallel openings be in the “housing,” Bridgeport contends that the claim cannot encompass a connector that uses an insert to define the openings. And because the ’341 application was the first to discuss a housing that does not use an insert, Bridgeport argues that therefore claim 1’s priority date only can be August 29, 2001. Arlington counters that substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that claim 1 is entitled to the August 13, 1999 priority date because nothing in the relevant disclosures or the claim would limit the openings to exist only as part of an insert. The examiner and the Board concluded that in light of Figures 1 and 2 of the ’427 application—which illustrate a connector with a pair of openings in an insert—a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the inventors to possess a duplex connector with a pair of parallel openings in the inbound end of the housing and that claim 1 is not limited to having openings only defined within an insert. J.A. 46–47. We find no error in that decision. In reexamination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In re Trans Texas Holdings, Corp., 498 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Under that standard, the claim merely requires that the inbound end of the housing be generally oval and have a pair of openings. No aspect of the claims requires the housing, much less the inbound end of the housing, to have a unitary structure. Thus, an insert is not excluded by the claim. Indeed, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further adds that the pair of parallel openings is included in an insert secured within the inbound end of the hous- ing. ’831 patent col. 7 ll. 23–26. ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. 17 Bridgeport does, however, accurately identify error in the Board’s handling of claim 3. The examiner concluded that claim 3 was entitled only to the August 29, 2001 filing date because the claim requires that the walls of the insert include an annular ridge, and none of the parent applications supported a disclosure of that annular ridge. J.A. 2126. Arlington did not dispute this finding. J.A. 1204. Thus, the examiner considered Bridgeport’s asserted prior art on the merits but found that it did not establish unpatentability. J.A. 1218. The Board affirmed but did so on the basis that Bridgeport’s asserted prior art did not antedate the August 13, 1999 priority date of claim 1. J.A. 48. This was error because the examiner found, without dispute from either party, that claim 3 was entitled only to the later August 29, 2001 priority date. Arlington urges this court to affirm the patentability of claim 3 as being unobvious, but the Board did not pass on that issue and we decline to consider it in the first instance. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 US 194, 196 (1947). Because the Board relied on erroneous grounds, we vacate the decision as to claim 3 and remand for further proceedings.