As to standards:
During an inter partes review, the Board
construes disputed limitations according to
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification.
In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC,
778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir.2015).
We then review that construction according to the
standard set forth in Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v.
Sandoz, Inc. , 574 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015).
Id. at 1282.
We review the ultimate construction
de novo and the underlying
factual determinations involving
extrinsicevidence for substantial evidence.
Id. at 1282–83
As to expert testimony:
We also reject Belden’s argument
that the Board should have accepted
its expert testimony. As an initial matter, a tribunal is not required to accept
expert testimonysimply because it was not challenged and the de-
clarant was not deposed.
See Applied Med.Res.Corp. v.
U.S. Surgical Corp. , 147 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(“The fact that Applied Medical did not contest
this pointwith testimony from one of its own experts no more re-
solves the factual question in Surgical’s favor . . . .”).
Nonetheless, the Board
correctly rejected Belden’s expert
testimony proffered by the co-inventor,
finding that it was“conclusory” and “not supported by a citation to the Speci-
fication or an ordinary meaning,”
Board Decision Iat 14,
as we have held that “conclusory, unsupported assertions
by experts as to the definition of a claim term
are notuseful to a [tribunal],
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (cita-