Opinion ID: 2752200
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Rotation”

Text: Both claims of the ’484 patent recite a retaining device that can rotate such that in a first orientation the device accommodates a CPU assembly of a certain thickness and, after rotation to a second orientation, the retaining device accommodates a CPU assembly of a different thickness while still engaging the dissipater’s top surface. Although the district court’s opinion is silent on the subject of this “rotation” limitation, Dr. Carman opined that “[i]n my opinion, while Smithers does not expressly refer to a second orientation, my interpretation of the figures, the symmetry of the structure and the location of channel 13 in the description is that in a second orientation, the resilient legs 33 would fall into the gaps between fins that Smithers calls channel 13.” J.A. 561. But the district court itself made no findings comparing the possible rotational capabilities of Smithers to the rotation requirement recited in the claims of the ’484 patent. In addition, even to the extent that the Smithers retaining device is physically capable of being rotated in a way similar to the device claimed in the ’484 patent, neither Dr. Carman nor the district court provided any basis for why one of skill in the art would rotate the Smithers retaining device in this manner. For example, nothing in Dr. Carman’s report or in the district court’s opinion suggests that such devices had been rotated in the past to enhance the usability of the retaining device. Even under a flexible and expansive approach to the obviousness inquiry, the raw ability to perform the rotation action without any reason to do so does not establish obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (explaining that, although courts need not “seek out precise teachings” on each claim 14 MALICO, INC v. COOLER MASTER USA INC. limitation, courts must still “determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”). On remand, the district court must make such findings and determine whether the prior art discloses or suggests this rotation limitation.