Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`AMP PLUS, INC., DBA ELCO LIGHTING,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`DMF, INC.,
`Cross-Appellant
`______________________
`
`2021-1595, 2021-1636
`______________________
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
`01094.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: November 10, 2022
`______________________
`
`JOSEPH ROGER RICK TACHE, Buchalter, A Professional
`Corporation, Irvine, CA, argued for appellant. Also repre-
`sented by KARI BARNES, ROGER L. SCOTT.
`
` DAVID W. LONG, ErgoniQ, LLC, McLean, VA, argued for
`cross-appellant. Also represented by BEN M. DAVIDSON,
`Davidson Law Group, Calabasas, CA; KEVIN B. LAURENCE,
`Laurence & Phillips IP Law, Washington, DC.
` ______________________
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`2
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`Before STOLL, BRYSON, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
`BRYSON, Circuit Judge.
`
`Appellant AMP Plus, Inc., d/b/a ELCO Lighting
`(“ELCO”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S.
`Patent No. 9,964,266 (“the ’266 patent”), which is owned by
`appellee DMF, Inc. In its Final Written Decision, the Pa-
`tent Trial and Appeal Board determined that a number of
`the challenged claims of the ’266 patent were not unpatent-
`able, but that claim 17 was unpatentable. Both parties ap-
`pealed the Board’s decision. We affirm in part, vacate in
`part, and remand.
`
`I
`The ’266 patent is generally directed to a “compact re-
`cessed lighting system” that can be installed in a standard
`electrical junction box. ’266 patent, Abstract. The ’266 pa-
`tent discloses a “unified casting” that houses a light source
`and a “driver” that powers the light source. Id. at col. 2 ll.
`7–10, col. 3, ll. 25–46. The casting, driver, and light source
`are all sized so that they can fit within a junction box. See
`id. at col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 11. Claim 1 of the
`’266 patent is representative of the claimed invention. It
`recites as follows:
`1. A compact recessed lighting system, comprising:
`a light source module for emitting light;
`a driver for powering the light source module to
`emit light, the driver including an electronic device
`to at least one of supply and regulate electrical en-
`ergy to the light source module;
`a unified casting with a heat conducting closed rear
`face, a heat conducting sidewall and an open front
`face wherein the heat conducting sidewall is joined
`to the heat conducting closed rear face at one end
`and defines the open front face of the unified
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`3
`
`casting at another end, wherein the heat conduct-
`ing sidewall has a first dimension between the heat
`conducting closed rear face and the open front face
`of less than 2 inches and extends 360 degrees
`around a center axis of the unified casting to define
`a first cavity that extends forward from the heat
`conducting closed rear face to the open front face of
`the unified casting and outward to the heat con-
`ducting sidewall, wherein the light source module
`and the driver are positioned inside the first cavity
`while being coupled to the heat conducting closed
`rear face of the unified casting such that the light
`source module is closer to the closed rear face of the
`unified casting than the open front face of the uni-
`fied casting, and wherein the unified casting in-
`cludes a plurality of elements positioned proximate
`to the open front face so as to align with correspond-
`ing tabs of a standard junction box and thereby fa-
`cilitate holding the unified casting up against the
`standard junction box when the unified casting is
`installed in the standard junction box; and
`a reflector positioned inside the first cavity of the
`unified casting and coupled to and surrounding the
`light source module such that the reflector directs
`light produced by the light source module into an
`area surrounding the compact recessed lighting
`system while enclosing the driver from exposure to
`the area surrounding the compact recessed lighting
`system,
`wherein the heat conducting closed rear face and
`the heat conducting sidewall of the unified casting
`significantly dissipate heat generated by the light
`source module during operation of the light source
`module.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`4
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`Id. at claim 1 (emphasis added to disputed limitations).
`
`Claim 22 also plays a role in this appeal. It recites as
`follows:
`22. A compact recessed lighting system, compris-
`ing:
`a light source module for emitting light;
`a driver for powering the light source module to
`emit light, the driver including an electronic device
`to at least one of supply and regulate electrical en-
`ergy to the light source module;
`a unified casting with a closed rear face, a sidewall
`and an open front face wherein the sidewall is
`joined to the closed rear face at one end and defines
`the open front face of the unified casting at another
`end, wherein the sidewall extends 360 degrees
`around a center axis of the unified casting to define
`a cavity that extends forward from the closed rear
`face to the open front face of the unified casting and
`outward to the sidewall, wherein the light source
`module and the driver are positioned inside the
`cavity of the unified casting such that the light
`source module is closer to the closed rear face of the
`unified casting than the open front face of the uni-
`fied casting; and
`a reflector positioned inside the cavity of the uni-
`fied casting and coupled to and surrounding the
`light source module such that the reflector directs
`light produced by the light source module into an
`area surrounding the compact recessed lighting
`system while enclosing the driver from exposure to
`the area surrounding the compact recessed lighting
`system,
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`5
`
`wherein:
`the light source module is a light emitting diode
`(LED) module;
`the sidewall of the unified casting has fins formed
`on its outside surface; and
`the system further comprises a plurality of wires
`connected to the driver and connected to a first con-
`nector of a pair of complimentary [sic] keyed or in-
`terlocking connectors, such that in operation the
`first connector is coupled to a second connector of
`the pair of complimentary [sic] keyed or interlock-
`ing connectors, wherein the second connector is cou-
`pled to electricity from an electrical system of a
`building in which the compact recessed lighting
`system is installed.
`Id. at claim 22 (emphasis on disputed limitation).
`
`In its IPR petition, ELCO asserted three prior art ref-
`erences. Two of the references, “Imtra 2011” and “Imtra
`2007,” were catalogs published by Imtra Corporation de-
`tailing various lighting fixtures that Imtra sold for use on
`boats or in other marine applications. J.A. 391–403 (Imtra
`2011); J.A. 431–38 (Imtra 2007). The third reference, U.S.
`Patent No. 9,366,418 (“Gifford”), describes a non-recessed
`lighting system that can be attached to a standard junction
`box. Gifford, Abstract & Fig. 1. ELCO raised three
`grounds of invalidity in the petition: anticipation by Imtra
`2011 (“Ground 1”); obviousness in view of the combination
`of Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007 (“Ground 2”); and obvious-
`ness in view of the combination of Imtra 2011, Imtra 2007,
`and Gifford (“Ground 3”).
`
`In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that
`Imtra 2011 disclosed all limitations of the challenged
`claims except for the “plurality of elements” limitation. See
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 6 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`6
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`AMP Plus, Inc. v. DMF, Inc., No. IPR2019-01094, 2020 WL
`6811241, at *17 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2020). That limitation
`is recited in most of the challenged claims, but not in claims
`17 and 22. As a result, the Board determined that claim 17
`was anticipated by Imtra 2011 and therefore was un-
`patentable. Id. ELCO challenged claim 22 only in Grounds
`2 and 3, so the Board did not determine whether Imtra
`2011 anticipated claim 22 of the ’266 patent. See id.
`With respect to ELCO’s obviousness arguments, the
`Board first found that the Imtra 2007 catalog did not dis-
`close the “plurality of elements” limitation that was miss-
`ing from Imtra 2011. Id. at *17–19. The Board also found
`that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to
`combine the Gifford reference with Imtra 2011 and Imtra
`2007 to develop the claimed invention. Id. at *19–23. Ac-
`cordingly, the Board held that claim 17 was obvious for the
`same reasons that it was anticipated and that the remain-
`ing challenged claims were not unpatentable as obvious.
`Id. at *19, *25. These appeals followed.
`II
`In its appeal, ELCO challenges two aspects of the
`
`Board’s decision. First, ELCO argues that the Board erred
`in failing to find that Claim 22 was unpatentable as obvi-
`ous. Second, ELCO argues that the Board erred in finding
`that there was no motivation to combine Gifford with the
`Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007 catalogs.
`A
`The Board did not explicitly address claim 22 in its dis-
`
`cussion of either of the obviousness grounds raised by
`ELCO. With respect to Ground 2, the Board focused exclu-
`sively on whether the Imtra 2007 reference disclosed the
`“plurality of elements” limitation that was missing from
`Imtra 2011. Id. at *17–19. Claim 22, however, does not
`recite that limitation. And with respect to Ground 3, the
`Board’s analysis focused exclusively on whether a skilled
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 7 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`7
`
`artisan would have been motivated to combine Gifford with
`the Imtra references. Id. at *19–23. In short, the Board
`never explicitly addressed the patentability of claim 22.
`DMF argues that the reason the Board determined
`that claim 22 was not unpatentable is that ELCO pre-
`sented insufficient evidence that the prior art disclosed the
`“electrical system of a building” limitation of claim 22. See
`Cross-Appellant’s Br. 30–38. The Board, however, did not
`rely on that argument in its obviousness determination,
`and that argument therefore cannot serve as a basis for up-
`holding the Board’s decision. See In re Applied Materials,
`Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The Board’s
`judgment must be reviewed on the grounds upon which the
`Board actually relied. . . . Alternative grounds supporting
`the Board’s decision generally are not considered.”); see
`also SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947).
`To be sure, the Board referred to claim 22 in its claim
`construction analysis, where the Board explained that
`claim 22 is limited to lighting systems that are used in
`buildings. AMP Plus, 2020 WL 6811241, at *6 n.8, *8–9,
`*11. Although the Imtra references are generally directed
`to lighting systems used on boats and not in buildings,
`ELCO argues that the prior art nevertheless discloses the
`“electrical system of a building” limitation, and that we
`should therefore hold claim 22 is invalid. See Appellant’s
`Reply Br. 9–12.
`
`In light of the Board’s silence regarding the obvious-
`ness issue as applied to claim 22, it appears that the Board
`may have simply overlooked that claim when determining
`whether the challenged claims were obvious in view of
`Grounds 2 and 3. That inference is reinforced by the fact
`that the Board’s conclusion regarding Ground 2 omits any
`reference to claim 22. See AMP Plus, 2020 WL 6811241, at
`*19 (“Therefore, we find that Petitioner fails to show obvi-
`ousness of claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13–16, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 28–
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 8 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`8
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`30 over the combination of Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007 by
`a preponderance of the evidence.”).
`Regardless of the reason for the omission, the Board
`must rule on the obviousness issue as to claim 22 and must
`provide an explanation of its reasoning sufficient “to enable
`judicial review and to avoid judicial displacement of agency
`authority.” Pers. Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d
`987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). It has not done so with respect
`to claim 22. Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s decision
`that claim 22 is not unpatentable and remand for the Board
`to address the parties’ arguments regarding the patenta-
`bility of claim 22.
`
`B
`ELCO also argues that the Board erred in finding that
`
`there was no motivation to combine the Gifford reference
`with Imtra 2011 and Imtra 2007. Specifically, ELCO ar-
`gues that the Board failed to consider the Gifford reference
`“as a whole,” but rather found no motivation to combine
`“solely because Gifford relates to non-recessed lighting.”
`Appellant’s Br. 39, 41. We review the legal determination
`of obviousness de novo and any subsidiary factual findings,
`including motivation to combine, for substantial evidence.
`Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir.
`2020).
` We reject ELCO’s contention that the Board found no
`motivation to combine solely because the Gifford reference
`relates to non-recessed lighting. To the contrary, the Board
`carefully weighed the record evidence in determining
`whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
`combine the Imtra references with Gifford.
`
`Before the Board, ELCO relied heavily on the testi-
`mony of its expert, Dr. Eric Bretschneider. The Board re-
`jected several aspects of Dr. Bretschneider’s testimony,
`however. First, the Board noted that Dr. Bretschneider
`cropped Figure 1 of Gifford in a way that did not “fully
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 9 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`9
`
`characterize the teachings of Gifford.” AMP Plus, 2020 WL
`6811241, at *21. Second, Dr. Bretschneider testified that
`“Gifford teaches a lighting system that is able to be in-
`stalled in a standard junction box.” J.A. 253, ¶ 175. The
`Board found that statement to be “incorrect[]” because
`“Gifford’s lighting fixture 102 is located on the exterior of
`adaptor apparatus 100 and is not recessed.” AMP Plus,
`2020 WL 6811241, at *22. Third, the Board rejected Dr.
`Bretschneider’s assertion that the “adaptor apparatus” dis-
`closed in Gifford was equivalent to the “unified casting”
`claimed in the ’266 patent. Id. We discern no error in the
`Board’s rejection of those aspects of Dr. Bretschneider’s
`testimony.
`
`Additionally, ELCO challenges the Board’s finding that
`a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify
`the Imtra products to fit within a standard junction box.
`As the Board noted, the Imtra products contain screw holes
`and can be mounted directly to the ceiling. Id. at *19; see
`also, e.g., J.A. 4710–11, 6141. The Board thus rejected Dr.
`Bretschneider’s analysis as reflecting “faulty reasoning”
`that “a POSITA would seek to incur additional expense in
`time, labor, and materials to mount an Imtra fixture in a
`junction box, rather than simply screw it into the ceiling.”
`AMP Plus, 2020 WL 6811241, at *22.
`
`In view of the record evidence, we hold that the Board’s
`finding that a skilled artisan would not have been moti-
`vated to combine Gifford with the Imtra 2011 and Imtra
`2007 references is supported by substantial evidence.1 We
`
`1 We reject ELCO’s argument that Gifford should
`have been treated as analogous art. See Appellant’s Br.
`34–39. The Board never found that Gifford was non-anal-
`ogous art, nor did it exclude the Gifford reference on that
`basis. To the contrary, the Board treated Gifford as prior
`art and concluded that a skilled artisan would not have
`been motivated to combine Gifford’s teachings with the
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 10 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`10
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`therefore affirm the Board’s finding that the remaining
`challenged claims are not unpatentable.
`III
`In its cross-appeal, DMF argues that the Board erred
`
`in finding that claim 17 of the ’266 patent was anticipated
`by the Imtra 2011 catalog for two reasons: (1) the IPR pe-
`tition mixed and matched features of different products
`disclosed in the Imtra 2011 catalog; and (2) the Board erred
`in construing the term “driver,” which is recited in claim
`17. DMF also argues that the Board erred in determining
`that claim 17 was obvious.
`
`A
` With respect to anticipation, DMF argues that the
`Board erred in determining that the Imtra 2011 reference
`anticipated claim 17 of the ’266 patent because ELCO’s pe-
`tition impermissibly mixed and matched features from dif-
`ferent products in the Imtra 2011 catalog. Anticipation is
`a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence.
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1341
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`The Imtra 2011 catalog discloses several different
`lighting products, including the “Sardinia,” “Cyprus,”
`“Ventura,” “Portland,” and “Hatteras” product lines. J.A.
`396–403. The catalog also discloses information about
`“Imtra PowerLED” products, which include the Ventura,
`Portland, and Hatteras products. J.A. 395; see also Appel-
`lant’s Reply Br. 36. DMF argues that ELCO combined
`
`
`teachings of the Imtra references. See AMP Plus, 2020 WL
`6811241, at *19–23; see also In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (A reference is prior art for purposes
`of an obviousness determination “only when analogous to
`the claimed invention.”).
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 11 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`11
`
`various features of those products in a manner that does
`not establish anticipation.
`We have held that a prior art reference does not antic-
`ipate if it contains “multiple, distinct teachings that the ar-
`tisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed
`invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d
`1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Rather, the reference “must
`clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed invention or
`direct those skilled in the art to the invention without any
`need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclo-
`sures not directly related to each other by the teachings of
`the cited reference.” Id. (cleaned up).
`It is true that ELCO’s petition cites to various pages of
`the Imtra 2011 catalog that describe several different prod-
`ucts from the Sardinia, Cyprus, Ventura, Portland, and
`Hatteras lines. See J.A. 96–107. Upon closer examination,
`however, it is evident that the portions of the catalog on
`which ELCO relied are not unrelated in a way that under-
`mines the Board’s anticipation analysis.
`The petition divides independent claims 1, 17, and 26
`(which it treats as a group) into 11 limitations: the pream-
`ble and limitations A through J.2 For the preamble and
`limitations A, B, D, F, G, I, and J, ELCO relied on disclo-
`sures from page 5 of Imtra 2011, which relates to the Pow-
`erLED products generally. J.A. 96–107, 395. For
`
`
` DMF argues that such grouping, as well as
`2
`ELCO’s alleged mixing and matching, violates “35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(3)’s requirement to state with particularity the
`grounds on which a challenge is based.” Cross-Appellant’s
`Br. 70–71; see also Cross-Appellant’s Reply Br. 23–25. We
`conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in find-
`ing that ELCO “identifie[d] the grounds for anticipation
`with sufficient particularity.” AMP Plus, 2020 WL
`6811241, at *13.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 12 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`12
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`limitation C, ELCO also relied on statements regarding the
`PowerLED products generally, even though those state-
`ments were contained on pages relating to specific prod-
`ucts. See J.A. 100; J.A. 398 (“The LEDs inside Imtra
`downlights are mounted directly to a [printed circuit
`board] . . . .”); J.A. 402 (“The integrated circuit we use in
`our PowerLED downlights can provide” a constant current
`to the LED “regardless of input voltage.”). Neither Limita-
`tion E nor Limitation H (the “plurality of elements” limita-
`tion) were at issue with respect to claim 17, and the Board
`found that the Imtra 2011 reference did not disclose Limi-
`tation H in any event. AMP Plus, 2020 WL 6811241, at
`*17.
`ELCO’s petition ties each limitation of claim 17 to the
`Imtra PowerLED products generally. Therefore, ELCO did
`not impermissibly mix and match disclosures from Imtra
`2011 to arrive at an anticipatory reference. And the Board
`did not err in finding that there was no reason that “the
`general disclosures regarding Imtra LEDs” should be “lim-
`ited to the specific products on the same page.” Id. at *13.
`Accordingly, the Board’s finding that Imtra 2011 was an
`anticipatory prior art reference is supported by substantial
`evidence.3
`
`B
`DMF also argues that the Board erred in its construc-
`tion of the term “driver,” as that term is used in claim 17 of
`the ’266 patent. The Board adopted ELCO’s construction
`of that term, construing “driver” to mean “an electronic
`
`
`3 DMF initially argued that ELCO should be subject
`to judicial estoppel with respect to this issue due to state-
`ments ELCO made in a parallel district court proceeding.
`Cross-Appellant’s Br. 72–75. DMF expressly abandoned
`that argument in its reply brief, however, and we therefore
`decline to address it. See Cross-Appellant’s Reply Br. 27.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 13 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`13
`
`device to supply, regulate, or supply and regulate electrical
`energy to a light source module.” AMP Plus, 2020 WL
`6811241, at *12. DMF argues for a narrower construction
`requiring the driver to be connected to a building’s main
`power source. Cross-Appellant’s Br. 77.
`The specification of the ’266 patent contains an explicit
`definition of “driver” that closely tracks the Board’s con-
`struction. The specification states that “[t]he driver 4 is an
`electronic device that supplies and/or regulates electrical
`energy to the light source module 3 and thus powers the
`light source module 3 to emit light.” ’266 patent, col. 4, ll.
`21–24. The specification adds that “[t]he driver 4 may be
`any type of power supply, including power supplies that de-
`liver an alternating current (AC) or a direct current (DC)
`voltage to the light source module 3,” and that the driver
`“receives an input current from the electrical system of the
`building or structure in which the recessed lighting system
`1 is installed.” Id. at col. 4, ll. 24–27, 39–41 (emphasis
`added). In view of those disclosures, the intrinsic evidence
`does not suggest that a “driver” is limited to a device that
`is connected to a building’s main power source. To the con-
`trary, the specification indicates that the driver may be in-
`stalled in any structure (a term that is not defined in the
`’266 patent) and is therefore not limited to traditional
`buildings that would contain a building main power source.
`DMF argues that three aspects of the Board’s claim
`construction analysis were erroneous. First, DMF chal-
`lenges the Board’s reliance on extrinsic evidence, such as
`technical dictionaries. That argument is unpersuasive,
`however, particularly in light of the fact that the Board’s
`reliance on technical dictionaries was limited to providing
`a summary of ELCO’s arguments. AMP Plus, 2020 WL
`6811241, at *10 & n.9. The Board’s construction was pri-
`marily based on the intrinsic evidence and the parties’ ex-
`perts’ testimony about that evidence. See id. at *10–12.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 14 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`14
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`Second, DMF asserts that because there are other dif-
`ferences in scope between claims 17 and 22, the Board im-
`properly invoked the presumption of claim differentiation
`when the Board considered that claim 22 explicitly recites
`a connection to building main power. That argument is un-
`persuasive. The Board did not purport to rely on the pre-
`sumption of claim differentiation when it invoked claim 22
`in construing the term “driver.” See id. at *11. Moreover,
`even when claim differentiation does not apply, differences
`between claims may “provide[] guidance as to the scope” of
`a patent’s claims. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2021-
`1931, 2022 WL 2298983, at *4 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2022).
`Indeed, “[i]t is highly disfavored to construe terms in a way
`that renders them void, meaningless, or superfluous.” Intel
`Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 801, 810 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`As ELCO points out, if a driver—which is required by claim
`22—were limited to embodiments connected to a building
`main power source, the “building” limitation of claim 22
`would be superfluous. We therefore disagree with DMF
`that it was inappropriate for the Board to consider claim
`22 in construing the term “driver.”
`Third, DMF argues that the Board improperly dis-
`counted the prosecution history of the ’266 patent. DMF
`points to an interview between the inventor of the ’266 pa-
`tent and the patent examiner during which the inventor
`indicated that in his solution, “building wiring carrying the
`AC ‘mains’ voltage may be coupled to the driver inside the
`unified casting.” J.A. 4637. That statement in the prose-
`cution history, however, is best read as a non-limiting de-
`scription of the location of a driver in certain contexts. It
`does not rise to the level of an “unequivocal[] and unambig-
`uous[]” disavowal as to the scope of the term “driver,” of the
`sort we have required to find a prosecution disclaimer. See
`Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090,
`1095 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`We find DMF’s arguments for a narrower construction
`of “driver” to be unpersuasive, and we therefore affirm the
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1595 Document: 67 Page: 15 Filed: 11/10/2022
`
`AMP PLUS, INC. v. DMF, INC.
`
`15
`
`Board’s decision finding claim 17 to be unpatentable. Be-
`cause we affirm the Board’s determination that claim 17 is
`anticipated, we need not reach DMF’s arguments regard-
`ing obviousness. See Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
`F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Though it is never nec-
`essary to so hold, a disclosure that anticipates under § 102
`also renders the claim invalid under § 103, for anticipation
`is the epitome of obviousness.” (cleaned up)).
`IV
`For the reasons stated, we vacate the Board’s decision
`
`that claim 22 is not unpatentable for obviousness and re-
`mand for further proceedings regarding that claim. We af-
`firm the Board’s decision with respect to all other
`challenged claims.
`
`In light of the disposition of this case, DMF’s motions
`to include documents in the appendix (ECF No. 16) and to
`strike portions of ELCO’s reply brief (ECF No. 39) are both
`denied as moot.
` No costs.
`AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND
`REMANDED
`
`