Opinion ID: 209104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: Following our remand in Henkel I, the Board found that P & G demonstrated an actual reduction to practice in February 1997, Board Decision at 10, predating Henkel's reduction to practice in May 1997, and thus awarded priority of invention to P & G, id. at 69. In so doing, the Board made a key factual determination that P & G inventors appreciated by February 1997 the limitation in the count requiring that the compressed region of the tablet dissolve at a greater rate than the non-compressed region. Id. at 61-62. Whether substantial evidence supports this finding of fact is the only issue on appeal. Henkel contends that the objective evidence before the Board fails to record or establish that any P & G inventor contemporaneously appreciated, or even conceived of, an embodiment meeting the express comparative dissolution rate limitation of Count 2 prior to Henkel's accorded actual reduction to practice date. Henkel's Opening Br. at 19. P & G counters that its inventors did, in fact, appreciate the differential dissolution rate limitation, and that the record evidence supports the Board's decision. In order to establish an actual reduction to practice, the inventor must prove that: (1) he constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the interference count; and (2) he determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1327. The inventor must also contemporaneously appreciate that the embodiment worked and that it met all the limitations of the interference count. Id.; see also Henkel I, 485 F.3d at 1374. As we held in Henkel I, to demonstrate a reduction to practice of the invention at issue here the inventors need only appreciate that the dissolution rate of the compressed region is greater than the dissolution rate of the other region. Henkel I, 485 F.3d at 1375. The Board relied primarily upon three pieces of evidence for its conclusion that P & G inventors reduced the invention to practice prior to Henkel: a Record of Invention by Alasdair McGregor dated November 22, 1996 (the McGregor Record of Invention), J.A. 321-29, McGregor's subsequent declaration, id. at 386-92, and a January 1997 Monthly Report by Sabine Metzger-Groom (the Metzger-Groom Report), id. at 371; see also Board Decision at 53-54 ([O]ur focus for actual reduction to practice is on Metzger-Groom's making and testing of the tablet [described in the McGregor Record of Invention] and [McGregor's] purported appreciation that the invention worked for its intended purpose.). In particular, the Board found that although the McGregor Record of Invention does not itself demonstrate an appreciation for the contested comparative dissolution rate limitation, McGregor's subsequent testimony that he appreciated that limitation at the time, as corroborated by the Metzger-Groom Report, was sufficient to demonstrate appreciation for the comparative dissolution rate and thus to demonstrate an actual reduction to practice. [2] Board Decision at 61-62, 68-69; see also id. at 3. Because our review is confined to the question of whether the Board's determination is supported by substantial evidence, we turn to the evidence the Board relied upon to determine whether it is adequate to support the Board's conclusion. The McGregor Record of Invention describes a dimple tableti.e., a compressed tablet with a dimple, into which a molten mixture comprising an inert carrier and a detergent additive is poured and allowed to harden. J.A. 322. The parties do not dispute that the McGregor Record of Invention describes a detergent tablet including all limitations of the count except for the limitation relating to comparative dissolution rates. Although that limitation is absent from the McGregor Record of Invention, McGregor subsequently testified that he appreciated, no later than February 14, 1997, that the compressed region of the tablet dissolved more quickly than the non-compressed region. Board Decision at 14; J.A. 387 ¶ 4. The Metzger-Groom Report documents the preparation and testing of the tablet discussed in the McGregor Record of Invention. In the course of discussing the test results, Metzger-Groom states that the performance of dimple tablets is slightly worse than that of regular tablets, noting that the loss of performance could be a result of slower release of NB-base from the dimple vs. regular tablets. J.A. 371. The Board read this last statementi.e., slower release of NB-base from the dimple vs. regular tabletsas an appreciation that the compressed region (i.e., the regular region) of the dimple tablet dissolved at a faster rate than the non-compressed region (i.e., the dimple region). Consequently, the Board concluded that it corroborated McGregor's testimony that he appreciated the comparative dissolution rates. See Board Decision at 61-62 (We credit McGregor's testimony regarding appreciation as it is sufficiently corroborated by, and consistent with, the evidence of record. For example, Metzger-Groom's monthly report identifies the tested tablets as successfully removing carotenoid stains and as having a slower dissolution rate for the noncompressed region (dimple) as opposed to the compressed region.). P & G argues that the Board's interpretation of the Metzger-Groom Report is correct and that the Board did not err in awarding priority to P & G. Henkel counters, however, with its own interpretation of this evidence. According to Henkel, the statement under examination does not reveal an appreciation of differential dissolution rates of the compressed and non-compressed regions of the same tablet, but instead implies a potentially slower release of the untablettable active ingredient from the dimple inert carrier than the release of the same active ingredient tabletted in a regular tablet, i.e., a single-region tablet. Henkel's Opening Br. at 11. Henkel therefore contends that the Board erred by awarding priority to P & G. The interpretation of the critical portion of the Metzger-Groom Report is a very close call, and can reasonably go either way. But our inquiry in this case is not how we would interpret this statement in the Metzger-Groom Report were we to do so in the first instance. Rather, our task is to determine whether the Board's interpretation is supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that it is. In light of the focus of the Metzger-Groom Report on testing the two-region dimple tablet conceived in the McGregor Record of Invention, as well as the numerous references in the report to dissolution rates in general, e.g., J.A. 371 (noting goal of concept was to improve stability and rate of delivery  of cleaning agents (emphasis added)), we find the Board's interpretationthat this statement demonstrates an appreciation that the dissolution rate of the dimple, or non-compressed region of the tablet, was slower than the regular, or compressed region of the tabletreasonable. Thus, even if we were to assume for the sake of this appeal that Henkel's interpretation of the Metzger-Groom Report is also reasonable, the substantial evidence standard of review compels affirmance of the Board's interpretation. See Guise v. Dep't of Justice, 330 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2003) (finding Merit System Protection Board's interpretation of evidence supported by substantial evidence where the interpretation was reasonable); see also NLRB v. Augusta Bakery Corp., 957 F.2d 1467, 1473 (7th Cir.1992) (Where two inferences are possible, we cannot substitute our own inference for that of the Board, so long as the Board's is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.); Midland Transp. Co. v. NLRB, 962 F.2d 1323, 1326 (8th Cir.1992) (We may not substitute our interpretation of the evidence for the Board's reasonable inferences.). Because Henkel challenges only the Board's interpretation of the Metzger-Groom Report and not the Board's conclusion of corroboration based on that interpretation, we affirm the Board's award of priority of invention to P & G.