Case law

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.

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 .

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.

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'.

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 Shea

143 F.2d 969 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 19, 1944

The board also stated that appellant had suggested the substitution of a new claim which, the board said, was slightly different from those on appeal. … The V-shape bent portions of the patentee’s structure are subjected to a flattening pressure so as to bring them closely in ■contact and parallel with each other.

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.

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.

In re Clark

522 F.2d 623 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 25, 1975

on three separate grounds and the board affirmed all three. … First, the examiner said that in view of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Beckman Instruments, Inc. v.

Padgett v. Warner

104 F.2d 957 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 26, 1939

Neumair v. Malocsay, 22 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1349, 77 F. (2d) 622; Hausman v. Hochman, 23 C. C. P. A. (Patents) 1162, 83 F. (2d) 703. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed.

Young v. Dworkin

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

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

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.

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.

Smillie & Co. v. United States

11 Ct. Cust. 199 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 14, 1921

This contention of the Government was sustained by the board. … D. 35002); United States v. Maine Central Railway Co. (7 id., 114; T. D. 36427); Hartranft v. Weigmann ( 121 U. S., 609 ).

R. Neumann & Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc.

326 F.2d 799 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 23, 1964

Neumann & Co. v. Overseas Shipments, Inc. (Patent Appeal No. 7171, Cust. & Pat.App., 326 F.2d 786 .) … As this court said in Planters Nut & Chocolate Co. 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.

Elizabeth Kent Cosmetics, Inc., D/B/A Elizabeth Kent and Elizabeth Kent Co. v. G. B. Kent & Sons, Ltd. And Cosby Brush & Import Co., Inc.

309 F.2d 775 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Nov 14, 1962

Kent & Sons, Ltd. v. P. Lorillard Co., D.C., 114 F.Supp. 621 (1953). That suit was an attempt to enjoin the defendant from using “KENT” on cigarettes. Injunction was refused. … See Purex Corporation, Ltd. v. Maryland Paper Products Co., 48 CCPA 848, 287 F.2d 186 .

In re Colin

124 F.2d 219 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1941

Appellant has here petitioned for a determination of the appeal and revision of the board’s decision. … Appellant in arguing that the Mead et al. reference should not be a bar to obtaining a patent, since it teaches the opposite of the result of his discovery, relies upon the following authorities: Warren Bros. v.