Inre: Danielle Shield ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Case: 13-1562    Document: 17    Page: 1   Filed: 04/16/2014
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    IN RE DANIELLE RENEE FORGET SHIELD
    ______________________
    2013-1562
    ______________________
    Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
    Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial No.
    10/799,826.
    ______________________
    ON MOTION
    ______________________
    Before PROST, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM.
    ORDER
    The Director of the United States Patent and Trade-
    mark Office moves to waive the requirements of Fed. Cir.
    R. 27(f) and to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal
    Board for further proceedings. Danielle Renee Forget
    Shield opposes. The Director replies.
    The primary issue on appeal is whether the Board
    erred in affirming the examiner’s rejection of the repre-
    sentative claim as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifi-
    cally, Shield challenges the Board’s reliance on the Kasik
    reference as teaching the “adapted to” element of the
    claim.
    Case: 13-1562         Document: 17   Page: 2     Filed: 04/16/2014
    2                                       IN RE DANIELLE SHIELD
    The Director notes that the Board did not make a
    finding about whether the reference teaches that limita-
    tion. Rather, the Director states that the Board mistak-
    enly concluded that Shield had not challenged the
    limitation and only on that basis accepted the limitation
    as present in the art. The Director concedes that the
    Board’s current rationale is incomplete and could not be
    adequately reviewed or defended because it lacks ade-
    quate findings. As a result, the Director seeks a remand
    so the Board can take appropriate action. We agree with
    the Director’s reading of the Board decision. As a result,
    we remand for the Board to reassess its obviousness
    analysis in light of the Director’s concession of error.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    (1) The motion is granted. The Board’s decision is
    vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings
    consistent with this order.
    (2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
    FOR THE COURT
    /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
    Daniel E. O’Toole
    Clerk of Court
    s25
    ISSUED AS A MANDATE: April 16, 2014
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-1562

Filed Date: 4/16/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021