Case law

Application of Bigelow

194 F.2d 550 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1952

The board reversed the examiner’s rejection on prior art. … In re Hoffmann, 58 F.2d 422 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents 1185; Nat Lewis Purses, Inc., v. Carole Bags, Inc., 2 Cir., 83 F.2d 475 .

Nakayama v. Banner

588 F.2d 1336 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1978

Van DeVegt v. Board of Commissioners of Larimer County, 98 Colo. 161, 164 , 55 P.2d 703, 705 (1936). … As we said in Duffy v.

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.

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.

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.

Application of Francis J. Boylan

392 F.2d 1017 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 25, 1968

Kistler v. … v.

Application of Heinrich Ruschig, Walter Aumüller, Gerhard Korger, Hans Wagner, Josef Scholz and Alfred Bänder

343 F.2d 965 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1965

V Would a statement in the claims of what' the compounds are useful for convert them into claims to compounds which are any less obvious? … Marshall and Max V. Sigal, but was dissolved out Dec. 2, 1959, before the interference was dissolved on June 20, 1960. .

Hollister Inc. v. Downey

565 F.2d 1208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1977

Appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (board) dismissing an opposition to the registration of LINE O SIGHT, application serial No. 448,893. We reverse and remand. Background Hollister, Inc. … In Tiffany & Co. v.

Application of Ryohei Oda

443 F.2d 1200 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1971

Both of these cases were cited with approval, for the proposition we have stated, in Reeves Bros., Inc. v. U. S. Laminating Corp., 282 F.Supp. 118, 127 (E.D.N.Y.1968). … A case discussed at great length in the above section is an interference decided by this court, Quigley v.

Godtfredsen v. Banner

598 F.2d 589 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1979

. 3 See Duffy v. … See Reddy v. Dann, 529 F.2d 1347 , 188 USPQ 644 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1976); Wei7 v. Dann, 503 F.2d 562 , 183 USPQ 300 (Cust. & Pat.App.1974); Duffy v.

Melvin D. Hurwitz v. George Shiu Yim Poon

364 F.2d 878 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 11, 1966

Our starting point is Young v. … As stated in Chandler v.

John C. Krantz, Jr., and Louise Speers Croix v. John F. Olin

356 F.2d 1016 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 10, 1966

On page 466 of the same work, “a patent is valid if the invention serves any use though it will not apply to all uses claimed for it;” see Phillips v. Risser (1885) 26 F.R. 308 . In Landon v. … We agree with the foregoing reasoning of the board in disposing of appellants’ arguments.

Marine v. Wright

74 F.2d 996 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1935

After the decision of the board, appellant filed a motion for rehearing; said motion was denied, the board again affirming the right of appellee to make the claim. … Marshall and Levandosky v. Ledwinka, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 728, 67 F. (2d) 495, and cases therein cited.

Morimura Bros. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 181 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 12, 1911

National Bank of Commerce v. Ripley (161 Missouri, 126, 132); United States v. Mescall ( 215 U. S., 26, 31 ). … Kaufmann v. United States (128 Fed. Rep., 468); Lichtenstein v. United States (154 Fed. Rep., 736).

In re Mayo

129 F.2d 700 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1942

See Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156 ; Morgan v. Drake et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 729, 36 F. (2d) 511. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is modified, being affirmed as to claim 7 and reversed' as to claims 9 to 13, inclusive.

Osceola Mill & Elevator Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 139 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 16, 1921

. — Robertson v. Downing ( 127 U. S., 607 ); United States v. Healey ( 160 U. S., 136 ). … See Shallus v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 556 ; T. D. 31552) and cases cited; United States v. Myers ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 257 ; T. D. 31301); Komada v. United States ( 215 U. S., 392 ).

Franklin Press, Inc.

597 F.2d 270 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 26, 1979

Before the board, appellant argued that under the rationale in Beckwith v. … Such an opposition occurred in Seiler’s, Inc. v.

United States v. Arnold

4 Ct. Cust. 49 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1913

That evidence might, in the absence of all other, be furnished by the importation itself or by a sample thereof. ' Krusi v. United States *51 ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 168 ; T. D. 31213); Knauth v. United States ( 1 Ct. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Krogman

223 F.2d 497 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1955

art in rejecting the claims. (3) The Board improperly combined references in rejecting the claims. (4) The Board failed to recognize that there is no sound reason for including ixtle and sisal in the same botanical family … In the ease of Fowler et al. v.

Application of Ralph L. Young and Kingsley E. Humbert, Jr

403 F.2d 754 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1968

The V-shaped accordion pleats have alternate edges respectively bonded to sheets 62 and 63 by glue or other means, *756 thereby forming a plurality of V-shaped cells 67. … In operation, a fluid to be treated is passed through openings 68 in sheet 62 into a top V-shaped cell 67, through filter paper 64, into a bottom V-shaped cell 67, and out through openings 69 in sheet 63.