Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc.

Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness determination. The Board did not need to construe “thick film layer,” Slingshot forfeited a separate teaching-away argument, and substantial evidence supported motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. The decision reinforces that unresolved claim-construction disputes do not require construction unless needed to resolve the patentability issue, and that teaching-away arguments should be distinctly preserved before the Board. Affirmed. The challenged claims cover an inkjet printhead with a thick film layer, ink feed chambers/channels, and high-density nozzle pitch. The court held that no construction of “thick film layer” was required because Slingshot did not dispute that Hamafuku, alone or with Whitman, disclosed that limitation. Slingshot’s separate “teaching away” argument based on Imanaka’s silicon-based materials was not preserved before the Board, so the Federal Circuit declined to address it separately. Substantial evidence, including Canon’s expert testimony and the prior art disclosures, supported the Board’s findings on motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success. The court noted that any reliance on the ’951 patent itself for reasonable expectation of success would be improper hindsight, but found any error harmless in context. § 103 claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 claim construction waiver / forfeiture