Federal Circuit disposition — 26-1177

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE ZHENGXU HE,
Appellant
______________________
2026-1177
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 16/997,933.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2026
______________________
ZHENGXU HE, Reno, NV, pro se.
MONICA BARNES L ATEEF , Office of the Solicitor, United
States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for
appellee John A. Squires. Also represented by N ICHOLAS
T HEODORE MATICH , IV, AUSTIN P HILIP MAYRON, R OBERT J.
MCMANUS , MICHAEL T YLER.
______________________
Before D YK, MAYER , and P ROST , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Zhengxu He appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming an examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–22 of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/997,933
Case: 26-1177 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 1 of 7 --

IN RE HE 2
(“the ’933 application”) for obviousness. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’933 application is directed to an automated
kitchen system that transports and unloads ingredient con-
tainers between storage and cooking stations. App’x 29.1
Independent claim 1 is representative:
1. A kitchen system, comprising:
a storage station comprising:
a storage configured to store a plural num-
ber of ingredient containers, wherein each
ingredient container is used to contain or
hold a food ingredient; and
a container transfer apparatus configured
to grip and transfer one of the ingredient
containers[,] the container transfer appa-
ratus comprising:
a gripper mechanism comprising a
support component and one or
more grippers, wherein the gripper
mechanism is configured to grip
the ingredient container; and
a motion mechanism configured to
move the support component of the
gripper mechanism, the motion
mechanism comprising a motor or
other driving mechanism;
a cooking station comprising:
1 “App’x” refers to the appendix filed by Mr. He at
ECF No. 19.
Case: 26-1177 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 2 of 7 --

IN RE HE 3
a cookware configured to contain or hold a
food or a food ingredient;
a motion mechanism configured to move
the cookware, the motion mechanism com-
prising a motor or a driving mechanism;
and
a dispensing apparatus configured to move
an ingredient container to dispense the
food ingredient from one of the ingredient
containers to the cookware, the dispensing
apparatus comprising:
a gripper mechanism comprising a
support component and one or
more grippers, wherein the gripper
mechanism is configured to grip
the ingredient container; and
a motion mechanism configured to
move the support component of the
gripper mechanism, the motion
mechanism comprising a motor or
a driving mechanism; and
a vehicle configured to transport one or more of the
ingredient containers, wherein the vehicle is con-
figured to stop at the storage station; wherein the
vehicle is also configured to stop at the cooking sta-
tion.
App’x 23.
Case: 26-1177 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 3 of 7 --

IN RE HE 4
The examiner rejected claim 1 for obviousness in view
of Buehler2 and He ’660.3 Buehler discloses an automated
kitchen system that includes ingredient storage modules,
cooking receptacles, and a robotic primary manipulator
that retrieves food ingredients and performs cooking tasks.
The examiner found that Buehler discloses claim 1, except
for: (1) a dispensing apparatus comprising a gripper mech-
anism and motion mechanism; and (2) a vehicle. For these
limitations, the examiner relied on He ’660, which discloses
an ingredient-cart-unloading apparatus and mini vehicles
that stop at storage and cooking stations. The examiner
found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine these references with a reason-
able expectation of success. App’x 156–57.
The Board affirmed the rejection, adopting the findings
and rationale provided by the examiner. App’x 4–12.
Mr. He timely appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
D ISCUSSION
We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo
and its underlying factual findings for substantial evi-
dence. In re Constr. Equip. Co., 665 F.3d 1254, 1255
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Whether a skilled artisan would have
been motivated to combine references is a question of fact
that we review for substantial evidence. Id.
On appeal, Mr. He does not dispute that the combined
teachings of the references disclose all elements of the
claims. Instead, Mr. He argues that substantial evidence
does not support the Board’s motivation-to-combine finding
2 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0193901 (“Bueh-
ler”).
3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0230660 (“He
’660”).
Case: 26-1177 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 4 of 7 --

IN RE HE 5
because the offered motivations, concerning automation, do
not apply to Buehler. We disagree.
The Board concluded that the examiner had articu-
lated record-supported reasons for combining Buehler and
He ’660. App’x 11–12. Those included He ’660’s explicit
disclosures of its automated system “delivering food ingre-
dients . . . in a dependable manner,” and that it “minimizes
space required,” “minimizes idle time,” and “reduces labor
cost.” App’x 11 (citing He ’660 at ¶¶ 2, 4–5). The examiner
also explained in his rejection how incorporating He ’660’s
mini vehicles and cart-unloading apparatus into Buehler
would automate ingredient movement between storage and
cooking stations without having to position the storage and
cooking stations in a particular way. App’x 156–57. Doing
so would achieve He ’660’s benefits. Id. (citing He ’660 at
¶¶ 2, 4–5). This is substantial evidence that supports the
Board’s motivation-to-combine finding.
Mr. He also argues that He ’660’s “minimize[] space”
rationale depends on locating storage and cooking areas re-
motely, which contradicts Buehler’s teachings of locating
its storage and cooking modules adjacent to form a compact
unit. However, the examiner found no contradiction.
App’x 236–37. Mr. He disagrees with the examiner’s fact-
finding, but he does not persuasively explain how He ’660’s
benefits, of which “minizmiz[ing] space” is one among
many, are exclusive to a particular configuration (i.e., lo-
cating a storage module physically distant from the cooking
module). Here, the Board agreed with the examiner that
incorporating He ’660’s mini vehicles and unloading system
would provide advantages to Buehler’s system, as just ex-
plained. That finding is supported by substantial evidence
and is not contradicted by Buehler’s disclosure.
Next, Mr. He argues that the examiner’s proposed mod-
ification would not work in Buehler because He ’660’s un-
loading mechanism requires engagement bars, which
would interfere with Buehler’s rotating storage shelves.
Case: 26-1177 Document: 30 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 5 of 7 --

IN RE HE 6
Mr. He’s argument is premised on He ’660’s engagement-
bar mechanism being physically incorporated into Buehler.
But as the Board noted, “‘[t]he test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bod-
ily incorporated into the structure of the primary refer-
ence,’ but rather ‘what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested.’” App’x 9 (quoting In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, the ex-
aminer found that “fixing a bar to an ingredient container,
as taught by He [’660], would not prevent one of ordinary
skill in the art from attaching a bar to Buehler’s food ingre-
dient containers.” App’x 235–36. The Board agreed with
the examiner, citing that finding, App’x 16, and determin-
ing He ’660’s unloading apparatus to be “combinable with
Buehler’s food preparation system,” App’x 10. In all, the
Board found that Mr. He “ha[d] not sufficiently shown that
the combination would be uniquely challenging or diffi-
cult,” and that the examiner “provided sufficient motiva-
tion for modifying Buehler with the teachings of He ’660.”
App’x 12. We see no error in the Board’s analysis in this
regard.
Finally, Mr. He argues that the Board violated the Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by failing to meaning-
fully respond to his arguments that (1) the motivation-to-
combine finding is contradicted by Buehler and (2) the pro-
posed modification would not work in Buehler. But the rec-
ord shows that the Board confronted the substance of
Mr. He’s contentions and explained why it found them un-
persuasive. App’x 10–12 (rejecting Mr. He’s contradiction
argument because the examiner provided “numerous pos-
sible benefits gained from the combination”); App’x 9–12
(rejecting Mr. He’s incompatibility argument and explain-
ing the test for obviousness is not bodily incorporation, but
what the combined teachings would have suggested to a
skilled artisan). Mr. He fails to demonstrate an APA vio-
lation on this record.
Case: 26-1177 Document: 30 Page: 6 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 6 of 7 --

IN RE HE 7
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. He’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
affirm the Board’s decision.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 26-1177 Document: 30 Page: 7 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 7 of 7 --