Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 03/26/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: RAYMOND CLARKE, LANDEC
CORPORATION,
Appellants
______________________
2019-1698
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/480,625.
______________________
Decided: March 26, 2020
______________________
JAMES S. MCDONALD, Walnut Creek, CA, for appel-
lants.
FRANCES LYNCH, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for appellee
Andrei Iancu. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE,
WILLIAM LAMARCA, MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD.
______________________
Before O’MALLEY, MAYER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Clarke and Landec Corporation (hereinafter
“Clarke”) appeal a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (“Board”) affirming, in relevant part, the
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 03/26/2020
2 IN RE: CLARKE
unpatentability of proposed claims 1–8 and 10–15 in U.S.
Patent Application No. 14/480,625 (“’625 application”). See
Ex parte Clarke, 2018 Pat. App. LEXIS 8711 (P.T.A.B. Oct.
29, 2018). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the
Board’s decision.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The ’625 Application
The ’625 application, filed on September 8, 2014, is di-
rected to packaging for respiring biological material. The
application explains that fruits—which are respiring bio-
logical material—consume oxygen and produce carbon di-
oxide at rates that depend on the age of the fruits. Many
fruits are picked before they are ripe, transported under
conditions that deter ripening, and then exposed to eth-
ylene, a gaseous plant hormone, to promote rapid ripening
of the fruit at a final destination. Packages designed to
transport such fruits must, therefore, account for respira-
tion, which impacts oxygen and ethylene levels inside a
container, to ensure a desired atmosphere within the pack-
age.
The invention disclosed in the ’625 application is useful
for storing and ripening fruits that ripen “when exposed to
ethylene or another [ethylene ripening agent].” J.A. 163.
Such fruits include bananas, tomatoes, avocados, Bartlett
pears, kiwis, melons, peppers, and mangos. These fruits
are often picked when unripe and commercially ripened
near a final point of sale via exposure to ethylene in a rip-
ening room. The commercial ripening process can pose a
problem, however, because produce is shipped in sealed
bags that must be opened to allow ethylene exposure and
because ripening can occur rapidly once fruits are exposed
to ethylene.
The ’625 application discloses a fruit ripening con-
tainer that “mitigate[s] or overcome[s]” these problems by
“provid[ing] a pathway for oxygen, carbon dioxide and
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 03/26/2020
IN RE: CLARKE 3
ethylene to enter or leave the container.” J.A. 147. Specif-
ically, it discloses containers that:
include at least one atmosphere control member
which provides a pathway for O2 and CO2, and
which preferably comprises a gas-permeable mem-
brane comprising
(1) a microporous polymeric film, and
(2) a polymeric coating on the microporous film.
J.A. 161. The atmosphere control member (“ACM”) is
“preferably a control member as described in one or more
of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,013,293 [De Moor] and 6,376,032 and
International Publication No. W000/04787 . . . . ” Id. The
specification discloses two types of control members, Type
S and Type A, with differing oxygen permeabilities. The
ACM is secured to a portion of the container, usually a bag,
in which one or more round holes has been cut. J.A. 168.
It may be secured on the interior or exterior of the bag. J.A.
169.
The ’625 application’s proposed claims are directed to a
“sealed container,” a “method of ripening fruit” in a sealed
container, and a “method of storing and/or ripening a re-
spiring biological material” in a sealed package. J.A. 277–
80. Amended claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue
on appeal:
A sealed container which comprises
(a) at least 4 kg of a respiring biological ma-
terial, and
(b) a packaging atmosphere around the re-
spiring biological material, and
(c) an atmosphere control member which
(i) provides a pathway for oxygen,
carbon dioxide and ethylene to
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 03/26/2020
4 IN RE: CLARKE
enter or leave the packaging atmos-
phere, and
(ii) consists of a membrane which
comprises a microporous film and a
polymeric coating on the mi-
croporous film, and which has an
[oxygen permeability], at all tem-
peratures between 20º and 25ºC, of
at least 50,000 ml/100
inch2.atm.24hrs;
the sealed container having (i) an oxygen permea-
bility at 13°C per kilogram of the respiring biologi-
cal material in the container (OP13/kg) of at least
700, and (ii) an ethylene permeability at 13°C per
kilogram of the respiring biological material in the
container (EtP13/kg) which is at least 2 times the
OP13/kg, and
the respiring biological material being a fruit se-
lected from the group consisting of apples, apricots,
avocados, blackberries, blueberries, cherimoyas,
dates, figs, mangos, melons, peaches, papayas,
pears, pineapples, peppers, persimmons, plums,
cherries, grapes, lemons, oranges, tomatoes, rasp-
berries, strawberries, nectarines, kiwis and toma-
toes.
J.A. 277. Amended independent claim 12, a method claim,
mirrors claim 1 and adds the additional limitation of “plac-
ing the sealed container in an atmosphere containing eth-
ylene.” J.A. 278–79.
B. Prior Art
The Board relied on six prior art references in the por-
tions of its analysis that Clarke challenges on appeal. We
describe each in turn.
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 03/26/2020
IN RE: CLARKE 5
De Moor.
U.S. Patent No. 6,013,293 (“De Moor”), titled
“Packing Respiring Biological Materials with Atmosphere
Control Member,” issued on January 11, 2000. J.A. 95. De
Moor explains that respiring biological materials consume
oxygen and produce carbon dioxide such that they should
be stored in a container that is sufficiently permeable to
those gases. J.A. 99. According to De Moor, prior art pack-
aging was inadequate because polymeric films alone do not
have adequate oxygen and carbon dioxide transmission
rates.
Id.
De Moor teaches a container made up of a relatively
oxygen and carbon dioxide impermeable barrier and an
ACM that is relatively permeable.
Id. One example of the
De Moor invention is depicted in Figure 2:
J.A. 97. De Moor’s ACM 12 “comprises a gas-permeable
membrane 121 and an apertured cover member 122” that
covers an aperture 123 cut into the bag. J.A. 102. De Moor
discloses an oxygen permeability of the gas permeable
member of at least 50,000 cc/100 inch2.atm.24hr at all tem-
peratures between 20º and 25ºC. J.A. 101.
Schreiber.
U.S. Patent No. 5,332,088 (“Schreiber”), ti-
tled “Fruit Display Box with Hand Holes,” issued July 26,
1994. J.A. 84. Schreiber discloses a shipping container
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 03/26/2020
6 IN RE: CLARKE
packed with 40 pounds (about 18 kilograms) of bananas.
J.A. 86.
Curtis.
U.S. Patent No. 6,085,930 (“Curtis”), titled
“Controlled Atmosphere Package,” issued July 11, 2000.
J.A. 105. Curtis teaches using a gas permeable membrane
to control gas concentrations within fruit packaging.
J.A. 113. Curtis further teaches, “the rate at which a spe-
cific gas permeates through a membrane is proportional to
the difference between the concentrations of that specific
gas on both sides of the permeable membrane.” J.A. 112.
Nakata.
U.S. Patent No. 6,348,271 (“Nakata”), titled
“Film Having Gas Permeability,” issued on February 19,
2002. J.A. 119. Nakata, like Curtis, teaches permeable
films with varying permeabilities to oxygen and ethylene.
J.A. 127–28, tbl.1. Nakata Example 4 discloses an ethylene
to oxygen permeability ratio of greater than 2:1.
Id. The
Example 4 film was ranked as keeping lettuce, spinach,
and bean sprouts in “good” condition during tests of five to
seven days. J.A. 128–29, tbls.2–4.
Herdeman.
U.S. Patent No. 5,460,841 (“Herdeman”),
titled “Process for Ripening Bananas and Other Produce,”
issued on October 24, 1995. J.A. 87. Herdeman discloses
ripening produce, such as bananas, while the produce is
stored in large containers that are also used for shipping.
J.A. 90. Herdeman Figure 1 shows such a ripening con-
tainer 20, packed with product filled boxes 17, that is
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 03/26/2020
IN RE: CLARKE 7
capable of receiving controlled atmosphere gas, including
ethylene, through an input port 45:
J.A. 88, 90–91.
Sisler.
U.S. Patent No. 5,518,988 (“Sisler”), titled
“Method of Counteracting an Ethylene Response in
Plants,” issued on May 21, 1996. J.A. 73. Sisler teaches
that ethylene ripens fruits and vegetables. J.A. 79.
C. The Board’s Decisions
Decision on Appeal. Before the Board, Clarke appealed
six of the examiner’s grounds for rejection of the claims of
the ’625 application:
A. The rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 8 as obvious
over De Moor in view of Schreiber, Curtis, and
Nakata;
B. The rejection of claims 5, 10–12, and 14 as ob-
vious over De Moor, Schreiber, Curtis, Herde-
man, Nakata, and Sisler;
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 03/26/2020
8 IN RE: CLARKE
C. The rejection of claim 7 as obvious over De
Moor, Schreiber, Curtis, Nakata, and Sisler;
D. The rejection of claim 13 as obvious over De
Moor, Schreiber, Curtis, Herdeman, Nakata,
and Sisler;
E. The rejection of claim 15 as obvious over De
Moor, Schreiber, Curtis, Herdeman, Nakata,
Reilly, and Sisler; and
F. The rejection of claims 16 and 18–21 as obvious
over De Moor, Schreiber, Curtis, Herdeman,
Nakata, Sisler, and Orman.
J.A. 4–5. The Board considered grounds A–E, related to
claims 1–8 and 10–15, together, and separately considered
ground F, related to claims 16 and 18–21. The Board re-
versed the examiner as to ground F. J.A. 14. Accordingly,
Clarke’s appeal does not address independent claim 16 and
dependent claims 18–21. Clarke also does not separately
appeal grounds C–E (concerning dependent claims 7, 13,
and 15), relying instead on establishing the patentability
of the independent claims to show the patentability of the
dependent claims that the Board rejected under those com-
binations.
First, relevant to claims 1–8 and 10–15, the Board
found that De Moor teaches an ACM within the scope of
the claims. J.A. 6. Clarke argued to the Board that De
Moor does not teach the claims’ ACM because De Moor’s
ACM includes a “cover member.”
Id. Clarke argued that
the “consists of a membrane which comprises” language of
the claims, describing the ACM, meant that the extra
structure in De Moor put De Moor’s ACM outside the scope
of the claims.
Id. The Board found, however, that there is
no real difference between the proposed claims and De
Moor’s structure. The Board explained that De Moor’s
cover member “can be an integral part of the barrier sec-
tions surrounding the control member . . . . This structure
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 03/26/2020
IN RE: CLARKE 9
is no different than what Appellant describes in the Speci-
fication as his invention, i.e., a gas permeable membrane
control member secured over one or more holes in a bag.”
Id. Thus, the Board found, “[a]ny difference resides merely
in the language De Moor uses to describe the structure ra-
ther than in the structure itself.”
Id.
Next, as to claim 1, the Board considered whether the
examiner erred in finding that a skilled artisan would have
selected a membrane with the oxygen and ethylene perme-
abilities recited in claim 1 for use with De Moor’s container
and whether De Moor discloses the 4 kg limitation. J.A. 7–
9. The Board found no error in the examiner’s analysis. It
explained that De Moor, Curtis, and Nakata are “concerned
with packaging that will inhibit the spoilage of respiring
fruits and vegetables during transport and storage” and
“teach using gas permeable membranes to control the con-
centrations of various gases within the package.” J.A. 7.
De Moor expressly discloses a conventional-sized container
for packaging fruits and discloses a gas permeable mem-
brane with oxygen permeability that meets the claimed
range. J.A. 8. The Board further found that Clarke and
Nakata show that one of skill in the art would have been
motivated to optimize De Moor’s membrane to achieve the
claimed permeability values. J.A. 8–9. The Board also
found that Schreiber teaches a conventional sized ship-
ment container carrying 18 kg of fruit. J.A. 9. Thus, the
Board found the examiner’s rejection was supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Id.
As to claim 12, addressing ground B, the Board found
that Herdeman discloses the use of ethylene to rapidly
ripen fruits in a combination shipping and ripening con-
tainer. J.A. 10. The Board further found that Herdeman
discloses ripening the fruit while the fruit was in boxes.
Id.
The Board explained,
[a]lthough Herdeman does not specify the struc-
ture of the boxes in which the fruit is stored, a
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 03/26/2020
10 IN RE: CLARKE
preponderance of the evidence indicates that using
sealed containers having gas permeable mem-
branes was known in the art to store fruit and veg-
etables after picking. This is clear from the
teachings of both De Moor and Herdeman, which
provide evidence of the conventional methods used
in picking, storing, shipping, and ripening of re-
spiring fruit. The fruit is often picked when green,
cooled, and packaged in sealed polymeric contain-
ers.
J.A. 11.
Decision on Rehearing. Clarke requested rehearing of
the Board’s decision as to claims 1–8 and 10–15. J.A. 18.
He challenged the Board’s rationale and conclusions as to
De Moor’s ACM, the prior art’s disclosure that ethylene and
oxygen permeabilities were known result-effective varia-
bles in the art, and placing a sealed container in a Herde-
man-type environment. J.A. 19. The Board denied the
rehearing request.
Id.
First, the Board reiterated its view that there is no
meaningful distinction between the claims and De Moor’s
ACM. J.A. 20–21. It explained that claim 1, a comprising
claim, does not exclude the presence of a bag in addition to
the ACM. The “consists of” language of the ACM limitation
does not, the Board explained, change that understanding.
J.A. 20.
Second, the Board rejected Clarke’s argument that its
analysis focused on the permeability of the membrane
alone to find overall container permeability limitations dis-
closed. J.A. 22. Instead, the Board explained, its decision
that the prior art teaches that a person of ordinary skill
would find optimal permeabilities was based on teachings
from multiple references that use permeable membranes to
achieve certain concentration of various gases in the entire
package.
Id. The Board explained,
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 03/26/2020
IN RE: CLARKE 11
the references as a whole evince that the relation-
ships between the gas concentrations and ripen-
ing/spoilage rates were known in the art and that
those of ordinary skill in the art understood how to
control the gas concentrations in containers
through the use of a membrane as well as by con-
trolling the mix of gases in the environment outside
the container to obtain a desired result, i.e., a de-
sired rate of ripening or of spoilage prevention.
J.A. 23–24. The Board cited In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575,
1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990), for the proposition that, once it is
shown that the prior art provides guidance on optimal
ranges, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the
claimed range achieved unexpected results. Thus, because
“both oxygen permeability and ethylene permeability were
known to have an effect,” the Board explained that the bur-
den was on Clarke to establish that the result of the
claimed invention was unexpected—a burden he failed to
carry. J.A. 24.
Third, the Board rejected Clarke’s argument that it
had equated Herdeman’s shipping container to De Moor’s
ripening container. J.A. 25. The Board explained that Her-
deman’s shipping container is like a ripening room into
which a container, such as the one described in De Moor,
might be placed.
Id.
Clarke appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
II. ANALYSIS
“Whether an invention would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art is a legal determination based
on underlying findings of fact.” In re Mouttet,
686 F.3d
1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The foundational facts for the
prima facie case of obviousness are: (1) the scope and con-
tent of the prior art; (2) the difference between the prior art
and the claimed invention; and (3) the level of ordinary
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 12 Filed: 03/26/2020
12 IN RE: CLARKE
skill in the art.” In re Mayne,
104 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have had a motivation to combine prior art refer-
ences is a question of fact. In re Gartside,
203 F.3d 1305,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Patent Office bears the burden
of establishing the prima facie facts of obviousness. Mayne,
104 F.3d at 1341. If the Patent Office carries its burden, it
falls to the applicant to rebut the Patent Office’s showing.
Id.
We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial
evidence and its ultimate determination of obviousness
without deference. Gartside,
203 F.3d at 1315–16. “Sub-
stantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co.
v. NLRB,
305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
A. Substantial Evidence Supports the Board’s Finding
that De Moor Discloses the Claimed ACM
Clarke argues that De Moor’s ACM falls outside the
scope of claims 1 and 12 because of the claims’ “consists of”
limitation. Appellant’s Br. 12–17. Specifically, he argues
that De Moor describes its ACM as comprising “(1) a mem-
brane comprising a microporous film and a polymeric coat-
ing on the microporous film and (2) an apertured cover
member.” Id. at 12. He contends that the apertured cover
member is essential to De Moor’s ACM and that removing
it would change the principles of De Moor’s operation. Id.
The Board disagreed with Clarke’s characterization of
De Moor. It is undisputed that De Moor discloses a gas
permeable membrane, with the required oxygen permea-
bility, that is secured over one or more holes in a bag. See
J.A. 6. The only issue before the Board was the signifi-
cance, if any, of the apertured cover member to the analy-
sis. Id. The Board found the apertured cover member had
no bearing on the analysis. It explained, “[a]ny difference
[between De Moor and the claims] resides merely in the
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 13 Filed: 03/26/2020
IN RE: CLARKE 13
language De Moor uses to describe the structure rather
than in the structure itself.” Id.
We find no error in the Board’s analysis. While prior
art elements must be arranged in the same manner as the
claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis
test.” In re Gleave,
560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Here, although De Moor contains structures in addition to
those found in the proposed claims, substantial evidence
supports a finding that each element of each of the claims
is present in the prior art.
Accordingly, we see no error in the Board’s analysis of
De Moor’s disclosure, and reject Clarke’s contention that
the “consists of” language of the claim somehow excludes
De Moor’s ACM as a matter of law.
B. Prosecution History Estoppel Does Not Apply During
Prosecution
Clarke argues that the Board’s analysis of De Moor is
erroneous because he “disclaimed” De Moor’s ACM during
prosecution. Appellant’s Br. 17–19; 26–27. He argues that
the alleged “disclaimer” can be found in statements he
made during prosecution to argue that his claims do not
cover a De Moor-type ACM with an apertured cover mem-
ber. Appellant’s Br. 17–18 (citing prosecution history
statements found at J.A. 231, 282, 314, 375). Clarke’s ar-
gument fails, however, because the doctrine of prosecution
history estoppel is inapplicable during prosecution. In-
stead, the doctrine is applicable only to issued patents and
available only to patentees. See Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Ray-
tek Corp.,
334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]here
the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain mean-
ing to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution dis-
claimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the
claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” (empha-
ses added)). To receive the benefit (or detriment) of a pros-
ecution history disclaimer, an applicant must persuade an
examiner that his claims are, as a matter of fact,
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 14 Filed: 03/26/2020
14 IN RE: CLARKE
distinguishable from the prior art. Clarke has failed to do
so in this case. We, therefore, find no legal error in the
Board’s analysis of the scope of the proposed claims.
C. The Prior Art Renders Obvious Placing a Sealed Con-
tainer in an Atmosphere Containing Ethylene
Clarke argues that the Board erred in concluding that
Herdeman discloses placing produce in a sealed container
and exposing the sealed container to an atmosphere con-
taining ethylene. Appellant’s Br. 27–29. In support of this
argument, he discusses Herdeman’s specific disclosure at
length.
Id. As the government points out, however,
Clarke’s discussion ignores that the Board’s obviousness
determination was based on a combination of six refer-
ences: De Moor, Schreiber, Curtis, Nakata, Herdeman, and
Sisler. J.A. 10–11; see also Appellee’s Br. 36–38. The
Board relied on Herdeman only to establish that the prior
art taught placing produce-filled containers in an atmos-
phere containing ethylene to facilitate ripening. See
J.A. 10–11. The Board then reasoned that Herdeman does
not discuss the structure of the containers and that a per-
son of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
a De Moor-type container could be used along with Herde-
man. J.A. 11. Thus, although Clarke is correct that Har-
deman does not expressly disclose exposing sealed
containers containing produce to ethylene, that was not the
Board’s rationale for finding obviousness. As such, Clarke
has not identified any error in the Board’s analysis.
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the
Board’s factual findings, and we hold that the Board cor-
rectly found claim 12 obvious in view of De Moor,
Schreiber, Curtis, Nakata, Herdeman, and Sisler.
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered Clarke’s additional arguments on
the content of the prior art and motivation to combine, but
find them unpersuasive. Substantial evidence supports
Case: 19-1698 Document: 51 Page: 15 Filed: 03/26/2020
IN RE: CLARKE 15
the Board’s factual findings and the Board did not commit
legal error in its analysis of the obviousness of claims 1–8
and 10–15 of the ’625 application. We agree with the Board
that, given the underlying facts, the proposed claims are
obvious. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
