Federal Circuit disposition — 23-1573

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: 1 Filed: 07/03/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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).
Case: 23-1573 Document: 52 Page: 2 Filed: 07/03/2025

-- 2 of 2 --