Case law

United States v. Sabin

12 Ct. Cust. 520 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1925

—Lloyd Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 280, 283 ; T. D. 38217); United States v. Bloomingdale ( 10 Ct. Cust. Appls. 149 -154; T. D. 38400). … that the board saw and heard the witness and was in a better position than we are to determine what he meant.

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.

Yohalem v. United States

14 Ct. Cust. 92 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

This testimony was also, evidently, controlling with the board. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

Maier v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 115 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1921

-—-Oberteuffer v. Robertson ( 116 U. S., 490 ) Robertson v. Frank ( 132 U. S., 17 ). In the year 1855 the,case of Stairs v. Peaslee ( 18 How., 521 ) was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. … D. 31504); see Cliquot’s Champagne ( 3 Wall., 114, 142 ), and United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16, 25 ). The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

Germania Importing Co. v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 29 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1913

Afterwards, however, in the case of United States v. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed. This decision was acquiesced in by the Government (T. D. 22064),. and was thereafter followed by the board (T.

De Benneville v. Anderson

212 F.2d 612 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 24, 1954

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 , 38 C.C.P.A., Patents, 858, and cases cited therein. We have also stated that in applying the above rule the word “reasonably” should not be deleted. Sessions v. … The Board of Interference Examiners held that the party Anderson had established prior conception beyond any doubt. No appeal was taken from this ruling of the board.

Hess v. Dreyfuss

104 F.2d 801 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

Croskey v. Atterbury, 9 App. D. C. 207; Derby et al. v. Whitworth, 20 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 791, 62 F. (2d) 368; Hoza v. Colby, 25 C. C. P. A. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Charles Harris, Jr. v. Frank O. Clifford and Chris W. Yoder

363 F.2d 922 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 4, 1966

See Rodli v. Phillippi, 154 F.2d 139 , 33 CCPA 865. Appellant relies heavily on two exhibits in support of his position. … Schrader did not refer to Clifford or those associated with him. *927 We note as stated in the opinion in the case of Hasselstrom et al. v.

United States v. Bertrose Co.

11 Ct. Cust. 275 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 31, 1922

paragraph 652 by Board 2. … This conclusion is consistent with the opinion of this court in American Colortype Co. v. United States ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 212 , 213: T.

Application of Walter E. Buting

418 F.2d 540 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1969

The board then concluded: We are not aware of any reputable authority which would accept appellant’s two clinical cases as establishing utility for treatment of cancer in humans. As was pointed out in Brenner v. … Nor do we find Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 , 86 S.Ct. 1033 , 16 L.Ed.2d 69 , apposite.

Blumenthal & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 327 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1914

D. 32171), United States v. Butler ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 390 ; T. I). 32984), Hempstead v. United States ( 168 Fed., 450 ), and Woodruff v. United States ( 168 Fed., 452 ). … We are not unaware that the case of United States v.

United States v. Edson Keith & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 82 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1914

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … Central Bridge Corporation v. Butler ( 2 Gray, 68 Mass., 130-132); Scott v. Wood ( 81 Cal., 398, 400-402 ).

United States v. Buss & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 110 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 22, 1914

In the case of Oppenheimer v. … In the case of Robinson v.

In re Edwards

568 F.2d 1349 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 12, 1978

This appeal is from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board *1350 of Appeals (board) affirming the final rejection of claim 3, the sole claim in application serial No. 110,599, filed January 28, 1971, … See Flynn v. Eardley, 479 F.2d 1393 , 178 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1973). By the very nature of this inquiry, each case turns on its own specific facts. See In re Driscoll, supra.

In re E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.

476 F.2d 1357 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1973

Accordingly, the decision of the board must be reversed. … Skookum Packers Association v. Pacific Northwest Canning Co., 45 F.2d 912 , 18 CCPA 792 (1930); Van Camp Sea Food Co., Inc. v.

Swengel v. Burkig

455 F.2d 577 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 2, 1972

Even if it did, the board’s procedure was clearly justified on the ground that the circumstances provided a sufficient excuse for Burkig’s not making an express request. See Beecham Products Inc. v. … He thereby apparently followed in part the practice set out in Janeway v. Nystrom, 77 USPQ 229 (Com. Pat. 1946).

Ahlbrecht & Son v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 471 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1912

The case was followed again by tbe Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Benson v. United States (159 Fed. … It is true that in the case of United States v. Rosenstein (T. D. 31358) this section of the act was considered.

Reardon v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 233 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 13, 1922

‘But we believe that it is sustained by United States v. Halle ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 543 ; T. D. 36196); United States v. Downing (6 id., 545 ; T. D. 36197); United States v. Olivotti (7 id., 46; T. … D. 36309), and United States v. Perry ( 146 U. S., 71 ). In accordance with the views above presented the decision of the board is affirmed.

F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. v. The United States

410 F.2d 1259 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1969

APPENDIX A(I) 73" wide 49" wide “A” Brown 1.91 sq. yd. 2.54 lineal yd. … “A” Colours 2.05 “ “ 2.91 “ “C” Brown 1.23 “ “ 1.57 “ “C” Colours 1.32 “ “ 1.77 “ APPENDIX A(II) 73" wide 49" wide “A” Brown 2.29 sq. yd. 3.05 lineal yd.

Vita-Var Corporation v. Galvicon Corporation

284 F.2d 953 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 22, 1960

We agree with the conclusions reached by” the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. … Saltzson Drapery Co., 254 F.2d 158 , 45 CCPA 856; National Motor Bearing Co., Inc. v. James-Pond-Clark, 266 F.2d 799 , 46 CCPA 877, and Shoe Corp. of America v.