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 Danielle Shield, No. 13-1562 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2014)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 13-1562
Decided
April 16, 2014
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

IN RE DANIELLE RENEE FORGET SHIELD

2013-1562

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No. 10/799,826.

ON MOTION

Before PROST, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir. R. 27(f) and to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further proceedings. Danielle Renee Forget Shield opposes. The Director replies.

The primary issue on appeal is whether the Board erred in affirming the examiner’s rejection of the representative claim as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, Shield challenges the Board’s reliance on the Kasik reference as teaching the “adapted to” element of the claim.

22 IN RE DANIELLE SHIELD

The Director notes that the Board did not make a finding about whether the reference teaches that limitation. Rather, the Director states that the Board mistakenly concluded that Shield had not challenged the limitation and only on that basis accepted the limitation as present in the art. The Director concedes that the Board’s current rationale is incomplete and could not be adequately reviewed or defended because it lacks adequate findings. As a result, the Director seeks a remand so the Board can take appropriate action. We agree with the Director’s reading of the Board decision. As a result, we remand for the Board to reassess its obviousness analysis in light of the Director’s concession of error.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further 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

s25 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 16, 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 Danielle Shield, No. 13-1562 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-13-1562-20140416
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-13-1562-20140416

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.