Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01911/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01911-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Natural Alternatives, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC,

Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1911

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 90/010,381, 

90/011,454, 90/011,713.

______________________ 

Decided: August 31, 2016

______________________ 

STEVEN EDWARD TILLER, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston 

L.L.P., Baltimore, MD, argued for appellant. Also represented by GREGORY MILTON STONE. 

MARY L. KELLY, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for 

appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by THOMAS W.

KRAUSE, SCOTT WEIDENFELLER, AMY J. NELSON. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and O’MALLEY, Circuit

Judges. 

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/31/2016
2 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC

Natural Alternatives, LLC (“Natural”) appeals the 

judgment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the 

Board”) holding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,080,330 

(“the ’330 patent”) invalid as obvious. For the reasons 

below, we reverse. 

BACKGROUND

The ’330 patent is directed to the problem of deicing 

road surfaces using a natural product, desugared sugar

beet molasses (“DSBM”). 

The Patent in Suit

The claims of the ’330 patent recite a composition containing as a primary ingredient DSBM used for deicing 

and preventing ice formation on surfaces. As noted in the 

’330 patent, “desugared molasses is considered a waste 

product,” and “[t]he price of desugared molasses is less 

than half of that of regular molasses. ’330 patent, col. 2, 

ll. 58-63. The inventors of the ’330 patent sought to 

repurpose this waste product as a natural alternative to 

the inorganic rock salts commonly used in deicing road 

surfaces. Claims 1 and 6 of the ’330 patent are representative, and are reproduced in full below:

1. A composition for deicing and inhibiting the 

formation of ice and snow on surfaces comprising 

from 25-99% by volume of desugared sugar beet 

molasses having 60-75% suspended solids and 

1-75% by volume of a component selected from the 

group consisting of sodium formate, calcium magnesium acetate, potassium acetate, ethylene glycol, di- ethylene glycol, magnesium chloride, 

calcium chloride, sodium chloride, potassium chloride and mixtures thereof. 

Id. at col. 9, ll. 6-14.

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/31/2016
IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC 3

6. A composition for deicing or inhibiting the formation of ice and snow on surfaces comprising

a mixture of 

desugared sugar beet molasses and 

rock salt 

including from 8-10 gallons of desugared beet molasses per ton of rock salt.

Id. at col. 9, ll. 29-33.

The ’330 patent’s written description explains that the 

claimed composition has the advantages of being more

environmentally friendly, less expensive, less corrosive, 

and more effective (achieving lower freezing temperatures) than prior art products, such as mixtures of inorganic salts. Id. at col. 3 l. 51-col. 4 l. 4. The written 

description also notes that the claimed composition does

not have the offensive odor inherent in the organic fermentation products of certain other prior art products. 

Id. Natural markets the product claimed in the ’330 

patent under the trademark GEOMELT®.

Two key features of the ’330 patent for purposes of the 

present appeal are the processes for manufacturing 

DSBM, and, relatedly, the low sugar content of DSBM. 

The ’330 patent teaches two methods of manufacture, 

namely (a) a process known as the “Steffen” process, and 

(b) an older, multi-step process similar to a centrifuging 

process. This older process involves eight steps:

The older of two most widely used processes of 

removing sugar from sugar beets involves cleaning the beets and slicing them into thin chips. The 

sliced beets are then subject to a sugar extraction 

process whereby hot water is passed over the 

beets for approximately one (1) hour. This process 

removes most, but not all, of the sugar from the

beets in the form of beet “juice.” The beets are 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/31/2016
4 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC

then pressed in screw presses to remove the remaining sugar containing juice therefrom. The 

juice is then subjected to a process called carbonation, where small clumps of chalk are provided in 

the juice to filter out any nonsugars. The chalk is 

then filtered from the juice, which has evaporated 

to form a syrup. The syrup is then boiled until 

sugar crystals form therein. Once the crystals 

form, the resulting mixture is centrifuged to separate the crystals from the remaining liquor. The

crystals become commercial grade sugar; the liquor is the desugared sugar beet molasses that 

forms the anti-freezing and deicing composition of 

the present invention. 

’330 patent, col. 5 ll. 9-27. The ’330 patent discloses that 

DSBM made using the Steffen process “exhibits slightly 

better anti-freezing and deicing properties” than DSBM 

made by the centrifugation process. The ’330 patent 

nonetheless teaches that DSBMs made from both processes “will generally serve equally well” in the claimed 

composition and “the manner of producing the [DSBM] is 

not critical to the present invention.” Id. at col. 5, ll. 37-

44.

Procedural Background

Univar, a licensee of the ’330 patent, filed three third 

party requests for reexamination of the ’330 patent. The 

examiner found a substantial new question of patentability and proceeded to merge these three reexamination 

proceedings on November 8, 2011. The examiner held the 

challenged claims invalid as obvious in view of three 

primary prior art references: Polish Patent No. PL 164018 

B1 to Zdzislaw, published Nov. 7, 1990 (“Zdzislaw”); U.S. 

Patent No. 5,639,319 to Daly (“Daly”); and a journal

article titled “Winter is Hell,” published July 1997 in 

Public Works (“Public Works”). 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/31/2016
IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC 5

On appeal to the Board, Natural argued that Zdzislaw

taught a molasses composition containing “approximately 

50% of sugar,” such that Zdzislaw’s beet molasses is not 

equivalent to the ’330 patent’s DSBM. The Board rejected 

Natural’s argument, finding that Zdzislaw disclosed a 

deicing composition having the relative amounts of DSBM 

and ethylene glycol recited in representative claim 1. The 

Board thus affirmed the examiner’s rejections of claims 1-

23 and 25-55 of the ’330 patent as obvious in view of 

Zdzislaw and Daly, or in view of Zdzislaw, Daly, and 

Public Works. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 24.

The Board also affirmed the examiner’s rejection of

representative claim 6 based on Public Works’ disclosure 

of mixing a beet molasses product with a salt-containing 

mix. The Board noted that Public Works disclosed deicing 

mixtures containing 8 gallons of a fermented beet molasses product per ton of salt containing mix (25% road salt 

and 75% crushed cinders). The Board also found that 

Public Works discloses a composition comprising “from 

13% to 100% by volume DSBM and 0% to 87% by volume 

of rock salt, which overlapped the ranges of the DSBM 

and the second component as claimed.” J.A. 649. 

Finally, the Board rejected Natural’s objective indicia 

of nonobviousness, holding that Natural failed to establish a nexus between the claimed invention and industry 

praise for GEOMELT®. The Board found that the prior 

art disclosed all the advantages of GEOMELT®’s composition, and that Natural therefore had failed to establish

that GEOMELT® has an advantage over the prior art. 

Natural moved for rehearing of the Board’s decision, 

but the Board denied Natural’s request. J.A. 36. Natural 

now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Natural argues that the Board impermissibly reconstructed the claimed invention of the ’330 patent from 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/31/2016
6 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC

multiple references, including Zdzislaw, Daly, and Public 

Works. Hindsight bias, Natural asserts, is evident in the 

Board’s reliance on selective portions of each of these 

disparate references to find all of the limitations of the 

recited claims. The PTO responds that the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and the 

Board’s conclusion of obviousness was not erroneous. 

We discuss representative claims 1 and 6 of the ’330 

patent in turn.

Standard of Review

Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying 

facts. In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 

2000). The PTAB’s legal conclusion of obviousness is 

reviewed de novo; its factual findings are reviewed for 

substantial evidence. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 

793 F.3d at 1280.

Substantial evidence “means such relevant evidence 

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support 

a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 

229 (1938); accord In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 109 (Fed. 

Cir. 2002).

Representative Claim 1

Natural contends that the Board and the examiner 

never established a prima facie case of obviousness because they improperly combined the Zdzislaw, Daly, and 

Public Works references without addressing the fundamental differences between those references and the 

challenged claims of the ’330 patent. Natural further 

argues that, even if the examiner had established a prima 

facie case of obviousness, the Board’s obviousness conclusion was infected by hindsight bias because the Board

failed to consider the extensive objective indicia of nonobviousness in the record. 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/31/2016
IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC 7

The PTO responds that the Board correctly rejected 

Natural’s arguments on appeal and that the Board’s 

factual findings regarding motivation to combine are due 

substantial deference. For the reasons below, we agree 

with Natural that the Board erred in concluding that the 

challenged claims of the ’330 patent are invalid as obvious. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Board. 

Natural contends that Zdzislaw, the main reference 

relied on by the examiner and the Board, does not teach 

DSBM, which is expressly recited in the ’330 claims as the 

primary starting ingredient for the claimed deicing composition. According to Natural, Zdzislaw instead teaches a 

beet molasses product that “contains approximately 50% 

of sugar.” J.A. 52. Zdzislaw’s molasses, Natural argues, 

is thus a far cry from the desugared beet molasses recited 

in the ’330 patent. Natural emphasizes that the ’330 

patent teaches a process that “removes most, but not all, 

of the sugar from the beets in the form of beet ‘juice.’” 

Appellant Reply Br. at 3 (quoting ’330 patent at col. 3, ll. 

51-57; col. 5, ll. 7-16). 

In patent reexamination, it is the examiner’s burden 

to demonstrate a prima facie case of obviousness. Even 

before Natural had any obligation to proffer any evidence 

supporting the validity of the ’330 patent, the examiner 

was required to set forth sufficient facts supporting the 

examiner’s position that the prior art disclosed the limitations of the ’330 patent claims in a manner that renders 

the claimed invention obvious. Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersol Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

(noting that the Patent Office “bears the initial burden of 

showing a prima facie case of obviousness”). Zdzislaw’s

teaching that the “[m]olasses contains approximately 50% 

of sugar” directly contradicts the ’330 patent’s teaching of

a process that “removes most, but not all, of the sugar 

from the beets in the form of beet ‘juice.’” Compare

J.A. 52 (Zdzislaw) with ’330 patent at col. 3, ll. 51-57; col. 

5, ll. 7-16). Since DSBM is the primary ingredient of the 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/31/2016
8 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC

claimed invention, the discrepancy between the amount of 

sugar content of the beet molasses taught in Zdzislaw and 

the ’330 patent warrants explanation. 

The Board attempted to bridge the gap by citing the 

’330 patent’s teachings that DSBM could be made through 

either of the two processes taught in the ’330 patent: the 

newer “Steffen” process, or an older multi-step process. 

The Board concluded that the centrifuging method taught 

in the Zdzislaw reference must have produced DSBM, 

because the ’330 patent taught that either of the two 

processes “serve equally well” for purposes of manufacturing DSBM. J.A. 13 (citing ’330 patent, at col. 5, ll. 42-44). 

The PTO argues that the Board’s finding that Zdzislaw 

teaches DSBM is thus supported by substantial evidence. 

The Board’s reasoning rests on the premise that 

Zdzislaw discloses a process for making DSBM that is 

equivalent to a process taught in the ’330 patent. This 

reasoning, however, ignores the express teaching in 

Zdzislaw that the beet molasses product “contains approximately 50% of sugar.” J.A. 52. Zdzislaw teaches making 

molasses in the traditional sugared form. Against this

express teaching of the prior art, it was improper for the 

Board to assume, without citing evidence, that there is no 

material difference between the beet molasses taught in

Zdzislaw, and the DSBM taught in the ’330 patent or that 

the centrifuging process in the former must be the same 

as in the latter. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 

1, 17 (1966) (requiring the consideration of “differences 

between the prior art and the claims at issue” in an 

obviousness analysis). We thus hold that substantial 

evidence does not support the Board’s finding that 

Zdzislaw discloses DSBM. 

Natural next notes that Daly, the second primary reference relied on by the Board, is in a different technological field than the claimed invention of the ’330 patent. 

According to Natural, a skilled artisan would not have 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/31/2016
IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC 9

found Daly to be reasonably pertinent to the problem of 

deicing road surfaces because Daly taught the use of

DSBM as tire ballast, which serves the unrelated purpose 

of stabilizing and balancing tires. 

The PTO responds that Daly is “reasonably pertinent” 

prior art because it is directed to the same problem of 

preventing freezing in the transportation industry, as 

recited in the ’330 patent. Daly provides a motivation to 

combine, according to the Board, because it teaches that 

DSBM is noncorrosive, environmentally friendly, and has 

a very low freezing point. 

The “analogous arts test” governs the question of 

whether a skilled artisan would have looked to an unrelated prior art reference. Under this test, “a reference is 

either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem of which the inventor was 

concerned in order to rely on [that] reference as a basis for 

rejection.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986-87 (Fed. Cir. 

2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, 

Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Daly teaches the use of 

DSBM in “a wheel having a pneumatic tire filled with 

liquid molasses as ballast.” J.A. 47. While Daly recites 

several of the same advantages of DSBM taught in the 

’330 patent, the Board ignored the fact that Daly and the 

’330 patent are directed to substantially different problems. Again, it was the burden of the examiner, not 

Natural, to set forth a prima facie case explaining why a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine references in disparate technological 

fields. To satisfy this burden, the Board must explain 

why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found 

the prior art to be “reasonably pertinent to the problem of 

which the inventor was concerned.” Kahn, 441 F.3d at 

986-87. Here, the examiner and the Board both sought to 

rely on Daly without explaining how the objective of 

balancing and stabilizing tires using tire ballast would be 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/31/2016
10 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC

reasonably pertinent to the objective of deicing and preventing ice formation on road surfaces. 

The PTO, in an attempt to salvage the Board’s decision, argues that both Daly and the ’330 patent are in the 

same general field, namely, the transportation industry. 

Our decision in In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 

informs our analysis of whether two references in the 

same general industry are reasonably pertinent. In Clay, 

we held that the prior art reference “cannot be considered 

to be within Clay’s field of endeavor merely because both 

relate to the petroleum industry.” Id. at 659. Instead, the 

prior art was not reasonably pertinent to the claimed 

invention because one taught the use of a gel in “unconfined and irregular volumes,” whereas the other taught 

the use of the gel in a static, regular container. The 

claimed invention in Clay related to storage of oil, whereas the prior art related to extraction of oil. Under such 

disparate conditions, the prior art could not be considered 

within the same field of invention. Clay is directly applicable to the present case, where Daly teaches the use of 

DSBM as ballast for the purpose of balancing tires. The 

’330 patent teaches, in contrast, DSBM as part of a mixture to deice road surfaces. By failing to address this 

difference in the objectives of the prior art and the 

claimed invention, the examiner failed to set forth a 

prima facie case for motivation to combine. The Board 

accordingly erred in adopting the examiner’s analysis. 

We must therefore reverse the Board’s judgment that the 

challenged claims are invalid as obvious.

Upon showing that the Board failed to establish a 

prima facie case of obviousness, Natural had no obligation 

to present any affirmative arguments or evidence of 

nonobviousness. Natural nonetheless argued in the 

alternative that even if the Board had established a 

prima facie case of obviousness, the Board erred in failing

to consider the extensive objective indicia of nonobviousness regarding the ’330 patent. In response, the PTO 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 10 Filed: 08/31/2016
IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC 11

argues that the Board properly discounted Natural’s 

proffered evidence of objective indicia because Natural 

failed to demonstrate a nexus between such objective 

indicia and the innovative features of the ’330 patent.

Objective indicia of nonobviousness serve precisely to 

“guard against slipping into use of hindsight.” Graham, 

383 U.S. at 36. Because such objective indicia help anchor abstract analyses of obviousness to actual evidence of 

the claimed invention’s benefits over the prior art, this 

evidence “must always when present be considered en 

route to a determination of obviousness.” Stratoflex, Inc. 

v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

Objective indicia of nonobviousness is particularly useful 

where, as here, the examiner alleges that an ordinarily 

skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine

prior art references across disparate fields. In this case, 

our observation that the Board failed to establish a prima 

facie case of obviousness is further supported by Natural’s 

objective evidence of nonobviousness, including industry 

praise, commercial success, and licensing. J.A. 946-57, 

1115-68. A review of the objective indicia confirms that 

the Board’s obviousness conclusion is contradicted by 

unrebutted, real world evidence of nonobviousness. 

Natural’s evidence included several letters from various 

municipalities approving the purchase of GEOMELT® 

and extolling the advantages of GEOMELT® over traditional rock salt. See J.A. 946-57. The evidence further 

encompasses no less than fourteen declarations from 

customers of GEOMELT®, and the declarations of two 

licensees of GEOMELT®. See J.A. 1115-68. These declarations attest to the many benefits of DSBM in lowering 

the freezing point of the deicing mixture, reducing corrosiveness, protecting the environment, and reducing overall cost of deicing road surfaces. See id.

The PTO’s singular response to Natural’s evidence of 

objective indicia is that Natural failed to demonstrate a 

nexus between the asserted objective indicia and the 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 11 Filed: 08/31/2016
12 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC

specific advantages of the claimed invention over the prior 

art. Appellee Br. at 36-37 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 

1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The PTO correctly notes that 

“[i]f commercial success is due to an element in the prior 

art, no nexus exists.” Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, 

Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, the PTO

does not dispute that GEOMELT® is an embodiment of 

the claimed invention. Appellee Br. at 36-37. The PTO’s 

arguments on the lack of a nexus thus rise and fall with 

its arguments that the claimed invention has no advantages over the prior art. As discussed above, however, 

the prior art merely taught the use of molasses in general, 

not DSBM in particular, to deice road surfaces. The PTO 

does not address the fact that DSBM was previously 

considered a waste product, but can now be used in a 

deicing mixture with great efficacy, low environmental 

impact, and high cost effectiveness. Thus, we reject the 

Board’s conclusions regarding lack of nexus, and we 

conclude that the unrebutted objective indicia in the 

record confirm that the claimed invention would not have 

been obvious. 

Representative Claim 6

We next address the Board’s conclusion that representative claim 6 of the ’330 patent would have been 

obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the 

invention. The primary difference between claim 6 and 

claim 1 of the ’330 patent is that claim 6 recites a deicing 

composition comprising DSBM and rock salt, “including 

from 8-10 gallons of [DSBM] per ton of rock salt.” To find 

this limitation disclosed, the Board relied on a combination of Zdzislaw, Daly, and Public Works. As we have 

already discussed Zdzislaw and Daly above, we focus here 

on the Public Works reference.

Public Works teaches the use of ICE BAN, a “fermentation and distillation” product. J.A. 56. The ’330 patent, 

in contrast, expressly teaches the manufacture of DSBM 

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 12 Filed: 08/31/2016
IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC 13

as a byproduct from the production of commercial grade 

sugar. J.A. 4. The ’330 patent specifically disparages 

Public Works and teaches that Public Works’ disclosed 

that fermentation products have various disadvantages 

compared to DSBM. Specifically, the ’330 patent notes 

that fermentation products “are often biologically reactive,” yielding “strong odors and foam.” J.A. 35. Where 

“used on roadways in residential neighborhoods, this 

unpleasant and unsightly mess may be tracked into 

garages and homes making these compositions totally 

unacceptable for use.” Id. The Board failed to address 

these differences between the fermentation product of 

Public Works and the DSBM taught in the ’330 patent. 

The Board also concluded without evidence that a 

person of ordinary skill in the art would have “optimized” 

the amounts of DSBM and road salt to achieve the 

claimed invention. The Board asserted that such optimization would have been obvious from the teaching in 

Zdzislaw that the freezing temperature, viscosity, and 

effectiveness of the molasses composition can be modified 

by adjusting the relative amounts of the constituent 

components in the mixture. The Board, however, never 

made any findings regarding the level of skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field. And as noted above, 

Zdzislaw taught the use of sugared beet molasses, not 

DSBM. This difference is critical since DSBM is the 

primary ingredient in the claimed invention of the ’330 

patent. The Board could not simply assume, without 

explanation, that Zdzislaw was directed to the same

composition. Thus, the Board erred in concluding that an 

ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Public 

Works in view of Zdzislaw and Daly to achieve the 

claimed invention of the ’330 patent. We therefore reverse the Board’s judgment of obviousness regarding 

representative claim 6.

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 13 Filed: 08/31/2016
14 IN RE: NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC

CONCLUSION

As discussed above, the Board erred in finding the 

challenged claims of the ’330 patent invalid as obvious. 

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Board.

REVERSED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 15-1911 Document: 37-2 Page: 14 Filed: 08/31/2016