Case law

In re Meng

492 F.2d 843 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 7, 1974

The Bush affidavit was not mentioned by the board. … Co. v. Aid, Inc., 447 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1971). For the reasons indicated it was error to reject the product claims 1-4 and 9 as obvious in view of Beck.

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.

Marden v. Braselton

119 F.2d 174 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 14, 1941

V. radiation and amount of ordinary radiation were you attempting to obtain by the lamps as shown in this application? — A. … Seeberger v. Russel, 26 App. D. C. 344. However, there are circumstances in this case which lead us to the conclusion that the Board of Appeals did not err in holding that, notwithstanding the testimony of Dr.

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.

In Re Cresswell

187 F.2d 632 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 30, 1951

Co., Inc. v. … This court, following the principle announced by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of McCarty v.

Carlo v. Bocciarelli v. Charles E. Huffman

232 F.2d 647 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 18, 1956

One member of the board concurred specially in its decision, while another member dissented. … It is the established practice to accord the claims of an application and the counts of an interference the broadest meaning which they will reasonably support, Andrews v.

Metcalfe v. Hampel

532 F.2d 1360 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1976

Board The board considered the sole issue to be “whether Hampel was properly accorded the benefit of the filing date of his parent application.” 3 Though the board did not so describe its approach, the decision below turned … Rubber Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 360 F.2d 861 , 149 USPQ 541 (CA 7 1966); Plumat v. Dunipace, 464 F.2d 1402 , 59 CCPA 1295 (1972); Parker v. Frilette, 462 F.2d 544 , 59 *1363 CCPA 1311 (1972); Blicke v.

Balogh v. Crot

176 F.2d 923 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 28, 1949

Such concession was noted by the board in its decision. … Chandler v. Mock, 32 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1183, 150 F. (2d) 563, 66 USPQ, 209 .

Hensel v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 486 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 18, 1913

In the Kaskel case the board overruled the protests and the importers appealed to this court, where the judgment of the board was reversed. See Kaskel & Kaskel v. United States ( 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 38 ; T. D. 33264). … The exhibits, the evidence, and the opinion of the board in these cases are identical with the exhibits, evidence, and board’s opinion in the Kaskel case.

St. John v. Schulze

47 F.2d 798 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 25, 1931

Following the decision of the Supreme Court of the *1056 United States in Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Co., 276 U. … See also Wietzel v. Lacy, 17 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 943, 39 F (2d) 672, o Pat. Quarterly 86.

Lynes v. Lehnhard

150 F.2d 426 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 25, 1945

Goldsmith v. von Mihaly, 24 O. O. P. A. 1239, 1937 C. D. 633, 485 O. G. 274 , 90 V. (2d) 359, 33 USPQ 584 . … The decision of the board is affirmed'.

Application of William Boon

439 F.2d 724 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 20, 1971

As was stated by the Court in Crown Machine & Tool Co. v. … Prior decisions of this court such as In re Diedrich, 318 F.2d 946 , 50 CCPA 1355 (1963), In re Chaplin, 245 F.2d 249 , 44 CCPA 941 (1957) and Brand v.

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. Bush

4 Ct. Cust. 519 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 28, 1913

D. 16637) and Wilson v. Maxwell (2 Blatch., 316). … United States v. Shallus ( 2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 332 ; T. D. 32074). What was said in Marriott v. Brune et al. (9 How. (50 U.

Stuart W. Seeley v. John L. Rennick

314 F.2d 577 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 3, 1963

Landon v. Ginzton et al., 214 F.2d 160 , 41 CCPA 950. … The board further contrasted Kronenberg’s subjective test with tests which Heuer, a witness for Rennick, reported were made on the latter’s circuit.

James F. Gordon v. Burton F. Hubbard and Gaynard H. Fosdick

347 F.2d 1001 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 8, 1965

White v. Lemmerman, 341 F.2d 110 , 52 CCPA 968; Paivinen v. Sands, 339 F.2d 217 , 52 CCPA 906. … Blicke v. Treves, 241 F.2d 718 , 44 CCPA 753.

Young v. Dworkin

489 F.2d 1277 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 17, 1974

Unlike Schnick v. … Frey v. Wagner, supra.

Application of Arthur C. Borg and Stephen J. Zajac

392 F.2d 642 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 18, 1968

We decline to treat the issue posed by appellants for, as pointed out by the solicitor, the issue is not presented by the decision of the board. … The court concluded: We agree with the Court of Appeals in Hays [v.

Tinnerman v. Kost

129 F.2d 725 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 6, 1942

D. 49, and Stewart v. Robinson, 19 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 953, 419 O. G. 291 , 1932 C. D. 245. … See Stewart v. Robinson, supra, and the cases cited therein. The decision of the Board of Interference Examiners is affirmed.

Downing Co. v. United States

12 Ct. Cust. 391 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 17, 1924

In contradistinction to this line of authorities, counsel for appellant cites Myers v. United States ( 140 Fed. 648 ) and Williamson v. United States ( 8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 277 ; T. D. 37538). … The judgment of the Board of General Appraisers is accordingly affirmed.