Court Opinion

ID: 9482206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:43:22.775764+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:50.050090
License: Public Domain

MAYER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
An appeal is not a second opportunity to try a case or prosecute a patent application, and we should not allow parties to “undertake to retry the entire case on appeal.” Perini America, Inc. v. Paper Converting Machine Co., 832 F.2d 581, 584, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1621, 1624 (Fed.Cir.1987); Eaton Corp. v. Appliance Valves Corp., 790 F.2d 874, 877, 229 U.S.P.Q. 668, 671 (Fed. Cir.1986). But that is precisely what the court has permitted here. The PTO conducted a thorough examination of the prior art surrounding this patent application and concluded the claims would have been obvious. The board’s decision based on the examiner’s answer which comprehensively explains the rejection is persuasive and shows how the evidence supports the legal conclusion that the claims would have been obvious. Yet, the court ignores all this and conducts its own examination, if you will, as though the examiner and board did not exist. Even if I thought this opinion were more persuasive than the board's, I could *497not join it because it misperceives the role of the court.
The scope and content of the prior art, the similarity between the prior art and the claims, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and what the prior art teaches are all questions of fact. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 693-94, 15 L.Ed.2d 545, 148 U.S.P.Q. 459, 467 (1966); Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552, 1560, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1031, 1037 (Fed.Cir.1991). And “[wjhere there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511-12, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). The mere denomination of obviousness as a question of law does not give the court license to decide the factual matters afresh and ignore the requirement that they be respected unless clearly erroneous. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1577, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1934, 1935 (Fed.Cir.1990); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1056, 1057 (Fed. Cir.1990). There may be more than one way to look at the prior art, but on this record we are bound by the PTO’s interpretation of the evidence because it is not clearly erroneous and its conclusion is unassailable. I would affirm on that basis.