Case law

Surgical Supply Importing Co. v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 112 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1912

See Stern v. United States (123 Fed. Rep., 192), United States v. Bernhard (150 Fed. Rep., 375). … If a review was desired by the Government of the action of the board on this question, an appeal should have been taken on its behalf. United States v. Lies ( 170 U. S., 628 ).

Ishida v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 415 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1923

D. 36870 (Mitsui & Co. et al. v. United States, 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 307 ). 9. … See United States v. Oberle ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 527 ; T. D. 31545); United States v. Quong (5 id. 198; T. D. 34326); United States v. Jaehne (8 id. 307; T. D. 37585).

Application of Luke Thorington, Gerald Schiazzano and Joel Shurgan

418 F.2d 528 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 26, 1969

Appellants rely principally on language in the case of Gross v. … Gross v. Norris, 26 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1928). . The conflicting theories and cases on this point are analyzed in a thorough review by Megley, Design and Mechanical Patents Relating to the Same Subject Matter, J. Pat.

In re Cramblet

62 F.2d 358 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

The Board of Appeals, as has been said, rests its rejection of these claims upon the Mailey patent. … Hillard, v. Fisher, etc., 159 Fed. 439 . See, also, Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156 ; Atlantic G. & P. Co. v. Wood, 288 Fed. 148 ; Stead Lens Co. v. Kryptok Co., 214 Fed. 368 ; Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Prod.

In Re Stauber

45 F.2d 661 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1930

Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. D. C. 834; In re Neill, 11 App. D. C. 584. As we view the matter, however, the action of the Board of Appeals in this case does not amount to a mere matter of practice. … Podlesak v. McInnerney, 26 App. D. C. 399; Stevens v. Seher, 11 App. D. C. 245; United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 392 U. S. 543 , 561, 24 S. Ct. 416 , 48 L. Ed. 555 .

Meyer Sletzinger v. Frank H. Lincoln, William P. Schneider and George B. Spero

410 F.2d 808 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1969

in the board’s opinion and summarized briefly above. … Dickinson v. Swinehart, 49 App.D.C. 222 , 263 F. 474 (1920) ; Martus & Becker v. Heise, 17 CCPA 1083, 39 F.2d 715 , 5 USPQ 74 (1930) ; Farmer v. Schweyer, *813 21 CCPA 865, 68 F.2d 961 , 20 USPQ 281 (1934); Powell v.

In Re Hargraves

53 F.2d 900 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1931

Nine claims were attached to the application, all of which were rejected by the Examiner and by the Board of Appeals. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Oelrichs v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 203 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1911

board. … The case of Harris v. United States (177 Fed. Rep., 475) is relied upon as sustaining the action of the board in declining to return this testimony.

U. S. Department of Energy v. White

653 F.2d 479 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1981

White also appeals from the board’s decisions which suppressed some of his evidence by which he sought to prove that he invented the subject matter prior to any government involvement. (Motions IV and V.) … Citing the statutory objectives set forth in Piper v. AEC, 502 F.2d 1393 , 183 USPQ 235 (Cust.& Pat. App.1974), the board stated that the “useful in” phrase of § 152 must be narrowly construed.

Goussios & Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 317 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 22, 1911

This case, however, was in affirmance of a decision by the Board of General Appraisers in 1906 and reported in G. A. 6505 (T. … Causse Manufacturing Co. v. United States, G. A. 5417 (T.

Moore Dry Goods Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 449 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 17, 1923

In Kidd et al. v. … Justice Clifford, in the case of McGlinchy v. United States ( 4 Cliff., 312 , s. c. 16 Fed. Cas. 118 ). In the Erlanger & Ríes case, decided May 22, 1917, T. D. 37197 (G.

Application of Pappas

185 F.2d 695 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1950

It was not listed as a reference and was not referred to in his statement following the appeal to the board, nor did the board refer to it. … It is mathematically expressed as: where RN is Reynolds Number, u (mu) the viscosity of the air, V the velocity of the airfoil through the air, L is the chord length of the profile and p (rho) is the density of the air.

In Re Michalek

162 F.2d 229 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1947

to carry out a process in such fashion that it will not be successful and, therefore, the failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight, citing Bul-lard Company et al. v. … For the reasons stated herein, the decisions of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

United States v. Jaehne

8 Ct. Cust. 307 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1918

was taken by tbe Government before tbe board within tbe two months next succeeding. … The present question is analogous to that presented to this court in the case of United States v. Rothschild & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 251 ; T.

United States v. Zito

3 Ct. Cust. 209 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1912

In United States v. Shalius (2 Ct. Cust.'Appls., 332; T. D. 32074) we discussed fully the principles of law applying to such cases. … As thus modified the judgment of the board is affirmed.

Application of Richard E. Warner and Virginia Ann Warner

379 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 29, 1967

Justice Clark in United States v. … Compare Swofford v. B & W, Inc., 251 F.Supp. 811 (S.D.Tex.1966). See also Railex Corp. v. Joseph Guss & Sons, 256 F.Supp. 994 at fn. 1 (D.D.C.1966). .

United States v. Glück & Sons

8 Ct. Cust. 11 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1917

United States v. Von Oefele ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 284 ; T. D. 33492). ■ The paragraphs directly involved are 356, upon which the Government relies, and 167 and 360, under which the board held the mer•chandise dutiable. … Without in any way departing from the rule of Hensel v.

Wetmore v. Miller

477 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 17, 1973

See Rieser v. Williams, 255 F.2d 419 , 45 CCPA 953 (1958); Stalego v. Heymes, 263 F.2d 334 , 46 CCPA 772 (1959). … The decision of the board is affirmed as to count 2.

Grasselli v. Dewing

534 F.2d 306 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 6, 1976

as a whole, citing Patterson v. … As we recognized in Young v.

United States v. Bernard

4 Ct. Cust. 403 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1913

The decision of the board is brief and recites: From tlie testimony in this case we.do not think the merchandise is decorated china as provided for in paragraph 93 and construed by the board and the courts. … The decision is in accord with previous decisions of the board and of the courts, and it seems unnecessary to reiterate the reasoning so frequently declared upon the subject bjr those authorities. See Richard & Co. v.