Further to "substantial evidence" in patent cases

Further to the earlier post on the CAFC case (Guidant v. St. Jude) involving interpretation of substantial evidence, one might consider In re Jolly, 308 F.3d 1317, 1320 (CAFC 2002).

If evidence supports several reasonable but contradictory conclusions, the CAFC will not find the Board's decision unsupported by substantial evidence because the Board chose one finding over another plausible alternative.

from Velander v. Garner (CAFC 2003):

Substantial evidence "means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). Our review of the Board's factual findings for substantial evidence examines the record as a whole, taking into account evidence that supports as well as detracts from those findings. Gartside, 203 F.3d at 1312. "The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence," however, will not render the Board's findings unsupported by substantial evidence. Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966). In other words, if the evidence of record will support several reasonable but contradictory conclusions, we will not find the Board's decision unsupported by substantial evidence because the Board chose one finding over another plausible alternative. In re Jolly, 308 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2002).