Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Patent and Trademark Office, 697 F.3d 1367

Background

Flo appeals a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision upholding rejections of claims 8-17, 23, 24, 35, 40-42, 73, 76-79, 87, and 88 of the ’178 patent in an inter partes reexamination.
The patent covers a mobile workstation for medical care with a horizontal work surface, a height-adjustment mechanism, a tiltable display, an input device tray, and a chassis-powered display.
The examiner originally rejected multiple claims as obvious in light of Gross and later Ergotron, and Flo amended and argued that height-adjustment limitations are not subject to §112(6).
The Board held that the height-adjustment limitation is subject to §112(6) because it lacks definite structure, and affirmed most prior art rejections.
Flo challenged the Board’s §112(6) construction, arguing the term connotes a structural element (including a length-adjustable vertical beam) as disclosed in the specification.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held the Board erred in applying §112(6) to the height-adjustment mechanism, but nevertheless affirmed the Board’s overall rejection of the disputed claims because the claims do not require a length-adjustable vertical beam and prior art teaches the remaining features.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether height-adjustment mechanism falls under §112(6)	Flo contends height-adjustment mechanism conveys enough structure and is not a means-plus-function.	Rioux argues the limitation invokes §112(6) due to lack of sufficient structure.	Board erred by applying §112(6); but affirmed overall rejection on other grounds.
Standard of review for Board claim construction	Flo argues for de novo review of construction with correct claim interpretation.	Board relies on traditional deference/APA standards for review of factual findings.	Court discusses competing standards and ultimately affirms under the appropriate framework; no remand needed.
Effect of correcting §112(6) construction on prior art rejections	If height-adjustment is not §112(6), Flo argues prior art fails to disclose the limitation.	Even without §112(6) import, the claims do not require a length-adjustable vertical beam, so prior art supports the rejections.	Prior art still supports rejections without importing a vertical beam.
Whether the claims require a length-adjustable vertical beam	The specification links a length-adjustable beam to height adjustment and must be read into the claims.	No claim language requires a length-adjustable vertical beam; embodiments show it but claims do not.	Court declines to read the length-adjustable beam into the claims; sustains rejections.
Whether the Board’s factual determinations on the prior art are supported by substantial evidence	Flo argues the references do not teach all claimed elements including height-adjustment features.	Board found the prior art teaches or suggests each claimed limitation.	Record supports the Board’s factual findings and legal conclusions.

Key Cases Cited

In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (debate over Board's 'broadest reasonable interpretation' standard)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370 (S. Ct. 1996) (claims construction is a legal question)
In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reexamination construction led to improper rejections)
In re Baker Hughes, 215 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (no-deference standard for Board claim construction)
Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (S. Ct. 1999) (APA standard for reviewing agency decisions)
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (broadest interpretation principle in examination)
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (de novo review for claim construction (district court standard))