Case law

Application of Manuel F. Leonor

395 F.2d 801 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 6, 1968

Since the board’s decision violates the intent and spirit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 , we reverse. … Indeed, this seems to be a clear case in which the examiner and the board were unable “to resist the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue.” Graham v.

In re Eitzen

86 F.2d 411 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1936

Upon appeal the Board of Appeals affirmed the decision of the examiner rejecting' said claims, and from such decision of the board this appeal was taken. … Robbins v. Steinbart, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1069, 57 F. (2d) 378. We find no error in the decision of the Board of Appeals and it is affirmed.

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.

Application of Hartmut Steppan, August Rebenstock and Wilhelm Neugebauer

394 F.2d 1013 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 28, 1967

U.S.C. 102 which is not here before us. *1017 As pointed out in Graham v. … The board consisted of Messrs. Federico and Rosa, Examiners-in-Chief and Stone, Acting Examiner-in-Chief. Mr. Rosa wrote the opinion of the board. 2 .

Urquhart v. Paschke

69 F.2d 535 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1934

something of practical use ’ for extinguishing a fire ‘ coupled with the knowledge that the thing will work practically for the intended purpose ’ and, therefore, was not a reduction to practice ”, the case of Sherwood v. … We, therefore, feel constrained to disagree with the board’s finding.

Application of Viktor Papesch

315 F.2d 381 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1963

In Parker v. … In Ruskin v.

Meitzner v. Corte

537 F.2d 524 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 15, 1976

Silvestri v. Grant, 496 F.2d 593 , 181 USPQ 706 (CCPA 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 928 , 95 S.Ct. 1126 , 184 USPQ 641 (1975); Langer v. Kaufman, 59 CCPA 1261, 465 F.2d 915 , 175 USPQ 172 (1972); Heard v. … As we stated in Heard v.

Mecke v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 237 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 9, 1924

from Henderson v. … This view is analogous to that expressed by Judge Barber, speaking for this court, in the case of Lord & Taylor v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 345, 348 ; T.

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 .

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.

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. .

Linen Thread Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 395 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

On those findings the board denied the petition and the importer appealed. … The judgment of the board is reversed.

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 Nichols

171 F.2d 300 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

See also Chisholm-Byder Co., Inc. v. Buck, 65 F. (2d) 735, 736, (C. C. A. 4th 1933), 18 U. S. Pat. Q. 31. … The following statement appearing in the case of Black-Clawson Co. v. Centrifugal Engineering & Patents Corporation, 83 F. (2d) 116 (C. C.

United States v. Habicht

1 Ct. Cust. 53 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1910

board was reversed. … Ferry & Co. v. United States (85 Fed.

In re Hawkins

486 F.2d 569 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 23, 1973

In General Electric Co. v. … The point made by the board was that many of the substituents encompassed by the language complained of would “interfere with the attainment of the suggested utility * * Appellant points to no error in the board’s reasoning

Loewenthal v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 43 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers held the articles to be properly dutiable as trimmings under paragraph 390. … Rep., 477); Drew v. Grinnell ( 115 U. S., 477 ); and In re McGibbon, G. A. 6147 (T. D. 26692).

Application of John O. Hruby, Jr

373 F.2d 997 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 16, 1967

Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 511 , 81 U.S. 511, 524 , 20 L.Ed. 731 (1871). We fail to find in the opinion of the board majority any sufficient reason for holding the fountains are not “articles of manufacture.” … The decisions of the board are reversed. Reversed. MARTIN, J., participated in the hearing of this case but died before a decision was reached. . American Fruit Growers, Inc. v.

United States v. Mills

7 Ct. Cust. 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1917

An irreconcilable conflict in the evidence as to material facts, such as shown in this case and so declared by the board, has always been held a sufficient determination of fact to support decision. Downing v. … D. 33198); Nevin v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 423 ; T. D. 34945). In that view of the case and for the reasons stated the decision of the Board of General Appraisers should be, and is, affirmed.

Kahl v. Scoville

609 F.2d 991 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 18, 1979

Kistler v. Weber, 412 F.2d 280, 285 , 56 CCPA 1413, 1420, 162 USPQ 214 , 218 (1969); Breuer v. DeMarinis, 558 F.2d 22, 28 , 194 USPQ 308, 313 (Cust. Pat.App.1977); Golota v. … Schwab v. Pittman, 451 F.2d 637, 640 , 59 CCPA 720, 725, 172 USPQ 69, 71 (1971). 6 The only faults the board found with appellants’ showing relate to the affidavits of the corroborating witnesses.