Case law

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 .

Brooker v. Riester

161 F.2d 745 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 20, 1947

Appellant has placed much reliance upon the case of Farrington et al. v. Mikeska, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1073, 155 F. (2d) 412, 69 USPQ 509 . … Cross appeals were taken here and we affirmed the decision of the board.

United States v. J. D. Richardson Co.

28 C.C.P.A. 57 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 29, 1940

A piece of card-board, sheet-metal, or thin plank corresponding in outline to an object that is to be fabricated, and serving as a guide for determining its exact shape and dimensions; such are employed by workers in leather … In the case of United States v. American Brown Boveri Electric Corporation, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 329, T.

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.

United States v. Wyman

4 Ct. Cust. 264 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 23, 1913

Daloz v. United States ( 171 Fed., 275 ); Vantine v. United States ( 91 Fed., 519 ); Kimball v. The Collector ( 10 Wall., 436, 450 ); In re Irwin (T. D. 25764) In re Schulze-Berge-Koechl (T. D. 10533); Ullman v. … 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 .”

Rosenberger v. Guthman

4 Ct. Cust. 378 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1913

Comparing paragrapli 199 of the same act with the last part of said paragraph 448, we said in United States v. Goldberg et al. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 282 ; T. … In Guthman v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286 ; T. D. 32574) and in Cohn v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 288 ; T.

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. Crompton

6 Ct. Cust. 197 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

Crimmins & Pierce v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 137 ; T. D. 35392). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is, and must be, reversed.

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.

United States v. Winter

4 Ct. Cust. 522 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1913

The board held the article entitled to free entry on the authority of Foppes v. Magone ( 40 Fed., 570 ). … But the case cited by and relied upon by the Government of Foppes v.

Application of Patrick

189 F.2d 614 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Subsequent to the decision of the board, a petition for reconsideration was filed by counsel for appellant. Together with such petition was an affidavit which was not accepted by the board. … Brand v. Thomas, 96 F.2d 301 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1053; In re Richardson, 143 F.2d 616 , 31 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1152.

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.

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.

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).

United States v. Moscahlades Bros.

9 Ct. Cust. 46 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 28, 1919

They maintain that the word “fruit” as there used covers only such fruit as is perishable. • We think this contention has already been adversely disposed of in this court in the case of Houlder v. United States ( 4 Ct. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers, so far as relates to the figs and olives, is reversed.

Application of Norris

179 F.2d 970 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1950

Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 , 68 S.Ct. 440 , 92 L.Ed. 588 . … We stated that novelty alone, without invention, is not sufficient to lend patentability to a claim, citing Thompson v.

In re Mariani

177 F.2d 293 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 30, 1949

By appeal appellant brings the case before, us seeking review and reversal of the board’s decision. … Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 , cited with approval in In re Kylstra, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 938, 87 P. (2d) 487 , 32 USPQ 382 .

Newman-Andrew Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 4 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1911

We think that the proper office of paragraph 135 was aptly defined by Judge Hough in United States v. Buehne Steel Wool Co. (154 Fed. … The highest and perhaps the most satisfactory deliverance on the subject was by the Supreme Court of the United States in Saltonstall v. Wiebusch ( 156 U. S., 601 ).