Opinion ID: 4543980
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Interfacing layer”

Text: Independent of its claim construction argument, Firebug also challenges the Board’s conclusion that the claims otherwise would have been obvious over the references. Specifically, Firebug argues that the combination of Parker and Rosko fails to disclose the claimed interfacing layer because the “back reflector” of Parker is a permanently fixed coating of Parker’s optical fibers and would not be retained if the optical fibers were replaced by Rosko’s LEDs, as proposed by Stride Rite. Stride Rite counters that the Board’s determination that the combination of Parker and Rosko discloses the interfacing layer is supported by substantial evidence. Stride Rite points to the testimony of its expert, Lenny Holden, that a skilled artisan would have substituted Rosko’s LEDs for the optical fibers of Parker, resulting in the claimed structure. We agree with Stride Rite that the Board’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. The challenged claims require that the interfacing layer be “adjacently connected” to the light diffusing layer, with the illumination sources positioned between the two layers. ’038 patent col. 7 ll. 39–40; ’574 patent col. 9 ll. 55–56. Parker’s back Case: 19-1622 Document: 59 Page: 13 Filed: 06/25/2020 Case: 19-1622 Document: 59 Page: 14 Filed: 06/25/2020 14 SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP of the shoe in Parker and decrease material costs.” J.A. 2607 ¶ 87. In its response, Firebug argued that Parker’s back reflector is an optical layer associated with the optical fibers that would have no function in the absence of the optical fibers and that there would be no reason to retain Parker’s back reflector because the light diffusers of Rosko already include a reflective sheet. J.A. 2926–27. After weighing the parties’ positions, the Board determined that Stride Rite’s proposed combination of Parker and Rosko accounted for the claimed interfacing layer and that Stride Rite had articulated sufficient reasons to combine the known elements in the claimed arrange- ment. -1809 Decision, 2019 WL 236242, at ; -1810 Decision, 2019 WL 237069, at . Firebug argues that we must reverse the Board be- cause its finding is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The Board was presented with two alternative theories as to whether a skilled artisan would or would not have substituted Rosko’s LEDs for Parker’s optical fibers as proposed by Stride Rite. Our task is not to determine which theory we find more compelling. “[I]t is not for us to second-guess the Board’s assessment of the evidence.” Velander v. Garner, 348 F.3d 1359, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Rather, the only question before us is whether the conclusion adopted by the Board is supported by substantial evidence. Here, we conclude that it is. Parker and Rosko both suggest that LEDs would be a suitable alternative for optical fibers. Parker discloses LEDs as one possible light source for its optical fibers, Parker, col. 4 ll. 63–64, while Rosko explains that, although its light source “is typically a light-emitting diode . . . any source of light may be used such as . . . optic fiber.” Rosko ¶ 23. And as noted by the Board, Holden explained that at the time of the invention optical fibers were known to be more expensive than LEDs and that the use of LEDs would Case: 19-1622 Document: 59 Page: 15 Filed: 06/25/2020 SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP 15 result in more durable footwear. As to the back reflector, the Board credited Holden’s testimony that a person of skill would have retained the back reflector for use with the substituted LEDs “to maximize the distribution of light.” J.A. 2604 ¶ 83. This testimony accords with the disclosure of Parker, which explains that the purpose of the back reflector is to redirect light back through the light source “such that light is emitted from only the front side of the light emitting portion.” Parker, col. 4 ll. 30–34. Based on the disclosure of the references and Holden’s testimony, we conclude that the Board’s determination that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Parker and Rosko in the manner proposed by Stride Rite, and that the combination discloses the claimed limitations of the interfacing layer, is supported by substantial evidence. None of Firebug’s arguments on appeal demonstrate otherwise. First, Firebug argues that, because Parker’s back reflector is a coating of the optical fibers, the reflector is coextensive with the light source. Thus, according to Firebug, if the optical fibers were replaced with discrete LEDs, the back reflector would similarly coextend with the LEDs themselves and would not extend beyond or between the light sources to be “adjacently connected” to the light diffusing layer. Appellant’s Br. 46–47. Ultimately, Firebug’s argument improperly asks us to perform fact-finding. We are not in a position to evaluate the correctness of Firebug’s argument, but rather must determine whether the Board’s conclusion was supported by the evidence presented. Holden testified that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to retain Parker’s back reflector for the reasons discussed above and presented a modified structure in which the back reflector extended beyond and between the individual LEDs. Further, Figure 2 of Parker illustrates the illumination section—including its associated back reflector—extending beyond the viewing window through which reflected light would be visible. In light of this evidence, the Board’s determination that a person of skill Case: 19-1622 Document: 59 Page: 16 Filed: 06/25/2020 16 SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP would be motivated to retain the back reflector in its general size and shape when Rosko’s LEDs are substituted for Parker’s optical fibers is not unreasonable. Second, Firebug argues that the Board improperly disregarded its argument, supported by the declaration of Firebug’s owner and the named inventor Roy Smith, that Stride Rite’s modified structure would not survive the “lasting” process—the process in which upper material is formed into the shape of a shoe—because the back reflector would be too weak. Appellant’s Br. 49–51. On the contrary, the Board considered the argument but found it unpersuasive because it was predicated on Firebug’s contention that the reflective layer would be made of a thin layer “such as foil.” -1809 Decision, 2019 WL 236242, at ; -1810 Decision, 2019 WL 237069, at . The Board also discounted Smith’s testimony because he “had not experimented with foil, admitted that lasting forces can be applied by hand, and admitted that components that are glued together can survive the lasting process.” Id. Additionally, Holden testified that Stride Rite’s proposed modification would in fact increase the durability of the footwear. J.A. 2607 ¶ 87. The Board was within its discretion to weigh the credibility of expert testimony, see Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Velander, 348 F.3d at 1371), and Firebug has not otherwise demonstrated that the Board’s determination is unsupported by substantial evidence.