{"id":12093,"date":"2023-01-09T12:55:10","date_gmt":"2023-01-09T18:55:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12093"},"modified":"2023-01-09T12:55:10","modified_gmt":"2023-01-09T18:55:10","slug":"quotes-of-the-day-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=12093","title":{"rendered":"Quotes of the day"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination. Whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional.<\/p><cite><em>Berkheimer v. HP INC.<\/em>, No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018)(slip opinion at 14).<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>An examiner\u2019s assertion that a particular fact or principle is well-known is not evidentiary support.&nbsp;<em>Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.<\/em>, 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016).&nbsp;<\/p><cite>In re Google, 2022-2012 (Fed. Cir. January 9, 2023)(slip opinion at 10 citing <em>Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.<\/em>, 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and<em> DyStar Textilfarben GmbH &amp; Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co.<\/em>, 464 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006).\u00a0<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>Sure sounds like the PTO should be required to provide <em><strong>evidence<\/strong><\/em> in a \u00a7101 rejection that something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent &#8212; not mere examiner or APJ opinions &#8212; or otherwise the rejection should fail for lack of substantial evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination. Whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, [&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\/12093"}],"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=12093"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12093\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12096,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12093\/revisions\/12096"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}