This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion and three nonprecedential orders. The opinion addresses an appeal from a judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and attends to arguments related to claim construction and the determination of analogous art for purposes of a nonobviousness analysis. The orders are dismissals. Here is the introduction to the opinion and links to the orders.

Daedalus Blue LLC v. Vidal (Nonprecedential Opinion)

Daedalus Blue LLC (Daedalus) appeals a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision that determined claims 15–25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 (’132 patent) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of Gelb, Tivoli, and Callaghan.  We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

Daedalus raises three arguments on appeal:  (1) the Board erred by not construing the claim term “plurality of clients” as “clients in a networked environment”; (2) Gelb is not analogous art because it is not in the same field of endeavor as the ’132 patent; and (3) Gelb is not analogous art because it is not reasonably pertinent to the problems identified in the ’132 patent.  Because substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Gelb is analogous art, we affirm.