Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01350/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company
Appellee
Kennametal, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KENNAMETAL, INC.,

Appellant

v.

INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1350

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination 

No. 95/001,417.

______________________ 

Decided: March 25, 2015

______________________ 

STEVEN MOORE, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton 

LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by J. JASON LINK, N. DEAN POWELL, WinstonSalem, NC.

 

NANDA ALAPATI, Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, 

PLLC, Tysons Corner, VA, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by DAVID RYAN CROWE, Greensboro, NC; IAN 

A. CALVERT, Winston-Salem, NC. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/25/2015
2 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, and LINN, Circuit 

Judges.

LINN, Circuit Judge. 

Kennametal, Inc. (“Kennametal”) appeals the decision 

of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) in an 

inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,244,519 

(the “’519 patent”) in which the Board: (a) entered a new 

anticipation ground of rejection asserted by Ingersoll 

Cutting Tool Co. (“Ingersoll”) against certain of the pending claims; and (b) affirmed the Examiner’s obviousness 

rejection of certain remaining claims. See Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co. v. TDY Indus., Reexamination Ctrl. No. 

95/001,417, available at 2013 WL 6039030 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 

12, 2013) (“Board Decision on Rehearing”); Ingersoll, 

available at 2013 WL 3294868 (P.T.A.B. May 6, 2013) 

(“Initial Board Decision”). Because substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s determinations of anticipation and 

obviousness and because we see no error in the Board’s 

legal conclusion of obviousness, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The ’519 Patent

The ’519 patent was filed in 2004 and issued in 2007. 

The ’519 patent relates to cutting tools containing ruthenium as a binder that are coated using physical vapor 

deposition (“PVD”). See, e.g., ’519 patent Title; id. Abstract. The patent explains that cemented carbide cutting 

tools are generally useful. Id. col.1 ll.15–19. These tools 

are made by consolidating hard particles and a binder to 

form a compact, which is then sintered to form a tool

blank from which a variety of tools can be formed. Id.

col.1 ll.19–26. Cobalt is often used in the binder. Id. col.1 

ll.48–50.

According to the ’519 patent, it was unusual to include 

ruthenium with cobalt in the binder, and, in those instances when a cobalt-ruthenium binder was used, no one 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/25/2015
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY 3

had coated the tools using PVD. Id. col.1 ll.54–56, col.2 

ll.58–61. The patent suggests that the reason cobaltruthenium binders were not coated by PVD was because 

the use of cobalt in a binder tends to create cobalt structures on the surface—a process known as “cobalt capping.” Id. col.3 ll.6–10; id. col.3 ll.38–40. This problem is 

supposedly exacerbated when ruthenium is included in 

the binder. Id. col.3 ll.13–15. According to the patent, 

PVD coating—which is done at a lower temperature than 

other methods of coating, such as chemical vapor deposition—is not hot enough to re-melt the surface of the 

binder, so coatings applied via PVD do not adhere well to 

binders that produce cobalt capping. Id. col.3 ll.33–36. 

Additionally, PVD coatings, as the patent describes, can 

be too thin to compensate for the cobalt capping effect. Id.

col.3 ll.36–37.

The inventors assigned their interests in the invention claimed in the ’519 patent to TDY Industries, Inc. 

(“TDY”) at the time the application for the patent was 

filed. ’519 patent Assignee. In 2010, TDY sued Ingersoll 

for infringement of the ’519 patent. TDY Indus. Inc. v. 

Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., No. 2:10-cv-00790-CB (W.D. 

Pa., filed June 10, 2010). After the suit was filed, TDY 

assigned the ’519 patent to Kennametal. Ingersoll successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (the 

“Patent Office”) for inter partes reexamination of the ’519 

patent, and the district court, in turn, stayed the litigation.

B. Proceedings at the Patent Office

Ingersoll submitted a request for inter partes reexamination, claiming that some of the original claims were 

anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and all of the claims 

were obvious under § 103(a). The Examiner did not adopt 

any of Ingersoll’s proposed anticipation rejections but did 

reject all of the pending claims as obvious. In response, 

the patentee amended the existing claims and filed nuCase: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/25/2015
4 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

merous new claims. Pending claim 1 is representative, 

and recites as amended:

1. A cutting tool, comprising:

a cemented carbide substrate, wherein the 

substrate comprises hard particles and a 

binder, and the binder comprises ruthenium; and

at least one physical vapor deposition 

coating on at least a portion of the substrate.

Ingersoll again proposed both anticipation and obviousness rejections. The Examiner refused to adopt the

anticipation rejections but did reject all of the claims as 

obvious. Kennametal appealed the rejections, and Ingersoll cross-appealed the Examiner’s refusal to adopt its 

proposed anticipation rejections.

In the Initial Board Decision, the Board found that 

the Examiner erred in not adopting Ingersoll’s proposed 

rejection of pending claims 1–4, 9–18, 23, 24, 27–31, 35, 

36, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 83, 85 and 89 as anticipated by U.S. 

Patent No. 6,554,548 to Grab (“Grab”). Initial Board 

Decision, at *3–5.

The Board found that claim 5 of Grab expressly described the majority of the elements recited in pending 

claim 1 of the ’519 patent. Id. at *3–5. Claim 5 of Grab

and its parent, claim 1, recite:

1. A coated cutting insert comprising: 

a rake face and a flank face, a cutting edge 

at the juncture of the rake face and the 

flank face; 

the cutting insert having a hard refractory 

coating and a substrate wherein the coating is adherently bonded to the substrate; 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/25/2015
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY 5

the substrate comprising a tungsten carbide-based material comprising a bulk 

composition of at least about 70 weight 

percent tungsten and carbon, between 

about 3 weight percent and about 12 

weight percent cobalt, and at least 0.09 

weight percent chromium; 

the cobalt and the chromium forming a 

binder alloy: 

wherein the binder alloy content being enriched in a surface zone of binder alloy enrichment beginning near and extending 

inwardly from a peripheral surface of the 

substrate; and 

wherein the bulk composition of the substrate further comprises tantalum in an 

amount up to about 10 weight percent, niobium in an amount up to about 6 weight 

percent, and titanium in an amount up to 

about 10 weight percent.

5. The coated cutting insert of claim 1 wherein 

the binder alloy further includes one or more of 

tungsten, iron, nickel, ruthenium, and rhenium.

The Board noted that claim 5 of Grab specifically recites five metals, one of which was ruthenium. Initial 

Board Decision, at *4. Claim 5 also recites a “coating,” 

but, the Board acknowledged, does not state that the 

coating is applied via PVD. Id. The Board noted, however, that the specification of Grab discloses PVD as one of 

three contemplated methods of coating. Id. Specifically, 

Grab states:

Generally speaking, one or more of the coating 

layers of the coating schemes are applied by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and moderate temperature chemical vapor deposition (MTCVD). 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/25/2015
6 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

However, applicants also contemplate that one or 

more layers of a coating scheme may be applied by

physical vapor deposition (PVD).

Grab col.4 ll.56–61. The Board also found that claim 5’s 

recitation of a “coating” was “a specific hook back into the 

Grab disclosure for the further description of how that 

coating is applied.” Initial Board Decision, at *5. The 

Board found that the description of coating by PVD was 

not negated by the fact that CVD and MTCVD were 

“characterized by Grab as preferred.” Id. at *4. The 

combination of one of five metals with one of three coatings leads to only fifteen possibilities, which, according to 

the Board, was a sufficiently definite and limited class so 

that each member of the class was anticipated by Grab. 

Id. at *4–5. The Board stated that Ingersoll provided 

evidence that claims 2–4, 9–18, 23, 24, 27–31, 35, 36, 45, 

46, 49, 50, 58, 83, 85 and 89 were also anticipated, and 

neither the Examiner nor the Patent Owner distinguished 

these claims from claim 1. Therefore, the Board ruled 

that these claims were also anticipated by Grab. Id. at 

*5. 

Because the Board found these claims anticipated, it 

refused to consider whether these claims were also obvious. Id. at *7. The Board separately found claims “5–8, 

19–22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 56, 57, 59, 86, and 90”1 obvious over 

Grab in view of additionally cited prior art. Id.

Regarding obviousness, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejections of: claims 33, 34, 37–44, 47, 48 and 84 as 

obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,214,247 to Leverenz (“Leverenz”); claims 24, 25, 26, 49–52, 56, 57, 59, 86–90 and 93

1 Claims 23 and 24 appear to be erroneously included in this list as the Board already ruled them anticipated 

by Grab and it stated that it would not review the obviousness of the claims it already found anticipated.

 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/25/2015
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY 7

as obvious over Leverenz in view of other prior art; and 

claims 2–14, 16–23, 27, 31, 33–48, 58, 84 and 85, “[w]ith 

respect to the dependent claims not already addressed,”2

as obvious over Leverenz in view of T.L. Shing, et al., The 

effect of ruthenium additions on the hardness, toughness 

and grain size of WC-Co, 19 Int’l J. Refractory Metals & 

Hard Materials 41 (2001). The Board rejected Kennametal’s assertion that these claims provided unexpected results because it found that the unexpected 

results lacked a nexus to the limitations recited in the 

claims. Id. at *7–8. 

The Board denied Kennametal’s request for a rehearing, finding that although Grab appeared not to have 

applied coatings by PVD, it still anticipated this usage. 

Board Decision on Rehearing, at *3. It also found that 

Grab’s teachings, especially in view of the art at the time, 

would have avoided a cobalt capping problem and were

therefore enabling. Id. at *4. 

II. DISCUSSION

Kennametal appeals all the Board’s rejections. We 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4).

A. Standard of Review

Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of 

fact, while obviousness under § 103 is a question of law 

based on underlying findings of fact. Flo Healthcare 

Solutions, LLC v. Kappos, 697 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

2012) (citing cases). We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions 

without deference. Id. at 1375–76 (citing cases). “Sub2 Presumably this refers to the Leverenz rejections 

that were not previously addressed, as all these claims 

were already determined to be anticipated and/or obvious 

over some art.

 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/25/2015
8 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

stantial evidence is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1294 

(Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 

U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 

B. Anticipation

A patent is invalid if “the invention was patented or 

described in a printed publication in this or a foreign 

country or in public use or on sale in this country, more 

than one year prior to the date of application for patent in 

the United States.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2006).3 A prior 

art reference can only anticipate a claim if it discloses all 

the claimed limitations “arranged or combined in the 

same way as in the claim.” Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 

2012) (quoting Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 

F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). However, a reference 

can anticipate a claim even if it “d[oes] not expressly spell 

out” all the limitations arranged or combined as in the 

claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, 

would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement or 

combination. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (C.C.P.A. 

1962).

Kennametal argues that Grab does not disclose the 

combination of ruthenium as a binder and a PVD coating. 

It notes that Grab discloses five potential metals to use in 

the binder, which, allowing for combinations of metals

3 This provision has since been amended. See

Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 

112-29, § 3(c), 125 Stat. 284, 287 (2011). However, because the pending claims have an effective filing date 

before March 16, 2013, the pre-AIA § 102(b) applies. See

AIA, 125 Stat. at 293; In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1376 

n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/25/2015
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY 9

(e.g., the combination of tungsten and ruthenium), allows 

for 31 different possibilities—although it recognizes that 

16 of these include ruthenium. Op. Br. at 38. Kennametal also notes that the examples in Grab include 

three to five coating layers. Kennametal asserts that 

allowing for three options for each coating creates a total 

of 351 possible coating solutions, which, when multiplied 

by the 31 different binder possibilities, allows for 10,881 

possibilities. Op. Br. at 40. Kennametal further maintains that, in fact, claim 5 of Grab allows an infinite 

number of options since, for instance, the percentages of 

the various binders and the thickness of the coating are

undefined. Kennametal claims that the number of options taught by Grab distinguishes this case from Petering

and makes it more akin to cases where this court did not 

find anticipation.

Furthermore, every example in Grab, Kennametal 

points out, uses CVD or MTCVD methods of coating. 

Kennametal contends that in this context, the use of 

ruthenium as a binder and the contemplation of the use of 

PVD as a coating were among a multiplicity of options so 

that a person of skill in the art would not immediately 

envisage the claimed combination. Citing its expert’s 

testimony, Kennametal claims that the specific combination of ruthenium metal and PVD coating would not have 

been considered viable. 

Ingersoll responds that Grab discusses a coating, 

which allows for three coating techniques, including PVD,

along with any one of five metal binders, including ruthenium. Thus, according to Ingersoll, Grab effectively 

discloses the combination of PVD coating with ruthenium. 

Ingersoll also claims that the lack of PVD coating in the 

examples of Grab does not mean the reference cannot 

anticipate such coatings.

According to Ingersoll, a person of skill in the art 

reading Grab would immediately envisage examples using 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/25/2015
10 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

one metal as a binder and one type of coating—not combinations of multiple metals or multiple coatings. In the 

alternative, Ingersoll claims that allowing for multiple 

coatings and/or metals only increases the likelihood that 

Grab would teach embodiments within the scope of the 

claim. For instance, of the 31 possible combinations of the 

five metals, 16 include ruthenium. Ingersoll claims that 

allowing for multi-metal and multi-coating embodiments 

makes 17% or 29% of the embodiments described by Grab 

fall within the ambit of pending claim 1. Resp. Br. at 20, 

21. Ingersoll also argues that the fact that Grab teaches 

five similar metals and three well-settled methods of 

coating makes the scope of Grab’s teaching narrower, and, 

consequently, more likely to be anticipatory.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that pending claim 1 of the ’519 patent is anticipated. 

Kennametal does not contest that, with the exception of 

combining ruthenium binders with PVD coatings, claim 5 

of Grab expressly recites all the elements of pending claim 

1. Claim 5 of Grab recites using a binder consisting of one 

of five metals, one of which is ruthenium, together with a 

coating. Grab only discloses three coating methods, one of 

which is PVD. While CVD and MTCVD coatings are the 

coatings on which Grab focuses, it “also contemplate[d] 

that one or more layers of a coating scheme may be applied by physical vapor deposition.” Grab col.4 ll.59–61. 

Because all the limitations of Kennametal’s claim are 

specifically disclosed in Grab, the question for the purposes of anticipation is “whether the number of categories 

and components” disclosed in Grab is so large that the 

combination of ruthenium and PVD coatings “would not 

be immediately apparent to one of ordinary skill in the 

art.” Wrigley, 683 F.3d at 1361. The fact that a skilled 

artisan had various ways of formulating a coated cutting 

insert based on Grab’s teaching does not help Kennametal, since many of these are within the scope of its

claim. See id. at 1362 n.4 (“The fact that one of ordinary 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/25/2015
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY 11

skill in the art might also have included other flavorings 

would not remove the resulting composition from the 

broad reach of [the challenged] claim 34.”). 

At the very least, Grab’s express “contemplat[ion]” of 

PVD coatings is sufficient evidence that a reasonable 

mind could find that a person of skill in the art, reading 

Grab’s claim 5, would immediately envisage applying a 

PVD coating. Grab col.4 l.59. Thus, substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s conclusion that Grab effectively 

teaches 15 combinations, of which one anticipates pending 

claim 1. 

Though it is true that there is no evidence in Grab of 

“actual performance” of combining the ruthenium binder 

and PVD coatings, this is not required. Novo Nordisk 

Pharm., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347, 1355 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben 

Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). 

“Rather, anticipation only requires that those suggestions 

be enabled to one of skill in the art.” Id. (quoting BristolMyers Squibb, 246 F.3d at 1379). 

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s determination that 

pending claim 1 is anticipated. In its appeal brief, Kennametal did not argue that any of the claims depending 

from claim 1—namely pending claims 2–4, 9–18, 23, 24, 

27–31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 83 or 85—are not anticipated for any reason not present for claim 1. As for 

independent claim 89, the only discussion of its independent patentability comes in a footnote, Op. Br. at 20 n.9, 

which claims that it is “unclear” whether the Board 

intended to reject claim 89 as anticipated. Kennametal 

does not appear to make a substantive argument as to 

why claim 89 might not be anticipated even if claim 1 is. 

In any event, “[a]rguments raised only in footnotes . . . are 

waived.” Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 

1280, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing SmithKline Beecham 

Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir.

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/25/2015
12 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

2006)). Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s determination 

that claims 2–4, 9–18, 23, 24, 27–31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 49, 50, 

58, 83, 85 and 89 are anticipated as well. See SudChemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (refusing to consider the independent 

validity of certain claims where the appellant did not 

separately argue that they were patentable). 

C. Obviousness

1. Waiver

As noted above, the Board found pending claims 2–14, 

16–31, 33–52, 56–59, 84–88, 90 and 93 obvious over a 

variety of prior art references. Initial Board Decision, at 

*9. Kennametal challenges these findings. However, 

before addressing the substance of these rejections we 

address the threshold question of whether Kennametal 

waived its right to challenge the Board’s invalidity decisions for these claims.

In its brief to the Board appealing the Examiner’s rejections, all of which were based on obviousness, Kennametal stated that “Patent Owner argues independent 

claims 1, 15, 83, 89, and 93 as a group. The respective 

dependent claims are not argued separately.” The Board 

noted this in its Initial Board Decision, at *5, *7. 

Ingersoll claims that because Kennametal failed to 

argue at the Board for the independent patentability of 

the remaining claims, we should not review the Board’s 

decisions on these claims. Kennametal replies that, at 

the time of its briefing, all of the claims were rejected for 

obviousness. Kennametal argues that only when the 

Board instituted a new basis for rejection, rejecting some 

of the claims for anticipation, and correspondingly regrouping the claims, was there any reason Kennametal 

should have separately argued for the patentability of the 

remaining claims.

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 12 Filed: 03/25/2015
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY 13

Kennametal is correct. “[A]rguments . . . cannot be 

deemed waived if they were not previously required to 

have been made.” Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). At the Board, Kennametal was facing a 

different set of rejections than it is now. Accordingly, we 

see no reason to foreclose Kennametal from independently 

challenging the obviousness determinations of these

claims. 

2. Analysis

“A patent may not be obtained . . . if the differences 

between the subject matter sought to be patented and the 

prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole 

would have been obvious at the time the invention was 

made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which 

said subject matter pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006). 

Obviousness is a question of law, based on underlying 

factual determinations, including: “the scope and content 

of the prior art”; “differences between the prior art and 

the claims at issue”; “the level of ordinary skill in the 

pertinent art”; and “[s]uch secondary considerations as 

commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure 

of others, etc.” Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 

(1966), cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex 

Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 399 (2007). The Patent Office “bears 

the initial burden of showing a prima facie case of obviousness. When a prima facie case of obviousness is made, 

the burden then shifts to the applicant to come forward 

with evidence and/or argument supporting patentability.” 

Giannelli, 739 F.3d at 1379 (citations omitted).

Kennametal claims that the Board failed to establish 

a prima facie case of obviousness. Because of the problems relating to cobalt capping, Kennametal contends, it 

would not have been obvious to combine ruthenium 

binders with PVD coating. It cites the declarations of Dr. 

Gilles Festeau, one of the named inventors on the ’519 

patent, and Dr. Craig Morton, who claim that prior to 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 13 Filed: 03/25/2015
14 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

the ’519 patent it was difficult to manufacture PVDcoated ruthenium-featured cutting tools, at least partially 

because of cobalt capping effects. Dr. Morton claims that 

“[t]he inventors listed on the ’519 patent discovered” 

treatment conditions that unexpectedly allow for effective 

PVD-coating.

Kennametal further claims that the Board erred in rejecting its evidence of secondary considerations. The ’519

patent compares the performance of various carbide 

cutting inserts. See ’519 patent Figure 2; id. col.9 l.33–

col.10 l.23. According to Kennametal, the data demonstrate that the combination of PVD-coating and ruthenium binders achieves a “surprising and unexpected” tool 

lifetime. Kennametal claims that because the Board 

rejected the independent claims as anticipated by Grab, it 

never considered whether those claims would also be 

obvious. According to Kennametal, this is especially 

problematic for obviousness rejections of claims such as 

claim 33, which were not based on Grab at all.

Ingersoll responds that the Examiner’s Right of Appeal Notice (“Notice”) explained that both Grab and 

Leverenz disclosed a finite number of possibilities, so that 

it would have been obvious to try ruthenium binders and 

PVD coatings, both of which were expressly taught. 

Ingersoll relies on the declarations of Dr. Dennis Quinto, 

who opined that the invention was obvious because there 

were a finite number of solutions, and Mr. Kenneth 

Brookes, who opined that the problem of cobalt capping 

and solutions to it have long been known, and these 

solutions are independent of the presence of ruthenium. 

Ingersoll argues that the Board correctly found that 

the unexpected results touted by Kennametal would have 

been present in the inserts made according to Grab and, 

therefore, lacked any nexus to a novel feature of the 

invention. Ingersoll further contends that by adopting the 

Notice, the Board adopted the Examiner’s reasoned 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 14 Filed: 03/25/2015
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY 15

explanation that there was insufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that the unexpected results were due to the 

combination of PVD and ruthenium. 

As discussed earlier, infra at 10–11, substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual determination that 

Grab expressly taught combining a ruthenium binder 

with a PVD coating. While references that anticipate an 

invention can, theoretically, still not make it obvious, see

Cohesive Techs., Inc. v. Waters Corp., 543 F.3d 1351, 1364 

n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008), that is the rare case. Here, because a 

person of skill in the art reading Grab would readily 

envisage the combination of ruthenium binders and PVD 

coatings, it would have been obvious to that person that 

these two could be combined with a reasonable expectation of success. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s 

finding that this express teaching was not significantly 

undermined by the problem of cobalt capping, especially 

in view of the similar teaching of Leverenz.

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s determination that there was “factual[] support[]” for the 

Examiner’s conclusion in the Notice that the limitations 

of claims 33, 34, 37–44, 47, 48 and 84 were taught in 

Leverenz. Initial Board Decision, at *8 (citing Notice at 

18–20). The Notice states that Leverenz teaches producing cutting inserts using elements “within Group VIII of 

the periodic table (elements having atomic numbers 26–

28, 44–46, and 76–78),” and that ruthenium has atomic 

number 44. Notice at 19 (quoting Leverenz col.5 ll.46–

48). The Notice also remarks that Leverenz teaches that 

the inserts can be coated using PVD. Id. (citing Leverenz 

col.8 ll.47–51). These teachings provide substantial 

evidence to support the Board’s legal conclusion of obviousness.

Kennametal’s claim of unexpected results is unavailing. Kennametal cites to the ’519 patent that, allegedly, 

shows that the combination of ruthenium binder and PVD 

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 15 Filed: 03/25/2015
16 KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY

coating results in unexpected tool lifetimes. As discussed 

above, the precise combination of ruthenium binders and 

PVD coatings was taught in Grab. Accordingly, “the 

offered secondary consideration actually results from 

something other than what is both claimed and novel in 

the claim, [so] there is no nexus to the merits of the 

claimed invention.” In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 

1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, Kennametal’s secondary 

consideration argument falls short. 

In its opening brief, Kennametal did not argue for the 

independent patentability of any of pending claims 2–14, 

16–31, 33–52, 56–59, 84–88, 90 and 93. It only contested 

that the combination of ruthenium as a binder and PVD 

as a coating was non-obvious. In its reply brief, Kennametal claimed that the prior art did not teach the

limitations found in certain dependent claims regarding 

the specific amounts of ruthenium in the binder. Reply 

Br. at 22–23. It raised this argument too late. 

“[A]rguments not raised until [the] reply brief are 

waived.” Lifestyle Enter., Inc. v. United States, 751 F.3d 

1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Becton Dickinson & Co. 

v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). 

Accordingly, we need not, and do not, separately analyze 

whether the Board correctly found obviousness even as to 

the additional limitations recited in these claims. Thus, 

we affirm the Board’s finding that claims 2–14, 16–31, 

33–52, 56–59, 84–88, 90 and 93 would have been obvious. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this court affirms the 

Board’s determination that claims 1–4, 9–18, 23, 24, 27–

31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 49, 50, 58, 83, 85 and 89 are anticipated 

and claims 2–14, 16–31, 33–52, 56–59, 84–88, 90 and 93

would have been obvious. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1350 Document: 51-2 Page: 16 Filed: 03/25/2015