>>Zenos....have you pulled Intel's latest response briefing dated 10-21-22?<<
Yeppers. Been reading, highlighting and still not sure if I’m getting it. “It” being Intel’s argument:
(A) The Board’s Decisions do not raise any factual questions: “Even if the Board’s Decisions were relevant, HDC’s analysis of them is fundamentally flawed. In particular, HDC incorrectly asserts that the Board’s Decisions address a purported inventive concept.”
(B) HDC misunderstands the Board’s Decisions: “Even if the Board’s Decisions were relevant, HDC’s analysis of them is fundamentally flawed. In particular, HDC incorrectly asserts that the Board’s Decisions address a purported inventive concept.”
C) Any alleged “fact finding” by the Board is irrelevant to the eligibility inquiry. “ Even adopting HDC’s skewed view of the Board’s Decisions, none of the Board’s supposed fact finding has any bearing on this Court’s eligibility analysis.”
It seems like Intel’s response is a relitigation; noticed references back to their original arguments. Not sure if there is anything new here but, I’ve not thoroughly read their prior arguments.
Intel’s response disparages both the PTAB’s conclusion and HDC’s understanding of that conclusions. I’d be surprised if 2/3 judges got it so wrong.
And yeah, Intel used legal precedent with Mayo vs. Prometheus (Neogenomics’ competitors) as well. But I’m not qualified to comment on whether or not “precedent” was established – or just asserted. Also, judges don’t always defer to precedent (“Right” vs. Settled”). Also also, why didn’t Intel use this precedent prior? Or if they did, why didn’t it stick the first time?
This could desperate missive from Intel, or a rigorous legal response. Either way, I’m hoping this is akin to a challenge by an NFL coach. When they go to the replay video, the evidence must be convincing to overturn the original call on the field.
Loc - Even after 20 years of a deep-rooting learned helplessness, I’m very optimistic we will have a favorable outcome within a few weeks.
Even the mere mention that this is a scam shows a profound lack of DD, critical thinking skills or honesty.
