This morning, the Federal Circuit issued four nonprecedential opinions: two in veterans cases both dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, one in a patent case, and one in a case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court also issued four Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Newcombe v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Eugene Newcombe appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) that affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of service connection for left forefoot varus. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Modrowski v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Leon J. Modrowski appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying Modrowski an annual clothing allowance for the 2017 calendar year. See Modrowski v. Wilkie, No. 19-2878, 2020 WL 4356866 (Vet. App. July 30, 2020). Because Modrowski raises only factual challenges, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
INVT SPE LLC v. Apple Inc. (Nonprecedential)
INVT SPE LLC appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), holding that all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,764,711 (the ’711 patent) are unpatentable as obvious in light of the combined teachings of Paulraj, Walton, and Huang. See Apple Inc. v. INVT SPE LLC, No. IPR2018-01476, 2020 WL 1808193 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2020). We have reviewed the record and see no error in the Board’s unpatentability findings. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the claims do not exclude the possibility in which the “plurality of data items,” like the “specific data item,” are subject to transmit diversity. See ’711 patent at claim 1. The specification defines “specific data” to include data transmitted under “poor channel quality” conditions, id. at col. 3 ll. 60– 66, and such conditions, as INVT acknowledges, would dictate that “all of the data transmitted at any given time . . . be subject to transmit diversity,” see Appellant’s Br. 58 (emphasis added). Rather than requiring simultaneous transmission of both higher and lower priority data, the Board’s construction merely requires that the specific data be of higher priority than data not needing the increased accuracy afforded by transmit diversity—e.g., data transmitted under good channel quality conditions. Because the asserted prior art combination results in using transmit diversity on all data that is transmitted under poor channel conditions, substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings that led to its obviousness determination. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board.
Terry v. Department of Agriculture (Nonprecedential)
Petitioner Recardo Terry appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board upholding his removal from his position as an Information Technology Specialist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). We affirm.