Opinion ID: 2722157
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The claimed “tubular spring steel adapter”

Text: Claim 1 additionally requires a “tubular spring steel adapter” in the outbound end of the housing. The Board found that it would have been obvious to substitute Roed- 10 ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. er’s bushing for Grindle’s lock-nut and threads as an adapter for Grindle’s housing, J.A. 32, and that it further would have been obvious to make the adapter out of spring steel, id. at 33–34. Arlington argues that the Board failed to identify any prior art that disclosed or suggested an “adapter” made of spring steel and that the art relied on by the Board actually teaches away from using spring steel. Arlington contends that to the extent it did not raise this specific argument to the Board, the implications of the spring steel limitation were known at the Board and thus may be addressed here. Bridgeport counters that Arlington did not argue to the Board that the use of spring steel for the adapter would not have been obvious and that, therefore, Arlington waived the argument. Bridgeport further contends that the Board had substantial evidence on which to conclude that use of Roeder’s bushing with the Grindle-Schnittker combination merely involved the substitution of one known element for another with a predictable benefit. Arlington argued to the Board that the combination of Roeder with Grindle was inadequate because Roeder’s bushing would not establish a proper grounding mechanism and because it was not intended as a permanent connector. Id. The Board disagreed with Arlington, noting first that both arguments failed because they were directed to unclaimed limitations. Id. We agree with the Board’s conclusion, as the claims recite neither a grounding mechanism nor a connector that is permanent. Arlington did not argue to the Board that the examiner lacked evidence to support the substitution of spring steel as the material. However, Arlington contends that it preserved the issue for this court’s review when it argued to the Board that Roeder did not disclose the claimed spring steel adapter’s outwardly extending tangs, prompting the Board to acknowledge that Roeder’s bushing was not made of spring steel. However, the examiner already had concluded that Roeder’s bushing was not made of ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. 11 spring steel and would have to be modified, concluding that it would have been obvious “to allow for continual reuse.” J.A. 1208–09. Though Arlington disputed a number of aspects concerning the combination with Roeder—such as whether the resulting combination would establish a ground connection or whether Roeder was intended to be permanent—the examiner’s and the Board’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to make the Roeder bushing from spring steel was not one of the disputes that was raised. Arguing against waiver, Arlington relies on In re Baxter Intern., Inc., 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for the proposition that no waiver exists when the appellant raised timely arguments regarding the examiner’s analysis of a limitation. Here, however, Arlington did not raise any argument before the Board that the substitution of spring steel for the adapter was not obvious. Arlington similarly relies on Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1360–61 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for the proposition that presenting the “essence of its present arguments” to the Board is sufficient to preserve the issue. Here, however, Arlington’s arguments regarding the adapter limitation were not, in essence, that it would not have been obvious to make the adapter of spring steel. Arlington argued that the Board’s combination lacked proper grounding and was not a permanent connector. The Board concluded that these were unclaimed limitations and further that the use of spring steel would resolve those issues in any event. Arlington did not argue that spring steel would not have been obvious to use in the first instance. Lastly, Arlington relies on WarnerLambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1338 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2005) for the proposition that it is sufficient to raise the general legal issue below. However, the legal principle from Warner-Lambert is that “this court does not review supporting arguments, but only the decisions reached by the trial court.” Interactive 12 ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to make the adapter out of spring steel to allow for continuous reuse. J.A. 1208–09. Rather than disputing that decision, Arlington instead disputed whether the Roeder adapter would provide proper grounding or permanence. Unsurprisingly, the Board did not further discuss the obviousness of spring steel because its decision was not challenged. We “generally do not consider arguments that the applicant failed to present to the Board” and see no exceptional circumstances here requiring otherwise. Baxter, 678 F.3d at 1362. In any event, the references before the Board provide substantial evidence to support the substitution of spring steel. Schnittker’s grounding ring indisputably is spring steel and was known to be used with the heavier metalclad cables. Accordingly, the record does provide substantial evidence to support its finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known of spring steel’s grounding properties and its suitability for working with metal-clad cables. Arlington further contends that Roeder actually teaches away from the claimed invention. Here, Arlington argues that Roeder teaches away because as disclosed, the Roeder adapter was too weak to function with metal clad cables. Appellant’s Br. 60–61. Arlington is referring to the Board’s finding that it would have been obvious to use spring steel for the adapter “to allow for continual reuse to address the increase in weight” from the metalclad cables. J.A. 34. However, the Board did not conclude that the combination would not function with metal clad cables (only that modification would be needed for continual reuse), and Arlington presents no evidence that the combination would in fact be nonfunctional. Thus, because substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclu- ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. 13 sion that the combination was at least functional, Arlington misplaces its reliance on In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“If references taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . . such references teach away from the combination and thus cannot serve as predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness.”).