N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

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

______________________ TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, Appellant

v.
INTEX RECREATION CORP., BESTWAY (USA), INC., Appellees

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF

COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor

______________________

2020

- 1147

______________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018

- 00875.

______________________
Decided: October 2 3 , 2023

______________________
R OBERT M. H ARKINS , J R ., Cherian LLP, Berkeley, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by J AMES M ICHAEL W OODS , Washington, DC; T IMOTHY E. B IANCHI , Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 1 Filed: 10/23/2023TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v. INTEX RECREATION CORP

. 2

Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, PA, Minneapolis, MN.

R. T REVOR C ARTER , Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for all appellees. Appellee Intex Recreation Corp. also represented by R EID E. D ODGE , A NDREW M. M C C OY

.

J OHN S. A RTZ , Dickinson Wright PLLC, Ann Arbor, MI, for appellee Bestway (USA), Inc. Also represented by S TEVEN A. C ALOIARO , Reno, NV.

T HOMAS W. K RAUSE , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for intervenor. Also represented by D ANIEL K AZHDAN , F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

.

______________________
Before L OURIE , D YK , and T ARANTO , Circuit Judges

. L OURIE , Circuit Judge

. Team Worldwide Corp oration (“Team Worldwide”) appeals from a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding that clai ms 1, 7, and 11

− 14 of U.S. Patent 7,346,950 are unpatentable as anticipated by U.S. Patent 6,018,960 (“Parienti”) as well as U.S. Patent 7,039,972 (“Chaffee”)

. Intex Recreational Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp. , No. IPR2018

- 00875 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 11, 2019) , J.A . 1

− 96 (“ Decision ”)

. For the following reasons, we affirm

. B ACKGROUND This appeal pertains to an inter partes review (“IPR”) in which Intex Recreation Corp oration (“Intex”) challenged claims 1, 7, and 11

− 14 of the ’950 patent . The ’950 patent is directed to an inflatable product, like an air mattress, with a built

- in pump. See

, e.g. , ’ 950 patent , col. 8 l. 55

– col. 9 l. 3. Intex asserted multiple grounds of invalidity against the challenged claims , including anticipation by both Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 2 Filed: 10/23/2023TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION v. INTEX RECREATION CORP

. 3

Parienti and Chaffee

. During the IPR, the Board construed “built in” to mean “integrated into and not detachable (or readily removed ) from” and construe d “pack” to mean “container.” Decision at 20

– 21

. The Board then found each of the challenged claims anticipated by both Parienti
, id. at 22

– 52, and Chaffee

, id. at 52

– 84

. Team Worldwide appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) and 35 U.S.C. § 141(c).

D ISCUSSION We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo

, In re Elsner , 381 F.3d 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, In re Gartside , 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mindmight accept the evidence as adequate to support the finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB , 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).

Team Worldwide contends that the Board erred in finding th at Par i enti and Chaffee each anticipated the challenged claims. In particular, Team Worldwide contends that the Board erred in determining that Chaffee taught an anticipatory embodiment in which its pack was not detachable or readily removed from the matt ress wall. Decision at 63

– 79 . W e see no error in the Board’s anticipation determination as to Chaffee

, Decision at 63

– 79
, and conclude that it was supported by substantial evidence

. Because we affirm the Board’s decision as to Chaffee , we need not discuss its holdings on Parienti

. C ONCLUSION
We have considered Team Worldwide’s remaining arguments and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final written decision.

AFFIRMED Case: 20-1147 Document: 101 Page: 3 Filed: 10/23/2023