Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that we may only decide a matter in the first instance when it is \ purely legal \ and that \we must not ourselves make factual and discretionary determinations that are for the agency to make\ (citations omitted) (emphasis added)
• affirming Board’s disapproval of a party’s “reliance, in its Reply sub- missions, on previously unidentified portions of a prior-art reference to make a meaningfully distinct contention”
• relying on, e.g., In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010), In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196–97 (1947)
• relying on, e.g., In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010), In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196–97 (1947)
• \Art can legitimately serve to document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness.\
• “[W]e must not ourselves make factual and discretionary determinations that are for the [USPTO] to make.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).