Fed. Cir.

In re Freeman, No. 12-1158 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 15, 2013)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 12-1158
Decided: January 15, 2013
Judge: Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document: Rule 36 Judgment
Length: 2 pages

Full Text Analysis Cite this Opinion

Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

IN RE CLAY FREEMAN AND MARCEL BROEKMAAT

2012-1158

(Serial No. 11/235,344)

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

JUDGMENT

CHRISTOPHER J. ROURK, Jackson Walker L.L.P., of Dallas, Texas, argued for appellants.

SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, and THOMAS W. KRAUSE, Associate Solicitor.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (DYK, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT January 15, 2013 /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 Freeman, No. 12-1158 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 15, 2013).

Record ID: CAFC-12-1158-20130115
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-12-1158-20130115

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 15, 2026 · Report an error