In Re Kuriappan P. Alappat, Edward E. Averill and James G. Larsen

as to Part I (Jurisdiction): PAULINE NEWMAN, LOURIE and RADER, Circuit Judges, join; ARCHER, Chief Judge, NIES and PLAGER, Circuit Judges, concur in conclusion; and MAYER, MICHEL, CLEVENGER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, dissent; and

as to Part II (Merits): PAULINE NEWMAN, LOURIE, MICHEL, PLAGER and RADER, Circuit Judges, join; ARCHER, Chief Judge, and NIES, Circuit Judge, dissent; and MAYER, CLEVENGER and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, take no position.

Kuriappan P. Alapatt, Edward E. Averill, and James G. Larsen (collectively Alappat) appeal the April 22, 1992, reconsideration decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), Ex Parte Alappat, 23 USPQ2d 1340 (BPAI, 1992), which sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-19 of application Serial No. 07/149,792 ('792 application) as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101 (1988).

This court must determine whether the Board's reconsideration decision constitutes a valid decision over which this court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a)(4)(A) (1988) and 35 U.S.C. Sec. 141 (1988). As discussed below, the legality of the Board panel which issued the reconsideration decision is in question, thus raising the issue of the validity of the decision itself and consequently our authority to review that decision. Therefore, before addressing the merits, it is appropriate that we first determine that the decision was rendered by a legally constituted panel to ensure that a jurisdictional cloud does not hang over our holding on the merits. See In re Bose Corp., 772 F.2d 866, 869, 227 USPQ 1, 3-4 (Fed.Cir.1985).1

Although Alappat does not contest the validity of the Board's reconsideration decision, jurisdiction cannot be conferred on this court by waiver or acquiescence. Coastal Corp. v. United States, 713 F.2d 728, 730 (Fed.Cir.1983). This court therefore has raised the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte, as is its duty. See Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Mich. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 511, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884); Wyden v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks, 807 F.2d 934, 935, 231 USPQ 918, 919 (Fed.Cir.1986); see also 5 WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Sec. 1393 (1990). To this end, this court, having decided to hear the case in banc, issued an Order on December 3, 1992, requesting briefing on the following three questions:

(1) When a three-member panel of the Board has rendered its decision, does the Commissioner have the authority to constitute a new panel for purposes of reconsideration?

(2) If the Commissioner lacks such authority, is the decision of such a new panel a decision of the Board for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1295(a)(4)(A)? If not, does this court have jurisdiction to reach the merits of the appealed decision?

(3) What is the relationship, if any, between the "reconsideration" action taken in this case and "rehearings" by the Board provided for in 35 U.S.C. Sec. 7(b)?

Consistent with our discussion below, we hold that the answer to the first question is yes. Consequently, we need not address the second question. As to the third question, we hold, for the reasons explained later, that the "reconsideration" by the Board was a "rehearing" as provided for in 35 U.S.C. Sec. 7(b) (1988).

In an Office Action mailed December 5, 1989, the Examiner finally rejected claims 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Alappat appealed this rejection to the Board pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Sec. 134 (1988), and a three-member panel made up of Examiners-in-Chief Lindquist, Thomas, and Krass reversed the Examiner's non-statutory subject matter rejection in a decision mailed June 26, 1991. The Examiner then requested reconsideration of this decision, pursuant to section 1214.04 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), stating that the panel's decision conflicted with PTO policy. The Examiner further requested that such reconsideration be carried out by an expanded panel.

An expanded eight-member panel, acting as the Board, granted both of the Examiner's requests. The expanded panel was made up of PTO Commissioner Manbeck, PTO Deputy Commissioner Comer, PTO Assistant Commissioner Samuels, Board Chairman Serota, Board Vice-Chairman Calvert, and the three members of the original panel. On April 22, 1992, the five new members of the expanded panel issued the majority decision now on appeal, authored by Chairman Serota, in which they affirmed the Examiner's Sec. 101 rejection, thus ruling contrary to the decision of the original three-member panel. The three members of the original panel dissented on the merits for the reasons set forth in their original opinion, which they augmented in a dissenting opinion.

The majority stated that its reconsideration decision was a "new decision" for purposes of requesting reconsideration or seeking court review of that decision. It did not, however, vacate the original three-member panel decision. Instead, the majority indicated that the original, three-member panel decision was only "modified to the extent indicated." Alappat, 23 USPQ2d at 1347. That "modification" was, however, a de facto reversal of the original panel's decision, affirming instead of reversing the examiner.

(1) The Legality of the Board's Rehearing Panel

When statutory interpretation is at issue, the plain and unambiguous meaning of a statute prevails in the absence of clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary. See Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581, 592, 109 S.Ct. 2023, 2030, 104 L.Ed.2d 675 (1989); Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft v. Quigg, 917 F.2d 522, 526, 16 USPQ2d 1549, 1552 (Fed.Cir.1990). In this case, the composition of the Board and its authority to reconsider its own decisions, and the Commissioner's authority over the Board, are governed by 35 U.S.C. Sec. 7, which reads:

(a) The examiners-in-chief shall be persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability, who shall be appointed to the competitive service. The Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioners, and the examiners-in-chief shall constitute the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

(b) The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall, on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents and shall determine priority and patentability of invention in interferences declared under section 135(a) of this title. Each appeal and interference shall be heard by at least three members of the Board of Appeals and Interferences, who shall be designated by the Commissioner. Only the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has the authority to grant rehearings.

35 U.S.C. Sec. 7 (1988) (emphasis added).

For the reasons set forth below, we hold that Sec. 7 grants the Commissioner the authority to designate the members of a panel to consider a request for reconsideration of a Board decision. This includes, as in this case, the Commissioner designating an expanded panel made up of the members of an original panel, other members of the Board, and himself as such, to consider a request for reconsideration of a decision rendered by that original panel. The Board's reconsideration decision therefore constituted a valid decision over which this court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction.

(a)

At the outset, we note that Sec. 7(a) plainly and unambiguously provides that the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioners are members of the Board. Section 7(b) plainly and unambiguously requires that the Commissioner designate "at least three" Board members to hear each appeal. By use of the language "at least three," Congress expressly granted the Commissioner the authority to designate expanded Board panels made up of more than three Board members.2

There is no evidence in the legislative history of Sec. 7, or Title 35 as a whole, clearly indicating that Congress intended to impose any statutory limitations regarding which Board members the Commissioner may appoint to an expanded panel or when the Commissioner may convene such a panel.3 The Commissioner thus has the authority to convene an expanded panel which includes, or as in this case is predominately made up of, senior executive officers of the PTO such as the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner, the Board's Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and himself.4

(b)

The focus of the jurisdictional inquiry in this case is the last sentence of Sec. 7(b) which provides: "Only the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has the authority to grant rehearings." The Commissioner contends that the reconsideration action taken in this case constituted a type of "rehearing" as mentioned in the last sentence of Sec. 7(b). For the reasons set forth below, we find the Commissioner's interpretation of Sec. 7 to be a reasonable one entitled to deference, given that neither the statute itself nor the legislative history thereof indicates Congressional intent to the contrary.

We interpret the term "rehearings" in Sec. 7 as encompassing any reconsideration by the Board of a decision rendered by one of its panels. The fact that Sec. 7 refers to "rehearings" whereas 37 C.F.R. 1.197 (PTO Rule 197)5 refers to "reconsideration" is of no significance. The differing terminology appears to be nothing more than the result of imprecise regulation drafting.6 We have been unable to find any evidence suggesting that, in promulgating Rule 197, the PTO intended to create a review process separate and distinct from that provided by statute. In addition, our interpretation finds support in In re Schmidt, 377 F.2d 639, 641, 153 USPQ 640, 642 (CCPA 1967), wherein the CCPA accepted, without criticism, the PTO's treatment of a Board reconsideration pursuant to Rule 197, on an examiner's request, as a "rehearing" provided for in Sec. 7(b).7

We also interpret the Commissioner's express statutory authority to designate the members of a panel hearing an appeal as extending to designation of a panel to consider a request for a rehearing pursuant to Sec. 7(b).8 There is no indication to the contrary in the statute, and we have found no legislative history indicating a clear Congressional intent that the Commissioner's authority to designate the members of a Board panel be limited to the designation of an original panel or that the Board be limited to exercising its rehearing authority only through the panel which rendered an original decision. In those cases where a different panel of the Board is reconsidering an earlier panel decision, the Board is still the entity reexamining that earlier decision; it is simply doing so through a different panel.

The last sentence of Sec. 7(b) is nothing more than an exclusionary statement vesting the Board with the sole authority to grant a rehearing. Thus, for example, the Commissioner cannot personally grant a rehearing, notwithstanding the general authority that he has over the operation of the PTO. For a general history of the Board and of appeals within and from the PTO, see Michael W. Blommer, The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, AIPLA Bulletin 188 (1992), P.J. Federico, The Board of Appeals 1861-1961, 43 JPOS 691 (1961), and Evolution of Patent Office Appeals, 22 JPOS 838-64, 920-49 (1940).

The predecessor of Sec. 7 was section 482 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the Act of March 2, 1927. The 1927 Act added to the Board the Commissioner, the First Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner. It also eliminated the right of an applicant to appeal to the Commissioner from an adverse Board decision, by adding to the statute the language "[t]he the Board of Appeals shall have sole power to grant rehearings," essentially the same provision as in today's Sec. 7(b). Act of March 2, 1927, ch. 273, Sec. 3, 44 Stat. 1335. Prior to this amendment, the Commissioner acted on petitions for rehearing of adverse Board decisions. Through this amendment, Congress effectively eliminated the onerous burden placed on the Commissioner regarding reviewing such appeals, instead steering applicants to the Board with such requests.

The events surrounding the enactment of the 1927 Act do not indicate any Congressional intent to lessen the great supervisory power that the Commissioner possessed over the PTO prior to that Act.9 Indeed, at the end of the 1926 House and Senate hearings during which the last sentence of what is now Sec. 7(b) was discussed, the Senate Committee on Patents concluded:

One lawyer [remarks of Fenning, chairman of the committee on laws and rules of the American Patent Law Association, Procedure in the Patent Office, Hearing on S. 4812 Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate, 69th Con.2d Sess. 19, 21-22 (1926) ] has expressed the fear that in providing in lines 16-17, page 2 (sec. 482) [the precursor to section 7(b) ], that the board of appeals shall have the sole power to grant "rehearings," the bill may lessen the present supervisory power of the commissioner, but it was agreed by the other lawyers at the hearing, and the Committee on Patents concurs in this view, that the supervisory power of the commissioner, as it has existed for a number of decades, remains unchanged by the bill.

S.Rep. No. 1313, 69th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1927) (emphasis added). Fenning expressed the same concerns to the House Committee on Patents. 1926 House Hearing at 22-23. The House Committee Report, H.R. No. 1889, 69th Cong., 2d Sess. (1927), is silent on the issue, thus suggesting that the House did not intend to give the last sentence of Sec. 7(b) a different meaning than was ascribed to it by the Senate. We believe the foregoing illustrates the lack of intent on the part of Congress in enacting the last sentence of Sec. 7(b) to place any limitations on the Commissioner's ability to designate Board panels, including Board panels for "rehearing" purposes.

(c)

Our holding is consistent with the broad supervisory authority that Congress has granted the Commissioner under Title 35 regarding the operation of the PTO. Exemplary thereof is Sec. 6(a), which reads in pertinent part:

The Commissioner, under the direction of the Secretary of Commerce, shall superintend or perform all duties required by law respecting the granting and issuing of patents.

35 U.S.C. Sec. 6(a) (1988) (emphasis added). The Commissioner also may establish regulations not inconsistent with the law, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce, 35 U.S.C. Sec. 6 (1988), cause an examination to be made of an application, 35 U.S.C. Sec. 131 (1988), declare an interference, 35 U.S.C. Sec. 135 (1988), and issue a patent when authorized by law, 35 U.S.C. Secs. 131, 145 (1988), 151 (1988), 153 (1988).

Moreover, the Commissioner is not bound by a Board decision that an applicant is entitled to a patent. Only a court can order the Commissioner to act, not the Board. Even though Board members serve an essential function, they are but examiner-employees of the PTO, and the ultimate authority regarding the granting of patents lies with the Commissioner.10 For example, if the Board rejects an application, the Commissioner can control the PTO's position in any appeal through the Solicitor of the PTO; the Board cannot demand that the Solicitor attempt to sustain the Board's position. Conversely, if the Board approves an application, the Commissioner has the option of refusing to sign a patent; an action which would be subject to a mandamus action by the applicant. The Commissioner has an obligation to refuse to grant a patent if he believes that doing so would be contrary to law. The foregoing evidences that the Board is merely the highest level of the Examining Corps, and like all other members of the Examining Corps, the Board operates subject to the Commissioner's overall ultimate authority and responsibility.

One also should not overlook the asymmetry of Sec. 141, which grants applicants, but not the Commissioner, the right to appeal a decision of the Board to this court. Since Congress has reenacted Sec. 141 several times since the 1927 debates about the Board's independence, see 1926 House Hearing at 22-29, it is safe to infer that Congress believed the Commissioner did not need a right of appeal in view of his limited control over the Board pursuant to Sec. 7 and in view of his rulemaking authority pursuant to Sec. 6(a).

(d)

Contrary to suggestions by Amicus Curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA), our holding does not conflict with this court's previous statements in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 928-29, 18 USPQ2d 1677, 1684 (Fed.Cir.1991), that the Board is not the alter ego or agent of the Commissioner. In that case, this court merely pointed out that the Board derives its adjudicatory authority from a statutory source independent of the Commissioner's rulemaking authority, and that, although the Commissioner may sit on the Board, "in that capacity he serves as any other member." Animal Legal Defense Fund, 932 F.2d at 929 n. 10, 18 USPQ2d at 1684 n. 10. In other words, the Commissioner has but one vote on any panel on which he sits, and he may not control the way any individual member of a Board panel votes on a particular matter. However, the present statutory scheme does allow the Commissioner to determine the composition of Board panels, and thus he may convene a Board panel which he knows or hopes will render the decision he desires, even upon rehearing, as he appears to have done in this case.

Such a result does not reduce the Board to an alter ego or agent of the Commissioner. To the contrary, the fact remains that the Commissioner may not unilaterally overturn a decision of a Board panel or instruct other Board members how to vote. The Commissioner's limited control in this manner over the Board and the decisions it issues is not offensive to Title 35 as a whole, given that Congress clearly did not intend the Board to be independent of any and all oversight by the Commissioner. See e.g. Lindberg v. Brenner, 399 F.2d 990, 992-93, 158 USPQ 380, 381-82 (D.C.1968). The plain and unambiguous wording of Sec. 7 intertwining the powers of the Board and the Commissioner clearly indicates that Congress did not intend the Board to have such complete independence.

(e)

Amicus Curiae FCBA suggests that the Commissioner's redesignation practices in this case violated Alappat's due process rights, citing Utica Packing Co. v. Block, 781 F.2d 71 (6th Cir.1986). In addition, an issue was raised at oral argument as to whether the Commissioner's designation practices are governed by any provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and if so, whether the Commissioner's actions in this case violated any of these provisions. We need not address either of these issues.

The FCBA does not have standing to make a due process argument, see Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2915, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973) ("constitutional rights are personal and may not be asserted vicariously") and United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 60 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 1562 n. 2, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981) (amicus may not rely on new arguments not presented below), and Alappat has waived any due process argument by acquiescing to the Commissioner's actions in this case. Thus, there is no case or controversy before this court with respect to any alleged due process violation. There also is no case or controversy as to whether the Commissioner's actions in this case violated any provision of the APA, given that Alappat does not contest these actions, and this is not an issue which this court may raise sua sponte. Moreover, neither of these issues is germane to the jurisdictional issue this court raised sua sponte, i.e., whether the Board's reconsideration decision constituted a statutorily valid decision under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 141 over which this court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1294(a)(4)(A).

(f)

Finally, we acknowledge the considerable debate and concern among the patent bar and certain Board members regarding the Commissioner's limited ability to control Board decisions through his authority to designate Board panels.11 Our responsibility, however, is merely to adjudge whether the Commissioner's designation practices as they were applied in this particular case resulted in a valid decision over which this court may exercise subject matter jurisdiction, not to assess whether they were sound from a public policy standpoint. We leave to the legislature to determine whether any restrictions should be placed on the Commissioner's authority in this regard. Absent any congressional intent to impose such restrictions, we decline to do so sua sponte.

Our conclusion is that the appealed decision should be reversed because the appealed claims are directed to a "machine" which is one of the categories named in 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101, as the first panel of the Board held.A. Alappat's Invention

Alappat's invention relates generally to a means for creating a smooth waveform display in a digital oscilloscope. The screen of an oscilloscope is the front of a cathode-ray tube (CRT), which is like a TV picture tube, whose screen, when in operation, presents an array (or raster) of pixels arranged at intersections of vertical columns and horizontal rows, a pixel being a spot on the screen which may be illuminated by directing an electron beam to that spot, as in TV. Each column in the array represents a different time period, and each row represents a different magnitude. An input signal to the oscilloscope is sampled and digitized to provide a waveform data sequence (vector list), wherein each successive element of the sequence represents the magnitude of the waveform at a successively later time. The waveform data sequence is then processed to provide a bit map, which is a stored data array indicating which pixels are to be illuminated. The waveform ultimately displayed is formed by a group of vectors, wherein each vector has a straight line trajectory between two points on the screen at elevations representing the magnitudes of two successive input signal samples and at horizontal positions representing the timing of the two samples.

Because a CRT screen contains a finite number of pixels, rapidly rising and falling portions of a waveform can appear discontinuous or jagged due to differences in the elevation of horizontally contiguous pixels included in the waveform. In addition, the presence of "noise" in an input signal can cause portions of the waveform to oscillate between contiguous pixel rows when the magnitude of the input signal lies between values represented by the elevations of the two rows. Moreover, the vertical resolution of the display may be limited by the number of rows of pixels on the screen. The noticeability and appearance of these effects is known as aliasing.

To overcome these effects, Alappat's invention employs an anti-aliasing system wherein each vector making up the waveform is represented by modulating the illumination intensity of pixels having center points bounding the trajectory of the vector. The intensity at which each of the pixels is illuminated depends upon the distance of the center point of each pixel from the trajectory of the vector. Pixels lying squarely on the waveform trace receive maximum illumination, whereas pixels lying along an edge of the trace receive illumination decreasing in intensity proportional to the increase in the distance of the center point of the pixel from the vector trajectory. Employing this anti-aliasing technique eliminates any apparent discontinuity, jaggedness, or oscillation in the waveform, thus giving the visual appearance of a smooth continuous waveform. In short, and in lay terms, the invention is an improvement in an oscilloscope comparable to a TV having a clearer picture.

Reference to Fig. 5A of the '792 application, reproduced below, better illustrates the manner in which a smooth appearing waveform is created.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE