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 Bauer, No. 09-1383 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2010)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1383
Decided
April 12, 2010
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1383

(Serial No. 08/998,507) IN RE ALBERT BAUER

William J. Sapone, Coleman Sudol Sapone P.C., of Bridgeport, Connecticut, argued for appellant. William LaMarca, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Nathan K. Kelley, 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

2009-1383

(Serial No. 08/998,507) IN RE ALBERT BAUER

Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent

Appeals and Interferences.

In CASE NO(S). 08/998,507 This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: Per Curiam (BRYSON, SCHALL and DYK, Circuit Judges.)

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: April 12, 2010 /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 Bauer, No. 09-1383 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-09-1383-20100412
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-1383-20100412

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.