A standard of review refers to the amount of deference an appellate court must give to a prior decision made by a judge, a jury, or an administrative agency. Concerning a judge, each of that judge's decisions may be divided up as follows: questions of law (reviewable "de novo" -- where no deference at all is given to that judge's decision), questions of fact (reviewable for "clear error"), and matters of discretion (reviewable for "abuse of discretion").
In the recent case of Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., No. 2016-1755 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision concerning whether the prior art references "teach away" from the claimed invention is to be reviewed under the "substantial evidence" standard of review. In other words, the appellate court will affirm the PTAB's decision if during its review, it finds there was substantial evidence to support it.
More information on this case can be found here:
www.ptabwatch.com/2017/04/teaching-away-for-dummies/#page=1
In the recent case of Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., No. 2016-1755 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision concerning whether the prior art references "teach away" from the claimed invention is to be reviewed under the "substantial evidence" standard of review. In other words, the appellate court will affirm the PTAB's decision if during its review, it finds there was substantial evidence to support it.
More information on this case can be found here:
www.ptabwatch.com/2017/04/teaching-away-for-dummies/#page=1
RSS Feed