Fed. Cir.

In re Bodo, No. 22-1244 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2022)

Rule 36 Affirmance

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.: No. 22-1244
Decided: December 8, 2022
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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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: MARTIN JOSEPH BODO,

Appellant 2022-1244

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/691,433.

JUDGMENT

DONALD E. SCHREIBER, Law Offices of Donald E. Schreiber, Kings Beach, CA, argued for appellant. MAI-TRANG DUC DANG, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by KAKOLI CAPRIHAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, AMY J. NELSON, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.

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

2PER CURIAM (PROST, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

December 8, 2022 /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 Bodo, No. 22-1244 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2022).

Record ID: CAFC-22-1244-20221208
Permalink: https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-1244-20221208

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