Court Opinion

ID: 9872613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 21:06:36.999829+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:28.700447
License: Public Domain

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s merits discussion in this opinion. I agree that the PTAB properly disallowed claims 43, 71, and 86 of the ’800 patent. I also agree that the Board’s disallowance of claims 46, 57-62, 65, 74, and 98-100 is not' supported by substantial evidence. I write separately because I believe that “remand is not the appropriate remedy in examination appeals in which the PTO has not carried its burden of establishing unpatentability.” In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Newman, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). The PTO and PTAB bear the burden to establish unpatentability in examination appeals, and I agree with the majority that, in large measure, they failed to do so here. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— ... ”). The appropriate remedy in this situation is to allow any claims for which the PTAB has not carried its burden of proof. Accordingly, rather than simply vacate the PTAB’s findings on claims 46, 57-62, 65, 74, and 98-100, I would reverse those findings. From the majority’s conclusion otherwise, I respectfully dissent.