Court Opinion

ID: 9374523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 16:00:45.401418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:51.352992
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1164     Document: 41    Page: 1   Filed: 02/23/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                RAMZI KHALIL MAALOUF,
                       Appellant

                             v.

            MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                        2022-1164
                  ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-
 00483.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: February 23, 2023
                  ______________________

     BRIAN MEDICH, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC,
 Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
 by ROBERT GREENSPOON, Chicago, IL.

    DERRICK WADE TODDY, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP,
 Portland, OR, argued for appellee. Also represented by J.
 CHRISTOPHER CARRAWAY, SARAH ELISABETH JELSEMA,
 ANDREW M. MASON.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1164    Document: 41      Page: 2   Filed: 02/23/2023

 2                       MAALOUF   v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

     Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 STARK, Circuit Judge.
      Ramzi Khalil Maalouf (“Maalouf”) appeals the Patent
 Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) final written decision in
 an inter partes review (“IPR”), finding claims 29 and 37 of
 U.S. Patent No. 9,503,627 B2 (“’627 patent”) unpatentable
 as obvious. Because the Board did not err in its claim con-
 struction or ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, its
 underlying factual findings are supported by substantial
 evidence, and its analysis is sufficient for our review, we
 affirm.
                              I
     Maalouf is a co-inventor of the ’627 patent, which gen-
 erally concerns a handle for a handheld terminal, such as
 a mobile phone. Figure 4 of the patent shows an embodi-
 ment of the invention, particularly noting the handheld
 terminal (11) and handle (10):

 J.A. 43. Figure 3 shows the invention from another angle,
 without the handheld terminal but pointing out the slot
 sliding plate (9), which may be adjusted so the invention
 may hold differently sized mobile phones:
Case: 22-1164     Document: 41    Page: 3   Filed: 02/23/2023

 MAALOUF    v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION                       3

 J.A. 43.
     Claims 29 and 37 are reproduced below:
     29. A handheld device to wirelessly operate a cam-
     era of a mobile device, wherein the handheld device
     comprises:
     a holder that, during use, holds the mobile device;
     and
     a handle apparatus coupled to the holder, wherein
     the handle apparatus comprises:
     a command key that, during use, is selectable and
     corresponds to a camera feature of the mobile de-
     vice,
     wherein the command key is positioned on the han-
     dle apparatus such that a user is able to, with one
     hand, both hold the handle apparatus and select
     the command key;
     a wireless interface module that, during use, pro-
     vides a wireless connection to the mobile device,
     wherein remote control of the camera feature of the
     mobile device is provided over the wireless connec-
     tion; and
     a command key module that, during use, provides,
     via the wireless connection, a control command to
     the mobile device such that the control command
     indicates to the mobile device to perform the cam-
     era feature, wherein the command key is one of a
     plurality of command keys positioned on the han-
     dle apparatus, and wherein each of the plurality of
Case: 22-1164     Document: 41      Page: 4   Filed: 02/23/2023

 4                        MAALOUF   v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

     command key corresponds to a respective com-
     mand.
     37. The handheld device of claim 29, wherein the
     holder, during use and using the sliding member,
     adjusts to hold mobile phones of various sizes.
 J.A. 47 (’627 patent at 7:3-27, 8:21-23).
      After reviewing a petition from Microsoft Corporation
 (“Microsoft”), the Board instituted IPR of claims 29 and 37
 on three grounds and, ultimately, issued a final written de-
 cision based on those same three grounds, concluding: (1)
 claim 29 would have been obvious in light of U.S. Patent
 Application Publication No. 2013/0005401 (“Rosenhan”);
 (2) claim 37 would have been obvious in light of Rosenhan
 and WIPO Publication No. 2012/096433 (“Kim”); and (3)
 claims 29 and 37 would have both been obvious in light of
 U.S. Patent No. 7,684,694 (“Fromm”), WIPO Publication
 No. 2012/018405 (“Fenton”), and U.S. Patent Application
 Publication No. 2011/0058052 (“Bolton”).
      The Board based its decision on the arguments and ev-
 idence supplied by the parties, including a declaration from
 Microsoft’s expert, Eric Welch. In connection with the par-
 ties’ dispute over the proper construction of the claim term
 “remote control,” the Board did not limit claim 29 to a “non-
 fixed” implementation during use – in which the mobile de-
 vice is not held by the invention’s holder. Relatedly, the
 Board found Rosenhan provided remote control via wire-
 less connection as required by claim 29’s remote control el-
 ement, regardless of whether a fixed or non-fixed
 implementation is utilized.
     The Board further concluded that Kim disclosed a slid-
 ing member that adjusts to hold differently sized phones
 and that Microsoft had demonstrated by a preponderance
 of the evidence that a skilled artisan would have had rea-
 son to combine Rosenhan and Kim to disclose the limita-
 tions recited in claim 37, by modifying Rosenhan’s
 mounting structure to include Kim’s adjustable phone
Case: 22-1164    Document: 41      Page: 5   Filed: 02/23/2023

 MAALOUF   v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION                        5

 mount     to   accommodate      commercially  available
 smartphones and their diverse form factors. Finally, the
 Board concluded a skilled artisan would have been moti-
 vated to combine Fromm, Fenton, and Bolton such that
 claims 29 and 37 would have been obvious.
     Throughout its analysis, the Board variously summa-
 rized Microsoft’s evidence, noted where Maalouf had failed
 to present any contrary evidence and where the Board had
 already rejected Maalouf’s arguments at the institution
 stage, and stated it was crediting Microsoft’s position.
 Maalouf timely appealed the Board’s decision. We have ju-
 risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                              II
     We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial
 evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. See Icon Health
 & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed.
 Cir. 2017). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence
 as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
 a conclusion.” Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154
 (2019). “[T]he possibility of drawing two inconsistent con-
 clusions from the evidence does not prevent an administra-
 tive agency’s finding from being supported by substantial
 evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620
 (1966).
     We review the Board’s claim construction based on in-
 trinsic evidence de novo. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
 21 F.4th 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We review the Board’s
 obviousness determination de novo and its underlying fac-
 tual findings, including whether there was a motivation to
 combine, for substantial evidence. See Intelligent Bio-Sys.,
 Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
 Cir. 2016). In addition:
    We review the Board’s IPR decisions to ensure that
    they are not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis-
    cretion, . . . otherwise not in accordance with law
    . . . [or] unsupported by substantial evidence.
Case: 22-1164    Document: 41       Page: 6   Filed: 02/23/2023

 6                       MAALOUF    v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

     Critically, in order to allow effective judicial re-
     view, . . . the agency is obligated to provide an ad-
     ministrative record showing the evidence on which
     the findings are based, accompanied by the
     agency’s reasoning in reaching its conclusions. . . .
     The Board, as an administrative agency, must ar-
     ticulate logical and rational reasons for [its] deci-
     sion[ ].
 Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 992
 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations
 omitted).
                              III
    Maalouf raises several issues on appeal. We deal with
 each in turn.
                              A
      First, we reject Maalouf’s Appointments Clause chal-
 lenge, which seeks vacatur because the Commissioner of
 Patents acted here, rather than the Director of the U.S. Pa-
 tent and Trademark Office. As Maalouf recognized in his
 Opening Brief, the same issue was presented in a separate
 case, which we have since decided. See Arthrex, Inc. v.
 Smith & Nephew, Inc., 35 F.4th 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (re-
 jecting same argument). Maalouf’s Appointments Clause
 challenge, then, necessarily fails.
                              B
     Second, and contrary to Maalouf’s arguments, the
 Board did not err by failing to construe “remote control” in
 a manner that would limit it to a non-fixed mode, in which
 the invention’s holder does not hold the mobile device. In
 determining that “claim 29 is not limited to a ‘non-fixed’
 implementation in which the mobile device is not held by
 the holder during use,” the Board correctly focused on the
 claim language itself. J.A. 15. We agree with the Board
 that because the claim recites a holder that holds the mo-
 bile device during use, as well as a “wireless interface
Case: 22-1164     Document: 41      Page: 7    Filed: 02/23/2023

 MAALOUF   v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION                           7

 module that, during use, provides a wireless connection to
 the mobile device, wherein remote control of the camera
 feature of the mobile device is provided over the wireless
 connection,” the claim cannot be viewed as limited to a non-
 fixed implementation during use. See J.A. 47 (’627 patent
 at 7:5-6, 7:14-18). This conclusion is based on the ordinary
 and customary meanings to a skilled artisan of the claim
 terms “during use” and “hold,” meanings that are readily
 apparent and do not require elaborate interpretation. See,
 e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-15 (Fed.
 Cir. 2005) (en banc). Notably, Maalouf offers no alternative
 interpretation of these terms and no argument directly ad-
 dressing them.
      Instead, Maalouf asserts that the specification defines
 “remote control” as limited to non-fixed embodiments,
 pointing to this statement in particular: “In certain embod-
 iments, remote control operations can also be performed
 (for example, a non-fixed mode).” J.A. 44 (’627 patent at
 2:31-33). The problem for Maalouf, however, is that this
 statement is self-evidently exemplary and not definitional,
 as it expressly refers only to “certain embodiments” and
 “for example” a non-fixed mode. The Board properly de-
 clined to import a portion of an exemplary embodiment
 from the specification into the claim. See, e.g., Phillips.,
 415 F.3d at 1323.
      Maalouf’s other purported support for his narrow con-
 struction of “remote control” is that, he insists, “remote con-
 trol” and “wireless connection” must have different
 meanings because they are different terms. Even accept-
 ing his reasoning as correct, the Board never construed
 these terms as having the same meaning. Instead, the
 Board simply declined to explicitly construe “remote con-
 trol,” finding claim 29 was not limited to a non-fixed imple-
 mentation during use. As Microsoft explains, the patent
 uses “wireless connection” as a mechanism by which to pro-
 vide “remote control” functionality.
Case: 22-1164     Document: 41      Page: 8    Filed: 02/23/2023

 8                        MAALOUF   v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

      In any event, even if we were to adopt Maalouf’s nar-
 rower understanding of his claims, we would still affirm
 the Board’s determination that claim 29 is obvious. As an
 alternative basis for its conclusion, the Board explained
 that even under Maalouf’s construction, claim 29 is obvious
 in light of Rosenhan, and we agree with this conclusion as
 well. Maalouf contends the Board erred in finding Rosen-
 han disclosed non-fixed remote control, but the Board’s
 finding is supported by substantial evidence. As the Board
 explained:
     Rosenhan explicitly states that “electronic connec-
     tion interface 118 may comprise a wireless connec-
     tion (e.g., through Bluetooth, IR, etc.) so that no
     physical electronic connection is needed.” Thus, ir-
     respective of whether the smartphone is connected
     to the handle or not, as long as the smartphone is
     in range of the wireless signal, Rosenhan provides
     remote control of the camera features over the
     wireless connection, as recited in claim limitation
     29.B.3b [(i.e., “wherein remote control of the cam-
     era feature of the mobile device is provided over the
     wireless connection . . .”)].
 J.A. 14 (internal citation omitted), 4 (limitation 29.B.3b). 1
                               C
     Third, the Board did not err in finding claim 37 would
 have been obvious in light of Rosenhan and Kim. The
 Board’s underlying factual findings are supported by sub-
 stantial evidence, particularly the testimony of Microsoft’s
 expert, Welch. Welch explained: “A POSITA would also be
 motivated to combine Kim’s shaft and mounting structure

     1  Maalouf did not raise his “remote control” claim
 construction argument with respect to claim 37 before the
 Board, and we decline to address it for the first time on ap-
 peal. See, e.g., Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841
 F.3d 1376, 1379 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Case: 22-1164      Document: 41    Page: 9   Filed: 02/23/2023

 MAALOUF     v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION                       9

 with Rosenhan’s handle to expand the compatibility of
 Rosenhan’s handle to the many different types of mobile
 phones available on the market, thereby expanding the
 commercial application of the handle.” J.A. 849. He fur-
 ther noted:
     In view of Rosenhan’s disclosure of accommodating
     phones with various shapes and sizes, a POSITA
     would have been motivated to replace the mount-
     ing structure of Rosenhan with a more flexible
     mount that was capable of being used with a larger
     number of mobile phones having different shapes
     and sizes, a situation specifically identified in
     Rosenhan.
 J.A. 846.
     Maalouf faults the Board for relying on Welch’s testi-
 mony because, in his view, it is merely conclusory and,
 therefore, inadequate. We do not agree that Welch’s testi-
 mony, including the portion we have excerpted above, is
 conclusory. Instead, Welch clearly articulated why a
 skilled artisan would be motivated to combine Rosenhan
 and Kim, providing specific reasoning based on facts in the
 record, logic, and his own expertise. Maalouf’s arguments
 to the contrary are without merit.
                               D
    Finally, the Board sufficiently articulated its analysis.
 As we have previously stated:
     The amount of explanation needed to meet the gov-
     erning legal standards – to enable judicial review
     and to avoid judicial displacement of agency au-
     thority – necessarily depends on context. A brief
     explanation may do all that is needed if, for exam-
     ple, the technology is simple and familiar and the
     prior art is clear in its language and easily under-
     stood. On the other hand, complexity or obscurity
     of the technology or prior-art descriptions may well
     make more detailed explanations necessary.
Case: 22-1164    Document: 41      Page: 10    Filed: 02/23/2023

 10                       MAALOUF   v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION

 Pers. Web Techs., 848 F.3d at 994 (citation omitted).
     Here, the Board was faced with relatively simple tech-
 nology and arguments. The Board considered and rejected
 Maalouf’s arguments, while summarizing and accepting
 Microsoft’s arguments and the bases for them. Although a
 more fulsome explanation is always welcome and often nec-
 essary, in this case the Board’s analysis is sufficiently dis-
 cernable for purposes of our review and the strictures of
 administrative law. See generally Bowman Transp., Inc. v.
 Ark.-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285 (1974) (not-
 ing we may “uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if
 the agency’s path may reasonably be discerned”).
                              IV
     We have considered the parties’ additional arguments
 and find them unpersuasive or unnecessary to address. 2
 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision.
                         AFFIRMED
                            COSTS
 No costs.

      2  For example, because we affirm the Board’s deci-
 sion with respect to grounds 1 (Rosenhan) and 2 (Rosenhan
 and Kim), we need not and do not address ground 3
 (Fromm, Fenton, and Bolton).