The Federal Circuit reversed, noting that “French teaches a liquid strainer which relies, at least in part, upon the assistance of gravity to separate undesired dirt and water from gasoline and other light oils.” Id. (explaining that “if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose”).
In response, Sauder argues that J Squared has failed to provide adequate evidence or reasoning to support a proposed modification to substitute the latch mechanism of Kassai for the bolts of Yu in the manner claimed.
J Squared provides insufficient evidence or reasoning to show that one of ordinary skill in the art, aware of the safety considerations involved with coupling a chair to a base, would have been motivated to replace the bolts of Yu with such a latch mechanism.
With respect to this limitation of independent claim 12, J Squared asserted that Yu provides a way to detachably fasten the chair to the base, e.g., via plate 40, support rods 112, and bolts, and alternatively, Kassai shows latches 18 and 19.
Secondary Considerations Sauder argues that commercial success, industry praise, and evidence of copying indicate that the subject matter of the claims would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.