NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

NAVICO INC., NAVICO HOLDING AS,

Appellants

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., GARMIN USA, 

INC., GARMIN CORPORATION,

Intervenors

______________________ 

2016-1533

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-921.

______________________ 

Decided: June 13, 2017 

______________________ 

 MATTHEW S. STEVENS, Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, 

NC, argued for appellants. Also represented by KIRK T.

BRADLEY, CHRISTOPHER CHARLES ZIEGLER. 

 LUCY GRACE D. NOYOLA, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, 
2 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented 

by WAYNE W. HERRINGTON, DOMINIC L. BIANCHI. 

 NICHOLAS P. GROOMBRIDGE, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, 

Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, argued for 

intervenors. Also represented by JENNIFER DIANE 

CIELUCH, JENNIFER H. WU; DAVID J. BALL, JR., DAVID K.

STARK, Washington, DC.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

Navico Inc. and Navico Holding AS appeal from a Final Determination of the United States International 

Trade Commission that resulted in an exclusionary order

prohibiting importation of certain sonar imaging devices. 

The Final Determination includes a finding of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,305,840 and 8,605,550, a 

determination of invalidity for some of the asserted 

claims, and a finding of noninfringement of U.S. Patent 

No. 8,300,499. On appeal, Navico raises several challenges to the Commission’s Final Determination. We affirm 

the Commission’s decision in these challenged aspects.

BACKGROUND

1. Procedural History

On June 9, 2014, Navico filed a Section 337 petition 

with the Commission alleging that Garmin’s importation 

and sale of its DownVü marine sonar imaging products 

infringed three Navico patents.1 19 U.S.C. § 1337. On 

 

1 Generally, section 337 establishes an administrative investigation on whether the importation of certain 

goods constitute an unfair trade act, i.e. infringement. 
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 3

July 7, 2014, the Commission initiated a Section 337 

investigation on imports of Garmin’s DownVü products.2

An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) conducted an 

evidentiary hearing in March 2015. On July 2, 2015, the 

ALJ issued a Final Initial Determination, finding no 

violation of Section 337. The ALJ upheld the validity of 

all asserted claims, but found no infringement. J.A. 98. 

The ALJ contingently found direct and contributory 

infringement in the event the Commission did not adopt 

Garmin’s claim construction. Navico, Garmin, and the 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations each petitioned the 

Commission for review of the Initial Determination. On 

September 3, 2015, the Commission agreed to review the 

Initial Determination and invited further briefing.

On December 1, 2015, the Commission issued its Final Determination reversing the Initial Determination in 

part and finding that Garmin’s DownVü products infringed the ’840 and ’550 patents. The Final Determination reversed the Initial Determination’s primary claim 

construction for those two patents and adopted the Initial 

Determination’s contingent finding of direct infringement. 

The Final Determination also reversed the Initial Determination’s finding of validity as to claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 

57 of the ’550 patent. This appeal followed. 

2. U.S. Patent No. 8,305,840

The ’840 patent is entitled “Downscan imaging sonar.” 

It discloses sonar systems for providing images of the sea 

floor beneath a vessel. 

 

The remedy provided in Section 337 is the issuance of an 

exclusionary order that prohibits the importation of the 

goods deemed infringing.

2 Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Inv. No. 

337-TA-921, 79 Fed. Reg. 40778–79 (July 14, 2014). 
4 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

The ’840 patent discloses a sonar imaging device for 

generating images of objects beneath a watercraft. The 

patent discloses that the sonar images are generated via 

transducers. A linear transducer directed downward 

(“downscan transducer”) provides images of the water 

column and bottom features directly below the vessel, 

while transducers pointed toward the sides (“sidescan 

transducers”) can be used to map the sea floor on the 

sides of a vessel. ’840 patent col. 2 l. 65–col. 3 l. 13. 

Instead of linear transducers, conventional circular 

transducers with conical beams can also be used, although these are said to “provide poor quality images for 

sonar data relating to the structure on the bottom or in 

the water column directly below the vessel.” Id. at col. 2 

ll. 52–59. 

Figure 15B illustrates the beam patterns formed by 

downscan transducers. Circular transducers produce a 
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 5

conical beam pattern with the same beamwidth (184) in 

each dimension, whereas linear transducers produce a 

fan-shaped beam which is wide in one dimension (beamwidth 188) and narrow in another (beamwidth 186).

Figure 12B shows example images produces by linear 

(on the left) and circular (on the right) downscan transducers. The displays scroll across the horizontal axis as 

the boat moves and plot the sonar data by depth on the 

vertical axis. The patent describes the data from the 

linear downscan transducers as unexpectedly more detailed than that from the circular transducers, providing 

detailed images of the water column below the vessel as 

well as details of the bottom or structures resting on the 

bottom. ’840 patent col. 14 ll. 5–12.

Although various embodiments are disclosed, the ’840 

patent claims a sonar assembly with a single linear 

downscan transducer that creates fan-shaped sonar 

beams. Some of the asserted claims, such as claim 39, 

additionally recite a circular transducer element.
6 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

3. U.S. Patent No. 8,605,550

The ’550 patent, also entitled “Downscan imaging sonar,” issued from a continuation application of the ’840 

patent and contains the same specification. Instead of a 

single linear downscan transducer, it claims three transducers, two of which are linear sidescan transducers and 

one of which is a linear downscan transducer.

Figure 6 of the patent illustrates a top view of a 

transducer array containing two linear sidescan transducers (labeled 60, on the left and right) and one linear 

downscan transducer (also labeled 60, in the middle). 

Figure 9A shows an example beam pattern of such a 

system, with one beam directed downward from the 

downscan transducer and one beam directed to each side 

from the sidescan transducers.

The Commission’s decision found claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 

and 57 obvious over a combination of the Betts and Tuck-
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 7

er references. Claim 1 is representative for the purposes 

of this appeal. It claims:

1. A sonar transducer assembly, comprising:

a plurality of transducer elements, each one of the 

plurality of transducer elements having a substantially rectangular shape configured to produce a sonar beam having a beamwidth in a 

direction parallel to a longitudinal length of the 

transducer element that is significantly less 

than a beamwidth of the sonar beam in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal length of 

the transducer element,

wherein the plurality of transducer elements are 

positioned such that the longitudinal lengths of 

the plurality of transducer elements are substantially parallel to each other, and

wherein the plurality of transducer elements include at least:

a first linear transducer element positioned within a housing and configured to project sonar 

pulses from a first side of the housing in a direction substantially perpendicular to a centerline of the housing,

a second linear transducer element positioned 

within the housing and spaced laterally from 

the first linear transducer element, wherein the 

second linear transducer element lies substantially in a plane with the first linear transducer 

element and is configured to project sonar pulses from a second side of the housing that is 

generally opposite of the first side, and is also 

in a direction substantially perpendicular to the 

centerline of the housing, and
8 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

a third linear transducer element positioned within the housing and configured to project sonar 

pulses in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane defined by the first and second 

linear transducer elements.

’550 patent col. 17 l. 39–col. 18 l. 3. 

4. U.S. Patent No. 8,300,499

The ’499 patent is entitled “Linear and circular 

downscan imaging sonar.” This patent is directed to 

software that receives sonar data from different types of 

transducers and combines that data into a single display. 

’499 patent col. 3 ll. 12–15. This allows the sonar system 

to receive high quality images relative to the water column and bottom features directly beneath the linear 

transducer and the vessel on which the linear transducer 

is employed and also employ a circular transducer to 

provide greater sensitivity with respect to detecting small 

objects in the water column. Id. at col. 3 ll. 4–9.

Claim 1 is representative for the purposes of this appeal. It claims:

1. A method comprising:

receiving linear downscan sonar data based on 

sonar returns from a series of fan-shaped 

beams produced sequentially by a linear 

downscan transducer mounted on a watercraft, 

the series of fan-shaped beams insonifying different fan-shaped regions of an underwater environment beneath the watercraft as the 

watercraft travels;

receiving conical downscan sonar data based on 

sonar returns from a generally conical beam 

produced by a second downscan transducer, 

wherein the conical beam is wider than each 

fan-shaped beam in a direction parallel to a 
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 9

longitudinal length of the linear downscan 

transducer;

combining the linear downscan sonar data and the 

conical downscan sonar data to produce combined downscan sonar data; and

rendering the combined downscan sonar data as 

at least one image on a display, the at least one 

image including a composite of images of the 

fan-shaped regions arranged in a progressive 

order corresponding to the travel of the watercraft.

Id. at col. 17 ll. 34–55.

5. Tucker Prior Art

The Commission’s decision found some, but not all, 

claims of the ’550 patent invalid over a combination of two 

references. The first reference is a 1960 article by Tucker 

entitled “Narrow-beam echo-ranger for fishery and geological investigations.” 

Tucker describes an “echo-ranger” designed to be usable both as a horizontal fish finder and a sea floor mapper. J.A. 5323. This is because its transducer can be 

adjusted to point either to the side (for the fish finder) or 

downward (to map the sea bed). J.A. 5330. The article 

provides a complete circuit diagram for Tucker’s echo 

ranger. J.A. 5326–27. In particular, Figure 8 shows the 

circuit diagram of the transmitter. The output stage 

portion is reproduced below:
10 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

`

J.A. 5326. This diagram shows how transmitted pulses 

enter through the connections labeled “X” and “Y” (which 

come from the earlier stages of the transmitter), are 

amplified by pentode vacuum tubes V5 and V6, and travel 

through transformer TR3 to the transducer. Similarly, 

echoes received through the transducer travel back 

through transformer TR3, pass through resistor R27, and 

are sent on to the receiver. 

The receiver then takes the “input from transmitter,” 

amplifies it using multiple amplifiers, and sends to “to 

[the] recorder unit.” This circuitry is shown in Figure 9 of 

Tucker.
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 11

J.A. 5327. 

The recorder unit Tucker describes is a system for 

producing a printed image of the collected data. 

J.A. 5328. The picture is printed onto paper using a 

“Mufax picture receiver,” a primitive form of printer that

reproduces analog data onto a sheet of paper. Tucker 

shows example images of topography of various sea floors. 

J.A. 5329. 

6. Betts Prior Art

The second prior art reference cited by the Commission is U.S. Patent No. 7,652,952 to Betts, entitled “Sonar 

imaging system for mounting to watercraft.” Betts discloses a sonar system with side scanning and bottom 

scanning elements. Betts describes two linear transducers that scan the water to the sides of a boat and two 

circular transducers that scan the water below the boat. 
12 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

The return signals received by the elements can be processed through a software filter to remove noise.

Betts Fig. 8 (showing downscan circular transducers 54 

and sidescan linear transducers 26).

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

§ 706(2), we review the Commission’s factual findings for 

substantial evidence, and the Commission’s legal determinations de novo. See Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade 

Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1343–44, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Under the substantial evidence standard, the court “must 

affirm a Commission determination if it is reasonable and 

supported by the record as a whole, even if some evidence 

detracts from the Commission’s conclusion.” Spansion, 
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 13

629 F.3d at 1344. This court may set aside the Commission’s choice of remedy only if it is legally erroneous, 

arbitrary and capricious, or constitutes an abuse of discretion. Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 386 F.3d 

1095, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

2. Contributory Infringement and Prospective Relief

In addition to Navico’s allegations of direct infringement by Garmin’s complete sonar systems, Navico also 

alleged that Garmin contributorily infringed through its 

sale of standalone transducers because it knew they were 

specially made to be used in an infringing manner. The 

Commission found there was no contributory infringement of various claims of the ’840 patent by Garmin’s 

standalone transducers. J.A. 34. On this basis, the 

Commission did not award Navico prospective relief for 

future contributory infringement. Navico challenges 

these findings of no contributory infringement.

Our decision today in a related case, Garmin International, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 16-

1572, reverses the Commission’s finding of validity and 

finds these patent claims invalid as obvious over the prior 

art. Because the claims are invalid, there can be no 

contributory infringement. Accordingly, we affirm the 

Commission’s finding of no contributory infringement.

3. Obviousness

The Commission found claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of 

the ’550 patent obvious. These claims are directed to 

three linear transducer elements, two of which scan to the 

sides and one of which scans downwards. The Commission, reversing the Initial Determination, found these 

claims obvious based on a combination of the Betts and 

Tucker references. J.A. 51–57. Betts describes two linear 

transducers that scan the water to the sides of a boat and 

two circular (not linear) transducers that scan the water 

below the boat. J.A. 3674. Tucker describes a linear 
14 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

transducer which can be adjusted to point “vertically 

downwards.” J.A. 5323, 5330. By swapping Betts’ two 

downward circular transducers for Tucker’s single downward linear transducer, the Commission found that a

person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the ’550 

patent’s invention.

The obviousness inquiry must “guard against slipping 

into use of hindsight and . . . resist the temptation to read 

into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue.” 

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 36 (1966). Further, “when a patent claims a structure already known in 

the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of 

one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR, 

550 U.S. at 416. Similarly, § 103 usually bars patentability when the improvement is nothing more than the 

predictable use of prior art elements according to their 

established functions. Id. at 417.

Obviousness is a question of law based on subsidiary 

findings of fact relating to “the scope and content of the 

prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims 

at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, 

and any objective indicia of non-obviousness.” Randall 

Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing 

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)). 

Whether there would have been a motivation to combine 

multiple references is also a question of fact. S. Ala. Med. 

Sci. Found. v. Gnosis S.p.A., 808 F.3d 823, 826 (Fed. Cir. 

2015). If all elements of the claims are found in a combination of prior art references, as is the case here, the 

factfinder should further consider whether a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine 

those references, and whether in making that combination, a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable 

expectation of success. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 

437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 15

Navico argues for reversal of the Commission’s finding of obviousness on four grounds. First, Navico argues 

that Tucker discloses sidescan, not downscan, sonar. 

Thus, Navico argues, the Commission should not have 

used Tucker as prior art for the downscan linear transducer component. However, the Commission found that 

even though Tucker was largely a sidescan unit, Tucker

disclosed turning the unit vertically downwards into a 

downscan unit. J.A. 39. In support of this finding, the 

Commission cited Tucker’s statement that “when turned 

vertically downwards it forms a powerful tool” and that 

“[i]n some circumstances, the high resolution obtained 

when used as a vertical sounder can be useful for studying the topography of the sea bed.” J.A. 39, 5330. Tucker 

even provides images of sea beds. J.A. 5329–30. Further, 

the Commission repeatedly cited Dr. Vincent’s expert 

testimony in support of obviousness. J.A. 40–42. The 

statements in Tucker and Dr. Vincent’s testimony are 

substantial evidence supporting the Commission’s finding 

that Tucker discloses downscan sonar.

Second, Navico argues that the combination of Tucker 

and Betts renders both references inoperable for their 

intended purposes. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 

(Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding that a modification which renders the invention inoperable for its intended purpose is 

not obvious because it teaches away from the invention). 

The Commission rejected this argument, noting that 

configuring the transducer elements of Tucker as claimed 

does not render it inoperable but rather is indicative of 

the adjustability of the Tucker system. J.A. 44.

Navico argues that Tucker disclosed an adjustable 

system, whereas Betts disclosed a system of simple, fixed 

transducers. In Navico’s view, modifying either of the 

Betts transducer elements, which are not configurable, to 

be like the Tucker transducer would be a fundamental 

redesign. The Commission’s finding, however, is supported by substantial evidence. Tucker explicitly discusses 
16 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

the value of pointing a transducer vertically downward, so 

fixing a transducer in that position would have been 

obvious. J.A. 5330. Nothing suggests that combining 

Betts and Tucker would produce a system unable to 

produce sidescan or downscan images. On the contrary, 

the evidence suggests the combined system would be 

capable of producing both images.

Third, Navico argues that there was no motivation to 

combine the Tucker and Betts references. Navico suggests that because Betts was a simple, fixed system and 

Tucker was a complex, customizable system, there would 

be no motivation to combine them. It “can be important 

to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of 

ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 

550 U.S. at 418. 

Here, the Commission correctly found that Tucker 

provides a motivation to modify Betts to incorporate a 

linear downscan transducer. J.A. 44. This motivation is 

to obtain a high resolution image for studying the layers 

in the sea and the topography of the sea bed. J.A. 5330. 

There was substantial evidence to find such a motivation. 

Tucker suggests that a transducer be pointed downwards 

to obtain high resolution images of the sea bed. Id. 

Fourth, Navico argues that the Commission considered the objective indicia of non-obviousness as a mere 

afterthought after making a prima facie case. We have 

held that such an analysis is improper, and a fact finder 

must “consider all evidence relating to obviousness before 

finding a patent invalid on those grounds.” In re Cyclobenzaprine, 676 F.3d 1063, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Objective indicia of non-obviousness are vital to an obviousness 

determination and must be considered, not ignored as a 

mere afterthought. See, e.g., Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. 

Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Whether 

before the Board or a court, this court has emphasized 
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 17

that consideration of the objective indicia is part of the 

whole obviousness analysis, not just an afterthought.”); In 

re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]hen 

secondary considerations are present, though they are not 

always dispositive, it is error not to consider them.”);

Stratoflex v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed. 

Cir. 1983); In re Depomed, Inc., No. 2016-1378, 2017 WL 

676604, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 21, 2017) (Reyna, J., concurring). 

While the Commission’s Final Determination did discuss the objective indicia last, it devotes four pages to 

their discussion and concluded that there was both positive and negative evidence in the objective indicia. 

J.A. 54–57. The Commission stated that “these secondary 

considerations do not overcome the strong prima facie 

showing,” indicating that it properly conducted a two-part 

test rather than ignoring the secondary considerations 

altogether. We find the Commission properly considered 

all relevant evidence. See In re Cyclobenzaprine, 676 F.3d 

at 1075.

Because the Commission’s factual findings with respect to obviousness are supported by substantial evidence, and because its ultimate legal conclusion of 

obviousness is correct, we affirm the Commission’s determination that claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 57 of the ’550 patent 

are obvious.

4. Claim Construction

Claim 1 of the ’499 patent recites in part “combining 

the linear downscan sonar data and the conical downscan 

sonar data to produce combined downscan sonar data.” 

Other claims include similar limitations. The Commission’s Final Determination construed “combining” as “to 

merge or to bring into union.” J.A. 74.

Claim construction is a question of law that may be 

based on underlying factual determinations. Teva Pharm. 
18 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 834 (2015). 

Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and 

customary meaning, which is the meaning a term would 

have to a person of ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the intrinsic record at the time of the invention. 

Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 

1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). The 

specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a 

disputed term, but “there is sometimes a fine line between 

reading a claim in light of the specification, and reading a 

limitation into the claim from the specification.” Id. at 

1346–47. In some cases, the ordinary meaning may be 

apparent, but in other cases, the meaning as understood 

by a person of skill in the art is not readily apparent. 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. 

Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008).

Navico argues that the meaning of “combining” is 

broader, and that putting both types of data next to each 

other constitutes “combining” for the purposes of the 

claim. Under Navico’s interpretation, there is no need to 

merge both types of data into a single composite image.

Navico contends that the plain meaning of “combining” includes using two things for a common purpose, 

such as a combo meal at a restaurant which contains two 

separate items. Navico further argues that the Commission’s construction of “combine” reads a disclosed embodiment out of the patent and renders a claim meaningless. 

Figure 10 of the ’499 patent shows a screen with separate 

display windows for each type of transducer data, displayed next to each other rather than merged. J.A. 524 at 

col. 4, ll. 51–54; J.A. 524 at col. 12 ll. 28–41; J.A. 515. 

Dependent claim 21 provides for the linear downscan 

image data to be displayed in one window and conical 

downscan image data to be displayed in another. J.A. 532

at col. 19, ll. 49–52. Because claim 21 depends from claim 
NAVICO INC. v. ITC 19

1, which reads “rendering the combined downscan sonar 

data,” and because it provides for the uncombined data to 

be separately rendered, Navico argues that “combined” 

sonar data must encompass this separately rendered 

data.

J.A. 515 (’499 patent Fig. 10).

Reading the claims and specification as a whole, however, we find it clear that the claims refer to a system 

where multiple display formats can be selected, some of 

which include the “combined downscan sonar data,” and 

some of which display individual sonar data separately. 

Claim 19 makes this clear by setting forth a number of 

display formats. Because all claims depend ultimately 

from claim 1, all must be capable of rendering combined 

downscan sonar data. But for claim 21, it must also be 

possible to render separate, individual data. Just because 

the claim comprises rendering data in one format does not 

mean that another part of the claim cannot also require 
20 NAVICO INC. v. ITC

the data to be rendered in another format. Accordingly, 

we find claim 21 is consistent with the Commission’s 

construction.

As for the embodiment of Figure 10, which provides 

for side-by-side display, the specification does not describe 

this display as a “combined” display. Rather, the specification explicitly distinguishes the display shown in Figure 

10 from a combined display. The specification notes that 

the separate display windows of Figure 10 “may not 

always be preferable or desirable” and that “a combination of the circular downscan transducer data and the 

linear downscan transducer data into a single display 

window” is a preferred alternative. J.A. 528 at col. 12, ll. 

36–41 (emphasis added). Thus, by suggesting that sideby-side data is not a combination, Figure 10 supports the 

Commission’s construction. Accordingly, we agree with 

the Commission’s view that “combine” means “to merge or 

to bring into union,” and that Garmin did not infringe the 

’499 patent.

CONCLUSION

Because there is no contributory infringement and the 

Commission was correct in finding claims 1, 7, 12, 13, and 

57 of the ’550 patent obvious, and in its construction of 

“combine,” we affirm the Commission’s Final Determination. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.