Jager Pro, Inc. v. W-Wmanufacturing Co., Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
JAGER PRO, INC.,
Appellant
v.
W-W MANUFACTURING CO., INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2022-1710, 2022-1711
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
01470, IPR2020-01471.
______________________
Decided: November 20, 2023
______________________
J ONATHON A. T ALCOTT , Ballard Spahr LLP, Phoenix,
AZ, argued for appellant. Also represented by RICHARD
WILLIAM MILLER, D ENNIS ALAN WHITE, J R., Atlanta, GA;
BENJAMIN N ICHOLS SIMLER , Philadelphia, PA.
SCOTT W. CUMMINGS , Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also repre-
sented by N AH EUN K IM , Atlanta, GA.
______________________
Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2023

-- 1 of 7 --

JAGER PRO, INC. v. W- W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 2
Before L OURIE, REYNA , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Jager Pro, Inc. (Jager Pro) appeals two deci-
sions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) finding
all challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,814,228 (’228
patent) and 10,098,339 (’339 patent) unpatentable as obvi-
ous. W-W Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc., No. IPR2020-
01470, 2022 WL 499520 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) (’228 De-
cision); W-W Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Jager Pro, Inc., No. IPR2020-
01471, 2022 WL 495334 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2022) (’339 De-
cision).1 Because the Board’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’228 and ’339 patents are directed to methods and
apparatuses to remotely trap wild pigs. Claim 1 of the ’228
patent reads:
1. A method for capturing a plurality of feral pigs,
comprising:
[a] moving at least one portion of an enclosure from
an open position that permits passage of a plurality
of feral pigs into the enclosure to a closed position
that restricts passage of the plurality of feral pigs
out of the enclosure, [b] wherein in the closed posi-
tion, the enclosure cooperates with a ground sur-
face to define an enclosure area in which the
plurality of feral pigs are trapped, [c] and wherein
the ground surface extends continuously from
1 Jager Pro does not appear to make any argument
specific to either the ’228 Decision or ’339 Decision or their
respective patents. For simplicity, we reference the ’228
Decision and the ’228 patent in resolving both appeals.
Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 11/20/2023

-- 2 of 7 --

JAGER PRO, INC. v. W- W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 3
within the enclosure area to areas surrounding the
enclosure,
[d] wherein the enclosure comprises a release
mechanism that effects movement of the at least
one portion of the enclosure from the open position
to the closed position,
[e] wherein the release mechanism effects move-
ment of the at least one portion of the enclosure
from the open position to the closed position upon
receipt of a release signal from a control mecha-
nism that is in communication with a display de-
vice, [f] wherein the display device is in
communication with a camera assembly and con-
figured to:
receive a wireless detection signal from the
camera assembly; and
[g] transmit a wireless control signal upon
receipt of the wireless detection signal from
the camera assembly, wherein the wireless
control signal corresponds to an instruction
to the control mechanism to generate the
release signal, and
[h] wherein, upon detection of a presence of the plu-
rality of feral pigs within the enclosure by the cam-
era assembly, the camera assembly transmits the
wireless detection signal to the display device.
’228 patent at claim 1.2
2 The bracketed lettering follows the naming conven-
tions adopted by the Board for each limitation of claim 1.
See ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *4.
Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 3 Filed: 11/20/2023

-- 3 of 7 --

JAGER PRO, INC. v. W- W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 4
The Board found the combination of TexasBoars3 and
Jeong4 taught or suggested the subject matter of claim 1 of
the ’228 patent. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *2. The
Board found TexasBoars taught or suggested the mechan-
ical aspects of the claimed enclosure, i.e., the preamble,
Limitations 1[a]–1[d], and the “release mechanism” func-
tion of Limitation 1[e], and Jeong taught or suggested the
remaining limitations, including the wireless transmission
of signals from a camera assembly to a display device as
well as from the display device to a control mechanism ac-
cording to Figure 1:
J.A. 578, FIG. 1. The Board also considered Jager Pro’s ev-
idence of objective indicia of nonobviousness but did not
give it substantial weight because Jager Pro had not shown
3 The Board recorded this reference as “Archived
copy of a page from TexasBoars’s website (https://tex-
asboars.com/)” for TB1 and “Copy of presentation from Tex-
asBoars’s website” for TB2. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL
499520, at *2 nn.4–5. This website no longer exists, but
the Joint Appendix includes printed versions of both refer-
ences at J.A. 520–21 (TB1) and J.A. 522–72 (TB2). This
opinion collectively refers to both references as “Tex-
asBoars.”
4 Korean Patent Registration No. 10-0688243.
Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 4 Filed: 11/20/2023

-- 4 of 7 --

JAGER PRO, INC. v. W- W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 5
it was entitled to a presumption of nexus and made no
other argument for why nexus existed. ’228 Decision, 2022
WL 499520, at *54–57.
Jager Pro appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial
evidence and its ultimate conclusion of obviousness de
novo. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2019). Evidence of objective indicia of nonobvi-
ousness is only accorded substantial weight when such ev-
idence has a nexus with the claims, and the patent owner
bears the burden of showing such nexus exists. Id. at 1373.
The patent owner is entitled to a rebuttable presumption
of nexus when the evidence is tied to a specific product and
that product embodies and is coextensive with the claimed
features. Id.
Jager Pro argues a number of the Board’s findings are
not supported by substantial evidence, but we disagree
with each. Jager Pro argues the Board never articulated a
motivation to combine TexasBoars and Jeong with a rea-
sonable expectation of success—it only found a lack of evi-
dence of teaching away. Appellant’s Reply Br. 15–16.
Jager Pro mischaracterizes the Board’s analysis. The
Board found the combination of TexasBoars with Jeong in-
volved a simple substitution of “an animal-instigated clo-
sure (e.g., by use of a trip wire) [with] a human-instigated
closure (e.g., by receiving images of animals in an enclosure
and pushing a button to send a signal to close the gate)”
motivated by the advantages realized when these refer-
ences are combined. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at
*17, *24; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416
(2007). The Board also found a skilled artisan would un-
derstand the remote operability suggested by the combina-
tion would give the operator more control and increase the
Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 5 Filed: 11/20/2023

-- 5 of 7 --

JAGER PRO, INC. v. W- W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 6
trap’s chance of success. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520,
at *17. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings.
Jager Pro argues Jeong at most teaches or suggests de-
tection of an animal approaching a trap, not detection of an
animal within a trap as in limitation 1[h]. Appellant’s Re-
ply Br. 2–7. But this attacks Jeong alone and not the com-
bination of Jeong and TexasBoars. As the Board found,
“Petitioner d[id] not rely on Jeong as teaching the enclo-
sure recited by claim 1” but rather argued the limitation is
taught or suggested by Jeong’s system added to Tex-
asBoars’s corral trap. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at
*39. Thus, Jager Pro’s argument misses the point by focus-
ing on one reference’s disclosure instead of explaining why
the stated combination fails to teach or suggest the limita-
tion. We agree with the Board that the combination would
have resulted in a camera assembly positioned in a manner
to detect pigs located within the corral.
Jager Pro argues Jeong does not teach or suggest wire-
less signals because Jeong never expressly refers to any
signal as “wireless.” Appellant’s Br. 30–34; Appellant’s Re-
ply Br. 9–10. The Board disagreed, observing that Jeong’s
Figure 1 shows certain elements connected by solid lines
and other elements connected by broken lines and finding
that—when read in light of Jeong’s description of a “remote
control unit” for the disclosed trap—the solid lines suggest
a wired connection while the broken lines suggest a wire-
less connection. ’228 Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *19–
20. On these facts, the Board’s finding with respect to
Jeong is supported by substantial evidence.
Jager Pro argues the Board’s finding of no presumption
of nexus was not supported by substantial evidence.5
5 Jager Pro only argued for a presumption of
nexus—as opposed to also arguing nexus absent the
Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 6 Filed: 11/20/2023

-- 6 of 7 --

JAGER PRO, INC. v. W- W MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 7
Appellant’s Br. 52–57. The Board found Jager Pro was not
entitled to this presumption based on testimony from Jager
Pro’s expert who explained Jager Pro’s commercial prod-
uct’s display device transmits a wireless signal directly to
the release mechanism, which then releases the gate. ’228
Decision, 2022 WL 499520, at *54–55. The Board correctly
observed this is not what the claim requires—it instead re-
quires a wireless signal sent from a display device to a con-
trol mechanism, which in turn then sends another signal
to a release mechanism to release the gate. Id. The Board
also considered Jager Pro’s arguments that its product
manual’s depiction of a “control box” supports a finding of
nexus because the control box receives wireless signals
from a display device. Id. at *55. However, the Board rea-
sonably found the manual to be inconclusive because it pro-
vides no explanation of the control box receiving wireless
signals in the manner required by limitation 1[e]. Id. The
Board’s finding regarding nexus is supported by substan-
tial evidence.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Jager Pro’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons,
the Board’s decisions are affirmed.
AFFIRMED
presumption—to the Board. See ’228 Decision, 2022 WL
499520, at *56.
Case: 22-1710 Document: 64 Page: 7 Filed: 11/20/2023

-- 7 of 7 --