Case law

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.

Application of Lilienfeld

203 F.2d 750 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1953

In re Laurent, 186 F.2d 741 , 38 C.C.P.A., Patents, 811, citing General Electric Co. v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals as to claim 26 is affirmed. ' Affirmed.

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.

Pingree v. Hull

518 F.2d 624 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1975

Crome v. Morrogh, 239 F.2d 390 , 44 CCPA 704 [(1956)]. *628 In Hansgirg v. … See Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277 , 1281 n. 3, (Cust. & Pat. App. 1974). Accordingly, the decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. .

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.

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.

Edwin J. Smith v. Morris D. Stone

420 F.2d 1065 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1970

Thus, he argues, the “gist of the invention” test, as set forth in this court’s opinion in Hall v. … Storchheim v. Daugherty, 410 F.2d 1393 , 56 CCPA 1147. Neither will it be considered in evaluating his proofs.

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 .

In re Marshall

578 F.2d 301 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1978

Soundscriber Corp. v. United States, 360 F.2d 954, 960 , 175 Ct.Cl. 644 , 148 USPQ 298 , 301 (1966). … See United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 52 , 86 S.Ct. 708 , 15 L.Ed.2d 572 (1966). *305 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the decision of the board is reversed. 3 REVERSED.

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 ).

Watson Bros. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 416 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 31, 1913

United States v. Ranlett ( 172 U. S., 133 ). … The decision of the board sustaining the assessment is therefore affirmed.

The Gillette Company v. "42" Products Ltd., Inc.

396 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 10, 1968

Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. Englander Co., supra. … Capitol Tie Rak, Inc. v. Tie Rack Stores, 150 USPQ 357 (E.D.Ill.1966); Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 171 F.Supp. 293 (S.D.N.X.1959). .

In re Bauman

683 F.2d 405 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 22, 1982

Reliance was placed on Conover v. … See, e.g., Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U.S. 126 , 40 S.Ct. 234 , 64 L.Ed. 491 (1920); Teter v. Kearby, 36 C.C.P.A. 706 , 169 F.2d 808 , 79 U.S.P.Q. 65 (1948); Harder v.

In re Pardo

684 F.2d 912 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 5, 1982

Diamond v. Diehr, supra 450 U.S. at 186 , 101 S.Ct. at 1056 , 209 U.S.P.Q. at 8 ; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 , 585 n.l, 98 S.Ct. 2522 , 2523 n.l, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 , 198 U.S.P.Q. 193 , 195 n.l (1978); Gottschalk v. … In making the obviousness rejection, the board failed to follow the three-pronged analysis required by Graham v.

In re Thompson

62 F.2d 90 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 19, 1932

(Patents) 1208, 48 F. (2d) 665; Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 186 ; Kaplan v. Robertson, 50 F. (2d) 617, and others. … The decisions of the Board of Appeals in both cases No. 3003 and No. 3004 are affirmed.

Cream Wipt Foods, Inc. v. General Foods Corporation

278 F.2d 521 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1960

See Dwinell-Wright Co. v. Grundlach, Etc., 121 F.2d 639 , 28 CCPA 1348, Roddenbery Co. v. Kalich, 158 F.2d 289 , 34 CCPA 745, Hy-V Company, Inc. v. … The decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is reversed. Reversed.

Chicago Watchman's Clock Works v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 105 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1913

Hensel, Bruckmann & Lorbacher v. United States ( 135 Fed., 255 ). … In the case of Racine v. United States ( 99 Fed., 557 ), decided in 1899 in Circuit Court, the merchandise was watches.

Application of Peter Andrews (3 Cases)

435 F.2d 1322 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1971

the end or edges of the board.” … Sleepmaster Products Co. v.

Borden & Riley Paper Co. v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 116 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 8, 1926

Speaking of a somewhat similar change we said in United States v. Post Fish Co., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 155 , T. D. 41022: This change of language must be given effect if possible. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed. Hatfield, J., concurs in the conclusion.