Case law

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 Coleman

189 F.2d 976 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1951

The Board of Appeals cited the case of Smith v. Kingsland, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 284 , 178 F.2d 26 , for its exposition on the applicable law of double patenting. … In Kistler v. Coe, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 36 , 142 F.2d 94 , also cited by the board and cited in Smith v. Kingsland, supra, a patent was issued covering a material known as aerogel.

Bakers Franchise Corporation v. Royal Crown Cola Co.

404 F.2d 985 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 9, 1969

Suffice it to say that, although we are of the opinion that appellant’s prior pleading was properly admitted and considered by the board, we are also of the opinion that, even absent such an inference as the board may have … Bakers Franchise Corp. v. Marbert Products, Inc., opposition No. 43,665. 3 . Reg. No. 735,768, Aug. 7, 1962.

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.

In re Skoll

523 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 23, 1975

), while Test V gave a copper plating of 0.4 mil thickness when 10 grams of sucrose was employed. … We conclude that the board’s comparison of Test VIII with Test V was reasonable and that the affidavit fails to support appellant’s allegation that the amount of carbohydrate required by the claims is critical.

Application of Francis J. Boylan

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

Kistler v. … v.

Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. National Steel Construction Co.

442 F.2d 1383 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 10, 1971

The board rejected this argument and so do we. … In a similar situation involving the mark National Judge Kirkpatrick protected the mark in National Drying Machinery Co. v.

United States v. Field

7 Ct. Cust. 430 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1917

The foregoing decision of the board was affirmed by the United .'States Circuit Court, Northern District of California, and the case thereupon was appealed to this court, and is reported as United States v. … American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington ( 141 U. S., 468 .)

United States v. General Electric Co.

4 Ct. Cust. 287 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

The articles in question are small pieces of Ceylon sapphire in the form of rough slabs, finished V or cup jewels, and are used as bearings for electrical meters or other delicate measuring instruments. … Chief reliance is placed upon the case of Dingelstedt v. United States ( 91 Fed., 112 ).

United States v. Masson

3 Ct. Cust. 168 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1912

Oelrichs v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 355 ; T. D. 32091). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore affirmed.

In re McKellin

529 F.2d 1324 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1976

Our analysis should not be confined to the board’s reasoning alone since we review the decision of the board on the stated ground of rejection and not merely its reasoning in support of that decision. Hunt v. … See Schnick v. Fenn, 277 F.2d 935 , 938 n. 2, 47 CCPA 1174, 1178 n. 3 (1960).

United States v. Thomas

3 Ct. Cust. 142 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1912

Lunham v. United States (1 Ct. Oust. Appls., 220; T. D. 31258) and cases cited. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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.

Fishburn v. Vincent

88 F.2d 711 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1937

Sullivan v. Thompson, 1901 C. D. 21; Shallenberger v. Andrews, 1902 C. D. 346, and cases therein cited; Winton v. Jeffery, 1904 C. D. 386. … See Felbel v. Oliver, 1900 C. D. 150; Smith v. Foley v. Anderson v. Smith, 1908 C. D. 210; Isom v. Dubbs, 58 App. D. C. 25, 24 F. (2d) 467; Urschel v. Crawford, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 727, 73 F (2d) 510; Rossiter v.

United States v. Antony Gibbs & Co.

18 C.C.P.A. 101 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1930

This court in Sheldon & Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 42, 46 , T. … Caldwell v. United States, 141 Fed. 487 .

In re Fink

62 F.2d 103 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1932

D. 274, and Cohn v. United States Corset Co., 1877 C. D. 205.) … The board and the examiner both held that the purity of the product was merely a matter of degree.

Buss v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 192 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

D. 33695); Blumenthal & Co. v. United States ( 144 Fed., 384 ); Blumenthal & Co. v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 327 ; T. D. 34529); Hawley & Letzerich v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 45 ; T. … The decision in the case was affirmed upon the opinion of the board by the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Blumenthal & Co. v. United States ( 144 Fed., 384 ).

United States v. Sussfeld

7 Ct. Cust. 126 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1916

The question of the application of the ejusdem generis rule was fully considered by the court in Gallagher & Ascher et al. v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 105 ; T. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Russo & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 288 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1922

Upon this state of facts the Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest. … We note in this connection that in that opinion it is stated that the board relied upon T. D. 21785. The correct reference should have been instead to T. D. 21758. We do not find the cases of Smith & Co. v.

Darling & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1924

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest. … As to the applicability of paragraph 384 it may be observed that the judgment of the board overruling the protest in this case was entered January 24, 1923. Four months later in the case of Willits & Co. v.