American National Manufacturing Inc. v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION, FKA SELECT COMFORT CORPORATION, Cross-Appellant KATHERINE…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
AMERICAN NATIONAL MANUFACTURING INC.,
Appellant
v.
SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION, FKA SELECT
COMFORT CORPORATION,
Cross-Appellant
KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
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
______________________
K YLE L. ELLIOTT , Spencer Fane, LLP, Kansas City,
MO, argued for appellant. Also represented by BRIAN T.
BEAR, K EVIN S. T UTTLE; ANDREW W. L ESTER , Oklahoma
Case: 21-1030 Document: 70 Page: 1 Filed: 07/25/2022

-- 1 of 5 --

AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION 2
City, OK.
RUFFIN B. CORDELL , Fish & Richardson PC, Washing-
ton, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by
ROBERT C OURTNEY , MATHIAS WETZSTEIN SAMUEL , Minne-
apolis, MN; ANDREW S. HANSEN, ELIZABETH A. P ATTON,
L UKAS D. T OFT , Fox Rothschild LLP, Minneapolis, MN;
STEVEN A. MOORE, Moore IP Law PC, San Diego, CA; K ECIA
J ANNELL REYNOLDS , Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC.
P ETER J OHN SAWERT , Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
intervenor. Also represented by T HOMAS W. K RAUSE,
WILLIAM L AMARCA , F ARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before STOLL , SCHALL , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge.
I. BOARD D ECISION
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a 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. Nat’l
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. We have jurisdiction un-
der 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). For the reasons below, we
affirm.
II. D ISCUSSION
After careful consideration, we are unpersuaded by
ANM’s claim construction arguments. The Board did not
Case: 21-1030 Document: 70 Page: 2 Filed: 07/25/2022

-- 2 of 5 --

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-
supported by the intrinsic record. Id. at *11; see J.A. 64, 72
(’172 patent Abstract, col. 2 ll. 64–66). We also reject
ANM’s argument that the Board’s construction of “guides”
as “structures that position a component, prior to fas-
tening, by directing the component into place,” (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’s1 “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
1 “Shafer” refers to International PCT Application
No. WO 96/13947.
Case: 21-1030 Document: 70 Page: 3 Filed: 07/25/2022

-- 3 of 5 --

AMERICAN NATIONAL v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION 4
on whether the pump is 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 what seal-
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 1305,
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
argument that 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 ll. 12–14); see Final Written Decision, 2020
WL 4492370, at *16–17.
Finally, we decline to reach SNC’s argument that the
Board erred 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 Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373,
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: 4 Filed: 07/25/2022

-- 4 of 5 --

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. In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat.
Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 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, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
We have considered the parties’ other arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
Each side to bear its own costs.
Case: 21-1030 Document: 70 Page: 5 Filed: 07/25/2022

-- 5 of 5 --