{"id":10216,"date":"2018-11-14T10:38:01","date_gmt":"2018-11-14T16:38:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10216"},"modified":"2018-11-14T10:38:01","modified_gmt":"2018-11-14T16:38:01","slug":"quote-of-the-day-7","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=10216","title":{"rendered":"Quote of the day"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote><p>We recognize that the Board has subject matter expertise, but the Board cannot accept general conclusions about what is \u201cbasic knowledge\u201d or \u201ccommon sense\u201d as a replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings in a determination of patentability. <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=16958492017770341577&amp;q=k\/s+himpp&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,131\"><i>Zurko,<\/i> 258 F.3d at 1385-86<\/a>. To hold otherwise would be to embark down a slippery slope which would permit the examining process to deviate from the well-established and time-honored requirement that rejections be supported by evidence. It would also ultimately \u201crender the process of appellate review for substantial evidence on the record a meaningless exercise.\u201d <i>Id.<\/i> at 1386 (citing <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=2359099234780843689&amp;q=k\/s+himpp&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,131\"><i>Baltimore &amp; Ohio R.R. Co. v. Aberdeen &amp; Rockfish R.R. Co.,<\/i> 393 U.S. 87, 91-92, 89 S.Ct. 280, 21 L.Ed.2d 219 (1968)<\/a>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=79173943140962179&amp;q=k\/s&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4,131\"><i>K\/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies, LLC<\/i><\/a>, 751 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Judge Lourie writing for the court; Judge Wallach forming the second member of the panel majority; Judge Dyk dissented).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We recognize that the Board has subject matter expertise, but the Board cannot accept general conclusions about what is \u201cbasic knowledge\u201d or \u201ccommon sense\u201d as a replacement for documentary evidence for core factual findings in a determination of patentability. Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1385-86. To hold otherwise would be to embark down a slippery slope [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10216"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10216"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10216\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10217,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10216\/revisions\/10217"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}