In Re Daniel M. Timmerman, Daniel A. Claeys and Wilhelmus Janssens
This text of 22 F.3d 1105 (In Re Daniel M. Timmerman, Daniel A. Claeys and Wilhelmus Janssens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
22 F.3d 1105
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
In re Daniel M. TIMMERMAN, Daniel A. Claeys and Wilhelmus Janssens
No. 93-1512.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
March 23, 1994.
On Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, in Case No. 07/437,766.
PTO
AFFIRMED.
(NEWMAN and PLAGER, Circuit Judges, and COHN, District Judge*).
Judgment
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Fed.Cir.R. 36.
The Honorable Avern Cohn, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 F.3d 1105, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 5470, 1994 WL 90630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-daniel-m-timmerman-daniel-a-claeys-and-wilhe-cafc-1994.