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 Gross, No. 13-1536 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 31, 2014)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 13-1536
Decided
January 31, 2014
Judge
Wallach, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

IN RE JOHN N. GROSS

2013-1536

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 11/369,796.

ON MOTION

Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit

Judges.

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand this appeal for further proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

John N. Gross appeals from a decision of the Board sustaining the examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 18 of his patent application for methods of allocating priority for playable media items over an electronic network between subscribers as obvious over a combination of prior art references Hastings, Pauliks and Hunt.

22 IN RE GROSS

Gross argues in his opening brief that the obviousness rejections failed to account for the actual limitations in claims 14 and 18, including the step “wherein [a] common playable media item is taken from a limited subset of playable media items determined to be popular by the computing system among subscribers.” He states that the Board’s initial decision misquotes the limitations of that step, and argues that the Board failed to explain why these prior art references teach his methods as actually claimed.

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office states that "it is in the best interest of the parties and this Court to remand the case back to the Board to reconsider the pending claims." Because this court agrees with the parties that it would be best for all involved to remand this case to the Board for reconsideration of its obviousness rejections, the parties’ motion to remand the case for additional proceedings is granted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this order.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

Daniel E. O’Toole

Clerk of Court

s26

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 31, 2014

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 Gross, No. 13-1536 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 31, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-13-1536-20140131
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-13-1536-20140131

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.