In Re PT MEDISAFE TECHNOLOGIES

Opinion

Case: 23-1573 Document: 52 Page: 1 Filed: 07/03/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

July 3, 2025

ERRATA ______________________

Appeal No. 2023-1573

IN RE: PT MEDISAFE TECHNOLOGIES, Appellant ______________________

Decided: April 29, 2025 Precedential Opinion ______________________

Please make the following changes: In the last line on page 2, strike “or supplemental”. On page 7, lines 7-22, replace: Then the Board, in reviewing an examining attorney’s refusal to register a mark, considers the full record and reaches its own conclusion as to whether the examiner made out a prima facie case and, if so, whether the ap- plicant rebutted it, which may be accomplished by proving the mark had acquired distinctiveness. See In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In reviewing the examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board [of Patent Appeals and Interfer- ences] must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.”). We review for substantial evidence the Case: 23-1573 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 07/03/2025

Board’s findings as to the prima facie case and whether it was rebutted by the applicant. See In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also In re Pacer Tech., 338 F.3d at 1352. With the following: Then the Board, in reviewing an examining attorney’s refusal to register a mark, considers the full record. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In re- viewing the examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board [of Patent Appeals and Interferences] must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.”). We review for substantial evidence the Board’s findings as to ge- nericness. See In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300, 1301-02 (Fed. Cir. 2009).