Court Opinion

ID: 9378399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:00:56.471089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.234988
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1459     Document: 46    Page: 1   Filed: 03/10/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                 CHEMCO SYSTEMS, L.P.,
                      Appellant

                             v.

                RDP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
                         Appellee
                  ______________________

                         2022-1459
                   ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
 01564.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: March 10, 2023
                  ______________________

     JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Jones Day, Washington, DC, for ap-
 pellant.  Also represented by MARLEE HARTENSTEIN,
 MATTHEW JOHNSON, Pittsburgh, PA.

    THOMAS FISHER, Cozen O'Connor P.C., Washington,
 DC, for appellee. Also represented by KERI SCHAUBERT,
 New York, NY.
                  ______________________
Case: 22-1459      Document: 46    Page: 2      Filed: 03/10/2023

 2              CHEMCO SYSTEMS, L.P.   v. RDP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

     Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and STARK, Circuit
                          Judges.
 PROST, Circuit Judge.
     Chemco Systems, L.P. (“Chemco”) petitioned for inter
 partes review of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent
 No. 7,416,673 (“the ʼ673 patent”) owned by appellee RDP
 Technologies, Inc. In a final written decision, the Patent
 Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determined Chemco had
 not shown these claims were unpatentable as obvious. The
 Board denied Chemco’s rehearing request. Chemco ap-
 peals. We affirm.
     The ʼ673 patent generally relates to a lime slurry recir-
 culation loop for the removal of unwanted grit particles and
 the extraction of lime slurry. The only issue on appeal is
 whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-
 ings that two asserted prior art references do not teach or
 suggest a “suction line” for extraction.
     Before the Board, Chemco argued that U.S. Patent
 No. 5,336,481 (“Muzik”) disclosed all elements of claims 1
 and 2 apart from an element requiring the extraction of
 slurry “via a suction line, through a stilling well, that al-
 lows gravity separation of grit from slurry.” ’673 patent
 claim 1. Chemco argued that either U.S. Patent No.
 6,833,078 (“Espinoza”) or U.S. Patent No. 6,197,190
 (“Hanlon”) discloses or renders obvious that element—and
 that, further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
 have combined Muzik’s slurry loop with the stilling well
 disclosed in those references. Chemco thus argued that the
 challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious over (1)
 Muzik in view of Espinoza or (2) Muzik in view of Hanlon.
     The Board rejected Chemco’s argument. In its final
 written decision, the Board found that neither Espinoza
 nor Hanlon discloses or renders obvious the required suc-
 tion line. Since Chemco relied only on Espinoza or Hanlon
Case: 22-1459     Document: 46     Page: 3    Filed: 03/10/2023

 CHEMCO SYSTEMS, L.P.   v. RDP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.            3

 to teach the suction line, the Board concluded that Chemco
 had not shown claims 1 and 2 unpatentable as obvious.
     Obviousness is a legal question based on underlying
 findings of fact. Am. Nat’l Mfg. Inc. v. Sleep No. Corp., 52
 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022). We review the Board’s
 legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for sub-
 stantial evidence. Id.
     The Board’s finding that neither Espinoza nor Hanlon
 discloses a suction line is supported by substantial evi-
 dence. Chemco admits that neither reference explicitly
 mentions extraction of slurry via a suction line. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 14. And its arguments that the references im-
 plicitly indicate suction or that they render use of suction
 obvious are unpersuasive.
     As the Board found, the apparatus disclosed in Espi-
 noza does not include a pump to create suction. J.A. 30–
 31. Instead, the placement of outlet line 210 below the
 chamber’s fluid line permits removal via gravity flow. J.A.
 30. Given this placement, the reference to “drawing off” a
 particle-rich stream from the top of the settling chamber in
 Espinoza does not have the same meaning as the ʼ673 pa-
 tent’s reference to “drawing off” via a suction line. J.A. 30–
 31. Similarly, Hanlon does not teach a suction line or a
 pump. J.A. 35. And the Board found that Chemco did not
 sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art
 would have chosen suction over Hanlon’s collecting pipe 26.
 J.A. 35; see also J.A. 45. We conclude that substantial evi-
 dence supports these findings.
      We have considered Chemco’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm the Board’s decision.
                         AFFIRMED