NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

3M COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC., FKA WESTECH 

AEROSOL CORPORATION,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1738

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-

00576.

______________________

Decided: June 25, 2021

______________________

PRATIK A. SHAH, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 

LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by Z.W. JULIUS CHEN; MICHAEL P. KAHN, New York, 

NY; RUBEN H. MUNOZ, Philadelphia, PA. 

 ROBERT GREENSPOON, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, 

Chicago, IL, argued for appellee.

 ______________________

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2021
2 3M COMPANY v. EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC.

Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.

I

This case began when Appellant 3M Company (“3M”) 

filed a petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 311, seeking to invalidate claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,705,056 (“the ’056 patent”) on the ground of obviousness, 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. The ’056 patent is titled “Aerosol Adhesive and Canister-Based Aerosol Adhesive System.” The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (“Board”) agreed with 3M that certain claims of the ’056 patent are invalid as obvious, but 

the Board determined that 3M had failed to demonstrate 

that dependent claims 3 and 4 would have been obvious. 

The Board initially stated its decision in its Final Written 

Decision, which it sustained in its decision rejecting 3M’s 

Request for Rehearing. 3M Co. v. Westech Aerosol Corp., 

No. IPR2018-00576, 2019 WL 3729475 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 

2019) (Final Written Decision) (“Final Written Decision”); 

3M Co. v. Westech Aerosol Corp., No. IPR2018-00576, 2020 

WL 578975 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2020) (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing) (“Rehearing Decision”).

3M, in its Request for Rehearing, argued that the 

Board’s Final Written Decision erred in rejecting 3M’s obviousness challenge to claims 3 and 4. 3M’s argument for 

rehearing was supported by citation to a declaration of 

3M’s expert, Dr. Prud’homme. In denying 3M’s request, the 

Board stated that “Petitioner’s remaining explanation that 

a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected 

three pressure levels within the levels taught by the Carnahan Publication and Braud . . . was not advanced in the 

briefing and is referenced only through citation to the expert reports.” Rehearing Decision at *3. The Board rejected 

3M’s Request for Rehearing as an attempt to introduce argument by citation to its expert’s declaration in violation of 

37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3), the Board’s rule against 

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2021
3M COMPANY v. EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC. 3

incorporation by reference. Id. 3M timely appealed the 

Board’s decision to our court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

II

The Board’s rules concerning trial practice are set forth 

in 37 C.F.R. Chapter 1, Subchapter A, Part 42 (Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board). Section 

42.6 of the rules concerning Filing of Documents, regarding 

incorporation by reference, provides that “[a]rguments 

must not be incorporated by reference from one document 

into another document.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). When 

promulgating § 42.6(a)(3), the Patent and Trademark Office explained that the rule “minimizes the chance that an 

argument would be overlooked and eliminates abuses that 

arise from incorporation and combination,” Rules of Practice for Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board 

and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Dep’t of Commerce 

Aug. 14, 2012), and noted that without the rule, the Board 

would be forced to “play archeologist with the record” for 

arguments that might have been made outside the parties’ 

briefing, id. (citing DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F. 3d 865, 

866–67 (7th Cir. 1999)).

Citing § 42.6, the Board refused to consider 3M’s central argument in its Request for Rehearing because the 

Board determined that this argument was provided only by 

way of improper incorporation by reference to testimony offered by 3M’s expert, Dr. Prud’homme. The Board stated 

that “Petitioner’s argument on rehearing amounts to a contention that we overlooked Petitioner’s invitation to formulate arguments on their behalf, search the record for 

pertinent facts, and inject our own reasoning. That is not 

our role.” Rehearing Decision at *3.

At oral argument before our court in this appeal, 3M 

agreed that to succeed on appeal it must convince us that 

the Board erred in excluding the evidence offered by Dr. 

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2021
4 3M COMPANY v. EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC.

Prud’homme through incorporation by reference. Recording of Oral Argument at 22:33–22:48 (June 10, 2021), 

http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20-

1738_06102021.mp3. We review the Board’s application of 

its incorporation-by-reference rule for abuse of discretion.

See e.g. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge 

Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, unless 3M 

can convince us that the Board abused its discretion in declining to consider Dr. Prud’homme’s testimony, its appeal 

will fail. The Board abuses discretion if its decision “(1) is 

clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is based on 

an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no 

evidence on which the Board could rationally base its decision.” Id. (citation omitted).

As an initial matter, we note that, regarding this dispositive issue, 3M’s principal brief on appeal is almost silent, merely stating that “factual assertions with a citation 

to three pages of Dr. Prud’homme’s deposition testimony

and 10 (of the 170) paragraphs of his supplemental declaration . . . is a far cry from impermissible incorporation by 

reference.” Appellant Br. at 31. 3M’s brief cites a single 

case, Expedia, Inc. v. International Business Machines 

Corp., No. IPR2018-01136, 2019 WL 2511366 (P.TA.B. 

June 17, 2019), in support of 3M’s view that the Board misapplied its incorporation-by-reference rule in this case.

The Board’s decision in Expedia is inapposite. In Expedia, the Board held that its rule against incorporation by 

reference was not violated by citation to an expert’s declaration in support of the Petition’s clear argument that the 

two references qualified as prior art. 3M offers no reasoning or analysis from that decision which would compel a 

result in 3M’s favor on the record before us. There is no 

dispute that a Petition or other filing before the Board may 

permissibly “rely on [an expert declaration] to support its 

contention with expert testimony.” Id. at *2. At issue here 

is the Board’s determination that 3M’s filings never 

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 4 Filed: 06/25/2021
3M COMPANY v. EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC. 5

sufficiently made the relevant “contention” or argument at 

all, and instead supported 3M’s position entirely by reference to Dr. Prud’homme’s declarations and testimony. 3M

has not pointed to any place in the record where Dr. 

Prud’homme’s arguments as stated in the Request for Rehearing were previously explained in a manner sufficient

to avoid improper incorporation by reference.1

At issue in this appeal is 3M’s obviousness Ground 4, 

in which 3M asserted that various claims of the ’056 patent 

(including dependent claims 3 and 4, the claims on appeal) 

would have been obvious over U.S. Patent Publication No. 

2002/0161056 (the “Carnahan Publication”) in view of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,931,354 (“Braud”) and the knowledge of a person of skill in the art. See J.A. 165–682 (Petition for Inter 

Partes Review). The Carnahan Publication (which is an 

abandoned parent application in the ’056 patent’s priority 

chain) teaches a single-propellant canister system which 

“sprayed out exactly the same” at either 120 psi or 300 psi.3

Braud teaches a canister system comprising a liquefied 

1 3M did not cite and seek to distinguish cases in 

which we have upheld, on the abuse of discretion standard 

of review, the Board’s enforcement of § 42.6(a)(3) by rejection of expert declarations incorporated by reference into 

other documents. See, e.g., Gen. Access Solutions Ltd. v. 

Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654 (Fed. Cir. 2020); 

Bos. Sci. Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp., 813 F. 

App’x 572 (2020).

2 Citations to “J.A. ___” refer to the Joint Appendix 

filed by the parties.

3 Because we resolve this appeal on the basis of the 

Board’s incorporation-by-reference determination, we need 

not reach the parties’ arguments or the Board’s statements 

about whether the Carnahan Publication is properly understood as disclosing the range between 120 psi and 300 

psi.

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 5 Filed: 06/25/2021
6 3M COMPANY v. EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC.

first propellant and a second propellant which is a compressed inert gas. In particular, the preferred embodiment 

of Braud cited by 3M’s expert teaches that the “pressure in 

the cylinder” is “a minimum of 220 psi[] and preferably . . . 

about 240–250 psi.” J.A. 568. Claims 3 and 4 of the ’056 

patent claim, in relevant part, a system wherein “said compressed gas is pressurized in said canister to about 200 psi” 

(claim 3) or “in a range of about 160–200 psi” (claim 4). ’056 

patent, 9:44–48.

In its Petition for Inter Partes Review, regarding 

Ground 4, 3M asserted only that “[i]t was within POSA 

knowledge to alter the pressures disclosed in Carnahan 

Publication and Braud to about 200 psi [or to 160–200 psi]

as part of routine optimization,” citing paragraph 117 of 

Dr. Prud’homme’s declaration in support of this assertion. 

J.A. 166. In its Decision on Institution of Inter Partes Review, the Board stated that “questions have been raised regarding the evidentiary support for the rationale applied 

by Petitioner to adjust certain pressures, concentrations, 

and percentages, through ‘routine optimization’ to arrive at 

the claimed values,” and stated that “[t]he parties should 

address these issues during the trial.” J.A. 1942. Petitioner’s Reply was somewhat more specific, mentioning a 

person of skill’s selection of three variables at three levels

to perform the optimization, but 3M’s Reply does not specifically state that one of these variables is pressure and 

does not specifically justify selection of a pressure value below the “minimum of 220 psi” taught by Braud. J.A. 4350–

51. It does not appear that either party raised the issue of 

the “minimum of 220 psi” taught by Braud at the oral hearing before the Board. See generally 3M Co. v. Westech Aerosol Corp., No. IPR2018-00576 (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2019), 

Paper 46 (Record of Oral Hearing).

In its Final Written Decision, the Board concluded that 

3M had failed to carry its burden to show that claims 3 and 

4 would have been obvious. Final Written Decision at *14. 

In contrast with its filings up to that point, 3M’s 

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 6 Filed: 06/25/2021
3M COMPANY v. EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC. 7

subsequent Request for Rehearing devoted most of seven 

pages to the issue of the 220 psi “minimum” taught by 

Braud and why a person of skill would allegedly depart below this pressure value to optimize the obviousness combination in Ground 4, citing various statements and 

testimony of Dr. Prud’homme in support of its arguments. 

J.A. 6038–44. As discussed, the Board concluded in its Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing that 

3M’s argument in the Request for Rehearing regarding 

“why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had 

selected certain pressures in the values claimed [i.e., 160–

200 psi or approximately 200 psi] in the first instance” 

while optimizing the combination of the Carnahan Publication and Braud “was not advanced in the briefing and is 

referenced only through citation to the expert reports.” Rehearing Decision at *3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.6).

We agree with the Board that the Request for Rehearing contained the first clear articulation of 3M’s argument 

regarding why the 220 psi “minimum” taught by Braud did 

not pose an obstacle to a finding that claims 3 and 4 were 

obvious under 3M’s Ground 4. As discussed above, the arguments about routine optimization in 3M’s Petition and 

Petitioner Reply are skeletal at best, and these filings do 

not mention the 220 psi “minimum” teaching of Braud at 

all. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Board abused its 

discretion when it concluded that 3M’s arguments were 

present in the briefing prior to the Final Written Decision 

only in the form of improper incorporation by reference to 

Dr. Prud’homme’s testimony.

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision rejecting 3M’s obviousness challenge to dependent 

claims 3 and 4 of the ’056 patent.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 7 Filed: 06/25/2021
8 3M COMPANY v. EVERGREEN ADHESIVES, INC.

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-1738 Document: 33 Page: 8 Filed: 06/25/2021