In Emerson Electric C. v. Sipco LLC, the Fed. Cir vacated the Board’s decision and remanded to address a seemingly opposite finding by the same panel based on nearly identical facts.  The Fed. Cir. found that the Board did not adequately explain and support its conclusion that there was no motive to combine, having reached the opposite conclusion having considered nearly identical evidence in both cases.  The Fed. Cir. noted that some Board explanations can suffice even if brief, as when the patent and the art are both clear and readily understandable and would uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency’s path may be reasonably be discerned.