Shenzhen Buxiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Sun Pleasure Co. Limited

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY
CO., LTD.,
Appellant
v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED,
Appellee
______________________
2022-1912
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
00080.
______________________
Decided: July 18, 2024
______________________
ASHLEY E. L AVALLEY , Lee Sheikh & Haan LLC, Chi-
cago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by
D RAGAN G JORGIEV, B RIAN ERIK HAAN, CHRISTOPHER L EE ;
BRYAN J ON L EMPIA, Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC, Chi-
cago, IL.
J ONATHAN A. WINTER, Farber LLC, Shelton, CT, ar-
gued for appellee. Also represented by F RITZ L OUIS
SCHWEITZER , III.
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 1 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
2
______________________
Before STOLL , CUNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal of the final written decision of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“Board”) in IPR2021-00080. Shenzhen
Buxiang Network Tech. Co. v. Sun Pleasure Co., No.
IPR2021-00080, 2022 WL 1093214 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2022)
(“Decision”). In its decision, the Board found that Shen-
zhen failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
claims 1–9 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
7,353,555 were unpatentable. Decision at *1. For the rea-
sons explained below, we affirm the Board’s decision.
I. BACKGROUND
Sun Pleasure Co. Ltd. (“Sun Pleasure”) owns the ’555
patent,1 which is titled “inflatable mattress assembly.”
’555 patent; see Decision *1. The invention seeks “to pro-
vide an attractive and comfortable inflatable mattress”
with “a frame extending around the periphery of the mat-
tress top that is . . . flat, smooth and immovable” and that
is “economical to manufacture.” ’555 patent col. 1 ll. 26–
36.
Claim 1 recites:
1. An inflatable mattress comprising:
top and bottom panels and a peripheral
side panel with a bottom edge connected to
said bottom panel;
a peripheral frame forming an upper tubu-
lar periphery of said inflatable mattress,
1 Ideal Time Consultants Ltd. assigned the ’555 pa-
tent to Sun Pleasure in January 2022. Decision at *1.
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 2 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
3
said peripheral frame having an internal
wall interconnecting said top panel to said
side panel, said internal wall being within
an interior volume of said inflatable mat-
tress;
said internal wall being connected to said
side panel along a first peripheral seam lo-
cated substantially below a level of said top
panel and being connected to said top panel
along a second peripheral seam located
substantially inwardly from said first pe-
ripheral seam;
said peripheral frame having an external
wall interconnecting said first seam to said
second seam, said external wall forming a
boundary of said inflatable mattress and
having a top portion disposed above a level
of said second peripheral seam; and
said internal wall of said peripheral frame
includes a fluid passage therethrough, said
internal wall is in substantial pressure
equilibrium within said interior volume,
and said internal wall has a substantially
linear cross-section between said first and
second seams.
Id. col. 4 ll. 30–52 (emphases added). Claim 6, the other
independent claim of the ’555 patent, recites the same lim-
itations as claim 1 but also includes the following addi-
tional limitation: “said peripheral frame is inflated by air
pressure within said interior volume of said inflatable mat-
tress and said external wall of said peripheral frame has a
substantially arcuate cross-section between said first and
second seams.” Id. col. 5 ll. 27–31.
Shenzhen filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”)
of claims 1–9 of the ’555 patent, asserting that the
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 3 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
4
Challenged Claims were unpatentable as anticipated or ob-
vious. Decision at *3. The Board instituted review of the
patent on all Challenged Claims and concluded that Shen-
zhen failed to meet its burden to prove unpatentability on
each of the five asserted grounds. Id. at *20.
Each asserted ground relies on Metzger.2 Id. at *3.
First, Shenzhen argued that claims 1–4 and 6–8 were an-
ticipated by Metzger. Id. The Board rejected this theory
on the basis that Metzger did not disclose the requisite “in-
ternal wall” with “a fluid passage therethrough,” a limita-
tion appearing in independent claims 1 and 6. Decision at
*11; see, e.g., ’555 patent col. 4 ll. 48–49 (“said internal wall
of said peripheral frame includes a fluid passage
therethrough”); id. col. 5 ll. 22–23.
Second, Shenzhen asserted that claims 1–4 and 6–8
were obvious over Metzger “in combination with the com-
mon sense and experience of a person having ordinary skill
in the art.” Decision at *11 (citing J.A. 141). The specific
theory (now at issue on appeal) was that a continuous beam
or internal wall with fluid passages therethrough “would
have been an obvious design choice, among multiple op-
tions, well within the skill of a [person having ordinary
skill in the art],” and “such a ‘solution would have been ob-
vious to try.’” Id. at *12 (quoting J.A. 142). The Board re-
jected the “unsupported, conclusory assertion” that this
modification would have been “obvious to try,” finding that
Shenzhen provided “no [supporting] explanation.” Id. at
*13. Shenzhen also asserted that there were “several
known advantages in using a single side support beam . . .
over multiple, discontinuous side support beams.” J.A.
143. Shenzhen’s expert testimony “regarding the[se] al-
leged advantages [was] derived from the disclosure of
2 U.S. Patent No. 7,089,618 (filed June 18, 2003; is-
sued August 15, 2006), J.A. 1103–11 (“Metzger”).
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 4 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
5
Wu.”3 Decision at *12. However, the Board determined
“Wu is not prior art with respect to the challenged claims”
and therefore did not credit Shenzhen’s expert testimony
regarding the alleged advantages. Id.
The Board ultimately found that Shenzhen failed to
meet its burden to show that claims 1–4 and 6–8 were ob-
vious over Metzger.4 Id. at *13. Because ground three—
asserting claims 5 and 9 were obvious over Metzger and
Wolfe5—relied on Metzger for the requisite fluid passages,
the Board also found that Shenzhen failed to show that
claims 5 and 9 were unpatentable as obvious based on
Metzger and Wolfe. Id.
For ground four, Shenzhen asserted that claims 1–4
and 6–8 were obvious based on Metzger and Wu. For
ground five, Shenzhen argued that claims 5 and 9 were ob-
vious based on Metzger, Wu, and Wolfe. Id. at *3. The
Board rejected both grounds on the basis that Wu is not
prior art to the ’555 patent. Id. at *20. Accordingly, the
Board determined that Shenzhen failed to demonstrate
that any of the Challenged Claims were obvious over the
combination of Metzger and Wu or Metzger, Wu, and
Wolfe. Id.
Shenzhen timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
3 U.S. Patent Application No. 2006/0265810 (filed
May 27, 2005; published November 30, 2006), J.A. 1031–41
(“Wu”).
4 Although the Board’s decision refers to the Chal-
lenged Claims, claims 1–4 and 6–8 were the specific claims
under review for the second ground.
5 U.S. Patent No. 5,598,593 (filed February 10, 1995;
issued February 4, 1997), J.A. 999–1014 (“Wolfe”).
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 5 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
6
II. D ISCUSSION
Shenzhen raises two issues on appeal. First, Shenzhen
challenges the Board’s finding that Wu is not prior art to
the ’555 patent. Appellant’s Br. 3; see also id. at 32–44.
Second, Shenzhen argues the Board erred in its nonobvi-
ousness determination as to Metzger (claims 1–4 and 6–8)
and the combination of Metzger and Wolfe (claims 5 and 9).
Id. at 4; see also id. at 44–62.
A.
“We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo, and
its factual findings for substantial evidence. A finding is
supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind
might accept the evidence as sufficient to support the find-
ing.” NFC Tech., LLC v. Matal, 871 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Obviousness is a question of
law based on underlying factual findings. Henny Penny
Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
2019). “Priority, conception, and reduction to practice are
questions of law which are based on subsidiary factual find-
ings.” E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC,
921 F.3d 1060, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Cooper v.
Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Because
the application from which the ’555 patent issued has an
earlier filing date than March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-
AIA versions of § 102 and § 103. Google LLC v. IPA Techs.
Inc., 34 F.4th 1081, 1084 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“Because the
patents at issue were filed before March 16, 2013, pre-AIA
provisions apply.”).
B.
Shenzhen argues the Board erred in its determination
that the inventor swore behind Wu. See Appellant’s Br.
32–44. Specifically, Shenzhen asserts that the Board re-
lied on “uncorroborated inventor testimony” and “inter-
ested-witness testimony,” and lacked “contemporaneous
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 6 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
7
evidence showing the internal structure” of the purported
reduction to practice. Appellant’s Br. 3. We disagree.
“[A] patentee bears the burden of establishing that its
claimed invention is entitled to an earlier priority date
than an asserted prior art reference.” In re Magnum Oil
Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To
establish an actual reduction to practice, a party must es-
tablish that the inventor constructed an embodiment that
satisfied every claim limitation. E.I. du Pont, 921 F.3d at
1075. Where a party relies on inventor testimony to estab-
lish an actual reduction to practice, the testimony must be
supported by corroborating evidence. See Fleming v. Escort
Inc., 774 F.3d 1371, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Wood-
land Trust v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc., 148 F.3d 1368, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Such evidence is evaluated under the
rule of reason, whereby all pertinent evidence is examined
in order to determine whether the inventor’s story is cred-
ible.” Id. at 1377 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). Generally, “sufficient circumstantial evidence of
an independent nature can satisfy the corroboration re-
quirement,” and establishing an actual reduction to prac-
tice “does not require corroboration for every factual issue
contested by the parties.” Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1330.
To meet its burden, Sun Pleasure relied on inventor
testimony and multiple types of corroborating evidence.
Sun Pleasure presented evidence that a mattress labeled
the 92083 Product was “designed, manufactured, success-
fully tested, and sold at least to Walmart all well before
Wu’s May 27, 2005 filing date.” Decision at *16 (citing J.A.
291 (Patent Owner’s Response)). Mr. Lau testified that the
92083 Product contained each of the limitations of the
Challenged Claims. Id. at *18 (citing J.A. 1843–54). To
corroborate Mr. Lau’s testimony as to the external features
of this mattress, Sun Pleasure presented, among other
things, photos of the 92083 Product. See id. As to the in-
ternal features, it relied on a combination of physical evi-
dence and testimony. Id. at *16.
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 7 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 7 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
8
On appeal, Shenzhen does not meaningfully develop its
challenge to the Board’s findings that the 92083 Product
was designed, manufactured, and sold prior to Wu’s filing
date, and that this Product had the required external fea-
tures to establish a prior reduction to practice. See Appel-
lant’s Br. 3 (asserting there was “no contemporaneous
evidence showing the internal structure” (emphasis
added)); see generally id. at 32–44. We conclude that sub-
stantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Mr.
Lau’s testimony regarding development, manufacture,
testing, and selling of the 92083 Product prior to Wu’s filing
date was adequately corroborated by evidence of purchase
orders, J.A. 2287–2351, a picture of a mass-production
sample mattress, J.A. 2400–01, test reports and emails re-
garding testing, e.g., J.A. 2352–54, and sample packaging
displaying the mattress, J.A. 2283, each dating to Decem-
ber 2004 or January 2005. See Decision at *18–19; see also
J.A. 2260–73 (pictures of a mattress prototype from Decem-
ber 2004); J.A. 2276 (same).
To corroborate Mr. Lau’s testimony that the 92083
Product contained the requisite internal features, Sun
Pleasure relied on a unit of the Product purchased online
in 2020 (“the 92083 Specimen”). Decision at *16; J.A. 296–
300. Relying on inventor testimony and corroborating evi-
dence, the Board determined Sun Pleasure had established
that “the 92083 Specimen was shipped to [the United
States] on or before April 25, 2005.” Decision at *19. Shen-
zhen does not dispute that the 92083 Specimen contains
the internal features of the Challenged Claims. See Appel-
lant’s Br. 32–44. Shenzhen’s central argument on appeal
is that the Board erred in finding that the 92083 Specimen
was shipped no later than April 2005. See Appellant’s Br.
36.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
Mr. Lau’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated on this
issue. Mr. Lau testified that April 25, 2005, was the last
shipment date for all the 92083 Products. J.A. 1228. Sun
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 8 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 8 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
9
Pleasure corroborated this testimony with independent
documentary evidence in the form of purchase orders, J.A.
2287–2351, and an order summary, J.A. 2280–82. Decision
at *19. The latest shipping date for any 92083 Products in
any of these documents is April 2005, consistent with Mr.
Lau’s testimony. See J.A. 2282; J.A. 2296. Both emails
were authenticated by Mr. Lu in addition to Mr. Lau. De-
cision at *19; see also Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco Metal &
Plastics Corp., 264 F.3d 1344, 1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(“Documentary or physical evidence that is made contem-
poraneously with the inventive process provides the most
reliable proof that the inventor’s testimony has been cor-
roborated.”).
The Board also noted that the sealed box in which the
92083 Specimen arrived, J.A. 2431–42, matched the box
used for the 92083 Product produced and sold prior to the
priority date, J.A. 2283 (package mock-up). Decision at
*19; see also J.A. 2410 ¶ 17 (Lu Declaration stating that the
Specimen’s packaging matched the product packaging for
the 92083 Product). Finally, Mr. Lu’s declaration ex-
plained that “[a]ny new design, re-design, or other modifi-
cation to a design would be assigned a new product
number, and such product numbers were never re-used.”
J.A. 2404–05 ¶ 6. Although the Board found the argument
that the Product and Specimen shared a product number
was “not particularly strong,” the Board nonetheless found
it gave credence to Mr. Lau’s explanation in the rule of rea-
son analysis. Decision at *19. Taking “all pertinent evi-
dence” into consideration, the Board’s finding of
corroboration is supported by substantial evidence. Flem-
ing, 774 F.3d at 1377 (citation omitted).
Shenzhen makes several arguments to refute the evi-
dence presented, but none of the arguments supports a re-
versal. First, Shenzhen contends that relying on the 92083
Specimen to corroborate Mr. Lau’s testimony impermissi-
bly and erroneously relies on circular corroboration be-
cause Mr. Lau’s declaration is required to corroborate the
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 9 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 9 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
10
Specimen. Appellant’s Br. 34. However, as discussed, the
Board properly relied on evidence other than Mr. Lau’s tes-
timony to determine whether the Specimen was an accu-
rate example of the 92083 Products actually shipped.
Thus, this case can be distinguished from the cases Shen-
zhen cites.
In Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d
1293, 1296, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018), this court affirmed the
Board’s decision of anticipation where the appellant had
failed to produce sufficient evidence to swear behind a par-
ticular reference where the only evidence of conception of
the claimed invention came from the inventor’s testimony
and drawings that could only be dated with the inventor’s
testimony. In In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1291–92,
1305 (Fed. Cir. 2011), this court agreed with the Board that
NTP failed to swear behind certain references where the
argument was circular and the evidence that critical fea-
tures had been reduced to practice was a non-contempora-
neous document and the inventor’s testimony that there
were no relevant changes to the document since an earlier,
prior-dated version was created. Here, independent evi-
dence contemporaneous to the inventive process supports
the inventor’s testimony that the 92083 Specimen is an ac-
curate example of the contemporaneous 92083 Product.
Thus, neither case compels a different conclusion on this
record.
Shenzhen also takes issue with the Board’s reliance on
shipping dates in the December 2004 purchase orders. See
Decision at *19 (citing J.A. 2287–2351 and J.A. 2282). Ac-
cording to Shenzhen, these shipping dates were at best pro-
jected dates, and they cannot show the actual date of any
shipment that took place. Appellant’s Br. 35. It is true
that these purchase orders—dated December 2004—do not
provide direct proof of actual shipping dates or the last
shipping date. However, these purchase orders are inde-
pendent circumstantial evidence that corroborates Mr.
Lau’s testimony that the 92083 Specimen was shipped no
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 10 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 10 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
11
later than April 2005. See Cooper, 154 F.3d at 1330. This
is all our precedent requires.
Shenzhen also argues about the purported design
changes to products with the label 92083 between 2004 and
2005. Appellant’s Br. 37–38; Appellant’s Reply Br. 6–9; see
Decision at *19 (“[T]here do appear to be differences, albeit
relatively minor differences, between the prototype and the
92083 Product.”). In light of these changes, Shenzhen ar-
gues that the shared product number and shared packag-
ing provide insufficient evidence that the 92083 Specimen
has the same internal structure as the 92083 Product. Ap-
pellant’s Br. 38–39. As acknowledged by the Board, these
changes do weaken the evidentiary role that the shared
product number and packaging play in dating the 92083
Specimen. See Decision at *19. However, the Board did
not err in finding that the shared number and packaging
lend some support to the claim that this was one of the mat-
tresses shipped no later than April 2005 and together with
other documentary evidence constitute substantial evi-
dence to support the Board’s finding of corroboration.
In sum, substantial evidence supports the Board’s find-
ing that Mr. Lau’s testimony was adequately corroborated
as to an actual reduction to practice that predated Wu and
contained each of the limitations of the Challenged Claims.
See Decision at *20. Moreover, the Board did not err in its
ultimate determination that Shenzhen had not met its bur-
den of proving that Wu was prior art with respect to the
’555 patent.
C.
Shenzhen also challenges the Board’s determination
regarding obviousness over Metzger (ground two) and the
combination of Metzger and Wolfe (ground three). Appel-
lant’s Br. 4; see also id. at 44–62. According to Shenzhen,
the Board impermissibly relied on its anticipation analysis
“to decide the obviousness inquiry” and failed “to ascertain
and discuss the differences between the prior art and the
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 11 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 11 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
12
challenged claims in its obviousness analysis.” Id. at 47
(citations omitted). Shenzhen also argues the Board erred
by discrediting all its expert testimony regarding alleged
advantages because the expert relied in part on Wu. Id. at
53. Shenzhen further contends that the Board erred by
failing to consider evidence regarding other background
prior art references. Id. at 54. We disagree.
Shenzhen’s arguments that the Board failed to
properly engage in an obviousness inquiry by relying on its
anticipation analysis are mistaken. See Appellant’s Br. 47.
It is true that the Board discussed these differences in the
context of anticipation. See Decision at *5–11. For its ob-
viousness challenge, Shenzhen “relie[d] on the same teach-
ings of Metzger relied on in connection with [anticipation],”
except with respect to the limitation related to the fluid
passage through the internal wall. Id. at *11; see J.A. 141–
43. As to this limitation, the Board discussed at length pre-
cisely what Metzger disclosed and how Metzger differed
from the Challenged Claims. See Decision at *5–13.
Shenzhen cites no authority for the proposition that
the Board must specifically repeat each of its factual find-
ings again in the obviousness determination. See Appel-
lant’s Br. 46–47. Rather, the cases cited explain—
uncontroversially—that obviousness requires a different
analysis than anticipation. See, e.g., CRFD Rsch., Inc. v.
Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Here, the
Board did conduct a distinct obviousness analysis. Having
determined the differences between the prior art and the
claimed invention and assessing the level of ordinary skill
in the art, Decision at *4, *5–11, the Board then considered
whether the subject matter would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art based on these differences. Id.
at *11–13; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
406 (2007) (laying out the requirements for an obviousness
inquiry).
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 12 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 12 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
13
Shenzhen next argues that the Board failed to consider
all the evidence before it. Shenzhen contends that the
Board should have considered its expert testimony that re-
lied on Wu—even if Wu is not prior art—“as evidence of the
knowledge of a [person having ordinary skill in the art] or
motivation to modify Metzger.” Appellant’s Br. 53. Our
precedent recognizes that non-prior art can play certain
supporting roles. See, e.g., Yeda Rsch. v. Mylan Pharms.
Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding consid-
eration of non-prior art references permissible to explain
the views of a person having ordinary skill in the art on
frequency of dosing as of the priority date); see also Syntex
(U.S.A.) LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (holding that a report published five days after a pa-
tent’s priority date provided evidence as to what “was
known in the art at the relevant time”). But this precedent
cannot help Shenzhen because Wu does not play a proper
supporting role.
On appeal, Shenzhen asserts it relies on Wu for known
disadvantages of a discontinuous wall, band, or beam. See
Appellant’s Br. 56; Appellant’s Reply Br. 24 (citing J.A.
143); see also J.A. 1040 ¶¶ [0008]–[0010] (discussing flaws
in the existing art). However, this argument impermissi-
bly “defin[es] the problem” Wu addresses “in terms of [the]
solution” Wu discloses. Insite Vision Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
783 F.3d 853, 859 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, Shenzhen
contradicts this assertion in its own briefing before this
court. See Appellant’s Reply Br. 24 (“Shenzhen cited its
expert’s discussion of Wu supporting the knowledge of a
[person having ordinary skill in the art] including several
known advantages in using a single, continuous internal
wall . . . .”).
Even if the Board considered Wu as knowledge of a per-
son having ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time, it
still would not be enough to support a finding of obvious-
ness on the present record. Wu does not provide evidence
that a skilled artisan was aware of the advantages of a
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 13 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 13 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
14
continuous wall, band, or beam but instead supports the
opposite conclusion. See J.A. 1040 ¶ [0011] (claiming the
continuous band as its “breakthrough” invention); J.A.
757–61 ¶¶ 83–89 (Shenzhen’s expert explaining that Wu
disclosed that the solution to existing flaws was a continu-
ous band or wall).6 Shenzhen fails to otherwise support its
assertions that a continuous wall or beam would have been
obvious. Because Shenzhen failed to meet its burden to
prove obviousness, any error the Board made was at most
harmless. See In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“[T]he harmless error rule applies to appeals from
the Board . . . .”).
Shenzhen also argues the Board erred by “fail[ing] to
consider numerous other prior art references submitted by
Shenzhen as describing the state of the art.” Appellant’s
Br. 58; see J.A. 83–105 (discussing the state of the art and
additional prior art references). We disagree. “To satisfy
its burden of proving obviousness, . . . [t]he petitioner must
. . . articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of rec-
ord, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Mag-
num Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380 (emphasis added). Shenzhen
does not explain the relevance of any of these additional
background references in its obviousness discussion. See
J.A. 141–43. On appeal, Shenzhen now argues that these
references support its theories of obviousness. See Appel-
lant’s Br. 58–61. However, “the Board should . . . not have
to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond
the ones clearly made.” Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th
1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023). We decline to find the Board
erred by failing to do so here.
6 Shenzhen asserts that Wu’s “pull bands” are “strik-
ingly similar to” Metzger’s “side support beams,” and refers
to both as the “internal walls” of the mattresses. J.A. 150.
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 14 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 14 of 15 --

SHENZHEN BUXIANG NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO ., LTD. v.
SUN PLEASURE CO. LIMITED
15
III. CONCLUSION
We have considered the Appellant’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the above reasons,
we affirm the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 22-1912 Document: 42 Page: 15 Filed: 07/18/2024

-- 15 of 15 --