Fed. Cir.

In re Radcliffe, No. 17-1069 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2017)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 17-1069
Decided: September 8, 2017
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: WILLIAM H. RADCLIFFE,

Appellant 2017-1069

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 12/804,454.

JUDGMENT

MATHEW PERRONE, JR., Law Office of Mathew R. P. Perrone, Jr., Algonquin, IL, argued for appellant. AMY J. NELSON, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Joseph Matal. Also represented by NATHAN K. KELLEY, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, JEREMIAH HELM.

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

2PER CURIAM (MOORE, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT September 8, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner 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 Radcliffe, No. 17-1069 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2017).

Record ID: CAFC-17-1069-20170908
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-1069-20170908

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