Case law

In re Moss

101 F.2d 536 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1939

Certain Patent Office decisions, together with the case of General Electric Co. v. P. R. Mallory & Co., Inc., 298 Fed. 579 , have been cited. … In Bennet v. Fowler, 8 Wall. 445 , it was pointed out that some discretion must be left to the'Patent Office.

In re Novak

306 F.2d 924 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

See Isenstead v. Watson, 115 USPQ 408 . As to this same ground of rejection, the board stated in part: The claims were also rejected for lack of utility * * *. … We agree with the board that the examiner’s rejection for lack of proof of utility should be sustained.

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.

John W. Sellner v. Harry Solloway and Michael Goodman

267 F.2d 321 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1959

The board held that Exhibit A was sufficiently tested on February 23, 1950, to effect a reduction to practice. … Hedens *324 koog v. Backus, 48 F.2d 408 , 18 CCPA 1065. Appellant alleges that appellees concealed or suppressed their invention and have therefore forfeited their right to an award of priority, citing Mason v.

In re Deutsch

553 F.2d 689 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 5, 1977

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (board) affirming the examiner’s final rejection under 35 USC 101 of method claims 1, 6, and 8, all the claims in appellant’s (Deutsch … It held Gottschalk v.

In re Derleth

118 F.2d 566 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1941

Q. 284; Walker v. Coe, 24 U. S. P. Q. 51; Ex parte Rodgers, 26 U. S. P. … Q. 316 (all being decisions of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office), and upon the case of Walker v. Doe, 24 U. S. P. Q. 51, a decision of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

Continental Scale Corp. v. Weight Watchers International, Inc.

517 F.2d 1378 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1975

All the board could have meant was that there is no evidence of any actual confusion in the record. … The dominant part of a mark may be given extra weight on the issue of likeli *1382 hood of confusion, American Drill Bushing Co. v. Rockwell Mfg.

Eugene O. Keizer v. William E. Bradley

270 F.2d 396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1959

Appellant relies heavily on the case of Fageol v. Midboe, 56 F.2d 867 , 19 CCPA 1117, wherein the order of events was similar to those of the instant case. … The decision of the Board of Patent Interferences is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

Rhinevault v. Pfiester

65 F.2d 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1933

The Board of Appeals awarded priority to Pfiester on the ground that Rhinevault had forfeited his invention under the doctrine of Mason v. Hepburn, 13 App. D. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is reversed. Reversed.

Application of Bo Thuresson Af Ekenstam

256 F.2d 321 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1958

In Elizabeth v. … The decision principally relied on by the board and in the brief for the Commissioner is General Electric Co. v. Hy-grade Sylvania Corp., D.C., 61 F.Supp. 476 .

Application of George B. Karnofsky

390 F.2d 994 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 7, 1968

Based upon this record, which contains no factual basis for the board’s conclusions, we cannot find that the board has demonstrated how appellant’s specification fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 . … See also Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct.C1.1967).

Ishimitsu Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 477 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1925

The Board of General Appraisers held it not to be a crude mineral, and that it was an unmanufactured article. *479 The Iwakami & Co. v. … . & Hall et als. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 363 ; T.

United States v. Sassi

13 Ct. Cust. 319 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1925

The case of United States v. … Koscherak et al. v. United States, 98 Fed. 596 .

Aircraft Radio Corporation v. Arc Sound Limited

440 F.2d 436 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1971

Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 , 52 CCPA 981 (1965). … Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., supra; and Tac Technical Instrument Corp. v. Fischer and Porter Co., 433 F.2d 827 , 58 CCPA (1970).

Rauen v. Aiken

74 F.2d 956 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 4, 1935

The board then refers to the decision in Chapman et al. v. Wintroath, supra, In re Fritts, 45 App. D. C. 211, and DeFerranti v. Harmatta, 50 App. D. C. 393, as support for its affirmance of the examiner’s decision. … In particular, the board relies upon the case of Keith v. Land, 55 App. D. C. 398, cited *906 as 1925 C.

United States v. Tampa Box Co.

15 Ct. Cust. 360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1928

In Peabody v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 354 , T. … See Stein v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 36 , T. D. 31007; Stahel & Co. v. United States, 11 Ct. Cust. Appls. 430 , T. D. 39435, and cases therein cited.

American Express Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 13, 1920

To the same effect see Robertson v. Salomon ( 130 U. S., 412 ). In Cadwalader v. Zeh ( 151 U. … In Chew Hing Lung v.

United States v. Hudson Forwarding & Shipping Co.

14 Ct. Cust. 188 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1926

In Sheldon & Co. v. United States, 4 Ct. Cust. … (Pickhardt v. Merritt, 132 U. S. 252 ; Newman v. Arthur, 109 U. S. 132 ; United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co., 3 Ct. Cust. Appls. 410 ; T. D. 32998.)

Smith v. Hayward

176 F.2d 914 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

S. 358, 383 ; McKee v. Stevens, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 701, 79 F. (2d) 914, 27 USPQ 358 ; Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. D. C. 207; Bogoslowsky v. Huse, 31 C. C. P. A. … Josserand v. Taylor, Jr., 31 C. C. P, A. (Patents) 709, 138 F. (2d) 58, 59 USPQ 140 .

In re Dreshfield

110 F.2d 235 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1940

The reference relied upon by the Primary Examiner and the Board of Appeals in appeal No. 4283, and by the board only in *1015 appeal No. 4282, is: “Use of Rosin for Soap Manufacture,” by Campbell, published, in “Industrial … of a catalytic nature, and states that, although he is unable to find an adequate definition of the term “antioxidant,” another “expression” is “inhibitor,” and, although the definition of an “inhibitor,” found in Volume V