Back to Blog
CAFC-PTOSeptember 21, 2026·26-1766·Motion granted; remanded to the USPTO. Each side bears its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate on September 21, 2026.

In re Gomez

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Holding

The Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to remand after the parties stated that the PTAB relied on a reference that was not prior art in rejecting certain application claims. The order did not address the merits beyond remanding for further consideration.

Why It Matters

This nonprecedential order underscores that a PTAB rejection resting on a non-prior-art reference can warrant a consensual remand without a merits opinion.

Full Summary

In re Gomez The Federal Circuit granted the joint motion to remand after the parties stated that the PTAB relied on a reference that was not prior art in rejecting certain application claims. The order did not address the merits beyond remanding for further consideration. This nonprecedential order underscores that a PTAB rejection resting on a non-prior-art reference can warrant a consensual remand without a merits opinion. Motion granted; remanded to the USPTO. Each side bears its own costs, and the order issued as the mandate on September 21, 2026. The appeal arose from a PTAB decision rejecting claims in Application No. 17/375,841. The parties jointly moved to remand, stating that the Board relied on a reference that was not prior art. The Federal Circuit granted the motion and remanded for further USPTO consideration consistent with the motion and order. The order is nonprecedential and provides no additional analysis on the rejection grounds or the affected claims. § 102 remand non-precedential § 102 remand non-precedential remand non-precedential

Key Points

  • The appeal arose from a PTAB decision rejecting claims in Application No. 17/375,841.
  • The parties jointly moved to remand, stating that the Board relied on a reference that was not prior art.
  • The Federal Circuit granted the motion and remanded for further USPTO consideration consistent with the motion and order.
  • The order is nonprecedential and provides no additional analysis on the rejection grounds or the affected claims.
§ 102remandnon-precedential

More on this topic