Case Name: In re Screenivas KRISHNAN, Koen Bennebroek, Karthik Bhat, Stefano A. Pescador, David G. Reed, Brad W. Simeral, and Edward M. Veeser
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-19
Citations: 578 F. App'x 989
Docket Number: No. 2014-1649
Parties: In re Screenivas KRISHNAN, Koen Bennebroek, Karthik Bhat, Stefano A. Pescador, David G. Reed, Brad W. Simeral, and Edward M. Veeser.
Judges: Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 578
Pages: 989–990

Head Matter:
In re Screenivas KRISHNAN, Koen Bennebroek, Karthik Bhat, Stefano A. Pescador, David G. Reed, Brad W. Simeral, and Edward M. Veeser.
No. 2014-1649.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Sept. 19, 2014.
Jerry Robin’Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan LLP, Dallas, TX, Screenivas Krish-nan, Koen Bennebroek, Karthik Bhat, Ste-fano A. Pescador, David G. Reed, Brad W. Simeral and Edward M. Veeser.
Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") moves without opposition to remand this case to the PTO for further proceedings.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the Examiner's rejection of certain claims, but the PTO concedes that the Board should reconsider its rejection in light of the PTO's examination policy on "configured to" claim language.
Accordingly,
It Is ORDERED That:
(1) The motion is granted. This case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.
(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.