The Board's application of the rule prevents claims from being issued that, while patentable under patent laws, were deemed unpatentable based on a narrower claim construction.
SoftView argues that the CAFC incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel/issue preclusion to amended claims that should have been reconsidered for validity.
The PTAB noted that there was 'insufficient articulated reasoning' concerning the obviousness of claims, yet ruled that SoftView could not contest the ruling due to estoppel.
The CAFC acknowledged that section 42.73(d)(3) makes certain claims unpatentable that might otherwise be patentable under obviousness, affirming the Board's application of this rule.
Collection
[
|
...
]