Case law

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.

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.

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.

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.

Application of Robert Frederic Michel Sureau, Gilbert Victor Henri Kremer and Victor Marie Dupre

373 F.2d 1002 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 16, 1967

Appellants’ position is that those skilled in the art, to whom the specifi *1006 cation is addressed, Loom Co. v. … Nowhere does the board clearly predicate rejection on section 101.

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 Lepage's Incorporated (A Subsidiary of the Papercraft Corporation, and Assignee of Johnson & Johnson)

312 F.2d 455 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 16, 1963

In Greenough v. … Notes: 1 Since the decision of Glidden Company v. Zdanok et al., (decided together with Lurk v.

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 ).

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.

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.

United States v. Altman

6 Ct. Cust. 131 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 3, 1915

Whether or not an incidental purpose of utility deprives an article of its character as jewelry or imitation jewelry was considered in this court in *134 United States v. International Forwarding Co. ( 6 Ct. Cust. … With the limitations stated the decision of the Board of General Appraisers is modified, and as thus modified affirmed.

In Re McCurdy

76 F.2d 400 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1935

See Dolbear v. American Bell Tel. Co., (The Telephone Cases), 126 U. S. 1 , at pages 532, 533, 8 S. Ct. 778 , 31 L. Ed. 863 . This whole subject-matter has been considered on several occasions by this court. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Application of Edwin Floyd, Jr

298 F.2d 454 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1962

The first die has a cross-sectional configuration such that the working faces form a “V” shape. The second die fits within, and is embraced by, portions of the “V” shaped working faces of the first die. … The sole reference relied on by the examiner and the board to reject the claims is the Hebert patent.

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.

Thomass v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 86 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

We do not understand that the correctness of this part of the board’s decision -is questioned. … See also Patterson & Co. v. United States (166 Fed. Rep., 733). We have given due consideration to the case of John Wanamaker v. United States (175 Fed. Rep., 900; T.

Application of Yorck Joachim Talbott

443 F.2d 1397 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 1, 1971

. *1398 These issues arise out of the affirmance, by the Patent Office Board of Appeals, of the rejection of the conventional single claim in appellant’s application 1 for a United States design patent. … We agree with the board that “it is sufficient if the inventor receives from the foreign country the exclusive privilege that its laws provide for.” Compare, Atlas Glass Co. v. Simonds Mfg.

In Re Fischer

57 F.2d 369 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

A.) 249 F. 228 ; Forsyth v. Garlock (C. C. A.) 142 F. 461 , and In re Phelps et al., 47 F.(2d) 387 , 18 C. C. P. A. 1036. … We think they were clearly right, and the decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

In re General Electric Co.

304 F.2d 688 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 11, 1962

Kelsey-Hayes Co., 289 F.2d 957 , 48 CCPA 981; Servo Corp. of America v. Servo-Tek Products Co., Inc., 289 F.2d 955 , 48 CCPA 978; Clark Equipment Co. v. Baker-Lull Corp., 288 F.2d 926 , 48 CCPA 865; Vita-Var Corp. v. … As the board itself said, VULKENE is “an arbitrary and coined word.” We consider this to be a point of great significance, and one which neither the examiner nor the board appears to have treated as significant.