Case law

United States v. Habicht

1 Ct. Cust. 53 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 28, 1910

board was reversed. … Ferry & Co. v. United States (85 Fed.

Application of Luke Thorington, Gerald Schiazzano and Joel Shurgan

418 F.2d 528 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 26, 1969

Appellants rely principally on language in the case of Gross v. … Gross v. Norris, 26 F.2d 898 (4th Cir. 1928). . The conflicting theories and cases on this point are analyzed in a thorough review by Megley, Design and Mechanical Patents Relating to the Same Subject Matter, J. Pat.

Durdin v. Nordell

190 F.2d 211 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1951

Mitchell v. White, 93 F.2d 216 , 25 C.C.P.A., Patents, 788. Since in Nordell’s first two embodiments the wall supports or carries the driveway the counts do not read thereon, and so the board concluded. … Following well settled procedure, Robie v. Netherly, 172 F.2d 557 , 36 C.C.P.A., Patents, 805; Robie v.

United States v. Sears

7 Ct. Cust. 60 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1916

See cases collected in United States v. Lyon & Healy ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 84 ; T. D. 33366). … The decision of the board is reversed, and the assessment of the collector affirmed.

Ware v. Carlton

173 F.2d 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1949

See Chapman et al. v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 ; Alexander Milburn Company v. Davis-Bournonville Company, 270 U. S. 390 ; Benedict v. Menninger, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1138, 64 F. (2d) 1001, 17 U. S. Pat. … Q. 499; Teter v. Kearby, 36 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 706, 169 F. (2d) 808, 79 USPQ 65 .

American Smelting & Refining Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 212 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 19, 1924

—Standard Varnish Works v. United States ( 59 Fed. 456 ); Shallus v. United States ( 155 Fed. 213 ). … The judgment of the board is therefore affirmed.

Fitch v. Atomic Energy Commission

491 F.2d 1392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1974

The Decision of the Board The following findings of fact were made by the board and are not disputed here: (1) “The contracts involved are a subcontract (AT-143) [ 3 ] between the General Electric Company (GE) and W. R. … See Williams v. Administrator of NASA, 463 F.2d 1391 , 59 CCPA 1329 (1972). It is undisputed that there were no provisions in AT-2884 directed to or envisaging preparation of the claimed microspheres.

Hauptman v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 295 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1925

It is claimed by counsel for the appellant that the board erred in its finding of facts and conclusions of law. … See The Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 301 , T. D. 41220, decided concurrently herewith. The judgment is affirmed.

Moore Dry Goods Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 449 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 17, 1923

In Kidd et al. v. … Justice Clifford, in the case of McGlinchy v. United States ( 4 Cliff., 312 , s. c. 16 Fed. Cas. 118 ). In the Erlanger & Ríes case, decided May 22, 1917, T. D. 37197 (G.

United States v. Hatters' Fur Exchange

1 Ct. Cust. 198 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1911

American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington ( 141 U. S., 468 ); Eidman v. Martinez ( 184 U. S., 578 ). … And we affirm the circuit court in following the rule laid down in Chew Hing Lung v. Wise ( 176 U.

United States v. Mills & Gibb

8 Ct. Cust. 422 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1918

In Bing & Co.’s Successors v. … Robinson v. Lundrigan ( 227 U. S., 173, 178 ); United States v. Dickson ( 15 Pet., 40 U. S., 141, 161); The Dollar Savings Bank v. United States ( 19 How., 86 U. S., 227, 237); Pacific Creosoting Co. v.

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.

Hampton v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 392 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 19, 1915

The Board of General Appraisers overruled the protest and the importers appeal. The board based its decision upon one of its previous cases, G. A. 7714 (T. D. 35331), and Myers v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. … In McKesson v.

United States v. Vandegrift

3 Ct. Cust. 161 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 17, 1912

United States v. Johnson (154 Fed. Rep., 752); United States v. Johnson (157 Fed. Rep., 754); United States v. Slazenger (113 Fed. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Schrenk

7 Ct. Cust. 451 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1917

At the hearing before the-board only one witness testified, and he was called by the importers. … Upon the question of what constitutes a manufacture reference may be had to United States v. Dudley ( 174 U. S., 670 ); United States v. Richter ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 167 ; T. D. 31680); United States v. Kundtz ( 6 Ct.

Shannon & Sons v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 13 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 17, 1921

Upon this record and tests made by the board it was found as a fact in the case that these importations were semivitrified. Upon this question of fact this court is unable to reverse the board. … On the contrary, a careful weighing of the testimony in the record and test of the samples as to their absorption of water confirm the court in the conclusion reached by the board. In United States v.

Kliesrath v. Kesling

154 F.2d 514 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 4, 1946

It was held in Tepas et al. v. Geldhof, 521 O. G. 523 , 1940 C. D. 603, 27 C. C. P. … This view of the examiner was followed by the board. Moreover, we think the rule laid down in Kaufmann II v. Etten et al., 25 C. C. P. A.

Walter H. Wirkler v. Corles M. Perkins and Alfred Bennett

245 F.2d 502 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 17, 1957

Doherty v. Dobbs 20 U.S.P.Q. 145 , CCPA; Bloom v. Locke 21 U.S.P.Q. 7 , CCPA; Malm v. Schneider 40 U.S.P.Q. 364 , 26 CCPA 783 [ 101 F.2d 201 ].” … Kuppenbender v. Riszdorfer, 104 F.2d 791 , 26 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1436, 1441.

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 .

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.