Case law

Commerce Drug Co. v. Kirkman Laboratories, Inc.

461 F.2d 833 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1972

The board considered it, and appellee does not question that it is properly before us. … Compare Mead Johnson & Co. v. American Home Products Corp., Patent Appeal No. 8730, decided June 29, 1972, wherein TEMPURETS was held to suggest a modified or related form of TEMPRA.

Thompson v. Pettis

44 F.2d 420 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

Pengilly v. Copeland (Cust. & Pat. App.) 40 F.(2d) 995 , and cases therein cited. … Beidler v. Caps (Cust. & Pat.

United States v. Palma

4 Ct. Cust. 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1913

This case is more like that of the United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Lincoln

126 F.2d 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1942

See Schiller v. Robertson, 28 F. (2d) 301, and In re McNeil, 1902 O. … (Patents) 1140, 57 F. (2d) 365; Schiller v. Robertson, 28 F. (2d) 301; In re Grapp, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1042, 64 F. (2d) 376.

Key Chemicals, Inc. v. Kelite Chemicals Corp.

464 F.2d 1040 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 31, 1972

Corp. v. J. … See Breck, Inc. v. Armand Co., 42 CCPA 1099, 225 F. 2d 246 , 107 USPQ 8 (1955). The decision of the board is affirmed.. LaNe, J., concurs in the result. Reported at 162 USPQ 474 (1969).

Josef Schmitt and Jacques J. Panouse v. John C. Babcock and Milton E. Herr

377 F.2d 994 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

Appellants argue the board's decision herein concerning section 119 is directly opposite to that in Reichstein v. … Myers, 1914 C.D. 74; Michelin v. Hayes Wheel Co., 300 F. 458 (E.D.Mich.1924); Ex parte Mattlet, 1926 C.D. 62; De Jahn v. Gaus, 1928 C.D. 22; Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v.

J. Wiss & Sons Co. v. W. E. Bassett Co.

462 F.2d 567 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 13, 1972

Bassett Co. v. H. C. Cook Co., 156 F. Supp. 209 , 115 USPQ 111 (D. Conn. 1957); W. E: Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 147 USPQ 309 (S.D. N.Y. 1965), aff'd 354 F. 2d 868 , 158 USPQ 170 (2d Cir. 1966). … Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 52 CCPA 981, 985, 340 F. 2d 960, 963 , 144 USPQ 435 , 438 (1965).

Harrison v. Cadwell

39 F.2d 704 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1930

Hunter v. Stikeman, 13 App. D. C. 214, 226; Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. C. 86, 92; Lindemeyr v. Hoffman, 18 App. D. C. 1, 5; Roe v. Hanson, 19 App. D. … The board found that it was well vulcanized and cited Nikaido v. Bruni, supra. Bradley supported the testimony of Coe.

Kendall v. Searles

173 F.2d 986 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

See Patterson et al. v. Clements et al., 136 F.2d 1002 , 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1262. Edgar W. … Petersen v. Thomas, 56 App.D.C. 113, 10 . F.2d 908; Schweyer v. Thomas, 68 F.2d 953 , 21 C.C. P.A., Patents, 859.

Bowers v. Valley

149 F.2d 284 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1945

Taylor v. Swingle, 136 F.2d 914, 917 , 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1219, 58 U.S.P.Q. 468 . … Bennett v. Fitzgerald, 48 F.2d 917 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1201, 9 U.S.P.Q. 211 ; Stewart v. Robinson, 55 F.2d 998 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 953, 12 U.S.P.Q. 218 ; Collins v.

Coast v. Dubbs

88 F.2d 734 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 22, 1937

which supports his right to make this feature of the counts even though there is no description thereof. * * * The authorities cited by the board in this connection are: Briggs et al. v. … Among: the authorities cited as supporting appellant’s contention upon this point are Cooper v. Downing, 45 App. D. C. 345, Lindley v. Shepherd, 58 App. D. C. 31, 24 F. (2d) 606, and Steenstrup v. Mor ton, 58 App. D.

In re Weber

580 F.2d 455 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1978

This appeal is from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 “as being improper Markush claims [ 1 ] and misjoinder under … See Fields v.

United States v. Vandegrift & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 434 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

The original decision by the Board of General Appraisers was rendered June 16, 1911. A petition for rehearing was filed within the 30 days provided by law, and was denied by the board on July 6, 1911. … within thirty .days next after then decision, grant a rehearing or retrial of said case when in their opinion the ends of justice require it. *435 A similar question arose in Kingman v.

Shunk Manufacturing Company v. Tarrant Manufacturing Company

318 F.2d 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1963

In our judgment, the record fairly supports the factual findings of the board. … In Pink Lady Corporation v. L. N.

United States v. American Bead Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 27 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1918

United States v. Lyon & Healy ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 84 ; T. D. 33366); Magone v. Wiederer ( 159 U. S., 555 ). … United States v. Lorsch & Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 109 ; T. D. 37222). The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Ultra-White Co. v. Johnson Chemical Industries, Inc.

465 F.2d 891 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 14, 1972

In re Calgon Corp., 58 CCPA 830, 435 F. 2d 596 , 168 USPQ 278 (1971); Salem Commodities, Inc. v. Miami Margarine Co., 44 CCPA 932, 244 F. 2d 729 , 114 USPQ 124 (1957). … See, e.g., Swank, Inc. v. Ravel Perfume Corp., 58 CCPA 948, 438 F. 2d 622 , 168 USPQ 723 (1971); Chun King Corp. v. Genii Plant Line, Inc., 56 CCPA 740, 403 F. 2d 274 , 159 USPQ 649 (1968); Cohen & Sons Co., Inc. v.

In re Thomas

83 F.2d 902 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1936

The Board of Appeals erred in affirming the final rejection of claims 27, 32, 33, 37 and 38. 2. The Board of Appeals erred in failing to allow claims 27, 32, 33, and 37. 3. … (Patents) 952, 39 F. (2d) 278; Mas v. Root, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 819; 54 P. (2d) 435 ; Southgate v. Greene, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1129, 57 P (2d) 374; Derby Oil Co. v. Wihite Star Refining Co., 20 C. C. P. A.

James A. Patterson and Glenn K. Lissner v. Karl-Heinz Hauck

341 F.2d 131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1965

Thurston v. … In Guinot v.

Wetmore v. Quick

536 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1976

Schwab et al. v. Pittman 172 USPQ 59 [sic, 69]. … In Josserand v.

In re Smith

458 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1972

See Martin v. Johnson, supra; In re Lukach, 58 CCPA 1233, 443 F. 2d 967 , 169 USPQ 795 (1971). … Compare Martin v. Johnson, supra; Fields v.