Court Opinion

ID: 9404156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 15:01:25.33197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:11.833880
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1129   Document: 58     Page: 1   Filed: 06/22/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                BASF CORPORATION,
                      Appellant

                            v.

         INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                       2022-1129
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. PGR2020-
 00037.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: June 22, 2023
                 ______________________

     PAUL ALESSIO MEZZINA, King & Spalding LLP, Wash-
 ington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented by
 JOSHUA NATHANIEL MITCHELL; BRIAN EUTERMOSER,
 MIKAELA STONE, Denver, CO.

     BRIAN BUROKER, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Wash-
 ington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by
 VLADIMIR J. SEMENDYAI; KATHERINE QUINN DOMINGUEZ,
 New York, NY; NATHANIEL RYAN SCHARN, BRIAN YANG, Ir-
 vine, CA.
Case: 22-1129    Document: 58     Page: 2    Filed: 06/22/2023

 2        BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC

                  ______________________

      Before LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
 STOLL, Circuit Judge.
      BASF Corporation appeals the Patent Trial and Appeal
 Board’s final written decision determining that BASF
 failed to show that certain claims of U.S. Patent
 No. 10,323,553 were unpatentable as indefinite or obvious.
 We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. In particu-
 lar, we hold that, based on its statement that it need not
 consider BASF’s evidence, the Board failed to properly con-
 sider the record evidence and adequately explain its ra-
 tionale for indefiniteness. We therefore vacate the Board’s
 indefiniteness determination and remand for further pro-
 ceedings. We otherwise find no reversible error in the
 Board’s obviousness determination and affirm the Board’s
 decision in that regard.
                         BACKGROUND
     Ingevity South Carolina, LLC owns the ’553 patent,
 which relates to systems for reducing fuel vapor emissions
 in low purge conditions, e.g., in hybrid vehicles. ’553 pa-
 tent col. 1 ll. 22–25, col. 2 ll. 55–65.
     Gasoline-powered motor vehicles are equipped with a
 vented fuel tank to allow for fuel vapors to expand and con-
 tract. As a result, fuel vapors escape to the atmosphere
 through the fuel tank’s vent and pollute the air. These fuel
 vapor emissions are known as diurnal breathing losses
 (DBLs). To reduce fuel vapor emissions, engineers devel-
 oped adsorption canister systems. First, honeycomb-
 shaped volumes made of adsorbent material, such as acti-
 vated carbon, collect fuel vapors while allowing other com-
 ponents to pass through. But adsorbent volumes can only
 adsorb so much vapor; so, once the adsorbent volumes
 reach their limit, non-adsorbed fuel vapors escape into the
 atmosphere. To address this issue, the vehicle’s engine—
Case: 22-1129       Document: 58       Page: 3   Filed: 06/22/2023

 BASF CORPORATION     v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC          3

 while on—draws air back through the canister, and the ad-
 sorbed fuel vapors are drawn back into the engine (desorp-
 tion) and burned (purge). This canister system, however,
 was not as effective for hybrid vehicles because the engines
 in hybrid vehicles do not run as frequently as traditional
 gasoline-powered vehicles and thus spend less time in this
 second, desorption phase. Hence, hybrid vehicles operate
 in “low purge” conditions.
      The ’553 patent purports to reduce fuel vapor emis-
 sions in hybrid vehicles using a canister system with an
 initial adsorbent volume and at least one subsequent ad-
 sorbent volume with lower adsorptive properties (i.e.,
 lesser adsorptive capacity) than the initial adsorption vol-
 ume. ’553 patent Abstract. For example, as depicted below
 in Figure 4 of the patent, fuel-side adsorbent volume 201
 would have a higher adsorption capacity than at least one
 of the subsequent adsorbent volumes 202, 203, 204, or
 301:

 Id. at Fig. 4, col. 4 l. 61–col. 5 l. 3.
     Claim 1 is illustrative and describes the characteristics
 of the adsorbent volumes:
Case: 22-1129      Document: 58    Page: 4    Filed: 06/22/2023

 4         BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC

     1. An evaporative emission control canister system,
     including one or more canisters and comprising:
         a fuel-side adsorbent volume having an ef-
         fective incremental adsorption capacity at
         25° C. of greater than 35 grams n-butane/L
         between vapor concentration of 5 vol % and
         50 vol % n-butane; and
         at least one subsequent adsorbent volume
         having an effective incremental adsorption
         capacity at 25° C. of less than 35 grams n-
         butane/L between vapor concentration of 5
         vol % and 50 vol % n-butane, an effective
         butane working capacity (BWC) of less
         than 3 g/dL, and a g-total BWC of ≤6 grams,
         wherein the fuel-side adsorbent volume
         having an effective incremental adsorption
         capacity at 25° C. of greater than 35 grams
         n-butane/L between vapor concentration of
         5 vol % and 50 vol % n-butane, and the at
         least one subsequent adsorbent volume are
         located within a single canister, or in sepa-
         rate canisters that are connected to permit
         sequential contact by fuel vapor, and
         wherein the canister system has a two-day
         diurnal breathing loss (DBL) of no more
         than 20 mg at no more than 100 BV of
         purge applied after a 40 g/hr butane load-
         ing step.
 Id. at col. 23 ll. 18–40.
     BASF, a competitor in the design and manufacture of
 carbon honeycombs, petitioned for post-grant review of
 claims 1–10, 14–28, 32–38, 51, 52, 55–57, 59, 64–72, and
 76–82 of the ’553 patent. BASF asserted that the chal-
 lenged claims are indefinite and would have been obvious
Case: 22-1129    Document: 58     Page: 5    Filed: 06/22/2023

 BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC        5

 over Hiltzik1 in view of Clontz WIPO 2 and Clontz SAE. 3
 Hiltzik is Ingevity’s own patent, shares two common inven-
 tors with the ’553 patent, and discloses similar subject
 matter as the limitations of claim 1, but not the low-purge
 performance limitation: “wherein the canister system has
 a two-day diurnal breathing loss (DBL) of no more than
 20 mg at no more than 100 BV of purge applied after a
 40 g/hr butane loading step.” The Board held that BASF
 had not shown the challenged claims were unpatentable
 under either ground. BASF Corp. v. Ingevity S.C., LLC,
 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5450, at *47–48 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9,
 2021) (Decision).
     BASF appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                         DISCUSSION
     BASF challenges the Board’s indefiniteness and obvi-
 ousness determinations.     Ingevity challenges BASF’s
 standing for this appeal. We address the threshold issue
                          4

 of standing before addressing the Board’s indefiniteness
 and obviousness determinations.
                              I
     We begin with standing. Ingevity argues that BASF
 lacks standing because BASF failed to provide evidence of

    1    U.S. Patent No. RE38,844.
    2    WO 2009/061533 A1.
     3   Clontz, R., et al., Effects of Low-Purge Vehicle Ap-
 plications and Ethanol-Containing Fuels on Evaporative
 Emissions Canister Performance, SOC’Y AUTO. ENG’RS
 JAPAN (2007).
     4   Ingevity filed a motion to terminate BASF’s appeal,
 alleging that BASF lacked Article III standing. ECF No. 9.
 We denied the motion and directed the parties to address
 standing in their merits briefing. ECF No. 20.
Case: 22-1129     Document: 58     Page: 6    Filed: 06/22/2023

 6        BASF CORPORATION    v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC

 a likely infringing act in the United States or concrete busi-
 ness plans for a BASF product that could lead to such an
 act. Appellee’s Br. 58. Specifically, Ingevity contends that
 BASF does not explain what testing, manufacturing, or
 selling of its products has occurred in the United States;
 BASF has not explicitly named interested customers; and
 BASF’s business plans are speculative in light of the
 lengthy validation process required for products on vehicle
 platforms in the United States. Id. at 58–62.
     BASF contends that it has standing because Ingevity
 previously sued it for infringement of Hiltzik—directed to
 an invention similar to the ’553 patent—based on BASF’s
 use and testing of EvapTrap XC, its previously produced
 activated carbon product. Appellant’s Br 62–65; see Com-
 plaint, Ingevity Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 1:18CV01391,
 2018 WL 11360396 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2018). Mr. Joseph
 Moonjely, BASF’s in-house counsel, explained that BASF’s
 product was developed to be used in U.S. vehicles and to
 meet U.S. emissions standards, and BASF can currently
 manufacture and provide its product to customers. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 62–65 (citing Moonjely Decl. ¶¶ 9, 29–30); Reply
 Br. 34–35. Mr. Moonjely also stated that interested cus-
 tomers have inquired about the product’s pricing and in-
 ventory for use on vehicle platforms in the United States.
 Moonjely Decl. ¶ 29.
      BASF, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears
 the burden of establishing standing. Spokeo, Inc. v. Rob-
 ins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016). To
 establish Article III standing, BASF must show: (1) it “suf-
 fered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the
 challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely
 to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id. To
 demonstrate the requisite injury in an appeal from a final
 written decision in a post grant review, “we have concluded
 that it is generally sufficient for the appellant to show that
 it has engaged in, is engaging in, or will likely engage in
 ‘activity that would give rise to a possible infringement
Case: 22-1129    Document: 58     Page: 7    Filed: 06/22/2023

 BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC        7

 suit.’” Grit Energy Sols., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC,
 957 F.3d 1309, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Consumer
 Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Rsch. Found., 753 F.3d 1258,
 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). BASF “need not face ‘a specific
 threat of infringement litigation by the patentee’ to estab-
 lish jurisdiction,” but rather need only “generally show a
 controversy ‘of sufficient immediacy and reality’ to warrant
 the requested judicial relief.” E.I. DuPont de Nemours
 & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
 (quoting ABB Inc. v. Cooper Indus., LLC, 635 F.3d 1345,
 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
      We are satisfied that BASF has met its burden of es-
 tablishing standing. “[F]or purposes of assessing stand-
 ing,” we accept Mr. Moonjely’s declaration “as true . . .
 material representations of fact.” Amerigen Pharms. Ltd.
 v. UCB Pharma GmBH, 913 F.3d 1076, 1083 (Fed. Cir.
 2019). We have previously found a substantial risk of fu-
 ture infringement where the appellant “operates a plant
 [that is] capable of infringing the . . . patent” at issue.
 DuPont, 904 F.3d at 1004–05. We have also held that prior
 litigation involving, for example, the patent-in-suit or re-
 lated patents “presents an even stronger basis for stand-
 ing.”    Google LLC v. Conversant Wireless Licensing
 S.A.R.L., 753 F. App’x 890, 894 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-prec-
 edential) (finding appellants’ risk of infringement concrete
 and substantial where appellant was previously accused of
 patent infringement by the appellee); see also Adidas AG
 v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding
 the appellant had standing where the appellee asserted the
 patent-at-issue against a third-party product similar to
 that of the appellant’s). Here, BASF has demonstrated
 that it plans to sell its product in the United States and
 was previously sued by Ingevity. Because BASF “has con-
 crete plans for future activity that create[] a substantial
 risk of future infringement or likely cause the patentee to
 assert a claim of infringement,” JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto.
 Ltd., 898 F.3d 1217, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2018), we conclude that
Case: 22-1129    Document: 58      Page: 8    Filed: 06/22/2023

 8        BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC

 BASF has satisfied the requirements for Article III stand-
 ing.
                              II
     We thus proceed to the merits of BASF’s appeal. We
 review the Board’s ultimate conclusions of indefiniteness
 and obviousness de novo and its underlying fact determi-
 nations for substantial evidence. Guangdong Alison Hi-
 Tech Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 936 F.3d 1353, 1359
 (Fed. Cir. 2019); TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942
 F.3d 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The substantial evidence
 standard asks whether, after examining the record evi-
 dence, “a reasonable fact finder could arrive at the agency’s
 decision.” TQ Delta, 942 F.3d at 1358.
     BASF challenges the Board’s findings that (1) two
 methods of measuring adsorption capacity—the gravimet-
 ric and volumetric measurement methods—are compara-
 ble; and (2) a skilled artisan would not have been
 motivated to dilute Hiltzik’s honeycomb to achieve lower
 emissions in view of Clontz SAE. We address each issue in
 turn.
                              A
      BASF challenges the Board’s rejection of its indefinite-
 ness ground as being arbitrary and capricious and not sup-
 ported by substantial evidence. Appellant’s Br. 30–43.
 The challenged claims recite “an effective incremental ad-
 sorption capacity.” For example, Claim 1 requires “a fuel-
 side adsorbent volume having an effective incremental ad-
 sorption capacity [(IAC)] . . . of greater than 35 grams n-
 butane/L” and “at least one subsequent adsorbent volume
 having an effective incremental adsorption capacity . . . of
 less than 35 grams n-butane/L.” ’553 patent col. 9 ll. 6–25,
 col. 23 ll. 20–26 (emphases added). The ’553 patent dis-
 closes two different methods of measuring effective IAC: a
 gravimetric method and a volumetric method. Id. at col. 13
 l. 60–col. 14 l. 54.
Case: 22-1129    Document: 58      Page: 9    Filed: 06/22/2023

 BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC         9

     BASF argued before the Board that the challenged
 claims are indefinite because the patent specification fails
 to teach with reasonable certainty how the effective IAC
 should be measured, and the specification articulates two
 measurement methods that give varying results. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 30–31 (“[W]hen ‘different approaches to measure-
 ment are involved,’ the patent ‘must disclose a single
 known approach or establish that, where multiple known
 approaches exist, a [skilled artisan] would know which ap-
 proach to select.’” (quoting Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems.
 Corp. (Can.), 803 F.3d 620, 630 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In sup-
 port, BASF offered a memorandum from its expert
 Dr. Guo, as well as third-party testing, to show alleged sig-
 nificant differences between results determined using the
 gravimetric and volumetric methods. See Decision, 2021
 Pat. App. LEXIS 5450, at *17; J.A. 2055; J.A. 3092.
     In response, Ingevity offered contrary evidence, such as
 peer-reviewed articles and expert testimony, to show that
 the two measurement methods “were known to measure
 equivalent adsorption capacities and were viewed as com-
 patible with each other.” Decision, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS
 5450, at *17. This evidence showed, Ingevity argued, that
 the large differences found in BASF’s testing resulted from
 “instrument inaccuracies and experimental error.” Id.
     The Board ultimately found that BASF had not estab-
 lished indefiniteness of the claims by a preponderance of
 the evidence. Id. at *18. On appeal, BASF argues that the
 Board credited Ingevity’s evidence and failed to consider its
 contrary evidence of indefiniteness, including its third-
 party testing evidence. Appellant’s Br. 37–40. The Board’s
 opinion states in relevant part:
     We find that the evidence submitted by Patent
     Owner as to the gravimetric and volumetric meas-
     urement techniques demonstrates that they were
     well established in the art as comparable methods
     for   measuring      adsorption    capacity,  and
Case: 22-1129     Document: 58     Page: 10    Filed: 06/22/2023

 10        BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC

      accordingly, not a basis for determining claim in-
      definiteness.
      Because this determination is dispositive as to Pe-
      titioner’s indefiniteness challenge, we need not ad-
      dress Petitioner’s allegations as to the measurement
      differences . . . .
 Decision, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5450, at *19 (emphasis
 added; citations omitted).
     The Board’s statement suggests that, because it found
 Ingevity’s evidence on indefiniteness convincing, the Board
 did not consider BASF’s evidence on the issue.
     Substantial evidence review “asks whether a reasona-
 ble fact finder could have arrived at the agency’s decision,
 and involves examination of the record as a whole, taking
 into account evidence that both justifies and detracts from
 an agency’s decision.” TQ Delta, 942 F.3d at 1358 (quota-
 tions omitted). Although our review under the Administra-
 tive Procedure Act (APA) is deferential, id., the Board must
 “explain[] its decisions with sufficient precision, including
 the underlying factfindings and [its] rationale,” Packard
 Press, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 227 F.3d 1352, 1357
 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Indeed, “the Board may not short-cut its
 consideration of the factual record before it.” Princeton
 Vanguard, LLC v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., 786 F.3d 960, 970
 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see id. (“Though the Board is not required
 to discuss every piece of evidence, it cannot . . . disregard
 [the appellant’s] evidence without explanation.”).
     At oral argument, Ingevity asserted that the Board did
 weigh BASF’s evidence against Ingevity’s. For example,
 Ingevity suggested the Board noted that Dr. Zielinski, who
 oversaw BASF’s third-party testing, also wrote one of the
 peer-reviewed publications submitted by Ingevity. See
 Oral       Arg.      at 16:12–17:13,      https://oralargu-
 ments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1129_0503202
 3.mp3. In Ingevity’s view, the Board made a credibility
Case: 22-1129    Document: 58     Page: 11   Filed: 06/22/2023

 BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC       11

 finding and determined that Dr. Zielinski’s peer-reviewed
 article was more reliable than the third-party testing, in
 light of the other evidence in the record. Id. In other
 words, Ingevity argued that the Board considered the evi-
 dence submitted by BASF and Ingevity, and ultimately de-
 termined that Ingevity’s evidence established that the
 volumetric and gravimetric techniques are comparable
 methods in the art. Id. at 16:12–17:43; see id. at 18:12–
 18:26 (“All you have to do is find a path to their outcome,
 which is clear—[the Board] found the peer-reviewed arti-
 cles . . . and unbiased materials to be more compelling.”).
 But the Board did not explain whether it found Ingevity’s
 evidence more credible; nor did it explain whether it found
 BASF’s testing unreliable and therefore did not give that
 evidence any weight. See id. at 17:43–18:16. While we may
 well have affirmed the Board had it articulated any of these
 purported reasons for its conclusion, we cannot meaning-
 fully review the Board’s opinion to determine whether its
 underlying factual finding is supported by substantial evi-
 dence because we cannot discern the basis for the Board’s
 finding—other than its very clear statement that it need
 not consider BASF’s evidence. Such a statement, without
 further elaboration, runs afoul of the APA’s requirement to
 consider all the evidence and thus the Board’s analysis is
 improper.
     We therefore vacate the Board’s decision regarding
 BASF’s indefiniteness challenge and remand for the Board
 to consider all the proffered evidence of record and make
 the relevant factual findings and legal conclusion regard-
 ing indefiniteness.
                              B
     We now turn to BASF’s challenge to the Board’s finding
 on motivation to combine the asserted prior art. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 43–61. Claim 1 is illustrative and requires “at
 least one subsequent adsorbent volume having . . . an ef-
 fective butane working capacity (BWC) of less than 3 g/dL,
Case: 22-1129    Document: 58      Page: 12    Filed: 06/22/2023

 12       BASF CORPORATION    v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC

 and a g-total BWC of ≤6 grams” and “the canister system
 ha[ving] a two-day diurnal breathing loss (DBL) of no more
 than 20 mg at no more than 100 BV of purge applied after
 a 40 g/hr butane loading step.” See ’553 patent col. 23
 ll. 24–40. In its petition, BASF asserted that Hiltzik,
 Clontz WIPO, and Clontz SAE taught this limitation—spe-
 cifically, that a skilled artisan would have been motivated
 to dilute the honeycomb in Hiltzik’s Example 2 in view of
 the teachings of the two Clontz references that such a dilu-
 tion would be preferable in a low purge environment.
 J.A. 214–16; see also Decision, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5450,
 at *28–29.
     The Board found that BASF had not established by a
 preponderance of the evidence that a skilled artisan would
 have been motivated to dilute Hiltzik’s honeycomb adsor-
 bent “to meet emissions standards at low-purge conditions
 in view of Clontz SAE and Clontz WIPO.” 5 Id. at *32–36.
 The Board was persuaded by Ingevity’s argument that
 Clontz SAE expressly teaches that “higher working capac-
 ity honeycombs ‘facilitate achievement of target emissions

      5   Although both parties assert that the Board found
 that Clontz SAE teaches away from the claimed invention,
 we understand the Board’s opinion as holding that a person
 of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated
 to modify Hiltzik in view of the Clontz references because
 Clontz SAE teaches an alternative solution to the same
 low-purge problem present in the ’553 patent. See, e.g., Ap-
 pellant’s Br. 27–28; Appellee’s Br. 2. Indeed, the Board’s
 decision does not use the legal term “teaching away,” nor
 does it analyze the stringent criteria required for establish-
 ing teaching away. See Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP
 v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
 (“Whether a reference teaches away is doctrinally distinct
 from whether there is no motivation to combine prior art
 references.”).
Case: 22-1129   Document: 58      Page: 13   Filed: 06/22/2023

 BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC      13

 levels under the reduced purge conditions.’” Id. at *32–33
 (quoting J.A. 2272).
     On appeal, BASF challenges the Board’s finding that a
 skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine
 Hiltzik with the Clontz references. Specifically, BASF ar-
 gues that contrary to the Board’s finding, Clontz WIPO
 suggests diluting Hiltzik’s honeycomb with its teaching us-
 ing adsorbents with flatter isotherms, including voids in
 the adsorbents, and reducing the honeycomb’s resistance.
 Appellant’s Br. 43–60; see also id. at 44–51.
     We hold that the Board’s finding—that a skilled arti-
 san would not have been motivated to make the proposed
 combination of Hiltzik and the Clontz references—is sup-
 ported by substantial evidence. Clontz SAE discloses using
 “higher capacity honeycombs” than the honeycombs in
 Hiltzik to achieve “target emissions levels under the re-
 duced purge conditions.” J.A. 2272. Clontz SAE teaches
 that canister emissions were generally better in large vol-
 umes, as shown by a larger honeycomb exhibiting lower
 emissions levels than the smaller honeycomb at purge vol-
 umes less than 200 bed volumes. J.A. 2268–69. A reason-
 able factfinder could therefore find that Clontz SAE would
 have motivated a skilled artisan to use a higher BWC in
 subsequent adsorbent volumes.
      While BASF introduced evidence arguably demon-
 strating a motivation to combine—e.g., BASF’s expert opin-
 ing that the skilled artisan would have been motivated
 because both Hiltzik and Clontz WIPO teach diluting the
 honeycomb (either by flattening its isotherm or reducing
 its resistance) to achieve better emissions and reduce its
 IAC and BWC—the Board considered this evidence. In-
 stead, the Board found that Clontz SAE never mentions di-
 lution as a means to address the problem with low-purge
 conditions. See Decision, 2021 Pat. App. LEXIS 5450,
 at *33–34. Given the varied record evidence—with some
 supporting BASF’s view and some supporting Ingevity’s
Case: 22-1129     Document: 58      Page: 14    Filed: 06/22/2023

 14          BASF CORPORATION   v. INGEVITY SOUTH CAROLINA, LLC

 view—the Board was entitled to reasonably reach its fac-
 tual finding. “This court does not reweigh evidence on ap-
 peal, but rather determines whether substantial evidence
 supports the Board’s fact findings.” In re NTP, Inc., 654
 F.3d 1279, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, we conclude
 that substantial evidence supports a finding of no motiva-
 tion to combine.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered BASF’s remaining arguments and
 find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, BASF
 has standing to appeal the Board’s final written decision.
 Because the Board did not explain why it disregarded
 BASF’s proffered evidence regarding the measurement
 techniques, we vacate the Board’s indefiniteness determi-
 nation and remand for further proceedings consistent with
 this opinion. Because substantial evidence supports the
 Board’s finding no motivation to combine, we affirm the
 Board’s obviousness determination.
   AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND
                 REMANDED
                            COSTS
 No costs.