Court Opinion

ID: 9948116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 16:01:59.713858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:09.224227
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2166    Document: 41     Page: 1    Filed: 03/06/2024

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

  IN RE: JUSTIN SAMUELS, SAMUEL ROCKWELL,
                    Appellants
              ______________________

                        2021-2166
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 15/168,768.
                   ______________________

                  Decided: March 6, 2024
                  ______________________

    TODD STEVEN SHARINN, Gilbride, Tusa, Last &
 Spellane LLC, Greenwich, CT, for appellants.

    PETER J. AYERS, Office of the Solicitor, United States
 Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee
 Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by OMAR FAROOQ
 AMIN, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
                 ______________________

    Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
      Appellants Justin Samuels and Samuel Rockwell filed
 U.S. Patent Application No. 15/168,768, titled “Asymmet-
 rically Patterned Baked Bread Food” on May 31, 2016. The
 assigned examiner in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Of-
 fice rejected claim 1, the only currently pending claim, for
Case: 21-2166     Document: 41     Page: 2    Filed: 03/06/2024

 2                                              IN RE: SAMUELS

 obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, in light of two prior-art
 references: Krepshaw (an article in the internet publica-
 tion CNET) and Freeman (U.S. Patent No. 3,799,047). J.A.
 336, 325, 211 (Krepshaw), 439 (Freeman). The Patent
 Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection.
 Ex Parte Justin Samuels & Samuel Rockwell, No. 2021-
 000092, 2021 WL 2103345, at *3 (P.T.A.B. May 20, 2021)
 (PTAB Decision). The applicants timely appealed. We
 have jurisdiction.   28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4); 35 U.S.C.
 § 141(a). We affirm.
                               I
      The ʼ768 application describes an asymmetrical planar
 waffle, which has a first-pattern baked surface on one side
 and a different-pattern baked surface on the other side,
 and which can be formed by using a waffle iron having two
 differently patterned baking plates. J.A. 11, 13–14. Claim
 1 recites:
     1. An asymmetrical planar waffle product, com-
     prising:
     a first patterned baked surface that is a negative
     image of a first positive relief pattern in an associ-
     ated first baking plate, and a second patterned
     baked surface that is a negative image of a second
     positive relief pattern in an associated second bak-
     ing plate,
     wherein said first and second patterned baked sur-
     faces have been formed by exposing a waffle-form-
     ing material directly against said respective first
     and second positive relief patterns,
     wherein said waffle-forming material is selected
     from the group consisting of batter and dough,
     wherein said first positive relief pattern is a waffle
     pattern,
Case: 21-2166     Document: 41    Page: 3    Filed: 03/06/2024

 IN RE: SAMUELS                                              3

    wherein said second positive relief pattern is a
    smooth surface, and
    wherein at least one of said first and second baking
    plates further comprises a stop extending above
    said first and second positive relief pattern to limit
    proximity of said baking plates to each other,
    thereby defining a chamber therebetween for re-
    ceiving said waffle-forming material.
 J.A. 325. The key prior-art reference, Krepshaw, is a pub-
 lished review of a grill press, called the Emson Big Boss
 Grill, that has a variety of interchangeable grill plates.
 Krepshaw, titled “Mix-and-match grill begs for mixing, not
 matching,” states, in relevant part:
    Since any waffle known to man can only actually
    hold butter and syrup on one side at a time in its
    convenient pockets, perhaps it’s time to consider
    the one-sided waffle.
    OK, the Emson Big Boss Grill probably wasn’t de-
    signed with one-sided waffles in mind, but with 12
    interchangeable grill plates, the possibility now ex-
    ists . . . . Now I don’t know if trying to make one-
    sided waffles would just end up being a messy bat-
    ter explosion, but I do know it’s the first thing I’d
    try[.]
 J.A. 211. The second prior-art reference, Freeman, dis-
 closes using batter to make waffles in a conventional waffle
 maker. J.A. 439, 443.
     Throughout prosecution, the examiner rejected the
 claims of the ʼ768 application as unpatentable for obvious-
 ness over Krepshaw and Freeman, explaining that Krep-
 shaw teaches making a one-sided waffle (patterned on one
 side, flat on the other) and Freeman teaches using batter.
 See J.A. 221, 260–61, 336. The Board affirmed the exam-
 iner and determined claim 1 to be unpatentable for obvi-
 ousness over Krepshaw and Freeman. In particular, the
Case: 21-2166     Document: 41      Page: 4   Filed: 03/06/2024

 4                                              IN RE: SAMUELS

 Board determined that Krepshaw suggested making a one-
 sided waffle and a relevant artisan could have adjusted
 Freeman’s batter to make such a one-sided waffle using
 Krepshaw’s grill. PTAB Decision, at *2–3.
                               II
     We review the Board’s legal determinations without
 deference, In re Elsner, 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir.
 2004), but we uphold the Board’s factual findings if they
 are supported by substantial evidence, In re Gartside, 203
 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Obviousness is a “ques-
 tion of law based on underlying findings of fact,” id., and
 how to understand the prior art, whether a relevant arti-
 san would have had a reason to combine the prior art to
 achieve the claimed invention, and whether there would
 have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so
 are fact issues, TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Systems, Inc., 942
 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
     Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determina-
 tion that Krepshaw discloses to a relevant artisan each lim-
 itation of claim 1 of the ʼ768 application other than the
 batter limitation, which is disclosed by Freeman. Krep-
 shaw’s title, “Mix-and-match grill begs for mixing, not
 matching,” itself suggests mixing Krepshaw’s “six different
 interchangeable grill plates,” one of which is a waffle plate
 and several others of which are substantially flat plates.
 J.A. 211 (emphases added). Krepshaw also itself affirma-
 tively suggests doing so, saying “[s]ince any waffle known
 to man can only actually hold butter and syrup on one side
 at a time in its convenient pockets, perhaps it’s time to con-
 sider the one-sided waffle.” J.A. 211. Krepshaw adds that
 the one-sided waffle is “the first thing I’d try.” J.A. 211.
     Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would have had
 no reasonable expectation of success using the Big Boss
 Grill to produce a one-sided waffle with batter. Samuels
 Opening Br. at 16. Krepshaw itself notes “the . . . Big Boss
 Grill probably wasn’t designed with one-sided waffles in
Case: 21-2166     Document: 41      Page: 5   Filed: 03/06/2024

 IN RE: SAMUELS                                              5

 mind” and acknowledges the possibility of a “messy batter
 explosion.” J.A. 211. But such a mere possibility of failure,
 in this context, does not mean that there is no reasonable
 expectation of success. Krepshaw expressly discloses “mix-
 ing, not matching,” shows “six different interchangeable
 grill plates” for doing so, and concludes the “possibility” of
 the one-side waffle “now exists.” J.A. 211. And the exper-
 imentation involved is trivial. To deny that the Board
 could reasonably find a reasonable expectation of success
 here would require giving that standard a meaning not
 compelled by precedent and indeed inconsistent with the
 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. approval of “obvious
 to try” in related circumstances. 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007);
 see Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed.
 Cir. 2007) (“[O]nly a reasonable expectation of success, not
 a guarantee, is needed.”).
     Appellants also argue that their invention produces
 unexpected results because it creates a one-sided waffle
 that is cooked on both sides. Samuels Opening Br. at 22.
 Again, there is evidence the Board could credit that sug-
 gests this result was expected: Krepshaw points to a grid-
 dle with “six different interchangeable grill plates,” which
 would cook the one-sided waffle on both sides. J.A. 211.
                              III
     Appellants argue that the examiner and the Board
 committed consequential procedural errors. We see no re-
 versible error.
     First, appellants argue that the examiner failed to pro-
 vide adequate notice of her reliance on Freeman before her
 rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable for obviousness over
 Krepshaw in view of Freeman in her advisory action, which
 issued after appellants filed their appeal brief before the
 Board. Appellants also argue that the Board compounded
 this error by maintaining the examiner’s rejection. Samu-
 els Opening Br. at 11. We reject this challenge.
Case: 21-2166     Document: 41     Page: 6    Filed: 03/06/2024

 6                                              IN RE: SAMUELS

      Appellants had adequate notice and “‘fair opportunity
 to react to the thrust of the rejection’” being reviewed, and
 then adopted, by the Board. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300,
 1302 (CCPA 1976)). The examiner first relied on Freeman
 to teach the batter limitation (of claims 8 and 9) in her non-
 final rejection. J.A. 221. Appellants substantively re-
 sponded, and the examiner maintained her rejection in
 view of Freeman (for claim 8) in her final rejection. J.A.
 239–40, 261. Then appellants voluntarily amended claim
 1 to include the claim 8 batter limitation (while dropping
 claim 8), J.A. 300–02; and the examiner, in the ensuing ad-
 visory action, accepted the amendments and specified that
 “claim 1 is now rejected over Krepshaw in view of Freeman
 since Freeman was relied upon to teach the batter limita-
 tion of claim 8.” J.A. 336. By that time, appellants had
 filed their opening brief to the Board. See J.A. 275. When
 the examiner, in her answer to the Board, relied on the
 Krepshaw-Freeman combination to reject claim 1, the com-
 bination was hardly new. See J.A. 342–43. And appellants
 had two months in which to file a reply brief and address
 the Krepshaw-Freeman combination.             See 37 C.F.R.
 § 41.41. It never did. See J.A. 10. Nor, after the Board
 relied on this Krepshaw-Freeman combination, did appel-
 lants request a rehearing of the Board’s decision as improp-
 erly relying on a new ground of rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
 §§ 41.52(a)(4), 41.50(c); see also J.A. 10.
     Next, appellants argue that the Board improperly re-
 fused to consider evidence when it did not consider an in-
 struction manual and recipe book associated with the Big
 Boss Grill (the subject of Krepshaw). Appellants also argue
 that we must take judicial notice of those items. Samuels
 Opening Br. at 13. We also reject this challenge.
     The Board did not commit the asserted error, because
 the Big Boss Grill instruction manual and recipe book were
 not timely introduced into the record. See 37 C.F.R.
 § 41.37(c)(2). To be sure, the examiner, in her final
Case: 21-2166     Document: 41      Page: 7     Filed: 03/06/2024

 IN RE: SAMUELS                                                7

 rejection, referred to the Big Boss Grill website; and appel-
 lants, in their responses after final office action, referred to
 some “disclosure” and “literature” involving the Big Boss
 Grill and, in their appeal brief to the Board, referred again
 to “literature” for the Big Boss Grill and to the Big Boss
 Grill website. See J.A. 262–63, 287, 289, 303–08, 314–15.
 But the Big Boss Grill instruction manual and recipe book
 were not themselves referred to until oral argument in
 front of the Board. And at the oral argument, counsel for
 appellants admitted that the Big Boss Grill manual “was
 never submitted,” and “[a]s far as [he] recall[ed],” was not
 part of the record. J.A. 394, 399–400.
     In any event, even if the Board’s refusal to consider the
 Big Boss Grill instruction manual and recipe book was er-
 roneous, that error was harmless. The only argument
 made by appellants in this court about those items is that
 they teach away from using two plates having different
 patterns. But teaching away is a demanding standard, re-
 quiring distinctly negative teachings that go beyond even
 expressing a preference for an alternative. See Adapt
 Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
 Inc., 25 F.4th 1354, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Appellants quote
 nothing from the instruction manual or the recipe book
 that could reasonably be found to meet that standard. See
 J.A. 449, 451, 455. Even if we were to take judicial notice
 of the Big Boss Grill instruction manual and recipe book,
 we see nothing in them, as supplied to us, that could rea-
 sonably constitute a teaching away from use of two plates
 having different patterns.
                               IV
     The decision of the Board is affirmed.
                         AFFIRMED