Slingshot Printing LLC v. Canon U.s.a., Inc., Canon Inc.

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC,
Appellant
v.
CANON U.S.A., INC., CANON INC.,
Appellees
______________________
2025-1032
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2023-
00309.
______________________
Decided: July 16, 2026
______________________
MICHAEL G REGORY P ATTILLO, J R., MoloLamken LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
by K AYVON G HAYOUMI, RAYINER HASHEM ; CATHERINE
MARTINEZ, P RATIK K UMAR RAJ G HOSH , New York, NY;
MARK B ORSOS , Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP, Chi-
cago, IL.
J ULIE S. G OLDEMBERG, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Philadelphia, PA, argued for appellees. Also represented
by MARIA D OUKAS , A MANDA SCOTT W ILLIAMSON, Chicago,
Case: 25-1032 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U. S. A., INC. 2
IL; J ASON EVAN G ETTLEMAN, Palo Alto, CA; J ITSURO
MORISHITA, Tokyo, Japan.
______________________
Before CHEN, HUGHES , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Slingshot Printing LLC (Slingshot) appeals the final
written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(Board) finding claims 1–6 and 8–20 of U.S. Patent
No. 7,290,864 (’864 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Canon U.S.A., Inc v. Slingshot Printing LLC, No.
IPR2023-00309, 2024 WL 3608171 (P.T.A.B. July 31, 2024)
(Decision). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’864 patent concerns a heater chip for use in print-
heads where the number of bondpads is reduced. Claim 1
recites, in relevant part, “[a] heater chip for use in a print-
ing device, comprising: . . . a bondpad, wherein the bond-
pad supplies power to at least a portion of the first heater
array and to at least a portion of the second heater array.”
’864 patent at claim 1. Dependent claims 3 and 9 require
the bondpad to supply power via power traces that are
“physically separated proximal to the bondpad.” ’864 pa-
tent at claim 3, 9.
Canon U.S.A. Inc. and Canon Inc. (Canon) filed an inter
partes review petition challenging claims 1–6 and 8–20 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. There was a dispute
regarding the meaning of the limitation “physically sepa-
rated proximal to the bondpad.” The Board adopted
Canon’s construction of that limitation as meaning the
power traces physically separate at a point closer to the
bondpad than the end of the trace. The Board also con-
cluded that all challenged claims would have been obvious
Case: 25-1032 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U. S. A., INC. 3
in light of combinations including Benjamin144,1 Benja-
min703,2 and Childers.3
Slingshot contests the Board’s claim construction and
obviousness determination. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Board’s claim construction de novo and
its factual findings for substantial evidence. Wasica Fin.
GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
Slingshot first argues that the Board erred by constru-
ing “physically separated proximal to the bondpad” to
mean closer to the bondpad than the “end of the trace,” ra-
ther than closer to the bondpad than to the “heater arrays.”
Appellant Br. 32–33. We are not persuaded.
We agree with the Board that the relevant reference
point is the “end of the trace.” Decision, 2024 WL 3608171,
at *5. As the Board noted, “[n]othing in the claims requires
a comparison to other structures, like the heater arrays.”
Id. at *4. Nor does the specification require such an under-
standing. We agree that “proximity is measured along the
trace relative to the bondpad.” Id.
Slingshot next argues that the Board lacked substan-
tial evidence to find dependent claims 3 and 9 unpatenta-
ble. Appellant Br. 46–47. Slingshot contests the Board’s
reliance on a figure of Benjamin144 to find that the power
trace would be physically separated proximal to the bond-
pad than to the end of the power trace. Id. at 47–49. Sling-
shot states that the figure did not disclose any bondpads.
1 U.S. Patent No. 7,722,144 (Benjamin144).
2 U.S. Patent No. 7,278,703 (Benjamin703).
3 U.S. Patent No. 6,582,062 (Childers).
Case: 25-1032 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

SLINGSHOT PRINTING LLC v. CANON U. S. A., INC. 4
Id. at 50. However, the location of the bondpad was a find-
ing that rested on multiple, factually supported grounds.
The Board relied on Benjamin144, Benjamin703, and ex-
pert testimony to determine a skilled artisan would under-
stand the bondpad would be located at the edge of the
heater chip. Decision, 2024 WL 3608171, at *13–14.
Slingshot challenges the figure for not being to scale.
Appellant Br. 52–53. However, our case law does not pro-
hibit a basic visual examination of patent figures or draw-
ings. The Board compared general relative distances
among components in the figure—it did not rely on the fig-
ure to extract “precise proportions” or “particular sizes.”
Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the
Board’s findings on how a skilled artisan would understand
the figures.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Slingshot’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1032 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 07/16/2026

-- 4 of 4 --