Opinion ID: 780586
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Apfel

Text: 36 Sunglass Hut, once again attempting to take another bite at Apfel, argues that Apfel, particularly Figures 1-5 of the Apfel patent, anticipates claim 1. According to Sunglass Hut, the PTO allowed the '902 patent claims over Apfel only because King misrepresented to the PTO that Apfel's middle layer of INCONEL is 94% reflective, rather than semireflective, as called for in claim 1. To support its allegation of misrepresentation, Sunglass Hut points to other, allegedly inconsistent statements by King concerning Apfel. 37 Oakley responds that Apfel's middle layer is highly reflective and thus no different from the admitted prior art depicted in Figure 5(b) of the '902 patent. Oakley also contends that the PTO twice allowed the '902 patent claims over Apfel, and that King's statements concerning the reflectivity of Apfel's INCONEL layer, when properly understood, are neither inconsistent nor misrepresentative of the facts of Apfel's disclosure. 38 Sunglass Hut's Apfel argument succeeds no better here than it has previously. We agree with Oakley that Apfel, like Figure 5(b), is different from what is claimed in the '902 patent. Apfel discloses a number of multilayer lenses, the relevant one of which is a three-layer lens depicted in Figure 1. '291 patent, fig. 1. The three layers are a substrate 21, a metal layer 26, and a dielectric layer 27, in that order. Id. at col. 2, ll. 40-51. The metal layer 26 is further described as being INCONEL 67.5 millimicrons thick. Id. at col. 3, ll. 19-21, 28-30. Apfel states that an object of his invention is to provide strong color. Id. at col. 1, ll. 33-36, col. 3, ll. 60-62. Whether Apfel's strong color equates with vivid colored appearance as that phrase is used in the '902 patent we need not decide, 2 for the '902 patent claims cover only three-layer lenses having a vivid colored appearance, provided, inter alia, that the middle layer is semireflective. 39 Sunglass Hut's only evidence that Apfel's metal layer 26 is semireflective seems to be King's deposition testimony that INCONEL's reflectance is very low and King's statements during prosecution of another patent application, in which Sunglass Hut contends that King stated that the same reflectance is 20%. Both of those statements, according to Sunglass Hut, contradict King's statement before the PTO during prosecution of the application that led to the '902 patent that Apfel's metal layer 26 is a thick metal layer (675 Angstroms of Inconel) which is essentially a mirror having 94% reflectance. 40 The district court found Sunglass Hut's evidence unconvincing, noting that the PTO twice allowed the '902 claims over Apfel. Oakley, 61 USPQ2d at 1665. We perceive no clear error in that finding. First, Sunglass Hut's interpretation of King's prosecution comments in the other patent application is a strained one. Secondly, King's apparently inconsistent deposition comment can be squared with his prosecution statements by the fact that the reflectance of a layer of INCONEL depends upon the thickness of the layer. 41 In sum, Sunglass Hut has not raised a substantial question whether Apfel anticipates the '902 patent claims. Of course, as the litigation progresses Sunglass Hut may try to present even more evidence ( e.g., physical measurements of the lenses Apfel describes) that Apfel's metal layer 26 is semireflective and that Apfel's disclosed lenses otherwise satisfy all of the claim limitations.