Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01165/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01165-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Uber Technologies, Inc.
Appellant
X One, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

X ONE, INC.,

Appellee

______________________

2019-1165

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017-

01264.

______________________

Decided: March 3, 2020

______________________

LAUREN ANN DEGNAN, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

MICHAEL JOHN BALLANCO, CHRISTOPHER DRYER, WALTER 

KARL RENNER. 

 DORIS JOHNSON HINES, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY CURTISS 

TOTTEN; KEVIN D. RODKEY, Atlanta, GA; JACOB ADAM 

SCHROEDER, Palo Alto, CA. 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 03/03/2020
2 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

 ______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) appeals a decision of 

the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). The Board 

declined to find certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,647 

(“the ’647 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. We reverse the 

Board’s determination of non-obviousness as to the independent claims, vacate the Board’s determination as to the 

dependent claims, and remand for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

X One, Inc., (“X One”) owns the ’647 patent, which is 

directed to exchanging GPS data between two devices. 

The patent’s background section characterizes the prior art 

as limited to “one way location sharing”—that is, the sharing of a location of a first device to a second device, but not 

from the second device back to the first device. ’647 patent, 

col. 1, l. 32. The patent, by contrast, is said to provide for 

two-way location sharing. The specification explains that 

the claimed invention allows “mutual tracking and optional position mapping displays of members of groups and 

instant buddies.” ’647 patent, col. 2, ll. 36–38. In particular, the patent discloses a “Buddy Watch application” and 

a “Mapit” method with which a user can track and map 

other users, and also share the user’s location with other

users. 

The ’647 patent has three independent claims: claims 

1, 22, and 28. Claim 1 recites:

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 03/03/2020
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. 3

A method of tracking proximity of position associated with a first wireless device relative to a position of a second wireless device, wherein one of the 

first wireless device and the second wireless device 

is associated with a provider of a desired service 

and the other of the first wireless device and the 

second wireless device is associated with a requestor of the desired service, the method comprising:

causing receipt of information on the first 

wireless device representing the position of 

the second wireless device and a map associated with the position associated with the 

first wireless device and the position of second wireless device;

causing display of the map on the first 

wireless device with position associated 

with the first wireless device and the position of the second wireless device rendered 

thereon; and

causing receipt of information on the first 

wireless device representing positional update of the second wireless device, and 

causing update of display of the map on the 

first wireless device with the position associated with the first wireless device and updated position of the second wireless device 

rendered thereon;

wherein the causing of the update is to be 

performed to indicate proximity of and direction between position of the provider of 

the desired service and position associated 

with the requestor of the desired service;

wherein the method is invoked responsive 

to launching an application on the first 

wireless device in connection with a 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 03/03/2020
4 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

request from the requestor for the desired 

service; and

wherein the provider is selected in connection with the request for the desired service 

and the method further comprises forming 

a use-specific group to have the first wireless device and the second wireless device 

in connection with the request for the desired service.

’647 patent, col. 28, l. 50–col. 29, l. 19 (emphasis added). 

Independent claim 28 is directed to an apparatus and, like 

claim 1, includes a limitation wherein method steps directed to updating a map displayed on a “first wireless device” based on “positional update[s]” from a “second 

wireless device” are “invoked responsive to launching an 

application.” ’647 patent, col. 31, l. 37–col. 32, l. 6 (emphasis added). 

Independent claim 22 recites:

A method of tracking proximity of position associated with a first wireless device relative to position 

of a second wireless device, wherein the first wireless device is associated with a requestor of a desired service and the second wireless device is 

associated with a provider of the desired service, 

the method comprising:

selecting the provider of the desired service 

in association with an application launched 

by the requestor on the first wireless device, wherein the second wireless device is 

associated with the provider and is thereby 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 4 Filed: 03/03/2020
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. 5

selected in associated1 [sic] with launch of 

the application;

causing receipt of information on the first 

wireless device representing position of the 

provider, dependent on global positioning 

system (GPS) position data provided by the 

second wireless device, and receipt of information representing a map associated with 

the position associated with the first wireless device and the position of the second 

wireless device;

causing display of the map on the first 

wireless device with the position associated 

with the requestor and the position of the 

second wireless device rendered thereon; 

and

causing receipt of information on the first 

wireless device representing intermittent 

positional update dependent on GPS position data provided by the second wireless 

device, and causing update of display of the 

map on the first wireless device with respective position associated with the first 

wireless device and positional update dependent on the GPS position data provided 

by the second wireless device rendered 

thereon;

wherein selecting the provider of the desired service includes forming a use-specific group to have the first wireless device 

1 The word “associated” here appears to be a typographical error. The Board interpreted “associated” as “association,” J.A. 11, and neither party challenges that 

interpretation on appeal.

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 5 Filed: 03/03/2020
6 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

and the second wireless device in connection with the request for the desired service.

‘647 patent, col. 30, l. 47–col. 31, l. 12 (emphasis added). 

Each independent claim is directed to the idea of displaying a map of the positions of a “first wireless device” 

and a “second wireless device” on the first wireless device, 

and updating that map based on “positional update[s]” as 

to the location of the second wireless device. In each claim,

a method step is or method steps are in some way tied to 

the “launch” of an “application.” In claims 1 and 28, a

method of updating a displayed map based on positional 

updates is “invoked responsive to launching an application.” In claim 22, a “second wireless device” for which location is to be mapped is selected “in association with an 

application launched by a requestor.”

Uber filed a petition for inter partes review with the 

Board, challenging claims 1, 4–11, 13, 22–25, 27–28, 31–

37, 39–42, and 45. The petition asserted the obviousness 

of the independent claims—claims 1, 22, and 28—based on 

two separate prior art references. The first reference, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication 2002-

352388 (“Konishi”), discloses a “vehicle allocation system”

in which a “customer” can reserve a vehicle (e.g., a taxi) 

and view, using a “mobile telephone set 13,” a map of “customer position” and “vehicle position” as the vehicle approaches the customer. J.A. 1331–34. The second 

reference, Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication 2003–168190 (“Mitsuoka”), discloses a “vehicle dispatch guidance system” in which a user can use a “portable 

terminal” to “request[] dispatch of a taxi” and map the “current location of the user” and “current location of the taxi”

as the taxi approaches the user. J.A. 1356–58. Uber also 

challenged many of the ’647 patent’s dependent claims as 

obvious, relying on other prior art for some limitations.

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 6 Filed: 03/03/2020
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. 7

The Board instituted review, but in its final written decision concluded that Uber had failed to show that the independent claims were unpatentable as obvious. The 

Board construed the “responsive to” limitation present in 

claims 1 and 28 as requiring the claimed “method” to be 

invoked “during or near” the time at which the claimed “application” is launched. J.A. 15. The Board construed the 

“in association with” limitation present in claim 22 as requiring “some relationship” between application launch 

and method invocation. Id. Applying these constructions,

the Board concluded that neither Konishi nor Mitsuoka 

taught the “responsive to” limitation of claims 1 and 28, or 

the “in association with” limitation of claim 22. [J.A. 21, 

32.] Because the Board concluded that the prior art did not 

teach the ’647 patent’s independent claims, the Board did 

not separately analyze the ’647 patent’s dependent claims. 

Uber appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

DISCUSSION

“We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial 

evidence and review its legal conclusions de novo.” In re 

Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 

2015). We thus review de novo the Board’s interpretations 

of the patent claims and determinations based on evidence 

intrinsic to the patent. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 

792 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “If, as here, the IPR 

stems from a petition filed before November 13, 2018, the 

claims are given the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’

consistent with the specification.” Game & Tech. Co. v. 

Wargaming Grp. Ltd., 942 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019)

(quoting Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 

2142 (2016)).

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 7 Filed: 03/03/2020
8 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

I

With respect to claims 1 and 28, the Board concluded 

that neither Konishi nor Mitsuoka teaches that a method 

“is invoked responsive to launching an application.” 

J.A. 22, 32. The Board agreed with a district court construction of the “responsive to” limitations as “simply 

plac[ing] a temporal relationship on launching and the 

other claimed functions.” J.A. 15 (emphasis added) (quoting X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 5:16-cv-6050-LHK, 

2017 WL 3581184, *22 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017)). The

Board went on to “clarify” that the district court’s construction requires the method to be invoked “during or near” the 

time at which the application is launched. J.A. 15. The 

Board further stated that “[t]he required relationship is not 

shown by simply pointing out that the application was 

started some point in time prior to the occurrence of the 

recited activities.” Id.

Applying this construction, the Board concluded that

neither Konishi nor Mitsuoka discloses the “responsive to” 

limitations. The Board acknowledged that Konishi discloses “an application [that] is running on the mobile device 

and, thus, [that] the application was launched at some 

point in time prior to the recited mapping activities.” J.A. 

21. The Board similarly found with respect to Mitsuoka 

“persuasive evidence of a relationship between the running

application and the invocation of the method.” J.A. 31 (emphasis in original). But, for both prior art references, the 

Board concluded that there was no sufficient “temporal relationship” between the launch of the application and the 

invocation of the method. J.A. 21–22, 31–32. 

A

We first address claim construction. The parties differ 

as to the correct claim construction. X One appears to argue that the claims require invocation of the method immediately upon launch of the application, whereas Uber 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 8 Filed: 03/03/2020
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. 9

appears to interpret the claims as requiring only that the 

method be invoked at some point after launch. We think 

neither party’s construction is correct and that the Board’s 

“during or near” requirement is generally correct. At the 

same time, we agree with Uber that the Board’s claim construction is imprecise and that some refinement of the 

Board’s construction is necessary in light of the specification. 

The intrinsic evidence establishes that the “responsive 

to” limitation is met if the claimed method is invoked 

minutes or hours after launch of the application. Any narrower of a “during or near” requirement would exclude the 

specification’s preferred embodiment. The specification explains that the mapping method (i.e., “Mapit”) is part of the

disclosed Buddy Watch application.2 That application 

2 X One asserts that “Mapit . . . is itself an application.” Appellee’s Br. 29. Thus, to X One, the specification’s 

description of Buddy Watch is irrelevant to the construction of “responsive to.” We disagree. The specification 

makes clear that Buddy Watch corresponds to the claimed 

“application” and Mapit to the claimed “method.” For example, the specification repeatedly characterizes Buddy

Watch as an “application” or “application program,” and instead characterizes Mapit as a “page,” a “screen,” a “command,” or a “function.” See, e.g., ’647 patent, col. 3, l. 67, 

col. 5, l. 21, col. 6, ll. 30–31, col. 10., l. 50, col. 15, l. 59, col. 

16, l. 39. For example, the specification describes the 

“Mapit page” being launched from within “the Buddy 

Watch application.” Id., Fig. 2C, col. 6, ll. 29–44. Moreover, the specification describes the “Mapit function” as being “invoked,” mirroring the claims’ recitation of “wherein 

the method is invoked.” Compare id., col. 15, ll. 59–61 with 

id., col. 28, l. 50–col. 29, l. 19. A person of ordinary skill 

reading the specification would therefore understand 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 9 Filed: 03/03/2020
10 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

includes functionality to add buddies and view the location 

of buddies in a tabular format. A user invokes Mapit to 

view the location of other users on a map by selecting 

“Mapit” on the Buddy Watch’s “start-up screen.” See ’647 

patent, col. 6, ll. 29–44. The specification places no restriction on when, after launching Buddy Watch, the user 

may select the “Mapit” application. But the specification 

discloses several features demonstrating that Mapit may 

be invoked minutes or hours after launching Buddy Watch. 

The specification notes, for instance, that a user can 

open the Buddy Watch application in order to start sharing 

the user’s location without immediately invoking Mapit. 

See ’647 patent, Fig. 1. As an example, the specification 

describes each member of a tennis team sharing his or her 

location with the other team members. See ’647 patent, col. 

15, ll. 15–25, 39–65. Team members may be in “active status”—that is, have the Buddy Watch application launched 

and transmitting location data—even before the Mapit 

method is practiced. See ’647 patent, Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 24–

26, col. 15, ll. 18–20. A team member may, therefore, have 

launched Buddy Watch (for the purpose of sharing his or 

her location) and, minutes or hours later, invoke Mapit (to 

see the other team members’ locations). 

The specification further notes that in “the preferred 

embodiment for the instant buddy setup process,” several 

steps need to occur after a user launches the Buddy Watch 

application before the user can map the position of an “instant buddy.” These include: (1) an “initiator” user “selecting the instant buddy setup process”; (2) “fill[ing] in a 

timeout period” for the instant buddy relationship; (3) routing “instant buddy packets” to the “Buddy Watch[] server”; 

(4) “authenticat[ing] the initiator”; (5) sending a message 

Mapit to be a method invoked as part of the Buddy Watch 

application.

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 10 Filed: 03/03/2020
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. 11

to the “proposed instant buddy”; (6) the proposed instant 

buddy “accepting or denying the relationship”; (7) “if accepted,” sending a “packet . . . back to the initiator[]”; (8) 

displaying “an [i]nstant [b]uddy accept screen . . . which 

the initiator must OK to establish the relationship”; (9) 

“record[ing],” at the Buddy Watch server, “the new instant 

buddy relationship”; and, finally, (10) “verifying” the “collect[ion of] GPS data.” ’647 patent, Fig. 22, col. 14, l. 54 to 

col. 15, l. 13. Thus, a user that launched the Buddy Watch 

application to map an instant buddy might only invoke the 

Mapit method minutes or hours later, once the instant 

buddy setup process has completed.

In sum, the specification contemplates scenarios in 

which there are minutes or hours between the launch of 

Buddy Watch and the invocation of Mapit. In light of this 

disclosure, the Board’s “during or near” requirement must 

allow for method invocation minutes or hours after application launch. A contrary interpretation would exclude 

embodiments of the invention. “A ‘claim construction that 

does not encompass a disclosed embodiment is rarely, if 

ever, correct.’” Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d

1313, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Johns Hopkins Univ. 

v. CellPro, 152 F.3d 1342, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (alteration 

omitted). 

The “responsive to” limitations in claims 1 and 28 are 

met if “the method is invoked” within minutes or hours of 

“launching an application.” 

B

Under this construction, the Board erred in concluding 

that Konishi and Mitsuoka do not teach or suggest the “responsive to” limitations.

1

Konishi “relates to a vehicle allocation system for allocating commercial vehicles such as taxis or cargo collection 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 11 Filed: 03/03/2020
12 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

and delivery vehicles based on customer reservations.” 

J.A. 1331. In Konishi, a user carries a “mobile telephone 

set 13” with a “built-in GPS system.” J.A. 1334. To reserve 

a vehicle, the user “selects a vehicle allocation service with 

the mobile telephone set 13.” Id. The “mobile telephone 

set 13” then sends the position of the phone to an “information processing device 11” via a “computer 20.” Id. The 

information processing device 11 retrieves any vacant vehicles located “within a prescribed range from the current 

position of the mobile telephone set 13” from a “vehicle 

monitoring system 24.” Id. If there are vacant vehicles in 

range, “the information processing device 11 reads out a 

map of a region of a specific range with the customer position in the center from the map system 28,” “inputs the customer position and the current position of the retrieved 

vacant vehicle,” “transmits the information to the mobile 

telephone set 13,” and “displays the information on the 

[mobile telephone set’s] screen 25.” Id. The customer may 

then “make a reservation,” which the driver of the reserved 

vehicle can accept. J.A. 1334–35. At this point, “[t]he current position of the reserved vehicle, which approaches moment by moment, is displayed on the map together with the 

customer position,” “transmitted to the mobile telephone 

set 13,” and “displayed as a navigation display.” J.A. 1335. 

The mapping terminates once the user indicates that he or 

she has entered the reserved vehicle.

Konishi’s disclosure exactly parallels the ’647 patent’s 

claims. The “application” is Konishi’s vehicle allocation 

service. The “launching” of the “application” is when in 

Konishi the user selects a vehicle allocation service with 

the mobile telephone set 13. The “method” of Konishi is the 

display of a map with the position of a reserved vehicle updated “moment by moment” as it approaches the user. 

The very purpose of Konishi is to start mapping shortly 

after the launch of the vehicle allocation service. Konishi 

notes that, in the prior art, “because the customer is 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 12 Filed: 03/03/2020
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. 13

unaware of the current position of a reserved vehicle, the 

customer is uneasy about whether the reserved vehicle will 

arrive in the promised time.” J.A. 1332. Konishi also notes 

that, in the prior art, “because the person in charge [of vehicle allocation] talks with the customer by telephone, the 

method requires the response time of the person in charge.” 

Id. The purpose of Konishi is, therefore, to quickly reserve 

a vehicle and display the location of that vehicle on a map 

as it arrives. Thus, a user in Konishi typically will reserve 

a vehicle within minutes after launching the vehicle allocation service. Konishi’s mapping “method” is “invoked” 

when a vehicle is reserved. Accordingly, Konishi teaches 

the “responsive to” limitations of claims 1 and 28. To be 

sure, Konishi does not place a strict time constraint on 

when, after launching the vehicle allocation service, a user 

may reserve a vehicle. But neither does the ’647 patent 

impose a strict time constraint between launching Buddy 

Watch and invoking the MapIt method. 

Konishi discloses the “responsive to” limitations. Because X One did not argue before the Board that any other 

limitations of claims 1 or 28 were not disclosed by Konishi, 

we conclude that those claims would have been obvious in 

light of Konishi.

2

Mitsuoka, is directed to a system in which users reserve taxis and view taxi positions on a map. In Mitsuoka, 

a user can “request[] dispatch of a taxi 3,” by “mak[ing] a 

dial-up connection to [Application Service Provider 

(“ASP”)] 4 from the user’s portable terminal 1.” J.A. 1356. 

At “ASP 4, the maps in map [database (“DB”)] 15 are 

searched based on the location information for portable terminal 1 . . . and a map of the vicinity of the current location 

of portable terminal 1 is extracted.” Id. “An image representing the user . . . is then . . . added at the location of 

portable terminal 1 on the extracted map.” Id. Similarly, 

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 13 Filed: 03/03/2020
14 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

“location information for taxis 3, which is transmitted from 

taxis 3, is constantly received in ASP 4.” Id. “[I]f the received location of an available taxi is within the map extracted from map DB 15, a taxi image . . . is added at the 

location of the available taxi on the extracted map.” Id. 

The ASP 4 then “transmits . . . the map data . . . to portable 

terminal 1.” J.A. 1357. The user can then request, for example, “taxi 3A,” and “this selection information is transmitted to ASP 4.” Id. As taxi 3A travels to the user, “the 

ASP 4 receives . . . location information successively transmitted from taxi 3A, adds an image of the taxi to the corresponding location on the vicinity map, and delivers this 

display data in real time to the portable terminal 1, as a 

result of which, the status of the requested taxi heading to 

[the user’s] own current location is displayed in real time 

along with a map of the vicinity on the display unit of the 

portable terminal 1.” Id.

Mitsuoka’s disclosure exactly parallels the ’647 patent’s claims. The process in Mitsuoka’s portable user terminal that makes a dial-up connection to the ASP 4 is, as 

the Board found, an “application.” Making the dial-up connection is, therefore, “launching” the application. The 

mapping “method” of Mitsuoka displays the real-time location of a requested taxi on a map as the taxi heads to the 

user’s location. This “method” is “invoked” when the user 

requests the taxi. In Mitsuoka (as in Konishi), the user will 

typically invoke the “method” (i.e., request the taxi) within 

minutes of when the connection between the user terminal 

and the ASP is made.

It is true that Mitsuoka’s disclosure does not specify a 

strict time limit between connecting to the ASP (i.e., the 

“launch” of the “application”) and requesting a taxi (i.e., the 

“invok[ing]” of the “method”). But neither does the ’647 patent impose a strict time limit between launching Buddy 

Watch and invoking the MapIt method. Mitsuoka teaches 

the “responsive to” limitations of claims 1 and 28.

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 14 Filed: 03/03/2020
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC. 15

Because X One did not argue before the Board that any

other limitations of claims 1 or 28 were not disclosed by 

Mitsuoka, we conclude that those claims would have been 

obvious in light of Mitsuoka.

II

The Board concluded that neither Konishi nor 

Mitsuoka renders obvious claim 22’s limitation that a “second wireless device” (whose location is to be mapped) is “selected in association with launch of the application.” J.A. 

22–23, 32–33 (emphasis added). The Board adopted the 

district court’s construction of the “in association with” language, which stated that “‘[r]esponsive to launching’ 

simply places a temporal relationship on launching and the 

other claimed functions: they happen in response to 

launching. ‘In association with an application launched’ is 

broader, and just requires some relationship between 

launching and the claimed functions.” J.A. 15 (quoting X 

One, 2017 WL 3581184, at *22) (alteration in original) (emphasis added). 

We agree with the Board that the “in association with” 

limitation is “broader” than the “responsive to” limitation. 

J.A. 15. As we have explained, both Konishi and Mitsuoka 

disclose the “responsive to” limitation. It follows, then, 

that Konishi and Mitsuoka disclose the “in association 

with” limitation. Specifically, Konishi’s selection of a vehicle to be reserved (i.e., the claimed “select[ion]”) occurs after and as a result of (i.e., “in association with”) the 

selection of the vehicle allocation service (i.e., the “the 

launch of the application”). Mitsuoka’s request for a taxi 

(i.e., the claimed “select[ion]”) occurs after and as a result 

of (i.e., “in association with”) the portable user terminal’s 

connection to the ASP (i.e., “the launch of the application”). 

Konishi and Mitsuoka thus teach claim 22’s “in association 

with” limitation.

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 15 Filed: 03/03/2020
16 UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. X ONE, INC.

X One did not argue before the Board that any other 

limitation of claim 22 rendered it patentable over the prior 

art. Thus, we conclude that claim 22 would have been obvious in light of Konishi and, independently, in light of 

Mitsuoka.

CONCLUSION

We reverse the Board’s determination of non-obviousness as to the ’647 patent’s independent claims (claims 1, 

22, and 28), vacate the Board’s determination of non-obviousness as to the dependent claims (claims 4, 5–11, 13, 23–

25, 27, 31–37, 39–42, and 45), and remand the case to the 

Board to separately consider the patentability of the dependent claims.

REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 19-1165 Document: 46 Page: 16 Filed: 03/03/2020