Court Opinion

ID: 9900820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-20 16:02:02.187486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:18.656600
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1710    Document: 64    Page: 1   Filed: 11/20/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   JAGER PRO, INC.,
                      Appellant

                            v.

          W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                   2022-1710, 2022-1711
                  ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 01470, IPR2020-01471.
                  ______________________

                Decided: November 20, 2023
                  ______________________

    JONATHON A. TALCOTT, Ballard Spahr LLP, Phoenix,
 AZ, argued for appellant. Also represented by RICHARD
 WILLIAM MILLER, DENNIS ALAN WHITE, JR., Atlanta, GA;
 BENJAMIN NICHOLS SIMLER, Philadelphia, PA.

    SCOTT W. CUMMINGS, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
 LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also repre-
 sented by NAH EUN KIM, Atlanta, GA.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1710      Document: 64    Page: 2    Filed: 11/20/2023

 2              JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

     Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
      Appellant Jager Pro, Inc. (Jager Pro) appeals two deci-
 sions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding
 all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,814,228 (’228
 patent) and 10,098,339 (’339 patent) unpatentable as obvi-
 ous. W-W Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc., No. IPR2020-
 01470, 2022 WL 499520 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) (’228 De-
 cision); W-W Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc., No. IPR2020-
 01471, 2022 WL 495334 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) (’339 De-
 cision). 1 Because the Board’s findings are supported by
 substantial evidence, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
     The ’228 and ’339 patents are directed to methods and
 apparatuses to remotely trap wild pigs. Claim 1 of the ’228
 patent reads:
     1. A method for capturing a plurality of feral pigs,
     comprising:
     [a] moving at least one portion of an enclosure from
     an open position that permits passage of a plurality
     of feral pigs into the enclosure to a closed position
     that restricts passage of the plurality of feral pigs
     out of the enclosure, [b] wherein in the closed posi-
     tion, the enclosure cooperates with a ground sur-
     face to define an enclosure area in which the
     plurality of feral pigs are trapped, [c] and wherein
     the ground surface extends continuously from

     1    Jager Pro does not appear to make any argument
 specific to either the ’228 Decision or ’339 Decision or their
 respective patents. For simplicity, we reference the ’228
 Decision and the ’228 patent in resolving both appeals.
Case: 22-1710     Document: 64     Page: 3    Filed: 11/20/2023

 JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.              3

     within the enclosure area to areas surrounding the
     enclosure,
     [d] wherein the enclosure comprises a release
     mechanism that effects movement of the at least
     one portion of the enclosure from the open position
     to the closed position,
     [e] wherein the release mechanism effects move-
     ment of the at least one portion of the enclosure
     from the open position to the closed position upon
     receipt of a release signal from a control mecha-
     nism that is in communication with a display de-
     vice, [f] wherein the display device is in
     communication with a camera assembly and con-
     figured to:
         receive a wireless detection signal from the
         camera assembly; and
         [g] transmit a wireless control signal upon
         receipt of the wireless detection signal from
         the camera assembly, wherein the wireless
         control signal corresponds to an instruction
         to the control mechanism to generate the
         release signal, and
     [h] wherein, upon detection of a presence of the plu-
     rality of feral pigs within the enclosure by the cam-
     era assembly, the camera assembly transmits the
     wireless detection signal to the display device.
 ’228 patent at claim 1. 2

     2   The bracketed lettering follows the naming conven-
 tions adopted by the Board for each limitation of claim 1.
 See ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *4.
Case: 22-1710      Document: 64    Page: 4    Filed: 11/20/2023

 4              JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

     The Board found the combination of TexasBoars 3 and
 Jeong 4 taught or suggested the subject matter of claim 1 of
 the ’228 patent. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *2. The
 Board found TexasBoars taught or suggested the mechan-
 ical aspects of the claimed enclosure, i.e., the preamble,
 Limitations 1[a]–1[d], and the “release mechanism” func-
 tion of Limitation 1[e], and Jeong taught or suggested the
 remaining limitations, including the wireless transmission
 of signals from a camera assembly to a display device as
 well as from the display device to a control mechanism ac-
 cording to Figure 1:

 J.A. 578, FIG. 1. The Board also considered Jager Pro’s ev-
 idence of objective indicia of nonobviousness but did not
 give it substantial weight because Jager Pro had not shown

     3   The Board recorded this reference as “Archived
 copy of a page from TexasBoars’s website (https://tex-
 asboars.com/)” for TB1 and “Copy of presentation from Tex-
 asBoars’s website” for TB2. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL
 499520, at *2 nn.4–5. This website no longer exists, but
 the Joint Appendix includes printed versions of both refer-
 ences at J.A. 520–21 (TB1) and J.A. 522–72 (TB2). This
 opinion collectively refers to both references as “Tex-
 asBoars.”
     4   Korean Patent Registration No. XX-XXXXXXX.
Case: 22-1710     Document: 64      Page: 5    Filed: 11/20/2023

 JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.               5

 it was entitled to a presumption of nexus and made no
 other argument for why nexus existed. ’228 Decision, 2022
 WL 499520, at *54–57.
    Jager Pro appeals.      We have jurisdiction under 28
 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                          DISCUSSION
     We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial
 evidence and its ultimate conclusion of obviousness de
 novo. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1372
 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Evidence of objective indicia of nonobvi-
 ousness is only accorded substantial weight when such ev-
 idence has a nexus with the claims, and the patent owner
 bears the burden of showing such nexus exists. Id. at 1373.
 The patent owner is entitled to a rebuttable presumption
 of nexus when the evidence is tied to a specific product and
 that product embodies and is coextensive with the claimed
 features. Id.
     Jager Pro argues a number of the Board’s findings are
 not supported by substantial evidence, but we disagree
 with each. Jager Pro argues the Board never articulated a
 motivation to combine TexasBoars and Jeong with a rea-
 sonable expectation of success—it only found a lack of evi-
 dence of teaching away. Appellant’s Reply Br. 15–16.
 Jager Pro mischaracterizes the Board’s analysis. The
 Board found the combination of TexasBoars with Jeong in-
 volved a simple substitution of “an animal-instigated clo-
 sure (e.g., by use of a trip wire) [with] a human-instigated
 closure (e.g., by receiving images of animals in an enclosure
 and pushing a button to send a signal to close the gate)”
 motivated by the advantages realized when these refer-
 ences are combined. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at
 *17, *24; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
 (2007). The Board also found a skilled artisan would un-
 derstand the remote operability suggested by the combina-
 tion would give the operator more control and increase the
Case: 22-1710      Document: 64    Page: 6    Filed: 11/20/2023

 6              JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.

 trap’s chance of success. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520,
 at *17. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings.
     Jager Pro argues Jeong at most teaches or suggests de-
 tection of an animal approaching a trap, not detection of an
 animal within a trap as in limitation 1[h]. Appellant’s Re-
 ply Br. 2–7. But this attacks Jeong alone and not the com-
 bination of Jeong and TexasBoars. As the Board found,
 “Petitioner d[id] not rely on Jeong as teaching the enclo-
 sure recited by claim 1” but rather argued the limitation is
 taught or suggested by Jeong’s system added to Tex-
 asBoars’s corral trap. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at
 *39. Thus, Jager Pro’s argument misses the point by focus-
 ing on one reference’s disclosure instead of explaining why
 the stated combination fails to teach or suggest the limita-
 tion. We agree with the Board that the combination would
 have resulted in a camera assembly positioned in a manner
 to detect pigs located within the corral.
     Jager Pro argues Jeong does not teach or suggest wire-
 less signals because Jeong never expressly refers to any
 signal as “wireless.” Appellant’s Br. 30–34; Appellant’s Re-
 ply Br. 9–10. The Board disagreed, observing that Jeong’s
 Figure 1 shows certain elements connected by solid lines
 and other elements connected by broken lines and finding
 that—when read in light of Jeong’s description of a “remote
 control unit” for the disclosed trap—the solid lines suggest
 a wired connection while the broken lines suggest a wire-
 less connection. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *19–
 20. On these facts, the Board’s finding with respect to
 Jeong is supported by substantial evidence.
     Jager Pro argues the Board’s finding of no presumption
 of nexus was not supported by substantial evidence. 5

     5 Jager Pro only argued for a presumption of
 nexus—as opposed to also arguing nexus absent the
Case: 22-1710    Document: 64      Page: 7    Filed: 11/20/2023

 JAGER PRO, INC. v. W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.             7

 Appellant’s Br. 52–57. The Board found Jager Pro was not
 entitled to this presumption based on testimony from Jager
 Pro’s expert who explained Jager Pro’s commercial prod-
 uct’s display device transmits a wireless signal directly to
 the release mechanism, which then releases the gate. ’228
 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *54–55. The Board correctly
 observed this is not what the claim requires—it instead re-
 quires a wireless signal sent from a display device to a con-
 trol mechanism, which in turn then sends another signal
 to a release mechanism to release the gate. Id. The Board
 also considered Jager Pro’s arguments that its product
 manual’s depiction of a “control box” supports a finding of
 nexus because the control box receives wireless signals
 from a display device. Id. at *55. However, the Board rea-
 sonably found the manual to be inconclusive because it pro-
 vides no explanation of the control box receiving wireless
 signals in the manner required by limitation 1[e]. Id. The
 Board’s finding regarding nexus is supported by substan-
 tial evidence.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Jager Pro’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
 the Board’s decisions are affirmed.
                        AFFIRMED

 presumption—to the Board. See ’228 Decision, 2022 WL
 499520, at *56.