Case law

United States v. Furuya

7 Ct. Cust. 495 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1917

In the case of United States v. M. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

Vandenberg v. Reynolds

268 F.2d 744 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 7, 1959

For our opinion of March 29, 1957, in the prior appeal see Vandenberg v. Reynolds, 242 F.2d 761 , 44 CCPA 873. … Brooker v. Riester, 161 F.2d 745 , 34 CCPA 1088. Appellant has relied heavily on certain language taken from Smith v. Swaine, 127 F.2d 140 , 29 CCPA 973. We find no parallel in that case to the situation here.

In re Mead

127 F.2d 302 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1942

In a device of the character described,v means to suspend a burial vault in a grave with its upper edge near the surface of the ground and to lower it gradually, removable supports for rollers adapted to rest upon the upper … We are in agreement with the views expressed by the board in the above quotation.

In re Rutledge

47 F.2d 797 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Bradley v. Eccles, 126 Fed. 945 ; Roberts v. Bennett, 136 Fed. 193 . … Mygatt et al v. S chaffer, 218 Fed. 821 , 835. Atlantic Works v. Brady, 101 U. S. 192, 200 .

Samuel Storchheim v. T. Stevens Daugherty

410 F.2d 1393 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1969

v. … Goetzel, Ph.D., Volume I, Technology of Metal Powders and Their Products, 1949, Inter-science Publishers, Inc., New York, discussed by the board. . See, for example, Crome v.

In re Rowand

526 F.2d 558 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 23, 1975

Chemicals Co. v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. . The full title of this case is United States Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668 , 62 S.Ct. 839 , 86 L.Ed. 1105 (1942).

Danskin, Inc. v. Dan River, Inc.

498 F.2d 1386 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1974

Co. v. Societe E. Blanchard et Fils, 402 F.2d 797 , 56 CCPA 716 (1968); Old Grantian Co., Ltd. v. William Grant & Sons, Ltd., 361 F.2d 1018 , 53 CCPA 1257 (1966). … Appellant further submits that the doctrine of Lear v.

Application of Apparel, Inc

366 F.2d 1022 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 20, 1966

mark consisting of the words “Peaches V Cream” appearing over the skirt portion of what purports to be the outline of a child’s dress. … The board affirmed in an opinion which approved the examiner’s reasons and answered appellant’s principal arguments.

Jackes-Evans Manufacturing Co. v. Jaybee Manufacturing Corp.

481 F.2d 1342 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 16, 1973

The board also held that appellant’s prior use of its mark was not “otherwise relevant to the question of its present right to the registration thereof for padlocks,” citing Purex Corp. v. … Appellee cites Haggar Co. v. Hugger Corp., 172 USPQ 253 (TTAB 1971) as supporting its position. *1345 Opinion In Purex Co. v.

Application of Andrew John Manson

333 F.2d 234 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1964

And again in the same year, in Lowell v. … As recently as 1961, the District Court for the District of Columbia stated, in Commonwealth Engineering Co. v. Ladd, 199 F.Supp. 51 : “This Court held in Isenstead v.

In re Kirschbraun

44 F.2d 675 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1930

. *739 In Continental Paper Bag Company v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U. … Other cases applying the principle in point are Western Electric Co. v. LaRue, 139 U. S. 601, 606 ; Ryder v. Townsend, 188 Fed. 792, 807 ; and International Banding Machine Co. v. American Bander Co., 9 F. (2d) 606.

Hogue v. Cowling

101 F.2d 541 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 6, 1939

Schweyer v. Thomas, 21 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 859, 68 F. (2d) 953; Garand v. Pedersen, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1161, 1166, 76 F. (2d) 407; Fishburn and Robbins v. Vincent, 24 C. C. P. A. … (Patents) 1079, 88 F. (2d) 711; Creed et al v. Potts, 25 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1084, 96 F. (2d) 317.

Application of Lyman S. Allen

324 F.2d 993 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 12, 1963

See Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, Inc., 307 U.S. 350, 356 , 59 S.Ct. 897 , 83 L.Ed. 1334 , (1939). We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9 and 10. … , the general affirmance by the board goes to all stated grounds of rejection.

Mitchell v. Hennion

143 F.2d 623 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

cannot be awarded priority of an invention which he did not conceive. (11) In not applying to Mitchell’s alleged conception and reduction to practice a 'test for conception embracing the principles set forth in Mergenthaler v. … Had it been so presented, certain of the reasons of appeal before us might require considerations, but the question not having been before .the board we may not consider it. The reference to the case of Mergenthaler v.

In Re Long

83 F.2d 458 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1936

Chapman et al. v. Wintroath, 252 U.S. 126 , 40 S.Ct. 234 , 64 L.Ed. 491 . … Compare Miller v. Hayman, 46 F.(2d) 188 , 18 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 848, 862, and Severson v. Olson, 64 F.(2d) 694 , 20 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 946, 952.

Tansel v. Higonnet

215 F.2d 457 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 17, 1954

Moreover, as correctly suggested in appellant’s brief, citing Robbins v. Stein-bart, 57 F.2d 378 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1069; and Weckerly v. … Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27, 34 , 42 S.Ct. 20 , 66 L.Ed. 112 ; Williams v. Handschiegl, 48 F.2d 395 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1176.

Horace S. Daley and Lawrence J. Talarico v. Arthur J. Wiltshire

293 F.2d 677 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 17, 1961

We believe the board has read into the count something which is not there. … Our approach to this issue must, therefore, be on the basis of the law as typically stated in Beall v.

In re Lloyd

172 F.2d 583 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1949

which enter into the patentability of the claims, and to allow the claims upon, their bases would be in conflict with the rule clearly stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United Carbon Co. et al. v. … The board’s comment reads: .

Application of Horneman

194 F.2d 108 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1952

Palmer Pneumatic Tire Co. v. Lozier, 90 F. 732 , 33 C.C.A. 255 ; In re Hawkins, 57 F.2d 367 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1104. … Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U.S. 543 , 24 S.Ot. 416, 48 L.Ed. 555 , quoting from Bennet v. Fowler, 8 Wall. 445 , 75 U.S. 445 , 19 L.Ed. 431 .

Simpson v. Neracher Simpson v. Patterson Simpson v. Maurer. Maurer v. Simpson

191 F.2d 416 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 28, 1951

In its opinion the board directed attention to its decision, which was affirmed by us, in the case of Osborne v. … ) v.