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 Michael L. Beigel, No. 07-1146 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2007)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 07-1146
Decided
October 18, 2007
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1146

(Serial No. 10/064,380)

IN RE MICHAEL L. BEIGEL, NATHANIEL POLISH,

STEVEN R. FRANK, and ROBERT E. MALM

Robert E. Malm, Robert E. Malm Law Offices, of Pacific Palisades, California, for appellant. Nathan K. Kelley, Associate Solicitor, Solicitor’s Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the briefs were Stephen Walsh, Acting Solicitor, and Thomas W. Krause, Associate Solicitor. Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals

and Interferences

2United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1146 (Serial No. 10/064,380)

IN RE MICHAEL L. BEIGEL, NATHANIEL POLISH,

STEVEN R. FRANK, and ROBERT E. MALM

JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

In CASE NO(S). Serial No. 10/064,380 This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36 Per Curiam (NEWMAN, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges).

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT DATED: October 18, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly, Clerk

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 Michael L. Beigel, No. 07-1146 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2007).

Record ID
CAFC-07-1146-20071018
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-07-1146-20071018

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.