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 Distefano, No. 14-1130 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014)

Vacated & Remanded
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 14-1130
Decided
June 4, 2014
Judge
Newman, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

IN RE THOMAS L. DISTEFANO, III

2014-1130

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 10/868,312.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, RADER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) moves to waive the requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 27(f) and to remand this case to the PTO for further proceedings before the agency. Thomas L. DiStefano III opposes.

The PTO concedes that the Board erred in failing to designate its decision as a new ground of rejection and that DiStefano will be able to request rehearing before the Board or reopen prosecution on remand as to the new ground of rejection.

22 IN RE DISTEFANO

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. This appeal 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

s30 ISSUED AS A MANDATE: June 4, 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 Distefano, No. 14-1130 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014).

Record ID
CAFC-14-1130-20140604
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-14-1130-20140604

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.