Case law

In re Sarkar

588 F.2d 1330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1978

Applying the guidance of Benson, supra, and Parker v. … At oral argument the solicitor did not disavow the views of the examiner and the board, but said it makes little if any difference, citing Parker v. Flook, supra note 9 .

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 Yardley

493 F.2d 1389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1974

The board affirmed this rejection. In support of the affirmance, the board’s opinion cites and discusses the following twelve cases: 1. Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Breuker & Kessler Co., 182 F. 150 (C.C.S. … In Mazer v.

Stern v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 124 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Limitations of this kind were defined by this court in the recent case of Lazarus, Rosenfeld & Lehmann v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 508 ; T. D. 32247). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is accordingly modified.

John W. Anderson v. Anthony C. Scinta, Anthony C. Scinta v. John W. Anderson, (Two Cases)

372 F.2d 523 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1967

We agree with the board. Swan v. Thompson, 80 F.2d 374 , 23 CCPA 806, cited by Anderson, is not authority for reaching a contrary conclusion. … Hendrickson & Nelson v. Ronning & Ronning, 76 F.2d 137 , 22 CCPA 1040; Loukomsky v. Gerlich, 264 F.2d 907 , 46 CCPA 805. The decision of the board in PA 6941 is affirmed.

Sheffner v. Gallo

515 F.2d 1169 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1975

Mortsell v. Laurila, 301 F.2d 947 , 49 CCPA 1028 (1962). See Rule 258, 37 CFR 1.258. … DeGroff v. Roth, 412 F.2d 1401 , 56 CCPA 1331 (1969), “[t]here can be no derivation without prior conception on the part of the party alleging derivation.” Egnot v. Looker, 387 F.2d 680 , 55 CCPA 782 (1967). .

Saji & Kariya Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 78 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1919

Morrill v. Jones ( 106 U. S., 466 ). … In the proper exercise of that jurisdiction, therefore, the board rightly held .that the collector’s assessment was coriect under the law and the facts of the case. Greeley v. Thompson ( 51 U.

United States v. Shallus

2 Ct. Cust. 332 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

United States ( 13 Pet., 486 ); United States v. Vowell ( 5 Cranch, 368 ); Arnold v. United States ( 9 Cranch, 103 ); Lawder v. Stone ( 187 U. S., 281 ); Stone v. Shallus (143 Fed. Rep., 486); United States v. … The board allowance of 30 per cent is accordingly modified. As thus modified, the decision of the board is affirmed. Modified.

Veith v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 201 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

The board herein, however, did not find upon that question, but, following Cross Co. et al. v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 43 ; T. D. 36308), and Saji & Kariya Co. et al. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. … In United States v.

Application of Warren R. Attwood

354 F.2d 365 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 6, 1966

Furthermore, we believe that the claim limitations to frame members for use in adjustable framing construction etc. should be given weight under our decision in Kropa v. … This clause the board disregarded. The Bisley case does not support the board.

In re Lundberg

244 F.2d 543 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1957

As correctly stated by appellants in their brief, this paragraph was designed, at least in part, to modify or overrule such decisions as Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U. … We therefore sustain the board’s rejection of this claim.

Ford Motor Co. v. Ford

462 F.2d 1405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 3, 1972

board’s published opinion, 2 for “phonograph records and recording tapes.” … Feed Service Corp. v. FS Services, Inc., 58 CCPA 708, 710, 432 F. 2d 478, 480 , 167 USPQ 407 , 408 (1970).

Mead v. McKirnan

585 F.2d 504 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 26, 1978

Grasselli v. Dewing, 534 F.2d 306, 309 , 189 USPQ 637, 639 (Cust. & Pat.App.1976). … See Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277 , 180 USPQ 388 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974).

Cataldi Aurola v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

So in Lawder v. Stone ( 187 U. S., 281 ). The Supreme Court, in referring to Marriot v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

National Carloading Corp. v. United States

469 F.2d 1398 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

See United States v. Jovita Perez, 36 CCPA 114, 118-19, C.A.D. 407 (1949); English Electric Export & Trading Co. v. United States, 53 CCPA 84, 88, C.A.D. 881 (1966). … Hill Brown Corp. v. United States, 54 CCPA 99, C.A.D. 917 (1967), also involved the propriety of a method of assessing general expenses and profit.

Giant Food Inc. v. Malone & Hyde, Inc.

522 F.2d 1386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 9, 1975

Thus, in any given interference, the Board has various alternatives as spelled out in Tudor Square Sportsware [Sportswear], Inc. v. … As stated in the board’s opinion, above quoted, the rules and the statute are consistent with this view. This was true even before the Trademark Act of 1946. Coschocton Glove Co. 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.

American Express Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 312 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

In the case of Schoverling et al. v. United States (142 Fed. … We think the Board of General Appraisers committed no error in its determination of this case.

Pustet v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 530 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2d ed.) sec. 493; United States v. Field & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 430, 431 ; Oxford Iron Co. v. Slafter, 118 Fed. Cas. 930 ; Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co., 117 Fed. 462, 466 . … United States v. Smith & Co., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 384, 387, 388 . The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

King-Kup Candies, Inc., Applicant-Appellant v. King Candy Company, Opposer-Appellee

288 F.2d 944 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1961

In The Bon Ami Company v. … Co. v.