Case law

Merker Counter Company, Inc. v. Central Counter Company

310 F.2d 746 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1962

consideration of the merits in connection with arguments of the parties and any evidence respondent may elect to introduce in addition to” the aforesaid third-party registrations and applications, citing En-do Products, Inc. v. … The board found that the goods of the parties are identical in kind; that shoe counters are stiffeners made of fiber board or plastic.

Arness v. Franks

138 F.2d 213 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1943

In his brief before us Arness has cited a number of court decisions,, those principally relied upon being Davis et al. v. Isham et al., 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1222, 71 F. (2d) 204; Wemple and Daesen v. … (Patents) 1064, 75 F. (2d) 998, and Becket v. Arness, 27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1251, 112 F. (2d) 1011.

United States v. Lord

4 Ct. Cust. 322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

The decisions of the board just cited are not at all in conflict with the decisions reached in the protest of Leon Rheims Co. (T. D. 27541), affirmed by the Circuit Court in Leon Rheims Co. v. … United States ( 154 Fed., 969 ), and by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Leon Rheims Co. v. United States ( 160 Fed., 925 ).

Bogle v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 144 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 5, 1911

Delapenha & Co. v. United States (supra, p. 113, T. D. 31116.) Much of what we have just said applies to the jams involved in the present case. … While we think jams might well be called fruits preserved in sugar (Habicht v. United States, supra, p. 10, T.

United States v. Cordero

1 Ct. Cust. 107 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

See United States v. Vowell ( 5 Cranch, 368 ); United States v. Arnold ( 24 Fed. Cas., 872 ); Meredith v. United States ( 13 Pet., 494 ); In James’s case, G. A. 4869 (T. D. 22828). … We are constrained to hold that the board was in error in this holding.

Application of Leslie Frederick Wiggins

397 F.2d 356 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1968

Braun (Wolf). 2 After careful consideration of “the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue,” Graham v. … In United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 , 86 S.Ct. 708 , 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966), a somewhat similar situation existed in the prior art. There the prior art suggested Adams’ combination “was both dangerous and inoperable.”

United States v. Dorn

13 Ct. Cust. 130 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest upon the theory that, in United States v. Stegemann, decided May 5, 1924, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 198 , T. … D. 40179, this court had intended to depart from the rule previously declared in United States v. Francklyn, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 54 , T. D. 33306, and in United States v. Hirsch, Stein & Co., 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 121 , T.

Conde Nast Publications, Inc. v. Miss Quality, Inc.

507 F.2d 1404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1975

Cohen & Sons Co., v. … However, it appears that the board cited the third party registrations primarily to show the meaning of “Vogue” in the same way that dictionaries are used. See Hancock v.

Lazo v. Tso

480 F.2d 908 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 12, 1973

As pointed out by the board, this case is readily distinguishable from the situation in Applegate v. … The board dismissed the claim of third party inventorship as not ancillary to priority. Swain v. Mallory, 329 F.2d 982 , 51 CCPA 1242 (1964); Mortsell v. Laurila, 301 F.2d 947 , 49 CCPA 1028 (1962).

Application of George H. Hitchings, Gertrude B. Elion and Irving Goodman

342 F.2d 80 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1965

In so deciding, the board relied upon Lavin v. Pierotti, 129 F.2d 883 , 29 CCPA 1235, and Whittier v. Borchardt, 154 F.2d 522 , 33 CCPA 1023. … We therefore hold that the board committed error in refusing, on the ground of res judicata, to re-examine the disclosure of the parent application. To the extent that Lavin v. Pierotti and Whittier v.

Duerr v. Potts

90 F.2d 117 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1937

Appellee did not file an appeal to this court from the decision of the Board of Appeals holding that he could not make counts 1 and 2. Appellants appealed from the board’s decisión as to counts 5, 6, and 7 only. … (Patents) 827, 45 F. (2) 916, and cases cited; Herthel and Tifft v. Dubbs, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1128, 65 F. (2d) 188; Angell v. Morin, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1018, 69 F. (2d) 646; Josleyn v. Hulse, C. D. 1908, 34.

Application of Vincent J. Frilette and Paul B. Weisz

436 F.2d 496 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1971

Frilette v. Kimberlin, 412 F.2d 1390 , 56 CCPA 1242 (1969). Appellants then filed the divisional application which is now before us. … See Frilette v. Kimberlin, supra, 412 F.2d at 1396 , 56 CCPA at 1250.

Smillie v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 365 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1924

In United States v. … (Ltd.) v.

Blicharz v. Hays

496 F.2d 603 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 9, 1974

The recent case of Knapp v. … See Blicke v. Treves, supra.

United States v. Cronkhite Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 129 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1919

Marriott v. Brune ( 9 How., 50 U. S., 619), Fabbri v. Murphy ( 95 U. S., 191 ), Hartranft v. Oliver ( 125 U. S., 525 ), United States v. Burr ( 159 U. S., 78, 83-84 ), American Sugar Co. v. United States ( 202 U. … S., 563 ), Franklin Sugar Co. v. United States ( 202 U. S. 580 ), Faber v. United States ( 221 U. S., 649 ), United States v. Goodsell ( 84 Fed., 439 ), Mosle v. Bidwell ( 130 Fed., 334 ), United States v.

Mitsui v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 2, 1916

In the case of United States v. Mitsui & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 449 ; T. … Upon the evidence above recited we can'not say that the board erred in holding that the oak in this case was not a cabinet wood.

In re Flook

559 F.2d 21 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1977

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Appeals (board) sustaining the rejection of claims 1 through 10 of appellant’s application for “Method for Updating Alarm Limits” 1 as nonstatutory … OPINION The issue in this case is whether a claim to a process which uses an algorithm to modify a conventional manufacturing system is statutory subject matter under *23 Gottschalk v.

Application of Edwin H. Land and Howard G. Rogers

368 F.2d 866 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1966

Thereby the board was advised of appellants’ understanding of the board’s action on claim 56. … In Helene Curtis Industries v.

Pines v. McAllister

188 F.2d 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1951

The controlling law is set forth in the cases cited by the board, Chandler v. Mock, 150 F.2d 563, 567 , 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1183, and Marden v. Braselton, 119 F.2d 174, 183 , 28 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1077. … In the case of Chandler v.

The Joseph & Feiss Company v. Joseph Kanner Hat Co., Inc.

337 F.2d 1014 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 12, 1964

Ranney v. Bridges, 188 F.2d 588, 596 , 38 CCPA 1044, 1056. Accordingly we must agree with the board wherein it stated: “That Banner is using the mark ‘HENLEY’ is evident even from J & F’s record. … In view of the above the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed.