Today, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case, and one Rule 36 summary affirmance. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the summary affirmance.
In re Haines (Nonprecedential)
Robin Aylor Haines and Robert Benson Aylor (collectively, “Haines”) appeal from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) affirming an examiner’s rejection of all pending claims of U.S. Patent Application 12/925,221 (“the ’221 application”), S.A 32–75.1 In re Haines, No. 2024-000693, 2024 WL 3200435 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2024) (“Decision”). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
Bowden v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Nonprecedential)
Dichondra V. Bowden petitions for review from the final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), which denied Ms. Bowden’s individual right of action (IRA) appeal and concluded that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) met its burden to show that it would have removed Ms. Bowden notwithstanding Ms. Bowden’s protected disclosures. See Bowden v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. SF-1221-18-0323-W-1, 2024 WL 1619380 (M.S.P.B. Apr. 12, 2024) (Modified Decision); Bowden v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. SF-1221-18-0323-W1, 2018 WL 3349544 (M.S.P.B. July 5, 2018) (SAppx 2039) (Initial Decision). For the following reasons, we affirm.