Fed. Cir.

In re Munz, No. 13-1421 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2014)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 13-1421
Decided: February 7, 2014
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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 STEVEN MUNZ

2013-1421

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 11/892,213.

JUDGMENT

JAMES DANIEL BERQUIST, Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was DONALD LEE JACKSON.

LORE A. UNT, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Acting Solicitor, and KRISTI L.R. SAWERT, Associate Solicitor. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

2PER CURIAM (DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT February 7, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

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 Munz, No. 13-1421 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2014).

Record ID: CAFC-13-1421-20140207
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-13-1421-20140207

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