Yes, you are imo. When the PTAB composed their response, they obviously had to give a reason behind it. With that in mind, I consider the decision as tainted as the original ptab panel decision. The PTAB gave no reason for the replacing of the orig panel w/another, but is is abundantly obvious, that the PTAB WAS most definitely swayed by the threats made in the letters. There IS no other reason for the action to replace the panel and the silence per a reason is self explanatory. The threats were the reasin, afaic. So the new panel took their time, possibly because to not do so would look fishy, and then proceeded to make a complete and unprecedented reversal. So NOW.....they have to give a reason in the decision to make that unprecedented reversal... Well, commensurate with such a decision, there reasin has to sound good. I did not see any of pinpoint focused breakdown of said decision to show exactly how they arrived at it. I personally, would expect such a breakdown, given the major and unprecedented reversal of a previous ptab ruling, one given w/o any reason... But instead, what we were HANDED.....(ahem)....was a statement that must of course support the unprecedented position, while at the same time does not offer any detailed look whatsoever, into such a decision, and that "supportive" statement is the one you offered......
............................
"the PTAB held that Apple did not show by a
preponderance of the evidence that the asserted claims
of the '815 and '005 patents were unpatentable."
.........................
I see that statement as possibly nothing more than a copout to the fact that their "decision" was as tainted (in the opposite) as the orig panel decision. In other words, what would you EXPECT them to say, as their reason. It is a shallow & hollow reason because it offers no detail. An unprecedented reversal by a panel that a replacement made w/o reason SCREAMS for that reason to be given & SCREAMS louder for them to offer some detail to their reversal. But instead, they chose to give what I call a "pat answer" and that pat answer has to at least sound good. So the bottom line of my point is that them using the verbiage "by a preponderance" is meaningless under such a set of circumstances that begs for a better explanation.
..............................
A followup to the above.....
I'm not categorically stating that the new ptab panel did not fully and appropriately look at and weigh all the evidence in order to reach their unprecedented reversal of the orig panel.......Its possible they did..... but...... I'm saying that every element of it that I see, tells me NO, they did not. In other words, in case there is any misunderstanding of what I've said so far, I'm saying that I expect as much fallout about that decision, as the fallout that was generated by the orig panel decision.
