Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Okajima v. Bourdeau

Okajima v. Bourdeau

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

August 16, 2001, Decided

01-1090

Opinion

 [***1796]   [*1352]  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 [**2]  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  [*1353]  in the diagram below, discloses that a snowboarder typically bends his or her [**3]  legs frontwardly and laterally, with the downhill foot inclined more sharply: 1

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

261 F.3d 1350 *; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18520 **; 59 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1795 ***

SHINPEI OKAJIMA, Appellant, v. JOEL BOURDEAU, Appellee.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied September 17, 2001, Reported at: 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21858. Certiorari Denied February 19, 2002, Reported at: 2002 U.S. LEXIS 663.

Prior History: Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. (Interference no. 104,193).

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

boot, prior art, skill, longitudinal, patent, snowboard, lateral, plane, invention, nonobviousness, unpatentable, references, journals, median, tendon, factual findings, ordinary skill, discloses, combine, angle, ankle

Patent Law, Nonobviousness, Evidence, Fact & Law Issues, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Specifications, Enablement Requirement, General Overview, Jurisdiction & Review, Elements & Tests, Ordinary Skill Standard, Prior Art, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Hindsight, Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Substantial Evidence, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Appeals, Reviewability, Factual Determinations, Remands