Case: 21-1030
`
`Document: 70
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 07/25/2022
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`GAnited States Court of Appeals
`for the federal Circuit
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURINGINC.,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION, FKA SELECT
`COMFORT CORPORATION,
`Cross-Appellant
`
`KATHERINEK. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
`COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
`PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE,
`Intervenor
`
`2021-1030, 2021-1032
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019-
`00514.
`
`Decided: July 25, 2022
`
`KYLE L. ELLIOTT, Spencer Fane, LLP, Kansas City,
`MO, argued for appellant. Also represented by BRIAN T.
`BEAR, KEVIN S. TUTTLE; ANDREW W. LESTER, Oklahoma
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1030 Page:2_Filed: 07/25/2022Document: 70
`
`
`
`2
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`
`City, OK.
`
`RUFFIN B. CORDELL, Fish & Richardson PC, Washing-
`ton, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by
`ROBERT COURTNEY, MATHIAS WETZSTEIN SAMUEL, Minne-
`apolis, MN; ANDREW S. HANSEN, ELIZABETH A. PATTON,
`LuKAS D. ToFT, Fox Rothschild LLP, Minneapolis, MN;
`STEVEN A. MOORE, Moore IP Law PC, San Diego, CA; KECIA
`JANNELL REYNOLDS, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC.
`
`PETER JOHN SAWERT, Office of the Solicitor, United
`States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
`intervenor. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE,
`WILLIAM LAMARCA, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
`
`Before STOLL, SCHALL, and CUNNINGHAM,Circuit Judges.
`
`CUNNINGHAM,Circuit Judge.
`
`I. BOARD DECISION
`
`The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issueda final writ-
`ten decision in an inter partes review determining that
`American National Manufacturing, Inc. (““ANM?”) failed to
`demonstrate that claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 20, 22, and 24 of U.S.
`Patent No. 5,904,172 (“the ’172 patent”) are unpatentable
`but succeeded in demonstrating that claim 16 is unpatent-
`able as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Am. Nat7
`Mfg., Inc. v. Sleep No. Corp., No. IPR2019-00514, 2020 WL
`4492370 (P.T.A.B. Aug.4, 2020) (“Final Written Decision”).
`ANM appealed and the patent owner, Sleep Number Cor-
`poration (“SNC”), cross-appealed. Wehavejurisdiction un-
`der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). For the reasons below, we
`affirm.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`After careful consideration, we are unpersuaded by
`ANM’s claim construction arguments. The Board did not
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1030 Page:3_Filed: 07/25/2022Document: 70
`
`
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`
`3
`
`err by construing “substantially fluidly sealed” to mean
`“largely but not wholly sealed.” Final Written Decision,
`2020 WL 4492370, at *12. We agree with the Board that
`the constructions proposed by the parties introduced limi-
`tations—“deliver[ing] compressed air when operating” and
`“allow[ing] for monitoring the pressure in the bladder via
`the pressure in the enclosure,” respectively—that are un-
`supportedby the intrinsic record. Id. at *11; see J.A. 64, 72
`(172 patent Abstract, col. 2 Il. 64-66). We also reject
`ANM’s argumentthat the Board’s construction of “guides”
`as “structures that position a component, prior to fas-
`tening, by directing the componentintoplace,” (Final Writ-
`ten Decision, 2020 WL 4492370, at *13), and “stops” as
`“structures that position a component, prior to fastening,
`by arresting travel into the enclosure,” (id.), improperly in-
`troduced a temporal limitation or enforced an “order of
`steps.” Appellant’s Br. 3, 65-67. The Board’s construction
`appropriately distinguishes “guides and stops” from com-
`ponents used for fastening, which is consistent with the
`specification and the patentee’s representations to the Pa-
`tent Office during reexamination.
`J.A.74 (172 patent
`col. 6 ll. 39-45), 264-65.
`
`Further, the Board’s patentability determinations are
`supported by substantial evidence, and we reject ANM and
`SNC’s arguments to the contrary.
`See Appellant’s Br.
`48-56, 69-73; Cross-Appellant’s Br. 62-65. ANM argues
`the Board erred by concluding Shafer’s! “air distribution
`unit” is not “substantially fluidly sealed” because the ’172
`patent discusses using the same kind of “unsealed” pump
`as in Shafer. Appellant’s Br. 48, 52. Even accepting that
`the ’172 patent can use the same pump,it also teaches the
`use of a “substantially fluidly sealed” air chamber, (col. 2
`ll. 64-66), and changes to the valves and ports depending
`
`“Shafer” refers to International PCT Application
`1
`No. WO 96/13947.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 21-1030 Page:4_Filed: 07/25/2022Document: 70
`
`
`
`4
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`
`on whether the pumpis or is not sealed, (col. 4 ll. 45-50,
`col. 7 ll. 32-62). J.A. 72-73, 75. ANM’s arguments focus
`on the 172 patent and do not adequately explain whatseal-
`ing exists within Shafer to challenge the Board’s finding
`that “Shafer is silent as to any seal of housing 300 of air
`distribution unit 206.” Appellant’s Br. 48-56; Final Writ-
`ten Decision, 2020 WL 4492370, at *15. Thus, ANM does
`not adequately explain how the Board’s conclusions as to
`Shafer are not supported by substantial evidence. As to
`Vrzalik,2 ANM argues “supports 142” and the “interior sur-
`face” of the air box act as “guides and stops,” respectively.
`Appellant’s Br. 72. After reviewing Vrzalik’s limited dis-
`cussion of “supports 142”—J.A. 1204-05 (Vrzalik col. 8
`ll. 33-38, col. 10 ll. 9-15)—a reasonable fact finder could
`have arrived at the Board’s conclusion that Vrzalik fails to
`meet this limitation. See In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 13805,
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Final Written Decision, 2020 WL
`4492370, at *18 (“Vrzalik is silent regarding supports 142
`and the interior of the air box 124 positioning motor 138
`and plug 140, respectively.”). Similarly, we reject SNC’s
`argumentthat Vrzalik fails to disclose a “substantially flu-
`idly sealed air chamber,” (Cross-Appellant’s Br. 62—65), be-
`cause Vrzalik teaches its air box is “airtight.” J.A. 1204
`(Vrzalik col. 8 Il. 12-14); see Final Written Decision, 2020
`WL 4492370, at *16-17.
`
`Finally, we decline to reach SNC’s argument that the
`Boarderred in construing “pressure monitor means... for
`monitoring” in claims 12 and 16.
`Cross-Appellant’s
`Br. 65-66. SNC concedes it “did not argue below for pa-
`tentability of claim 16” based on its own construction and
`that it is the “prevailing party” for claim 12.
`Id. at 66.
`Thus, review of this issue is not proper on appeal. See
`SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Deca IntCorp., 828 F.3d 13738,
`1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(employing prudential
`rule
`
`2
`
`“Vrzalik” refers to U.S. Patent No. 5,044,029.
`
`

`

`Case: 21-1030
`
`Document: 70
`
`Page:5_
`
`Filed: 07/25/2022
`
`AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION
`
`5
`
`declining review for “prevailing party in a lower tribunal”
`despite concern district court would “rely on the Board’s
`claim construction”). The preclusive effect, if any, of the
`Board’s construction would need to be decided in a subse-
`quent action. Jn re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat.
`Litig., 689 F.3d 13038, 1310 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he pre-
`cise effect of the judgments in this case will necessarily
`have to be decided in any such later actions that may be
`brought.”); see also Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976
`F.3d 1316, 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Wehave considered the parties’ other arguments and
`find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons,weaffirm.
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`COSTS
`
`Kachsideto bear its own costs.
`
`