Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Mary K. Hays, No. 06-1311 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2006)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 06-1311
Decided
December 19, 2006
Judge
Moore, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
1 page

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2006-1311

(Serial No. 10/190,039) IN RE MARY K. HAYS

DECIDED: December 19, 2006

Before RADER, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Mary K. Hays appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“the Board”). The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/190,039 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,475,676. Ex parte Hays, No. 06-0173 (Dec. 22, 2005). Because the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has conceded that the Board’s decision is in error with respect to the anticipation rejection, we vacate and remand. See In re Gould, 673 F.2d 1385, 1387 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (granting a motion for remand where “the Commissioner has informed us, through the solicitor that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) will enter a new rejection of the sole claim on appeal…whenever it regains jurisdiction over the subject application”).

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Mary K. Hays, No. 06-1311 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2006).

Record ID
CAFC-06-1311-20061219
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-06-1311-20061219

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.