Case law

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.

Lloyd Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 9, 1919

The board considered the protest and overruled it. … Pacific Creosoting Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 312 ; T. D. 31407). In accordance with these views we affirm the decision of the board,. Affirmed.

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.

United States v. Miller

5 Ct. Cust. 256 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1914

De Vries, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: Three appeals from as many decisions of the Board of General Appraisers covering importations of fish in tins. • *257 In United States, appellant, v. … United States v. Rosenstein ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 304 ; T. D. 31357); Ahlbrecht & Son v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 471 ; T. D. 32226); United States v. Smith & Nessle Co. et als. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 70 ; T.

Lang v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 129 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

D. 31215) and Nix v. Hedden ( 149 U. … Murphy v. Arnson ( 96 U. S., 132 ); Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U. S., 252, 258 ).

Application of Frantz Lund and Wagn Ole Godtfredsen

376 F.2d 982 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 11, 1967

The board agreed. … Goodrich Co. v. U. S.

United States v. Mandel Bros.

7 Ct. Cust. 476 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1917

In United States v. General Electric Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 287 ; T. … Undoubtedly this amendment was prompted by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in “the Insular Cases,” De Lima v. Bidwell ( 182 U. S., 1 ) and Goetze v. United States ( 182 U.

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.

Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc. v. The Gerson Stewart Corp.

367 F.2d 431 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 20, 1966

See Alfred Electronics v. Alford Mfg. Co., 333 F.2d 912 , 51 C.C.P.A. 1533 ; John W. Taylor Packing Co. v. Taylor Sales, Inc., 139 USPQ 59 (TTAB); E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. … The board held that this defense would not be considered in the absence of a counter claim for cancellation, Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v.

In Re Vickers

141 F.2d 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1944

In support of those views, the solicitor cites the case of Excelsior Drum Works v. … That holding was affirmed by the Board of Appeals.

Hull v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 211 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

S. 16 ; Schoenfeld v. Hendricks, 152 U. … Earnshaw v. Cadwalader, 145 U. S. 247 ; Erhardt v. Schroeder, 155 U. S. 124 . In the case of United States v. Thomas ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 142 ; T.

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.

Homer I. Henderson v. Donovan B. Grable

339 F.2d 465 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1965

Decepoli, 214 F.2d 134, 135 , 41 CCPA 968, 970; Wirkler v. … As Judge Rich stated for this court in Hall v.

Triggiana v. Gens

482 F.2d 1381 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 13, 1973

Even if the merits were considered, the circumstances would require agreement with the view the board obviously took, that the UN-16 microspheres met the density requirements of the count. See Dreyfus v. … The board cited as authority Orenick v. Shield, 144 USPQ 277 (Comr.Pat.1953).

Auffmordt v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1916

The board relied in its decision upon the case of Robinson v. United States ( 122 Fed., 970 ). … See American Bead Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 459 ; T. D. 35001). The decision of the board is reversed.

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.

Pantasote Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 47 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 18, 1910

In United States v. Schering (123 Fed. … United States v. Rosen-wald (67 Fed. Rep., 323); Arthur v. Unkart ( 96 U. S., 122 ); Muser v. Magone ( 155 U. S., 240 ). We have heretofore recited the issuable facts in this case.