N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC , Appellant

v.

CROCS, INC., Appellee

______________________

2020

- 1167

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/002,100.

______________________
Decided: February 18, 2021

______________________
M ATT B ERKOWITZ , Shearman & Sterling LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Y UE W ANG ; P ATRICK R OBERT C OLSHER , M ARK A. H ANNEMANN , T HOMAS R. M AKIN , New York, NY; L AURA K IERAN K IECKHEFER , San Francisco, CA.

M ICHAEL B ERTA , Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by S EAN M ICHAEL C ALLAGY ; M ARK C HRISTOPHER F LEMING , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA; B ENJAMIN S. F ERNANDEZ , Denver, CO. Case: 20-1167 Document: 66 Page: 1 Filed: 02/18/2021MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS , LLC v. CROCS , INC

. 2

______________________
Before N EWMAN , D YK , and O’M ALLEY , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC 1 appeals from a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board ” ) following inter partes reexami nation of U.S. Patent No. D517,789 ( “ ’789 patent ” )

. See U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. v. Crocs, Inc.

, 2019 Pat. App. LEXIS 6418 (P.T.A.B. Sept

. 10, 2019) (“ Board Decision ”)

. Mojave argues that the Board legally erred in its analysis of the prior art . Because we discern no reversible error, we affirm

. I.

A.The ’789 patent, a design patent titled “Footwear,” issued on March 28, 2006. The patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for footwear, as shown and described” in the patent’s seven figures. ’ 789 patent, c laim 1

. Figures 3, 4, 5, and 7, which collectively show the outside, front, bottom, and rear of the shoe, provide a sufficient representation of the claimed design :

1 On February 11, 2021, we granted Mojave’s motion to substitute for U.S.A. Dawgs, Inc. (“Dawgs”). See Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC v. Crocs, Inc. , No. 2020

- 1167, 2021 WL 499576 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2021)

. Case: 20-1167 Document: 66 Page: 2 Filed: 02/18/2021MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS , LLC v. CROCS , INC

. 3

’789 patent, Figure 3 (left side view).

’789 patent, Figure 4 (front view).

’789 patent, Figure 5 (rear view). Case: 20-1167 Document: 66 Page: 3 Filed: 02/18/2021MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS , LLC v. CROCS , INC

. 4

’789 patent, Figure 7 (bottom view).

B. On August 24, 2012, Dawgs filed a request for interpartes reexamination of the ’789 patent, which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ordered on November 19, 2012. Although Dawgs proposed rejections , the examiner did not adopt them

. Instead, t he examiner issued a final rejection on August 9, 2017 , finding that the design claimed in the ’789 patent was anticipated by “ the shoe shown in the Examiner ’ s Citation U

, ” whi ch the examiner included in the examiner’s appendix , UX

. J.A. 1745. Case: 20-1167 Document: 66 Page: 4 Filed: 02/18/2021MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS , LLC v. CROCS , INC

. 5

The examiner’s appendix contains a collection of web
pages acquired by the examiner using t he Wayback Machine. 2 The examiner compiled the key images as Figure 11:

2 The Wayback Machine is a n online digital archive of web pages. It is run by the Internet Archive, a nonprofit library in San Francisco, California. Case: 20-1167 Document: 66 Page: 5 Filed: 02/18/2021MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS , LLC v. CROCS , INC

. 6

J.A. 2132 (Figure 11)

. Crocs appealed the examiner’s final rejection to the Board. On September 10, 2019, f ollowing an oral hearing, the Board issued a Final Written Decision reversing the examiner’s anti cipation finding.
Dawgs timely appealed

, and we have allowed Mojave to substitute. We have jurisdiction to hear appeals of final written decisions from the Board under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

II.
We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo an d its factual findings for substantial evidence. See In re Gartside , 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind might accept the evidence to support the finding.” Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. v. Lee , 752 F.3d 1371, 1378

– 79 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Anticipation is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence. HTC Corp. v. Cellular Commc’ns Equip., LLC , 877 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Having reviewed the Board’s decision and the record

, we discern no reversible error. We therefore affirm

. AFFIRMED

C OSTS

No costs

. Case: 20-1167 Document: 66 Page: 6 Filed: 02/18/2021