Case law

In Re Langmuir

62 F.2d 93 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1932

C. 211, Union Switch & Signal Co. v. Kodel Electric & Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.) 55 F.(2d) 173 , and In re Marshall, 54 F.(2d) 421, 423 , 19 C. C. P. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of William C. Rainer, Edward M. Redding, Joseph J. Hitov, Arthur W. Sloan and William D. Stewart

377 F.2d 1006 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1967

Even were appellants to have discovered that the obvious compounds might properly be designated “graft polymers,” they could not prevail. 3 See De Forest Radio Co. v. … Appellants assert that the Patent Office is bound by its tacit admission and the holding of the court in Magat v. Ladd, 234 F.Supp. 603 (D.D.C.1964).

Application of William G. Baird, Jr., Carl A. Lindstrom, Jr., Arthur L. Besse, Jr., and Donald J. D'EntrEmont

348 F.2d 974 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 20, 1965

the board from his action. … The board twice relied on the case of Smith v. Kingsland, supra.

Delapenha v. United States

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

D. 33018), following Mihalo-vitch v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 98 ; T. D. 33372); 0.16 to 0.20 per cent, Abstract 32400 (T. D. 33433). … Mihalovitch v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 98 ; T. D. 33372). Tbe decision of tbe board is affirmed.

Hall v. Shimadzu

59 F.2d 225 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1932

In this contention appellant relies upon our decision in the case of Braren v. Horner, 47 F.(2d) 358, 364 , 18 C. C. P. … In the case of Schram Glass Co. v. Homer Brooke Glass Co. (C. C.

Thomas v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 21, 1913

This statute was construed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Ferry & Co. v. … See United States v. Habicht ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 53 ; T. D. 31031) and cases cited; United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. D. 32074).

Matter of the Application of Anna Rosalie Nelson Byers, of the Estate of Laud S. Byers, Deceased

230 F.2d 451 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1956

Thus in Dobson v. … Similarly in Shepard v.

Bryson v. Clarke

92 F.2d 720 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1937

Harris v. Henry, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 883, 63 F. (2d) 120. We now come to a consideration of the specific element of the count which, appellant contends, is not disclosed in appellee’s application. … could never be successfully urged in an infringement suit, for instance, that Clarke did not infringe the count since he secures the same result by substantially the same means for substantially the same purpose (Sanitary v.

Krim-Ko Corporation (Krim-Ko Division, the National Sugar Refining Company) v. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc.

390 F.2d 728 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 15, 1968

While specific differences in goods (orange concentrate used in the preparation of unearbonated orange drink v. carbonated soft drinks) and their channels of distribution were noted by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board … Kuppenheimer & Co. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 326 F.2d 820 , 51 CCPA 902 (1964), this court reversed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board holding two marks to be confusingly similar.

In re Christmann

107 F.2d 607 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1939

This view was also taken by the board. … See particularly the case of Diversy Corporation v. Mertz, 13 F. Supp. 410 . Also, In re Glenn H. Joseph et al., 25 U. S. Pat. Q. 20, a decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office.

In re Ruscetta

255 F.2d 687 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1958

a statutory bar under 85 V. 8 . … The board affirmed this rejection without discussion.

Hensel v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 162 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

This decision of the board was affirmed by the United Statés Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York in the case of United States v. Rheims (T. … In the case of United States v.

Kleinman v. Steinbach

187 F.2d 743 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1951

Kleinman v. Remington Rand, Inc., U.S.D.C. So.D.N.Y., Civil 19/343). … Kelling v. Peltzer, 58 U.S.P.Q. 334 ; Smith v. Hurd, 72 U.S.P.Q. 371 .

In re Howard

53 F.2d 896 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1931

In Grant v. … Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Company, 151 U. S. 186 .

Shun Yuen Hing & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 331 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

Smith, Judge, delivered tbe opinion of tbe court: In tbis case as in tbe case of Wing Yee Chong & Co. v. … Tbe decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Myers & Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 409 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 13, 1922

See United States v. Brewer ( 92 Fed. 343 ); Weil v. United States ( 115 Fed. 592 ); United States v. Helmrath ( 135 Fed. 912 ); United States v. Myers ( 140 Fed. 648 ). The case of the United States v. … See also Consolidated Elevator Co. v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 268 ; T. D. 37536), and cases cited. The decision of the board is accordingly affirmed.

Reed v. Cislak

175 F.2d 972 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

Patterson et al. v. Clements et al., 30 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1262, 136 F. (2d) 1002, 58 USPQ 539 ; Kear v. Roder, 28 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 774, 115 F. (2d) 810, 47 USPQ 458 ; Collins v. Olsen, 26 C. C. P. A. … Sneed v. McConkey, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1151, 76 F. (2d) 422, 25 U. S. Pat. Q. 173.

In re Katz

687 F.2d 450 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 27, 1982

Illinois Tool v. Solo Cup Co., 461 F.2d 265 , 172 USPQ 385 (CA 7), cert. denied, 407 U.S. 916 , 92 S.Ct. 2441 , 32 L.Ed.2d 691 (1972). … Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the board.

Lauricella v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 253 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

v. … United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. D. 32074); United States v. Park ( 77 Fed., 608 ). The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Wallace

4 Ct. Cust. 142 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1913

In the case of Von Bremen v. … The decision of the board to that effect is therefore affirmed.