{"id":4043,"date":"2011-05-22T21:10:39","date_gmt":"2011-05-23T03:10:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=4043"},"modified":"2011-05-22T21:10:39","modified_gmt":"2011-05-23T03:10:39","slug":"failure-to-establish-a-prima-facie-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=4043","title":{"rendered":"Failure to Establish a Prima Facie Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>During the oral argument of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Kao<\/span>, the panel had some tough questions for the Associate Solicitor from the PTO.\u00a0 The issue concerned\u00a0an obviousness rejection that had been made by the Patent Office and whether there\u00a0had been\u00a0a sufficient prima facie case made to reject the claim at issue.\u00a0 The issue turned on whether the testing method that was used as\u00a0part of the cited\u00a0prior art (the &#8220;basket&#8221; method) was\u00a0proved by substantial evidence to be equivalent to the testing method\u00a0recited in the claim (the &#8220;Paddle&#8221; method).\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The panel took issue with the Office&#8217;s contention that\u00a0it need only\u00a0make the assertion that the cited references were combinable in order to establish a prima facie case.\u00a0 At one point Judge Linn asked whether the Office is entitled to make a prima facie case by saying: &#8220;Black is white; now [Applicant] go prove otherwise.&#8221;\u00a0 You can listen to this exchange here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/05\/2010-1307-excerpt.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2010-1307.MP3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>You can read the court&#8217;s opinion here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/10-1307-1308-1309.pdf\">Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>During the oral argument of In re Kao, the panel had some tough questions for the Associate Solicitor from the PTO.\u00a0 The issue concerned\u00a0an obviousness rejection that had been made by the Patent Office and whether there\u00a0had been\u00a0a sufficient prima facie case made to reject the claim at issue.\u00a0 The issue turned on whether the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4043"}],"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=4043"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4043\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4048,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4043\/revisions\/4048"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}