Case law

In re Theis

610 F.2d 786 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1979

A letter to Charles Brown of Associated Merchandising, dated June 14, 1972, described the system and advised that within a week appellant would be in touch to give Brown a phone number to call for a demonstration of the system … Since we have agreed with the board that appellant’s system was “on sale” prior to the critical date, appellant must show that he comes under the Elizabeth v.

United States v. Hermanos & Co.

9 Ct. Cust. 66 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1919

Fensterer & Ruhe v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 93 ; T. D. 31110); Strauss & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 203 -205; T. D. 31946). … The decision of the board is accordingly reversed.

In re Scarbrough

500 F.2d 560 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1974

Commenting that appellant had sought to meet this burden by reference to various features in five patents listed — Williams et al., 1 Avakian et al. 2 Clapper, 3 *565 Koeijmans 4 and Brown 5 — the board stated: We find this … Arguments made regarding the A/D and D/A converters of Koeijmans and Brown fail to answer factually the board’s justifiable doubts over the applicability of seismic data conversion to the voice sound conversion here involved

Schrikker v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 562 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 25, 1926

V. … V.

United States v. Loeb

7 Ct. Cust. 380 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1917

Board 1, sitting as an appraisement board, held that no appeal had been taken to “re-reappraisement” and returned all the papers to the collector without action, General Appraiser Brown *382 dissenting. … If our holding in Larzalere v.

Union Food Products Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 343 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

A majority of the Board of General Appraisers, Judge Charles P. McClelland and Judge J. B. Sullivan, denied the petition, from which action Judge George Stewart Brown dissented. … This rests upon the principle stated in the case of Finsilver v. United States, 13 Ct. Oust. Appls. 332, T.

United States v. Godchaux Sugars, Inc.

11 Ct. Cust. 529 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1923

The board held, however, following Robertson v. … A. 7795), decided in 1915; In re Brown Durrell Co. ( 121 Fed. 605 , affirmed 127 Fed. 793 ); Dickson v. United States ( 131 Fed. 573 , affirmed 139 Fed. 251 ); Louisville Pillow Co. v. United States ( 144 Fed. 386 ).

Atlantic Transport Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 373 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 29, 1914

See also Railroad Co. v. Swan ( 111 U. S., 379 , at pp. 382 and 383). Furthermore, the decision of the motion was interlocutory and no appeal could have been taken therefrom. Brady v. Railroad Co. ( 73 Mich., 457 ). … . *377 The case of United States v.

United States v. Zucca & Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 167 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1921

Thus in Plummer v. Brown ( 1 Pac. Rep., 703 ; 64 Cal., 429 ), it is defined: To represent a person is to stand in his place, to act his part, exercise his right, or take his share. … In Brown v. Massey ( 76 Pac. Rep., 226 ; 13 Okla., 670 ), the Supreme Court of Oklahoma rendered the same definition. In Carpenter et al. v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County ( 19 Pac.

Hamer v. White

143 F.2d 987 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1944

D. 37; Clement v. McQuarrie et al., 298 O. G. 1081 , 1922 C. D. 92, 51 App. D. C. 278; Brown v. Edeler et al., 519 O. G. 222 , 1940 C. D. 429, 27 C. C. P. A. 1091.) … We find no error in the board’s holding on that issue. The decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Masao Yamaura

329 F.2d 1017 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1964

or Brandt. ft The board sustained the examiner on all of the grounds of rejection, stating, however, that the examiner had not applied “the Brown and Brandt references so they appear to be merely cumulative.” … We perceive no reversible error in the failure of the examiner and the board to find basis for patentability in the tests set forth in the specification. The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

In re Armstrong

83 F.2d 924 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 8, 1936

In Ohmer Fare Register Co. v. … Co. v. F. E. Mgers & Bro.

United States v. Park

4 Ct. Cust. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1913

United States v. Loeb ( 107 Fed., 692 ). … Co. v.

Application of Charles W. Attwood

253 F.2d 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 14, 1958

Claim 8 was rejected by the board as unpatentable over Brown in view of Chase. … The board rejected this claim as unpatentable over Brown in view of Chase, the German patent and Attwood. Again, we feel that the Attwood disclosure was not properly combined with the other cited references.

Rotograph Co. v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 82 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

See Brown v. Piper ( 91 U. S., 37, 40 ); Nix v. Hedden ( 149 U. S., 304, 306 ). … Justice Swayne, in Brown v.

In re Duclaux

67 F.2d 443 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1933

Brown, 1692619, Nov. 20, 1928. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Vandegrift v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 30 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 20, 1925

Since the board’s decision in the case at bar, it has passed upon the same merchandise in Parke, Davis & Co. v. United States, T. D. 40475, G. A. 8887. … The case of Frankfeld & Co. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls. 296 , T.

Westphal v. Fawzi

666 F.2d 575 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 10, 1981

We agree with the conclusion of the board that Westphal did not thereby raise an issue ancillary to priority and that the board therefore need not consider it. Anderson v. … Brown Co., 431 F.2d 1074 , 167 USPQ 129 (CA 6 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 956 , 91 S.Ct. 977 , 28 L.Ed.2d 239 , 168 USPQ 737 (1971); Pursche v.

In re Winton

159 F.2d 760 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 11, 1947

Hatfield, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the decision of the Primary Examiner rejecting claims 4 and 6 in … For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Appeals is modi fied, being affirmed as to claim 4 and reversed as to claim 6.

Cochran Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 62 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 10, 1920

United States v. Gage Bros. & Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls., 306 ; T. D. 37584); Bayersdorfer & Co. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 446 ; T. D; 33875); United States v. International Forwarding Co. ( 8 Ct. Cust. … The decisions of Board 1 as to protests 837745 and 849479, of the’ R. L. Cochran Co., are affirmed. The decisions of Boards 1, 2, and 3, as to the protests of A. & H.