Okajima v. Bourdeau, No. 104,193
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL, and LINN; MICHEL |
| Citation | 261 F.3d 1350 |
| Parties | (Fed. Cir. 2001) SHINPEI OKAJIMA, Appellant, v. JOEL BOURDEAU, Appellee. 01-1090 (Interference) DECIDED: |
| Decision Date | 16 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 104,193 |
Page 1350
v.
JOEL BOURDEAU, Appellee.
Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
Page 1351
Page 1352
James A. Deland, Deland Law Office, of San Ramon, California, argued for appellant.
Michael J. Fink, Greenblum & Bernstein, of Reston, Virginia, argued for appellee.
Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
MICHEL, Circuit Judge.
This is a patent interference case concerning the issue of obviousness. Shinpei Okajima appeals the August 30, 2000 Final Decision and Judgment of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("Board") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") which held that claims 13-24 and 26-28 of Joel Bourdeau's application are not unpatentable for obviousness. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's findings underlying its conclusion of nonobviousness, and the Board's decision was untainted by legal error, we affirm.
Background
On April 30, 1998, the PTO declared this interference between Okajima's U.S. patent application No. 08/665,679, filed June 18, 1996, and Bourdeau's U.S. patent application No. 08/676,928, filed July 8, 1996. By virtue of his earlier filing date, Okajima was initially designated the senior party. However, the Board accorded Bourdeau priority upon determining that he was entitled to a priority date of July 11, 1995, the filing date of Bourdeau's French application 95.08587. On appeal, Okajima does not contest priority.
Okajima filed a preliminary motion for judgment against Bourdeau's claims 13-24 and 26-28 on the ground that these claims are unpatentable over the prior art. The administrative patent judge ruled that these claims are not unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of various combinations of prior art references, including European Patent Office Publication No. 356,400 (EP '400), published February 28, 1990; German Offenlegungsschift DE 4,333,503 (DE '503), published April 6, 1995; and U.S. Patent 5,401,041 (US '041), issued March 28, 1995. After a final hearing, the Board upheld the patentability of the subject matter of the count and Bourdeau's claims. This ruling is the subject of Okajima's appeal.
Bourdeau's claims are directed to a snowboard boot. The application, as depicted
Page 1353
in the diagram below, discloses that a snowboarder typically bends his or her legs frontwardly and laterally, with the downhill foot inclined more sharply:1
Bourdeau's claimed boot has a rigid shell surrounding the foot and a rigid back portion that cradles the back of the leg. The two pieces are joined by, among other things, a broad, rounded pin called a "journal," which permits the pieces thereby joined to pivot about an axis. The placement of the journal is key to Bourdeau's invention. Prior art boots (including DE '503 and US '041) had the journal in the back of the boot, on the boot's longitudinal median plane, such that the journal was positioned upon the snowboarder's Achilles tendon. This design allowed for substantial lateral movement, but restricted the skier's ability to bend his or her leg forward. The placement of the journal on the Achilles tendon also produced discomfort. Other prior art boots (including EP '400) had two journals, set atop the user's ankle bones, which primarily affords longitudinal flexibility. Bourdeau's allegedly nonobvious contribution to the snowboard boot art includes making a boot with a single journal that is offset from the medial plane of the boot, such that it rests in the recessed area between the Achilles tendon and the internal malleolus (i.e., the bony protuberance of the ankle) of the snowboarder.
In Bourdeau's claimed boot, the axis of the journal is disposed at an angle between 20 and 45 with respect to the longitudinal median plane of the boot (i.e., the plane running from toe to heel, and up and down through the boot). Bourdeau's claim 13, representative for present purposes, recites a "journal attachment journaling said back portion to said rear portion of said shell, said journal attachment being positioned on a medial side of the boot, along a journal axis forming an angle of between 20 and 45 with respect to the longitudinal median plane of the boot."
Bourdeau discloses that such a design improves not only the comfort of the boot, but also its mobility. As stated in his application, when the journal is placed too close to the Achilles tendon (i.e., at an angle less than 20 with respect to the longitudinal median plane of the boot), the user is afforded greater lateral mobility to the prejudice of the user's ability to bend forward. Contrarily, when the journal is placed too far towards the ankle (i.e., at an angle greater than 45 with respect to the longitudinal median plane of the boot) the user gains greater ability to bend forward, but loses lateral flexibility. Bourdeau discloses
Page 1354
that placing the journal at an angle between 20~ and 45~ with respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Separate Parts In This Issue
Part III
Commerce Department, Patent and Trademark Office,
...The transcription would become part of the record and could be helpful to the panel in reaching its decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1356, 59 USPQ2d 1795, 1798 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting the role of the transcript in the Board's decision). To be helpful, however, the transcri......
-
Practice and procedure:
Practice before Board of Patent Appeal and Interferences,
...The transcription would become part of the record and could be helpful to the panel in reaching its decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1356, 59 USPQ2d 1795, 1798 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting the role of the transcript in the Board's decision). To be helpful, however, the transcri......
-
Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Gordini U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 10–CV–0892 H (WMC).
...Nevertheless, it is preferable for the court to specify the level of skill it applies to the invention at issue. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2001). “[E]xpert testimony is not required when the references and the invention are easily understandable.” Wyers v. Master Loc......
-
Tesco Corp.. v. Weatherford Int'l Inc., Civil Action No. H–08–2531.
...for the jury. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2006); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also Transocean, 617 F.3d at 1302–03 (“whether there was a reason to combine certain references” is a question of fa......
-
Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. v. Gordini U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 10–CV–0892 H (WMC).
...Nevertheless, it is preferable for the court to specify the level of skill it applies to the invention at issue. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2001). “[E]xpert testimony is not required when the references and the invention are easily understandable.” Wyers v. Master Loc......
-
Tesco Corp.. v. Weatherford Int'l Inc., Civil Action No. H–08–2531.
...for the jury. See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 471 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2006); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also Transocean, 617 F.3d at 1302–03 (“whether there was a reason to combine certain references” is a question of fa......
-
Unified Patents, LLC v. Oceana Innovations LLC, IPR2020-01463
...Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Based on Mr. Cady's testimony, Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had "at least a Bache......
-
Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., No. CIV.A. 02-30022-MAP.
...the essence of invention") (citing Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed.Cir. 2004)). 18. In Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed.Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1128, 122 S.Ct. 1066, 151 L.Ed.2d 969 (2002), the court explained the level of skill in the art is a prism or le......