Federal Circuit disposition — 19-2315

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE: EUGENE H. LUOMA,
Appellant
______________________
2019-2315
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,754.
______________________
Decided: March 11, 2022
______________________
ROBERT G REENSPOON, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig
PLLC, Chicago, IL, for appellant Eugene H. Luoma.
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and H UGHES , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Eugene H. Luoma appeals from an inter partes reex-
amination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
that affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8,
10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,775,873. GT Water Prods.,
Inc. v. Luoma, No. 2015-003755, 2015 WL 4552062
(P.T.A.B. July 27, 2015) (Board Decision). The Board found
Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 03/11/2022

-- 1 of 6 --

IN RE: LUOMA 2
that Hymes1 anticipated claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, and 11 and
held that claims 5 and 10 would have been obvious over
that same reference. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I
The ’873 patent relates to “an apparatus for removing
hair from a drain[.]” ’873 patent at 1:8–9. Claim 1 is rep-
resentative for purposes of this appeal:
1. Apparatus for removing hair from a drain, com-
prising:
(a) an elongate, flexible strip;
(b) the elongate, flexible strip having a plu-
rality of barbed portions, the barbed por-
tions being adapted to grip hair in the
drain, wherein the barbed portions are ori-
ented at an acute angle to the axis of the
elongate strip, wherein the vertex of the
angle points away from the handle; and
(c) a handle, wherein the handle is a dis-
tinct structural element from the elongate,
flexible strip.
(emphasis added to handle limitation). A passage in the
written description describes an embodiment of the
claimed handle:
A handle 22 is attached to the flexible strip 12 at
the proximal end 14. Preferably, the handle 22 is
integrally molded with the strip 12. The handle
may have an aperture 24 therethrough to allow the
handle to be gripped by a person’s fingers, as best
seen in FIGS. 3 and 4.
1 U.S. Patent No. 834,135 (Hymes).
Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 03/11/2022

-- 2 of 6 --

IN RE: LUOMA 3
Operation of the device is shown in FIGS. 3, 4, and
5. Turning to FIG. 3, a person grips the device 10
by its handle 22, preferably by inserting a finger
through the aperture 24. The device 10 is then in-
serted into the drain D, with the distal end 16 lead-
ing, as shown by the arrow in FIG. 3.
Id. at 2:12–21. That description references figure 3, which
provides a helpful visual:
II
Luoma first argues the Board adopted an unreasonably
broad construction of the handle limitation. He distin-
guishes a handle—something “designed or made specifi-
cally to be held, grasped, or operated by a hand”—from
something that is handleable. See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 9.
And he faults the Board for not limiting the claimed handle
according to this distinction. We do not agree.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the handle
limitation does not require any particular structure or de-
sign purpose. See In re Rambus, Inc., 753 F.3d 1253, 1255
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (In inter partes reexamination proceedings,
claims are given their “broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.”). Nothing in the claim
Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 03/11/2022

-- 3 of 6 --

IN RE: LUOMA 4
language or written description requires the handle have
some structural feature specifically designed for holding—
like a finger depression, an aperture, or a knob. Contra
Appellant’s Br. 10 (arguing Hymes lacks such structure).
The written description has no redefinition of the word
handle, nor does it contain a disavowal of claim scope. The
handle is simply the portion of the apparatus that a user
grips. See ’873 patent at 2:12–21. Certainly, the handle
must be structurally distinct from the elongate, flexible
strip. Id. at claim 1. But that does not limit the claimed
handle to a particular design. Accordingly, we agree with
the Board’s construction. See Board Decision at *7 (con-
struing “a handle” to mean the portion held by the user that
is distinct from the elongate, flexible strip).
Applying this construction, substantial evidence sup-
ports the Board’s finding that Hymes teaches the claimed
handle. See Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., 869 F.3d 1309,
1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (reviewing findings in an inter partes
reexamination for substantial evidence). Hymes’ sewer
opener “consists of a number of concentric coils [B] com-
posed of a continuous strip of spring-steel properly tem-
pered so as to readily conform to the change required in
practical use.” Hymes ll. 17–21. Those concentric coils B
“may by drawn out longitudinally,” id. ll. 30–31, and “can
be manipulated in a small space by being uncoiled as it is
inserted in the passage to be opened,” id. ll. 60–62 (empha-
sis added). Also, those coils are described as distinct from
another structural element of the sewer opener, the work-
ing end. That working end has a spear point C and several
barbs D:
Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 03/11/2022

-- 4 of 6 --

IN RE: LUOMA 5
Id. Fig. 1; see also id. ll. 36–45. Based on this disclosure,
the Board found Hymes taught a structure held by the user
and distinct from the elongate, flexible strip (i.e., the work-
ing end). See Board Decision at *7. And we cannot say that
finding is unsupported by substantial evidence.
III
Luoma also argues that substantial evidence does not
support the Board’s finding that Hymes’ working end is an
“elongate, flexible strip.” He claims that end is “short,
straight, unbent, [and] inflexible.” Appellant’s Br. 3. But
there is no indication in this record that Luoma presented
that argument below. See Board Decision at 5 (summariz-
ing Luoma’s arguments). So it is not clear whether Luoma
has preserved this argument. See, e.g., Cal. Ridge Wind
Energy LLC v. United States, 959 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2020) (“We may deem an argument forfeited when a
party raises it for the first time on appeal.”). Even so, we
do not agree with Luoma on the merits.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
the working end in Hymes is elongate and flexible. Hymes
repeatedly describes embodiments of its sewer opener as
“composed of a strip of tempered spring-steel” or “composed
of a continuous strip of spring[ ]steel.” E.g., Hymes ll. 18–
19, 27–28 (emphases added). This suggests the sewer
opener has the same spring-like properties throughout, in-
cluding at the working end. Hymes further describes how
the opener’s continuous, spring-steel form allows it to “be[]
uncoiled as it is inserted in the passage to be opened, and
when withdrawn the resilience is so great as to automati-
cally return to the coiled position.” Id. ll. 58–64. This also
supports a finding that the working end is flexible. And
Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 03/11/2022

-- 5 of 6 --

IN RE: LUOMA 6
the working end of Hymes is depicted in the figures as elon-
gate:
Id. Fig. 3. In light of this evidence, we cannot say the
Board’s findings were unsupported.
IV
Based on the foregoing, we hold the Board correctly
construed the claimed handle. And under that construc-
tion, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
Hymes teaches that handle. Likewise, substantial evi-
dence supports the Board’s finding that Hymes teaches an
elongate, flexible strip. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 19-2315 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 03/11/2022

-- 6 of 6 --