Case law

Oldroyd v. Morgan

57 F.2d 358 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

Brogden v. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1240, 40 F. (2d) 988; Moore v. Greene, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1317, 48 F. (2d) 960. … Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D. C. 78.

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.

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 Shokal

242 F.2d 771 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1957

In that connection appellants cite the case of Joseph V. Meigs v. James McIntosh, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 852, 37 F. 2d 954 , 4 U. S. Pat. … Arness v. Franks, 31 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 737, 138 F. 2d 213 , 59 USPQ 154 ; In re Rodman et al., 42 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 951, 223 F. 2d 281 , 106 USPQ 142 ; Prutton v. Fuller et al., 43 C. C. P. A.

Application of Carl A. Lukach, Setha G. Olson and Harold M. Spurlin

442 F.2d 967 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 27, 1971

Kaiser Co. v. McLouth Steel Corp., 257 F.Supp. 372, 429 (E.D.Mich.1966), affd., Kaiser Industries Corp. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 . The grandparent was a continuation-in-part of application serial No. 796,261, filed March 2,1959, now abandoned.

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.

Lustig v. Legat

154 F.2d 680 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1946

In Bowers v. … See Payne v.

Klipstein v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 122 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

United States v. Wells (77 Fed. Rep., 411). … The cases of Swan v. Finch (113 Fed. Rep., 243) and Train v. United States (113 Fed. Rep., 1020), cited by the Government, are not in point. In Swan v.

Cochran v. Kresock

530 F.2d 385 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 5, 1976

Land v. Regan, 342 F.2d 92 , 52 CCPA 1048 (1965). … Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277 (CCPA 1974); Gallagher v. Smith, 206 F.2d 939 , 41 CCPA 734 (1953).

In re Mavrogenis

57 F.2d 361 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

C. 428; Moore v. Heany, 34 App. D. C. 31, 39, and in Mattullath's Case, 38 App. D. C. 497. … Eevival of an application was considered by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in Fehete v. Robertson, 57 App. D. C. 73, 17 F. (2d 335, and in Martin v. Robertson, 59 App. D. C. 270, 39 F. (2d) 520.

In re Dybel

524 F.2d 1393 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 6, 1975

The board cited the following cases in support of its position that a bona fide experimental use involves no commercial exploitation: Pickering v. Holman, 459 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1972); Robbins Co. v. Lawrence Mfg. … Co., supra; Link-Belt Co. v. International Rectifier Corp., 176 USPQ 381 (C.D.Cal.1973); Drackett Co. v. Davis, 176 USPQ 344 (E.D.Mich.1972). See also Dart Indus., Inc. v. E.

In re Fischer

47 F.2d 794 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

There was never any action upon it by the Board of Appeals, so far as the record in this case discloses, and there is no reference to it in the decisions of either the examiner or the board in this case. … Drummond et al. v. Venable et al., 26 Fed. 243 , is in point. As stated by the board, Warren shows all that appellant shows except the marking.

Application of David Taub, Norman L. Wendler and Harry L. Slates

348 F.2d 556 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 19, 1965

Lawson et al v. Bruce et al, 1955 C.D. 205; McBurney v. Jones, 104 U.S.P.Q. 115 ; Adamson v. … The board then discussed the “higher potency” shown by the affidavits.

In re Anhaltzer

48 F.2d 657 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

The petition for rehearing was denied by the Board of Appeals. … Stern et al. v. Schroeder et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 670, 36 F. (2d) 515; Stern et al. v. Schroeder et al., 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 690, 36 F. (2d) 518; Beidler v. Caps, 17 C. C. P. A.