Opinion ID: 807635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Obviousness

Text: Applied argues that the Board’s analysis was conclusory and lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Applied specifically argues that the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a groove depth, width, and pitch double those disclosed in Weling was not supported by the prior art. Applied further argues that because the prior art did not address the impact of altering each dimension on pad performance, the prior art did not specify the result of each purported result-effective variable, and so the prior art could not lead one of ordinary skill to the claimed invention. Furthermore, Applied observes that there were multiple dimensional variables selected based on multiple criteria, with “trade-offs among the several results obtained based on the selection of those variables (such as selecting pitch and width to balance pad flexibility, difficulty in removing waste material, and slurry transport) . . . .” Appellant’s Br. 36-37, 39. Finally, Applied argues that Breivogel and Talieh teach, in addition to larger grooves, grooves with a different profile and spiral or offset grooves, respectively. The PTO defends the Board’s decisions by arguing that the prior art contains dimensions overlapping the ranges in Applied’s claims. The PTO contends that the examiner’s doubling of the dimensions was not necessary to the finding of obviousness and that any adjustment of the dimensions was based properly on the premise that the prior art taught that the groove dimensions could be adjusted upward. The PTO also identifies parts of the record showing that the prior art recognizes that the dimensions are result-effective variables and that the advantages of Applied’s ranges were not unexpected. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection “because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized 8 IN RE APPLIED MATERIALS after reading the prior art that the dimensions recited in the claims are result-effective variables, and because the prior art further discloses values including those recited in the claims.” Applied I at ; see also Applied II at ; Applied III at ; Applied IV at . This court must affirm or reverse the Board’s decisions on these grounds alone. See Chenery, 332 U.S. at 196; Lee, 277 F.3d at 1345-46. The Board’s opinions in the present appeals are not a model of clarity, but the Board’s “path may reasonably be discerned.” See Bowman, 419 U.S. at 285-86. First, the Board’s conclusion that the prior art discloses dimensional values overlapping the ranges claimed in Applied’s Patents is supported by substantial evidence. While the Board failed to cite the relevant cases, this “path” to obviousness is consistent with this court’s precedent. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.”); see In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303 (CCPA 1974). Such overlap itself provides sufficient motivation to optimize the ranges. See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of . . . ranges is the optimum combination . . . .”). Second, the Board’s finding that the dimensional variables were result-effective, rendering their optimization within the grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art, was supported by substantial evidence. See Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. This rule is limited to cases in which the optimized variable is a “result-effective variable.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977); IN RE APPLIED MATERIALS 9 see Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276 (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable . . . is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”). In the present case, because the prior art disclosed values overlapping the claimed ranges, the “general conditions” of the claim are disclosed. See Aller, 220 F.2d at 456; see also Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276. The question is whether the dimensions were known to be result-effective variables. Contrary to Applied’s argument, there is evidence that the claimed groove dimensions are result-effective variables—rendering their optimization within the ordinary skill in the art. See Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276. The Board cited the Examiner’s Answers, which observed that Breivogel teaches that “[t]he number of grooves per area and the groove pitch are optimized for the type of pad and the slurry that is used to achieve a high polishing rate and polishing uniformity.” Examiner’s Answer at 4-5 Applied I (“Examiner’s Answer I”); Examiner’s Answer at 5 Applied II (“Examiner’s Answer II”); Examiner’s Answer at 5 Applied III (“Examiner’s Answer III”); Examiner’s Answer at 5 Applied IV (“Examiner’s Answer IV”). Breivogel clearly discloses that pitch affects the polishing rate and uniformity, and further indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art can alter the pitch to achieve the desired polishing properties. The Board also found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that changing the groove width would affect the polishing rate and uniformity. This is a reasonable conclusion because the number of grooves per area—which is disclosed in Breivogel as affecting the polishing rate and uniformity—is related to the groove width: the Board used the number of grooves per area disclosed in Breivogel to calculate the width of the grooves that Breivogel disclosed. Because of the close relationship between the number of grooves per area and the width, the Board’s finding that the width also affected the desired polishing pad properties was supported by substantial evidence. 10 IN RE APPLIED MATERIALS Thus, the Breivogel disclosure demonstrates that both the width and pitch were known to be result-effective variables. The “Examiner’s rationale,” which was referenced with approval by the Board for a related reason discussed below, also supports the finding that the depth is a resulteffective variable. Applied I at ; Applied II at ; Applied III at ; Applied IV at . The examiner’s Answer stated that increasing the dimensions was advantageous because the pad could be used for a longer time without being worn down to the point of being “too shallow.” Examiner’s Answer I at 5; Examiner’s Answer II at 5; Examiner’s Answer III at 5; Examiner’s Answer IV at 5. The examiner further explained elsewhere in the Answer that “one of ordinary skill in the art would certainly expect that increasing the thickness of the pad and the size of the grooves would result in a pad having a longer service life since it would take longer for such a pad to wear down/out; this expectation is based on the basic engineering principle that a frictional element that is worn over time by friction will last longer if its thickness is increased.” Examiner’s Answer I at 14; Examiner’s Answer II at 14-15; Examiner’s Answer III at 14; Examiner’s Answer IV at 14-15. Thus, the Board’s finding that the depth would also have been recognized by one of ordinary skill to affect a particular result, making it too a result-effective variable, was supported by substantial evidence. The Board found that the “Examiner’s rationale” supported the doubling of the groove dimensions in Weling to achieve the claimed dimensions. Applied I at ; Applied II at ; Applied III at ; Applied IV at . Applied correctly argues that the Board and the examiner lacked substantial evidence to exactly double all of the groove dimensions in Weling to achieve the claimed dimensions. Nevertheless, because the prior art teaches larger grooves IN RE APPLIED MATERIALS 11 and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known that the dimensions were result-effective variables, the exact doubling of the dimensions was unnecessary to the Board’s finding of obviousness. The underlying correct premises were sufficient to support the Board’s finding of obviousness. The Board primarily rested its finding that the dimensions were result-effective variables on Applied’s admission: “A person having ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the teachings of Weling, Talieh and Breivogel would have understood that polishing pads with grooves can be formed where at least the groove dimensions . . . could have been modified. Such modification would have changed the polishing rate and pad characteristics . . . .” Applied I at  (quoting Applied’s brief to the Board); Applied II at  (same); Applied III at  (same); Applied IV at  (same). The Board did not err in relying on Applied’s admission because the admission indicates that the prior art taught that the dimensions could be modified and that modification would affect pad performance, which was sufficient to find the dimensions to be resulteffective variables. While Applied also stated that the prior art “is silent as to the impact of the groove pitch and width on performance,” the prior art did not need to disclose the result with any greater specificity than it already did. Applied I at  (quoting Applied’s brief to the Board); Applied II at  (same); Applied III at  (same); Applied IV at  (same). In cases in which the disclosure in the prior art was insufficient to find a variable result-effective, there was essentially no disclosure of the relationship between the variable and the result in the prior art. In Antonie, the court found the variable not result-effective because the prior art did not disclose the claimed ratio, or even recognize that one of the variables in the ratio was relevant to the desired property. 559 F.2d at 619-20. In In re Yates, 12 IN RE APPLIED MATERIALS 663 F.2d 1054 (CCPA 1981), the court found the variable not result-effective because there was no teaching of the claimed relationship and also “no evidence of this relationship in the prior art.” 663 F.2d at 1056-57 (emphasis omitted). While the absence of any disclosure regarding the relationship between the variable and the affected property may preclude a finding that the variable is result-effective, the prior art need not provide the exact method of optimization for the variable to be resulteffective. A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective. Applied’s Patents do articulate how the groove dimensions affect pad properties with greater specificity than the prior art. ’855 Patent col.5 ll.34-65; ’847 Patent col.6 l.50-col.7 l.14; ’115 Patent col.6 l.50-col.7 l.14; ’455 Patent col.6 l.47-col.7 l.11. But, generally, a claim to a product does not become nonobvious simply because the patent specification provides a more comprehensive explication of the known relationships between the variables and the affected properties. The outcome of optimizing a result-effective variable may still be patentable if the claimed ranges are “critical” and “produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art.” Aller, 220 F.2d at 456; see Antonie, 559 F.2d at 620. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness established by the overlap of prior art values with the claimed range can be rebutted by evidence that the claimed range is “critical” because it “achieves unexpected results.” Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330 (quoting Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1469-70). But Applied provided no such evidence. The Board correctly found that there was no indication that obtaining the claimed dimensions was beyond the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art or produced any unexpectedly beneficial properties, further supporting IN RE APPLIED MATERIALS 13 the Board’s finding that the optimization of the dimensions was obvious. Nothing indicates that the optimization of the variables was anything other than the exercise of ordinary skill in the art. Likewise, the combination of the various dimensions from the different pieces of prior art was also obvious. The mere fact that multiple result-effective variables were combined does not necessarily render their combination beyond the capability of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Evidence that the variables interacted in an unpredictable or unexpected way could render the combination nonobvious, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), but Applied failed to show anything unpredictable or unexpected in the interaction of the variables. In addition to the width, depth, and pitch, Applied argues there are two other variables relating to the shape of the grooves, but nothing renders the combination of these five variables nonobvious. Some of Applied’s claims cover “a plurality of substantially circular concentrically arranged grooves.” Applied I at  (emphasis omitted); see also Applied II at ; ’115 Patent col.12 ll.38-39; ’455 Patent col.12 ll.36-37, col.12 ll.61-62. Weling and Breivogel both disclose concentrically arranged grooves. Appellant’s Br. 10, 12; Applied I at ; Applied II at ; Applied III at ; Applied IV at . Applied’s Patents also claim grooves with “sidewalls that are substantially perpendicular to the polishing surface.” Applied I at ; Applied II at ; Applied III at ; Applied IV at . Weling discloses similar U-shaped grooves, and Breivogel expressly indicates that one of ordinary skill could modify the crosssectional shape of the grooves: The “grooves themselves can have many different configurations. For example, grooves may have a flat bottom or semicircular cross section.” Applied I at , ,  (quoting Breivogel); Applied II at , ,  (same); Applied III at , ,  14 IN RE APPLIED MATERIALS (same); Applied IV at , ,  (same). Thus, there is no indication that it would have been nonobvious to combine these two groove features with the other Breivogel dimensions (depth, width, and pitch), particularly because Breivogel includes the circular groove arrangement and recognizes that the cross-sectional groove shape was a variable that could be altered by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applied argues that the triangular cross-section of the grooves in Breivogel renders that reference inadequate. One of ordinary skill in the art is not foreclosed from combining the Breivogel dimensions with the Weling cross-sectional shape merely because Breivogel discloses triangular grooves. A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976). Even though Breivogel describes grooves with a particular cross-sectional shape, this does not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from utilizing Breivogel’s other teachings on the width, depth, and pitch in combination with other features of the Weling pad. One of ordinary skill in the art is not an “automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421. For the same reasons, Talieh’s teachings on the dimensions can be combined with the Weling pad, despite the fact that Talieh teaches grooves with a centered spiral or offset circular arrangement.