This morning the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in a patent case appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; the second in a tax case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims; and the third in a veterans case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions.

In re Asset Guard Products, Inc. (Nonprecedential)

The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) instituted an ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 9,410,302, which is owned by Asset Guard Products, Inc. The PTO’s examiner rejected claims 1–27 for obviousness, and the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the rejection. Ex Parte Asset Guard Prods. Inc., No. 2020-006249, 2020 WL 6375849, at *9 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2020) (Board Decision). Asset Guard appeals. We affirm several of the Board’s findings, but because we conclude that, as to one claim element, the Board erred in finding a teaching in the reliedon prior art, we vacate the Board’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

Weston v. United States (Nonprecedential)

Appellant Erica Weston appeals the decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court) granting the United States’ (Government) motion to dismiss her complaint, which sought a refund for overpayment of federal income taxes that she claimed in her 2012 and 2013 returns, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Claims Court held that since Ms. Weston’s complaint was filed after the two-year limitations period set forth in 26 U.S.C. § 6532(a)(1), it did not have jurisdiction to hear her case. On appeal, Ms. Weston relies on 26 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(1) to argue that the Claims Court erred because her complaint was mailed before the limitations period expired. Since the Claims Court correctly concluded that Ms. Weston’s complaint was untimely filed, we affirm the dismissal.

Alford v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)

Veteran Leroy Alford appeals from an order of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) denying his petition for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.