Today the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a veterans case, two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases, one nonprecedential order in a veterans case, and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
Francway v. Wilkie (Precedential)
Ernest L. Francway appeals from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’ (“Veterans Court’s”) decision affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board’s”) denial of Francway’s claim for disability compensation. We affirm.
Knauf Insulation, Inc. v. Rockwool International A/S (Nonprecedential)
In this inter partes reexamination (“reexamination”) the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) held that claims 16–22 of Knauf’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,888,445 and claims 29–32 of Knauf’s U.S. Pat. No. 7,772,347 (collectively, “appealed claims”) were obvious, and that claims 1-15 of the ’445 patent and claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–12, 14–18, and 22–28 of the ’347 patent (collectively, “cross-appealed claims”) are not unpatentable as obvious. Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf Insulation LLC, App. No. 2015-001313 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2015) (“’445 Board Op. I”); Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf In- sulation LLC, App. No. 2015-004826 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 2017) (“’445 Board Op. II”); Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf Insulation LLC, App. No. 2015-004826 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018) (“’445 Reh’g Op.”); Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf Insu- lation LLC, App. No. 2015-001256 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2015) (“’347 Board Op. I”); Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf Insulation LLC, App. No. 2015-004910 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 8, 2017) (“’347 Board Op. II”); Rockwool Int’l A/S v. Knauf Insulation LLC, App. No. 2015-004910 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018) (“’347 Reh’g Op.”).
On direct appeal, Knauf contests the Board’s conclusion of obviousness of the appealed claims. Because substantial evidence does not support the combination of references relied on by the Board solely based on the similarity of their disclosed reactions, we vacate the Board’s determination that the appealed claims were obvious and remand for further consideration. On cross-appeal, Rockwool contests the Board’s conclusions of non-obviousness of the cross-appealed claims. Because Rockwool lacks standing to assert a cross-appeal, we dismiss the cross-appeal.
Campbell Soup Company v. Gamon Plus, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Campbell Soup Company, Campbell Sales Company, and Trinity Manufacturing, L.L.C. (collectively, “Campbell”) petitioned for inter partes review challenging the validity of claims 1–35 of U.S. Patent No. 8,827,111 (“the ’111 patent”) owned by Gamon Plus, Inc. (“Gamon”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted review of claims 1–16, 27, 28, and 32–35. In its final written decision, the Board granted patent owner Gamon’s request to cancel claims 1–16 but held that Campbell failed to establish that claims 27, 28, and 32–35 are unpatentable.
We affirm the Board’s determination that claims 27, 28, and 32–35 are not unpatentable over the instituted grounds. We remand, however, for the Board to consider whether non-instituted claims 17–26 and 29–31 are unpatentable and whether claims 27, 28, and 32–35 are unpatentable based on the non-instituted grounds.
Francway v. Wilkie (Nonprecedential Order)
This case was argued before a panel of three judges on June 6, 2019. A sua sponte request for a poll on whether to consider this case en banc was made. A poll was conducted, and the judges who are in regular active service voted for sua sponte en banc consideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
- Rehearing en banc is granted for the limited purpose of deleting footnote 1 and accompanying text from the previous precedential opinion and replacing it with a new en banc footnote 1.
- The previous precedential opinion, dated July 23, 2019, is hereby withdrawn and replaced with the modified precedential opinion attached to this order.
American Relocation Connection v. United States (Erratum)
Please make the following change:
Page 7, line 6, change “principle” to –principal–.