Court Opinion

ID: 9394462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 15:03:08.734142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:59.170066
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1044    Document: 40    Page: 1   Filed: 05/15/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                    LAITRAM, LLC,
                       Appellant

                            v.

                ASHWORTH BROS., INC.,
                      Cross-Appellant
                  ______________________

            2022-1044, 2022-1045, 2022-1084
                ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00593, IPR2020-00594.
                  ______________________

                  Decided: May 15, 2023
                  ______________________

    LAUREN J. DREYER, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC,
 argued for appellant. Also represented by JENNIFER
 CARTER, LORI DING, MICHAEL HAWES, Houston, TX.

    ROBERT FRANCIS ALTHERR, JR., Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.,
 Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also repre-
 sented by JOHN R. HUTCHINS, CHRISTOPHER ROTH.
                 ______________________

   Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Case: 22-1044     Document: 40     Page: 2     Filed: 05/15/2023

 2                       LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

 HUGHES, Circuit Judge.
      Laitram, LLC appeals a decision from the Patent Trial
 and Appeal Board that claims 9 and 11–13 of U.S. Patent
 No. 10,023,388 and claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No.
 10,189,645 are unpatentable as obvious. Ashworth Bros.,
 Inc. cross-appeals the Board’s decision that claim 10 of the
 ’388 patent is patentable over Roinestad and other prior
 art. As to the lead appeal, we affirm because the Board cor-
 rectly construed the claims and because substantial evi-
 dence supports the Board’s factual findings. As to the cross-
 appeal, we vacate and remand for the Board to give proper
 weight to Ashworth’s arguments and evidence about Roin-
 estad as a whole.
                               I
                              A
     The ’388 and ’645 patents relate to spiral conveyor sys-
 tems that include belts that move up and around a central
 tower like a spiral staircase. As shown in the side-view
 schematic below, the tower or drum (10) of the system spins
 around a central axis (12) such that the conveyor belt (20)
 is moved along the spinning tower in a spiral fashion.

 ’388 patent, Fig. 1.
    The patents discuss two well-known types of spiral con-
 veyors. The first is a friction spiral conveyor, or an
Case: 22-1044      Document: 40     Page: 3   Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                     3

 overdrive spiral conveyor. In this type of conveyor, the
 spinning central tower presses tightly against the side of
 the conveyor belt and the friction between the tower and
 the belt naturally pulls the belt forward as the tower spins.
 This design requires the tower to spin faster than the con-
 veyor belt, and one known feature of a friction drive system
 is that the conveyor belt will sometimes “slip” along the
 tower. ’388 patent, 1:41–45.
      The second type of spiral conveyor is a positive drive
 conveyor. Instead of pressing up against the tower itself, a
 positive drive conveyor has structures jutting out of the
 tower that grab onto a corresponding structure on the side
 of the belt. This type of engagement is like a bike chain and
 gear, where the bike chain is the pocket-like structure on
 the side of the belt and the gear is the tower with positive
 drive structures jutting out. While these positive drive sys-
 tems do not experience the same “slip” as in friction drive
 systems, positive drive systems sometimes have difficulty
 “cleanly engaging the belt with and disengaging it from the
 drive structure” on the tower. Id. at 1:41–48.
     The ’388 and ’645 patents claim positive drive spiral
 conveyor systems with structures called “ridges” that en-
 gage with the side of the conveyor belt. These ridges are
 vertical bars that extend from top to bottom of the central
 tower along similarly vertical drive members. The ridges
 have a distance from the vertical axis that varies from the
 bottom to the top of the tower. Such variations are achieved
 by what the patents call “taper[ing].” ’388 patent, 1:56–67.
     Claim 9 of the ’388 patent below is representative of
 the claims at issue. Emphasis is added to highlight the dis-
 puted terms.
     9. A spiral conveyor comprising:
     a drive tower extending from a bottom to a top and
     rotating about a vertical axis;
Case: 22-1044    Document: 40      Page: 4     Filed: 05/15/2023

 4                       LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

     a plurality of parallel drive members extending in
     length from the bottom to the top of the drive tower;
     wherein each of the drive members includes an out-
     wardly projecting ridge whose distance from the
     vertical axis varies from the bottom to the top of
     the drive tower; and
     wherein each drive member includes a lower seg-
     ment at the bottom of the drive tower and wherein
     the ridge in the lower segment is tapered along a
     portion of its length;
     a conveyor belt positively driven without slip on a
     helical path around the drive tower by the ridges of
     the drive members engaging an inside edge of the
     conveyor belt.
     ’388 patent, 8:10–24 (emphases added).
                              B
     Both friction and positive drive spiral conveyors were
 well-known in the art before the priority date of the pa-
 tents. Relevant here are three prior art references disclos-
 ing such systems: Pupp, Roinestad, and Roinestad ’430. 1
     There is no dispute that Pupp discloses a spiral con-
 veyor; the dispute is whether Pupp discloses a positively
 driven system. Relevant to this question are figures 5, 6,
 and 8 of Pupp (reproduced below). Figure 5 is a schematic
 of the drum with the conveyor belt, Figure 6 is a top view

     1   U.S. Pat. No. 6,062,375, issued May 16, 2000
 (Pupp); U.S. Pat. No. 3,348,659, issued October 24, 1967
 (Roinestad); U.S. Pat. No. 4,741,430, issued May 3, 1988
 (Roinestad ’430).
Case: 22-1044      Document: 40     Page: 5   Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                      5

 of the drum, and Figure 8 shows the “strips” that flank the
 side of the drum and contact the conveyor belt.

      Similarly, there is no dispute that Roinestad discloses
 a friction drive spiral conveyor; the disputes involve the ta-
 pering in Figures 1 and 11 (reproduced below) and their
 applicability to a positive drive system. Figure 1 shows an
 embodiment where “[e]ach of the drums is tapered in the
 direction of belt travel axially of the drum.” Roinestad,
 5:25–26. Figure 11 shows other possible embodiments in-
 cluding both the vertical driving bars and some tapering of
 the drum.

     Finally, there is no dispute that Roinestad ’430 dis-
 closes a “positive drive helical conveyor system,” J.A. 786;
 the dispute is whether Roinestad ’430 discloses a positive
 drive conveyor without slip. As in the ’388 and ’645 patents,
 the Roinestad ’430 system uses rods to engage with corre-
 sponding structures on the conveyor belts. These rods run
Case: 22-1044    Document: 40      Page: 6     Filed: 05/15/2023

 6                       LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

 from the bottom to the top of a spinning central tower and
 are spaced around the circumference of the tower.
                              C
     Ashworth filed two inter partes review petitions chal-
 lenging claims 9–13 of the ’388 patent and claims 1–4 of
 the ’645 patent as unpatentable. The IPR proceedings
 raised many of the same issues, and the Board issued sim-
 ilar final written decisions in both IPRs. For the ’388 pa-
 tent, the Board found claims 9 and 11–13 unpatentable as
 obvious over Pupp and Roinestad, but the Board found that
 claims 9 and 10 were not obvious over Roinestad and Roin-
 estad ’430. Thus, claim 10 of the ’388 patent survived. For
 the ’645 patent, the Board found claims 1–4 unpatentable
 as obvious.
     Laitram appeals the Board’s unpatentability conclu-
 sions for claims 9 and 11–13 of the ’388 patent and claims
 1–4 of the ’645 patent. Ashworth cross-appeals the Board’s
 conclusion that claims 9 and 10 of the ’388 patent are non-
 obvious over Roinestad and Roinestad ’430.
                              II
      We set aside the Board’s actions if they are “arbitrary,
 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac-
 cordance with law,” or “unsupported by substantial evi-
 dence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). The Board’s legal determinations
 are reviewed de novo, and its factual findings are reviewed
 for substantial evidence. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC,
 882 F.3d 1132, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Claim construction
 and obviousness are both questions of law that depend on
 underlying findings of fact, which are reviewed for substan-
 tial evidence. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574
 U.S. 318, 325–28 (2015); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1175
 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Case: 22-1044      Document: 40      Page: 7   Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                      7

                               III
      On appeal, Laitram makes three primary arguments:
 (1) the Board erred in construing and applying the “posi-
 tively driven without slip” limitation, (2) the Board erred
 in construing and applying the “tapered along a portion of
 its length limitation,” and (3) the Board erred in finding
 motivation to combine the prior art.
     We begin with the “positively driven without slip” lim-
 itation. Because the Board did not err in construing the
 claim, and because substantial evidence supports the
 Board’s findings that Pupp and Roinestad ’430 disclose this
 limitation, we affirm.
                               A
      We consider the Board’s claim construction de novo,
 giving the claim language its plain and ordinary meaning
 in light of a skilled artisan’s understanding of the specifi-
 cation and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here, the
 Board properly construed “without slip” to have its plain
 and ordinary meaning: “a system in which there is essen-
 tially no slip between the conveyor belt and the drive
 tower.” J.A. 15. Here, the Board’s construction captures
 both the plain and ordinary meaning of “without slip,” and
 the meaning used in the specification and prosecution his-
 tory. See ’388 patent, 1:41–45 (“Because there is positive
 engagement between regularly spaced drive structure on
 the cage and regularly spaced edge structure on the inside
 edge of the belt, there is no slip as in overdrive systems.”)
 (emphasis added); ’645 patent, 1:55–59 (same); see also J.A.
 531 (’388 Patent Notice of Allowability) (“The prior art does
 not teach or disclose a non-slip spiral conveyor . . . .” (em-
 phasis added)). Thus, we agree with the Board’s construc-
 tion.
     Laitram argues the Board erred because this is a new
 construction raised sua sponte by the Board for the first
Case: 22-1044     Document: 40      Page: 8    Filed: 05/15/2023

 8                       LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

 time in its final written decisions. We disagree. A slight dif-
 ference in wording does not amount to a difference in con-
 struction. See, e.g., Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real
 Foods, LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1338–39 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
 (“[T]he Board’s final adopted construction of the nozzle
 terms, while not identical to those proposed by f’real, are
 similar enough to f’real’s proposed constructions so as to
 not constitute changing theories midstream in violation of
 the APA.”). Here, although the Board slightly varied its
 wording in the final written decisions, in effect the Board’s
 construction remained the same. In the institution deci-
 sions, the Board applied the plain and ordinary meaning of
 this term given the intrinsic record, phrasing that meaning
 as “a system in which there is no slip between the conveyor
 belt and the drive tower.” J.A. 827. In the final written de-
 cisions, the Board continued to apply the plain and ordi-
 nary meaning based on the same intrinsic record and
 reiterated that same meaning: “a system in which there is
 essentially no slip between the conveyor belt and the drive
 tower.” J.A. 15. The Board’s addition of “essentially” simply
 clarified that the plain and ordinary meaning of “without
 slip” is not stringent enough to mean there is no slip at all
 in any part of the system. Rather, the plain and ordinary
 meaning of “without slip” is met where there is no slip in
 the system overall, even if an individual piece within that
 system experiences slip. This understanding is just as true
 under the wording “no slip” as it is under “essentially no
 slip.”
     Laitram also argues the Board erred by construing
 “positive drive” as necessarily having no slip. We disagree.
 Expert testimony makes clear that the plain and ordinary
 meaning of a “positively driven” system means that the sys-
 tem necessarily does not experience slip, and this under-
 standing is expressly supported by the patent
 specifications. See, e.g., ’645 patent, 1:55–59 (“Because
 there is positive engagement between regularly spaced
 drive structure on the cage and regularly spaced edge
Case: 22-1044      Document: 40     Page: 9   Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                      9

 structure on the inside edge of the belt, there is no slip as
 in overdrive systems.” (emphasis added)); ’388 patent,
 1:41–45 (same); see also J.A. 1974 at 67:17–20 (“Q. But if
 you’re using positive engagement, you’re not going to have
 any slip, are you? A. Correct.”); J.A. 975 ¶ 11.
      Laitram argues that the Board’s construction is incor-
 rect because it renders “without slip” superfluous and that
 “without slip” must have independent meaning because it
 is not used in all claims that use “positive drive.” We find
 neither argument persuasive. Our preference for avoiding
 superfluous language is not an inflexible rule—we must
 still consider all other principles of claim construction, in-
 cluding how a skilled artisan would have understood the
 term and how it is used in the specification. SimpleAir, Inc.
 v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 429
 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the plain and ordinary meaning of
 “positively driven” is supported by the specification and re-
 inforced by expert testimony. We decline to use the super-
 fluous language canon to arrive at a conflicting conclusion.
     Similarly, our claim differentiation doctrine is not a
 rigid rule and should not be used to overcome the specifica-
 tion’s description of a term. Wi-Lan USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
 830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This is particularly
 true here. Laitram argues that “without slip” must have
 independent meaning because “positive drive without slip”
 is used in claim 9 but only “positive drive” is used in claim
 11. But claim 11 does not only drop the “without slip” lan-
 guage. It also has a more specific requirement about the
 distance between the ridges and the axis of the tower that
 is not present in claim 9. Given that there is more than one
 meaningful difference between claims 9 and 11, we decline
 to apply the claim differentiation doctrine to conclude that
 “without slip” has an independent meaning that contra-
 dicts how positive drive is described in the specification.
Case: 22-1044     Document: 40     Page: 10     Filed: 05/15/2023

 10                      LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

     Thus, the Board did not err by concluding that a posi-
 tively driven system necessarily has no overall slip.
                               B
      Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding
 that Roinestad ’430 discloses “a conveyor belt positively
 driven without slip.” As discussed above with respect to
 claim construction, the evidence relied on by the Board in
 finding that a skilled artisan would have understood that
 a positive drive system necessarily has no slip includes ex-
 pert testimony, the disclosure of Roinestad ’430, and ad-
 missions in the patents’ disclosures. J.A. 139–43. The
 Board also relied on Roinestad ’430 and expert testimony
 in finding that Roinestad ’430 discloses a positive drive sys-
 tem. J.A. 217–19. The Board’s conclusion that Roinestad
 ’430 discloses this limitation is thus supported by substan-
 tial evidence.
     Laitram does not contest the finding that Roinestad
 ’430 discloses a positively driven conveyor belt. Rather,
 Laitram argues that Roinestad ’430 does not disclose the
 “without slip” portion of the limitation. Laitram points to
 the following passage in Roinestad ’430 to argue that the
 Roinestad ’430 system experiences slip:
      Miniscule variances in the speed of the cage 21 rel-
      ative to the supplemental drives can be tolerated
      by occasional slippage of individual rod ends 14
      from engagement with one of the channel legs 48
      or 49. Said occasional slippage does not interfere
      with the positive character of the drive. When slip-
      page at one of the driving bars occurs, the positive
      driving engagement of all or most of the remaining
      bars is maintained.
 Roinestad ’430, 8:42–50 (emphases added).
     First, Laitram did not make this argument until its
 sur-reply, and so it is forfeited. See, e.g., General Access
 Sols., Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658
Case: 22-1044     Document: 40     Page: 11     Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                      11

 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
 Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Our
 law is well established that arguments not raised in the
 opening brief are waived.”)). Second, even if this argument
 were not forfeited, the Board relied on substantial evidence
 in finding that the “occasional slippage” of individual rods
 in Roinestad ’430 does not mean that Roinestad ’430 expe-
 riences “slip” as used in the patents. The Board reviewed
 the language of Roinestad ’430 and correctly found that,
 when Roinestad ’430 uses the term “slippage,” it is not do-
 ing so to convey the same type of “slip” between the con-
 veyor belt and the drive tower described in the patents.
 Rather, Roinestad ’430 explains that even if individual rod
 ends disengage from or slip out of individual pockets on the
 conveyor belt, the system overall does not experience slip.
 We agree with this reading of Roinestad ’430 and thus
 agree that Roinestad ’430 discloses “without slip,” as con-
 strued in subsection III.A.
                               C
     Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding
 that Pupp discloses “a conveyor belt positively driven with-
 out slip.” The Board relied on expert testimony and the dis-
 closures of Pupp to support its finding that Pupp discloses
 positive drive. E.g., J.A. 42–51 (citing, e.g., Pupp, 1:30–33,
 3:3–8, 4:14–36, Figs. 5 and 8; O’Keefe Decl. ¶¶ 13, 58, 79–
 81, 83). For example, the Board credited Ashworth’s expert
 when finding “one of ordinary skill in the art would view
 Pupp’s Figure 8 as implicitly describing ‘positive engage-
 ment’ or, as phrased in element 9F, ‘positive[] drive[].’” J.A.
 44 (citing O’Keefe Decl. ¶¶ 58, 79–81, 83). This constitutes
 substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding that
 Pupp discloses a positive drive system. And, as discussed
 above in subsection III.A, the Board properly construed the
 limitation such that a positive drive system is necessarily
 “without slip.” Thus, the Board did not err by concluding
Case: 22-1044    Document: 40      Page: 12     Filed: 05/15/2023

 12                      LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

 that Pupp discloses “a conveyor belt positively driven with-
 out slip.”
     Laitram argues that, because Pupp does not expressly
 state that it is a positive drive system, the Board improp-
 erly found that positive drive is inherently disclosed in
 Pupp. We disagree. A reference need not use the explicit
 words required by the claim for the Board to find that a
 limitation is disclosed. Instead, the proper inquiry is
 whether a skilled artisan, reading Pupp, would have un-
 derstood the reference to disclose positive drive. The Board,
 relying on expert testimony and the disclosures of Pupp,
 properly found that this limitation was disclosed.
     We have considered Laitram’s remaining arguments
 about “a conveyor belt positively driven without slip” and
 find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above, we affirm
 the Board’s claim construction and decision that Roinestad
 ’430 and Pupp disclose “a conveyor belt positively driven
 without slip.”
                              IV
     Next, we address the “tapered along a portion of its
 length” limitation, which is relevant only to claims 9 and
 10 of the ’388 patent. Again, because we agree with the
 Board’s claim construction, and because substantial evi-
 dence supports the Board’s finding that Roinestad discloses
 this limitation, we affirm.
      The Board properly construed “the ridge in the lower
 segment is tapered along a portion of its length,” to mean
 “at least including a change in the distance from the outer
 surface of the ‘ridge’ to the axis of rotation of the drive
 tower along at least a portion of the ridge’s length.” J.A. 33
 (emphases added). This construction reflects the plain and
 ordinary meaning of “taper” given the ’388 patent’s entire
 disclosure.
     The term “taper” is used broadly in the ’388 patent to
 refer to at least varying the distance from the ridge to the
Case: 22-1044     Document: 40     Page: 13     Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                      13

 vertical axis. For example, the ’388 patent explains that
 “[e]ach of the drive members has an outwardly projecting
 ridge whose distance from the vertical axis varies from the
 bottom to the top of the drive tower.” ’388 patent, 1:56–58.
 The summary also lists three ways in which this variation
 in distance can be achieved: (1) with “a skirt portion ta-
 pered outwardly away from the vertical axis,” (2) with a
 “ridge in the upper segment [that] tapers down toward the
 top of the drive tower,” and (3) with a “ridge in the lower
 segment [that] is tapered along a portion of its length.” Id.
 at 1:58–67. “Taper” is used in all three examples, suggest-
 ing there are multiple ways to achieve tapering.
     The claim language does not specify which type of ta-
 pering is required. It merely recites that “the ridge in the
 lower segment is tapered along a portion of its length.” This
 language then, should be read to include all types of lower
 portion tapering that are described in the ’388 patent. This
 does not only include the example of tapering in Figures 2A
 and 2B, where the tapering is achieved by varying the
 height of the ridge. It also includes the example in Figures
 17 and 18, where tapering is achieved by varying the shape
 of the tower. Thus, it was proper for the Board to construe
 this limitation broadly, requiring “at least including a
 change in the distance from the outer surface of the ‘ridge’
 to the axis of rotation of the drive tower along at least a
 portion of the ridge’s length.” J.A. 33 (emphases added).
      Laitram argues for a narrower construction that would
 limit claim 9 to only the first example of tapering, as shown
 in Figures 2A and 2B. Under that construction, Figures 17
 and 18 would not fall under a “ridge in the lower segment
 is tapered along a portion of its length.” This disregards our
 longstanding precedent that a claim should not be con-
 strued as limited to a single embodiment absent some clear
 indication that a claim relates only to that embodiment.
 See, e.g., Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.,
 632 F.3d 1246, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, nothing ties
 claim 9 to the single embodiment in Figures 2A and 2B.
Case: 22-1044    Document: 40      Page: 14     Filed: 05/15/2023

 14                      LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

 Thus, the Board was correct not to narrow the claim lan-
 guage to that embodiment.
     Laitram also argues that the Board was wrong to cite
 portions of the specification that refer to tapering in the
 context of components other than the ridges themselves.
 But the ridges are affixed to these other components of the
 system. If the skirt portions in Figures 17 and 18 taper
 away from the vertical axis, then the ridges necessarily
 also taper away from the vertical axis because they are at-
 tached to the outside of the skirt portion and follow the
 same angular trajectory. Thus, the Board did not err in con-
 sidering how the specification uses the term “taper,” and it
 arrived at the correct construction.
      Under the Board’s proper construction, substantial ev-
 idence supports the Board’s finding that Roinestad dis-
 closes “tapered along a portion of its length.” The Board
 relied on Figure 1, which shows a conical central tower, ra-
 ther than a cylindrical central tower. J.A. 41 (referring to
 “the purely conical drive tower” of Roinestad as meeting
 this limitation); J.A. 30–31 (focusing on Figure 1 of Roines-
 tad, which is the purely conical tower). Because of this con-
 ical shape, the distance from the outside of the ridges to the
 cone’s axis increases from top to bottom, including in the
 lower segment of the cone. This is substantial evidence to
 support the Board’s finding that Roinestad discloses this
 limitation.
    We have considered Laitram’s remaining arguments
 about the “tapered along a portion of its length” limitation
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above, we
Case: 22-1044     Document: 40     Page: 15   Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                   15

 affirm the Board’s conclusion that Roinestad discloses the
 “tapered along a portion of its length” limitation.
                               V
     Third, we address Laitram’s argument that substantial
 evidence does not support the Board’s motivation to com-
 bine findings. We disagree and thus affirm.
     The Board found that a skilled artisan would have been
 motivated to combine the conical shape of Roinestad with
 the positive drive system of Roinestad ’430 because doing
 so “would provide lower belt tension and reduce the
 amount of stress on the belt.” J.A. 111. In doing so, the
 Board relies on the references themselves and expert testi-
 mony that supports this finding. J.A. 111 (citing e.g.,
 O’Keefe Decl. ¶ 168). This constitutes substantial evidence.
      Similarly, the Board found “that an ordinarily skilled
 artisan would have been motivated to make a system in
 which the belt may be smoothly and economically driven
 under low tension,” as disclosed by the conical shape of
 Roinestad. J.A. 57. In doing so, the Board relied on Ash-
 worth’s expert testimony that a skilled artisan would have
 been motivated to combine the positive drive system of
 Pupp with the conical shape disclosed in Roinestad because
 the Pupp system adds the benefit of reduced circumferen-
 tial friction as compared to friction systems and the shapes
 disclosed in Roinestad achieve a smoother and more eco-
 nomical result. J.A. 57–58 (citing e.g., O’Keefe Decl. ¶ 66;
 Roinestad, 1:11–18). This constitutes substantial evidence.
     We have considered Laitram’s remaining arguments
 about motivation to combine and find them unpersuasive.
 For the reasons above, we affirm the Board’s conclusion
 that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
Case: 22-1044    Document: 40      Page: 16     Filed: 05/15/2023

 16                      LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.

 combine Pupp with Roinestad and Roinestad with Roines-
 tad ’430.
     Thus, we affirm the Board’s conclusion that claims 9
 and 11–13 of the ’388 patent and claims 1–4 of the ’645 pa-
 tent are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.
                              VI
     Finally, we address Ashworth’s cross-appeal. Ash-
 worth’s primary argument on cross-appeal is that the
 Board applied the wrong legal standard by requiring Ash-
 worth to reconcile Figures 1 and 11 of Roinestad and ignor-
 ing the arguments and evidence presented in the petition.
 We agree. Because the Board did not give proper weight to
 Ashworth’s evidence about how a skilled artisan would
 have understood Roinestad as a whole, we vacate and re-
 mand for the Board to consider all the evidence given the
 correct legal standard.
     The Board understood Ashworth as relying on Figure 1
 to show tapering for claim 9 but relying on Figure 11 to
 meet the added tapering limitation in dependent claim 10.
 Because it thought Ashworth to be relying on two figures,
 the Board held that Ashworth was required to “reconcile”
 Figure 1 with Figure 11 when relying on Figure 11 for
 claim 10. But Ashworth did not rely solely on the conical
 shape in Figure 1 to meet the tapering limitation in claim
 9. Rather, it argued with respect to claim 9 that a skilled
 artisan would have understood Roinestad to disclose a lim-
 ited number of shapes for the drive tower, including in Fig-
 ure 11. J.A. 315–16. Ashworth argued that it would have
 been obvious to a skilled artisan to use any of these shapes,
 or a combination of these shapes, because doing so would
 be a simple design choice. J.A. 311–15. It also argued that
 these various shapes would have solved a known problem
 in the art by routine optimization. J.A. 314–15. Ashworth
 then applied that same logic to the added tapering limita-
 tion in claim 10. J.A. 322–33.
Case: 22-1044     Document: 40     Page: 17   Filed: 05/15/2023

 LAITRAM, LLC   v. ASHWORTH BROS., INC.                   17

     Given Ashworth’s arguments, the appropriate obvious-
 ness analysis is not whether the conical shape of Figure 1
 can be physically combined or “reconciled” with the non-
 conical shape of Figure 11. Rather, the correct legal stand-
 ard is whether a skilled artisan, considering Roinestad as
 a whole, would have arrived at the claimed shapes. To the
 extent arriving at the claimed shapes would require a com-
 bination of elements, the motivation to combine analysis
 does not require the Board to “seek out precise teachings
 directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
 claim,” because the Board “can take account of the infer-
 ences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
 the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Ashworth presented evidence to this
 effect in the petition, but the Board ignored this evidence
 because it focused only on whether the exact shape of Fig-
 ure 1 would work with the exact shape of Figure 11. Thus,
 the Board erred by failing to consider whether a skilled ar-
 tisan, considering Roinestad for all that it teaches, would
 have arrived at the claimed shapes.
     We have considered Laitram’s arguments on cross-ap-
 peal and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we vacate
 and remand for the Board to properly consider Ashworth’s
 arguments and evidence that a skilled artisan would have
 arrived at the shapes in claims 9 and 10 based on the teach-
 ings of Roinestad as a whole.
      AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND VACATED AND
             REMANDED-IN-PART
                             COSTS
 No costs.