Case law

Knauth v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

The board denied the application. … In Uberti & Cia. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust.

Prosser & Son v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 550 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 24, 1911

The case of Saltonstall v. Wiebusch ( 156 U. S., 601 ) is not in conflict with this conclusion. … Bromley v. United States (156 Fed. Rep., 958); Prosser v. United States (1 Ct. Cust. Appls., supra, p. 22; T. D. 30848; 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., supra, p. 29; T. D. 80850).

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.

Application of Francis J. Boylan

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

Kistler v. … 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.

Gump Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 137 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Lunham v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 220 ; T. D. 31258); McBride v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 293 ; T. D. 31354). … Westray v. United States ( 18 Wall., 322, 329 ); Fabbri v. Murphy ( 95 U. S., 191 ); Merritt v. Cameron ( 137 U. S., 545 ). See also Revised Statutes, section 3294. and Customs Regulations of 1908, article 248 et seq.

The W. E. Bassett Company v. The Scholl Mfg. Co., Inc.

388 F.2d 1014 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1968

cited Menendez v. … This court stated in Powermatics, Inc. v.

Application of John L. Szajna and Ronald G. Lump

422 F.2d 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 5, 1970

The solicitor counters by contending that this court’s holding in Kropa v. Robie, supra, was to the effect only that “claims limitations as to use which necessarily imply structural features may be given weight.” … In Kropa v.

United States v. Kraemer & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 294 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1914

And this view has since been adopted by the board. See Abstract 32185 (T. D.. 33963). Use generally is a controlling consideration. See Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 100 ; T. D. 31115). … The decision of the board is reversed.

Durbrow & Hearne Manufacturing Co. v. United States

9 Ct. Cust. 148 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1919

See Woodruff & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 186 ; T. D. 31942); also Sloane v. United States ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 463 ; T. D. 37049). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Derby v. Whitworth

62 F.2d 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

Gowen v. Hendry & King, 37 F.(2d) 426, 428 ,17 C. C. P. A. 789; Dorer v. Moody, 48 F.(2d) 388 , 18 C. C. P. A. 1188. As was said in the opinion in said case of Gowen v. … Gowen v. Hendry & King, supra; Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. D. C. 534. In the case of Burson v. Vogel, 29 App. D.

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.

Roeller-Struss Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 21, 1924

—Lloyd Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280 ; T. D. 38217); Pacific Creosoting Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 312 ; T. D. 31407); Pierce v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 171 ; T. D. 31215). … —Ulmann & Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 77 ; T. D. 33363); United States v. Schumacher & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 ; T. D. 32586).

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.

Young v. Bullitt

233 F.2d 347 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 15, 1956

A., Patents, 1147; and Guinot v. Hull, 204 F.2d 281 , 40 C.C.P.A., Patents, 982. Those cases have been discussed extensively in the board’s decision and in the briefs of the parties. … in Kvalnes v.

Application of Tanke

213 F.2d 551 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1954

Miller v. … The board further and erroneously relied upon the doctrine of Andrews v.

Fort Howard Paper Company v. Gulf States Paper Corporation

376 F.2d 904 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1967

The board did not think so and neither do we. While, as we have often noted, prior decisions are not of much value in cases of this kind, we note appellant’s reliance on our opinion in Magnavox Co. v. … Bruce Co. v.

Eckert v. Williams

500 F.2d 1160 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 1, 1974

that the presence in the Williams patent of a claim (23) with a more specific recitation of the selection feature than the counts indicates that the latter were intended to claim the invention more broadly, citing Oldroyd v. … Morgan, 57 F.2d 358 , 19 CCPA 1111 (1932) and Marshall v. Ledwinka, 67 F.2d 495 , 21 CCPA 728 (1933).

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.

Hercules Inc. v. National Patent Development Corp.

524 F.2d 1227 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1975

CTS Corp. v. Cronstroms Manufacturing, Inc., *1229 supra. … See Paula Payne Products Co. v. Johnson Publishing Co., supra. For the foregoing, reasons, the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is affirmed. Affirmed. . Abstracted at 183 USPQ 791 (1974). .