Patent Case Watch

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 Schwarz, No. 15-1327 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2015)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 15-1327
Decided
November 12, 2015
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

IN RE: STANLEY G. SCHWARZ, CHRISTOPHER M.

MACHECA, MICHAEL GLANCY,

Appellants 2015-1327

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 11/349,523.

JUDGMENT

CHARLES JOHN ROGERS, Conley Rose, P.C., Houston, TX, argued for appellants. Also represented by STEWART N. MESHER, Austin, TX.

COKE STEWART, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

2PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, WALLACH and

STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT November 12, 2015 /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 Schwarz, No. 15-1327 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2015).

Record ID
CAFC-15-1327-20151112
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-15-1327-20151112

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