Case law

Tansel v. Higonnet

215 F.2d 457 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 17, 1954

Moreover, as correctly suggested in appellant’s brief, citing Robbins v. Stein-bart, 57 F.2d 378 , 19 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1069; and Weckerly v. … Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27, 34 , 42 S.Ct. 20 , 66 L.Ed. 112 ; Williams v. Handschiegl, 48 F.2d 395 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1176.

United States v. John B. Stetson Co.

21 C.C.P.A. 3 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1933

Maddock v. Magone, 152 U. S. 368 ; Swan v. Arthur, 103 U. S. 597 ; Acker v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. Appls. 328 , T. D. 31431; and United States v. Walter, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 95 , T. D. 33371. … “Boarding” is thus defined: Webster’s, supra: Board, v. 7. To work or rub with a board, as in the process of making leather supple and giving it a granular appearance by means of a graining board.

Trumbull v. Kirschbraun

67 F.2d 974 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 30, 1933

In Winslow v. Austin, 14 App. D. … Again, in Laughlin v. Burry, 50 App. D.

Brooker v. Riester

161 F.2d 745 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 20, 1947

Appellant has placed much reliance upon the case of Farrington et al. v. Mikeska, 33 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1073, 155 F. (2d) 412, 69 USPQ 509 . … Cross appeals were taken here and we affirmed the decision of the board.

Application of Oppenauer

143 F.2d 974 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1944

The Board of Appeals made no mention of the affidavit. … Cooper v. Downing, 45 App.D.C. 345 , 1916 C.D. 227; Armstrong v. Levy, 58 App.D.C. 293 , 29 F.2d 953 , 1929 C.D. 113; Fishburn et al. v. Vincent, 88 F.2d 711 , 24 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1079.

Unruh v. Snyder

49 F.2d 1038 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1931

Counsel for Unruh cites, in this connection, Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. … A case in point is Williams Co. v. Miller et al, 107 Fed. 290 , 1901 C. D. 517. As to count 12, we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the Board of Appeals.

Bowles v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 474 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 11, 1913

Holbrook v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 263 ; T. D. 31317). No samples of the merchandise were produced before the board nor any photographic or other representations thereof. … We are not surprised that the Board of General Appraisers rejected his claim, and its judgment is affirmed.

In re Hollaender Manufacturing Co.

511 F.2d 1186 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 20, 1975

As this court stated in Best Lock Corp. v. … As we pointed out in In re Honeywell, Oust. & Pat.App., 497 F.2d 1344, 1348 , cert. denied, Dann v.

Mills v. United States

8 Ct. Cust. 31 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 11, 1917

Decatur v. Paulding ( 14 Pet., 497 -514); United States ex rel. Dunlop v. Black ( 128 U. S., 40 -48). … Morrill v. Jones ( 106 U. S., 466 ); United States v. Passavant ( 169 U. S., 16 ); United States v. Beebe ( 122 Fed., 762 ). We are referred also to the case of Bowling Green Storage Co. v. United States ( 3 Ct. Cust.

Gallagher v. United States

3 Ct. Cust. 520 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1913

In the case of Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 329 ; T. … In the case of United States v. Georgia Pulp & Paper Manufacturing Co. ( 3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 410 ; T.

Application of Headley Townsend Backhouse

220 F.2d 283 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1955

Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U.S. 1 , 5 S.Ct. 1042 , 29 L.Ed. 76 . … Pearce v. Mulford, 102 U.S. 112 , 26 L.Ed. 93 ; In re Cady, 111 F.2d 899 , 27 C.C. P.A., Patents, 1208.

Chee Chong & Co. v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 556 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 3, 1915

Loggie v. United States ( 137 Fed., 813 ). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Dorer v. Moody

48 F.2d 388 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 15, 1931

The authorities cited in the decisions of the examiner of interferences and of the Board of Appeals, Harbridge v. Perrin, 54 App. D. C. 106; 295 Fed. 927 ; 321 O. G. 705 ; 1924 C. D. 237; and Leonard v. Everett, 52 App. … The decision of the board is affirmed.

United States v. Bayersdorfer

12 Ct. Cust. 377 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1924

The classification by the board as free of duty under paragraph 1582 was chiefly based upon the authority of the case of United States v. Rice Co. et al. ( 9 Ct. Cust. Appls. 165 ; T. D. 37998). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

United States v. Young

15 Ct. Cust. 111 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 7, 1927

The witnesses said, in substance, that it was commonly known as red cedar boards, pencil boards, pencil blocks, cedar boards, cedar slats and boards, some using oné term, some another, and some using more than one. … The Government relies upon the case of United States v. Swain & Boggs, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 13 .

Application of Robert M. Cole

326 F.2d 769 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories, 201 F.2d 624, 633 (9th Cir. 1953). … We therefore affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals with respect to claims 9 and 10 and reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals with respect to claims 4 and 7 and remand for further proceedings in conformity with

United States v. Sabin

14 Ct. Cust. 76 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1926

Lee & Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 269 , T. D. 41320; Linen Thread Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 395 , T. D. 41322; Vietor & Achelis v. United States, 14 Ct. Cust. Appls. 13 , T. D. 41529. … See United States v. Bracher & Co. et al., 13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 432 , T. D. 41344. We think the conclusion reached by the board was correct and its judgment'is therefore affirmed.

United States v. Bernard, Judae & Co.

5 Ct. Cust. 202 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1914

The protest was sustained by the-Board of General Appraisers, and the Government now appeals from that decision of the board. … The decision of the board is therefore reversed.

United States v. Crompton

6 Ct. Cust. 197 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 18, 1915

Crimmins & Pierce v. United States ( 6 Ct. Cust. Appls., 137 ; T. D. 35392). … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is, and must be, reversed.

United States v. Maine Central Railroad

7 Ct. Cust. 114 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 12, 1916

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the protest. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is reversed.