to Court Order of Dec. 12, 2014. 8 . Plaintiff contends these suspensions were issued without a full explanation of the grounds for issuance of the suspension. Some suspension letters stated that court decisions or decisions of the Appeal Board on applications other than the 80 patent applications in issue here but relevant to the examination of the application in issue would be rendered soon, thereby necessitating suspension. 9 .Plaintiff appealed rejections of some applications in 1997, 2000, and 2001. In some cases the examination of applications on appeal (but where the Appeal Board had not yet obtained jurisdiction) was reopened, but plaintiff's claims were again rejected and again appealed to the Appeal Board. As with the other patent applications, the Appeal Board Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). 17 . In their briefing and argument,
holding that the brooke amendment to the housing act provided a cause of action under  1983 holding that petitioners did not possess a private right of action for injunctive and declaratory relief sought because only the citys housing official could enforce the citys housing maintenance code holding that the state has no obligation to provide adequate housing holding that the department of agricultures rural housing services alleged failure to implement the fair housing act was not discrete agency action for purposes of  7061 recognizing provisions of the fair housing act that forbid false statements that housing is unavailable to a person because of his race