`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE LLC,
`Appellant
`
`v.
`
`KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
`COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`Intervenor
`______________________
`
`2023-1313
`______________________
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
`00831.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: March 13, 2024
`______________________
`
`KEVIN KENT MCNISH, McNish PLLC, Portland, ME, ar-
`gued for appellant. Also represented by DENISE MARIE DE
`MORY, Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, CA.
`
` MICHAEL S. FORMAN, Office of the Solicitor, United
`States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA,
`
`
`
`Case: 23-1313 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 03/13/2024
`
`2
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE LLC v. VIDAL
`
`argued for intervenor. Also represented by FARHEENA
`YASMEEN RASHEED, MEREDITH HOPE SCHOENFELD.
` ______________________
`
`Before TARANTO, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`CHEN, Circuit Judge.
`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 un-
`patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of
`Gelb,1 Tivoli,2 and Callaghan.3 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.
`Claim 15 is representative for purposes of this appeal
`and recites:
`15. A method for handling files within a policy-
`based data management system, the method com-
`prising:
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 5,018,060, J.A. 1500–15.
`2 Roland Leins, Tivoli Storage Manager: A Technical
`Introduction (2d ed. 2001), J.A. 1516–45.
`3 Brent Callaghan, NFS
`Illustrated
`J.A. 1546–57.
`
`(2000),
`
`
`
`Case: 23-1313 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 03/13/2024
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE LLC v. VIDAL
`
`3
`
`providing a policy set comprising at least one ser-
`vice class rule;
`receiving one or more attributes of a file from one
`of a plurality of clients, the clients comprising at
`least two different computing platforms;
`applying the service class rule to the file to assign
`a service class to the file; and
`conducting operations on the file in a manner ac-
`cording to the service class.
`’132 patent at claim 15 (emphasis added).
` We begin with Daedalus’s not-reasonably-pertinent ar-
`gument. The Board agreed with Daedalus that one prob-
`lem identified in the ’132 patent is “‘not permit[ting] a user
`to automatically select between multiple storage options’
`and not addressing ‘[files] with varying storage or perfor-
`mance requirements or equipment with varying capacities
`and performance levels.’” J.A. 22 (first alteration in origi-
`nal) (first quoting ’132 patent col. 1 l. 47 – col. 2 l. 3; and
`then quoting J.A. 573). Relying in part on Gelb’s specifica-
`tion, the Board reasonably found that Gelb addresses the
`same problem: “namely that prior art storage access meth-
`ods did not permit programmers to write code that would
`allow users to automatically select the appropriate storage
`devices based on ‘high or logical level’ concepts, such as
`‘data sets, data bases and the like.’” J.A. 22 (quoting
`J.A. 645); see also J.A. 1504 col. 1 ll. 33–37, 60–65, col. 2
`ll. 19–21; J.A. 1512 col. 18 ll. 23–27. Substantial evidence
`therefore supports the Board’s finding that Gelb would be
`reasonably pertinent to at least one problem identified in
`the ’132 patent.
`Because the Board’s reasonable-pertinence finding is
`supported by substantial evidence, we need not address
`Daedalus’s other arguments. Even if Daedalus’s claim-con-
`struction argument were correct, that construction would
`not undermine the Board’s factual findings for reasonable
`
`
`
`Case: 23-1313 Document: 36 Page: 4 Filed: 03/13/2024
`
`4
`
`DAEDALUS BLUE LLC v. VIDAL
`
`pertinence, as the identified problem is agnostic to whether
`the clients are in a networked environment. As to Daeda-
`lus’s field-of-endeavor argument, the Board’s reasonable-
`pertinence finding was sufficient for Gelb to be analogous
`art. See Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC, 979
`F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that a refer-
`ence is analogous art if it is either in the same “field of en-
`deavor” or “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
`with which the inventor is involved” (quoting In re Bigio,
`381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004))).
`We have considered Daedalus’s remaining arguments
`and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
`affirm.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
