Today the Federal Circuit released four nonprecedential opinions and two nonprecedential orders. All four opinions come in pro se cases, one appealed from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and three from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Both of the nonprecedential orders dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Davie v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Olivia Davie appeals a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing her late husband’s appeal of an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) decision as untimely filed and denying her petition for review. For the following reasons, we affirm.
In re Gamble (Nonprecedential)
In 2019, Oliver Wendel Gamble filed an application for a patent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The application, U.S. Patent Application No. 16/718,124, describes and claims a method and system to annotate emails or text messages on a mobile device. The assigned patent examiner at the PTO rejected all the pending claims of the ’124 application for obviousness and some for indefiniteness. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirmed the obviousness rejections of all but three claims, which the Board held indefinite (along with many other claims), so that all claims were rejected. Ex parte Gamble, Appeal No. 2023-003588, 2024 WL 4052837, at *14 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2024) (Board Decision). Mr. Gamble now appeals to us. We affirm.
Mulligan v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Robert Mulligan, Jr. petitions for review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) dismissing his Individual Right of Action appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we dismiss.
LaCroix v. Department of the Army (Nonprecedential)
Bert I. LaCroix appeals pro se a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board. For the following reasons, we affirm.