Case: 22-1751    Document: 95     Page: 1   Filed: 02/08/2024




   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                      WEBER, INC.,
                        Appellant

                             v.

          PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
                      Appellee
               ______________________

                   2022-1751, 2022-1813
                  ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 01556, IPR2020-01557.
                  ______________________

                Decided: February 8, 2024
                 ______________________

     RICHARD CRUDO, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox
 PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also repre-
 sented by TREVOR O'NEILL, RALPH WILSON POWERS, III.

    MICHAEL BABBITT, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Chi-
 cago, IL, argued for appellee. Also represented by CRAIG C.
 MARTIN, REN-HOW HARN, SARA TONNIES HORTON.
                   ______________________

    Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 REYNA, Circuit Judge.
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95     Page: 2    Filed: 02/08/2024




 2                WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




     Weber appeals two final written decisions from the Pa-
 tent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board determined that
 Weber failed to establish the unpatentability of the claims
 of Provisur’s patents. The Board first found that Weber’s
 operating manuals were not prior art printed publications.
 The Board also determined that the prior art did not dis-
 close two challenged claim terms, one of which was in-
 cluded in the Board’s claim construction of the challenged
 claims. We reverse the Board’s printed publication deter-
 minations, vacate the Board’s conclusions regarding We-
 ber’s failure to establish unpatentability of the challenged
 claims, and remand for further proceedings.
                        BACKGROUND
         A. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,812 and 10,625,436
      Provisur is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,639,812
 (“’812 patent”) and 10,625,436 (“’436 patent”). The ’812 and
 ’436 patents relate to high-speed mechanical slicers used
 in food-processing plants to slice and package food articles,
 such as meats and cheeses. ’812 patent at Abstract. 1 Alt-
 hough the slicers have numerous components, three
 claimed components are relevant here: (1) the “food article
 loading apparatus”; (2) the “food article feed apparatus”;
 and (3) the “food article stop gate.” Id. at 11:16–38. 2




     1    We primarily cite to the ’812 patent, which shares
 a common specification with the ’436 patent. The parties
 agree that claim 1 of the ’812 patent is representative of
 the challenged claims in this appeal. Appellant Br. 12; Ap-
 pellee Br. 2.
      2   We will subsequently refer to the “food article load-
 ing apparatus” as the “loading apparatus,” the “food article
 feed apparatus” as the “feed apparatus,” and the “food ar-
 ticle stop gate” as the “stop gate.”
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95      Page: 3    Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                   3



     Figures 1B and 1 below 3 display the loading apparatus
 (108, labeled in Figure 1) (colored in blue) and the feed ap-
 paratus (120, labeled in Figure 1) (colored in orange). The
 loading apparatus (108) includes a lift tray (220) on which
 food articles are loaded while the lift tray is in a horizontal
 staging position. Id. at 2:52–54; 9:28–34. When the food is
 ready to be sliced, the lift tray pivots to an elevated posi-
 tion, as shown in Figure 1. From that position, the food
 articles enter the slicer’s overhead feed apparatus (120).
 Id. at 4:33–43; 9:60–10:4.




 Id. at Fig. 1B; Appellant Br. 8.




     3  All figure and image annotations have been pro-
 vided by the parties unless otherwise noted.
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95     Page: 4   Filed: 02/08/2024




 4                 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




 Id. at Fig. 1; Appellant Br. 8.
     As shown in Figures 1 and 1B above, and Figure 2 be-
 low, the feed apparatus (120) contains “grippers” (894, la-
 beled in the patent) (colored in green). The grippers grasp
 the food articles from behind while they are still supported
 by the lift tray and drive them downward along the feed
 path (shown in red dashed arrow) until they reach the slic-
 ing station (124) (shown in yellow in Figure 1). ’812 patent
 at 2:55–60; 9:13–24. There, the food articles are sliced by
 the slicing blade (125) (shown in yellow in Figure 1B). Id.
 at 4:43–46.
    Figure 2 shows a top-down view of the slicer where
 each gripper is independently driven by a conveyor belt
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95      Page: 5    Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                 5



 (802, 804, 806) coupled to its own servomotors (850). Id. at
 9:15–24; 10:44–46.




 Id. at Fig. 2; Appellant Br. 10. Figure 2 shows that the feed
 apparatus (colored in orange) is positioned above the load-
 ing apparatus’s lift tray (shown in blue dashed lines), such
 that the grippers (colored in green), feed path (red dashed
 arrow), and lift tray are generally aligned when viewed
 from a top-down position.
     In addition to the loading apparatus and feed appa-
 ratus components, the stop gate, the third claimed compo-
 nent relevant on appeal, serves several purposes. ’812
 patent at 3:7–8. As shown below in Figure 13A, when a
 food article is loaded, it travels along the path of the red
 dashed arrow toward the slicing blade (125) until it reaches
 the stop gate (2020). The stop gate (shown in light blue)
 can, in this elevated position, act as a gate to temporarily
 block a loaded food article from prematurely sliding into
 the slicing station. Id. at 10:8–13. When the stop gate is
 lowered, as shown in Figure 13B, the stop gate acts as a
 floor to support the loaded food article as it slides toward
 the slicing blade (125). Id.
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95     Page: 6    Filed: 02/08/2024




 6                WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




 Figs. 13A & 13B; Appellant Br. 11–12.
      Representative claim 1 of the ’812 patent recites a food
 slicer containing two limitations at issue here: (1) the “dis-
 posed over” limitation and the (2) “stop gate” limitation.
 The “disposed over” limitation requires “a food article feed
 apparatus disposed over [the] food article loading appa-
 ratus.” ’812 patent at 11:17–18. The “stop gate” limitation
 requires that the stop gate support food articles “when the
 lift tray assembly is moved from its elevated position” to
 load new food articles. Id. at 11:33–36.
                        B. The Prior Art
      Weber asserted prior art references in both inter partes
 review (“IPR”) proceedings that generally relate to food
 slicers. Weber presented its obviousness theories based on
 its commercial food slicer operating manuals in combina-
 tion with 

 (“Lindee”) and U.S. Pa-
 tent Publication No. 2009/0145272 (“Sandberg”). J.A. 8;
 J.A. 84–85. Weber’s operating manuals were created and
 disseminated to accompany and explain how to use Weber’s
 commercial food slicer products. J.A. 1311–481; J.A. 1698–
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95      Page: 7    Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                 7



 99. 4 The operating manuals disclose that Weber’s food
 slicer contains a “product conveyer” that is first in a hori-
 zontal position to receive food articles. J.A. 1325. After
 receiving food articles, the product conveyer is then ele-
 vated to a position where the food articles will be driven
 along a feed path toward a slicing blade. J.A. 1350. The
 operating manuals also disclose that a “product bed con-
 veyor supports the transport of the product” and “prevents
 the products from sliding into the outlet in an uncontrolled
 manner.” J.A. 1331.
                     C. Procedural History
      Provisur sued Weber in federal court alleging infringe-
 ment of the ’812 and ’436 patent claims. Weber then filed
 two IPR petitions alleging the unpatentability of claims 1–
 11 of the ’812 patent and claims 1–16 of the ’436 patent.
 J.A. 277–345. The Board instituted the IPRs based on ob-
 viousness theories involving Weber’s operating manuals in
 combination with the Lindee and Sandberg references.
 J.A. 419–43. Relying on In re Enhanced Security Research,
 LLC, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Board initially
 found in its institution decisions that Weber provided evi-
 dence to “support the public availability” of the operating
 manuals. J.A. 434–42. In its final written decisions, the
 Board changed course. The Board concluded that the oper-
 ating manuals do not qualify as printed publications. The
 Board first found that the operating manuals were distrib-
 uted to just “ten unique customers.” J.A. 29; J.A. 106. The
 Board further found that the operating manuals were sub-
 ject to confidentiality restrictions based on the Board’s in-
 terpretation of the operating manuals’ copyright notice and
 the intellectual property rights clause in Weber’s terms


     4   Since the operating manuals are substantively
 identical in relevant portions, even though they are dated
 years apart, we cite to the 2006 operating manual as rep-
 resentative. Appellant Br. 14.
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95     Page: 8    Filed: 02/08/2024




 8                WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




 and conditions underlying the sales of each slicer product.
 J.A. 28–31; J.A. 105–08.
      On the merits, the Board determined that, even if We-
 ber’s manuals qualify as printed publications, Weber’s as-
 serted prior art combinations do not disclose the “disposed
 over” and “stop gate” limitations from claim 1 in each chal-
 lenged patent. J.A. 70; J.A. 139. For the “disposed over”
 limitation, the Board’s conclusion rested on its claim con-
 struction of the term “disposed over” to require that the
 “feed apparatus and its conveyor belts and grippers are ‘po-
 sitioned above and in vertical and lateral alignment with’
 the food article loading apparatus and its lift tray assem-
 bly.” J.A. 18; J.A. 95. The Board explained that vertical
 alignment means that the feed apparatus is “directly above
 the loading apparatus.” J.A. 13; J.A. 90. And in the
 Board’s view, laterally aligned means that “there is no off-
 set between the sides of feed apparatus and the loading ap-
 paratus” when viewed from above. J.A. 13; J.A. 90.
      For the “stop gate” limitation, the Board rejected We-
 ber’s expert’s reliance on Figures 10 and 227 of the operat-
 ing manuals. The Board faulted these figures for not
 physically depicting a food article in the slicer or the food
 lift tray and criticized this as insufficient to show that the
 product bed conveyor of the operating manuals supported
 the food article when the product conveyor moves from its
 elevated position. J.A. 68–69; J.A. 142.
     Thus, the Board determined that Weber’s asserted
 prior art failed to disclose the “disposed over” and “stop
 gate” limitations from claim 1 in each challenged patent.
 As a result, the Board concluded that Weber failed to carry
 its burden of proving unpatentability for the dependent
 claims. J.A. 73–74; J.A. 146–47.
     Weber appeals. We have jurisdiction under 

(a)(4)(A).
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95     Page: 9    Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                  9



                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
     We review de novo the Board’s legal conclusion on
 whether a reference is a printed publication under 

(b) and its underlying factual findings for sub-
 stantial evidence. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd.,
 

, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
     Claim construction is a question of law with underlying
 questions of fact. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys.,
 Inc., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We review de
 novo the Board’s ultimate claim construction and its sup-
 porting determinations that are based on intrinsic evi-
 dence. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
 

 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
     We review the Board’s ultimate obviousness determi-
 nations on a de novo basis and any underlying factual de-
 terminations for substantial evidence.            Rembrandt
 Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., 

 (Fed. Cir.
 2023). The scope and content of the prior art is a question
 of fact. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Substantial evidence means
 “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
 as adequate to support a conclusion.” 

 (citation omitted).
                         DISCUSSION
      Weber appeals the Board’s conclusions that it failed to
 establish unpatentability of the challenged claims. Weber
 first argues that the Board erred in its determinations that
 Weber’s operating manuals were not “printed publica-
 tion[s]” under pre-AIA 

(b). Weber next ar-
 gues that the Board erred in its claim construction of the
 “disposed over” claim term. Finally, Weber challenges the
 Board’s determinations that the operating manuals do not
 disclose the “stop gate” limitation. We address each issue
 in turn.
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95      Page: 10     Filed: 02/08/2024




 10                WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




                     A. Printed Publications
     The statutory phrase “printed publication” from § 102
 has been defined to mean a reference that was “sufficiently
 accessible to the public interested in the art.” In re Klopfen-
 stein, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omit-
 ted). The touchstone of whether a reference constitutes a
 printed publication is public accessibility. Jazz Pharms.,
 Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 

 (Fed.
 Cir. 2018). The standard for public accessibility is whether
 interested members of the relevant public could locate the
 reference by reasonable diligence. Valve, 8 F.4th at 1376.
      Weber contends that the Board erred in determining
 that Weber’s operating manuals were not sufficiently pub-
 licly accessible to constitute printed publications. Accord-
 ing to Weber, the Board misapplied our public-accessibility
 precedent, including Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific
 Corp., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and misinterpreted
 the record evidence. We first address the Board’s reliance
 on Cordis and then the evidence of record.
      The Board improperly reviewed this case in the context
 of the Cordis framework. In Cordis, the references were
 two academic monographs describing an inventor’s work
 on intravascular stents that were only distributed to a
 handful of university and hospital colleagues as well as two
 companies interested in commercializing the technology.
 561 F.3d at 1333–34. We observed that the record con-
 tained “clear evidence that such academic norms gave rise
 to an expectation that disclosures will remain confiden-
 tial.” 

. There was also no showing “that these
 or similar commercial entities typically would make the ex-
 istence of such documents known and would honor re-
 quests for public access.” 

.
     Cordis is readily distinguishable from this case. We-
 ber’s operating manuals were created for dissemination to
 the interested public to provide instructions about how to
 assemble, use, clean, and maintain Weber’s slicer, as well
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95      Page: 11    Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                   11



 as guidance for addressing malfunctions that users might
 encounter. J.A. 1313–19 (table of contents); J.A. 1312 (cus-
 tomer service information). These operating manuals
 stand in stark contrast to Cordis and the confidential na-
 ture of the monographs and circumstances surrounding
 disclosure, including academic confidentiality norms.
 Where, as here, “a publication’s purpose is ‘dialogue with
 the intended audience,’ that purpose indicates public acces-
 sibility.” Valve, 8 F.4th at 1374 (citation omitted).
     The record evidence shows that Weber’s operating
 manuals were accessible to interested members of the rel-
 evant public5 by reasonable diligence. For instance, Weber
 employees testified that the operating manuals could be ob-
 tained either upon purchase 6 of the Weber food slicer or
 upon request directed to a Weber employee. See, e.g., J.A.
 2222–34 (Weber employee declaration); J.A. 3288–97 (We-
 ber employee declaration). Weber’s declarants provided




     5    The parties dispute the exact number of customers
 who received the operating manuals (whether it was ten
 entities or over forty entities), but we need not resolve that
 dispute here to review public accessibility. Appellant Br.
 31; Appellee Br. 6. No minimum number of occasions of
 access is dispositive of the public accessibility inquiry in all
 cases.
     6    At oral argument, Provisur’s counsel argued that
 the high cost of Weber’s commercial slicers prevented the
 operating manuals from being considered sufficiently ac-
 cessible by reasonable diligence. Oral Arg. 18:14–19:25.
 Cost alone cannot be dispositive because the printed-publi-
 cation inquiry is focused on the interested public, not the
 general public. See GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC,
 

 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the interested
 public includes commercial entities that can afford high-
 cost slicers.
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95      Page: 12    Filed: 02/08/2024




 12               WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




 actual examples of deliveries of the operating manuals to
 customers. E.g., J.A. 2222–34.
      Weber’s employees’ declarations are corroborated and
 supported by testimony, delivery notes, invoices, price lists,
 declarations, and email exchanges between Weber employ-
 ees and customers. See, e.g., J.A. 4200–427 (Weber invoices
 and delivery notes); J.A. 7664–68 (customer declaration);
 J.A. 12754–68 (email correspondence regarding manual
 dissemination). A Weber employee also testified that the
 operating manuals were publicly accessible at certain trade
 shows or at Weber’s factory showrooms. J.A. 9580–612
 (Weber employee declaration). Provisur’s Vice-President
 conceded that Weber sold about forty slicers during the rel-
 evant time period, and it was Weber’s “general practice” to
 provide operating manuals with the purchase of each
 slicer. J.A. 12579–80 (40:7–41:20).
     The foregoing establishes that the Board’s printed pub-
 lication determinations are unsupported by substantial ev-
 idence. See, e.g., In re Enhanced Security Research, 739
 F.3d at 1354–57 (affirming the Board’s determination that
 an operating manual distributed with a software product
 was publicly accessible because of testimony and advertise-
 ments); GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC, 

, 694–96 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (involving a trade show).
     The Board’s contrary conclusions on public accessibil-
 ity were based in part on the Board’s inordinate emphasis
 on alleged confidentiality restrictions associated with the
 operating manuals. The Board first reviewed the operating
 manuals’ copyright notice, which state that the operating
 manuals may not “be reproduced or transferred in any
 way.” J.A. 1312. The Board determined that this notice
 “require[s] confidentiality.” J.A. 29–30; J.A. 106–07. The
 Board also found another confidentiality restriction based
 on the intellectual property rights clause from Weber’s
 terms and conditions, which covers sales of each slicer
 product, and states “[c]ost estimates, drafts, drawings and
Case: 22-1751     Document: 95     Page: 13    Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                 13



 other documents remain the property of [Weber].” J.A. 30
 (quoting J.A. 12889); J.A. 107–08.
     We disagree with the Board’s decisions that the oper-
 ating manuals were not printed publications because they
 were subject to confidentiality restrictions. The copyright
 notice itself allows the original owners and their personnel
 to copy the operating manual for their own internal use.
 J.A. 1312. Weber expressly instructed customers who were
 re-selling their slicers to transfer their operating manuals
 to purchasing third parties. J.A. 12487. Weber’s assertion
 of copyright ownership does not negate its own ability to
 make the reference publicly accessible. Cf. Correge v. Mur-
 phy, 

, 1328–30 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“A mere as-
 sertion of ownership can not convert what was in fact a
 public disclosure and offer to sell to numerous potential
 customers into a non-disclosure.”). The intellectual prop-
 erty rights clause from Weber’s terms and conditions cov-
 ering sales, likewise, has no dispositive bearing on Weber’s
 public dissemination of operating manuals to owners after
 a sale has been consummated.
     We hold that the Board’s determinations that Weber’s
 operating manuals were not publicly accessible are unsup-
 ported by substantial evidence. We thus reverse the
 Board’s finding that Weber’s operating manuals do not
 qualify as printed publications.
                B. The “Disposed Over” Limitation
     A claim term is given its ordinary and customary
 meaning—the meaning that a term would have to a skilled
 artisan at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
 

, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In con-
 struing a claim term, we first look to the intrinsic evidence,
 including the claims themselves, the specification, and the
 prosecution history of the patent. Personalized Media, 

.
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95      Page: 14     Filed: 02/08/2024




 14                WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




      The Board construed the term “disposed over” to re-
 quire that the “feed apparatus and its conveyor belts and
 grippers are ‘positioned above and in vertical and lateral
 alignment with’ the food article loading apparatus and its
 lift tray assembly.” J.A. 18; J.A. 95. Weber argues that
 this construction is incorrect because the Board narrowly
 construed the “disposed over” term by importing limita-
 tions from the specification when the claim term only re-
 quires that the feed apparatus “is generally positioned
 above” the loading apparatus. Appellant Br. 53. We con-
 clude that the Board erred in its construction.
       The claim language itself only recites that the “feed ap-
 paratus” is “disposed over” the “loading apparatus.” ’812
 patent at 11:17–18. The claim language contains no re-
 strictions that would require direct alignment of the con-
 veyor belts and lift tray assembly from the two
 apparatuses. “Had the patent drafter intended to limit the
 claims” to address the alignment of the conveyor belts and
 lift tray assembly between the apparatuses, “narrower lan-
 guage could have been used in the claim.” Cyntec Co. v.
 Chilisin Elecs. Corp., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
 The parties’ experts generally agreed that the plain claim
 language did not contain additional alignment require-
 ments. J.A. 9481 (¶74) (Weber’s expert); J.A. 12005
 (133:16–22) (Provisur’s expert). Our case law does “not
 support prescribing a more particularized meaning unless
 a narrower construction is required by the specification or
 prosecution history.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar
 Corp., 

 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
      Further, the specification does not require the direct
 alignment of the conveyor belts and lift tray assembly be-
 tween the two apparatuses. The phrase “disposed over”
 does not appear in the specification. The specification does
 explain, which the Board relied on, that the loading appa-
 ratus’s grippers and lift tray are “in line with the food arti-
 cle feed paths.” ’812 patent at 2:52–53; 9:10–25. But these
 passages merely describe the spatial relationship of
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95      Page: 15    Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                 15



 specific components—the feed path and grippers as aligned
 with the loading apparatus’s lift tray. These passages do
 not disclose a limitation that the feed apparatus, including
 the conveyer belts that drive the grippers, must be aligned
 with the loading apparatus and its lift tray. “[A]lthough
 the specification often describes very specific embodiments
 of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against con-
 fining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips, 

. Our review of the prosecution history does not
 change our conclusion.
     The plain language of the claims, read in view of the
 specification, requires only that the feed apparatus be gen-
 erally positioned above the loading apparatus. The claim
 term’s recitation of broad language “compels a similarly
 broad result.” Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-
 Waters LLC, 

 (Fed. Cir. 2023). We need
 not consider the extrinsic evidence that limits the claim
 scope in a manner not contemplated by the intrinsic record.
 Genuine Enabling Tech. LLC v. Nintendo Co., 

, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Accordingly, we reverse
 the Board’s claim construction.
     We note that Provisur does not dispute that Weber’s
 prior art satisfies this limitation under Weber’s proposed
 construction. See generally Appellee Br.; Oral Arg. 7:10–
 7:50, 27:54–28. As a result, our review of the Board’s claim
 construction is dispositive of this issue. We therefore hold
 that the asserted prior art discloses the “disposed over” lim-
 itation from claim 1 in each challenged patent.
                 C. The “Stop Gate” Limitation
     Weber contends that the Board erred in determining
 that the “product bed conveyer” disclosed in Weber’s oper-
 ating manuals, including as shown in Figures 10 and 227,
 does not disclose the “stop gate” limitation. We conclude
 that the Board’s determinations are not supported by sub-
 stantial evidence.
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95     Page: 16    Filed: 02/08/2024




 16               WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




      The claim language requires that the “stop gate” sup-
 port food articles “when the lift tray assembly is moved
 from its elevated position” back down to load new food ar-
 ticles. ’812 patent at 11:33–36. Like the stop gate, the
 product bed conveyer “supports the transport of the prod-
 uct” and “prevents the products from sliding into the outlet
 in an uncontrolled manner.” J.A. 1331. The core remain-
 ing issue is whether the product bed conveyer is in its floor
 position when the product bed (lift tray) moves from its el-
 evated position to the loading position.
     Figures 10 and 227 below depict the product bed con-
 veyer (shown in light blue) acting in the supporting floor
 position when the product holders are at the end of the feed
 path and the product bed (shown in dark blue) is lowered
 to receive more food articles.




 J.A. 1480 (Fig. 227); Appellant Br. 64.
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95      Page: 17     Filed: 02/08/2024




 WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                  17




 J.A. 1331 (Fig. 10); Appellant Br. 64.
      Based on these figures, Weber’s expert testified that a
 skilled artisan would understand that, because the product
 holder is near the blade, the food slicer is at the end of the
 slicing operation and the product holder has finished feed-
 ing the food article into the blade while the product bed
 conveyer is in the floor position. J.A. 9486–90 (¶¶86–88).
 Weber’s expert explained that a skilled artisan would un-
 derstand that the lift tray moves from its elevated position
 to its loading position for additional food articles during the
 fast-slicing operation when the product bed conveyer is in
 the floor position. 

      In reaching a contrary conclusion, the Board failed to
 meaningfully consider Weber’s cited Figures 10 and 227
 and accompanying expert testimony. J.A. 65–69; J.A. 141–
 42. The Board primarily faulted the operating manuals for
 not physically showing a food article in the slicer or the
 product conveyor. J.A. 68–69; J.A. 142. But since the prod-
 uct conveyor is expressly disclosed by the operating manu-
 als, an image of a food article is not needed to understand
 those teachings. The evidence offered by Weber, showing
Case: 22-1751    Document: 95     Page: 18    Filed: 02/08/2024




 18               WEBER, INC. v. PROVISUR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




 that the operating manuals disclose the “stop gate” limita-
 tion from claim 1 in each challenged patent, leaves the
 Board’s contrary finding without substantial evidentiary
 support. Thus, we reverse the Board’s finding.
                        CONCLUSION
     We have considered Provisur’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. We reverse the Board’s de-
 terminations that Weber’s operating manuals are not
 printed publications and that the prior art does not disclose
 the “disposed over” and “stop gate” limitations. We vacate
 the Board’s conclusions that Weber failed to establish un-
 patentability of claims 1–11 of the ’812 patent and claims
 1–16 of the ’436 patent, and remand for further proceedings
 consistent with this opinion.
      REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART AND
                   REMANDED
                            COSTS
 Costs against Provisur.