Case law

United States v. Reid & Co.

10 Ct. Cust. 85 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 24, 1920

United States v. Goldberg ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 394 ; T. D. 32986); United States v. Rettig et al. ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 537 ; T. D. 32254); United States v. Saunders ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 86 ; T. D. 35337). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

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 Walter

618 F.2d 758 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 27, 1980

Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 93 S.Ct. at 255; Le Roy v. … Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. at 585 n.1, 98 S.Ct. at 2523 ; Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. at 65 , 93 S.Ct. at 254 . .

Tyler Co. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 158 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

At the hearing before the board two witnesses testified on behalf of the importers and none for the Government. … In Luckemeyer v.

In re Hunter

166 F.2d 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1948

The claim, therefore, is not subject to tire criticism made in General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U. S. 364 , of using indefinite language “at the exact point of novelty.” … Although the board stated in its decision that “* * * we are not convinced that all materials of the small particle size stated in the claim would be suitable for appellant’s purpose,” the board did not mention any substances

Application of Aubrey A. Larsen

292 F.2d 531 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 24, 1961

This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the United States Patent Office affirming the rejection by the Primary Examiner of claims 11 to 20, inclusive, and 22 of appellant’s application, No. 653,289, … A ease in point is Wirebounds Patents Co. et al. v. H. R. Gibbons Box Co., 7 Cir., 25 F.2d 363, 365 .

McBride v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 27, 1911

See Hossler v. Hartman (82 Pa. St., 53). … See Lunham v. United States, supra, p. 220 (T. D. 31258), and cases there cited.

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.

In re Allen Electric & Equipment Co.

458 F.2d 1404 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1972

In re Dirzius, 50 CCPA 836, 311 F. 2d 825 , 136 USPQ 198 (1963); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Pharmaco, Inc., 48 CCPA 1107, 291 F. 2d 756 , 130 USPQ 220 (1961); General Shoe Corp. v. Lerner Bros. Mfg. … The board’s decision is therefore affirmed. Abstracted at 163 USPQ 293 (1969). Both tlie examiner and tlie board pointed out that “SCANNING ANTENNA” is defined in J.

Application of Alan H. Nathan, John A. Hogg and William P. Schneider

328 F.2d 1005 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 12, 1964

This court in Riester v. Kendall, 159 F.2d 732 , 34 CCPA 859, dealt with an interference in, which a count was directed to certain dyestuffs. … For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the board is reversed.

Naber v. Cricchi

567 F.2d 382 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 22, 1977

Anderson v. Scinta, 372 F.2d 523 , 54 CCPA 1269, 152 USPQ 584 (1967); Martin v. Snyder, 214 F.2d 177 , 41 CCPA 1010, 102 USPQ 306 (1954); Gunn v. Bosch, 181 USPQ 757 (Bd.Pat.Int’f 1973); Moore v. Harris v. … Litchfield v.

Gallagher v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 520 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

In the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329 ; T. … In the case of United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 410 ; T.

Rubber Ass'n of America v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 46 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1921

See Isler & Guye v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 229 ; T. D. 34401), Nevin v. United States ( 5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 423 ; T. D. 34945); Herman v. Arthur’s executors ( 127 U. S., 363 ). … It follows that the judgments of the Board of General Appraisers are affirmed.

United States v. Sabin

14 Ct. Cust. 76 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

Lee & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 269 , T. D. 41320; Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 395 , T. D. 41322; Vietor & Achelis v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 13 , T. D. 41529. … See United States v. Bracher & Co. et al., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 432 , T. D. 41344. We think the conclusion reached by the board was correct and its judgment'is therefore affirmed.

United States v. Bayersdorfer

12 Ct. Cust. 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1924

The classification by the board as free of duty under paragraph 1582 was chiefly based upon the authority of the case of United States v. Rice Co. et al. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 165 ; T. D. 37998). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

James U. Mann v. Byron H. Werner and Robert J. Reid

347 F.2d 636 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1965

See Patterson v. Hauck, 341 F.2d 131 , 52 CCPA 987, Gianladis v. Kass, 324 F.2d 322 , 51 CCPA 753, Hasselstrom v. McKusick, 324 F.2d 1013 , 51 CCPA 1008. … Young v. Bullitt, 233 F.2d 347 , 43 CCPA 932. After receiving the material from the Pilot Plant, Maguire requested an analysis of it from the Analytical Department of the General Laboratories.

In re Sherwood

613 F.2d 809 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 10, 1980

For instance, in Union Carbide v. … Similarly, in Dale Electronics v. R.C.L.

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 Robert M. Cole

326 F.2d 769 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, 201 F.2d 624, 633 (9th Cir. 1953). … We therefore affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals with respect to claims 9 and 10 and reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals with respect to claims 4 and 7 and remand for further proceedings in conformity with

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.