Opinion ID: 4544537
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Design Drawings

Text: B/E asserts that the Board violated 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) by relying on the design drawings because they are neither patents nor printed publications. The Board, however, did not rely on the design drawings when it found the challenged claims obvious. When the Board found the challenged claims obvious under a “traditional obviousness approach,” it relied on expert testimony: While we found Petitioner’s common sense rationale persuasive, Petitioner’s argument and evidence, including the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, support the conclusion that the challenged claims are obvious under a traditional obviousness approach that does not rely on the “common sense” rationale sup- ported by [the design drawings]. Case: 19-1935 Document: 56 Page: 13 Filed: 06/26/2020 B/E AEROSPACE, INC. v. C&D ZODIAC, INC 13 J.A. 156 n.1. Likewise, when the Board separately found the challenged claims obvious based on “common sense,” its conclusion did not rest on its consideration of those drawings: We concluded that Petitioner met [the Arendi com- mon sense] standard based not only on the citation to second recesses in the [design drawings], but also on the rationale and related analysis provided by Petitioner’s expert that we credited and found convincing before addressing the public use/on sale references. We also credited the testimony of Petitioner’s expert that the proposed modification would have been predictable. Accordingly, because our analysis relied on the analysis and reasoning of Petitioner’s expert regarding why it would have been obvious and a matter of common sense to add a sec- ond recess, . . . [the design drawings] were instead used as further evidence in support of the common sense argument. ... Because we found the expert analysis credible apart from its reliance on the [design drawings], we need not reach whether supplying a missing limitation via a “common sense” argument, based solely on public uses/sales, runs afoul of § 311(b). J.A. 165–66, n.2. We agree that the Board’s obviousness conclusions are independently supported by “Petitioner’s argument and evidence, including the testimony of Petitioner’s expert.” J.A. 156 n.1. The Board instituted on grounds supported by the Admitted Prior Art and Betts. The Board fully articulated its conclusion of obviousness, and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination of obviousness independent of the design drawings. Accordingly, we need not reach the issues raised by B/E on Case: 19-1935 Document: 56 Page: 14 Filed: 06/26/2020 14 B/E AEROSPACE, INC. v. C&D ZODIAC, INC whether the Board ran afoul of § 311(b) by considering the design drawings.