Opinion ID: 212081
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ARPA Report as Prior Art

Text: As a threshold matter, ISCO accuses the district court of having erred in denying its motion for JMOL by allegedly imposing on ISCO the burden of proving that the ARPA report was not prior art. While unfortunate, any mischaracterization of the burden of proof in an opinion, by itself, does not warrant reversal. See Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“We sit to review judgments, not opinions.”). “[I]f the district court failed to properly place the burden of proof, this court will do so.” Union Carbide Corp. v. Am. Can Co., 724 F.2d 1567, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In order to prevail, the appellant must therefore show that “the result, as opposed to the reasoning, is erroneous as a matter of law.” Id. at 1573-74. Claiming a conception date no later than December 1994, ISCO insists that the ARPA report, which was first publicly presented in February 1995, was not prior art. In 1 Advanced Research Projects Agency (“ARPA”), “HTSC Dual Use Applications Survey–Final Report: HTS Filter Applications: Cellular Telephone Base Station Equipment,” presented Feb. 7, 1995. (J.A. 5142-5235). 04-1007, -1008 4 support of this contention, ISCO refers to various drafts of a December 1994 proposal, entitled “Cryo-REACHTM Base Station Prototype,” that were prepared by ISCO’s predecessor and which allegedly disclosed the device of claim 10. We agree with the trial court that the ARPA report was prior art because the December 1994 drafts did not evidence a conception of the claimed invention. “Conception is the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphases added). The record reflects that ISCO’s predecessor did not have a “definite and permanent idea” of the “complete” invention defined in claim 10 at a time antedating the ARPA report. Specifically, the December 1994 drafts indicate that ISCO’s predecessor did not recognize or appreciate the automatic bypass circuit as being part of the invention then conceived. “It is well-settled that conception . . . cannot be established nunc pro tunc. There must be contemporaneous recognition and appreciation of the invention represented by the [claims].” Breen v. Henshaw, 472 F.2d 1398, 1401 (CCPA 1973). Because ISCO’s predecessor failed to appreciate certain inventive features at the time of the alleged conception, ISCO cannot rely on a later recognition of those features to retroactively cure an incomplete conception. That ISCO’s contentions effectively amount to an argument for nunc pro tunc conception is apparent upon reviewing a December 14, 1994 draft marked “Plaintiff Trial Exhibit: PTX-362” (J.A. 1725-1729), which declares: The REACHTM receiver proposed herein is unique in that it involves: 04-1007, -1008 5 (1) fully integrated thin film superconducting components, (2) ferroelectrically-tuned filter and receiver components, (3) integrated, GaAs cryo-amplifiers, (4) low noise oscillator, mixer, downconverter, (5) frequency-hopping capability, and (6) compact cryo-packaging. PTX-362 at 3 (J.A. 1726) (emphases added). Whereas the filters, amplifiers, and cryogenic cooler required by claim 10 are duly listed as “unique” features, the automatic bypass circuit is conspicuously absent. Rather, that feature is listed elsewhere: The [Technology Reinvestment Program] proposal will be to build and test the 2 GHz “cold front end” components, integrate the components into complete sub-system [sic], add lightning protection and automatic bypass circuitry as needed to meet PCS service provider requirements, perform the system integration, address manufacturing issues, and design system control hardware/software. Id. at 4 (J.A. 1727) (emphasis added). Here, the drafter of the proposal apparently did not view the automatic bypass circuit to be an essential component, as it was to be added only “as needed,” just like “lightning protection.” The lack of appreciation for the bypass feature as an inventive element is further revealed where, in a list of “product engineering issues” to be resolved, the entry specifically describing the bypass—i.e., “(5) bypass circuitry that automatically routes signal flow around the REACHTM receiver if either the electronics or the compressor fails”—is crossed out in its entirety and is replaced with an entry for “24 V power supply circuitry” in subsequent drafts, such as the one dated December 19, 1994 marked “Plaintiff Trial Exhibit: PTX-299.” Compare PTX-362 at 4-5 (J.A. 1727-28) with PTX-299 at 10-11 (J.A. 1542-43). Given that the most detailed—albeit short—description of the automatic bypass circuit could not survive an editorial revision, that feature can hardly be considered part of a “definite and permanent” conception of the invention of claim 10. 04-1007, -1008 6 In subsequent drafts of the December 1994 proposal, the most substantive description of the automatic bypass circuit that remains is the previously-noted cursory mention that a bypass can be added “as needed,” but that provides an insufficient basis for extrapolating therefrom the detailed limitations in claim 10 pertaining to the specific operational modes of the bypass, its sensors, and the signal path. See Singh v. Brake, 317 F.3d 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“A conception must encompass all limitations of the claimed invention . . .”). In short, the deletion of details pertaining to, and the cursory mention of, the automatic bypass circuit in the draft proposals are inconsistent with the argument that the conception to be proven by those drafts included that element as an inventive feature. Substantial evidence thus supports the jury’s implicit finding, see Perkin-Elmer Corp., 732 F.2d at 893 (noting that “the law presumes the existence of findings necessary to support the verdict the jury reached”), that the December 1994 draft proposals fail to establish the conception date for claim 10, such that the ARPA report was prior art.