Case law

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.

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.

Hampton v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 24, 1927

This protest was, in due course, referred by the collector to the Board of General Appraisers, and the board, General Appraiser Brown dissenting, overruled the protest and sustained the assessment by the collector. … To the same effect are Field v. Clark, supra, and The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166, 176 . In the celebrated case of Brown v.

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.

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.

Downing & Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The latitude of the latter provision was before this court, and received interpretation in a decision rendered since the board decision in this case — Carter & Son v. United States (6 Ct. Cust Appls., 253; T. D. 35475). … The principle and its application find parallel and precedent in Magone v. Heller ( 150 U. S., 70 ).

In re Harris-Intertype Corp.

518 F.2d 629 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1975

In Ferrara, the board said: The record before us indicates only that one person bears that surname, viz. Nello V. Ferrara one of the partners of Ferrara Candy Co. On the other hand, Ferrara is a well-known Italian City. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

Horstman Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 458 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The board overruled the protest and affirmed the decision of the collector. … D. 23555); they are woven into cloth (Jules & Hugo Rosenberg v. United States, 141 Fed., 379 ); Hirsch v. United States, 167 Fed., 309 ). See also Tyler v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 158 ; T. D. 35433).

Isler v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 340 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1922

—Strauss v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls. 203, 205 ; T. D. 31946); Isler & Guye v. United States (5 id. 229, 233 ; T. D. 34401); Schoenemann v. United States ( 119 Fed. 584, 586 ). … —-United States v. Veit ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 290 ; T. D. 37540).

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.

United States v. Strohmeyer

6 Ct. Cust. 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 21, 1915

No evidence was offered before the Board of General Appraisers by either party as to its component material, but it was agreed of record that the merchandise is the same as that in Bancel v. … The board sustained the protest that it was dutiable as an unenumerated manufactured article, and the Government appeals.

United States v. Chelsea Bag & Burlap Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 255 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1922

The Government relies npon the case of McGettrick v. United States ( 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 64 ; T. D. 38727). It is important at this point to know exactly what was decided in that case. … Train v. United States ( 107 Fed. 261 ), affirmed in 113 Fed. 1020 , certiorari to the Supreme Court denied in 186 U. S. 483 , is cited by the importer in support of his contention.

United States v. Kagawa & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1914

See Hansen v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 1 ; T. D. 30769); United States v. American Express Co. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 95 ; T. D. 31636). … In this view of the case the decision of the board is reversed.

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.

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.

Livia C. Schmierer and Jacques H. F. Valin v. John C. Newton

397 F.2d 1010 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1968

See Spero v. Ringold, 377 F.2d 652 , 54 CCPA 1407, (1967); Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908 , 53 CCPA 1403 (1966); Townsend v. Smith, 36 F.2d 292 , 17 CCPA 647 (1929). … Majka v. Palmer, 67 F.2d 146 (7th Cir. 1933); United States v. Rodrigues, 182 F.Supp. 479 (S.D.Cal.1960); United States v. Archer, 51 F.Supp. 708 (S.D. Cal.1943).

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.