{"id":8327,"date":"2016-12-02T18:26:04","date_gmt":"2016-12-03T00:26:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=8327"},"modified":"2016-12-03T11:07:16","modified_gmt":"2016-12-03T17:07:16","slug":"pto-position-on-evidence-in-a-%c2%a7101-rejection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=8327","title":{"rendered":"PTO Position on Evidence in a \u00a7101 Rejection"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The PTO has been notably silent on the issue of what evidence is required from the PTO in a \u00a7101 analysis. \u00a0The PTO Solicitor&#8217;s Office did express some views on the issue in its briefing of the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Villena<\/span> appeal. \u00a0Perhaps they have changed their mind after <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">McRO v. Bandai<\/span>. \u00a0You can access the PTO&#8217;s brief [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/inrevillenabrief.pdf\">here<\/a>]. \u00a0This might be helpful material to anyone that is planning on attending the upcoming PTO roundtable on Monday on subject matter eligibility.<\/p>\n<p>The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 Judgment on the appeal. \u00a0Because the PTAB rejected the claims for 102 and 103 reasons in addition to 101, one cannot say that the Federal Circuit was endorsing the Solicitor&#8217;s Office views on patent eligibility. \u00a0The Federal Circuit does not always address all issues on appeal to reach an affirmance of the Board. \u00a0For example, in\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Gleave<\/span> the court stated:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Therefore, we affirm the Board\u2019s rejection of claims 1, 4, 15, and 18-21 of the \u2018493 application under \u00a7 102(b). We need not reach the \u00a7 103 obviousness rejection.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div id=\"gs_reference_w\">\n<div id=\"gs_reference\" class=\" gs_vis\"><span><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Gleave<\/span><\/span>, 560 F. 3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The PTO has been notably silent on the issue of what evidence is required from the PTO in a \u00a7101 analysis. \u00a0The PTO Solicitor&#8217;s Office did express some views on the issue in its briefing of the In re Villena appeal. \u00a0Perhaps they have changed their mind after McRO v. Bandai. \u00a0You can access 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":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8327"}],"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=8327"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8327\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8330,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8327\/revisions\/8330"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}