In Re Mary K. Hays

Federal Circuit

In Re Mary K. Hays

210 F. App'x 995

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 2006

Docket2006-1311

StatusUnpublished

This text of 210 F. App'x 995 (In Re Mary K. Hays) 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.

Bluebook

In Re Mary K. Hays, 210 F. App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Mary K. Hays appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferenees (“the Board”). The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/190,039 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,475,676. Ex parte Hays, No. 06-0173 (Dec. 22, 2005). Because the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has conceded that the Board’s decision is in error with respect to the anticipation rejection, we vacate and remand. See In re Gould, 673 F.2d 1385, 1387 (C.C.P.A.1982) (granting a motion for remand where “the Commissioner has informed us, through the solicitor that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) will enter a new rejection of the sole claim on appeal.. .whenever it regains jurisdiction over the subject application”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Mary K. Hays appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferenees (“the Board”). The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 in U.S. Patent Application No. 10/190,039 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,475,676. Ex parte Hays, No. 06-0173 (Dec. 22, 2005). Because the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has conceded that the Board’s decision is in error with respect to the anticipation rejection, we vacate and remand. See In re Gould, 673 F.2d 1385, 1387 (C.C.P.A.1982) (granting a motion for remand where “the Commissioner has informed us, through the solicitor that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) will enter a new rejection of the sole claim on appeal.. .whenever it regains jurisdiction over the subject application”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 F. App'x 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-mary-k-hays-cafc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack