Case law

Swengel v. Burkig

455 F.2d 577 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1972

Even if it did, the board’s procedure was clearly justified on the ground that the circumstances provided a sufficient excuse for Burkig’s not making an express request. See Beecham Products Inc. v. … He thereby apparently followed in part the practice set out in Janeway v. Nystrom, 77 USPQ 229 (Com. Pat. 1946).

Collins v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 83 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1912

We think these conclusions are fully supported by the decisions of the Board of General Appraisers, and have not been overruled by the cases of Francklyn v. United States (119 Fed. Rep., 470) and Hill v. … So in Hill v. Francklyn (162 Fed.

Application of Johannes Heyna, August Bauer and Klaus Berner

360 F.2d 222 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 28, 1966

whereas the addition of one methoxy group to the diazo ring (samples I and III) caused a decrease in the tinctorial strength vis a vis the unsubstituted diazo ring (sample II), two substituents (two methoxy groups in sample V … We agree with the board that appellants have not met this burden.

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.

Benjamin Phillips and Paul S. Starcher v. Arthur W. Carlson

278 F.2d 732 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1960

In that connection the board said: “Dr. … Thurston v.

Matter of the Application of Edward A. Patton and Forrest F. Beil

234 F.2d 499 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1956

Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co., 1883, 110 U.S. 490, 494 , 4 S.Ct. 220 , 28 L.Ed. 222 ; Ansonia Brass & Copper Co. v. … Potts v. Creager, 1894, 155 U.S. 597, 606 , 15 S.Ct. 194 , 39 L.Ed. 275 . In re LaVerne, supra.

Celotex Co. v. Bronston Bros. & Co.

49 F.2d 1048 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1931

The test with the commissioner should have been: Are “Flametex” and “Celotex,” under the circumstances of this case, confusingly similar when applied to wall board? We think they are. ■In B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Clive E. … A. -; Sharp & Dohme v. Parke, Davis & Co., 37 F.(2d) 960 , 17 C. C. P. A. 842; American Fruit Growers, Inc., v. Michigan Fruit Growers, Inc., 38 F.(2d) 696 , 17 C. C. P. A. 906; Decker & Cohn, Inc., v. S.

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).

Pew v. Gard

97 F.2d 591 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 27, 1938

Coast, Jr., v. Dubbs, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1023, 88 F. (2d) 734. See also Frank D. Williams v. Max Handschiegl, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1176, 48 F. (2d) 395, 397; Harold J. McCreary v. Vladimir K. Zworykin, 19 C. … (Patents) 990, 997, 55 F. (2d) 445; Doherty v. Dubbs, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 807, 813, 68 F. (2d) 373.

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.

Vietor v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 13 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1926

Union Pacific v. Barnes, 64 Fed. 80, 83 ; Hindman v. First National Bank, 112 Fed. 931, 934 ; Glendenning, McLeish & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 387 , T. D. 41320. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers must be affirmed.

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.

Application of Erwine Laverne and Estelle Laverne

356 F.2d 1003 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 10, 1966

In the mechanical, chemical, and electrical “arts” we have distinguished, since Hotchkiss v. … We do not see how the board could find that decision relevant to the facts here.

Application of Chester John Cavallito and Allan Poe Gray

306 F.2d 505 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 25, 1962

As stated by the board'. … Scher-ing Corporation v. Gilbert, 153 F.2d 428 (C.C.A.2d, 1946). Appellants urge that the inclusion of some 90 examples in the specification warrants the allowance of claims of the scope of claims 1 and 35.

In re Phillips

608 F.2d 879 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 15, 1979

The Supreme Court of the United States in Gottschalk v. … On reconsideration, the board reviewed its decision in light of Parker v.

Osborne v. Patterson

169 F.2d 817 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1948

The board in its decision affirmed both the conclusion and reasoning given by the examiner. … Mantz v. Kronmiller, supra.

Scientific Supply Importing Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

The third finding of the board is as follows: 3. … In the case of Stern v.

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).

Szekely v. Metcalf

455 F.2d 1393 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 16, 1972

See Fredkin v. Irasek, 55 CCPA 1302, 397 F.2d 342 , 158 USPQ 280 (1968); Schur v. Muller, 54 CCPA 1095, 372 F.2d 546 , 152 USPQ 605 (1967). … Appellees sought the benefit of their earlier filed British provisional application, but the board held them not to be entitled to it, and no issue with respect to that conclusion of the board is before us.

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.