Patent Case Watch

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 Kite & Hatton, No. 09-1579 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2010)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 09-1579
Decided
June 21, 2010
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
1 page
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit IN RE PETER KITE AND DAVID HATTON

2009-1579

(Serial No. 10/313,844)

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

JUDGMENT

ROBERT G. MUKAI, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellants. With him on the brief was TRAVIS D. BOONE.

THOMAS J. KRAUSE, 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 BENJAMIN D.M. WOOD, Associate Solicitor.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, GAJARSA, and LINN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT June 21, 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date 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 Kite & Hatton, No. 09-1579 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2010).

Record ID
CAFC-09-1579-20100621
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-09-1579-20100621

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.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 14, 2026 · Report an error