Case law

Application of John F. Corr

347 F.2d 578 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1965

See In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494 , 49 CCPA 1301; In re Dean, 291 F.2d 947 , 48 CCPA 1072, and Chicago Steel Foundry Co. v. Burnside Foundry Co., 132 F.2d 812 (7th Cir. 1943). … See Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261 , 37 S.Ct. 82 , 61 L.Ed. 286 (1916).

Dreyfus v. Lilienfeld

49 F.2d 1055 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1931

Townsend v. Smith, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 647, 652, 36 F. (2d) 292, and cases therein cited. … Slattery v. Larner, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 725, 36 F. (2d) 298; In re Joseph Bijur, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1134, 40 F. (2d) 999.

Kroekel v. Shah

558 F.2d 29 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 21, 1977

The Board The board found the counts ambiguous, and consulted the disclosure of the Shah patent, where the count language originated, to resolve that ambiguity. … Stansbury v. Bond, 482 F.2d 968 , 179 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1973).

CTS Corp. v. Cronstoms Manufacturing, Inc.

515 F.2d 780 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1975

Hollywood Water Heater Co. v. Hollymatic Corp., 274 F.2d 679 , 47 CCPA 782 (1960); J. C. Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 , 52 CCPA 981 (1965). … See American Throwing Co. v. Famous Bathrobe Co., 250 F.2d 377 , 45 CCPA 737 (1957); Shoe Corp. of America v. Juvenile Shoe Corp. of America, 266 F.2d 793 , 46 CCPA 868 (1959).

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).

Shallus v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 456 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1912

The board, in deciding the case, said: The protests were submitted simply upon certain official samples which were forwarded to the board. … See also United States v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 362 ; T. D. 31454).

McCormick & Company, Inc. v. Marion K. Summers

354 F.2d 668 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1966

. * * * We cannot agree with the view expressed by the board. … DeWalt, Inc. v. Magna Power Tool Corp., 289 F.2d 656 , 48 CCPA 909.

In re Nalbandian

661 F.2d 1214 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 15, 1981

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by the examiner of appellant’s application, serial No. 792,482, filed April … We arrive at this conclusion under Graham et al. v.

United States v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co.

1 Ct. Cust. 362 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1911

Evidence was taken before the board. One of the samples sent to the board, as before stated, and which weighed a little less than a pound, was tested by the examiner of rice for the port of New York. … Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the principle established in United States v. Ranlett ( 172 U. S., 133 ) may well be applied here.

Benziger Bros. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 270 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1926

Importer protested the collector’s assessment which, upon hearing by the Board of General Appraisers, now the United States Customs Court, was overruled, although the board expressed the belief that the merchandise was within … United States v. Malhami & Co., 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 175; Kennedy & Sons v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 347 ; United States v.

Application of United Biscuit Company of America

404 F.2d 998 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1968

Hood & Sons, Inc. v. … by the board.

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 Henri-Georges Doll

419 F.2d 925 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 8, 1970

In support of this position, the solicitor contends, are the decisions in La Maur, Inc. v. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc., 265 F.Supp. 961 (N.D.Ill.1965), aff’d at (7th Cir. 1966) and Stohr et al. v. … We are unable .to perceive any other objections by the board to the oath in question. No particular defect has been singled out or commented upon by the board.

Application of George J. Dean

291 F.2d 947 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 7, 1961

In support of its construction of the claims, the board cites Kropa v. … ■On rehearing, the board bolstered its position by further citation of one of the 37 cases considered in Kropa v.

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.

Morris v. Diamond

634 F.2d 1347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1980

See, e. g., Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 , 88 S.Ct. 269 , 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967); LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249 , 77 S.Ct. 309 , 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957); and Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, supra. … See Duffy v. Tegtmeyer, supra at 319 .

In re Becker

74 F.2d 306 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1935

C. 321; Williams Oil-O-Matic Heating Corporation v. The Butler Co., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 934, 39 F. (2d) 693; 34 C. J. Secs. 1154, et seq. … Plummer v. Sargent, 120 U. S. 442 -448. This conclusion is entirely consistent with the decision of the Primary Examiner.

Keller Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 428 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

As was said in United States v. Borgfeldt, 1 Ct. Cust. … Appls. 436 ; Magone v. Wiederer, 159 U. S. 555 . The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Robbins v. Steinbart

57 F.2d 378 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

Leonard v. Everett, 52 App. D. C. 90, 281 F. 594 ; Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D. C. 78, 24 F.(2d) 1004 . … See, also, Howell v. Hess, 122 O. G. 2393 , 1906 C. D. 217.

Application of Claus L. Sporck

301 F.2d 686 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 4, 1962

Western States Machine Co. v. S. S. Hepworth Co., 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 345, 347 . … Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366 , 29 S.Ct. 652 , 53 L.Ed. 1034 .