NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG 

RESEARCH AMERICA, INC.,

Appellants

v.

DYNAMICS INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2352

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020-

00499.

______________________ 

Decided: August 2, 2022

______________________ 

JOHN C. O'QUINN, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by 

CHRISTOPHER MIZZO; GREG AROVAS, JAMES E. MARINA, New 

York, NY. 

 ROBERT WILLIAM MORRIS, Eckert Seamans Cherin & 

Mellott, LLC, White Plains, NY, argued for appellee. Also 

represented by BRIDGET MONTGOMERY, Harrisburg, PA. 

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 1 Filed: 08/02/2022
2 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 

 ______________________ 

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and STARK, Circuit 

Judges.

MOORE, Chief Judge.

Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc. 

(collectively, Samsung) appeal a Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board final written decision determining that Samsung 

failed to show claims 1 or 5–8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,127,153 

would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’153 patent is owned by Dynamics Inc. and is directed to “magnetic stripe emulators” for “generat[ing] electromagnetic fields that directly communicate data to a 

read-head of a magnetic stripe reader,” such as a reader of 

conventional magnetic stripe cards (e.g., a credit card). 

’153 patent at 1:28–30. To generate these fields, the emulator may comprise a waveform generator for fluctuating

the amount of current traveling through an inductor “such 

that one or more tracks of magnetic stripe data encoded 

with [an] analog waveform may be communicated to a 

read-head of a magnetic stripe reader.” Id. at 2:20–22. 

Digital representations of the analog waveform encoding 

the tracks of data may be stored within the memory of an 

emulator card and retrieved at the user’s direction. Id. at 

2:23–65.

Claim 1 of the ’153 patent, the only independent claim 

on appeal, recites:

1. A device comprising:

a magnetic stripe emulator operable to 

communicate an analog waveform encoded 

with at least one track of magnetic stripe 

data to a magnetic stripe reader; and

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 2 Filed: 08/02/2022
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 3

a waveform generator operable to generate 

said analog waveform from a digital representation of said at least one track of magnetic stripe data; 

wherein said device is operable to retrieve 

said digital representation from a plurality 

of digital representations of said at least 

one track of magnetic stripe data. 

’153 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added). 

Samsung petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1 

and 5–8 of the ’153 patent on two grounds. See Samsung 

Elecs. Co. v. Dynamics Inc., No. IPR2020-00499, 2021 WL 

3519336, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2021) (FWD). In one, it 

argued the claims would have been obvious over U.S. Patent No. 4,868,376 (Lessin) and U.S. Patent No. 7,690,580 

(Shoemaker). Id. In the other, it argued the claims would 

have been obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,206,293 (Gutman) in view of Shoemaker. Id. at *3. Dynamics disputed 

whether the prior art taught claim 1’s wherein limitation 

and whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated 

to combine the prior art in the manner claimed. See id. at 

*9–14, *17–19. 

With respect to the Lessin and Shoemaker ground, the 

Board found a motivation to look to Shoemaker to improve 

Lessin, but that the combination Samsung asserted does 

not satisfy the wherein limitation. Id. at *17–19. With respect to Gutman and Shoemaker, the Board found both 

that the references do not teach the wherein limitation and 

that Samsung failed to establish a motivation to combine. 

Id. at *9–14. 

Samsung appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 3 Filed: 08/02/2022
4 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 

DISCUSSION

We review the Board’s legal determination of obviousness de novo and any underlying findings of fact for substantial evidence. Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 

F.3d 1364, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). What prior art references 

disclose and whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references are questions of fact. In 

re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

I 

Samsung first argues that the Board failed to comply 

with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in its analysis of Lessin and Shoemaker because it allegedly did not 

address one of Samsung’s arguments regarding the teachings of Shoemaker. We do not agree. 

Before the Board, Samsung argued that the combination of Lessin and Shoemaker disclosed claim 1’s wherein 

limitation. Specifically, it relied on Lessin’s interactive 

personal data system as disclosing a device operable to retrieve information from memory and Shoemaker as disclosing a plurality of digital representations of one or more 

tracks of magnetic stripe data. J.A. 125–28. Samsung alleged that Shoemaker disclosed the plurality of representations in two ways: (1) by teaching multiple profiles, e.g., 

personal and business profiles, associated with the same 

credit card information (profile representations), and (2) by 

teaching the communication of forward- and reverse-oriented track data depending on the direction its card is 

swiped (directional representations). J.A. 116–17, 135. On 

appeal, Samsung asserts that the Board “did not address” 

Samsung’s argument that Shoemaker’s directional representations disclose the claimed plurality of digital representations, “much less find that the representations do 

not.” Appellant’s Br. 29.

Contrary to Samsung’s assertions, the Board did not 

disregard Samsung’s directional representations-based 

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 4 Filed: 08/02/2022
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 5

argument. Not only did the Board acknowledge the argument, FWD, at *17, it expressly found that “[d]espite [Samsung’s] . . . argument that Shoemaker discloses a card 

emulating the same track data regardless of directionality, 

we find the record does not support [its] contention.” Id. at 

*18 (emphasis added). Samsung’s assertion that the Board 

did not address whether Shoemaker’s directional representations disclose the claimed plurality of digital representations is simply incorrect. 

During oral argument, Samsung pivoted and argued

that the Board’s decision was deficient not because it failed 

to address Shoemaker’s directional representations, but 

because its analysis of those representations was inadequate. See Oral Arg. at 6:28–7:181. Samsung failed to adequately raise this argument in its opening brief and 

therefore forfeited it. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex 

Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our law is 

well established that arguments not raised in the opening 

brief are waived.” (citation omitted)). While Samsung’s 

opening brief alludes in passing to an alleged lack of clarity 

in the Board’s analysis, those statements cannot fairly be 

read in context to have raised any argument in the alternative. See Appellant’s Br 30–31. Rather, Samsung’s criticism of the Board’s analysis—namely, that it “conflated” 

Samsung’s directional- and profile-based representation 

arguments—was made in support of its contention that the 

Board failed to address Shoemaker’s directional representations. Id. 

Regardless, we do not think the Board’s analysis is so 

lacking that we cannot “reasonably discern that it followed 

a proper path, even if that path is less than perfectly clear.” 

Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board acknowledged and 

1 Available at https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourt

s.gov/default.aspx?fl=21-2352_06062022.mp3

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 5 Filed: 08/02/2022
6 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 

accurately articulated Samsung’s contention that Shoemaker discloses a plurality of digital representations of at 

least one track of magnetic stripe data through its directional representations. FWD, at *17. It then expressly rejected that argument, finding, based on substantial 

evidence (including a concession by Samsung’s counsel), 

that Shoemaker does not teach having dual representations of the same track data available for retrieval, as 

claimed, but creates a particular representation on the fly 

when a card is swiped, depending on the direction of the 

swipe. Id. at *18. The Board explained that Shoemaker 

does not “read on the challenged claim limitation because 

Shoemaker discloses that when its card determines swipe 

direction it then represents or encodes the data on the dynamically reconfigurable data interface so that the data 

stream is always provided in the experienced order irrespective of the swipe direction.” Id. (internal quotations 

omitted; emphases added). With a premise of Samsung’s 

asserted combination of Lessin and Shoemaker rejected, 

the Board held that Samsung did not demonstrate that a 

skilled artisan would have made a combination of the two 

references that had a memory containing dual representations of the same track data for retrieval as required by the 

claim. The Board’s analysis charts a discernable path.

Samsung would have us throw out the Board’s decision 

because its analysis allegedly conflates Samsung’s directional- and profile-based representation arguments. While 

the Board’s explanation may not be a model of clarity, “we 

do not require perfect explanations.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 

842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Board introduced its analysis by reference to Shoemaker’s profiles, but

the substance of that analysis unambiguously deals with 

directional representations. Moreover, this analysis is essentially identical to the explanation the Board gave when 

rejecting Shoemaker’s directional representations in the 

context of the Gutman and Shoemaker combination, alleviating any uncertainty as to which argument the Board 

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 6 Filed: 08/02/2022
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 7

intended to address. Compare FWD, at *12, with id. at *18. 

Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the 

Board’s decision is so deficient as to violate the APA. See 

In re Huston, 308 F.3d 1267, 1280–81 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

(holding Board’s reasoning sufficient where its conclusions 

were “cryptic,” but its path could nonetheless be reasonably 

discerned). We therefore affirm the Board’s decision with 

respect to Lessin and Shoemaker. 

II

Samsung next challenges the Board’s decision concerning Gutman in view of Shoemaker. Because substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan 

would not have been motivated to combine those references, we affirm.

Before the Board, Samsung argued that the combination of Gutman and Shoemaker teach claim 1’s wherein 

limitation.2 As above, it relied on Gutman as disclosing a 

device operable to retrieve data from memory and Shoemaker as disclosing a plurality of digital representations, 

including through its directional representations. And it 

contended that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Gutman to incorporate the directional representations of Shoemaker into Gutman’s memory. J.A. 

103–06. Samsung explained that implementing Shoemaker’s directional representations in Gutman’s memory 

would “improve the compatibility of Gutman’s card with 

the then-existing magnetic stripe card infrastructure by, 

for example, allowing it emulate multiple representations 

of the same data traditionally found on a conventional 

magnetic stripe card.” J.A. 103–04. The Board rejected 

this argument, reasoning that Samsung failed to “explain 

2 Samsung does not challenge the Board’s determination that Gutman alone does not disclose the wherein 

limitation.

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 7 Filed: 08/02/2022
8 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 

why altering either of Gutman or Shoemaker would improve the functionality over what is expressly disclosed in 

each reference” or how the proposed combination “would be 

more commercially convenient for card users over what is 

disclosed originally in each reference.” FWD, at *13. 

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding. 

Gutman discloses a magnetically communicative card designed to emulate conventional magnetic stripe cards using 

electronically varying magnetic fields. J.A. 1726 at Abstract. Gutman further discloses that “movement of the 

card . . . is not required,” that “no ‘swiping’ movement is 

necessary,” and that “communication of data by the card 

. . . is independent of movement of the card or placement of 

the card within the magnetic card reader.” J.A. 1742–43 at 

16:60–63, 17:4–13. Dynamics’ expert likewise testified 

that swiping, and thus swipe direction, was irrelevant to 

the functioning of Gutman’s card. J.A. 3339–41 (¶¶ 66–

71). He further testified that a skilled artisan would not 

have been motivated to incorporate Shoemaker’s directional representations into Gutman because doing so would 

introduce a dependency on swipe direction that did not previously exist. J.A. 3342 (¶ 72). This is substantial evidence 

that incorporation of Shoemaker’s representations based 

on swipe direction would not improve the functionality of 

Gutman’s card, negating Samsung’s proposed motivation 

to combine the references. FWD, at *13–14.

Samsung argues the evidence requires the opposite result. See Appellants Br. 52–53. It points to Gutman’s disclosure that, although not required, its card “may still be 

‘swiped’ through a magnetic card reader.” J.A. 1742 at 

16:64–67. And it cites its own expert’s testimony that 

Shoemaker would provide additional functionality to Gutman’s card by allowing it to operate with card readers regardless of the orientation it is swiped, a function it 

contends Gutman alone lacks. J.A. 720–23 (¶¶ 72–74). 

Samsung’s objection is merely a disagreement with the 

Board’s weighing of the evidence and the conclusions it 

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 8 Filed: 08/02/2022
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 9

drew therefrom. But “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an 

administrative agency’s finding from being supported by 

substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n, 383 

U.S. 607, 620 (1966). Samsung does not overcome the substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding, so we 

must uphold it.

Samsung also argues the Board committed various legal errors in assessing motivation to combine. In particular, it contends that (1) the Board erred by requiring 

Gutman or Shoemaker to provide an express motivation to 

combine, and (2) the Board erred by reversing Samsung’s 

proposed obviousness combination, treating Shoemaker as 

the primary reference to be modified in view of Gutman. 

Appellant’s Br. 41–48.3 We do not agree.

The Board did not require the prior art references 

themselves to explicitly provide a motivation to combine. 

Instead, it considered the motivations that Samsung proposed, including to “improve the functionality of Gutman’s 

card to make it more commercially convenient” by utilizing 

directional representations, and simply found them unpersuasive. See FWD, at *12. The Board reasoned that Samsung failed to establish that modifying Gutman to include

forward- and reverse-swipe representations would in fact 

lead to improved functionality or commercial convenience 

given that Gutman’s card does not need to be swiped at all. 

Id. at *13 (“Nor does the Petitioner or the declarant explain 

[] how the combination of teachings would be more 

3 Samsung raises additional arguments concerning 

the Board’s treatment of Gutman and Shoemaker individually. We need not reach these arguments because we conclude the Board did not err in assessing whether a skilled 

artisan would have combined Gutman and Shoemaker in 

the manner proposed, and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s factual finding.

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 9 Filed: 08/02/2022
10 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 

commercially convenient for card users over what is disclosed originally in each reference.”). We detect no legal 

error in this analysis.

Samsung relies on the Board’s statement that “Petitioner admits [] that Gutman does not recognize the problem of presenting a track in a swipe-appropriate manner in 

order to be compatible with most card readers.” Id. at *11. 

That single sentence, found not in the section devoted to 

the Board’s motivation-to-combine analysis, but in the section mapping the references’ teachings to the claim language, does not demonstrate error. In its motivation-tocombine analysis, the Board did not require Gutman to expressly recognize any problem. It considered—and rejected—the motivation that Samsung proposed. 

Accordingly, we conclude the Board did not err in this aspect of its analysis.

Samsung’s argument that the Board erred by inverting 

its obviousness combination is similarly unpersuasive. Appellant’s Br. 46. Samsung again grounds its objection in a 

single sentence of the Board’s analysis: “Petitioner fails to 

identify why someone reading Shoemaker would cho[o]se 

to apply its teachings to Gutman in order to solve a problem 

already addressed in Shoemaker itself.” FWD, at *13. In 

doing so, Samsung ignores the remainder of the Board’s decision, which unequivocally shows that it considered and 

rejected Samsung’s argument for modifying Gutman in 

view of Shoemaker. The Board went on to explain that 

Samsung failed to “explain why altering either of Gutman 

or Shoemaker would improve the functionality over what 

is disclosed in each reference.” Id. (emphasis added). And

the Board found that Samsung’s proposed modification of 

Gutman amounted to the combination of “disparate parts 

of the prior art” without a sufficient explanation as to why 

a skilled artisan “would have chosen the specific features 

relied upon by [Samsung] to read on the claim.” Id. That 

reasoning was not legal error.

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 10 Filed: 08/02/2022
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. v. DYNAMICS INC. 11

Having found that substantial evidence supports the 

Board’s findings and that there was no legal error in the

Board’s motivation to combine analysis, we affirm the 

Board’s holding that Samsung failed to establish that 

claims 1 or 5–8 would have been obvious over Gutman in 

view of Shoemaker. 

CONCLUSION

Because we conclude that the Board complied with the 

APA in assessing the Lessin and Shoemaker combination, 

that substantial evidence supports its finding that Samsung failed to establish a motivation to combine Gutman 

and Shoemaker, and that it applied the correct legal framework in assessing the motivation to combine those references, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Dynamics.

Case: 21-2352 Document: 34 Page: 11 Filed: 08/02/2022