Case law

Swedish Iron & Steel Corp. v. United States

6 Ct. Cust. 225 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

As has been stated, the protest was submitted to the board upon testimony, and the board found thereon against the. claim of the importers. … The decision of the board is therefore affirmed.

United States v. Anderson & Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 350 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1911

In sustaining the protest, as appears from its decision, the board held that the reasoning of this court in the case of Prosser v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 550 ; T. D. 31551) was controlling. … In United States v. Meadows ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 143 ; T.

Carlson v. Nagata

480 F.2d 1372 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 12, 1973

In Woofter v. … We believe that here, as in Woofter and in Padgett v.

In re Campbell

48 F.2d 915 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1931

Crouch v. Roemer, 103 U. S. 797 ; Parson Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 185 Fed. 522 ; Turner v. Lanter Piano Co., 248 Fed. 933 . There are three affidavits found in the record pertaining to commercial success of appellants device. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

In re Self

671 F.2d 1344 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 18, 1982

In Control Components, Inc. v. Valtek, Inc., No. 77-819 (S.D.Tex., filed May 26, 1977) (the Texas trial), a jury found patent claims 7, 14, and 17 unobvious, and claim 17 infringed. … The board adopted this reasoning. With respect to claims 23 and 65, the board said: Claim 23 reads on the radial expansion of the Schiegei passageways.

Application of Sydney M. Spatz and Marvin Koral

387 F.2d 663 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1967

Appellants made a similar request to the board but the board refused to consider the article because it was not presented to the examiner during prosecution. … See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 at 17, 18 , 35 and 36, 86 S.Ct. 684 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 .

Breen v. Cobb

487 F.2d 558 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 21, 1973

In view of the notice of interference given, the board found Breen to have been justified in not moving under Rule 231(a)(4) to obtain the benefit of the parent. We agree with the board. … Cobb relies heavily on Myers v. Feigelman, 455 F.2d 596 , 59 CCPA 834 (1972), decided after the board’s decision herein.

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.

Pearson v. Elder

136 F.2d 1011 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1943

So, in the final analysis, the board’s decision (which was made of its own motion, the case of Eger v. Watson, 26 C. C. P. A. … In making the ruling the board cited and quoted from this court’s decision in the case of Henry P. Field v. Audley Hart Stow, 18 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1502, 49 F. (2d) 1072.

Steinberg v. Seitz

517 F.2d 1359 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1975

See Voisinet v. Coglianese, 455 F.2d 1064 , 59 CCPA 958 (1972) and Knowles v. Tibbetts, 347 F.2d 591 , 52 CCPA 1800 (1965). … Young v. Dworkin, supra.

Jack St. Clair Kilby v. Herbert Nelson

418 F.2d 937 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 4, 1969

(the ’486 application), filed May 6, 1959. 2 Nelson contended before the board that none of the Kilby applications 3 support the counts and the board agreed with *938 that contention. … An interesting analogy exists between this case and Rajchman v.

In re Hack

245 F.2d 246 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 4, 1957

The *956 board affirmed this rejection, and further held that the recitation of the intended use of the alloy (as a “brazing” alloy) was of no patentable import. … As declared in Old Town Ribbon Co. v. Columbia Ribbon Mfg.

Application of John A. Nelson and Anthony C. Shabica

280 F.2d 172 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 14, 1960

The cited cases in this court are: Muskat et al. v. Schmelkes, 140 F.2d 984 , 31 CCPA 837; Saklatwalla v. Marburg, 172 F.2d 227 , 36 CCPA 791; Kvalnes v. Wright, 183 F.2d 193 , 37 CCPA 1147; Morway et al. v. … Papa, 265 F.2d 954 , 46 CCPA 835; Kyrides v. Bruson, 102 F.2d 416 , 26 CCPA 986; and Larson et al. v.

Hester v. Allgeier

646 F.2d 513 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 19, 1981

Accordingly, the Moore v. … Insofar as 37 CFR 1.259 is concerned, action thereunder is discretionary with this board. Allen v. Blaisdell, 39 CCPA 951, 196 F.2d 527 , 93 USPQ 428 (1952); Loshbough v.

Application of Edgar E. Ruff and Robert E. Dukeshire

256 F.2d 590 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 24, 1958

Butler Bros. v. Pratt, 8 Cir., 253 F. 654, 656 , and cases there cited. … Co., Inc., v.

In re Bulloch

604 F.2d 1362 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 6, 1979

This is an appeal from the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) affirming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (g)/103 of claims 6 and 7 of application serial No. 335,343. 1 We reverse … See Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150 , 38 CCPA 858, 88 USPQ 478 (1951); cf. In re Higbee, 527 F.2d 1405 , 188 USPQ 488 (CCPA 1976).

In re Glass

492 F.2d 1228 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 28, 1974

The right of the Patent Office to rely on prior United States patents as “prior art” under § 102(e) is pursuant to the rationale of the case of Alexander Milburn Co. v. … The board was right in refusing to consider the patents cited by appellant and we, likewise, refuse to consider them.

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: .

Anderson & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 107 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 2, 1921

The Board of General Appraisers held that the staves were manufactures of wood, citing United States v. Dudley ( 174 U. S., 670 ), and overruled the protest. … The decision of tfie Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

In re Sabatino

480 F.2d 911 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 12, 1973

[emphasis ours] In affirming the examiner, the board gave its reasoning as follows: Claim 1 states “permits limited entry.” … See Smith v. Stone, 420 F.2d 1065 , 57 COPA 884 (1970). We have found it unnecessary to consider the Frisehkorn patent.