Wang v. Viking Drill & Tool, Inc.

Wang v. Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the earlier Wang ’808 application did not provide written-description support for the claimed “formed spirally” limitation, so Wang ’808 qualified as prior art. Because substantial evidence supported the Board’s Ground 1 obviousness determination over Wang ’808 in view of Gentry and/or Dufree, the court affirmed without reaching the other asserted grounds. The decision underscores that conventionality or obviousness of a missing feature cannot supply written-description support for priority, and that agreed claim constructions can foreclose later attempts to broaden the priority theory on appeal. Affirmed. The priority dispute turned on whether Wang ’808 disclosed cutting blade groups “formed spirally,” which the parties and Board construed as requiring axial relief. The court held the Board applied the correct written-description standard by asking what Wang ’808 reasonably conveyed to a skilled artisan, not whether axial relief was known or obvious. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s reading that Wang ’808’s reference to “connecting lines of the flutes” did not disclose axial relief and was more consistent with Viking’s expert testimony and the specification as a whole. Wang forfeited challenges to the Board’s reliance on Viking’s expert by not moving to exclude the testimony below, and forfeited a radial-relief construction argument by not presenting it to the Board. Having affirmed unpatentability under Ground 1 for all challenged claims, the Federal Circuit did not address the Board’s additional invalidity grounds. § 103 § 112(a) claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 § 112(a) claim construction waiver / forfeiture non-precedential § 103 § 112(a) claim construction waiver / forfeiture