examined Cited as authority (rule) Henkel Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co. (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g." In Henkel Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 485 F.3d 1370, 1375 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“Henkel I ”), we rejected the Board’s overly restrictive interpretation of the limitation and concluded that the limitation required “an appreciation by the inventors simply that the dissolution rate of the compressed region is greater than the dissolution rate of the other region.” We also concluded that Henkel had demonstrated an appreciation of this disputed limitation no later than May 1997.