Fed. Cir.

In re Tillman, No. 13-1232 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2013)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 13-1232
Decided: October 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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 CHAD DUSTIN TILLMAN

2013-1232

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 10/968,448.

JUDGMENT

JEREMY C. DOERRE, Tillman Wright, PLLC, of Charlotte, North Carolina, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was CHAD D. TILLMAN.

JOSEPH MATAL, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor, and FARHEENA Y. RASHEED, Associate Solicitor. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

2PER CURIAM (DYK, MOORE, and WALLACH, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 15, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole 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 Tillman, No. 13-1232 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2013).

Record ID: CAFC-13-1232-20131015
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-13-1232-20131015

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