Opinion ID: 209256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board’s Obviousness Determination

Text: On review of the Board’s obviousness determination, we review the Board’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusion de novo. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Pivonka alleges three errors in the Board’s obviousness determination: (1) the Board improperly defined the invention as having a “barn-like structure”; (2) the Board failed to consider each of the nine claims of the ’797 patent individually; and (3) the Board did not appreciate the structural differences and functional benefits provided by the claimed invention as compared to the prior art. Claim 1 of the ’797 patent, with emphasis added, recites: A collapsible pet housing structure comprising: a floor panel having a pair of parallel sides and a pair of ends extending between the sides; a pair of generally opposing walls hingedly attached to the parallel sides of said floor panel, each wall comprising at least two generally planar wall panels connected to one another by a hinge connection, each of the wall panels having an external surface and an internal surface, the internal surface of the wall panels of one wall facing the internal surface of the wall panels of the opposing wall, the hinged connection between the wall panels allowing the wall panels to cooperate with one another to retain the external surfaces of the wall panels at an angle greater than 180 degrees relative to one another, so that the hinged connection allows movement of the wall panels from: a first position where the external surfaces of the wall panels are at an acute angle relative to one another to a second position where the external surfaces of the wall panels are retained at an angle greater than 180 degrees relative to one another; 2008-1413 5 a roof panel, the roof panel being of a weight and extending between the walls and being hingedly connected to said walls; and a pair of endwalls, each endwall being hingedly attached to said floor panel at opposing ends of the floor panel, the endwalls pivoting to a generally normal position with said floor panel to cooperate with said wall panels when said wall panels are in said second position to retain the external surfaces of the wall panels at the second position relative to one another, so that the roof panel is supported by said endwalls when said wall panels are at the second position. We find no reversible error in the Board’s use of the term “barn-like shape” to distinguish Pivonka’s invention from the rectangular collapsible pet carrier disclosed in Beard. Pivonka is correct that the Board must analyze the claim language, not its own interpretation of what the claim covers. We conclude, however, that the Board simply used the term “barn-like shape” to distinguish between collapsible pet carriers with external wall surfaces at an angle of exactly 180 degrees relative to each other, such as the one in Beard, and those with external wall surfaces at an angle greater than 180 degrees relative to each other, as described in claim 1. We discern no harm in the Board’s use of this shorthand. We also conclude that, before the Board, Pivonka waived any argument that claims 2-9 do not stand or fall with claim 1. In his response to the first obviousness opinion, Pivonka did not make any arguments that any of claims 2-9 contained additional limitations that rendered those claims nonobvious. Instead, Pivonka focused his entire response on the Board’s allegedly improper use of the term “barn-like shape” and the prior art’s failure to disclose a container that collapses from a second position where the wall panels are at an angle greater than 180 degrees relative to each other to a first position where the wall panels are at an acute angle relative to each other. J.A. 2008-1413 6 184-94. Therefore, Pivonka cannot now argue that claims 2-9 contained additional limitations that warrant a conclusion of nonobviousness. See Watts, 354 F.3d at 1367. Finally, we agree with the Board that claims 1-9 are obvious in light of Heath, Beard, and U.S. Patent No. 5,465,686 (“Monetti”). The first affidavit of Axelrod’s expert, Dr. Shina, provides substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that ordinary skill in the pertinent art consists of knowledge of basic mechanical principles, including knowledge of the relative movement of parts and hinges, and “experience and training in moving panels and hinges, made of different materials.” First Obviousness Opinion at 14; see also J.A. 237-38. The prior art disclosed a pet container that collapsed from a position where the side walls were fixed at an angle of exactly 180 degrees relative to one another. See Beard, figs.1, 3. It also disclosed pet containers that, while they did not collapse in the same manner as Pivonka’s invention, had side walls that were fixed at an angle greater than 180 degrees relative to each other. See Monetti, fig.1; see also Heath, fig.1. Dr. Shina’s second affidavit, which was unrebutted, stated that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of a container that can maintain a position where the side walls are at an angle greater than 180 degree relative to each other. J.A. 317-18. Specifically, Dr. Shina’s second affidavit described why a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a container would, as compared to Beard, be more resistant to buckling when forces were applied to the side walls. J.A. 320-21. Dr. Shina’s affidavit also stated that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a collapsible container with side walls at an angle greater than 180 degrees relative to each other would be more stable because the weight of the roof would help to hold the side walls in place in the second position and the sidewalls 2008-1413 7 must, prior to collapse, pass through a position in which they are at an angle of exactly 180 degrees relative to each other. J.A. 323. Finally, Dr. Shina’s unrebutted affidavit stated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no difficulty building a container that could collapse in the manner shown in Beard from a position in which the external walls were, as in Heath and Monetti, at an angle greater than 180 degrees relative to each other to a position where those walls formed an acute angle, as in the collapsed Beard container. J.A. 317-18. Under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” 550 U.S. 398, 1739 (2007). According to Dr. Shina’s unrebutted affidavit, both the structural benefits and the way in which to build the container claimed by Pivonka were readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we find no error in the Board’s conclusion that claims 1-9 are obvious.