Case law

In re George

68 F.2d 571 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 12, 1934

The only references discussed by the Board of Appeals with respect to the claims on appeal are the Nead and Browne references, and we are of the opinion that these are the only references which are material to the questions … In such case there would clearly be no invention; but appellant insists, and as hereinafter noted the Board of Appeals conceded, that the treatment of steel sheets shown by the reference Browne, upon which the board relied

Joseph R. Hradel and Harold E. Staadt v. George L. Griffith, George A. Lyte and Franklin B. Wells, George L. Griffith, George A. Lyte and Franklin B. Wells v. Joseph R. Hradel and Harold E. Staadt

367 F.2d 851 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 9, 1967

Rimbach v. … cited Seeley v.

Langley v. United States

5 Ct. Cust. 76 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 14, 1914

The board overruled the importers’ protest, basing its ruling on a previous decision in "Way's case, -G. A. 7009 (T. D. 30543) and upon Frank v. United States ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 85 ; T. D. 31633). … The decision of the board is reversed, and the claim of the importers under paragraph 92 is sustained.

In re Fitzgerald

619 F.2d 67 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 3, 1980

This is an appeal from a decision of the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Appeals (“board”) sustaining the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 34-35, 41, 50-51, and 54 on Barnes; claims 36-37 on Barnes … In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 1041, 459 F.2d 531, 535 , 173 USPQ 685, 688 (1972).

Spencer, Kellogg & Sons (Inc.) v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 612 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 13, 1926

Upon this record the trial court, Brown, G. A., dissenting, entered a judgment overruling the protest. … In the case of Campbell v.

Application of Shortell

173 F.2d 993 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 12, 1949

See General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. et al., 304 U.S. 364 , 58 S.Ct. 899 , 82 L.Ed. 1402 ; Koebel v. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed. Affirmed.

Wilson v. Goldmark

172 F.2d 575 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 1, 1949

We agree with the board that the doctrine enunciated by this court in Brown, Jr., v. Barton, 26 C. C. P. A. … Appellant here attempts to distinguish his case from Brown, Jr. v.

United States v. Vandegrift

7 Ct. Cust. 77 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 1, 1916

Brown, what are the identifying characteristics of vitrified tiles? — A. Their density, their nonabsorbent qualities, and because of their hardness. ■ Q. … The decision of the board is reversed.

Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 447 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 3, 1925

Such is Bartram v. … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

In re DeLancey

159 F.2d 737 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 10, 1947

We will not discuss at length the great array of decisions to this effect cited by appellant, such as Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 ; Faries Mfg. Co. v. George W. Brown & Co., 121 F. 547 ; Greenwald Bros., Inc. v. … Co. v. Exeter Mach. Works, 196 F. 789 ; Miehle Printing Press & Mfg. Co. v. Whitlock Printing Press & Mfg.

Lichtenstein v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 79 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 30, 1910

Everett Brown, Counsel. We have recently bad occasion to consider section 14 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, in the case of Carter v. United *81 States (T. D. 31033), supra, p. 64. … Koechl v. United States (91 Fed. Rep., 110), Legg v. Hedden (37 Fed. Rep., 861), In re Downing et al. (45 Fed. Rep., 412), and Blumenthal v. United States (72 Fed. Rep., 48).

Arthur W. Schnick v. Lawrence E. Fenn

277 F.2d 935 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 1, 1960

Brown v. Childs, 120 F.2d 350 , 28 CCPA 1229. Therefore evidence of subsequent experimenting and testing is without probative value. We come now to appellant’s contention that Fenn concealed or suppressed his invention. … Brown v. Childs, supra; Wheeler v. Linton, 186 F.2d 738 , 38 CCPA 799; Rhinevault v. Pfiester, 65 F.2d 161 , 20 CCPA 1112.

Sugar Products Co. v. United States

10 Ct. Cust. 179 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 23, 1920

From which he concludes that the single general appraiser, the board of three, the classification board, and the collector have all erred, and asks that the judgment of the latter board be reversed, the liquidation of the … General Appraiser Brown, in his concurring opinion, referred to the case of United States v. Goldenberg ( 168 U.

In re Malcom

129 F.2d 529 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 15, 1942

Brown et al. v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 . This doctrine does not require actual present knowledge on the part of the judicial authority. As was well stated in the case of Ball v. Flora, 26 App. D. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

New York Merchandise Co. v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 494 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 2, 1926

In Bradstreet v. … United States v. Bliss, 172 U. S. *498 321 ; Reed v. Proprietors of Locks, 8 How. 274 ; Bienville v. Mobile, 186 U. S. 212 . The Government, in this ease, before the board, made no claim of res adjudicóla.

United States v. Iwai & Co.

16 Ct. Cust. 56 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 9, 1928

Every such application shall be assigned by the Board of General Appraisers to a board of three general appraisers, who shall consider the case upon the samples of the merchandise, if there be any, and the record made before … Kuttroff, Pickhardt & Co. v. United States, 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 261 , T. D. 40269; United States v. Borgfeldt & Co., 12 Ct. Cust.Appls. 324, T. D. 40482; United States v. Fragele Bros., 12 Ct. Cust. Appls. 381 , T.

Mayer v. United States

13 Ct. Cust. 390 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 18, 1926

The board sustained the protest except as to item 824, represented by Exhibit 5, and the Government appealed. … The back of Exhibit “A” is ornamented with three wavy lines of white silk cord, through which passes a visible line of light brown stitching.

Application of Earl W. Rohrbacher and Adelbert E. Kolbe

284 F.2d 531 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 8, 1960

The only authority cited by the board in support of its holding that the engine forms part of the claimed combination is Kropa v. Robie et al., 38 CCPA 858, 187 F.2d 150 . … Brown Mfg. Co. v. Deere et al., 7 Cir., 61 F. 972 .

Application of William A. Sheppard

339 F.2d 238 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1964

From our evaluation of the record we are inclined to conclude that the board erred in both instances. … In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006 , 51 CCPA 1254; E. I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Ladd, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 246 , 328 F.2d 547 . We have no such explicit or implicit knowledge shown in the record here.

Nelson v. Bowler

626 F.2d 853 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 31, 1980

This appeal is not analogous, as the board suggests, to Rey-Bellet v. Engelhardt, supra, even though the issues are similar. … Norton v. Curtiss, 57 CCPA 1384, 1408, 433 F.2d 779, 797 , 167 USPQ 532 , 546-47 (1970). We agree with the board that he has not carried this heavy burden.