United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WEBER, INC.,

Appellant

v.

PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2022-1751, 2022-1813

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-

01556, IPR2020-01557.

______________________ 

Decided: February 8, 2024

______________________ 

RICHARD CRUDO, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox 

PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by TREVOR O'NEILL, RALPH WILSON POWERS, III. 

 MICHAEL BABBITT, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by CRAIG C.

MARTIN, REN-HOW HARN, SARA TONNIES HORTON. 

______________________ 

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 1 Filed: 02/08/2024
2 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Weber appeals two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board determined that

Weber failed to establish the unpatentability of the claims 

of Provisur’s patents. The Board first found that Weber’s 

operating manuals were not prior art printed publications. 

The Board also determined that the prior art did not disclose two challenged claim terms, one of which was included in the Board’s claim construction of the challenged 

claims. We reverse the Board’s printed publication determinations, vacate the Board’s conclusions regarding Weber’s failure to establish unpatentability of the challenged 

claims, and remand for further proceedings. 

BACKGROUND

A. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,812 and 10,625,436

Provisur is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,812

(“’812 patent”) and 10,625,436 (“’436 patent”). The ’812 and 

’436 patents relate to high-speed mechanical slicers used 

in food-processing plants to slice and package food articles, 

such as meats and cheeses. ’812 patent at Abstract.1 Although the slicers have numerous components, three 

claimed components are relevant here: (1) the “food article 

loading apparatus”; (2) the “food article feed apparatus”; 

and (3) the “food article stop gate.” Id. at 11:16–38.2

1 We primarily cite to the ’812 patent, which shares 

a common specification with the ’436 patent. The parties 

agree that claim 1 of the ’812 patent is representative of 

the challenged claims in this appeal. Appellant Br. 12; Appellee Br. 2. 

2 We will subsequently refer to the “food article loading apparatus” as the “loading apparatus,” the “food article 

feed apparatus” as the “feed apparatus,” and the “food article stop gate” as the “stop gate.” 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 2 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3

Figures 1B and 1 below3 display the loading apparatus 

(108, labeled in Figure 1) (colored in blue) and the feed apparatus (120, labeled in Figure 1) (colored in orange). The 

loading apparatus (108) includes a lift tray (220) on which 

food articles are loaded while the lift tray is in a horizontal 

staging position. Id. at 2:52–54; 9:28–34. When the food is 

ready to be sliced, the lift tray pivots to an elevated position, as shown in Figure 1. From that position, the food 

articles enter the slicer’s overhead feed apparatus (120). 

Id. at 4:33–43; 9:60–10:4.

Id. at Fig. 1B; Appellant Br. 8.

3 All figure and image annotations have been provided by the parties unless otherwise noted. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 3 Filed: 02/08/2024
4 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Id. at Fig. 1; Appellant Br. 8.

As shown in Figures 1 and 1B above, and Figure 2 below, the feed apparatus (120) contains “grippers” (894, labeled in the patent) (colored in green). The grippers grasp 

the food articles from behind while they are still supported 

by the lift tray and drive them downward along the feed 

path (shown in red dashed arrow) until they reach the slicing station (124) (shown in yellow in Figure 1). ’812 patent

at 2:55–60; 9:13–24. There, the food articles are sliced by 

the slicing blade (125) (shown in yellow in Figure 1B). Id. 

at 4:43–46. 

Figure 2 shows a top-down view of the slicer where 

each gripper is independently driven by a conveyor belt 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 4 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 5

(802, 804, 806) coupled to its own servomotors (850). Id. at 

9:15–24; 10:44–46. 

Id. at Fig. 2; Appellant Br. 10. Figure 2 shows that the feed 

apparatus (colored in orange) is positioned above the loading apparatus’s lift tray (shown in blue dashed lines), such 

that the grippers (colored in green), feed path (red dashed 

arrow), and lift tray are generally aligned when viewed 

from a top-down position. 

In addition to the loading apparatus and feed apparatus components, the stop gate, the third claimed component relevant on appeal, serves several purposes. ’812 

patent at 3:7–8. As shown below in Figure 13A, when a 

food article is loaded, it travels along the path of the red 

dashed arrow toward the slicing blade (125) until it reaches 

the stop gate (2020). The stop gate (shown in light blue) 

can, in this elevated position, act as a gate to temporarily 

block a loaded food article from prematurely sliding into 

the slicing station. Id. at 10:8–13. When the stop gate is 

lowered, as shown in Figure 13B, the stop gate acts as a 

floor to support the loaded food article as it slides toward 

the slicing blade (125). Id. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 5 Filed: 02/08/2024
6 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

Figs. 13A & 13B; Appellant Br. 11–12. 

Representative claim 1 of the ’812 patent recites a food 

slicer containing two limitations at issue here: (1) the “disposed over” limitation and the (2) “stop gate” limitation. 

The “disposed over” limitation requires “a food article feed 

apparatus disposed over [the] food article loading apparatus.” ’812 patent at 11:17–18. The “stop gate” limitation 

requires that the stop gate support food articles “when the 

lift tray assembly is moved from its elevated position” to 

load new food articles. Id. at 11:33–36. 

B. The Prior Art

Weber asserted prior art references in both inter partes 

review (“IPR”) proceedings that generally relate to food 

slicers. Weber presented its obviousness theories based on

its commercial food slicer operating manuals in combination with U.S. Patent No. 5,628,237 (“Lindee”) and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0145272 (“Sandberg”). J.A. 8; 

J.A. 84–85. Weber’s operating manuals were created and 

disseminated to accompany and explain how to use Weber’s 

commercial food slicer products. J.A. 1311–481; J.A. 1698–

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 6 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 7

99.4 The operating manuals disclose that Weber’s food 

slicer contains a “product conveyer” that is first in a horizontal position to receive food articles. J.A. 1325. After 

receiving food articles, the product conveyer is then elevated to a position where the food articles will be driven 

along a feed path toward a slicing blade. J.A. 1350. The 

operating manuals also disclose that a “product bed conveyor supports the transport of the product” and “prevents 

the products from sliding into the outlet in an uncontrolled 

manner.” J.A. 1331. 

C. Procedural History

Provisur sued Weber in federal court alleging infringement of the ’812 and ’436 patent claims. Weber then filed 

two IPR petitions alleging the unpatentability of claims 1–

11 of the ’812 patent and claims 1–16 of the ’436 patent. 

J.A. 277–345. The Board instituted the IPRs based on obviousness theories involving Weber’s operating manuals in 

combination with the Lindee and Sandberg references. 

J.A. 419–43. Relying on In re Enhanced Security Research, 

LLC, 739 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Board initially 

found in its institution decisions that Weber provided evidence to “support the public availability” of the operating 

manuals. J.A. 434–42. In its final written decisions, the 

Board changed course. The Board concluded that the operating manuals do not qualify as printed publications. The 

Board first found that the operating manuals were distributed to just “ten unique customers.” J.A. 29; J.A. 106. The 

Board further found that the operating manuals were subject to confidentiality restrictions based on the Board’s interpretation of the operating manuals’ copyright notice and

the intellectual property rights clause in Weber’s terms

4 Since the operating manuals are substantively 

identical in relevant portions, even though they are dated

years apart, we cite to the 2006 operating manual as representative. Appellant Br. 14. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 7 Filed: 02/08/2024
8 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

and conditions underlying the sales of each slicer product. 

J.A. 28–31; J.A. 105–08. 

On the merits, the Board determined that, even if Weber’s manuals qualify as printed publications, Weber’s asserted prior art combinations do not disclose the “disposed 

over” and “stop gate” limitations from claim 1 in each challenged patent. J.A. 70; J.A. 139. For the “disposed over”

limitation, the Board’s conclusion rested on its claim construction of the term “disposed over” to require that the 

“feed apparatus and its conveyor belts and grippers are ‘positioned above and in vertical and lateral alignment with’ 

the food article loading apparatus and its lift tray assembly.” J.A. 18; J.A. 95. The Board explained that vertical 

alignment means that the feed apparatus is “directly above 

the loading apparatus.” J.A. 13; J.A. 90. And in the 

Board’s view, laterally aligned means that “there is no offset between the sides of feed apparatus and the loading apparatus” when viewed from above. J.A. 13; J.A. 90. 

For the “stop gate” limitation, the Board rejected Weber’s expert’s reliance on Figures 10 and 227 of the operating manuals. The Board faulted these figures for not 

physically depicting a food article in the slicer or the food 

lift tray and criticized this as insufficient to show that the 

product bed conveyor of the operating manuals supported 

the food article when the product conveyor moves from its 

elevated position. J.A. 68–69; J.A. 142. 

Thus, the Board determined that Weber’s asserted 

prior art failed to disclose the “disposed over” and “stop 

gate” limitations from claim 1 in each challenged patent. 

As a result, the Board concluded that Weber failed to carry 

its burden of proving unpatentability for the dependent 

claims. J.A. 73–74; J.A. 146–47. 

Weber appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(4)(A).

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 8 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 9

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo the Board’s legal conclusion on 

whether a reference is a printed publication under 35 

U.S.C. § 102(b) and its underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 

8 F.4th 1364, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

Claim construction is a question of law with underlying 

questions of fact. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., 

Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We review de 

novo the Board’s ultimate claim construction and its supporting determinations that are based on intrinsic evidence. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 

952 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020). 

We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determinations on a de novo basis and any underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence. Rembrandt 

Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 76 F.4th 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 

2023). The scope and content of the prior art is a question 

of fact. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 

1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Substantial evidence means 

“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept 

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

Weber appeals the Board’s conclusions that it failed to 

establish unpatentability of the challenged claims. Weber 

first argues that the Board erred in its determinations that 

Weber’s operating manuals were not “printed publication[s]” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Weber next argues that the Board erred in its claim construction of the 

“disposed over” claim term. Finally, Weber challenges the 

Board’s determinations that the operating manuals do not 

disclose the “stop gate” limitation. We address each issue 

in turn. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 9 Filed: 02/08/2024
10 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

A. Printed Publications 

The statutory phrase “printed publication” from § 102

has been defined to mean a reference that was “sufficiently 

accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The touchstone of whether a reference constitutes a 

printed publication is public accessibility. Jazz Pharms., 

Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018). The standard for public accessibility is whether

interested members of the relevant public could locate the 

reference by reasonable diligence. Valve, 8 F.4th at 1376. 

Weber contends that the Board erred in determining 

that Weber’s operating manuals were not sufficiently publicly accessible to constitute printed publications. According to Weber, the Board misapplied our public-accessibility 

precedent, including Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific 

Corp., 561 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and misinterpreted 

the record evidence. We first address the Board’s reliance 

on Cordis and then the evidence of record. 

The Board improperly reviewed this case in the context 

of the Cordis framework. In Cordis, the references were 

two academic monographs describing an inventor’s work 

on intravascular stents that were only distributed to a 

handful of university and hospital colleagues as well as two 

companies interested in commercializing the technology. 

561 F.3d at 1333–34. We observed that the record contained “clear evidence that such academic norms gave rise 

to an expectation that disclosures will remain confidential.” Id. at 1334. There was also no showing “that these 

or similar commercial entities typically would make the existence of such documents known and would honor requests for public access.” Id. at 1335. 

Cordis is readily distinguishable from this case. Weber’s operating manuals were created for dissemination to 

the interested public to provide instructions about how to 

assemble, use, clean, and maintain Weber’s slicer, as well 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 10 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 11

as guidance for addressing malfunctions that users might 

encounter. J.A. 1313–19 (table of contents); J.A. 1312 (customer service information). These operating manuals 

stand in stark contrast to Cordis and the confidential nature of the monographs and circumstances surrounding 

disclosure, including academic confidentiality norms. 

Where, as here, “a publication’s purpose is ‘dialogue with 

the intended audience,’ that purpose indicates public accessibility.” Valve, 8 F.4th at 1374 (citation omitted). 

The record evidence shows that Weber’s operating 

manuals were accessible to interested members of the relevant public5 by reasonable diligence. For instance, Weber 

employees testified that the operating manuals could be obtained either upon purchase6 of the Weber food slicer or 

upon request directed to a Weber employee. See, e.g., J.A. 

2222–34 (Weber employee declaration); J.A. 3288–97 (Weber employee declaration). Weber’s declarants provided 

5 The parties dispute the exact number of customers

who received the operating manuals (whether it was ten 

entities or over forty entities), but we need not resolve that 

dispute here to review public accessibility. Appellant Br. 

31; Appellee Br. 6. No minimum number of occasions of 

access is dispositive of the public accessibility inquiry in all 

cases.

6 At oral argument, Provisur’s counsel argued that 

the high cost of Weber’s commercial slicers prevented the 

operating manuals from being considered sufficiently accessible by reasonable diligence. Oral Arg. 18:14–19:25. 

Cost alone cannot be dispositive because the printed-publication inquiry is focused on the interested public, not the 

general public. See GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, 

908 F.3d 690, 695 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the interested 

public includes commercial entities that can afford highcost slicers. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 11 Filed: 02/08/2024
12 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

actual examples of deliveries of the operating manuals to 

customers. E.g., J.A. 2222–34. 

Weber’s employees’ declarations are corroborated and 

supported by testimony, delivery notes, invoices, price lists, 

declarations, and email exchanges between Weber employees and customers. See, e.g., J.A. 4200–427 (Weber invoices 

and delivery notes); J.A. 7664–68 (customer declaration); 

J.A. 12754–68 (email correspondence regarding manual 

dissemination). A Weber employee also testified that the 

operating manuals were publicly accessible at certain trade 

shows or at Weber’s factory showrooms. J.A. 9580–612 

(Weber employee declaration). Provisur’s Vice-President 

conceded that Weber sold about forty slicers during the relevant time period, and it was Weber’s “general practice” to 

provide operating manuals with the purchase of each 

slicer. J.A. 12579–80 (40:7–41:20). 

The foregoing establishes that the Board’s printed publication determinations are unsupported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., In re Enhanced Security Research, 739 

F.3d at 1354–57 (affirming the Board’s determination that 

an operating manual distributed with a software product

was publicly accessible because of testimony and advertisements); GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, 908 F.3d 

690, 694–96 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (involving a trade show). 

The Board’s contrary conclusions on public accessibility were based in part on the Board’s inordinate emphasis

on alleged confidentiality restrictions associated with the 

operating manuals. The Board first reviewed the operating 

manuals’ copyright notice, which state that the operating 

manuals may not “be reproduced or transferred in any 

way.” J.A. 1312. The Board determined that this notice 

“require[s] confidentiality.” J.A. 29–30; J.A. 106–07. The 

Board also found another confidentiality restriction based 

on the intellectual property rights clause from Weber’s 

terms and conditions, which covers sales of each slicer 

product, and states “[c]ost estimates, drafts, drawings and 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 12 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 13

other documents remain the property of [Weber].” J.A. 30 

(quoting J.A. 12889); J.A. 107–08. 

We disagree with the Board’s decisions that the operating manuals were not printed publications because they 

were subject to confidentiality restrictions. The copyright 

notice itself allows the original owners and their personnel

to copy the operating manual for their own internal use. 

J.A. 1312. Weber expressly instructed customers who were 

re-selling their slicers to transfer their operating manuals 

to purchasing third parties. J.A. 12487. Weber’s assertion 

of copyright ownership does not negate its own ability to 

make the reference publicly accessible. Cf. Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d 1326, 1328–30 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“A mere assertion of ownership can not convert what was in fact a 

public disclosure and offer to sell to numerous potential 

customers into a non-disclosure.”). The intellectual property rights clause from Weber’s terms and conditions covering sales, likewise, has no dispositive bearing on Weber’s

public dissemination of operating manuals to owners after

a sale has been consummated. 

We hold that the Board’s determinations that Weber’s 

operating manuals were not publicly accessible are unsupported by substantial evidence. We thus reverse the 

Board’s finding that Weber’s operating manuals do not 

qualify as printed publications.

B. The “Disposed Over” Limitation

A claim term is given its ordinary and customary 

meaning—the meaning that a term would have to a skilled 

artisan at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing a claim term, we first look to the intrinsic evidence, 

including the claims themselves, the specification, and the 

prosecution history of the patent. Personalized Media, 952 

F.3d at 1340. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 13 Filed: 02/08/2024
14 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

The Board construed the term “disposed over” to require that the “feed apparatus and its conveyor belts and 

grippers are ‘positioned above and in vertical and lateral 

alignment with’ the food article loading apparatus and its 

lift tray assembly.” J.A. 18; J.A. 95. Weber argues that 

this construction is incorrect because the Board narrowly 

construed the “disposed over” term by importing limitations from the specification when the claim term only requires that the feed apparatus “is generally positioned 

above” the loading apparatus. Appellant Br. 53. We conclude that the Board erred in its construction. 

The claim language itself only recites that the “feed apparatus” is “disposed over” the “loading apparatus.” ’812 

patent at 11:17–18. The claim language contains no restrictions that would require direct alignment of the conveyor belts and lift tray assembly from the two 

apparatuses. “Had the patent drafter intended to limit the 

claims” to address the alignment of the conveyor belts and 

lift tray assembly between the apparatuses, “narrower language could have been used in the claim.” Cyntec Co. v. 

Chilisin Elecs. Corp., 84 F.4th 979, 986 (Fed. Cir. 2023). 

The parties’ experts generally agreed that the plain claim 

language did not contain additional alignment requirements. J.A. 9481 (¶74) (Weber’s expert); J.A. 12005 

(133:16–22) (Provisur’s expert). Our case law does “not 

support prescribing a more particularized meaning unless 

a narrower construction is required by the specification or 

prosecution history.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar 

Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Further, the specification does not require the direct

alignment of the conveyor belts and lift tray assembly between the two apparatuses. The phrase “disposed over”

does not appear in the specification. The specification does 

explain, which the Board relied on, that the loading apparatus’s grippers and lift tray are “in line with the food article feed paths.” ’812 patent at 2:52–53; 9:10–25. But these

passages merely describe the spatial relationship of 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 14 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 15

specific components—the feed path and grippers as aligned

with the loading apparatus’s lift tray. These passages do 

not disclose a limitation that the feed apparatus, including 

the conveyer belts that drive the grippers, must be aligned 

with the loading apparatus and its lift tray. “[A]lthough

the specification often describes very specific embodiments 

of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 

at 1323. Our review of the prosecution history does not 

change our conclusion. 

The plain language of the claims, read in view of the 

specification, requires only that the feed apparatus be generally positioned above the loading apparatus. The claim 

term’s recitation of broad language “compels a similarly 

broad result.” Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA InstrumentsWaters LLC, 85 F.4th 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2023). We need 

not consider the extrinsic evidence that limits the claim 

scope in a manner not contemplated by the intrinsic record. 

Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Nintendo Co., 29 F.4th 

1365, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we reverse 

the Board’s claim construction. 

We note that Provisur does not dispute that Weber’s 

prior art satisfies this limitation under Weber’s proposed 

construction. See generally Appellee Br.; Oral Arg. 7:10–

7:50, 27:54–28. As a result, our review of the Board’s claim 

construction is dispositive of this issue. We therefore hold

that the asserted prior art discloses the “disposed over” limitation from claim 1 in each challenged patent. 

C. The “Stop Gate” Limitation

Weber contends that the Board erred in determining 

that the “product bed conveyer” disclosed in Weber’s operating manuals, including as shown in Figures 10 and 227,

does not disclose the “stop gate” limitation. We conclude 

that the Board’s determinations are not supported by substantial evidence. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 15 Filed: 02/08/2024
16 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

The claim language requires that the “stop gate” support food articles “when the lift tray assembly is moved 

from its elevated position” back down to load new food articles. ’812 patent at 11:33–36. Like the stop gate, the 

product bed conveyer “supports the transport of the product” and “prevents the products from sliding into the outlet 

in an uncontrolled manner.” J.A. 1331. The core remaining issue is whether the product bed conveyer is in its floor 

position when the product bed (lift tray) moves from its elevated position to the loading position. 

Figures 10 and 227 below depict the product bed conveyer (shown in light blue) acting in the supporting floor 

position when the product holders are at the end of the feed 

path and the product bed (shown in dark blue) is lowered 

to receive more food articles. 

J.A. 1480 (Fig. 227); Appellant Br. 64. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 16 Filed: 02/08/2024
WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 17

J.A. 1331 (Fig. 10); Appellant Br. 64.

Based on these figures, Weber’s expert testified that a 

skilled artisan would understand that, because the product 

holder is near the blade, the food slicer is at the end of the 

slicing operation and the product holder has finished feeding the food article into the blade while the product bed 

conveyer is in the floor position. J.A. 9486–90 (¶¶86–88). 

Weber’s expert explained that a skilled artisan would understand that the lift tray moves from its elevated position 

to its loading position for additional food articles during the 

fast-slicing operation when the product bed conveyer is in 

the floor position. Id. 

In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Board failed to 

meaningfully consider Weber’s cited Figures 10 and 227 

and accompanying expert testimony. J.A. 65–69; J.A. 141–

42. The Board primarily faulted the operating manuals for 

not physically showing a food article in the slicer or the 

product conveyor. J.A. 68–69; J.A. 142. But since the product conveyor is expressly disclosed by the operating manuals, an image of a food article is not needed to understand 

those teachings. The evidence offered by Weber, showing

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 17 Filed: 02/08/2024
18 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

that the operating manuals disclose the “stop gate” limitation from claim 1 in each challenged patent, leaves the 

Board’s contrary finding without substantial evidentiary 

support. Thus, we reverse the Board’s finding.

CONCLUSION

We have considered Provisur’s remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. We reverse the Board’s determinations that Weber’s operating manuals are not 

printed publications and that the prior art does not disclose 

the “disposed over” and “stop gate” limitations. We vacate 

the Board’s conclusions that Weber failed to establish unpatentability of claims 1–11 of the ’812 patent and claims 

1–16 of the ’436 patent, and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

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

REMANDED 

COSTS

Costs against Provisur. 

Case: 22-1751 Document: 95 Page: 18 Filed: 02/08/2024