Case law

Application of Irvin D. Johnson

435 F.2d 585 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1971

On reconsideration, the board reaffirmed its original decision. … As this court said in In re McGuire, 416 F.2d 1322 , 57 CCPA 706 (1969), cert. denied, McGuire v.

In re Dalzell

166 F.2d 834 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1948

Abbott et al. v. Coe, 71 App. D. C. 195, 109 F. (2d) 449, 43 USPQ 267 . … We presume the board agreed with that statement. At any rate, we find nothing wrong with it.

Downing & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 364 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1911

Goldman v. United States (87 Fed Rep., 193); Nairn Linoleum Co. v. United States (151 Fed. Rep., 955). The importers also cite the case, G. A. 1128 (T. D. 12356). … The cases are Blumenthal v. United States (144 Fed. Rep., 384) and Seeberger v. Cahn ( 137 U. S., 95 ).

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.

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).

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).

Dueltgen v. Parker

579 F.2d 638 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 3, 1978

Regarding (1), petitioners say the reasoning in an earlier ex parte Board of Appeals decision, in which the claims corresponding to the counts were allowed to Sullivan, was rejected by this court in Squires v. … Weil v. Dann, supra, and cases there cited.

Kawai v. Metlesics

480 F.2d 880 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 21, 1973

These are four appeals from decisions of the Patent Office Board of Appeals and the Patent Office Board of Interferences. … For these reasons we find ourselves in agreement with the Board of Appeals and the Board of Interferences on this issue.

Tomecek v. Stimpson

513 F.2d 614 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1975

See Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217, 226-27 , 52 CCPA 906, 918 (1964). See also Knowles v. Tibbetts, 347 F.2d 591, 594 , 52 CCPA 1800, 1804 (1965); Voisinet v. Coglianese, 455 F.2d 1064, 1068 , 59 CCPA 958, 963 (1972). … We agree with the board that this activity did not negate Stimpson’s showing of a reduction to practice because it involved only a commercialization of the invention. See Koval v.

National Ass'n of Blue Shield Plans v. Standard Mattress Co.

478 F.2d 1253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 14, 1973

The board found no documentation of the first item. … As an example, one of the cases is Sleepmaster Products Co. v. American Auto-Felt Co., 241 F.2d 738 , 44 CCPA 784 (1957) wherein the mark “HEALTHMASTER” was involved. Another ease, The Spring-Air Co. v.

United States v. Rettig

2 Ct. Cust. 537 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1912

See United States v. Dominici et al. (78 Fed. Rep., 334), United States v. Brewer et al. (92 Fed. Rep., 341), Roberts v. United States (178 Fed. Rep., 607), Morril v. Jones ( 106 U. S., 466 ). … See McBride v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 293 ; T. D. 31354), United States v. Frank & Lambert ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 239 ; T. D. 31973), United States v. Bennett & Loewenthal (2 Ct. Cust. Appls, 249; T.

Meigs v. McIntosh

37 F.2d 954 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1930

The decisions cited on pages 15 to 18 of McIntosh’s brief, and especially Seabury & Johnson v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561 ; Chadeloid Chemical Company v. Wilson Co., 220 F. R., 681, and International Cork Co. v. … The decisions of the Board of Appeals in both appeals are affirmed.

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.

In re Gyurik

596 F.2d 1012 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1979

Commissioner of Patents v. … In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391 , 50 CCPA 1084, 1097, 137 USPQ 43 , 51 (1963); accord, Commissioner of Patents v.

Frey v. Wagner

87 F.2d 212 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 25, 1937

Appert v. Brownsville Plate Glass Co. (C. C.) 144 F. 115 ; Benjamin W. Jones v. Clarence T. Evans, 46 F.(2d) 197 , 18 C.C. P.A. (Patents) 866; Altorfer & Dehle v. Haag, 74 F.(2d) 129 , 22 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 806. … MacLaren v. Joseph J. Stoetzel, 38 F. (2d) 125, 17 C.C.P.A: (Patents) 857; Nystrom & Landwehr v. Mancuso, 64 F.(2d) 698 , 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 934.

Dan River Mills, Incorporated v. The Yorke Shirt Corporation

390 F.2d 734 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1968

The registration numbers will be found in the published board opinion. 3 . … Dan River Mills, Inc. v. Preben Mikael Aerendal Mikkelsen, 145 USPQ 295 (1965), involving DANSK FORM, in which there was a dissent.

In re Felton

484 F.2d 495 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 20, 1973

Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 , 26 L.Ed. 279 (1880); Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 , 43 S.Ct. 322 , 67 L.Ed. 523 (1923). … The board’s opinion is not devoid of reasoning that would support a rejection under section 103.

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.

Robins v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 252 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1911

Arthur v. Sussfeld ( 96 U. S., 128 ); Arthur v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70 ); and Hartranft v. Meyer ( 135 U. S., 237 ). … We conclude that the Board of General Appraisers was not in error in classifying this importation under paragraph 449, and the decision of the board is affirmed.

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.