Case law

Formica Corporation v. The Newnan Corporation

396 F.2d 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 20, 1968

Co. v. J. C. Dowd & Co., 178 F. 73 (2nd Cir. 1910). … United States Time Corp. v. Tennenbaum, 267 F.2d 327 , 46 CCPA 895. The trademark FORMICA, through aggressive and expensive merchandising, has become widely known.

United States v. Ohashi Importing Co.

7 Ct. Cust. 487 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 26, 1917

The Board of General Appraisers expressed the opinion that the importation in the two cases here under consideration were of the same character of seaweed as that involved in United States v. … We think the Board of General Appraisers committed no error and the decision is affirmed.

United States v. American Express Co.

2 Ct. Cust. 95 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1911

That was the only testimony upon which the finding of the board was based. … It follows that the Board of General Appraisers erred in its conclusion. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is therefore reversed.'

Buffington v. Blair

121 F.2d 635 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1941

given any test — not even a relatively simple one such as the “thumb and tooth test” held by the Supreme Court of the United States to be sufficient with respect to the rubber material involved in the case of Corona Co. v. … For the reasons stated, the decision of the board is affirmed.

In re Bertram

88 F.2d 834 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 29, 1937

Co. v. Sprague, 128 U. … In Shaw v.

John R. Dere v. Institute for Scientific Information, Inc

420 F.2d 1068 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 29, 1970

Crystal Corp. v. Manhattan Chemical Mfg. Co., 75 F.2d 506 , 22 CCPA 1027 (1935). … We, accordingly, affirm the decision of the board. Affirmed.

Adams and Wakefield v. Wolinski

285 F.2d 133 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1961

The above entitled appeal arose out of a three-party interference, No. 87,508, which was entitled in the Patent Office, Keller, Garvin and McMillan v. Wolinski v. … Precedents relied on include Wheeler et al. v. Kleinsehmidt et al, 149 F.2d 161 , 32 CCPA 975, Beall v. Ormsby, 154 F.2d 663 , 33 CCPA 959, Thompson v.

Brydle v. Honigbaum

49 F.2d 963 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 5, 1930

The examiner of interferences held that the construction of this panel board did not amount to an actual reduction to practice, referring, in so doing, to Crabbs v. Wardell, 57 App. D. C. 241,19 F (2d) 715. … The Board of Appeals agreed with the decision of the examiner of interferences as to all of his conclusions, except as to the finding that the making of Brydle’s panel board was not a reduction to *1520 practice.

Barham v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 536 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 31, 1923

(Isler & Guye v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.

United States v. Von Oefele

4 Ct. Cust. 15 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1913

In United States v. … D. 32464), and United States v. Strauss ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 325 ; T. D. 32621).

Gortatowsky v. Anwar

442 F.2d 970 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1971

Senkus v. Johnston, 166 F.2d 597 , 35 CCPA 1008 (1948). … Even applying the standards for determining whether the corroboration is sufficient as set forth in Berry v. Webb, 412 F.2d 261 , 56 CCPA 1272 (1969); Beeber v. Krogh, 403 F.2d 743 , 56 CCPA 880 (1968); and Patterson v.

In re Kopy Kat, Inc.

498 F.2d 1379 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 3, 1974

Appellant cited to the board a number of cases, which neither the board nor the solicitor has mentioned. We think they are in point. They include: American Enka Corp. v. … To these cases we add our recent decision in Roux Laboratories, Inc. v.

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.

Application of Eslie B. Hummer

241 F.2d 742 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 21, 1957

strip of paper sheathed plaster board between and adhesively secured to each face board and having its outer edge disposed midway between the offset edges of the face boards, the thickness of the filler strip and of the … The edge joints disclosed are simple square edges to be abutted, tongue and groóve of the conventional type and a modification thereof which is a “V” joint.

Robie v. Carlton

171 F.2d 310 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 7, 1948

As we said in Brand, v. Thomas, 25 C. C. P. A. … Q. 273; and Fishburn and Robbins v. Vincent, 24 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1079, 88 F. (2d) 711, 33 USPQ 156 . For the reasons stated, the decision of the Board of Interference-Examiners is affirmed.

In re Bostwick

102 F.2d 886 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 10, 1939

Fox Typewriter Co. v. Corona Typewriter Co. 282 Fed. 502 . *1120 Appellant further contends that his delay in applying for reissue is justified by special circumstances. … In the case of Bechtold v. Lanser, 23 C. C. P. A.

United States v. Nagase

11 Ct. Cust. 144 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 16, 1921

United States v. McKesson & Robbins ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 13, 16 ). Nor do we regard the decisions in the cases of United States v. Maine Central Railroad Co. ( 7 Ct. Cust. Appls., 114 ); United States v. … In accordance with the views above expressed the decision of the board is affirmed.

Application of Jacques Georges Pottier

376 F.2d 328 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1967

The board affirmed, noting with approval the examiner’s citation of Isen-stead v. … The decision of the board is affirmed. Affirmed. 1 .

In re Diehr

602 F.2d 982 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Aug 9, 1979

The board agreed with the examiner. … Court decision in Parker v.

In re Freedlander

143 F.2d 982 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1944

Miller Co. v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 1882 C. D. 49 [ 104 U. S. 350 ]; In re Seabury, 1940, C. D. 115 [27 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 777, 108 F. (2d) 232], [Italics ours.] … (Rancourt v. Panco Rubber Co., 67 Fed. (2 ) 790; Byck & Peakes, 25 Pat. Q. 28 [211]; Thele, 36 P. Q. 112; Nat. Nut Co. of Calif. v. Sontag Chain Stores Co., 170 [107] F. (2d) 318.)