This article appeared in The Intellectual Property Strategist, an ALM/Law Journal Newsletters publication that provides a practical source of both business and litigation tactics in the fast-changing area of intellectual property law, including litigating IP rights, patent damages, venue and infringement issues, inter partes review, trademarks on social media – and more.

During patent prosecution before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), applicant and examiner can become entrenched in conflicting positions on subject matter eligibility. Appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) could clear prosecution impasse. However, Alice-related issues taken to the PTAB are not necessarily the Alice-related issues decided by the PTAB.

This article discusses the significant contrast between consideration of issues related to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), in prosecution and their resolution by the PTAB. Both the legal analytical framework to address Alice-related issues as well as determinations resulting from application of the analytical framework can diverge in prosecution versus the PTAB. Prosecution culminating in recent PTAB decisions provides clear examples. The PTAB decisions are discussed below in summary fashion to identify incongruities between prosecution and appeal. Experienced practitioners will understand the impact of these incongruities on appeal consideration and strategy.