Case law

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.

Techler v. Norstrub

475 F.2d 1192 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 5, 1973

Appellants’ arguments regarding “double inclusion” and ambiguity, as well as their reliance on Holdsworth v. Goldsmith, 29 CCPA 1047, 129 F.2d 571 , 54 USPQ 90 (1942) and Kreidel v. … For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the board. Affirmed.

United States v. Arthur J. Humpreys, Inc.

531 F.2d 1059 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 1, 1976

The record indicates that red cedar may be of several shades of reddish brown varying from a very pale to a relatively deep color. … The Customs Court noted that lumber, wood siding, wood flooring, wood molding, wood carvings, etc., as covered by subpart B, are normally sold in board *79 feet while the imported articles are sold in sections or by the piece

United States v. Sussfeld

1 Ct. Cust. 51 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1910

(See also American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edison Mfg. Co., 137 Fed. Rep., 262; Edison v. American Mutoscope Co., 114 Fed. Rep., 926; and Edison v. American Mutoscope & Biograph Co., 151 Fed. Rep., 767.) … See Hartranft v. Wiegmann ( 121 U. S., 609 ); Swan & Finch Co. v. United States ( 190 U. S., 143 ); and Eidman v. Martinez ( 184 U. S., 583 ).

Illfelder v. United States

7 Ct. Cust. 53 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 28, 1916

D. 31786); United States v. Kraemer & Co. ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 294 ; T. D. 34474). … United States v. Meier & Frank ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 208 ; T. D. 34330).

In re United Oil Manufacturing Co.

508 F.2d 1341 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 30, 1975

In re Keller, Heumann & Thompson Co., 81 F.2d 399 , 23 CCPA 837 (1936); Kalart Co. v. Camera-Mart, Inc., 258 F.2d 956 , 46 CCPA 711 (1958); Hunt Foods & Industries, Inc. v. … Hall Co. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 340 F.2d 960 , 52 CCPA 981 (1965); General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg.

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.

In re Hutchison

104 F.2d 829 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

which directs a single preheating jet into the V-groove of the seam in extremely close proximity with, and away from the welding point. … While we do not regard this case as being precisely on all fours with the oft cited case of Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota and Ontario Paper Company, 261 U.

Glendenning, McLeish & Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 387 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

If the finding of the board is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence, it is our duty to reverse it. Fish v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 307 . … To the same effect are Hauptman v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 295 , T. D. 41218, and Finsilver, Still & Moss v. United States, supra.

In Re Reynold Henatsch

298 F.2d 954 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1962

We agree with the Board’s analysis of claim 19 and agree with the Board that the claim reads on Pollard. … See also, Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545 , and Rogers v. Alemite Corp., 298 U.S. 415 . Since no such ground of rejection is before us, we are not passing here on this issue.

Moore v. Greene

48 F.2d 960 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1931

McIntyre v. Dodge, 29 F. (2d) 861; General Electric Co. v. Steinberger, 214 Fed. 781 . In Brogden v. Slater, 17 C. C. P. A. … In Deppe et al. v.

In re de Castelet

562 F.2d 1236 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 6, 1977

The Board The board, citing Gottschalk v. … In O'Reilly v.

In re Rubinfield

270 F.2d 391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1959

See Grant v. Raymond, 6 Peters 218 . As was said in Ashley v. … Gorham Company v. White, 81 U.S. 511 ; In re Schraubstadter, 26 App.

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.

Claude Gortatowsky v. Mohamad H. Anwar and Marvin Calderon

442 F.2d 970 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1971

Senkus v. Johnston, 35 CCPA 1008, 166 F. 2d 597 , 77 USPQ 113 (1948). … Even applying the standards for determining whether the corroboration is sufficient as set forth in Berry v. Webb, 56 CCPA 1272, 412 F. 2d 261 , 162 USPQ 170 (1969); Beeber v.

In re Hill

158 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 7, 1947

We are in agree-jnent with the board’s statement. A limitation of the type here in *787 volved was considered by tlie Supreme Court of tlie United States in Gen. Electric Co. v. Wabash Co., 304 U. … Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U. S. 245 , and Gen. Electric Co. v.

Carlson v. Nagata

480 F.2d 1372 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 12, 1973

In Woofter v. … We believe that here, as in Woofter and in Padgett v.

Stencel v. Nordine

481 F.2d 916 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 2, 1973

See Koval v. Bodenschatz, 463 F.2d 442, 447 , 59 CCPA-,- (1972). … Koval v. Bodenschatz, supra. The totality of testing must be considered to ascertain whether or not the standards have been met. See Voisinet v. Coglianese, 455 F.2d 1064, 1068 , 59 CCPA -.,- (1972).