Case law

In re Bertsch

132 F.2d 1014 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 26, 1942

Hansgirg v. Kemmer, supra; Brand v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1053, 90 F. (2d) 301. … In the case Pittsburgh Iron & Steel Foundries Co. v.

In re Mochel

470 F.2d 638 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1972

Opinion We join the board in disregarding any coeffect of K20 (claims 2 and 3). As this Court has held, the phrase “up to” of claim 2 includes zero as the lower limit. Arness v. … The decision of the board is reversed. Reversed.

Bierly v. Happoldt

201 F.2d 955 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1953

Herzog v. N. Y. Tel. Co., C.C., 172 F. 425 ; Id., 2 Cir., 176 F. 349 ; Hestonville v. McDuffee, 3 Cir., 185 F. 798 .” … The case of Arness v. Franks, 138 F.2d 213 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 737, is regarded as apposite. The decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

United States v. Sheldon

4 Ct. Cust. 330 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 26, 1913

other evidence in the record than stated, we think they fall for classification within the description according to component material, "manufactures of wood,” as we held of certain fragile feather dusters in United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Proctor

15 Ct. Cust. 373 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1928

United States v. Traders Paper Co. et al., 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 293 , 50 Treas. Dec. 541 , T. D. 41909. … United States v. Andrews & Co., 15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 126 , T. D. 42193.

Downing & Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 6, 1915

The latitude of the latter provision was before this court, and received interpretation in a decision rendered since the board decision in this case — Carter & Son v. United States (6 Ct. Cust Appls., 253; T. D. 35475). … The principle and its application find parallel and precedent in Magone v. Heller ( 150 U. S., 70 ).

Borgfeldt & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 105 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1921

—Illfelder v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 109 ; T. D. 31115); Cattus et al. v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 9 -10; T. D. 33198); United States v. Scheuer & Co. ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 37 ; T. … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.

Application of De Vaney

185 F.2d 679 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 5, 1950

Innis Speiden & Co. v. Food Machinery Corp., D.C., 49 F.Supp. 722 .” … Jungeraen v. Ostby & Barton Co., 335 U.S. 560 , 69 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed. 235 .”

United States v. Tower

6 Ct. Cust. 562 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1916

The board also adopted this name for the articles in its decision. … United States v. Lun Chong & Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 468, 469 ; T. D. 33041). The decision of the board is therefore reversed, and the collector’s assessment is affirmed. Reversed.

United States v. Martorelli

12 Ct. Cust. 327 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 4, 1924

The importer protested and appealed to the Board of General Appraisers. … For reasons herein assigned, the judgment of the Board of General.

In re Keller

642 F.2d 413 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1981

This predetermined time corresponds approximately to the normal A-V delay. … Board Opinion The board unanimously affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 , and entered the rejection of claims 9-12 on the same ground, v.

Exxon Corp. v. National Foodline Corp.

579 F.2d 1244 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1978

Steel Corp. v. Vasco Metals Corp., 394 F.2d 1009 , 55 CCPA 1141, 157 USPQ 627 (1968), citing 6 J. … We find no error in the board’s decision.

In re Locher

455 F.2d 1396 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 23, 1972

The board’s opinion on appellant’s request for reconsideration contains no mention of the three patents which appellant had definitely drawn to the board’s attention in his request. … attention is invited to Janicke, op. cit. supra, in connection with the second point, as well as the first, and to In re Searles, 57 CCPA 912, 916, 422 F. 2d 431, 435 , 164 USPQ 623 , 626 (1970), and Palisades Pageants, Inc. v.

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.

Wemple v. Peirce

75 F.2d 998 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1935

Much of what was said by us in the case of Davis et al. v. Isham et al., 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1222, 71 F. (2d) 204, is apposite here. The authorities cited in the brief for appellants have been carefully examined. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is 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.

In re Hutton

568 F.2d 1355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 27, 1978

page of the article. (4) The Solicitor admits that the article was not considered by either the examiner or the board in arriving at a decision and was not mentioned by the board in either its original decision or its decision … Morgenstern v. Burton, 86 F.2d 341 , 24 CCPA 734, 31 USPQ 377 (1936).

Matter of the Application of Julian Rogoff

261 F.2d 601 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 15, 1958

Fox Typewriter Co. v. Corona Typewriter Co., 6 Cir., 282 F. 502 ; In *604 re Bostwick, 102 F.2d 886 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1117; Schenk v. United Aircraft Corp., D.C., 43 F.Supp. 679 ; and Mercoid Corp. v. … Similarly, in Hazeltine Corp. v. A. H..

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 Marden

47 F.2d 957 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

The Board of Appeals rejected the claims on the reference Liebmann, No. 1,111,698, of September 22, 1914, and upon the authority of General Electric Co. v. De Forest Radio Co. (C. C. A.) 28 F.(2d) 641, 643 . … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.