Wildseed Mobile, LLC v. Google LLC

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 04/30/2026

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

______________________

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Appellee

______________________

2024-1846

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2023-

00248.

______________________

Decided: April 30, 2026

______________________

DAVID ALBERTI, Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP, Foster

City, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by SAL

LIM, MICHELE R. WOODRUFF LYONS; RICHARD M. BEMBEN,

RICHARD CRUDO, JASON A. FITZSIMMONS, STEVEN PAPPAS,

MICHAEL D. SPECHT, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox

PLLC, Washington, DC.

TARA LAUREN KURTIS, Perkins Coie LLP, Chicago, IL,

argued for appellee. Also represented by DAN L. BAGATELL,

Hanover, NH; JONATHAN IRVIN TIETZ, Washington, DC.

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 04/30/2026

2 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

______________________

Before PROST, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

STARK, Circuit Judge.

Wildseed Mobile, LLC (“Wildseed”) appeals from a fi-

nal written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board

(“Board”) holding claims 1-7 and 9-14 of its U.S. Patent No.

7,376,414 (the “’414 patent”) unpatentable as obvious over

a combination of three prior art references. Wildseed chal-

lenges the Board’s construction of two claim terms and ad-

ditionally contends that the Board’s analysis violates the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-59.

We affirm.

I

A

Wildseed owns the ’414 patent, entitled “Method and

System for Inserting Advertisements into Broadcast Con-

tent,” which is “directed to providing advertisements for

playing on a mobile device based on previously provided in-

formation regarding the mobile device user.” J.A. 70. The

patent purports to allow advertisers “to differentiate adver-

tisements for cellular telephone users versus other types of

users,” enabling targeted advertising. ’414 pat. at 1:42-44.

The claimed methods involve selecting a targeted adver-

tisement based on information collected from a user’s mo-

bile device and inserting such an advertisement into user-

selected audio content by stopping the playback of user-se-

lected audio, playing the ad, recording user-selected con-

tent while the ad plays, and, when the ad is finished,

playing back the recorded content. The issues presented

on appeal relate to how the system obtains information

about a user in order to determine his or her interests.

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 3

An embodiment depicted in Figure 5 of the ’414 patent

(reproduced below) is “a functional block diagram generally

illustrating an overview of system 500 for inserting adver-

tisements provided by advertisement server 506 into

streamed or broadcast content playing on a mobile device

502.” Id. at 9:12-15. “Advertisement client 504 is located

on mobile device 502 and determines the information about

the user . . . and provides this information to advertise-

ment server 508.” Id. at 9:24-27. That information “may

include any combination of physical location, preference,

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 04/30/2026

4 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

user behavior and demographic information.” Id. at 9:28-

30.

The system collects user information via the client ad-

vertisement application, which is depicted in Figure 6 be-

low. The client advertisement application “is in

communication with several other modules that provide

different types of information, which in total are employed

to generate information regarding [the] user.” Id. at 9:48-

51. For example, “[d]emographic module 612 enables [col-

lection of] the demographics of a user” and “[b]ehavior mod-

ule 608” collects information regarding the “type and

frequency” of the user’s cellphone use. Id. at 10:7-24 (spec-

ification describing six modules: preferences, physical loca-

tion, recorder, demographic, behavior, and other source).

Of particular importance to this appeal is the “other

source” module, about which the specification says the fol-

lowing:

Additionally, other source module 606 enables

other sources to be used to provide information re-

garding the user, e.g., a message from another user

of another mobile device that identifies character-

istics of the current user of the mobile device. Also,

information can be provided by others (or the ac-

tual user) from a remotely located stationary com-

puting device about the mobile device user.

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 5 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 5

Id. at 10:18-24. Once collected, the totality of information

is “used in determining advertisements to be played by the

user’s mobile device.” Id. at 11:20-21.

The parties agree claim 1 is representative of the four

independent claims at issue here. It recites:

A method for playing content and advertisements

on a cellular device, comprising:

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 6 Filed: 04/30/2026

6 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

(a) autonomously providing to a server, by

the cellular device, information associated

with a user of the cellular device, the infor-

mation taken by the cellular device from a

message sent to the cellular device from an-

other user of another cellular device, the

message identifying characteristics of the

user of the cellular device;

(b) receiving from the server, by the cellu-

lar device, at least one advertisement to be

played on the cellular device, wherein the

at least one received advertisement is de-

termined by the server based at least in

part on the provided information;

(c) if a determined time interval occurs,

stopping playing of the content, by the cel-

lular device, and playing the at least one of

the determined advertisements, by the cel-

lular device, the playing of the at least one

determined advertisement comprising:

recording, by the cellular device,

the content which playing was

stopped, while the at least one de-

termined advertisement is playing;

and

when the playing of the at least one

determined advertisement is com-

pleted, resuming the playing of the

stopped content, by the cellular de-

vice, from where the stopping of the

playing of the content occurred, us-

ing the recorded content.

Id. at 12:18-44 (emphasis added).

Claim 2 is illustrative of the challenged dependent

claims, each of which adds a requirement that the

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 7 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 7

information provided to the server “additionally include” at

least one of the information types listed in the dependent

claim. Claim 2 recites:

The method of claim 1, wherein the provided infor-

mation additionally includes at least one of the

group consisting of a preference of a user of the cel-

lular device, a demographic data of the cellular de-

vice, content played on the cellular device, or a

geographic location of the cellular device.

Id. at 12:45-50 (emphasis added).

The ’414 patent belongs to a family of patents, which

claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application

No. 60/290,592 (the “’592 application”). In connection with

prosecution of the ’592 application, the applicant submit-

ted internal company documents describing the purported

invention as a “[m]ethod of serving ads to a wireless

phone,” by interspersing targeted advertisements during

playback of songs recorded from the radio. J.A. 1088. The

’592 application does not indicate from where the claimed

system obtains information to create a user profile and en-

able targeted advertising.

Similarly, original claim 1 of the application that pro-

duced the ’414 patent was agnostic as to the source of the

user information used to identify targeted ads, referring

broadly to “information associated with a user of the mobile

device.” J.A. 907-08. The examiner rejected original claim

1 over the prior art reference Owensby. 1 The examiner

found Owensby teaches providing, to a server, user-based

information from a mobile device, including user prefer-

ences, demographic data, user behavior, and content

1 Owensby is U.S. Patent No. 6,647,257, entitled

“System and Method for Providing Targeted Messages

Based on Wireless Mobile Location.”

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 8 Filed: 04/30/2026

8 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

played by the user on the device – all categories of infor-

mation that were enumerated in original claim 1 of the ’414

patent. In response to the rejection, the applicant removed

the specific categories of information from independent

claim 1 and moved them into dependent claim 2. In the

same amendment, the applicant added to claim 1 the infor-

mation “taken by the cellular device from a message sent

to the cellular device” limitation at issue in this appeal.

The applicant then argued that “Owensby targets ads

based on information that originates from an affirmative

act of the subscriber,” which is distinct from “the method of

claim 1 [which] requires that the provided information

originate from another source, in particular a message

from another user of another cellular device.” J.A. 642 (em-

phasis omitted). The examiner allowed amended claim 1

to issue.

B

Google Inc. (“Google”) petitioned for inter partes review

(“IPR”) of claims 1-7 and 9-14 of the ’414 patent based on a

combination of three prior art references: Frerichs, 2 Kawa-

saki, 3 and Kauffman. 4 The Board instituted IPR; in its in-

stitution decision, the Board agreed with the parties that

2 Frerichs is U.S. Patent No. 6,684,249, entitled

“Method and System for Adding Advertisements over

Streams Audio Based upon a User Profile over a World

Wide Area Networks of Computers.” J.A. 1042-62

3 Kawasaki is U.S. Patent No. 6,539,375, entitled

“Method and System for Generating and Using a Computer

User’s Personal Interest Profile.” J.A. 1063-73

4 Kauffman is U.S. Publication No. 2007/0083886,

“Seamless Arbitrary Data Insertion for Streaming Media,”

and is not included in the joint appendix.

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 9 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 9

no claim terms required construction at that point.

Wildseed, in its Patent Owner Response, raised a dispute

about the claim term “information taken by the cellular de-

vice from a message.” Wildseed argued that the plain and

ordinary meaning of this term is limited to verbatim ex-

traction of information from a message, thereby excluding

information that can be derived or generated from the mes-

sage but is not explicitly contained in the message itself.5

Google countered that the plain and ordinary meaning of

“taken” is broad enough to encompass information gener-

ated or derived from message text.

The difference between the parties’ claim construction

proposals is illustrated by the following example. A user

receives a text message that reads: “Let’s play Pebble

Beach today.” In Wildseed’s view, the system only extracts

these exact words, so it does not discern from this message

any indication that the user is likely interested in golf. In

Google’s view, by contrast, the system may derive from ref-

erence to “Pebble Beach,” a famous golf course, that the

user is interested in golf, so it can send the word “golf” to

the server, even though “golf” is not found in the text of the

message itself.

The Board reviewed the claim language, specification,

and prosecution history and rejected Wildseed’s proposed

construction. The Board observed that only one portion of

the specification discusses the “other sources” module and

refers directly to taking information from text messages,

and that excerpt did not contain anything that would indi-

cate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that “infor-

mation taken by the cellular device from a message” is

limited to verbatim extraction. With respect to the prose-

cution history, the Board explained that the applicant’s

5 Wildseed does not argue that the patentee was its

own lexicographer or that there was a disclaimer of claim

scope during prosecution.

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 10 Filed: 04/30/2026

10 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

amendment narrowed independent claim 1 by specifying a

particular source of information, text messages, but found

the amendment had nothing to do with whether infor-

mation “taken” from the text messages includes or excludes

derived information. Thus, to the Board, the amendment

was irrelevant to resolution of the claim construction dis-

pute. The Board further noted that Google’s broader con-

clusion was consistent with dictionary definitions

submitted by both parties. Applying its construction, the

Board found all of the challenged independent claims obvi-

ous over Kawasaki, which it found discloses the claimed

“information taken by the cellular device from a message.”

J.A. 32-33.

The Board also sided with Google regarding the parties’

dispute as to the meaning of “additionally include[d]” infor-

mation that must be taken from a message as in claim 1, a

term that appears in the challenged dependent claims. Ap-

plying Google’s understanding of the term, the Board found

the dependent claims unpatentable as obvious over Fre-

richs.

Wildseed timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

II

We review the Board’s ultimate claim construction de

novo and its subsidiary factual findings regarding extrinsic

evidence for substantial evidence. See Personalized Media

Commc’ns, LLC v. Apple Inc., 952 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed.

Cir. 2020). Claims are generally construed according to

their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a per-

son having ordinary skill in the art after reviewing the

claim term in the context of the patent. See Phillips

v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

(en banc).

“We review the Board’s compliance with the procedural

requirements of the [APA] de novo.” Axonics, Inc

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 11 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 11

v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

“The central inquiry is whether we can reasonably discern

that the Board followed a proper path, even if that path is

less than perfectly clear.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Inno-

vations S.a.r.l., 70 F.4th 1331, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (inter-

nal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

III

Wildseed challenges the Board’s claim constructions

with respect to two disputed terms: (a) “taken . . . from a

message,” as used in illustrative independent claim 1; and

(b) the “provided information additionally includes,” as

used in illustrative dependent claim 2.

A

The Board agreed with the parties that it should apply

the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term “taken

. . . from a message,” but it had to resolve the parties’ dis-

pute as to what that plain and ordinary meaning actually

is. All agree that it includes extracting verbatim infor-

mation from a text message. Google adds that it also in-

cludes information generated or derived from exact text.

Wildseed does not. The Board agreed with Google’s

broader construction and we do as well.

Claim 1 recites a system for autonomously providing to

a server information “taken by the cellular device from a

message sent to the cellular device.” ’414 pat. 12:22-23.

Nothing in the claim language, specification, or prosecu-

tion history would indicate to a skilled artisan that the in-

formation must be extracted verbatim from a text message.

Wildseed accuses the Board of improperly viewing the

term “taken” in isolation, ignoring the context provided by

the claims, which requires that the information be “taken

by [a] cellular device from a message.” Wildseed further

argues that the Board failed to appreciate the grammatical

structure of the claim language, which Wildseed insists in-

dicates that what is “taken” from a message must be

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 12 Filed: 04/30/2026

12 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

preexisting and cannot, therefore, be deduced. Wildseed

also argues that the claims elsewhere use the term “deter-

mine” or “determine based on” to denote the generation or

derivation of new types of data, so the different term

“taken” has to have a different, and narrower meaning.

We disagree with Wildseed. The claim language

merely limits the source of the information, i.e., that it be

“from a message,” but does not limit how the information

obtained from that source is used. Wildseed’s suggestion

that the doctrine of claim differentiation supports its posi-

tion is mistaken, as nothing about the Board’s construction

renders any claim term improperly superfluous. Under the

Board’s construction, “determined” includes only generated

information, while “taken” includes both generative infor-

mation and verbatim extraction, consistent with the pre-

sumption that different claim terms have different scope.

See Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361,

1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Nor are we persuaded by Wildseed’s suggestion that

the Board’s construction is somehow infected by hindsight,

failing to appreciate the limitations of the technology that

existed in 2001. A skilled artisan would understand that

cell phones of that era were capable of effectively deducing

or deriving information that is not expressly stated, for in-

stance through database retrieval (e.g., an entry associat-

ing “Pebble Beach” with golf courses). See J.A. 2285-88

(Google’s expert Dr. Henry Houh explaining that skilled ar-

tisan would be motivated to combine Frerich’s 2001-era

cellphone with Kawasaki’s ability to apply “algorithms and

rules,” without needing modern artificial intelligence or

neural networks).

Turning to the specification, Wildseed relies primarily

on what it labels “the key disclosure in column 10,” Open.

Br. at 31-37, which is the only portion of the specification

addressing information taken from a message. That dis-

closure is as follows: “other source module 606 enables

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 13 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 13

other sources to be used to provide information regarding

the user, e.g., a message from another user of another mo-

bile device that identifies characteristics of the current

user of the mobile device.” ’414 pat. 10:18-22 (emphasis

added). Like the Board, all that we discern from this state-

ment is that text messages received by the user are one ex-

emplary source of information; it does not speak to the

issue of verbatim extraction as opposed to generation of in-

formation. And, contrary to Wildseed’s contention, the

specification provides multiple examples of a system deriv-

ing information for provision to the server. See, e.g., id. at

9:48-51 (describing modules in embodiment of Figure 6 as

being “employed to generate information regarding a user

of the mobile device”) (emphasis added); id. at 9:58-64

(providing that module in Figure6 may “analyze[]” “GPS,

Assisted GPS and/or triangulation of wireless signals” “to

determine the physical location of the user’s mobile device,

e.g., at a sports stadium”); id. at 10:8-11 (demographic

module of Figure 6 may “determine[]” user’s spending hab-

its through “various questionnaires or surveys”); id. at

10:16-17 (behavior module of Figure 6 can “determine[]”

“type and frequency” of user’s cell phone usage); id. at

10:45-47 (Figure 8 “illustrates . . . the process for generat-

ing information regarding the user of a mobile device.”).

Wildseed further focuses on Figure 8, a “flow chart that

illustrates an overview . . . of the process for generating

information regarding the user of a mobile device.” J.A. 79

(citing ’414 pat. 10:45-46 & Fig. 8). Wildseed argues that

steps 802 through 820 involve the collecting of information

about a user and providing it to the server, before the sys-

tem “generate[s] information about [the] user of a mobile

device for server.” J.A. 79 (capitalization normalized). We

agree, however, with the Board that, even if the embodi-

ment of Figure 8 restricts the “taking” steps from including

generation or extrapolation from the exact text of mes-

sages, there is no basis to import that limitation into the

claims. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 14 Filed: 04/30/2026

14 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“While we read claims in view

of the specification, of which they are a part, we do not read

limitations from the embodiments in the specifications into

the claims.”).

Wildseed next contends that the prosecution history,

and particularly the ’592 provisional application, to which

the ’414 patent claims priority, supports its construction

because it discloses only data extraction. To the contrary,

the ’592 provisional application is of little, if any, relevance.

While a portion of the ’592 application discloses a system

in which pre-existing data (an identifier for a radio station)

is extracted from an SMS message, it nowhere defines or

discloses that pre-existing data must be extracted verbatim

from the message or that derived information is excluded.

In fact, varying degrees of extrapolation may be necessary

to identify which radio station users are discussing. See,

e.g., Google Br. at 40 (illustrating this point with examples

of messages referring to “100.3,” “FM 100.3 MHz,” “FM

100.3,” and “WBIG-FM”).

The amendments made during prosecution of the ’414

patent also do not support Wildseed’s proposed construc-

tion. The examiner initially rejected the claims as obvious

over Owensby because that reference teaches sending in-

formation from a user’s cellphone to an external server. In

response, the applicant added the “from a text message”

limitation to the independent claims, and distinguished

Owensby because the information it was sending to the

server “originates from an affirmative act,” while “the

method of claim 1 requires that the provided information

originate from . . . a message from another user.” J.A. 640-

42. As the Board correctly explained, these limitations re-

late only to the sources of the information (whether from a

text message or other source) and whether an affirmative

act of the user is required to initiate the provisioning of the

data to the server; they have nothing to do with the method

of obtaining the information, i.e., extraction of particular

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 15 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 15

words used in the messages or information derived in other

ways from the same source.

Finally, Wildseed takes issue with the Board’s citations

to dictionary definitions submitted by the parties. Because

we have resolved the parties’ claim construction dispute

based solely on the intrinsic evidence, we have no need to

consider the extrinsic evidence. See Seabed Geosolutions

(US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir.

2021) (“If the meaning of a claim term is clear from the in-

trinsic evidence, there is no reason to resort to the extrinsic

evidence.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omit-

ted).

In sum, we agree with the Board that the correct con-

struction of “taken . . . from a message” includes infor-

mation generated or derived from the words used in a

message, and is not limited to verbatim extraction. As

Wildseed’s appeal of the Board’s obviousness determina-

tion regarding the challenged independent claims is based

entirely on Wildseed’s rejected claim construction, we af-

firm the Board’s conclusion that the challenged independ-

ent claims (claims 1, 9, 12, and 14) of the ’414 patent are

unpatentable.

B

With respect to the patentability of the challenged de-

pendent claims (2-3, 10, 13), 6 we again agree with the

Board, which correctly included within the scope of “the

provided information additionally includes” sources of in-

formation other than text messages.

To the extent Wildseed’s position with respect to the

dependent claims is based on its now-rejected proposed

6 Wildseed has not challenged the Board’s conclusion

regarding dependent claims 4-7, and 11 on appeal.

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 16 Filed: 04/30/2026

16 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

construction for the “taken” term we have already dis-

cussed, it follows from what we have already held that we

must also reject its arguments concerning the dependent

claims. Wildseed contends that: (i) the information dis-

closed in claim 1 is limited to a single source, text mes-

sages; (ii) claim 1 provides the antecedent basis for the

information recited in claim 2; and (iii) therefore the infor-

mation recited in claim 2 must be taken from that same,

single source. As the premise for this logic lacks merit, so,

too, does Wildseed’s conclusion.

The specification further undermines Wildseed’s chal-

lenge to the Board’s analysis of the dependent claims. It

describes several modules that function in preferred em-

bodiments to collect various types of data (e.g., preferences,

physical location, recorder, demographic, behavior, and

other sources), revealing that text messages received by the

user are only one source among many from which these

modules pull information. See, e.g., ’414 pat. at 10:18-22

(“[O]ther source module 606 enables other sources to be

used to provide information regarding the user, e.g., a mes-

sage from another user of another mobile device that iden-

tifies characteristics of the current user of the mobile

device.”). The prosecution history on which Wildseed fur-

ther relies, see Open. Br. at 49 (citing J.A. 640), is no more

relevant, and of no greater help to Wildseed, in connection

with the dependent claims than it was in connection with

the independent claims, as we discussed above.

Thus, the dependent claims, like the independent

claims, require that some information be taken from the

text messages received by the user, but they do not pre-

clude taking information from other sources as well. We

agree with the Board’s construction of the disputed claim

term. As Wildseed does not dispute that substantial evi-

dence supports the Board’s finding that the dependent

claims are obvious when this construction is applied, we

affirm the Board’s finding that these claims are obvious.

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 17 Filed: 04/30/2026

WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC 17

C

Finally, Wildseed argues that the Board’s obviousness

analysis concerning dependent claims 2, 10, and 13 fails to

satisfy APA requirements, as it does not enable our review.

We disagree.

While we have acknowledged that it is not ade-

quate for the Board to summarize and reject argu-

ments without explaining why it accepts the

prevailing argument, we have also repeatedly ex-

plained that the Board is not required to address

every argument raised by a party or explain every

possible reason supporting its conclusion. The cen-

tral inquiry is whether we can reasonably discern

that the Board followed a proper path, even if that

path is less than perfectly clear.

Medtronic, 70 F.4th at 1344 (internal quotation marks and

brackets omitted).

The Board’s path with respect to these dependent

claims is reasonably discernable. The Board extensively

quoted the Petition, Patent Owner Response, and Reply,

summarizing the parties’ positions, and then explained

that it “agree[d] with [Google] and reject[ed] [Wildseed’s]

argument as not supported by the claim language.”

J.A. 58-60. Contrary to Wildseed’s contentions, the Board

cited intrinsic evidence for its conclusion and its analysis is

sufficient to enable our review. Hence, there is no APA vi-

olation. See Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A, 859 F.3d

1364, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding Board satisfies

APA when it clearly articulates and adopts arguments pre-

sented by litigant that are supported by record evidence

and reasoned explanation).

IV

We have considered Wildseed’s remaining arguments

and find they lack merit. Accordingly, for the reasons

Case: 24-1846 Document: 50 Page: 18 Filed: 04/30/2026

18 WILDSEED MOBILE, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC

provided above, we affirm the Board’s conclusion that

claims 1-7 and 9-14 of the ’414 patent are unpatentable as

obvious.

AFFIRMED