Court Opinion

ID: 9885817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 15:00:54.215457+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:35.894296
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1333    Document: 63          Page: 1        Filed: 10/06/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

  JODI A. SCHWENDIMANN, FKA JODI A. DALVEY,
                  Appellant

                                 v.

         NEENAH, INC., AVERY PRODUCTS
                CORPORATION,
                    Appellees

            ----------------------------------------------

                JODI A. SCHWENDIMANN
                         Appellant

                                 v.

                     NEENAH, INC.,
                         Appellee
                  ______________________

       2022-1333, 2022-1334, 2022-1427, 2022-1432
                ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00628, IPR2020-00629, IPR2020-00634, IPR2020-00915.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: October 6, 2023
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 2    Filed: 10/06/2023

 2                            SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

     DEVAN V. PADMANABHAN, Padmanabhan & Dawson
 PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, argued for appellant. Also repre-
 sented by MICHELLE DAWSON, BRITTA LOFTUS, PAUL J.
 ROBBENNOLT.

    JOSEPH J. RICHETTI, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner
 LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellees. Also repre-
 sented by ALEXANDER DAVID WALDEN; K. LEE MARSHALL,
 San Francisco, CA.
                 ______________________

     Before PROST, CLEVENGER, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
                         Judges.
 CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
     Jodi A. Schwendimann owns U.S. Patent Nos.
 RE41,623 (the “’623 patent”), 7,749,581 (the “’581 patent”),
 7,754,042 (the “’042 patent”), and 7,766,475 (the “’475 pa-
 tent”) (collectively, the “Appealed Patents”). Ms. Schwend-
 imann appeals from four final written decisions of the U.S.
 Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal
 Board (the “Board”) holding all claims of the ’623 patent, 1
 ’042 patent, 2 and ’475 patent 3 and claims 1–6, 8–21, and
 24–31 of the ’581 patent 4 (the “Challenged Claims”) un-
 patentable as obvious in view of asserted prior art.

      1  Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-
 00628, 2021 WL 4877521 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2021).
     2   Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-
 00629, 2021 WL 6297820 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2021).
     3   Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-
 00915, 2021 WL 5203293 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2021) (“Deci-
 sion”).
     4   Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-
 00634, 2021 WL 6299553 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2021).
Case: 22-1333     Document: 63      Page: 3     Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                                  3

      After Ms. Schwendimann asserted the Appealed Pa-
 tents, a fifth, related patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,771,554 (the
 “’554 patent”), and three other patents from a different, un-
 related patent family against Neenah, Inc. and Avery Prod-
 ucts Corporation (collectively, “Neenah”), 5 Neenah filed
 petitions for inter partes review with the Board for the
 Challenged Claims in the Appealed Patents and claims in
 the ’554 patent. Neenah’s petitions argued the claims were
 rendered obvious on multiple separate grounds based on
 different combinations of prior art, including grounds in
 each petition based on U.S. Patent No. 5,798,179
 (“Kronzer”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,655,476 (“Oez”).
 Although the Board did not institute an inter partes review
 for the ’554 patent, the Board instituted inter partes review
 for all the Challenged Claims in the Appealed Patents and
 found them unpatentable as obvious over Kronzer in view
 of Oez. For the reasons below, we affirm.
                         BACKGROUND
                  A. The Appealed Patents
     The Appealed Patents relate to transfer sheets and
 methods for transferring images onto dark-colored fabrics.
 ’475 patent col. 1 ll. 17–19. 6 Multi-layer image transfer
 sheets for transferring images onto fabrics were well
 known in the prior art. Id. col. 1 l. 20–col. 2 l. 27. The prior
 art image transfer sheets generally included a base/sub-
 strate layer, typically made of paper, and one or more

     5    Ms. Schwendimann brought suit against Neenah
 for infringement in the United States District Courts in
 Delaware and the Eastern District of Michigan.
     6    The Appealed Patents share a specification. For
 ease of reference and to be consistent with the parties’
 briefs, citations to the Appealed Patents’ specification are
 made to the ’475 patent. See Appellant’s Br. 8 n.2; Appel-
 lees’ Br. 7 n.4.
Case: 22-1333     Document: 63     Page: 4    Filed: 10/06/2023

 4                             SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 polymer or other layers coated on top of the base/substrate
 layer. ’475 patent col. 1 l. 20–col. 2 l. 27. Using an ink-jet
 printer, one could print an image on the image transfer
 sheet, place the transfer sheet on fabric (e.g., a T-shirt),
 and using an iron or heat press, transfer the image onto the
 fabric. Id.
      While such transfer sheets worked well when transfer-
 ring images onto light-colored fabrics, there was a well-
 known problem with transferring dark images onto dark
 fabrics because the dark images could not be easily or
 clearly seen against the dark-fabric background due to the
 lack of contrast between the image and the fabric. Id. col. 3
 ll. 37–50. The solution for this problem was a two-step pro-
 cess, in which one would first apply a white or light back-
 ground onto the dark fabric and then apply the desired
 image on top of the white or light background. Id. col. 3
 ll. 37–57.
      The Appealed Patents addressed this problem in the
 prior art and claimed a single-step solution whereby the
 white background was incorporated into the image transfer
 sheet, allowing the white background and dark image to be
 applied simultaneously onto the dark fabric. Id. col. 3
 ll. 10–21. Specifically, the Appealed Patents claim multi-
 layer image transfer sheets where one or more of the layers
 contains a white pigment, such as titanium dioxide, and
 methods of making and using the same. Id. col. 2 l. 53–
 col. 3 l. 6.
     Independent claims 1 and 19 are representative:
     1. An ink-jet transfer article, comprising:
     a substrate member including a substrate surface;
     an opaque first layer overlaying the substrate sur-
         face, the opaque first layer including polyure-
         thane and a white or luminescent pigment; and
Case: 22-1333      Document: 63   Page: 5    Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                               5

     a second layer overlaying the opaque first layer and
         configured to receive indicia, the second layer
         including polyurethane and a polymeric mate-
         rial.
 Id. col. 11 ll. 34–41.
     19. A method of transferring an image to a dark-
     colored or black receiving member, comprising:
     providing an ink-jet transfer article, comprising
         a substrate member including a substrate sur-
             face;
         an opaque first layer overlaying the substrate
             surface, the opaque first layer including
             polyurethane and a white or luminescent
             pigment; and
         a second layer overlaying the opaque first layer
             and configured to receive indicia printed
             using an ink-jet printer, the second layer
             including polyurethane and a polymeric
             material;
     wherein the substrate member is peeled away from
        the opaque first layer and the second layer;
     wherein the opaque first layer and the second layer
        are applied to the dark-colored or black receiv-
        ing member such that received indicia face up-
        wards;
     wherein the substrate layer, when peeled, or an
        overlay release paper is positioned over the sec-
        ond layer and the opaque first layer; and
     wherein heat is applied to one of the substrate
        layer or the overlay release paper, the second
        layer, and the opaque first layer so that re-
        ceived indicia and a substantially white back-
        ground for received indicia, provided by the
Case: 22-1333      Document: 63      Page: 6   Filed: 10/06/2023

 6                               SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

         opaque first layer, are transferred to the col-
         ored or black receiving member at substan-
         tially the same time.
 Id. col. 12 ll. 40–64.
                          B. The Prior Art
                            a. Kronzer
      Kronzer is directed to “a heat transfer material, such
 as a heat transfer paper” for use in the “application of cus-
 tomer-selected design, messages, illustrations, and the
 like . . . on articles of clothing, such as T-shirts, sweat
 shirts, and the like.” Kronzer col. 1 ll. 6–12. It discloses
 numerous multi-layered image transfer sheets with vary-
 ing configuration of layers, as well as examples of polymers
 and other materials that can be used to create each layer
 and improve image transfer quality. Id. col. 3 l. 11–col. 9
 l. 7. Kronzer also includes examples of its claimed image
 transfer sheets that were created and tested—by making
 the sheet, printing an image on the sheet, transferring the
 image to a T-shirt, and then subjecting the T-shirt to wash-
 ing cycles—along with the results of those tests, which as-
 sessed the final product for image transfer, image quality,
 and washability. Id. col. 9 l. 11–col. 18 l. 6.
     Kronzer discloses an image transfer sheet with four
 layers, wherein the first layer is a base/substrate layer, the
 second is a release layer, the third is a polymer layer, and
 the fourth is an ink/image receiving layer. Id. col. 2 ll. 33–
 67. The third and fourth layers include a “thermoplastic
 polymer,” which would melt from about 65°C to about
 180°C. Id. col. 2 ll. 45–48, 65–67. Further, the layers “may
 contain other materials, such as processing aids, release
 agents, pigments, deglossing agents, antifoam agents, and
 the like.” Id. col. 8 ll. 46–48 (emphasis added).
     Kronzer explains that, after printing the image on the
 transfer sheet and placing the transfer sheet on fabric, one
 can transfer the image using “heat and pressure” and then
Case: 22-1333      Document: 63       Page: 7     Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                                     7

 remove the base/substrate layer. Id. col. 3 l. 67–col. 4 l. 15.
 Specifically, Kronzer uses a “peel-last” application method,
 meaning the user (1) prints the desired image as a mirror
 image onto the transfer sheet, (2) applies the transfer sheet
 to the fabric image-side down, (3) applies heat and pressure
 to transfer the image onto the fabric, and then (4) peels the
 base/substrate and release layers away to reveal the final
 product. Id. col. 1 ll. 1–45, col. 4 ll. 6–15; see also Appel-
 lant’s Br. 11–12.
     The Appealed Patents all cite to Kronzer as prior art.
 ’623 patent at (56); ’581 patent at (56); ’042 patent at (56);
 ’475 patent at (56). Overall, the main difference between
 Kronzer and the Appealed Patents is that Kronzer does not
 expressly teach including a white pigment in one of its lay-
 ers for transferring an image onto a dark fabric.
                              b. Oez
     Like Kronzer, Oez is directed to multi-layered image
 transfer sheets and methods of using the same “for trans-
 ferring photocopies to textiles, such as, in particular, T-
 shirts.” Oez col. 1 ll. 7–18. Oez discloses an image transfer
 sheet with three layers, wherein the first layer is a
 base/substrate layer, the second layer is a release layer,
 and the third layer is plastic/polymer layer that can receive
 an image. Id. col. 3 ll. 14–60.
      Critically, Oez teaches including a white pigment, such
 as titanium dioxide, in the plastic/polymer layer to provide
 a white background for the image and improve image qual-
 ity when transferring images onto dark fabrics. Oez ex-
 plains that “[c]onventional prints are not satisfactory in
 respect of the brilliance of the image transferred, especially
 on black textiles.” Id. col. 1 ll. 19–21. To solve this prob-
 lem, Oez teaches that one can incorporate a white pigment
 into the plastic/polymer layer when printing on dark fab-
 rics. Id. col. 1 ll. 27–32; see also id. col. 1 ll. 52–56 (explain-
 ing that by incorporating titanium dioxide in the
 plastic/polymer layer, an image can be transferred to a
Case: 22-1333      Document: 63      Page: 8     Filed: 10/06/2023

 8                               SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 dark fabric in in a single-step instead of the previous two-
 step process for doing the same). Unlike Kronzer, Oez uses
 a “peel-first” application method, meaning the user (1)
 prints the desired image positively (i.e., not as a mirror im-
 age), (2) peels the base/substrate and release layers away
 before image transfer, (3) applies the transfer sheet to the
 fabric image-side up, and (4) applies heat and pressure to
 transfer the image onto the fabric. Id. col. 1 ll. 48–56, col. 2
 l. 63–col. 3 l. 16, col. 3 ll. 30–59; see also Appellant’s Br. 16.
                     PROCEDURAL HISTORY
     Neenah filed petitions for inter partes review of the Ap-
 pealed Patents and the ’554 patent. Decision, 2021 WL
 5203293, at *1; 7 Appellant’s Br. 6; Appellees’ Br. 22.
 Neenah asserted the Challenged Claims and the ’554 pa-
 tent’s claims were rendered obvious on multiple separate
 grounds based on different prior art combinations, includ-
 ing grounds in each petition based on Kronzer in view of
 Oez, whereby a skilled artisan would incorporate the white
 pigment taught in Oez into Kronzer’s transfer sheet. Deci-
 sion, 2021 WL 5203293, at *3, *6–7. The Board instituted
 inter partes review on all the Challenged Claims for all the
 asserted grounds, Neenah, Inc. v. Schwendimann, No.
 IPR2020-00915, 2020 WL 6542027, at *12 (P.T.A.B. Nov.
 6, 2020), and construed the term “white layer,” which all
 the Challenged Claims required, to mean: “a layer compris-
 ing a concentration or configuration of pigment providing a
 white background for received indicia and which further
 comprises a polymer that melts and mixes with another
 layer or layers during application.” Id. at *4 (emphasis

     7    The Board’s decisions at issue in this appeal are
 substantially similar to one another. For ease of reference
 and to be consistent with the parties’ briefs, citations to the
 Board decisions are made to the Board’s final written deci-
 sion in IPR2020-00915. See Appellant’s Br. 17 n.3; Appel-
 lees’ Br. 7 n.3.
Case: 22-1333     Document: 63     Page: 9    Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                                9

 added). 8 The Board maintained the construction for “white
 layer” in its final written decisions. Decision, 2021 WL
 5203293, at *4–5. Ultimately, the Board found Kronzer in
 view of Oez rendered the Challenged Claims obvious. Id.
 at *19. Because of this finding, the Board did not address
 the other grounds Neenah asserted against the Challenged
 Claims. Id. (citing SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348,
 1359 (2018); Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F.
 App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential)).
     The Board explained that Ms. Schwendimann did “not
 dispute that Kronzer and Oez[] together teach or suggest
 all of the limitations recited in [the Challenged Claims].”
 Id. at *7. Instead, her only challenges to the combination
 were directed to whether a skilled artisan would have been
 motivated to combine the references and whether the com-
 bination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of
 success. Id. at *8. The Board meticulously considered and
 addressed each of Ms. Schwendimann’s arguments, ex-
 plaining why the record contradicted each argument.
     First, the Board addressed Ms. Schwendimann’s argu-
 ments that Neenah did not prove any reason to combine
 Kronzer and Oez because Oez does not teach a multi-lay-
 ered transfer sheet with a distinct image receiving layer
 and the identity of the subject matter between the two ref-
 erences alone is insufficient to establish a motivation to

     8   The Board, however, did not institute inter partes
 review of the ’554 patent because, inter alia, the specific
 ground Neenah asserted in its petition based on Kronzer in
 view of Oez relied on replacing Kronzer’s entire third layer
 with Oez’s entire plastic/polymer layer. Neenah, Inc. v.
 Schwendimann, No. IPR2020-00636, 2020 WL 5539857, at
 *10 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 15, 2020) (“’554 Decision”). The Board
 found Neenah failed to show that such a combination
 would result in a transfer sheet whereby the white layer
 would melt and mix with another layer. Id.
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 10   Filed: 10/06/2023

 10                           SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 combine the references. Id. at *8–9. The Board found Oez
 did teach multi-layered transfer sheets based on Oez’s ex-
 press disclosure describing multi-layered transfer sheets
 and admissions by Ms. Schwendimann’s expert, Dr. Chris-
 topher Ellison, describing Oez’s transfer sheets as having
 a second, optional layer. Id. at *8. The Board also found
 Neenah did not rely on the identity of the subject matter in
 Kronzer and Oez alone to establish a motivation to combine
 the references. Id. The Board concluded both references
 were directed to improving the image transfer quality of
 multi-layered transfer sheets, citing Kronzer, Oez, and
 Neenah’s expert, Dr. Robert A. Wanat, and credited
 Dr. Wanat’s testimony that Kronzer and Oez were “comple-
 mentary and compatible” with one another “because
 Kronzer’s image transfer sheet can be used on any color
 fabric.” Id. at *9 (emphasis added).
     Second, the Board addressed Ms. Schwendimann’s ar-
 gument claiming Neenah failed to explain why a skilled ar-
 tisan would be motivated to combine Kronzer and Oez and
 thus improperly used the Appealed Patents as a hindsight
 roadmap to make the proposed combination. Id. at *9–10.
 The Board accepted Neenah’s argument that a skilled arti-
 san would be motivated to combine Kronzer and Oez by in-
 corporating the white pigment taught by Oez into
 Kronzer’s transfer sheet in order to improve the Kronzer
 transfer sheet when printing on a dark fabric. Id. at *9.
 The Board found this argument relied on Oez’s express
 teachings that adding a white pigment improves image
 transfer quality on dark fabrics and Kronzer’s express
 teaching that any of its layers may contain pigments. Id.
 at *10. The Board concluded these were sufficient rational
 underpinnings to explain why a skilled artisan would be
 motivated to combine Kronzer and Oez, as Neenah pro-
 posed, and Neenah’s reliance on express teachings in both
 references undermined Ms. Schwendimann’s argument
 that Neenah relied on hindsight in making the proposed
 combination. Id. at *9–10.
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 11    Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                              11

      Third, the Board addressed Ms. Schwendimann’s as-
 sertions that a skilled artisan would not have been moti-
 vated to combine Kronzer and Oez because Kronzer does
 not solve the problem of transferring an image onto dark
 fabric. Id. at *11–12. The Board explained Kronzer did not
 need to solve the specific problem addressed by the Ap-
 pealed Patents because “[t]he test for obviousness is not
 whether any one or all of the references expressly suggests
 the claimed invention, but whether the claimed subject
 matter would have been obvious to [skilled artisans] in
 light of the combined teachings of those references.” Id. at
 *12 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
 The Board repeated its previous findings as to Kronzer and
 Oez, including the “complementary and compatible” nature
 of the transfer sheets taught by the references, and deter-
 mined the record supported “a finding that a [skilled arti-
 san] would have recognized that the Oez[] technique would
 improve the similar transfer sheet disclosed in Kronzer,
 and would have had a reason to combine the teachings of
 Kronzer and Oez[].” Id. at *12 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Te-
 leflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)).
     Fourth, the Board addressed Ms. Schwendimann’s ar-
 gument claiming that a skilled artisan would not be moti-
 vated to combine Kronzer and Oez because they involved
 “fundamental differences in their structures and manufac-
 turing.” Id. at *14. Referencing its prior findings, which
 cited to Kronzer, Oez, and Dr. Ellison’s testimony, the
 Board disagreed and again found both references “de-
 scribe[d] a multi-layered image transfer structure.” Id.
 The Board also disagreed with Ms. Schwendimann’s asser-
 tion that there were “fundamental differences” in the prob-
 lems Kronzer and Oez solved and the technologies used to
 solve these problems. Id. at *15. Referencing its prior find-
 ings, which cited to Kronzer, Oez, and Dr. Wanat’s testi-
 mony, the Board again found both references were “aligned
 with a common goal of improving the quality of transferred
 images.”     Id.  Moreover, the Board concluded that
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63      Page: 12     Filed: 10/06/2023

 12                            SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 “Dr. Wanat’s testimony regarding Oez[] and Kronzer being
 complementary and compatible, which Kronzer supports
 because it teaches the use of pigments and is not limited to
 fabric color, undermines [Ms. Schwendimann]’s bare asser-
 tion that the technology in the two references is so different
 that a [skilled artisan] would not have had any reason to
 combine the teachings of the references.” Id.
      Fifth, the Board addressed Ms. Schwendimann’s
 claims that a skilled artisan lacked a reasonable expecta-
 tion of success in combining Kronzer and Oez because Oez
 “teaches away from using white pigment alone or that
 Oez[] requires a cross-linking polymer for the white pig-
 ment to function.” Id. at *12–13. The Board explained that
 for a reference to teach away, it “must discourage [a skilled
 artisan] from following the path set out in the reference, or
 lead that [skilled artisan] in a direction divergent from the
 path taken by the applicant.” Id. at *13 (citing In re Gurley,
 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). The Board found that
 Ms. Schwendimann did “not identify any teaching in Oez[]
 that either requires use of a cross-linking polymer with its
 white pigment or discourages using a white pigment with-
 out a cross-linking polymer” and its own “review of Oez[]
 [did] not reveal any such teaching.” Id. at *13. Accord-
 ingly, the Board concluded Oez does not teach away from
 the proposed combination. Id.
      The Board also concluded Ms. Schwendimann’s argu-
 ment that a skilled artisan lacked a reasonable expectation
 of success when adding the white pigment to Kronzer be-
 cause such an addition would be “unpredictable” to be “sim-
 ilarly unavailing,” because there was no evidence to
 support that titanium dioxide would do anything other
 than provide a white background when incorporated into
 Kronzer. Id.; see also id. at *14 (“[T]itanium dioxide is well-
 studied, well-understood, and the most widely-used white
 pigment.”). The only evidence Ms. Schwendimann prof-
 fered was Dr. Ellison’s testimony, which the Board found
 to be “inconclusive,” “conclusory,” and “based on an
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63      Page: 13     Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                                13

 incomplete understanding of the referenced articles,” and
 accordingly it was “entitled to little or no weight.” Id. at
 *13–14; see also id. at *13 (noting Dr. Ellison’s testimony
 concerning the possibility of titanium dioxide chemically
 reacting with Kronzer’s layers was “inconclusive and, at
 best, describes possible interactions in a reactive system—
 not a non-reactive system,” like the one Neenah proposed
 (emphasis omitted)).          The Board also rejected
 Ms. Schwendimann’s unpredictability arguments based on
 the “failures” in Kronzer’s examples because, even accept-
 ing this characterization of Kronzer, none of the identified
 “failures” included layers with a pigment—a fact even
 Ms. Schwendimann acknowledged—and thus were not sig-
 nificant “to the question of unpredictability based on add-
 ing a pigment to Kronzer.” Id. at *14.
      Sixth and finally, the Board addressed Ms. Schwend-
 imann’s argument claiming a skilled artisan lacked a rea-
 sonable expectation of success in combining Kronzer and
 Oez because the references use “opposite methods of appli-
 cation” (i.e., Kronzer uses the peel-last method, but Oez
 uses the peel-first method). Id. at *15–16. The Board
 found that, because Oez “teaches that the printed image
 should be oriented on top of the white/opaque background,”
 a skilled artisan “would have understood from the refer-
 ences themselves that the image in Kronzer should be po-
 sitioned such that it does not end up underneath the
 white/opaque layer when printed.” Id. at *16. The Board
 noted that Ms. Schwendimann acknowledged that incorpo-
 rating a white pigment into Kronzer without modifying
 Kronzer’s peel-last method would obscure the image. Id.
 But the Board disagreed this fact would dissuade a skilled
 artisan from making the proposed combination “because
 the ‘[skilled artisan] is also a person of ordinary creativity,
 not an automaton,’ and does not abandon common sense
 when considering the combination of references.” Id. (quot-
 ing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421).
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63      Page: 14     Filed: 10/06/2023

 14                            SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

     Thus, the Board found the record supported “that a
 [skilled artisan] would have had reason to combine the
 teachings of Kronzer and Oez[], and would have had a rea-
 sonable expectation of successfully doing so to arrive at the
 subject matter recited in [the Challenged Claims]” and ul-
 timately concluded Kronzer in view of Oez rendered the
 Challenged Claims unpatentable as obvious. Id.
     Ms. Schwendimann timely appealed the Board’s final
 written decisions, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1295(a)(4)(A).
                          DISCUSSION
      Ms. Schwendimann makes three arguments on appeal:
 (1) substantial evidence does not support the Board’s find-
 ing that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
 combine Kronzer and Oez, (2) substantial evidence does not
 support the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would
 have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the
 proposed combination, and (3) Neenah and the Board were
 required to explain why Kronzer (and not Oez) was the pri-
 mary reference for the proposed combination. Neenah ar-
 gues that the record amply demonstrates substantial
 evidence to support the Board’s findings on motivation to
 combine and reasonable expectation of success in making
 the proposed combination. Neenah further argues that
 Ms. Schwendimann forfeited her third argument by failing
 to present the argument to the Board. We will address
 Ms. Schwendimann’s first two arguments together fol-
 lowed by her third argument.
      “We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and
 its factual findings for substantial evidence.” MCM Portfo-
 lio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1293 (Fed.
 Cir. 2015). “Obviousness is a question of law based on un-
 derlying facts, including the scope and content of the prior
 art, differences between the prior art and the claims at is-
 sue, the level of ordinary skill, and relevant evidence of sec-
 ondary considerations.” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63      Page: 15    Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                               15

 LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Graham
 v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)); see also KSR,
 550 U.S. at 427. Accordingly, the subsidiary obviousness
 questions of whether a skilled artisan would be motivated
 to combine prior art references and whether a skilled arti-
 san had a reasonable expectation of success in making such
 a combination are factual, and we review them for substan-
 tial evidence. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773
 F.3d 1186, 1196–97 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Substantial evidence
 is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evi-
 dence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
 support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305
 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
      “[F]orfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion
 of a right.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733
 (1993). A party forfeits “an argument that it ‘failed to pre-
 sent to the Board’ because it deprives the court of ‘the ben-
 efit of the Board’s informed judgment.’” In re NuVasive,
 Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re
 Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Absent
 exceptional circumstances, see In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373,
 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2008), we do not consider such forfeited
 arguments on appeal. In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC,
 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020); In re Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
 678 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
                               I
      First, Ms. Schwendimann argues a skilled artisan
 would not be motivated to combine Kronzer and Oez be-
 cause their teachings are “diametrically opposed” and
 “flatly inconsistent.” Appellant’s Br. 31. This argument is
 unpersuasive as it fails to address the substantial evidence
 supporting the Board’s finding that a skilled artisan would
 be motivated to combine Kronzer and Oez. Decision, 2021
 WL 5203293, at *8–12, *14–15. Kronzer and Oez expressly
 disclose multi-layered transfer sheets, which is further
 supported by Dr. Ellison’s testimony. The references share
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 16    Filed: 10/06/2023

 16                           SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 the common goal of improving image transfer characteris-
 tics, and Dr. Wanat explained how Kronzer and Oez are
 “complementary and compatible” because Kronzer is appli-
 cable to any color fabric. Id. at *9. Critically, Kronzer ex-
 pressly teaches that pigments can be included in any of its
 layers, and Oez expressly teaches that including a white
 pigment in the transfer sheet provides advantages for
 transferring images onto dark fabrics. As the Board found,
 the motivation to add the white pigment in Oez into
 Kronzer’s transfer sheet comes from the express teachings
 in both references. Clearly, the teachings of Kronzer and
 Oez are not “diametrically opposed” or “flatly inconsistent,”
 and the express teachings in both references providing a
 motivation to make the proposed combination negates any
 hindsight-based argument. See In re Gartside, 203 F.3d
 1305, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Thus, Kronzer’s and Oez’s dis-
 closures as well as Dr. Ellison’s and Dr. Wanat’s testimo-
 nies are substantial evidence supporting the Board’s
 finding that a skilled artisan would be motivated to com-
 bine the references.
      Second, Ms. Schwendimann argues a skilled artisan
 would not have had a reasonable expectation of success
 combining Kronzer and Oez because Oez teaches away
 from any combination with Kronzer, the proposed combi-
 nation would be unpredictable, and Kronzer’s modified
 transfer sheet would require significant reengineering.
 Ms. Schwendimann argues Oez teaches away from the pro-
 posed combination because Oez requires using a cross-link-
 ing polymer for the white pigment to function. This
 teaching away argument is the same one the Board consid-
 ered and rejected. “[A] reference does not teach away if a
 skilled artisan, upon reading the reference, would not be
 ‘discouraged from following the path set out in the refer-
 ence,’ and would not be ‘led in a direction divergent from
 the path that was taken by the applicant.’” Adapt Pharma
 Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 25 F.4th 1354,
 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v.
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 17    Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                              17

 Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.
 Cir. 2009)). Although Oez used a white pigment with a
 cross-linking polymer, it does not discourage a skilled arti-
 san from using the white pigment without a cross-linking
 polymer or lead the skilled artisan in a direction divergent
 from the path taken in the Appealed Patents. Thus, Oez’s
 disclosure is substantial evidence that supports the Board’s
 finding that Oez does not teach away from the proposed
 combination.
      Ms. Schwendimann also argues a skilled artisan would
 not have had a reasonable expectation of success in com-
 bining Kronzer and Oez because adding titanium dioxide
 into Kronzer’s transfer sheet could cause unpredictable
 chemical reactions that interfere with the transfer process.
 The only evidence Ms. Schwendimann cites to support this
 argument is testimony by Dr. Ellison and the “failures” in
 Kronzer’s examples. The Board found Dr. Ellison’s testi-
 mony was “entitled to little or no weight,” because it was
 “inconclusive,” “conclusory,” and “based on an incomplete
 understanding of the referenced articles.” Decision, 2021
 WL 5203293, at *13–14. For example, Dr. Ellison testified
 that adding titanium dioxide to Kronzer’s transfer sheet
 could lead to possible chemical reactions because titanium
 dioxide can chemically interact with other components of
 reactive systems—but the record is clear that including ti-
 tanium dioxide in Kronzer’s layers results in a non-reactive
 system. The Board also ascribed little weight to the “fail-
 ures” in Kronzer’s examples in assessing Ms. Schwend-
 imann’s unpredictability claims because, even accepting
 Ms. Schwendimann’s characterization of Kronzer’s exam-
 ples, the failed trials did not include transfer sheets with
 pigments—a fact Ms. Schwendimann conceded. The Board
 instead found that adding titanium dioxide to Kronzer’s
 layers would do nothing more than provide a white back-
 ground, citing to Dr. Wanat’s testimony and other scientific
 literature in the record. Overall, there was no error in the
 Board’s analysis, and substantial evidence supports the
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63       Page: 18   Filed: 10/06/2023

 18                            SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 Board’s conclusion that making the proposed combination
 would not lead to unpredictable results.
      Ms. Schwendimann next argues a skilled artisan
 would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in
 making the proposed combination because the resulting
 transfer sheet would need to be significantly reengineered
 since Kronzer used a peel-last application method, but Oez
 used a peel-first application method. Although Kronzer
 teaches printing a mirror image on its transfer sheet and
 using a peel-last application method, Oez teaches printing
 a positive image on its transfer sheet and using a peel-first
 application method to ensure the transferred image is on
 top of the white background. If Oez relied on a peel-last
 application method, the white background would obscure
 the printed image, as Ms. Schwendimann acknowledged.
 The Board found a skilled artisan would understand that
 an image printed on a Kronzer transfer sheet containing
 white pigment must be positioned to be on top of the white
 layer to avoid obscuring the image “because the ‘[skilled ar-
 tisan] is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an autom-
 aton,’ and does not abandon common sense when
 considering the combination of references.” Id. at *16
 (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). Again, the Board’s analy-
 sis is sound, and substantial evidence supports the Board’s
 finding that a skilled artisan would use their common
 sense when making the proposed combination to arrive at
 an operable transfer sheet.
      Thus, the disclosures of Kronzer, Oez, and the scientific
 literature in the record along with Dr. Wanat’s testimony
 are substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion
 that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expec-
 tation of success in making the proposed combination.
                               II
      Ms. Schwendimann’s third argument is that Neenah
 failed to explain—and the Board erred by not explaining—
 why a skilled artisan would have chosen Kronzer as the
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 19   Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                             19

 “primary reference” 9 for the proposed combination (the
 “Primary Reference Argument”). 10 Ms. Schwendimann ar-
 gues that justification for selection of a primary reference
 is a necessary step to guard against hindsight bias for the
 motivation to combine references. Neenah responds that
 Ms. Schwendimann did not raise her Primary Reference
 Argument to the Board in her Preliminary Responses, Pa-
 tent Owner Responses, or Sur-Replies, and consequently
 forfeited the opportunity to present the argument on ap-
 peal. Appellees’ Br. 42–43. On reply, Ms. Schwendimann
 asserts that her admitted failure to present her argument
 directly to the Board is “irrelevant” because the argument
 was indirectly preserved in three ways: (1) her written ar-
 guments to the Board that a skilled artisan would not have

     9    The parties use the phrases “lead reference,” “lead
 prior art reference,” and “primary reference” interchange-
 ably. See Appellant’s Br. 28–31; Appellees’ Br. 42–50. For
 clarity and to be consistent with the terminology that occa-
 sionally appears in the case law, we will only use “primary
 reference.”
     10   Ms. Schwendimann also makes multiple refer-
 ences to the Board’s ’554 Decision denying inter partes re-
 view of the ’554 patent to support her argument that the
 Board committed reversable error in the current appeal.
 See, e.g., Appellant’s Br. 30–31, 34. The proposed combina-
 tion of Kronzer and Oez at issue in the ’554 Decision, how-
 ever, required replacing Kronzer’s entire third layer with
 Oez’s entire plastic/polymer layer, which the Board found
 would not result in a white layer that melts and mixes with
 another layer. This is unlike the proposed combination of
 Kronzer and Oez at issue in the current appeal, which only
 required adding Oez’s white pigment to one of Kronzer’s
 layers. While both proposed combinations use Kronzer and
 Oez, they are different grounds for assessing obviousness
 and, accordingly, the ’554 Decision has no bearing on the
 outcome of this appeal.
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 20    Filed: 10/06/2023

 20                           SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 looked to Kronzer at all to solve the problem addressed by
 the Appealed Patents, (2) a discussion during the oral hear-
 ing before the Board, and (3) a footnote in the Board’s deci-
 sion.
     First, Ms. Schwendimann asserts she did not forfeit
 her Primary Reference Argument because she “expressly
 and repeatedly” argued to the Board that a skilled artisan
 would not look to Kronzer at all to solve the problem ad-
 dressed by the Appealed Patents. Appellant’s Reply Br. 4–
 5. This is not persuasive because such an argument con-
 cerns whether Kronzer is analogous art. 11 That is plainly
 not the same as and did not preserve her Primary Refer-
 ence Argument she now makes on appeal, which concerns
 whether Neenah (and the Board) sufficiently explained
 why Kronzer was the appropriate primary reference.
     Second, Ms. Schwendimann claims she preserved her
 Primary Reference Argument by raising it to the Board
 during the oral hearing. During the oral hearing, in a dis-
 cussion with Neenah’s counsel, the Board noted that
 Ms. Schwendimann contended it was counterintuitive to
 start with Kronzer instead of Oez, and asked Neenah to
 explain why a skilled artisan would start with Kronzer.
 Neenah responded by explaining that the law does not rec-
 ognize “that you have to give a basis for starting with one
 reference as the primary,” J.A. 567, but that here there was
 a basis: adding a white pigment to Kronzer’s layers would
 improve Kronzer’s transfer sheets for application to dark
 fabrics. Under these circumstances, the law is clear that
 arguments raised to the Board at an oral hearing are not

      11  Ms. Schwendimann did not appeal the Board’s
 finding that Kronzer is analogous art, and, during oral ar-
 gument, Ms. Schwendimann’s counsel stated that
 “Kronzer is analogous art.” Oral Arg. at 10:14–10:22,
 https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=
 22-1333_08072023.mp3.
Case: 22-1333   Document: 63     Page: 21    Filed: 10/06/2023

 SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.                            21

 preserved. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364,
 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018). But even if arguments raised to the
 Board at oral hearing could be preserved, Neenah replied
 to the argument in terms of findings the Board itself made
 in its decision.
     Third, Ms. Schwendimann contends the Board pre-
 served her Primary Reference Argument by describing it
 as a “red herring.” Decision, 2021 WL 5203293, at *9 n.8.
 This footnote, however, related to Ms. Schwendimann’s
 contention that Oez is a preferred primary reference be-
 cause it directly deals with printing on dark fabrics, and
 her argument that Neenah failed to show that Kronzer
 “provide[d] something beneficial that [was] lacking in
 Oez[].” Id. The Board concluded that this argument was
 “a red herring, as [Neenah did] not propose to modify or
 improve anything in Oez[] based on Kronzer,” id., but in-
 stead successfully proposed to improve Kronzer by adding
 the white pigment taught by Oez. The Board’s “red her-
 ring” comment was directed to Ms. Schwendimann’s argu-
 ment that Neenah failed to explain why Kronzer might
 improve Oez, not to her argument on appeal that the Board
 must justify using Kronzer as the primary reference. In
 short, the Board’s “red herring” comment was not describ-
 ing the Primary Reference Argument.
    Ms. Schwendimann does not cite any exceptional cir-
 cumstances that could warrant consideration of her Pri-
 mary Reference Argument.            Therefore, we hold
 Ms. Schwendimann forfeited her Primary Reference Argu-
 ment before this court. See Google, 980 F.3d at 863.
      But to any extent Ms. Schwendimann’s Primary Refer-
 ence Argument was not forfeited, the argument has no ba-
 sis in our case law. In the context of an obviousness
 challenge with two or more references, describing one of
 the references as “primary” means that it is the reference
 to be modified by the “secondary” or other references. See,
 e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2677(I)(I)(4)
Case: 22-1333    Document: 63     Page: 22    Filed: 10/06/2023

 22                           SCHWENDIMANN v. NEENAH, INC.

 (9th ed. Rev. 5, Feb. 2023). Using Kronzer and Oez as
 placeholders, an obviousness challenge based on “Kronzer
 in view of Oez” means the challenge is based on Kronzer
 being modified by Oez to reach the claimed invention. In
 other words, Kronzer is the primary reference and Oez is
 the secondary reference.
      We have made clear that “where the relevant factual
 inquiries underlying an obviousness determination are
 otherwise clear,” characterizing references “as ‘primary’
 and ‘secondary’ is merely a matter of presentation with no
 legal significance.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed.
 Cir. 2012); see In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961)
 (Rich, J.); see also In re Cowles, 156 F.2d 551, 554 (CCPA
 1946); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 816–17 (CCPA 1963);
 In re Walker, 324 F.2d 977, 984–85 (CCPA 1963). Although
 we have acknowledged “that there may be some cases in
 which relevant factual determinations inhere in such char-
 acterization of prior art references,” Mouttet, 686 F.3d at
 1333, Ms. Schwendimann has not brought any such case to
 our attention, and we could find none. Regardless, this
 case is certainly not one because, as we explained above,
 the relevant factual determinations supporting the Board’s
 obviousness conclusions are clear, supported by substan-
 tial evidence, and refute any concern of hindsight bias.
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered Ms. Schwendimann’s remaining
 arguments and find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, and
 for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s final writ-
 ten decisions.
                        AFFIRMED